Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
crankedup said:
Both democratic oganisations that REPRESENT those that elected them. Unions for workers and Government for general public. Remind me how many in terms of % of the population turned out to vote for the Tories?
With a strike, you are changing the status quo, which at the time of the ballot is everybody working. This state will continue until somebody interferes. If a union ballots its members as to whether they wish to strike, the result may come back something like this:
Yes - 25%
No - 20%
Did not vote - 55%
The yes voters have won the ballot, but the fact remains that 75% have not expressed their wish to strike.
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved and all those MPs have to stand for re-election if they wish to retain their seat. Most constituencies will have a choice of approximately four or five candidates, so what if one candidate gets 40% of the vote and three others get 20% each? Imagine 50% couldn't be arsed, so that now becomes 20% to the winner, 10% each to the remaining three and 50% to the couldn't give a f**k party. The one with 40% is returned as MP, 80& did not vote for him. Who do you think should be returned then?
Those MPs then go and sit in a big room, where each party is represented by the number of MPs returned. In the last election, the Conservatives account for more than 50%, therefore they have the largest share and get to govern.
The fact remains that more people went into the polling booth and made a mark with their stubby pencil against the Conservative candidate than any other individual party, so on this basis, who do you think should be in power?
Ganglandboss said:
crankedup said:
Both democratic oganisations that REPRESENT those that elected them. Unions for workers and Government for general public. Remind me how many in terms of % of the population turned out to vote for the Tories?
With a strike, you are changing the status quo, which at the time of the ballot is everybody working. This state will continue until somebody interferes. If a union ballots its members as to whether they wish to strike, the result may come back something like this:
Yes - 25%
No - 20%
Did not vote - 55%
The yes voters have won the ballot, but the fact remains that 75% have not expressed their wish to strike.
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved and all those MPs have to stand for re-election if they wish to retain their seat. Most constituencies will have a choice of approximately four or five candidates, so what if one candidate gets 40% of the vote and three others get 20% each? Imagine 50% couldn't be arsed, so that now becomes 20% to the winner, 10% each to the remaining three and 50% to the couldn't give a f**k party. The one with 40% is returned as MP, 80& did not vote for him. Who do you think should be returned then?
Those MPs then go and sit in a big room, where each party is represented by the number of MPs returned. In the last election, the Conservatives account for more than 50%, therefore they have the largest share and get to govern.
The fact remains that more people went into the polling booth and made a mark with their stubby pencil against the Conservative candidate than any other individual party, so on this basis, who do you think should be in power?
To answer your question, I think the Tories won the G.E. fair and square. But I would rather have seen a continuing coalition with the Lib-Dems, hey ho, thats life.
crankedup said:
Ganglandboss said:
crankedup said:
Both democratic oganisations that REPRESENT those that elected them. Unions for workers and Government for general public. Remind me how many in terms of % of the population turned out to vote for the Tories?
With a strike, you are changing the status quo, which at the time of the ballot is everybody working. This state will continue until somebody interferes. If a union ballots its members as to whether they wish to strike, the result may come back something like this:
Yes - 25%
No - 20%
Did not vote - 55%
The yes voters have won the ballot, but the fact remains that 75% have not expressed their wish to strike.
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved and all those MPs have to stand for re-election if they wish to retain their seat. Most constituencies will have a choice of approximately four or five candidates, so what if one candidate gets 40% of the vote and three others get 20% each? Imagine 50% couldn't be arsed, so that now becomes 20% to the winner, 10% each to the remaining three and 50% to the couldn't give a f**k party. The one with 40% is returned as MP, 80& did not vote for him. Who do you think should be returned then?
Those MPs then go and sit in a big room, where each party is represented by the number of MPs returned. In the last election, the Conservatives account for more than 50%, therefore they have the largest share and get to govern.
The fact remains that more people went into the polling booth and made a mark with their stubby pencil against the Conservative candidate than any other individual party, so on this basis, who do you think should be in power?
To answer your question, I think the Tories won the G.E. fair and square. But I would rather have seen a continuing coalition with the Lib-Dems, hey ho, thats life.
London424 said:
crankedup said:
London424 said:
crankedup said:
arp1 said:
We need to remember that in this case it is not public vs private sector (which I have been sucked into debating) but the vile attempts at the government foisting upon the trade unions such conditions. I really do hope that if they do come into force that it will lead to less apathy within the unions and get members to start attending meetings again and actually voting. It's not difficult.
