Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
cb31 said:
superlightr said:
Cleaners £8,067 (+1.9%)
Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
Some of these are laughable going off my personal experiences, I'm guessing the cash in hand element doesn't quite make it into the figures Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
I've lost count of the number of black cabs parked outside million pound houses/flats in London, I guess all of their wives earn a lot of money.
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 20th May 13:50
arp1 said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
And what, pray tell, is your salary?
I dont have a salary as such as Im self employed, employ 5 people all on about £20k a year with the min pension of 1 or 1.5% due to come in soon. If its a good year I get paid more if its a bad year I get paid less. Generally I draw out about £70k my business partner the same.I make what I earn. no sick benefit, no employers contribution to pension, risk everything if I screw up, cant strike, no holiday pay and have the weight of 5 others on my shoulders to ensure the business does well. When I started I had to buy into the buisness and had a huge loan and grew the business. I lost my job being a solicitor as the firm closed and went self employed as a letting agent. Enjoy the work and the other benefits of being the boss.
Hence why I dont agree with Unions and strikes.
He unlike you is a business owner, who has to take a lot of risk and does not get the benefits you get.
For just a start as mentioned:
No sick pay
No holiday pay
No 15% employers contribution to pensions
several people rely on him for their salary.
Presume a hefty insurance bill for 2 main business insurance.
No job security, if he f
ks up, that is several people out of a job, it doesnt simple get brushed under the carpet like a public sector mistake.Instead of the attitude of 'Shock horror! So you earn more than double than I do...' Why don't you get off your ass, leave the public sector and try and run a business and do it successfully?
Then you can't whine about pay as the money you decide to pay yourself is based on how well you do, not the hours/years worked.
maybe he enjoys his job and doesn't want to run a business. By the same token why don't all of the people moaning about lazy public sector holding us to ransom go and join the public sector, have a thoroughly relaxing time with zero stress and retire at 35 on a 105% final salary pension?
wolves_wanderer said:
maybe he enjoys his job and doesn't want to run a business. By the same token why don't all of the people moaning about lazy public sector holding us to ransom go and join the public sector, have a thoroughly relaxing time with zero stress and retire at 35 on a 105% final salary pension?
I said I would happily join if the public sector has a financial sector that needed senior analyst developers/specialists, but they don't, so I can't, In addition Im not going to take a backwards step in technology/skills to have the relaxing job as it would not challenge me.Some people like a non challenging job so they can just put their feet up 9-5, I actually like a challenge, I still do a 9-5, but it tests me to my limits, then beyond and in the 14 years I have been doing the job, no 2 days are ever the same which keeps me on my toes mentally.
Hackney said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
Can you also tell me how a union protecting public employees rights is a bad thing given that the person in the private sector has none of those rights and is lower paid?
When is being lower paid a good thing?
and 98Elise are you some sort of comedy super-capitalist Thatcher / B'stard wet dream?
Can you tell me exactly how a nurse, a teacher, a fireman is extorting money from you, with menaces?
Doesn't everyone's gain come at someone else's expense? Isn't that capitalism?
It's paying for goods and services.
Personally I did my public sector work in the forces, that's low paid without unions or the right to strike. I chose that career so it didn't even cross my mind that I should moan about the pay.
When money became important to me I left the forces and a new career (not much need for Weapons Engineers outside of the forces). Later when saw that other careers paid even better I changed again.
When I want or need more money I either work longer or harder. That means I've had to learn 3 different trades from the ground up. That sometimes means long hours (60+ hour weeks) and sometimes far from home. I've spent the past 2 years working across the other side of the country living in a hotel 5 days a week.
Going on strike to get more money is simply holding you employer to ransom. Its easy in the public sector where the employer has the nations wallets to empty. That isn't right.
Du1point8 said:
wolves_wanderer said:
maybe he enjoys his job and doesn't want to run a business. By the same token why don't all of the people moaning about lazy public sector holding us to ransom go and join the public sector, have a thoroughly relaxing time with zero stress and retire at 35 on a 105% final salary pension?
I said I would happily join if the public sector has a financial sector that needed senior analyst developers/specialists, but they don't, so I can't, In addition Im not going to take a backwards step in technology/skills to have the relaxing job as it would not challenge me.Some people like a non challenging job so they can just put their feet up 9-5, I actually like a challenge, I still do a 9-5, but it tests me to my limits, then beyond and in the 14 years I have been doing the job, no 2 days are ever the same which keeps me on my toes mentally.
Hackney said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
Can you also tell me how a union protecting public employees rights is a bad thing given that the person in the private sector has none of those rights and is lower paid?
When is being lower paid a good thing?
and 98Elise are you some sort of comedy super-capitalist Thatcher / B'stard wet dream?
Can you tell me exactly how a nurse, a teacher, a fireman is extorting money from you, with menaces?
Doesn't everyone's gain come at someone else's expense? Isn't that capitalism?
It's paying for goods and services.
wolves_wanderer said:
Du1point8 said:
wolves_wanderer said:
maybe he enjoys his job and doesn't want to run a business. By the same token why don't all of the people moaning about lazy public sector holding us to ransom go and join the public sector, have a thoroughly relaxing time with zero stress and retire at 35 on a 105% final salary pension?
I said I would happily join if the public sector has a financial sector that needed senior analyst developers/specialists, but they don't, so I can't, In addition Im not going to take a backwards step in technology/skills to have the relaxing job as it would not challenge me.Some people like a non challenging job so they can just put their feet up 9-5, I actually like a challenge, I still do a 9-5, but it tests me to my limits, then beyond and in the 14 years I have been doing the job, no 2 days are ever the same which keeps me on my toes mentally.
Gecko1978 said:
Hackney said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
Can you also tell me how a union protecting public employees rights is a bad thing given that the person in the private sector has none of those rights and is lower paid?
When is being lower paid a good thing?
and 98Elise are you some sort of comedy super-capitalist Thatcher / B'stard wet dream?
Can you tell me exactly how a nurse, a teacher, a fireman is extorting money from you, with menaces?
Doesn't everyone's gain come at someone else's expense? Isn't that capitalism?
It's paying for goods and services.
arp1 said:
Gecko1978 said:
Hackney said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
Can you also tell me how a union protecting public employees rights is a bad thing given that the person in the private sector has none of those rights and is lower paid?
When is being lower paid a good thing?
and 98Elise are you some sort of comedy super-capitalist Thatcher / B'stard wet dream?
Can you tell me exactly how a nurse, a teacher, a fireman is extorting money from you, with menaces?
Doesn't everyone's gain come at someone else's expense? Isn't that capitalism?
It's paying for goods and services.
My pension is not one.
Pay rises only occur when I prove to be excellent at my job, we don't get a pay rise if you just turn up and do your job, its about moving up the career ladder.
I only get 22 days holiday a year.
I do get private health care, but this doesnt include a vast amount that is classed as cosmetic.
I have never needed to use sick pay as Im rarely ever off ill.
Bonus is a discretionary and not a great amount, but its linked to goals I have to achieve, don't get the goal through no fault of my own, then I don't get the bonus.
arp1 said:
I too have worked in private sector and had reward based bonuses, half the time unachievable and when it was, the goal posts moved to make it more difficult to achieve. Hence why I sought out more of a career rather than a job.
Are you trying to say that someone can't have a career in the private sector and thats why you moved to public?Why do you only class it as a job in the private sector?
Du1point8 said:
crankedup said:
randlemarcus said:
crankedup said:
The politics of envy again seem to be shining bright, we all make our choices in life. Public sector are generally dead end jobs whilst the private sector offer greater opportunity. Heads or tails!
Eh? Public sector jobs are generally dead end? Absolutely disagree. There are some professions that tend not to be great public sector careers, such as IT or finance, but in general, Public Sector management careers are shining lights, as opposed to private sector management. Clear, defined structure, ability to skip sideways, lovely.The crappy jobs have mostly been outsourced now anyway, so your binman, dinnerlady and road mender are all poddling along with crappy pay and now, new, improved crappy private pension.
Just seems like these people are envious and angry!
When I go to my local public sector offices, I don't need the waiting room to have £1000 chairs in there, I don't need a £20k painting on the wall... I just want a service that works. I don't want to read that public sector people are doing 'knowledge accusation trips' in business/first class and is a thinly veiled holiday, when the private sector mostly stopped that years ago (CIO in my company flies Economy) and we do it for business (hotel room and office is all we see) so why are we funding that?
The private sector can have nice waiting rooms as they are paid by company profit, however why should the public sector waste my money on making a waiting room look pretty, funky wasteful trips that serve no purpose, rather than use the money on the service they should be providing.
I am not a supporter of the public sector strikes in recent years, but I do not oppose the concept of trade unions - quite the opposite in fact. They do have their flaws though, and the main ones IMO are:
1. The view of the union is often not the same as that of the members
2. Apathy amongst members
3. Strike action by public sector unions often hurts the public as much, or more, than the employer
When I worked at the university, almost everybody was a union member. In a large organisation where several staff do the same job, you could never realistically agree terms with individuals, so a single pay spine is created and the unions act as spokesman for everybody. I cannot see any reasonable alternative.
I became a safety rep when my predecessor resigned. Our management called a meeting to explain the new lone worker policy; when they announced it had been agreed at the safety committee, the rep strongly objected to this and resigned from the committee. I stepped in because a) nobody else would do it and b) I had some serious concerns about some extremely unsafe working practices in one of my buildings.
At the time, I was a member of AEEU; our members comprised most of our department and a handful of technicians in the civil engineering lab. The only reps were the convener, a shop steward and me. MSF had several members and had a full branch structure. They had several reps, most of whom probably spent more time on union duties, which seemed to take place in the Students' Union bar. Most of them could start an argument in an empty house. The two unions merged to become Amicus. Our shop steward had to have a pretty serious operation, so I was pushed into his position until he returned from the Pat and Mick.
1. Often I would have to sit in meetings with my former MSF colleagues, and I often wondered what the fk they were arguing for. They made a big deal about opposing the introduction of ID cards on safety grounds (???) and against making all buildings non-smoking, with the exception of the SU bar, on the grounds of causing stress to smokers (fk the 80% of members who were sick of breathing other people's smoke in the workplace). I have always held the belief that when electing a rep, you want that person to represent the diligent workers; the last thing you want is the management thinking the lazy, belligerent tosser across the table is an example of a typical employee.
2. During the AGM, one of the items on the agenda is re-election of reps. Usually the reps have to sit and listen to members slag them off. When they are invited to stand, they all go quiet. I would often try to gauge opinion from members, but none wanted to know. The only reason they went to meetings was because it got them out of work for a couple of hours.
A mate of mine is a production manager at a large food manufacturer. Recently the unions have been threatening strike action. The workforce voted in favour and the strike went ahead. He told me a lot of the staff didn't have a clue what it was about - they just did as they were told. When they found out the actual reason, most turned on the union.
3. I have never had to strike. In my time there, the only time it happened was when I was an apprentice. The union reps told apprentices not to strike. As there would be nobody there to supervise us, we were told to take our NVQ logbooks home and work on them. I have no idea what that strike was about.
I have voted in favour of a strike once; this was due to a merger with another institute. We were far better paid than them, but also took on a role requiring more skills. The management wanted everybody on the same pay, but didn't want to bring them up to our level. This matter has not been resolved properly - the pay cut did happen, but they have appeased the staff that chose not to fk off by giving them supervisors' roles (but on the same money).
A while back, I had to go there to visit a client, who was a tenant in a university owned building. At the time, they were protesting about the public sector pay freeze and I had to cross their picket line. On the way back, they had all gone home. As I walked past what was my old workshop, I saw one of my old workmates, who invited me in for a brew. I asked why they weren't on strike and he told me it was the 'admin wkers'. Unison asked them to join them, but they fked them off as they didn't support us. He said they all knew the pay freeze was necessary and the whole thing was ridiculous and would have made them look like whinge-bags.
One of the things that pisses me off is when there is a teachers' strike, even though I don't have kids. I will defend anybody's right to strike, but my problem is they don't seem to try taking action short of a strike first. We are told all the time that they work all the hours God sends, devoting time at evenings and weekends to marking and preparing lesson plans. If this is the case, why don't they stop doing it? They can tell the DfE or whoever that they are only working their contracted hours, and to do this, they do not even have to go to ballot or give any sort of notice. If what they say is correct, doing this would really cause a stir. Instead, it seems they go straight for strike action, and instead of gaining the support of the public for what could be a reasonable grievance, they just piss everybody off.
I do not see a thing wrong with the government's current plans; they are not removing the right to strike - they are just ensuring that when they do, they actually have the backing of the majority of the workforce.
1. The view of the union is often not the same as that of the members
2. Apathy amongst members
3. Strike action by public sector unions often hurts the public as much, or more, than the employer
When I worked at the university, almost everybody was a union member. In a large organisation where several staff do the same job, you could never realistically agree terms with individuals, so a single pay spine is created and the unions act as spokesman for everybody. I cannot see any reasonable alternative.
I became a safety rep when my predecessor resigned. Our management called a meeting to explain the new lone worker policy; when they announced it had been agreed at the safety committee, the rep strongly objected to this and resigned from the committee. I stepped in because a) nobody else would do it and b) I had some serious concerns about some extremely unsafe working practices in one of my buildings.
At the time, I was a member of AEEU; our members comprised most of our department and a handful of technicians in the civil engineering lab. The only reps were the convener, a shop steward and me. MSF had several members and had a full branch structure. They had several reps, most of whom probably spent more time on union duties, which seemed to take place in the Students' Union bar. Most of them could start an argument in an empty house. The two unions merged to become Amicus. Our shop steward had to have a pretty serious operation, so I was pushed into his position until he returned from the Pat and Mick.
1. Often I would have to sit in meetings with my former MSF colleagues, and I often wondered what the f
k they were arguing for. They made a big deal about opposing the introduction of ID cards on safety grounds (???) and against making all buildings non-smoking, with the exception of the SU bar, on the grounds of causing stress to smokers (fk the 80% of members who were sick of breathing other people's smoke in the workplace). I have always held the belief that when electing a rep, you want that person to represent the diligent workers; the last thing you want is the management thinking the lazy, belligerent tosser across the table is an example of a typical employee.2. During the AGM, one of the items on the agenda is re-election of reps. Usually the reps have to sit and listen to members slag them off. When they are invited to stand, they all go quiet. I would often try to gauge opinion from members, but none wanted to know. The only reason they went to meetings was because it got them out of work for a couple of hours.
A mate of mine is a production manager at a large food manufacturer. Recently the unions have been threatening strike action. The workforce voted in favour and the strike went ahead. He told me a lot of the staff didn't have a clue what it was about - they just did as they were told. When they found out the actual reason, most turned on the union.
3. I have never had to strike. In my time there, the only time it happened was when I was an apprentice. The union reps told apprentices not to strike. As there would be nobody there to supervise us, we were told to take our NVQ logbooks home and work on them. I have no idea what that strike was about.
I have voted in favour of a strike once; this was due to a merger with another institute. We were far better paid than them, but also took on a role requiring more skills. The management wanted everybody on the same pay, but didn't want to bring them up to our level. This matter has not been resolved properly - the pay cut did happen, but they have appeased the staff that chose not to f
k off by giving them supervisors' roles (but on the same money).A while back, I had to go there to visit a client, who was a tenant in a university owned building. At the time, they were protesting about the public sector pay freeze and I had to cross their picket line. On the way back, they had all gone home. As I walked past what was my old workshop, I saw one of my old workmates, who invited me in for a brew. I asked why they weren't on strike and he told me it was the 'admin w
kers'. Unison asked them to join them, but they fked them off as they didn't support us. He said they all knew the pay freeze was necessary and the whole thing was ridiculous and would have made them look like whinge-bags.One of the things that pisses me off is when there is a teachers' strike, even though I don't have kids. I will defend anybody's right to strike, but my problem is they don't seem to try taking action short of a strike first. We are told all the time that they work all the hours God sends, devoting time at evenings and weekends to marking and preparing lesson plans. If this is the case, why don't they stop doing it? They can tell the DfE or whoever that they are only working their contracted hours, and to do this, they do not even have to go to ballot or give any sort of notice. If what they say is correct, doing this would really cause a stir. Instead, it seems they go straight for strike action, and instead of gaining the support of the public for what could be a reasonable grievance, they just piss everybody off.
I do not see a thing wrong with the government's current plans; they are not removing the right to strike - they are just ensuring that when they do, they actually have the backing of the majority of the workforce.
Du1point8 said:
arp1 said:
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
And what, pray tell, is your salary?
I dont have a salary as such as Im self employed, employ 5 people all on about £20k a year with the min pension of 1 or 1.5% due to come in soon. If its a good year I get paid more if its a bad year I get paid less. Generally I draw out about £70k my business partner the same.I make what I earn. no sick benefit, no employers contribution to pension, risk everything if I screw up, cant strike, no holiday pay and have the weight of 5 others on my shoulders to ensure the business does well. When I started I had to buy into the buisness and had a huge loan and grew the business. I lost my job being a solicitor as the firm closed and went self employed as a letting agent. Enjoy the work and the other benefits of being the boss.
Hence why I dont agree with Unions and strikes.
He unlike you is a business owner, who has to take a lot of risk and does not get the benefits you get.
For just a start as mentioned:
No sick pay
No holiday pay
No 15% employers contribution to pensions
several people rely on him for their salary.
Presume a hefty insurance bill for 2 main business insurance.
No job security, if he f
ks up, that is several people out of a job, it doesnt simple get brushed under the carpet like a public sector mistake.Instead of the attitude of 'Shock horror! So you earn more than double than I do...' Why don't you get off your ass, leave the public sector and try and run a business and do it successfully?
Then you can't whine about pay as the money you decide to pay yourself is based on how well you do, not the hours/years worked.
TankRizzo said:
arp1 said:
Shock horror! So you earn more than double than I do... I also had to work hard to get to where I am, however I, unlike you, find it beneficial to have someone at your back for legal protection at the very least (amongst other things). You say I am on an above average wage, so that must make you a high earner then. The rich telling the less rich what to do again, sigh.
Don't worry comrade, when the SNP gain independence after holding 23 referendums, there will be no rich people to tell you what to do.
Please god vote YES at the next one and make the whining stop.
Du1point8 said:
Im in Finance, what excellent perks do you talk of?
My pension is not one.
Pay rises only occur when I prove to be excellent at my job, we don't get a pay rise if you just turn up and do your job, its about moving up the career ladder.
I only get 22 days holiday a year.
I do get private health care, but this doesnt include a vast amount that is classed as cosmetic.
I have never needed to use sick pay as Im rarely ever off ill.
Bonus is a discretionary and not a great amount, but its linked to goals I have to achieve, don't get the goal through no fault of my own, then I don't get the bonus.
O/T I thought you were a contractor Pointers, did you go permie at some point?My pension is not one.
Pay rises only occur when I prove to be excellent at my job, we don't get a pay rise if you just turn up and do your job, its about moving up the career ladder.
I only get 22 days holiday a year.
I do get private health care, but this doesnt include a vast amount that is classed as cosmetic.
I have never needed to use sick pay as Im rarely ever off ill.
Bonus is a discretionary and not a great amount, but its linked to goals I have to achieve, don't get the goal through no fault of my own, then I don't get the bonus.
TankRizzo said:
Du1point8 said:
Im in Finance, what excellent perks do you talk of?
My pension is not one.
Pay rises only occur when I prove to be excellent at my job, we don't get a pay rise if you just turn up and do your job, its about moving up the career ladder.
I only get 22 days holiday a year.
I do get private health care, but this doesnt include a vast amount that is classed as cosmetic.
I have never needed to use sick pay as Im rarely ever off ill.
Bonus is a discretionary and not a great amount, but its linked to goals I have to achieve, don't get the goal through no fault of my own, then I don't get the bonus.
O/T I thought you were a contractor Pointers, did you go permie at some point?My pension is not one.
Pay rises only occur when I prove to be excellent at my job, we don't get a pay rise if you just turn up and do your job, its about moving up the career ladder.
I only get 22 days holiday a year.
I do get private health care, but this doesnt include a vast amount that is classed as cosmetic.
I have never needed to use sick pay as Im rarely ever off ill.
Bonus is a discretionary and not a great amount, but its linked to goals I have to achieve, don't get the goal through no fault of my own, then I don't get the bonus.
Plus I don't need the extra income from Contracting as I have a fully automated company I run in my spare time, that more than makes up the drop in wages from contracting, been going 18 months and is valued in mid 6 figures already.
arp1 said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Du1point8 said:
wolves_wanderer said:
maybe he enjoys his job and doesn't want to run a business. By the same token why don't all of the people moaning about lazy public sector holding us to ransom go and join the public sector, have a thoroughly relaxing time with zero stress and retire at 35 on a 105% final salary pension?
I said I would happily join if the public sector has a financial sector that needed senior analyst developers/specialists, but they don't, so I can't, In addition Im not going to take a backwards step in technology/skills to have the relaxing job as it would not challenge me.Some people like a non challenging job so they can just put their feet up 9-5, I actually like a challenge, I still do a 9-5, but it tests me to my limits, then beyond and in the 14 years I have been doing the job, no 2 days are ever the same which keeps me on my toes mentally.
Happy to be wrong on this, as I cant seem to find out, but I thought you had to physically go somewhere and vote for the RMT strikes. That being the case, realistically only the hardliners would bother on issues that many see as trivial.
The converse of your argument that " as far I am concerned people who aren't interested enough to vote in anything from ballots" (which is a pretty valid point I agree) is that it can be taken for granted that anyone who does not feel strongly enough about a subject to vote on it, does not feel strongly enough to want to strike over the issue. SO almost by default any non voters should count as "no" votes as in my opinion strike action that hurts millions should only happen when all else fails. If 69+% of people feel indifferent about something it seems absurd it should go ahead. In my opinion of course.
Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 20th May 16:00
blindswelledrat said:
I almost agree. I would agree if there was a way they could vote online, for example.
Happy to be wrong on this, as I cant seem to find out, but I thought you had to physically go somewhere and vote for the RMT strikes. That being the case, realistically only the hardliners would bother on issues that many see as trivial.
The converse of your argument that " as far I am concerned people who aren't interested enough to vote in anything from ballots" (which is a pretty valid point I agree) is that it can be taken for granted that anyone who does not feel strongly enough about a subject to vote on it, does not feel strongly enough to want to strike over the issue. SO almost by default any non voters should count as "no" votes as in my opinion strike action that hurts millions should only happen when all else fails. If 69+% of people feel indifferent about something it seems absurd it should go ahead. In my opinion of course.
That was my assumption but it turns out members get sent a ballot paper and a pre-paid envelop to return it.Happy to be wrong on this, as I cant seem to find out, but I thought you had to physically go somewhere and vote for the RMT strikes. That being the case, realistically only the hardliners would bother on issues that many see as trivial.
The converse of your argument that " as far I am concerned people who aren't interested enough to vote in anything from ballots" (which is a pretty valid point I agree) is that it can be taken for granted that anyone who does not feel strongly enough about a subject to vote on it, does not feel strongly enough to want to strike over the issue. SO almost by default any non voters should count as "no" votes as in my opinion strike action that hurts millions should only happen when all else fails. If 69+% of people feel indifferent about something it seems absurd it should go ahead. In my opinion of course.
Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 20th May 16:00
However it appears union members get a lot of junk mail so it "could" possibly get thrown out with that and thus they are unable to vote!!!!!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff