Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.

Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.

Author
Discussion

Asterix

Original Poster:

24,438 posts

227 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
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!

TDIPLC

3,661 posts

207 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
What made me chuckle is the union's opinion that this is undemocratic.

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
news said:
But the Trade Unions Congress denounced the plan as a “democratic outrage”
rofl Taking action with less than 50% of the voters agreeing is, er....what's the word for it..............um........oh yes, undemocratic.



Personally I'd like to congratulate our new Prime Minister, Alan "Howling Laud" Hope of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who moved into Number 10 today after gaining 78 votes (0.5%) in the Manchester Central by-election.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
Nothing wrong with that just so long as any political party,including the Cons,need a 40 % + majority of the 'electorate',as opposed to the turnout,to get into government.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
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.

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

Asterix

Original Poster:

24,438 posts

227 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
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.

By this metric, all the police commissioners (~15%) will have to go. So will Boris Johnson as Mayor of London (38% turnout).
I wasn't missing anything mate - I understand what the impact would be to other 'democratic' elections.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
Asterix said:
I wasn't missing anything mate - I understand what the impact would be to other 'democratic' elections.
Are 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.

Asterix

Original Poster:

24,438 posts

227 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
You'd have to make voting a legal requirement.

turbobloke

103,734 posts

259 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Nothing wrong with that just so long as any political party,including the Cons,need a 40 % + majority of the 'electorate',as opposed to the turnout,to get into government.
A false comparison.

Within the overall policy framework of any flavour of elected UK government, the democratic process already operates with variations in the requirement for a majority decision. A judge will not deprive somebody of their liberty on a simple majority of jurors' views on a defendant's guilt, normally expecting unanimity or at worst a majority of 10-2 (and all 12 participate). Should we therefore require 100% or 83% of the electorate supporting Nigel? No.

On the other hand a Town Hall planning committee will deprive somebody of their property (i.e. requiring demolition) on a simple majority e.g. with refusal of a retrospective application by a planning committe which may have an absentee. This does not mean we should reform the judge and jury system. Such comparisons are misleading.

The reasons for different criteria vary as do the conditions for an acceptable result, and the variously different arrangements aren't necessarily seen as undemocratic or even selectively democractic. In particular the ability to intimidate voters at national elections is minimal to the point of insignificance overall, however that possibility is not only more likely but prevalent at strike votes, with those staying away much more likely to be doing so because they know they will face intimidation. That's not why people stay away from the ballot box in general elections or by elections.

That's why it's a false comparison.

voyds9

8,488 posts

282 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
It would have been far easier to make strike ballot voting compulsory for all members

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
XJ Flyer said:
Nothing wrong with that just so long as any political party,including the Cons,need a 40 % + majority of the 'electorate',as opposed to the turnout,to get into government.
A false comparison.

Within the overall policy framework of any flavour of elected UK government, the democratic process already operates with variations in the requirement for a majority decision. A judge will not deprive somebody of their liberty on a simple majority of jurors' views on a defendant's guilt, normally expecting unanimity or at worst a majority of 10-2 (and all 12 participate). Should we therefore require 100% or 83% of the electorate supporting Nigel? No.

On the other hand a Town Hall planning committee will deprive somebody of their property (i.e. requiring demolition) on a simple majority e.g. with refusal of a retrospective application by a planning committe which may have an absentee. This does not mean we should reform the judge and jury system. Such comparisons are misleading.

The reasons for different criteria vary as do the conditions for an acceptable result, and the variously different arrangements aren't necessarily seen as undemocratic or even selectively democractic. In particular the ability to intimidate voters at national elections is minimal to the point of insignificance overall, however that possibility is not only more likely but prevalent at strike votes, with those staying away much more likely to be doing so because they know they will face intimidation. That's not why people stay away from the ballot box in general elections or by elections.

That's why it's a false comparison.
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.



Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
It would have been far easier to make strike ballot voting compulsory for all members
make the default vote 'no' for every member. You want another outcome, you have to change it.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
Justayellowbadge said:
make the default vote 'no' for every member. You want another outcome, you have to change it.
What should the default vote be in the general elections?

voyds9

8,488 posts

282 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
hat should the default vote be in the general elections?
No change of government

It would certainly concentrate the mind

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
The U.K. has the fattest book of legal requirements that a Trade Union has to comply with within Europe. Why don't the Tories just come out and ban Unions, its clearly the dream that they have cherished for decades. Tories, same old vision to put the working people into a low pay poor working conditions environment.
Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
No change of government

It would certainly concentrate the mind
Presumably for the most part it'd leave you stuck with the same candidates for life until they died or retired, at which point it'd be very difficult to elect new ones, so government would slowly erode away to anarchy whilst immediately losing much of its accountability. Some people's cup of tea I suppose.

Unless it is pursued more broadly, there's no democratic interest in this reform - thus it's an anti-union measure. I see the notional point of trying to make strikes require a meaningful mandate but as long as the 'no' vote remains available and of value, it functions much the same as other electoral choices.

basherX

2,463 posts

160 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
It would have been far easier to make strike ballot voting compulsory for all members
Member fails to vote and receives sanction. Union calls everyone out in protest to support the member?

Or, if there's no member sanction, one member fails to vote and the whole vote is considered null. Union then calls everyone out over subversion of the democratic process?

Or something else?

basherX

2,463 posts

160 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
resumably for the most part it'd leave you stuck with the same candidates for life until they died or retired, at which point it'd be very difficult to elect new ones, so government would slowly erode away to anarchy whilst immediately losing much of its accountability. Some people's cup of tea I suppose.

Unless it is pursued more broadly, there's no democratic interest in this reform - thus it's an anti-union measure. I see the notional point of trying to make strikes require a meaningful mandate but as long as the 'no' vote remains available and of value, it functions much the same as other electoral choices.
What do you mean by there's no democratic interest- I don't understand the statement so would be grateful if you could explain.

In any event, I'd say there's a public interest: there's a large number of stakeholders on the receiving end of (sometimes apparently spurious) Union action who don't get a vote and would at least like to see some form of due process

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
crankedup said:
The U.K. has the fattest book of legal requirements that a Trade Union has to comply with within Europe. Why don't the Tories just come out and ban Unions, its clearly the dream that they have cherished for decades. Tories, same old vision to put the working people into a low pay poor working conditions environment.
Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
The problem being that the 'Labour' party haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in that regard since at least Callaghan's time.But yes the Cons idea of 'Capitalism' is in reality closer to typical exploitative Communism as opposed to 1960's America.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
basherX said:
What do you mean by there's no democratic interest- I don't understand the statement so would be grateful if you could explain.

In any event, I'd say there's a public interest: there's a large number of stakeholders on the receiving end of (sometimes apparently spurious) Union action who don't get a vote and would at least like to see some form of due process
I 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?