Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
So What's The Problem With These Very Sensible Measures?
37 Answers
http://
Surely if enough members of a union want to take action voting should not be an incumberance.
Surely if enough members of a union want to take action voting should not be an incumberance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
They don’t go far enough, IMHO.
If workers do not like the terms and conditions of their employment the answer is simple – don't hold your employer and his customers to ransom with your demands but try instead to sell your labour elsewhere.
Of course out of the woodwork now will come the comparisons between these proposals and various figures which show politicians were elected by a minority of the electorate. Not the same thing at all.
If a workforce as a whole feels so hard done by that it must take industrial action these proposals will not alter that. All it means is that 50% of them will have to agree to do so. It will almost certainly prevent such situations as that currently prevailing on the London Underground. Here train drivers, who are essentially semi-skilled button pushers, receive £50k per year basic and are holding the city to ransom because they are being asked to participate in providing a minimal 24 hour service for which they are being offered a 2% rise and £2,000 cash.
If workers do not like the terms and conditions of their employment the answer is simple – don't hold your employer and his customers to ransom with your demands but try instead to sell your labour elsewhere.
Of course out of the woodwork now will come the comparisons between these proposals and various figures which show politicians were elected by a minority of the electorate. Not the same thing at all.
If a workforce as a whole feels so hard done by that it must take industrial action these proposals will not alter that. All it means is that 50% of them will have to agree to do so. It will almost certainly prevent such situations as that currently prevailing on the London Underground. Here train drivers, who are essentially semi-skilled button pushers, receive £50k per year basic and are holding the city to ransom because they are being asked to participate in providing a minimal 24 hour service for which they are being offered a 2% rise and £2,000 cash.
It's just building on the laws made previously to prevent folk withdrawing their labour which is their only adequate means of protest, so that the management has total control to do more or less as it wishes to the workforce and anyone who does not like it, "Tough". I'm sure that sounds sensible to those who admit no duty of care or fairness to staff.
-- answer removed --
A vote is a vote is a vote. I see no reason not to make a comparison. Whether the whole country votes on the country's laws or the whole union has to vote on withdrawal of union labour, the principle is the same. Anyway why discuss the decoy, we all know it is a ploy to do down the workers further, no matter how it is presented, sidetracked, or discussed.
-- answer removed --
"Governments have been through an election process asking the whole population, Unions have not. "
Pardon? By that an analogy you presumably wouldn't mind our government being voted for by all the member countries of the EU and not just the UK.
Thought not :-)
I am actually fairly relaxed about the idea of requiring a more positive vote in ballots: I just wish the government would be more consultative rather than confrontational about it.
I am also relaxed about making the political levy opt innable rather than opt outable. As long as it leads to proper and fair funding of our political parties: in other words outlaw large corporate donations to the Tory (and Labour and UKIP etc parties) and lets have a level playing field. The Tories already trouser millions more than Labour, much of it presumably from the profits worked by non Tory supporters.
Young people taken out of the National Minimum Wage (no longer even called that)
Lower paid working people hit hard by tax credit cuts
An attempt effectively to re-introduce fox hunting with hounds via the back door
Discrimination against couples with more than two children
The "left wing" BBC under a pretty sustained and unmandated attack
And now what looks suspiciously like an attempt to bankrupt the main opposition party.
Truly with the LibDem cat away the Tory mice do play :-)
Pardon? By that an analogy you presumably wouldn't mind our government being voted for by all the member countries of the EU and not just the UK.
Thought not :-)
I am actually fairly relaxed about the idea of requiring a more positive vote in ballots: I just wish the government would be more consultative rather than confrontational about it.
I am also relaxed about making the political levy opt innable rather than opt outable. As long as it leads to proper and fair funding of our political parties: in other words outlaw large corporate donations to the Tory (and Labour and UKIP etc parties) and lets have a level playing field. The Tories already trouser millions more than Labour, much of it presumably from the profits worked by non Tory supporters.
