If the nfu are

[fieldfarmer]

I’d say so. I was at party yesterday and 6 farmers who were there have all resigned in the last week. I can’t say that’s representative but it’s an eye opener isn’t it!

Judging by the tone and disappointment in the voice of who I cancelled my membership to last week I would suggest it imight be a accurate representation of the situation they find themselves in and its all there own doing. Only non farmers left soon.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Ok so what is it?

National Farmers' Union of England and Wales - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The NFU is registered as an association of employersunder the 1974 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. In 2000 it founded Assured Food Standards which administers the Red Tractor food quality mark.

 

[homefarm]

The NFU is registered as an association of employersunder the 1974 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. In 2000 it founded Assured Food Standards which administers the Red Tractor food quality mark.

At last I think I have found where it all went wrong.

They should have established a basic standard as well.

Non assured should never have been allowed to be a thing.
A negative is never good for marketing and there are many names non assured could nave been called which is positive.

If RT was seen to be giving a premium and there was a choice in the market place which is what I believe the NFU intended.

20 years on this is clearly not the case and has not been for some time.

The NFU need go right back to the beginning to sort this out.

I do not think anyone is against providing assurance greening or anything else so long as we are rewarded for doing so.
The problems revolve around the NFU giving both members and non members assurance away for free and creating a discounted non assured market.

Is it any wonder non members get so passionate and perhaps make up conspiracy theories.

The mistake happened long ago but could be fixed with a basic scheme and a premium for RT .

 

[topground]

At last I think I have found where it all went wrong.

They should have established a basic standard as well.

Non assured should never have been allowed to be a thing.
A negative is never good for marketing and there are many names non assured could nave been called which is positive.

If RT was seen to be giving a premium and there was a choice in the market place which is what I believe the NFU intended.

20 years on this is clearly not the case and has not been for some time.

The NFU need go right back to the beginning to sort this out.

I do not think anyone is against providing assurance greening or anything else so long as we are rewarded for doing so.
The problems revolve around the NFU giving both members and non members assurance away for free and creating a discounted non assured market.

Is it any wonder non members get so passionate and perhaps make up conspiracy theories.

The mistake happened long ago but could be fixed with a basic scheme and a premium for RT .

How’s about we go back to having the laws of the land enforced by local authorities and other publicly funded accountable bodies that we already fund through our taxes?
Those bodies have to abide by the laws of evidence and have to prove their case in court if necessary. Unlike any privately owned company who can make up the rules as they go along and do the bidding of the biggest bully on the block?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Right now I simply feel like other are finally seeing some of what I was vocal about a long time ago

It's long overdue

however do not simplify my position. (many do !) , I am NOT anti NFU or AHDB etc, never have been and have said that many times in the past. What I am is not afraid to question and demand results / democracy, call our conflicts of interest and anyone I feel is putting their career above those they claim to represent or damaging / weakening our industry (like RT)

I have said before, few things would make me more happy that to want to rejoin NFU or be happy to pay AHDB more levy etc. Both need pretty radical change before thats the case however

If it wasn't for idiots like me challenging would anything ever change ?

This what you said on here in 2015 ,thats why i asked if your views had changed
But thanks for your reply


"they are worse than no voice now IMO

while they exist nothing will change and this industry needs change, the only reason there is no alternative is that their isn't room for one while the NFU pretend to be representing us"

 

[Pigless]

Farmer members only.
One member, one vote.

Maybe it doesn't need to be farmers only, if its one member one vote the retailers wont bother as they wont be able to buy influence. There's a lot more farmers then retailers.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Maybe it doesn't need to be farmers only, if its one member one vote the retailers wont bother as they wont be able to buy influence. There's a lot more farmers then retailers.

Do trades unions accept money from employers? I don’t think they do because money buys influence. I don’t see why the NFU would want to accept money from higher up the food chain if it purely represents farmers.
The suspicion is that the NFU has not been adequately representing farmers for some time. Sometimes it’s glaringly obvious, such as when the president makes a thing of the importance of UK farmers supplying customers with very affordable, low-cost food. Why would I want to supply food at very low cost? I’d rather operate like the supermarkets do and charge the maximum I can get away with in order to make the maximum profit.
Bet you don’t get real union leaders going into pay negotiations saying they want to keep workers wages low so customers aren’t inconvenienced with higher prices!

