Blenky resigns?

[ollie989898]

Yep, cut out all that lobbying nonsense that the paid staff do, and just have a talking shop?

@ollie989898 , what about all those in the industry that can't, or won't, use all this wonderful new technology? What of the many (majority?) that consider you need to see the whites of somebody's eyes and shake them by the hand, to be able to get their measure?

At the end of the day it would be up to members to decide what form and structure they want. I am not saying any organisation should be 100% online but then millions of pounds worth of payroll won't cut it either.

I don't know how other trade unions are formed or what shape they have. I know some have union representatives but these are usually only on a part time basis, often based in the same workplaces as actual union members and they serve only as messengers in effect. The British medical association is the only 'union' I know much about and full blown membership is just under £500 a year from memory.

 

[neilo]

TBH I do think this is the world is going. I'm approaching 60 and my Dad is in his 70s and we manage to navigate the internet, in a fashion. Of the people I actually have met on here I would say a good proportion are older than me and I wouldn't be surprised if they are are probably a little offended by your insinuation.
We are living in a digital world and Agriculture, albeit forced to a certain extent, are well used to it.

No need to take offence. I’m not for a minute suggesting age is any barrier to using modern tech.
However, there are plenty (of all ages) that either can’t, or won’t, use it. I’ve spoken to plenty of folk that lurk on here, but don’t feel happy to post much, if at all, for some reason.

An ‘online Union’ effectively excludes them.

 

[B'o'B]

No need to take offence. I’m not for a minute suggesting age is any barrier to using modern tech.
However, there are plenty (of all ages) that either can’t, or won’t, use it. I’ve spoken to plenty of folk that lurk on here, but don’t feel happy to post much, if at all, for some reason.

An ‘online Union’ effectively excludes them.

Just as a real world unions excludes people who don't want to attend meetings, or aren't confident enough to speak up in front of a room of other people. What ever the structure someone will be/feel excluded.

 

[neilo]

Just as a real world unions excludes people who don't want to attend meetings, or aren't confident enough to speak up in front of a room of other people. What ever the structure someone will be/feel excluded.

I don’t disagree, but going one way or t’other isn’t the answer to an all encompassing organisation, imo.

 

[Henarar]

Just as a real world unions excludes people who don't want to attend meetings, or aren't confident enough to speak up in front of a room of other people. What ever the structure someone will be/feel excluded.

Absolutely
they seem happy with the way things are with the same old meetings with the same old meeting warriors

 

[B'o'B]

I don’t disagree, but going one way or t’other isn’t the answer to an all encompassing organisation, imo.

Its would all a balance between expense and results. Face to face meetings cost money to hold, attendees have to travel so bigger time commitment to attend a meeting.
Where would the money come from to pay for them? And would it be better spent on other things in the early days? I don't know the answers, just putting another point across. No farming organisation will ever manage to be all things to all farmers.

 

[Renaultman]

Its would all a balance between expense and results. Face to face meetings cost money to hold, attendees have to travel so bigger time commitment to attend a meeting.
Where would the money come from to pay for them? And would it be better spent on other things in the early days? I don't know the answers, just putting another point across. No farming organisation will ever manage to be all things to all farmers.

As I said ages ago. The first step is to guage support.
See how much there is on here, then hopefully, if there is enough, we contact our neighbours not on here and guage their feelings.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I was driving back from Shrewsbury earlier, so was listening to last week's Farmers Weekly podcast in the truck. There was a piece in their interviewing Queen Christine on how well regarded RT was. The presenters also did an editorial bit broadly agreeing with that, and suggesting that most farmers thought RT was a good thing generally... apart from a small number of cereals producers.

You guys may wish to take them to task, assuming that's not the case? I can't think of any farmer I know, in any sector, that would describe RT in any positive terms.

Well we are trying Neil!