Agreed, the Tories simply cannot help themselves but make every effort to bang the last nail into the Unions coffin, it's their default policy. 'All in it together' never sounded so hollow.Ganglandboss said:
crankedup said:
Ganglandboss said:
crankedup said:
Both democratic oganisations that REPRESENT those that elected them. Unions for workers and Government for general public. Remind me how many in terms of % of the population turned out to vote for the Tories?
With a strike, you are changing the status quo, which at the time of the ballot is everybody working. This state will continue until somebody interferes. If a union ballots its members as to whether they wish to strike, the result may come back something like this:
Yes - 25%
No - 20%
Did not vote - 55%
The yes voters have won the ballot, but the fact remains that 75% have not expressed their wish to strike.
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved and all those MPs have to stand for re-election if they wish to retain their seat. Most constituencies will have a choice of approximately four or five candidates, so what if one candidate gets 40% of the vote and three others get 20% each? Imagine 50% couldn't be arsed, so that now becomes 20% to the winner, 10% each to the remaining three and 50% to the couldn't give a f**k party. The one with 40% is returned as MP, 80& did not vote for him. Who do you think should be returned then?
Those MPs then go and sit in a big room, where each party is represented by the number of MPs returned. In the last election, the Conservatives account for more than 50%, therefore they have the largest share and get to govern.
The fact remains that more people went into the polling booth and made a mark with their stubby pencil against the Conservative candidate than any other individual party, so on this basis, who do you think should be in power?
To answer your question, I think the Tories won the G.E. fair and square. But I would rather have seen a continuing coalition with the Lib-Dems, hey ho, thats life.
UI agree the G.E. and a strike ballot are not the same thing and perhaps that was a bad example I used. But the fundamentals are the same.
Ganglandboss said:
With a strike, you are changing the status quo, which at the time of the ballot is everybody working. This state will continue until somebody interferes. If a union ballots its members as to whether they wish to strike, the result may come back something like this:
<snip>
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved
<snip>
Most of your post actually gives weight to the similarities, but I guess you don't see it that way. The point can be argued, but if a multiple choice election won't do it for you, then for the sake of simplicity, consider passing a Bill in the House or the EU Parliament. Or the Scottish independence vote. Or the upcoming EU referendum. All are yes/no decisions with a maintainable status quo, some via representative, some direct. Our democracy is built around them, and it's apparently good enough most of the time.<snip>
With an election, there is an act of parliament that says there must be a general election every five years. Before the election, parliament is dissolved
<snip>
Of course, all the unions really ought to do is put a third option on the ballot - 'wibble' - and then it'll be one step closer to the GE
crankedup said:
So the Government will not recognise abstentions, yet that is perfectly acceptable in every other situation that requires a democratic vote to pass a judgement. If its good enough in the Boardroom it should be good enough on the shop floor, sounds reasonable and balanced to me.
I'm simply amazed that workers are so uninterested in their own pay and conditions that they cant be bothered to not vote in such large numbers.If a large percentage of a workforce simply dont care enough to make a simple yes or no decision then it seems perfectly reasonable that they should be prevented from taking strike action.
Hackney 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.
Oh poor you!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.
iphonedyou said:
Hackney said:
Oh poor you!
Given the context in which the sentence you quoted was placed, your comment is completely unnecessary and, frankly, makes you look a dick. I appreciate it's a look you're working hard on to refine, so thought I'd let you know your effort hasn't gone to waste.I bet you've been working on that insult for weeks haven't you. Well done. Very well done.
Hackney said:
Hackney 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.
Oh poor you!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.
iphonedyou said:
Hackney said:
Oh poor you!
Given the context in which the sentence you quoted was placed, your comment is completely unnecessary and, frankly, makes you look a dick. I appreciate it's a look you're working hard on to refine, so thought I'd let you know your effort hasn't gone to waste.I bet you've been working on that insult for weeks haven't you. Well done. Very well done.
Or hows about a little lump on my shoulder called nodular fasciitis, that I can't get sorted fast enough on NHS and Im now needing to pay for (its generally cosmetic) just in case it turns out to worse than it is.
Both are not exactly botox are they?
arp1 said:
Well good for you getting some sort of private health care. Me, in the public sector, doesn't!
Im not you idiot... Im pretty certain Private health care is obtainable as my mother gets it (not a high paid ex). I have to pay to get it sorted as its not deemed a health risk on NHS despite constant pain.... Private doesnt cover it as its cosmetic and not life threatening (yet), So I have to pay, yet some $%^£ from Leeds can get a boob job as its wrecking her confidence for free.... hmmm
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff