What union can I join that isn’t totally beholden to Stonewall or similar?

[Rainbowshine]

Just as the title says really, I want to join a union but all of the larger general ones that would be relevant for my work are enthralled with the Stonewall ethos or similar. I would like to join one that would not have a complete meltdown at the prospect of supporting me if I needed to challenge the overly zealous wokeness and pronoun-zombie mentality and actions that are emerging there. Any suggestions please?

@greyinganddecaying

Anyone know if there is a GC group with Prospect union?

I’d be interested in the answer to that too.

I'm in Unison as a rep. I don't agree with their position and I keep it quiet (as I suspect others in the union do) but I wouldn't say they are shouty about trans rights, at least not in my region.

Our equalities official is great at staying neutral and trying to respect all PCs but it's not an easy job he has.

I'd love a union that supports women

freespeechunion.org/faq/

"I’m being put through a disciplinary process at work for breaching a company speech code. Can you help? The Free Speech Union is not a trade union and therefore you don’t have a legal right to be represented by someone from the FSU in a workplace dispute. If you’re involved in a dispute, we recommend you contact your trade union or, if you’re not happy with your union or not a member of a union, join the Workers of England Union. The WEU has won tens of thousands of pounds for its members whose “philosophical beliefs” have resulted in them being discriminated against in the workplace. We have negotiated a discounted joining fee of £25 for members of the FSU which covers the first three months of your annual membership dues and, unlike most other unions, the WEU will go to bat for you as soon as you sign up. If you’d like to take advantage of this offer, you can join using this form, not forgetting to email them at [email protected], letting them know you’re a member of the FSU."

there is another one - single word beginning with a but I can't remember it. Will post when it comes to me.

Found it!

Affinity

workaffinity.co.uk/

"Affinity represents thousands of people working in a wide range of industries including banking and finance, accountancy, retail, manufacturing, education, the law, hospitality and travel and tourism. Its members include teachers, bank staff, IT consultants, financial advisers, academics, local government staff, lawyers and civil servants.

"Currently in its centenary year, Affinity is different to most trade unions in that it has no party political affiliations, is not a member of the Trades Union Congress and has no ties to the employers it deals with, leaving it free to protect the rights and interests of its members without fear or favour."

I've just resigned from UCU. When they rang me to instruct me how to encourage me to vote recently I delighted in giving the rep chapter and verse about why I left. "Mysoginistic homobhobes" may have featured in my rant. It was deeply satisfying but now I'm at a loss as to where to go next.

Thanks for the tip about Affinity @ChristinaXYZ

I’ll take a look at the organisations that have been suggested, I don’t want any Labour affiliation either which does limit the choice.

I started this thread thinking I’d get a couple of replies if I was lucky, I am appreciative of the replies but also troubled that the union movement is distancing itself from members by not representing them and even in some workplaces such as my own encouraging grievances to be raised against its own members by other members.

I suspect I shall be facing a grievance myself next week as I declined to put pronouns in my email signature so “I am not demonstrating enough solidarity with other members of the union” apparently. The irony of that statement is not lost on me.

@jessmin and @EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn - I’ve checked with Fiona44444 on Twitter and, yes, Prospect does have a GC Women’s Group.

If you, or anyone else, is already in a Union and you are on Twitter then DM Fiona44444 on Twitter for more information about GC Women’s Groups in Unions.

The list of Unions with Groups is constantly growing. If you are not on Twitter, post a comment here and I’ll find out if the Union you are interested in is covered.

On Labour Party affiliation: you have the choice of whether or not to pay into a union’s Political Levy. This is an extra, small sum on top of your membership subscription.

Unions can only use funds from the Political Levy to support Political Parties. This includes donations, paying member’s expenses to attend meetings of Political Parties, etc. For example, if a Union Branch agrees to affiliate to a local Constituency Labour Party the Branch can pay travel expenses for the Branch rep to attend CLP meetings.

At different times I have been a Union Branch Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. There are completely separate processes for accessing regular Branch Funds (eg. to pay for a member to attend a Union training course) and Political Levy funds.

If anyone wants to join a Union but does not want to financially support the Labour Party, do not opt in to pay into the Political Levy when you join.

You can opt into or out of the Political Levy at any time.

I hope that helps

Thanks @Bosky

Thanks @Bosky.

