Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
trashbat said:
mean there's no genuine and principled interest, from those proposing this bill, in improving the democratic qualities of union ballots. If there was they would presumably be happy to apply it to the process of their own election.
Who are these stakeholders you're describing? Who's forced to go on strike without first being offered a vote? Or do you mean people subject to strike action, e.g. tube passengers, because that's something else?
That's exactly what I mean- could be passengers, could be management, could be shareholders. It's unreasonable IMHO to be held to ransom by a minority and would say in light of some of the other comments above that strike action is qualitatively different to a normal democratic process where all those (ignore prisoners) who are affected by the outcome have the opportunity to participate Who are these stakeholders you're describing? Who's forced to go on strike without first being offered a vote? Or do you mean people subject to strike action, e.g. tube passengers, because that's something else?
basherX said:
That's exactly what I mean- could be passengers, could be management, could be shareholders. It's unreasonable IMHO to be held to ransom by a minority and would say in light of some of the other comments above that strike action is qualitatively different to a normal democratic process where all those (ignore prisoners) who are affected by the outcome have the opportunity to participate
This immediately becomes a different argument about the ability to unilaterally withhold labour, especially in public services, but if that's up for debate then it should be openly debated as such.As it is, this is trying to circumvent that debate and limit strike action by attacking the internal mandate.
What you describe is also not true - is this country's process for going to war democratic, for example? What about selection of the prime minister? Witney might have voted for him but I didn't, couldn't and yet he's still my PM. You're subject to lots of things you have no meaningful direct vote over, other than to throw out whole pieces of the system many levels up. Ultimately you could throw out recognition of trade unions in the same way.
trashbat said:
basherX said:
That's exactly what I mean- could be passengers, could be management, could be shareholders. It's unreasonable IMHO to be held to ransom by a minority and would say in light of some of the other comments above that strike action is qualitatively different to a normal democratic process where all those (ignore prisoners) who are affected by the outcome have the opportunity to participate
This immediately becomes a different argument about the ability to unilaterally withhold labour, especially in public services, but if that's up for debate then it should be openly debated as such.As it is, this is trying to circumvent that debate and limit strike action by attacking the internal mandate.
What you describe is also not true - is this country's process for going to war democratic, for example? What about selection of the prime minister? Witney might have voted for him but I didn't, couldn't and yet he's still my PM. You're subject to lots of things you have no meaningful direct vote over, other than to throw out whole pieces of the system many levels up. Ultimately you could throw out recognition of trade unions in the same way.
trashbat said:
Well, at least you don't pretend it's democracy.
Nor did the Union muppets outside the Home Office and the Department for Education pretend that their action (inaction) was actually to do with their terms and conditions with the leaflets they handed out talking about removing the Tory led Coalition. For 2014, that was so 70s. 
trashbat said:
Asterix said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2...
What am I missing here? Why do the Unions even have a leg to stand on?
Surely 51% would be required . 40% sounds like a complete sham!
Unless I have it wrong, you seem to be missing that they want to do it on eligible voters, not those who actually vote.What am I missing here? Why do the Unions even have a leg to stand on?
Surely 51% would be required . 40% sounds like a complete sham!
By this metric, all the police commissioners (~15%) will have to go, along with the all the British MEPs (34% avg), but not the foreign ones (43% avg). So will Boris Johnson as Mayor of London (38% turnout).
Edited by trashbat on Saturday 10th January 13:25
Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
johnfm said:
trashbat said:
Asterix said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2...
What am I missing here? Why do the Unions even have a leg to stand on?
Surely 51% would be required . 40% sounds like a complete sham!
Unless I have it wrong, you seem to be missing that they want to do it on eligible voters, not those who actually vote.What am I missing here? Why do the Unions even have a leg to stand on?
Surely 51% would be required . 40% sounds like a complete sham!
By this metric, all the police commissioners (~15%) will have to go, along with the all the British MEPs (34% avg), but not the foreign ones (43% avg). So will Boris Johnson as Mayor of London (38% turnout).
Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
johnfm said:
This 'metric used for electing representatives' isn't the issue. The issue is whether a union should be entitled to call for a strike when a small proportion of their members vote.
Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
If only the ones who voted to strike, did actually strike, with no coercion for the remaining, I don't think anyone would have a problem.Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
But it isn't like that.
and personally, I would be all in favour of LTD Company Board level remuneration decided by 90% of the shareholders..
johnfm said:
This 'metric used for electing representatives' isn't the issue. The issue is whether a union should be entitled to call for a strike when a small proportion of their members vote.
Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
Such low turnout is not ideal, I admit, but the non-voting members paid their subs, normally by choice, and thus either passively or actively elected representatives. As long as they were balloted appropriately - and the Electoral Commission or whatever it is now oversees that - I don't see an enormous problem.Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
Personally, I'm in a union, will almost certainly never be balloted for strike, but have never bothered to vote in its elections either. It's not really why I pay my subs. However you can't use me to try and devalue the mandate of its leadership, as I'm happy to simply delegate said vote and be represented by whoever the voters choose.
XJ Flyer said:
If you are going to use the issue of alleged intimidation as an excuse then that would obviously be a Trojan horse to eventually declare all Union action as illegal anyway regardless of the ballot format.Great yet further weakened unions and resulting further downward pressure on wages and making less people do more work is just what the economy needs right now.
There's no "alleged" about it, I've seen and heard it first-hand from a dockside environment decades ago to professional environments in the recent past.Beyond that, you must be a hermit not to have read other widely publicised examples.
People can achieve a higher income without Union involvement...work smart and hard and get a raise for adding value rather than occupying space, get promotion, get more skills that employers are looking for and land a better-paid job, start a business and make a go of it.
Expecting HMG or TUC either to hand you more on a plate or bully others into giving you more is pathetic and counter-productive on a wider basis.
You'll be asking for beer and sandwiches in the garden of Number 10 next
turbobloke said:
People can achieve a higher income without Union involvement...work smart and hard and get a raise for adding value rather than occupying space, get promotion, get more skills that employers are looking for and land a better-paid job, start a business and make a go of it.
Your rabid delegation to the free market is charming, or something, but down in blue and even white collar reality, collective bargaining does plenty for the average worker.At everyone's favourite defence manufacturer, for example, it means that all non-exec pay bands are now published internally, so come the annual pay review when your boss says, 'you're working smart and hard and get a X% raise for adding value!', you can say, 'clearly everyone is getting an X% raise this year, you fat liar, so give me some actual increase for the outstanding contribution you say I've made'.
Sacrilege, I know. Better to just shut up and put your faith in capitalism.
IMO the best way to raise votes would be to have a default vote but this could leave things open for abuse. If the default option was no or yes for strike a load of votes could suddenly go missing.
I think a lot of peopel dont vote because they think others will come to the right decision for them.
I think a lot of peopel dont vote because they think others will come to the right decision for them.
trashbat said:
turbobloke said:
People can achieve a higher income without Union involvement...work smart and hard and get a raise for adding value rather than occupying space, get promotion, get more skills that employers are looking for and land a better-paid job, start a business and make a go of it.
Your rabid delegation to the free market...
trashbat said:
At everyone's favourite defence manufacturer, for example, it means that all non-exec pay bands are now published internally, so come the annual pay review when your boss says, 'you're working smart and hard and get a X% raise for adding value!', you can say, 'clearly everyone is getting an X% raise this year, you fat liar, so give me some actual increase for the outstanding contribution you say I've made'.
Taking your example at face value, which is probably unwise but not for reasons that question your accuracy or motive, that doesn't even rule out the raise option as it was achieved and there are of course the promotion / better job / paddling own canoe options.trashbat said:
Sacrilege, I know. Better to just shut up and put your faith in capitalism.
Tsk, such sarcasm and cynicism! Almost unionesque.Better to have no faith in the government, and no faith in unions, nor in any political system, but to do what's possible to better yourself financially - if indeed that represents one of a person's key goals in life - and to gain a state of mind where satisfaction with hard-won, realistic outcomes overcomes both envy and dependent lethargy.
NicD said:
johnfm said:
This 'metric used for electing representatives' isn't the issue. The issue is whether a union should be entitled to call for a strike when a small proportion of their members vote.
Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
If only the ones who voted to strike, did actually strike, with no coercion for the remaining, I don't think anyone would have a problem.Why do you think it is acceptable for bus drivers to strike when only 16% of those entitled to vote could be bothered?
But it isn't like that.
Maybe anyone on a picket line, is it 6 people max now ?, intimidating someone ie calling them scabs etc (which i don't get the mentality of
) should be disciplined or sacked Anyone should have the same feedom to attend work as normal unintimdated on a 'strike' day as much as someone has a right to strike
.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff