To not understand why people recommend Pregnant Then Screwed?

This. Not a chance would I work without union. I have never regretted it. It really concentrates your employers mind when they are trying to fuck you over and the rep has a word.

I've been in a few unions and did not find them very helpful, at all. I've also sat on the other side of the table from union reps and quality varied wildly. They can be quite expensive for what you get.

Exactly, I’ve never heard this - if it’s capable of resolving on a reasonable basis, a decent HRBP will do it. If not, then ACAS is just a necessary step on the road to Tribunal, about which HR and Legal is largely ambivalent. It’s actually quite rare that employees put their own skin in the game by instructing a solicitor, at which point I will prick my ears up.

PTS has always struck me as a gobby version of MA without the rigour or experience.

Yeah they really don't - they'd much rather deal with ACAS than a lawyer. My interactions with ACAS have all been fine, they seem to give reasonable basic advice and sort out the conciliation certificate.

HR departments do not hate ACAS.

Of course - ping me a message later.

This. Everyone should be joining a union and using them.

The only time they really seem to fail is to represent anyone with GC views who is, say, complaining about a unisex toilet or something.

Otherwise they are good at giving solid legal advice and help. For those not in the know: you don't have to tell your employer you are in a union (unless you are in a workplace with a recognised union etc - but then you would know if you were working in a place like that)

I'm an in house lawyer and support HR with employee issues if needed.

This rings true to me in that ACAS are good if the case is very clear. I've also found them useful from the employer side in this way - they will give employees a pretty robust "no chance" advice but again only if very slam dunk.

I think unions can be a force for good in terms of collective bargaining but I've never found one to be useful to an employee in a disciplinary or similar.

Same they were useless when l contacted them. I gave up in the end as they weren’t listening, their communication was terrible and they didn’t seem to know what they were doing

ACAS were fantastic for me. I took a previous employer to an employment tribunal and they basically told them they hadn’t got a hope in hell of success in court and advised them to pay up. I got the money inside a week. HR departments hate them.

I have had good experiences with ACAS (twice) which fitted in exactly with the legal advice that I received via my insurance.

Obviously because the HR department work for the employer not the employee. It always mystifies me that people don't understand this.

They may help when it's an employee v employee dispute but when it's the employee v employer they work for the employer (even if they know the employer is on dodgy grounds legally) and it is for the employee to seek their own advice elsewhere whether union/ACAS/employment lawyers.

Home - Maternity Action
Home - Pregnant Then Screwed

Our union (Accord) was rubbish too ☹️

I had similar experience. Totally opposite experience with Maternity Action. Brilliant legal advice.

Yep. My former colleague was able to take our employer to an employment tribunal because the advice given by the HR department was not compatible with the law.

Do you have legal cover with your home insurance? If so, some insurers have a free advice line you can ring in the first instance to understand if its something they can help with.

But also agree with everyone to join the union!

What is it that you wanted from them?

My understanding is that they are an advice line, rather than a support service. I think your expectations are unrealistic. If you want someone to actively advocate for you, you need to speak to your union

contact your union !
they can advocate for you.
as I understand it Pregnant then Screwed are a charity/campaign group

No, they advise legal advice because they are a free service staffed by volunteers who make it clear they don't offer legal advice.
You can't say an organisation is no good just because it doesn't do something outside of its stated remit. Just like you wouldn't say your GP is no good because she has to refer to to a surgeon to have your gall bladder removed.
Different agencies have different remits. PTS is clearly predominantly a campaigning organisation that works to collect evidence to bring about change, while also offering a first tier advice and information service, but not legal casework. Just because some people need more than that doesn't discredit what they can do.

I was just thinking "Why would everyone recommend that?" 🤣🤣

sites like PTS and the majority (not all) of trade unions reps are utterly useless

So are a lot of HR professionals...

I don't think they advertise themselves as doing casework, do they? So probably just initial advice only?

I think you probably need a solicitor for more in-depth advice and support.