I'm not aware of whether Unison has such a group and I'd like to know and how to find out more too if you can let me know

@amazeandastonish

I'm not aware of whether Unison has such a group and I'd like to know and how to find out more too if you can let me know

Yes, Unison does have a GC Women's TU Group. It was one of the first to be set up.

DM Fiona44444 on Twitter to be put in touch.

DM me here on Mumsnet if you are not on Twitter.

(I am not Fiona)

Counting me there are 3 people just on this thread who peaked and resigned from UCU. I wonder how many more have, just as they need votes for this misguided attempt to have a strike.

Am reading this thread with interest.

@Rainbowsunshine - "I suspect I shall be facing a grievance myself next week as I declined to put pronouns in my email signature so “I am not demonstrating enough solidarity with other members of the union” apparently. The irony of that statement is not lost on me."

I was skim-reading before and missed this!

Can you clarify?

Are you saying that you suspect other members of your union will take out a Grievance against you with your employer because you are "not demonstrating enough solidarity with other members of the union"?

(Their evidence being that you declined to put pronouns in your signature?)

it is not for employers to intervene in internal union disputes between members.

If instead you mean, "not demonstrating enough solidarity with co-workers" it would make marginally more sense but not a lot.

In an earlier post you said:

" Our local branch is ramping up some deeply worrying activism and calling anyone who expresses concern about using pronouns in emails, talks about single sex spaces etc as a total Terf and transphobic and getting grievances submitted against them."

On what grounds are these Grievances being submitted?

This all sounds totally bizarre.

Again, it is not for employers to intervene in internal disputes between union members.

IF union members, particularly Branch Officials, are actually submitting Grievances based on the failure of other members to comply with decisions taken at Branch Meetings then it is not functioning as an independent Trade Union.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

5 Meaning of “independent trade union".

In this Act an “independent trade union” means a trade union which—

(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers or of one or more employers’ associations, and

(b) is not liable to interference by an employer or any such group or association (arising out of the provision of financial or material support or by any other means whatsoever) tending towards such control;

and references to “independence”, in relation to a trade union, shall be construed accordingly.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/part/I/chapter/I/crossheading/certification-as-independent-trade-union

See also:

Trade Union Independence

A trade union which is on the list of trade unions may apply for a certificate of independence.

Independence is defined as meaning independence from an employer or group of employers.

This chapter discusses independence and explains how such applications are dealt with and their outcome.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/726081/0004_Trade_Union_Independence_14291_Cert_Off_Ann_Rep_2017-2018-4.pdf

Obviously, any Union would wish to operate independently of employer influence, control and interference.

Therefore, if your Branch is inviting your employer to intervene in disputes between union members then it will be in breach of your Union's Rules. If not the Branch as an entity, then Branch Officials and/or individual members.

If you or any other members have had Grievances taken out against you for "not demonstrating enough solidarity with other members of the union" then you have a legitimate cause for complaint to the Union for breach of Union Rules and compromising the independent status of the Union.

If I have understood you correctly, get a copy of your Union Rules. They can usually be downloaded from your Union website.

Find the Section about "Discipline".

For example, the Unite Rule Book and other relevant documents can be downloaded here:

www.unitetheunion.org/who-we-are/structure/

UNITE RULE BOOK

www.unitetheunion.org/media/3470/unite-rule-book-effective-following-2019-v2-072020.pdf

RULE 27. MEMBERSHIP DISCIPLINE

See screenshots.

Relevant sections:

27.1 A member may be charged with:

27.1.1 Acting in a way contrary to the rules or any duty or obligation imposed on a member by or pursuant to these rules whether in his/her capacity as a member, a holder of lay office or a lay representative of the union or otherwise bringing the union into disrepute.

• 27.1.3 Knowingly, recklessly or in bad faith providing the Union with false or misleading information relating to a member or any other aspect of the Union’s activities.

• 27.1.4 Inciting, espousing or practising discrimination or intolerance amongst members on grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion, age, gender, disability or sexual orientation. 


• 27.1.5 Bringing about injury to or discredit upon the Union or any member of the Union including the undermining of the Union, branch or workplace organisation and individual workplace representatives or branch officers. 


• 27.1.7 Breach of the Union’s policies on harassment, dignity and respect, which will include cyber bullying and harassment. 


• 27.2 Disciplinary Hearings shall be organised and conducted under directions issued by the Executive Council. These directions ensure that the process is fair and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 


• 27.3 A charge under this rule may be heard by a Branch, Branch Committee (where so determined by the Branch), Regional Committee or the Executive Council. The Executive Council may delegate to a sub-committee of the Executive Council. It would be usual practice that disciplinary charges would be heard at branch level in the first instance. Disciplinary charges deemed to be of a serious nature may be initiated by the Regional committee or Executive Council. 


27.3.1 Serious allegations of breach of Clauses 27.1.1. to 27.1.7 may be referred directly to the General Secretary. The General Secretary will appoint a senior employee of the Union to conduct an investigation which may lead to disciplinary charges being laid on behalf of the Executive Council.

27.3.2 Allegations of serious breaches of clauses 27.1.1 to 27.1.7 which are considered to be vexatious, malicious or defamatory may be considered a breach of Rule and liable to be referred to this disciplinary procedure.

=======

See also RULE 27. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS: EC DIRECTIONS in:

EC Guidance on the implementation of rule revised following the 3rd Rules Conference

www.unitetheunion.org/media/3973/ec-guidance-on-implementation-of-rule-updated-to-june-2021.pdf

=========

Also BRANCH STANDARDS

www.unitetheunion.org/media/1382/unite-branch-standards.pdf

1. Branches have an obligation to promote equal opportunities and tolerance inside and outside the workplace and take action to stamp out sexism, racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination. 


========

Let's not argue for the moment that EA 2010 Protected Characteristics are misquoted in Rule 27.1.4 (they should be: Age, Sex, Ethnicity, Disability, Sexual orientation, Religion or Belief, Gender reassignment, Marriage/Civil Partnership, Pregnancy/Maternity).

"Religion" includes "Belief".

PART 1 of 2
................

PART 2

This article is VERY relevant and helpful:

Forstater v CGD Europe & others UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ, 10 June 2021

oldsquare.co.uk/forstater-v-cgd-europe-others/

See also the Conclusion in "Sex and gender: belief and agnosticism after Forstater" by Akua Reindorf

sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sex-and-Gender-Reindorf-ELA.pdf

As pointed out by Sex Matters:

She (Reindorf) makes three recommendations to employers:

Consider whetherdiversity and inclusion training adequately takes account of belief as a protected characteristic.*

Consider whether thedefinition of harassment in policies is sufficiently nuancedto take account of the range of protected beliefs on sex and gender.

Think carefully about the extent to which publicly expressed corporate values and internal communications serve tocompel adherence on the part of their workers to one side of the debate or the other.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-and-gender-belief-and-agnosticism-after-forstater/

Trade Union membership is covered under EA2010 in Section 57 Trade Organisations

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/57

A Trade Union that discriminates against, harasses or victimises a member or potential member on the basis of the Protected Characteristic of Belief or Lack of Belief, it is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

If @spero is around, comments and any corrections would be very much welcomed :-)

PART 2 of 2 - END

I would like to join one that would not have a complete meltdown at the prospect of supporting me if I needed to challenge the overly zealous wokeness and pronoun-zombie mentality and actions that are emerging there.

I'm going to have to be walked through this.
Where to start?
Why would you need supporting if you challenged "wokeness?"
By Wokeness, do you mean people standing up for other people's rights even if it doesn't affect them?
I see that as a good thing. I mean, I'm perfectly able to stand up for LGBT rights (all of them) and racism (despite being white myself.)
Seems so ridiculous people trying to make out being "woke" is a bad thing.
It means you're just awake to not everyone being treated the same.#
Pronoun zombie mentality - eh? Just don't add them then. You don't have to justify yourself. Just don't look down on others who do as it's up to them.

I see that as a good thing. I mean, I'm perfectly able to stand up for LGBT rights (all of them)

Meant to add after that not being LGBT myself

"Standing up for people's rights" sounds all well and good, NoNotMeNoSiree, but Wokeness depends partly on a purely theoretical Hierarchy of Oppression.

Absolute human rights (such as the right to reject a demand for sex, alluded to by ArabellaStrange) can then be deemed less important than the demands of members of a theoretically more marginalised, oppressed and less privileged group.

There is far more to "wokeness" than that, of course.

As for the "pronoun zombie mentality" (perfectly described) the problem is not "looking down on" people who people who put pronouns in their emails or want pronouns to be announced before at the start of meetings or even people who introduce themselves with a pronoun flourish.

The problems with "Pronouns":

1. nobody likes compelled speech

1. they are generally unnecessary since pronouns are sex-based, it is rare for people to get them wrong face-to-face and they are anyway most often used when the person referred to is not present

1. they are unnecessary in correspondence. We already have conventions for signalling our sex in signatures if we want to dispel any doubt, eg. due ambiguous or unfamiliar names, by including a Title before or in brackets after the name (Ms, Mrs, Mr etc.)

1. sometimes it does not work in writing, eg. Dr. However, is significant that women with such titles have not been clamouring over the years to be able to signal their sex in their signatures

1. they lay the grounds for sex-based discrimination (see above) since women and their contributions still tend to be perceived negatively in most workplaces compared to men and their output

1. they create additional, unnecessary work-related stress due to the fear of shunning or threat of sanctions if you accidentally "misgender" someone

1. they are a distraction requiring extra cognitive effort, which in some circumstances could affect performance and results

1. they discriminate against people with certain types of neurodiversity, eg. autism (difficulty deliberately lying), pronomial confusion (dysphasia), proposagnosia (problems recognising faces)

1. they discriminate against people who do not wish to take part in a ritual of a belief-system or political ideology to which they do not subscribe. It is as bizarre and inappropriate as in a workplace or meeting where everyone is expected to declare their sexuality or their religion - and anyone who declines is tarred as pervert, infidel or heretic.

10. they are illogical. Since gender identity and gender expression are purportedly different things, a person professing to be "gender fluid" could change their pronouns from day to day depending on how they "identify" without any alterations to their appearance. If that person instead explained that they had a Dissociative Identity Disorder and felt themselves to be a different "alter" from day to day, it is hard to imagine that it could be seen as a reasonable adjustment to their disability to require their co-workers to comply (however willing) under threat of disciplinary or legal sanctions.

11. like it or not, I think most people consider "preferred pronouns" to be an immature, narcissistic, bourgeois affectation. The equivalent to requiring people to doff their cap to a co-worker, for no other reason than it makes them feel "validated" when people defer to their delusion of superiority.

12. Those of us unlucky enough to have seen videos of "people" explaining that receiving the courtesy of preferred pronouns gives them an erection have good reason to want to avoid using them.

Nope. Preferred pronouns. Not doing it.

Great summary, thanks bosky

Thanks @Bosky that’s really helpful and I may be using some of that as I have been told this morning that a colleague has raised a grievance about my “disturbing reluctance to use and promote the use of pronouns to the point where they (I) seem to be flatly refusing to engage with the inclusive behaviour expected of employees”.

So rather than get on with my job I now have to spend time dealing with this.

And yes, the union has said that they will represent the colleague who raised the grievance, they said I would have to find a willing and available representative from outside of the work branch if I want support myself.

Looking at the union rules posted earlier I think I can challenge that, but it’s whether I have enough in me to cope with the grievance and a fight with the union. I’m not sure if I can do both.

@Rainbowshine

Thanks *@Bosky* that’s really helpful and I may be using some of that as I have been told this morning that a colleague has raised a grievance about my “disturbing reluctance to use and promote the use of pronouns to the point where they (I) seem to be flatly refusing to engage with the inclusive behaviour expected of employees”.

So rather than get on with my job I now have to spend time dealing with this.

And yes, the union has said that they will represent the colleague who raised the grievance, they said I would have to find a willing and available representative from outside of the work branch if I want support myself.

Looking at the union rules posted earlier I think I can challenge that, but it’s whether I have enough in me to cope with the grievance and a fight with the union. I’m not sure if I can do both.

That is very helpful clarification.

Before I say more, take a look at the good advice offered by @CharlieParley in this post - and follow it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4407853-DP-reported-for-Anti-Trans-at-work?msgid=112700405

"I have been told this morning that a colleague has raised a grievance about my “disturbing reluctance to use and promote the use of pronouns to the point where they (I) seem to be flatly refusing to engage with the inclusive behaviour expected of employees”

Were you told this officially, by a manager, using the word "Grievance"?

If NO

What exactly happened?

If YES

1. Management has notified you of a complaint about your conduct that they intend dealing with under your Grievance Procedure.

1. They should put this in writing.

2.1 They should explain if the alleged behaviour and the complaint are being investigated as a breach of company policy & procedures, eg. Bullying & Harassment, Fair Treatment, Equality & Inclusion.

