Trade unions have a woman problem. Excellent article by union NEC member Paul Embery

[Tarquinthecat]

https://www.paulembery.com/p/trade-unions-have-a-woman-problem

Presumably any pay rise applies across the board. Unions have shot themselves in the foot on this one. It is utterly morally repugnant to abandon women's legal rights in the way they have. I work for myself so I don't have to put up with any of this nonsense but if I did need union representation there's no way I'd stick with one who suppressed dissent on this issue in the way Unison has. And those posters on here who are telling women that it's their fault if unions are taken over by TRAs. No it is not their fault. If you haven't been paying attention to what happens to women when they speak up maybe it's time you did.

I’m glad to hear that you are running your own business and not in the position of needing to deal with these kinds of workplace issues or of needing trade union support. That’s a very liberating position to be in.

On this point…

“If you haven't been paying attention to what happens to women when they speak up maybe it's time you did.”

…just to reassure you that those of us in workplaces with policies on conduct, EDI, BDH, grievance, discipline and performance etc are well accustomed to paying very close attention to what happens in our workplaces, especially those of us who are involved in supporting our colleagues with workplace difficulties.

How did the case of Sandie Peggie happen? Someone wasn't paying attention. In fact a large number of people seem to have been actively working against the legislation providing for single sex spaces. I'm bewildered that you think people in what appears to be your role are doing a good job when there is court case after court case showing that is absolutely not happening and that women who speak up are sidelined, ostracised and frankly, vilified. Have you heard of Jo Phoenix, Almut Gadow, Eleanor Frances, Lizzie Pitt. They all won their cases but their union was nowhere to be seen.

If you’ve read my posts you’ll have seen that my contributions to this thread have been focused on encouraging women/GC women who are union members to get involved in their local branches, whilst recognising that there are many barriers to women getting involved, and understanding that trade union involvement isn’t for everyone. I haven’t made any grandiose claims about the quality of union reps, collectively or individually. But just to reassure you, I’ve read the relevant ET judgments.

You’re right that there’s been a campaign underway for many years focused on removing single-sex spaces. The account in Helen Joyce’s book about how long this has been going in for is eye-opening. What I found most shocking though was the KPSS info on how long ago prisons were targeted.

Turning to your question, and at the risk of sounding jaded or demoralised….

“How did the case of Sandie Peggie happen?”

Who knows. Maybe all the GC women listened to the people on FWR telling them to cancel their union membership and to not bother getting involved in their local branch because union reps are all misogynist / only care about pursuing a political career, and claiming that getting involved in their local branch will get them sacked. That “don’t get involved, it’s not worth it” message has been promoted on here pretty consistently for a few years now, so maybe it’s had an effect. For all we know, there could be union TRA activists on here energetically advising women to leave their trade unions. Whatever the reason, the end result is that it can feel isolating for GC women still involved.

It's quite the stretch to suggest Sandie Pegg happened because of women on FWR? (even if you are a bit cross)
Sandie (like countless women) have been let down because too many male union leaders and some women reckon that a man's desire to watch women and girls undress matters far more than women's rights to safety and privacy from that man. It's those men's toxic influence that's the problem and why so many woman reckon the unions aren't worth bothering with if they're unable to prioritise the safety of women and children rather than the demands of disordered men.

I said jaded and demoralised. I didn’t say cross.

The SP case happened because all institutions and sectors, across the board, have been captured following a highly successful campaign that was carefully strategised, planned and managed, and which started decades ago.

And it was successful because - whatever nonsense claims are made about biological sex not being real - the reality is that society understands there are two sex classes: one of which is entitled to get whatever it wants and one of which is expected to put up and shut up.

The union movement is just one of those sectors. Maybe it was targeted early on because of its role in worker protection / workplace equality. Or maybe it was early on the bandwagon because it’s male dominated.

Either way, discouraging women from being active in their union isn’t going to improve unions for women. But I understand that train union involvement isn’t for everyone.

There’s a potential PhD for someone on the practicalities of how we ended up where we are. Or another HJ book. I’d be fascinated to read it.

I think taking our money and giving it to unions who actually support women is the best way to make a difference. I'm fed up of it being women's responsibility to fight the patriarchy rather than self organise and support organisations that actually represent us. They might not miss us but they'll miss our cash.

You can't possibly blame the Sandie Peggie case on GC women advising people to cancel their union membership. The reason the unions seem irredeemable is because no GC women ever has a chance to put their case or effect change.

I'm sure that, given your interest, you will have followed this thread about Unison Women's Conference voting to support the motion that Trans women are women Trans men are men https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271946-unison-womens-conference-motion-trans-women-are-women-as-nurses-battle-nhs-for-single-sex-facilities.

Steve North of Unison posted on Twitter: 'Today UNISON’s Women’s Conference passed a motion stating “That Trans Women are women and Trans men are men, all our LGBT+ comrades must be respected.” Not one delegate spoke against. In a world of increasing hate and division, I’m proud that our union is a beacon of unity'

Now clearly all UNISON women do not support this motion yet not one delegate spoke against it. So what happened? Fear happened. No women can speak out against this within UNISON. Tell me again why any woman should be a member of this trade union.

Sometimes something is broken beyond repair. If it's been going on that long, people who are committed to being in a union and expending countless hours of so far fruitless effort to expedite change from within might have been better occupied setting up a new union that does treat women fairly.

“The reason the unions seem irredeemable is because no GC women ever has a chance to put their case or effect change.”

The point I’ve been making is that the more GC women there are in trade unions and the more they get involved in local branch activities, the better the chance of women getting their voices heard.

Encouraging women to cancel their trade union membership or discouraging them from getting involved runs counter to that.

I also recognise, and have said so consistently, that trade union membership isn’t for everyone, and that there are barriers to getting involved, especially for women. That may mean, disappointingly, that unions will take longer than other sectors to become uncaptured.

It’s also true that some groups are generally opposed to trade unions and want trade unions to be weaker because weaker trade unions serves their own financial interests - eg business owners who want to be able to hire and fire or to operate on zero hours and casual contracts eg multi-billion pound international corporations which pay little tax and have a lot of influence eg some political parties and campaign groups. Those groups will have an interest in boosting the “cancel your membership” messaging.

If that dig about business owners is aimed at me - I said I work for myself not that I run a business employing people - I'm not a capitalist swine trying to undermine the union movement. I believe collective action is a useful tool for achieving workers rights. I also think that the current Trade Union movement is showing no sign of any movement away from trans rights activism. In fact they seem to be digging in if
Steve North's tweet is anything to go by. Just out of interest, do you ever speak in person to your colleagues about the impact of gender ideology in the workplace?

“might have been better occupied setting up a new union that does treat women fairly”

When I joined this thread, my intention was to pick up on Paul Embery’s statement that a new union has been born, but got distracted. There are a lot of hoops to jump through in forming a new trade union and “new” unions are more often mergers (or splits) of previous unions, so I was surprised that his blogpost made that statement. Trade unions are covered by a statutory framework, the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1992. I’d be surprised if the Darlington nurses have set up a trade union in accordance with the legal requirements set out in the Act, and DNU is not on the current list of unions which suggests they aren’t a trade union yet. But if they have managed to create a new trade union, that’s an impressive achievement, fair play.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/official-list-of-trade-unions/current-trade-unions

Meaning of “trade union".
In this Act a “trade union” means an organisation (whether temporary or permanent)—
(a)which consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers’ associations; or
(b)which consists wholly or mainly of—
(i)constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions in paragraph (a) (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions), or
(ii)representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations,
and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers’ associations, or the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations.

The list of trade unions.
(1)The Certification Officer shall keep a list of trade unions containing the names of—
(a)the organisations whose names were, immediately before the commencement of this Act, duly entered in the list of trade unions kept by him under section 8 of the M1Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and
(b)the names of the organisations entitled to have their names entered in the list in accordance with this Part.
(2)The Certification Officer shall keep copies of the list of trade unions, as for the time being in force, available for public inspection at all reasonable hours free of charge.
(3)A copy of the list shall be included in his annual report.
(4)The fact that the name of an organisation is included in the list of trade unions is evidence (in Scotland, sufficient evidence) that the organisation is a trade union.
(5)On the application of an organisation whose name is included in the list, the Certification Officer shall issue it with a certificate to that effect.
(6)A document purporting to be such a certificate is evidence (in Scotland, sufficient evidence) that the name of the organisation is entered in the list.

Application to have name entered in the list.
(1)An organisation of workers, whenever formed, whose name is not entered in the list of trade unions may apply to the Certification Officer to have its name entered in the list.
(2)The application shall be made in such form and manner as the Certification Officer may require and shall be accompanied by—
(a)a copy of the rules of the organisation,
(b)a list of its officers,
(c)the address of its head or main office, and
(d)the name under which it is or is to be known,
and by the prescribed fee.
(3)If the Certification Officer is satisfied—
(a)that the organisation is a trade union,
(b)that subsection (2) has been complied with, and
(c)that entry of the name in the list is not prohibited by subsection (4),
he shall enter the name of the organisation in the list of trade unions.
(4)The Certification Officer shall not enter the name of an organisation in the list of trade unions if the name is the same as that under which another organisation—
(a)was on 30th September 1971 registered as a trade union under the Trade Union Acts 1871 to 1964,
(b)was at any time registered as a trade union or employers’ association under the M1Industrial Relations Act 1971, or
(c)is for the time being entered in the list of trade unions or in the list of employers’ associations kept under Part II of this Act,
or if the name is one so nearly resembling any such name as to be likely to deceive the public.

124ZADuty to provide membership audit certificate
(1)A trade union required to maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members by section 24 must send to the Certification Officer a membership audit certificate in relation to each reporting period.
(2)In this section and in sections 24ZB to 24ZF, a “reporting period” means a period in relation to which the union is required by section 32 to send an annual return to the Certification Officer.
(3)The union must send the membership audit certificate in relation to a reporting period to the Certification Officer at the same time as it sends to the Officer its annual return under section 32 in relation to that period.
(4)In the case of a trade union required by section 24ZB to appoint an assurer in relation to a reporting period, the “membership audit certificate” in relation to that period is the certificate which the assurer is required to provide to the union in relation to that period pursuant to that appointment.
(5)In any other case, the “membership audit certificate” in relation to a reporting period is a certificate which—
(a)must be signed by an officer of the trade union who is authorised to sign on its behalf,
(b)must state the officer's name, and
(c)must state whether, to the best of the officer's knowledge and belief, the union has complied with its duties under section 24(1) throughout the reporting period.
(6)A trade union must, at a person's request, supply the person with a copy of its most recent membership audit certificate either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge.
(7)The Certification Officer must at all reasonable hours keep available for public inspection, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge, copies of all membership audit certificates sent to the Officer under this section.]

@SidewaysOtter in response to "How about you stop lecturing people about what they should be doing in your ideal world? Posters here have explained to you why this just isn’t feasible if you don’t want to be ostracised, hounded out of your job, shouted down for being unenlightened etc etc.

Your “just try harder and then you’ll get the change you want” rhetoric is as tiresome as it is unrealistic."

Yet you expect your union reps to risk their jobs on your behalf if this is true? These reps who also pay their union fees like you do but do a whole lot else because they believe in making the workplace fairer by supporting those who are unlucky enough to become ill or work for an unfair manager. Oh, and you expect these reps to read minds too. To intrinsically know what you want because you're too scared to whisper it in their ear for fear of repercussions.

You can talk yourself round in circles about the problem indefinitely. You're far better off focusing on the solution to the problem though, if you genuinely want to move forward.

Change needs action.

You have not only completely missed the point but are mistaken. I'm not a member of a union and nor would I be.

However, the reps I have come across in my workplace refused to listen to any view but their own, spouted hyperbolic rhetoric which didn't stand up to any basic scrutiny and are TWAW to the hilt. Whisper or scream - they don't give a toss what anyone who disagrees with them thinks. I've tried to engage with them and was ignored. So they - and the whole of UCU - can fuck right off, I will have nothing to do with them because I think they're rotten to the very core.

What's weird is that in a lot of cases these viewpoints don't really have anything to do with the employment sector. Like, most unions have zero to due with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they don't need to have any view about it at all.

I don't understand why a union would be spending membership dues on Pride month at all.

To me, unions are taking money off of the paycheck of every person that is a member. They should be taking as little as possible to do what they need to, which is to represent the interests of the workers with the management or owners.

I'm a member of the RMT. The executive are all pale, male & stale. I think women members would love to be GS but we might get our GC views found out. The menz won't like that. Even as Mick Lynch retires this year it's probably going to be slim pickings in the vote for a new executive.

I stay because they've got me out of some sticky spots. They've got my loyalty, albeit with terms and conditions attached.

Thankfully the RMT is not affiliated with the Labour Party.