Na! Keep it simple; a FARMERS union consisting of FARMERS and aiming to benefit FARMERS.

Hard Reset Now.
If they do that, I’ll re- join.

 

[xmilkr]

Ok so what is it?

A mouthpeace of the Mutual.

 

[YorksLass]

The bit I dont get is where non members have a vote on anything?

The structure according to a friend who is an x chair;
members are elected at county meetings for roles on regional commodity boards.
They elect their chair and those chairs form the national boards (Is this the commodity boards RT talks about having bypassed?)
Council also has the county chair and delegate from each county but you have to be a farmer member to be one of those and therefore get a vote.

I went on the website and the only category that mentions 'having a voice' is the farmer and grower one. Am guessing that is corporate speak for having a vote?

Membership

NFU membership means giving you a voice at the highest political level, support locally, professional advice and guidance, money saving discounts and communication to keep you informed. Together we have the chance to ensure farming’s future is brimming with opportunity and that food production...

www.nfuonline.com

You cant look at the constitution without a log in though - anyone else able to confirm the above?

 

[Kidds]

I should think @Sid is turning in his banishment with all this anti NFU chat.

 

[Hfd Cattle]

Maybe it doesn't need to be farmers only, if its one member one vote the retailers wont bother as they wont be able to buy influence. There's a lot more farmers then retailers.

But you don't have to be a farmer to be a member of NFU so the supermarkets etc would just flood it with members, they could afford to .
There is an alternative growing in numbers ....The BFU ...join up

 

[Henarar]

I should think @Sid is turning in his banishment with all this anti NFU chat.

He is not banished, he will be back/won't be able to help himself, already been back to say he is going/started liking posts, he liked yours, may not like mine though.

 

[ski]

Right now I simply feel like other are finally seeing some of what I was vocal about a long time ago

It's long overdue

however do not simplify my position. (many do !) , I am NOT anti NFU or AHDB etc, never have been and have said that many times in the past. What I am is not afraid to question and demand results / democracy, call our conflicts of interest and anyone I feel is putting their career above those they claim to represent or damaging / weakening our industry (like RT)

I have said before, few things would make me more happy that to want to rejoin NFU or be happy to pay AHDB more levy etc. Both need pretty radical change before thats the case however

If it wasn't for idiots like me challenging would anything ever change ?

I think we forget one very important point. Any body (any type of organisational entity) will as soon as it is formally constituted be committed firstly and above all else to its own survival. This will not be explicitly stated, but will be implicit in its conduct, it is the flaw in all similar types of bodies. Evolve or die.

When the organisation in question is caught on the horns of a dilemma, and here we could summarise the options as "defiant opposition to external changes in assurance schemes' which carries the risk of being made irrelevant (by bypassing the body if it acts in total defiance) by those seeking to impose the changes and thus threatening the existence of the body itself, or the position 'to mediate between the oppositional forces of the members interests and the outside bodies trying to increase the assurance burden on the industry', it will always take the latter position as it will always have more influence within its own members than it will with those outside. This is, as it were an iron law that will always be de facto in place until the membership is put in to a position where it simply no longer can or will go along with the changes being demanded on it. Thus we reach an impasse, and perhaps that is now where we are. There are three options for the organisation now caught in this predicament, firstly a complete 180 by the office holders to come back to the members position, secondly to ignore the members and insist that the way forward is clear with the benefits of the increasing assurance burden, or thirdly, you've guessed it, fool the members by promising 'a full review' of assurance standards promising to be 'transparent' and 'thorough' etc. The third enhances the bodies power by being seen as the key interlocutor between the two oppositional forces by in reality is more like the gift of a Trojan horse.

Interesting times.

 

[Case290]

Do trades unions accept money from employers? I don’t think they do because money buys influence. I don’t see why the NFU would want to accept money from higher up the food chain if it purely represents farmers.
The suspicion is that the NFU has not been adequately representing farmers for some time. Sometimes it’s glaringly obvious, such as when the president makes a thing of the importance of UK farmers supplying customers with very affordable, low-cost food. Why would I want to supply food at very low cost? I’d rather operate like the supermarkets do and charge the maximum I can get away with in order to make the maximum profit.
Bet you don’t get real union leaders going into pay negotiations saying they want to keep workers wages low so customers aren’t inconvenienced with higher prices!