Young people taken out of the National Minimum Wage (no longer even called that)
Lower paid working people hit hard by tax credit cuts
An attempt effectively to re-introduce fox hunting with hounds via the back door
Discrimination against couples with more than two children
The "left wing" BBC under a pretty sustained and unmandated attack
And now what looks suspiciously like an attempt to bankrupt the main opposition party.
Truly with the LibDem cat away the Tory mice do play :-)
What I meant here ymb was: a general election is for the electorate of a country, a strike ballot is for members of a union. Your comment "Governments have been through an election process asking the whole population, Unions have not. "
suggests that you think the whole country should vote on strikes: so why should the whole EU not vote for our government. Ridiculous of course
suggests that you think the whole country should vote on strikes: so why should the whole EU not vote for our government. Ridiculous of course
OG.....Well said today !
This present Government was elected by 36.9% of the electorate. The previous election, the Tories had even less, 36.1%. But on both occasions they saw no problem with assuming power.
In May 63.1% of the British people that voted, did not vote Tory, in a turnout of 66.1% ! So I am at a loss to understand why dave thinks its OK to apply more stringent conditions on the Unions, than it applies to itself !
This present Government was elected by 36.9% of the electorate. The previous election, the Tories had even less, 36.1%. But on both occasions they saw no problem with assuming power.
In May 63.1% of the British people that voted, did not vote Tory, in a turnout of 66.1% ! So I am at a loss to understand why dave thinks its OK to apply more stringent conditions on the Unions, than it applies to itself !
There's a difference between selecting an MP (as part of the General Election process) and choosing whether or not to go on strike.
The General Election process must result in MPs being elected and a government formed. This is regardless of how many or how few people vote. There are no assumptions made about those who choose not to vote. As well as this there is the age old problem that so long as there are more than two choices there is always the strong probability that the government will be secured with less than 50% of the votes.
In a strike ballot the situation is completely different. Workers are being asked to vote on a proposal that will drastically alter the status quo. Currently they are working and being paid. A vote to strike will mean they are not working and not being paid. All that is happening by insisting on a 50% turnout is that it is being assumed that those who do not vote are happy with the status quo.
The two situations are completely different and not comparable. Unions have nothing to fear. If their argument is strong enough they will persuade their members to put their cross in the box.
The General Election process must result in MPs being elected and a government formed. This is regardless of how many or how few people vote. There are no assumptions made about those who choose not to vote. As well as this there is the age old problem that so long as there are more than two choices there is always the strong probability that the government will be secured with less than 50% of the votes.
In a strike ballot the situation is completely different. Workers are being asked to vote on a proposal that will drastically alter the status quo. Currently they are working and being paid. A vote to strike will mean they are not working and not being paid. All that is happening by insisting on a 50% turnout is that it is being assumed that those who do not vote are happy with the status quo.
The two situations are completely different and not comparable. Unions have nothing to fear. If their argument is strong enough they will persuade their members to put their cross in the box.
I agree tora that we don't want to see the public held to ransom by activism. I also agree that the more democratic and representative strike votes are the better for all. I think, though, that the government should at least try to engage with the unions on this. Years ago union barons held a disproportionate amount of sway, but now the pendulum has swung far too far the other way. We see also now that it is really only public sector workers who join unions as a rule, as everyone else feels intimidated.
As someone said, the unions are the big bad wolf when they are striking, until they are seen to be a potential lifeline. In other words either saviours or destroyers. And because most people are intimidated or apathetic even when they do join, then the activists hold a disproportionate influence and you get silly situations like the RMT affiliating to SARU (Solidarity with the Antifascist Resistance in Ukraine) which does no one any favours
As someone said, the unions are the big bad wolf when they are striking, until they are seen to be a potential lifeline. In other words either saviours or destroyers. And because most people are intimidated or apathetic even when they do join, then the activists hold a disproportionate influence and you get silly situations like the RMT affiliating to SARU (Solidarity with the Antifascist Resistance in Ukraine) which does no one any favours
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.