2.1 They should explain your rights to be represented, time scales for investigations and meetings, etc.

1. You need to understand the Grievance Procure and, if it is separate, the Complaints Investigation Procedure as well as any Company Policies & Procedures mentioned.

1. If you have not got copies, ask the Manager who told you for a copy. (They might refer you to HR to ask for a copy.)

5. None of my concerns about union independence in my previous post apply. This is because the complaint made to your employer relates to:

5.1 your conduct as an employee (not as a union member)

5.2 what the complainant understands to be the behaviour that the employer expects of employees (not what the union expects of members)

"the union has said that they will represent the colleague who raised the grievance"

This is normal and proper.

"they said I would have to find a willing and available representative from outside of the work branch if I want support myself."

1. Who said this?

• A Branch Officer?
• A Union Workplace Representative/Shop Steward?
• Another "Ordinary Member"?
• The person who made the complant?
• The Manager who told you about this? (Sometimes Managers/Supervisors are in the same union, which can represent a conflict of interest)
• HR?

6.1 This is NOT normal and proper - unless there is some justifiable reason, eg. your Branch is a "Workplace Branch" and there is only one Workplace Representative/Shop Steward who is:

6.1.1 Formally accredited by your union as a Union Workplace Rep/Shop Steward

AND

6.1.2 Formally "recognised" as such by your Employer.

1. Normally I would say next "Check if this is true" and see if there is someone else who could represent you within the Branch. However, in these circumstances I would:

7.1 escalate this within the union, ie. ask for a Full Time Officer to represent you

7.2 at the same time ask the Branch (email preferable) WHY no one in the Branch can represent you.

1. Find out who is the Union Full-Time Officer covering your Employer or Workplace (an FTO is employed by the Union), eg. by phoning or emailing your Union or logging in to your Union website.

1. Contact the FTO stating facts about:

9.1 the stage you are at,

eg. "I work for X. My Manager (name) has notified me that another employee, who is also a member of X Union, has made a complaint about me and this is being investigated under the Grievance Procedure"

9.2 Say you need the FTO to represent you and that you might need Legal Advice from the Union (this is usually accessed via the FTO when it relates to Employment Law)

9.3 Say what "the Branch" (or whoever) told you,

eg. "The Branch told me on (date) that they cannot represent me and I need to find someone outside the Work Branch to represent me"

(name the Branch, name the person and if they have a union role, eg. Branch Chair, Workplace Rep; say how they told you (spoke to me, emailed me) and if this was at a Union meeting)

========

The Grievance and getting Representation is your first priority.

Forget about "challenging the Branch" for the moment. It might prove to be unnecessary once you have got an FTO involved with your case.

Depending on your union rules, FTOs may or may not be permitted to get involved in Branch Business.

==========

Branch issue:

Not your top priority at the moment but do make your own notes of what has occurred so you can refer to them later.

Keep a careful dairy logging everything relevant to the Grievance and, separately, your issues with the Branch. Date and time your entries as well as the date and time of incidents recorded.

10. IF the Branch tells you at any point that no one can represent you for a reason that suggests they are refusing to do so because of your Protected Belief or Lack of Belief, they are in Breach of the Equality Act 2010 Section 57.

10.1 If they do not put it in writing, email or write asking them to confirm your understanding of what was said to you, when, where and in the presence of whoever else was there at the time.

10.2 Try to stick as closely as possible to the words used rather than summarising in your own words. All you are doing here is making sure you have a record of the interaction that is as factually accurate as possible (and as contemporaneous as possible) and that it is acknowledged to be so.

They might reply with a different account, as they understand it.

How you respond depends on how they respond.

Number 4 on this thread that has recently resigned from UCU. I joined affinity. I doubt very much whether UCU will have a GC section.
Thirty years a member- and I have heard nothing since I resigned, despite citing the category ‘dissatisfied’ . What kind of body fails to ask people who have resigned after thirty years why they are dissatisfied?

@serendipitea

Counting me there are 3 people just on this thread who peaked and resigned from UCU. I wonder how many more have, just as they need votes for this misguided attempt to have a strike.

Am reading this thread with interest.

Make that four. Some time back now. After 20 plus years of being a Branch Officer. A bloody good one. Not even a call from the Full time Officer. I can't begin to describe how that feels. Betrayed and angry is a start, I suppose

Oh make that five! Cross posted!