Na! Keep it simple; a FARMERS union consisting of FARMERS and aiming to benefit FARMERS.

Hard Reset Now.
If they do that, I’ll re- join.

Exactly they don’t support farmers havnt for yrs . On many issues I’ve asked myself y havnt the Nfu done something about that.
they should be on the front pages supporting us . Shouting from the roof tops about these bloody imports / getting the environment agency to clean the water ways .stopping natural England putting everything in sssi and telling farmers what there stocking rates or cropping should be . And be Getting the best price for there members so they actually have a wage to live off.

 

[tullah]

I think we forget one very important point. Any body (any type of organisational entity) will as soon as it is formally constituted be committed firstly and above all else to its own survival. This will not be explicitly stated, but will be implicit in its conduct, it is the flaw in all similar types of bodies. Evolve or die.

When the organisation in question is caught on the horns of a dilemma, and here we could summarise the options as "defiant opposition to external changes in assurance schemes' which carries the risk of being made irrelevant (by bypassing the body if it acts in total defiance) by those seeking to impose the changes and thus threatening the existence of the body itself, or the position 'to mediate between the oppositional forces of the members interests and the outside bodies trying to increase the assurance burden on the industry', it will always take the latter position as it will always have more influence within its own members than it will with those outside. This is, as it were an iron law that will always be de facto in place until the membership is put in to a position where it simply no longer can or will go along with the changes being demanded on it. Thus we reach an impasse, and perhaps that is now where we are. There are three options for the organisation now caught in this predicament, firstly a complete 180 by the office holders to come back to the members position, secondly to ignore the members and insist that the way forward is clear with the benefits of the increasing assurance burden, or thirdly, you've guessed it, fool the members by promising 'a full review' of assurance standards promising to be 'transparent' and 'thorough' etc. The third enhances the bodies power by being seen as the key interlocutor between the two oppositional forces by in reality is more like the gift of a Trojan horse.

Interesting times.

Sums it up perfectly.

 

[Clive]

I think we forget one very important point. Any body (any type of organisational entity) will as soon as it is formally constituted be committed firstly and above all else to its own survival. This will not be explicitly stated, but will be implicit in its conduct, it is the flaw in all similar types of bodies. Evolve or die.

When the organisation in question is caught on the horns of a dilemma, and here we could summarise the options as "defiant opposition to external changes in assurance schemes' which carries the risk of being made irrelevant (by bypassing the body if it acts in total defiance) by those seeking to impose the changes and thus threatening the existence of the body itself, or the position 'to mediate between the oppositional forces of the members interests and the outside bodies trying to increase the assurance burden on the industry', it will always take the latter position as it will always have more influence within its own members than it will with those outside. This is, as it were an iron law that will always be de facto in place until the membership is put in to a position where it simply no longer can or will go along with the changes being demanded on it. Thus we reach an impasse, and perhaps that is now where we are. There are three options for the organisation now caught in this predicament, firstly a complete 180 by the office holders to come back to the members position, secondly to ignore the members and insist that the way forward is clear with the benefits of the increasing assurance burden, or thirdly, you've guessed it, fool the members by promising 'a full review' of assurance standards promising to be 'transparent' and 'thorough' etc. The third enhances the bodies power by being seen as the key interlocutor between the two oppositional forces by in reality is more like the gift of a Trojan horse.

Interesting times.

100% and they will probably get away with it again

 

[ski]

100% and they will probably get away with it again

So what potential and theoretical options do we have to 'break' the status quo, (the what could we do?), and then what would we prepared to do. I don't favour big leaps, I favour small or tiny steps that can build over time.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

So what potential and theoretical options do we have to 'break' the status quo, (the what could we do?), and then what would we prepared to do. I don't favour big leaps, I favour small or tiny steps that can build over time.

I know what you mean, but the small steps that RT has made over the past 20 years have all been in one direction; more and more gilding of the lily; more and more burden and expense forced onto producers.
It feels like this time is different though; they have massively overstepped and have overshown their hand so we can all se what’s in store for us in a year or threes time.
The level of discontent at RT is massive; rather than individual farmers having a moan at the new regs that have come in in the past year in the run up to their inspection we are all annoyed at once.

It feels like we producers currently have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dictate terms to RT. They will clearly want the status quo plus lots more. Maybe it’s time to try for a big step?