Boots pharmacists launch legal bid for independent union representation

1970 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Macfarlane

Shop stewards, or other forms of workshop representation, are a common feature of British industry. It is not known for certain how many such shop floor representatives are active; estimates vary between 90,000 and 200.000, “the truth is probably somewhere between these two figures”. What is certain, however, is that the great majority of industrial workers, particularly in large-scale industry, have recourse to lay trade union representation for the settlement of shop floor grievances. Often such representatives are “the union” for the ordinary workman who does not come into contact with full-time union officers. “For the great majority of British trade unionists the workplace representative is their only direct personal link with their union.” He also provides a front-line defence against the arbitrary use of authority by management. If no shop steward existed, managerial authority, unchecked by the countervailing power of shop floor representatives, would be open to abuse. If such managerial authority was also supported by a system of legal powers which further strengthened its position, it would make possible “the use of penal sanctions to compel acceptance of working conditions which free agents would not endure”. Such was the case in the British Merchant Navy until less than five years ago.


Author(s):  
Ada Hurbean

This study deals with the institution representatives of the employees, the onlypossibility, regulated by the law, to defense and promotion the interests of employees, in theabsence of a trade union representative at the level of the unit. Therefore, we are in thepresence of alternative to trade union representation, whereas, in principle, coexistencebetween the two is out of the question.Topics studied has known substantive changes with the entry into force of the Law No40/2011, both in respect of the conditions of eligibility of representatives of the employees, aswell as in respect of measures of legal protection for them. Therefore, we want to do acomparative overview of the old and new provisions equal in the matter.


Author(s):  
Jim Phillips

Economic security in the coalfields was intimately connected with underground safety. Hazards were mediated by the effectiveness of trade union representation. Where employers attacked workplace trade unionism, the risks to workers of death, serious injury and illness were increased. This was the pattern in the 1920s and 1930s, when private owners excluded forceful union advocates. The reverse was observable in the 1950s and 1960s, when nationalisation facilitated stronger union voice. The rate of fatality was cut by one half as a result. On this most fundamental of all questions, life and death, nationalisation was an unambiguous success. Major fatal disasters from the 1950s to the early 1970s showed that dangers were diminished but not eradicated. Changes in production, with the application of power-loading in the 1960s, also brought new hazards. Miners were nevertheless empowered by union voice and public ownership to act with greater vigilance in pursuit of safety and were compensated when missing shifts because of injury or illness. This was unmistakable progress towards greater security in the coalfields.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document