Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

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.

Perhaps you and your chums are the magic bullet society has been waiting for?

[Mario149]

colonel c said:

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.

I can not see where that makes any difference. If I'm balloted on any issue and I decide not to vote, it stands to reason that I'm content to go with the majority. It matters not whether it to elect an MP, take industrial action or even evict someone from the Big Brother house. I had my chance to vote.

You might be content to go with the majority, but there is a difference between a strike vote and a GE (and we'll just put the BB voting to one side I think ). 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

An Act of Parliament can also ‘initiate action that would have otherwise not taken place’. Yet that can be passed on a simple majority of members present voting. The same should apply to a union voting on an action.

True, but not a GE which was your example. And let's not pretend all ballots are created equal - if it's an important issue in the HoC, the place will be packed out with everyone voting, even if they're not directly affected by it. Going on strike is clearly an important issue, so agrees everyone union or not, so you would have thought that given it's people's wages at stake (about as direct as it gets), people would be more inclined to pull their finger out and tick a box on a piece of paper. Frankly, if you can't be fukked to tick a box when your pay/job is at stake, you clearly don't feel strongly about it, in which case your lack of input should not be allowed to affect a whole load of other people negatively. Deciding you're not going to vote for a political party because every option is bad is one thing, there is no equivalent in a strike vote ("I don't agree with the strikers and I don't agree with the people who are going to work" ....???)

[colonel c]

Mario149 said:

colonel c said:

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.

I can not see where that makes any difference. If I'm balloted on any issue and I decide not to vote, it stands to reason that I'm content to go with the majority. It matters not whether it to elect an MP, take industrial action or even evict someone from the Big Brother house. I had my chance to vote.

I would agree on the face of it, why anyone would not want to take part in a ballot on such a serious issue. But still abstaining from voting is in effect to acquiesce to the majority of those that did vote.
As far as general and local elections goes I would prefer to see some sort of compulsory system adopted but I guess that’s for another thread.
You might be content to go with the majority, but there is a difference between a strike vote and a GE (and we'll just put the BB voting to one side I think ). 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

An Act of Parliament can also ‘initiate action that would have otherwise not taken place’. Yet that can be passed on a simple majority of members present voting. The same should apply to a union voting on an action.

True, but not a GE which was your example. And let's not pretend all ballots are created equal - if it's an important issue in the HoC, the place will be packed out with everyone voting, even if they're not directly affected by it. Going on strike is clearly an important issue, so every says union or not, so you would have thought that given it's people's wages at stake (about as direct as it gets), people would be more inclined to pull their finger out and tick a box on a piece of paper. Frankly, if you can't be fukked to tick a box when your pay/job is at stake, you clearly don't feel strongly about it, in which case your lack of input should not be allowed to affect a whole load of other people negatively. Deciding you're not going to vote for a political party because every option is bad is one thing, there is no equivalent in a strike vote ("I don't agree with the strikers and I don't agree with the people who are going to work" ....???)

[Stevanos]

They are just pissed off that they cannot blackmail the government as easily now.

[PorkInsider]

Mario149 said:

Frankly, if you can't be fukked to tick a box when your pay/job is at stake, you clearly don't feel strongly about it, in which case your lack of input should not be allowed to affect a whole load of other people negatively.

How about looking at it from the non-militant viewpoint instead?

If people don't feel strongly enough about a strike to want to vote for one, that too should have an effect on the outcome rather than just being ignored, as you're suggesting.

If there is a workforce of 1,000 people, 500 of them take part in a ballot for industrial action and of those, 300 actually vote for a strike, there is no other logical way to view the result other than it being 30% in favour.

A comparison between strike ballots and elections is utterly pointless as elections require there to be a positive outcome, one way or another, in favour of one or more candidates/parties.

We need a result as we have to have a government, we don't have to have a strike.

[Mario149]

PorkInsider said:

Mario149 said:

Frankly, if you can't be fukked to tick a box when your pay/job is at stake, you clearly don't feel strongly about it, in which case your lack of input should not be allowed to affect a whole load of other people negatively.

How about looking at it from the non-militant viewpoint instead?

If people don't feel strongly enough about a strike to want to vote for one, that too should have an effect on the outcome rather than just being ignored, as you're suggesting.

If there is a workforce of 1,000 people, 500 of them take part in a ballot for industrial action and of those, 300 actually vote for a strike, there is no other logical way to view the result other than it being 30% in favour.

A comparison between strike ballots and elections is utterly pointless as elections require there to be a positive outcome, one way or another, in favour of one or more candidates/parties.

We need a result as we have to have a government, we don't have to have a strike.

I think you've just agreed with me but replied thinking I had said the opposite?!

Your example is my case in point, if out of 1000 people only 30% vote for a strike, for me that falls *well* short of a mandate for the strike given that there are only 2 affirmative options. A union will say 60% voted for a strike, but in reality, only 30% did with the other 70% either voting against or not giving a stuff either way.

Maybe a change in the law to this 40% threshold will at least focus people's minds and make them think rather than following like a sheep and/or assuming everyone else will pick up the voting responsibility. If that is the case and strikes still happen, fair play - I'll still be pissed off when my commuting time is doubled, but at least I'll have some more respect for the action and may even start to give their grievances credence.

[Johnnytheboy]

Mario149 said:

...if out of 1000 people only 30% vote for a strike, for me that falls *well* short of a mandate for the strike given that there are only 2 affirmative options. A union will say 60% voted for a strike, but in reality, only 30% did with the other 70% either voting against or not giving a stuff either way.

What mystifies me is that then a larger portion of the workforce than voted to strike, will actually strike.

[handpaper]

As I see it, there is a difference between a 'right to withdraw one's labour' and a 'right to strike'.

The first is unconditional; if I disagree sufficiently with my employer's business, methods, remuneration etc., I can walk away. I may be in breach of my employment contract and may forfeit pay and privileges, but I can't be dragged back and forced to work.

The second is different in that it seeks the privilege of withdrawing one's labour without sanction. Subject to certain rules, a striking worker can disrupt his employer's business, diminish its reputation and cost it money, and inconvenience his colleagues, and be immune from retaliatory action.
This is not a 'right' as I see it, but an obligation placed upon another, and I would expect to see a very high level of support required to enable it. I'd like to see the the threshold raised to a minimum of 50% of the workforce.

[PorkInsider]

Mario149 said:

I think you've just agreed with me but replied thinking I had said the opposite?!

You're absolutely right.

[PugwasHDJ80]

do you still get paid if you go on strike?

[legzr1]

No

[speedy_thrills]

trashbat said:

Unless I have it wrong, you seem to be missing that they want to do it on eligible voters, not those who actually vote.

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).

It does seem unfair but on the other hand you can see a situation where a small number of union workers could strike without consultation across the organisation. As you point out applying the same standards to national elections would create a farcical situation .

Not really sure how unions operate but perhaps if the law was reformed so there was a stand down (a month perhaps) between the time a ballot was called and voting commenced this situation could be better avoided?

[crankedup]

Johnnytheboy said:

Mario149 said:

...if out of 1000 people only 30% vote for a strike, for me that falls *well* short of a mandate for the strike given that there are only 2 affirmative options. A union will say 60% voted for a strike, but in reality, only 30% did with the other 70% either voting against or not giving a stuff either way.

What mystifies me is that then a larger portion of the workforce than voted to strike, will actually strike.

Just no different to any other situation that asks people to vote, seems to me that the vast majority cannot be bothered to get their back-sides off the sofa to cast a vote.

[Johnnytheboy]

crankedup said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Mario149 said:

...if out of 1000 people only 30% vote for a strike, for me that falls *well* short of a mandate for the strike given that there are only 2 affirmative options. A union will say 60% voted for a strike, but in reality, only 30% did with the other 70% either voting against or not giving a stuff either way.

What mystifies me is that then a larger portion of the workforce than voted to strike, will actually strike.

Just no different to any other situation that asks people to vote, seems to me that the vast majority cannot be bothered to get their back-sides off the sofa to cast a vote.

Yeah, but to feel strongly enough to strike but not to vote on striking seems weird.

There's a lot I don't understand about trade unionism to be fair.

[Digga]

A lot of workers don't want any part in the politics. I can see they would avoid ballots and any discussions, in order to avoid being bullied or coerced into either voting in ways that they don't want to or having to lie about it to militant co-workers.

[Thorodin]

Johnnytheboy said:

Yeah, but to feel strongly enough to strike but not to vote on striking seems weird.

There's a lot I don't understand about trade unionism to be fair.

If you mean Trades Unions generally, that's a long one. If you mean the 'threshold' quandary, it's simple. There is an inbuilt defence against the apathy that's endemic in any voting system. It is well known and self evident that, except in the most dire circumstances, a substantial percentage of eligible members will either vote no, abstain, or be physically unable to vote for a variety of reasons. For a Trade Union leader or steward there can be nothing more galling than the apparent failure to 'carry the members'. For a committed union leader to call a strike there is a degree of exposure to rejection and subsequent loss of face and office.

If there is a need for the Union then there must be some safeguards in place to support the principle involved. Therefore the turnout is seen as a tacit acceptance that a vote is necessary and the most direct way of maintaining the objective is to assume that those who have not voted are content to let the more committed members decide the issue.

To impose a minimum voting threshold before a decisive verdict can be taken seems reasonable, but is likely to be vigorously resisted by the leadership for obvious reasons. It is no small matter that along with a strongly held political impetus, union leaders also rely on their position in that it is their job and living! As in everything else there are good, bad and indifferent leaders. It is up to the members to hold them to account using the ballot box. If it's good enough for the politicians.....

[oyster]

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?

Presumably the 84% who didn't vote were unconcerned with the outcome either way, or else they would have turned up to vote.

Unless you come from a base position of assuming that 84% was against striking? And if they were against, then why didn't they vote and say so?

[LucreLout]

Four things I'd note about striking:
1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.
2) Public sector monopolies should be barred from striking. You can always quit and find another job, where as I can't get another service provider because, well, you're a monopoly.
3) The threshold to strike should be a vote of 51% of staff wanting to strike.
4) Employers should, of course, be free to employ agency labour to cover this period should they so choose.

[edh]

LucreLout said:

Four things I'd note about striking:
1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.

What? - only if you define professionals as "workers who don't strike, ever"

First the government imposes massive restrictions on how a union can ballot its members, suppressing turnout.

Then it wants a minimum 40% threshold of all staff

Can only be designed to emasculate unions

[Esseesse]

edh said:

LucreLout said:

Four things I'd note about striking:
1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.

What? - only if you define professionals as "workers who don't strike, ever"

First the government imposes massive restrictions on how a union can ballot its members, suppressing turnout.

Then it wants a minimum 40% threshold of all staff

Can only be designed to emasculate unions

I was always taught that it was unprofessional to go on strike.