jester Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I'm sure that the irony is not lost on many people of a Conservative government elected on around 23% of the total amount of people registered to vote, implementing legislation to prevent workers going on strike if they fail to have the support of over 50% (or 60% depending on which sources you find) of the total membership of a union (and not a simple majority). Many people are apathetic when it comes to voting. They have no strong view one way or another and so just can't be bothered voting one way or another. This legislation will in effect give any strike ballot a 100% No vote on opening, and will make it twice as difficult for the workers who are trying to protect their rights to do so, having not only to win a majority, but also clear an artificially imposed hurdle. Will this legislation be the death knell for the unions or will it galvanise the members to becoming more active and organised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I'm sure that the irony is not lost on many people of a Conservative government elected on around 23% of the total amount of people registered to vote, implementing legislation to prevent workers going on strike if they fail to have the support of over 50% (or 60% depending on which sources you find) of the total membership of a union (and not a simple majority). Many people are apathetic when it comes to voting. They have no strong view one way or another and so just can't be bothered voting one way or another. This legislation will in effect give any strike ballot a 100% No vote on opening, and will make it twice as difficult for the workers who are trying to protect their rights to do so, having not only to win a majority, but also clear an artificially imposed hurdle. Will this legislation be the death knell for the unions or will it galvanise the members to becoming more active and organised? I don't know that we should worry about this. I am sure that a) Labour will win the next election b) When they do win, they will repeal all the unreasonable anti-union laws made by the Conservatives. oh, c) I may have been a little optimistic about a) and very optimistic about b) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It was hilarious watching the debate last night. You had Conservative MPs telling us how shop stewards do a great job and how valuable trade unions are. You then had Labour MPs telling us they WERE shop stewards and how they've been members of various unions and how important they are. The truth of the matter is that the Tories HATE trade unions and Labour did sod all to redress matters for unions in their 13 years in power. And what exactly are the masses of industrial action happening which is forcing the Tories to rush through this legislation? Hee haw. None. It's more Tory ideology. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It's certainly too easy to go on strike, and many of them in recent years are becoming childish in nature. I remember one of them a couple of years ago happened because only 20% of people voted on it. Whether the Tory proposal is reasonable I'm not sure. It's likely to come down to your own personal circumstances and views on unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 It's certainly too easy to go on strike, and many of them in recent years are becoming childish in nature. I remember one of them a couple of years ago happened because only 20% of people voted on it. Whether the Tory proposal is reasonable I'm not sure. It's likely to come down to your own personal circumstances and views on unions. I don't think it is down to personal circumstances and views on unions. I am sure that the Tory party would have had something to say if Labour had introduced a law that stated that more than 50% of the elecorate had to vote for you or the incumbents remained in power. The thershold should be the majority of those that can be arsed expressing their opinion. If you can't be arsed then you accept the majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 The thershold should be the majority of those that can be arsed expressing their opinion. If you can't be arsed then you accept the majority vote. But the people who want to go on strike have a far greater incentive to vote than the ones that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo'ness Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 But the people who want to go on strike have a far greater incentive to vote than the ones that don't. What a childish statement. If you either want to or don't want to strike, you should vote. Bearing in mind those that don't want it will be worried about any financial impact of a strike and if if that doesn't motivate them, then tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 But the people who want to go on strike have a far greater incentive to vote than the ones that don't. Can you provide me with any examples of national voting that has a participation threshold, whese a turnout under this renders the vote meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Certainly Unions need to modernise. Ballot by E mail etc. Get members involved. I payed my dues and never saw anyone from the union. Interesting whatching the debate just how few MPS turned up. Maybe you should have to be present for the debate rather than just turn up when the division bell rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Can you provide me with any examples of national voting that has a participation threshold, whese a turnout under this renders the vote meaningless? edit: link seems to not work now Look at one of the votes last year However, a statement published on the union’s website last week said it was balloting 600,000 members. Using the voting figures above, this would equate to a turnout of about 14%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Maybe you should have to be present for the debate rather than just turn up when the division bell rings. I'm sure John Bercow said something to this effect last night. It's not good enough that all the MPs come running from whatever Westminster dinner club they're in when the division bell goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Certainly Unions need to modernise. Ballot by E mail etc. Get members involved. I payed my dues and never saw anyone from the union. Interesting whatching the debate just how few MPS turned up. Maybe you should have to be present for the debate rather than just turn up when the division bell rings.The government is against any form of online voting. There was a Tory minister and a Union leader on Daily Politics yesterday and it wasn't the Union man who came across as stuck in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 The government is against any form of online voting. There was a Tory minister and a Union leader on Daily Politics yesterday and it wasn't the Union man who came across as stuck in the past. Maybe because the Government is also the employer in many cases. No reason for them to make things any easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 The government is against any form of online voting. There was a Tory minister and a Union leader on Daily Politics yesterday and it wasn't the Union man who came across as stuck in the past. It's not about being stuck in the past, there are practical issues that need to be considered. I'm against online voting because of the risk of hacking and election rigging. There is enough electoral fraud already, especially the abuse of postal and proxy voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I heard that part of the plans were to make those going on strike give their names to the police. This of course is absolutely not a fucking disgraceful idea and in the past those who have gone on strike have absolutely never faced any trouble if their names were given to the police. There was also something about making all those on strike wear offical armbands as well (I'm assuming it's like a captain's armband and not the inflatable plastic things kids wear to stop them drowning, although that would undeniably be hilarious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 edit: link seems to not work now Look at one of the votes last year This doesn't answer my question. I will ask it again: Can you provide me with any examples of national voting that has a participation threshold, whese a turnout under this renders the vote meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedafc Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 About 60 % of strikes in last 5 years would have unaffected by this legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I posted it in the other thread but this is a decent article, if not a bit apocalyptic in tone. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11866059/Cameron-and-Osborne-are-trying-to-wipe-the-Labour-Party-off-the-face-of-the-earth.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted September 16, 2015 Author Share Posted September 16, 2015 About 60 % of strikes in last 5 years would have unaffected by this legislation That of course means that 40% of ballots where those who could be arsed voting would have seen their otherwise successful strike ballots rejected. That may be a positive for the employer, it may be a positive for the government, but it's a massive kick in the teeth for those who have a dispute with their employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted September 16, 2015 Author Share Posted September 16, 2015 Many people join unions not primarily to go on strike, not because they are militant, but as protection should something happen at work which could threaten their job. They are more than happy to go with the flow, if their fellow members vote to go on strike they will do so, if they vote not to, they won't complain. These are life's fence sitters, and having found a comfortable spot on the fence it is difficult to move them. Merely telling them that if they don't vote they won't acheive anything is unlikely to shift them, as they weren't out to achieve anything in the first place, other than a bit of security. If the Tories are successful and this legislation is introduced, should the unions look at membership being conditional on taking part in any ballot in which you are included? Is there any point carrying baggage which will ultimately cripple you when you need it most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.