Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
turbobloke said:
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 realistic outcomes overcomes both envy and dependent lethargy.
A union in this example is not some complicated pyramidic politburo structure - just whatever number of fellow colleagues is legally necessary for collective bargaining.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 realistic outcomes overcomes both envy and dependent lethargy.
If you have no sight at all of the possibility of people forming mutually beneficial relationships with one another, in this case people working at the same level be able to negotiate something better together, I feel sorry for you. What's that if not loneliness?
Of course you may well be sufficiently privileged and independent to not personally and currently be able to avail of such a thing - in many ways, lucky you - but if you can't and won't even project yourself into that context, it seems to me to be a sad and cynical philosophy. Or the definition of a sociopath, of course, but that's surely unfair.
Amazing isn't it, they need a 50% turn out for the vote to be valid, and they only need 40% of that 50% to carry the motion. So, somebody correct my maths if it's wrong, they only need 20 out of 100 to win a vote. The dice are loaded so far in their favour it's unbelievable, and yet they're complaining!
Edited by Balmoral on Saturday 10th January 20:46
trashbat 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?
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.
Is this how it was in the bus driver strike? Or did just 16% turn up to vote? If the 84% that didn't vote selected the 16% to proxy vote on their behalf, that's fair enough - I didn't know it worked that way.
trashbat said:
re you sure? Most if not all individual MPs have to go too. For example, David Cameron got 59% of the votes in Witney, but the turnout was 73%, so by my calculation, at 43% he's for the chop under your rules.
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.princealbert23 said:
trashbat said:
re you sure? Most if not all individual MPs have to go too. For example, David Cameron got 59% of the votes in Witney, but the turnout was 73%, so by my calculation, at 43% he's for the chop under your rules.
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.johnfm said:
I see - so you think the ones that actually voted had earlier been selected by other members to block vote on their behalf? A bit like an MP voting in parliament on behalf of their constituents?
Is this how it was in the bus driver strike? Or did just 16% turn up to vote? If the 84% that didn't vote selected the 16% to proxy vote on their behalf, that's fair enough - I didn't know it worked that way.
I don't know - you'd have to survey non-voting, balloted RMT or whatever members to find out why. You'd also have to know what the actual strike participation was, which is not necessarily all members. But, ultimately, it could be anywhere between delegation as I describe, and the minority getting their say through disenfranchisement or disinterest of the majority. However even if it were the latter, there are other options, like only allowing voters to participate in industrial action, rather than imposing a minimum mandate.Is this how it was in the bus driver strike? Or did just 16% turn up to vote? If the 84% that didn't vote selected the 16% to proxy vote on their behalf, that's fair enough - I didn't know it worked that way.
princealbert23 said:
trashbat said:
re you sure? Most if not all individual MPs have to go too. For example, David Cameron got 59% of the votes in Witney, but the turnout was 73%, so by my calculation, at 43% he's for the chop under your rules.
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.princealbert23 said:
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.
There is that, except it's not binary, it's ternary: yes, no, or don't engage. So what about elections where the overall turnout is low? So as mentioned, the Police Commissioner (which everyone probably can agree on), the UK European Parliament, the London Mayorals, or even stuff like PLC AGMs or non-union societies? The choice at that level is also binary if you want to look it at it that way: engage or don't.Balmoral said:
Amazing isn't it, they need a 50% turn out for the vote to be valid, and they only need 40% of that 50% to carry the motion. So, somebody correct my maths if it's wrong, they only need 20 out of 100 to win a vote. The dice are loaded so far in their favour it's unbelievable, and yet they're complaining!
Isn't that the much trumpeted Solidarity?Edited by Balmoral on Saturday 10th January 20:46
Given that the public sector unions attempt to use withdrawal of labour to influence the policy of a democratically-elected government, it's a bit rich of them to complain anything is undemocratic.
I recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
I recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
Johnnytheboy said:
Given that the public sector unions attempt to use withdrawal of labour to influence the policy of a democratically-elected government, it's a bit rich of them to complain anything is undemocratic.
I recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
No noI recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
Surely you realise that it is not democratic if it does not give the results the TUC want
Ergo it is the same old "don't like it DO IT AGAIN, get it right" ploy
perdu said:
No no
Surely you realise that it is not democratic if it does not give the results the TUC want
Ergo it is the same old "don't like it DO IT AGAIN, get it right" ploy
You are a senior SNP politician, in high Scottish Governmental position and I hereby claim my 5 [English] pounds. Surely you realise that it is not democratic if it does not give the results the TUC want
Ergo it is the same old "don't like it DO IT AGAIN, get it right" ploy
Johnnytheboy said:
Given that the public sector unions attempt to use withdrawal of labour to influence the policy of a democratically-elected government, it's a bit rich of them to complain anything is undemocratic.
I recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
Porkies are par for the course in politics. TUC and militant public sector unions love to play politics, evidently there's no cure for Scargill Syndrome. I recall an interview with Frances O'Grady (TUC boss) a year or two ago in which she said that if unions didn't have any influence, the working classes wouldn't have any democratic voice. So I assume they don't get the vote at present?
The easiest answer is to clearly state before a ballot that all those in favour of a strike need to indicate such by voting accordingly, all those not in favour of a strike need do nothing and the absence of a vote will be taken as support for the status quo to continue, ie no strike. So anyone not voting will be counted as not in favour of a strike. Sounds fair to me.
colonel c said:
princealbert23 said:
trashbat said:
re you sure? Most if not all individual MPs have to go too. For example, David Cameron got 59% of the votes in Witney, but the turnout was 73%, so by my calculation, at 43% he's for the chop under your rules.
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.
). A strike vote is there to initiate action that would have otherwise not taken place, it is a proactive decision. If someones want to initiate an action that has a material impact on them, their colleagues and the public, a simple majority of votes should be required (let alone this 40% business). A GE vote is a choice that has to be made/abstained from as there is a legal requirement for a new choice to be selected or the existing choice affirmed. There is no requirement for a strike vote to be initiated ever x months, although you'd be forgiven for thinking there was Mario149 said:
colonel c said:
princealbert23 said:
trashbat said:
re you sure? Most if not all individual MPs have to go too. For example, David Cameron got 59% of the votes in Witney, but the turnout was 73%, so by my calculation, at 43% he's for the chop under your rules.
To strike or not is strictly binary. However, in elections there can be many candidates for the same seat. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like and your argument doesnt hold water.). A strike vote is there to initiate action that would have otherwise not taken place, it is a proactive decision. If someones want to initiate an action that has a material impact on them, their colleagues and the public, a simple majority of votes should be required (let alone this 40% business). A GE vote is a choice that has to be made/abstained from as there is a legal requirement for a new choice to be selected or the existing choice affirmed. There is no requirement for a strike vote to be initiated ever x months, although you'd be forgiven for thinking there was turbobloke said:
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. 
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.
You massive socialist, you.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff