Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Strike law reforms mooted
Topic Started: Jan 10 2015, 07:47 PM (487 Views)
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
This from the Telegraph.....

"The Conservatives provoked a major row with the trade unions over sweeping plans to ban them from taking strike action without the support of at least 40 per cent of their members. In an article for The Telegraph, Patrick McLoughlin, announced the proposed crackdown on industrial action, which will be included in the Tory election manifesto, in order to stop union bosses holding Britain “to ransom”. He said that of the 102 strike ballots held since 2010, nearly two-thirds failed to attract even half of the workforce. In some cases, strikes have gone ahead with the support of as few as one in 10 workers.
The CBI business organisation welcomed the proposed reforms. But the Trade Unions Congress denounced the plan as a “democratic outrage” while the GMB union said the Conservatives formed a government with less than 40 per cent of the vote at the last election. "

This could be a vote winner, as well as being a reform long overdue. While strike action remains a legitimate method for employees to combat what they perceive as a grievance that cannot be resolved by any other means, the fact remains that strike action generally affects, and seriously inconveniences, the general public. That being so, it seems only fair that if an industry decides on strike action, a majority of their membership should express firm support before the union leaders march their troops out on strike. The days when the unions call their people out on strike after being mandated by only a tiny proportion of their membership is way past its sell-by date, surely?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes I'm all for democracy, but I don't class a government that assumes power after elected by fewer than 40% of the voting public as having a particular mandate on anything.

If people were treated fairly then there wouldn't be any need to strike.
Edited by Lewis, Jan 10 2015, 08:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
So long as the same principle applies to political parties wishing to form a government then I'm all for these minimum requirements.
Edited by Cymru, Jan 10 2015, 08:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
"in order to stop union bosses holding Britain “to ransom”
.

What a load of BS.
More like giving business more scope to dump on employees.
Edited by Affa, Jan 10 2015, 09:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, one does not need a union to do that, and if your employer thinks you are worth holding onto then I am sure your case would be considered, however, if you are not a tradesman that can be difficult, therefore if you are in say a semi skilled job for instance and you withdraw your labour you will quickly be replaced by someone from another country who will do your job for less, now, who do we have to thank for that? could it be the friend of the working man, yes you have it in one.....Labour, who opened the floodgates to all and sundry in enforced social engineering in the form of multiculturalism and undercut the lifestyles of the indigenous populace of the united Kingdom.

If you want more of the same then vote for the two Ed's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 10 2015, 08:11 PM
Yes I'm all for democracy, but I don't class a government that assumes power after elected by fewer than 40% of the voting public as having a particular mandate on anything.

If people were treated fairly then there wouldn't be any need to strike.
Cymru
Jan 10 2015, 08:20 PM
So long as the same principle applies to political parties wishing to form a government then I'm all for these minimum requirements.
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.


All seconded
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 10 2015, 09:16 PM
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, one does not need a union to do that, and if your employer thinks you are worth holding onto then I am sure your case would be considered, however, if you are not a tradesman that can be difficult, therefore if you are in say a semi skilled job for instance and you withdraw your labour you will quickly be replaced by someone from another country who will do your job for less, now, who do we have to thank for that? could it be the friend of the working man, yes you have it in one.....Labour, who opened the floodgates to all and sundry in enforced social engineering in the form of multiculturalism and undercut the lifestyles of the indigenous populace of the united Kingdom.

If you want more of the same then vote for the two Ed's.
Nice to see you shoehorn in immigration again.  ::)

I spent many years working for a large multinational construction company and I was a member of a union, the company decided to asset strip our pensions for no other reason than the government of the day had passed laws which allowed them to do so, we never quite went on strike but the threat of it and the mysterious delays in certain projects caused them to rethink, the union backed us to the hilt.

We all lost some money, in fact my pension was virtually worthless, some would never get back the money they had put in, thankfully in my case the union managed to stop me throwing good money after bad.

Curb union power? No thanks...........
Edited by Tigger, Jan 10 2015, 10:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 10:43 PM
Rich
Jan 10 2015, 09:16 PM
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, one does not need a union to do that, and if your employer thinks you are worth holding onto then I am sure your case would be considered, however, if you are not a tradesman that can be difficult, therefore if you are in say a semi skilled job for instance and you withdraw your labour you will quickly be replaced by someone from another country who will do your job for less, now, who do we have to thank for that? could it be the friend of the working man, yes you have it in one.....Labour, who opened the floodgates to all and sundry in enforced social engineering in the form of multiculturalism and undercut the lifestyles of the indigenous populace of the united Kingdom.

If you want more of the same then vote for the two Ed's.
Nice to see you shoehorn in immigration again.  ::)

I spent many years working for a large multinational construction company and I was a member of a union, the company decided to asset strip our pensions for no other reason than the government of the day had passed laws which allowed them to do so, we never quite went on strike but the threat of it and the mysterious delays in certain projects caused them to rethink, the union backed us to the hilt.

We all lost some money, in fact my pension was virtually worthless, some would never get back the money they had put in, thankfully in my case the union managed to stop me throwing good money after bad.

Curb union power? No thanks...........

So, your answer to something that you do not agree with is to threaten?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 11 2015, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 10:43 PM
Rich
Jan 10 2015, 09:16 PM
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, one does not need a union to do that, and if your employer thinks you are worth holding onto then I am sure your case would be considered, however, if you are not a tradesman that can be difficult, therefore if you are in say a semi skilled job for instance and you withdraw your labour you will quickly be replaced by someone from another country who will do your job for less, now, who do we have to thank for that? could it be the friend of the working man, yes you have it in one.....Labour, who opened the floodgates to all and sundry in enforced social engineering in the form of multiculturalism and undercut the lifestyles of the indigenous populace of the united Kingdom.

If you want more of the same then vote for the two Ed's.
Nice to see you shoehorn in immigration again.  ::)

I spent many years working for a large multinational construction company and I was a member of a union, the company decided to asset strip our pensions for no other reason than the government of the day had passed laws which allowed them to do so, we never quite went on strike but the threat of it and the mysterious delays in certain projects caused them to rethink, the union backed us to the hilt.

We all lost some money, in fact my pension was virtually worthless, some would never get back the money they had put in, thankfully in my case the union managed to stop me throwing good money after bad.

Curb union power? No thanks...........

So, your answer to something that you do not agree with is to threaten?
We have seen immigration increase substantially under your incompetent lot. So don't give us lectures on immigration regarding Labour unless you consider the other incompetent Tories as well, who seem to be doing zilch about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 10 2015, 09:16 PM
Tigger
Jan 10 2015, 09:07 PM
I don't think it would be a vote winner at all, the opposite in fact. People do not go on strike lightly these days despite what right wing goons might have us think.

As a former employed person I always held the belief that if you went on strike you had a genuine grievance and your employer was not listening, in fact I'd go further and say if you felt compelled to join a union then it was a sign you did not trust your boss or company to do the right thing, and as someone who employs others these days my views have not changed in this respect.
Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, one does not need a union to do that, and if your employer thinks you are worth holding onto then I am sure your case would be considered, however, if you are not a tradesman that can be difficult, therefore if you are in say a semi skilled job for instance and you withdraw your labour you will quickly be replaced by someone from another country who will do your job for less, now, who do we have to thank for that? could it be the friend of the working man, yes you have it in one.....Labour, who opened the floodgates to all and sundry in enforced social engineering in the form of multiculturalism and undercut the lifestyles of the indigenous populace of the united Kingdom.

If you want more of the same then vote for the two Ed's.
Quickly replaced yes, but not necessarily by an immigrant.
If people are working for less than the minimum wage (and some are), that is the fault of the employers not the employee.

As has already been pointed out no government could have avoided immigration. The only option for NL was to slow down the rate of immigration with no doubt the same hike in the population, just over a slightly longer period of time.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lazy logic to equate a national Plebiscite with that of a Trade Union calling for a strike, it is not analogous. The argument that a Gov. can be formed with less than 40% of the votes therefore Trade Unions should be allowed to call strikes with 10% or less votes is clearly illogical. The two matters stand separately and the only link is votes. Clearly Joe Public does not get to vote on strikes and our Gov. is not voted for by only Trade Union Members.

Are we to have no rules and allow a very small highly politicalised minority hold us to ransom or draw a line that is the Yardstick? If a line then where is it to be drawn?

I recall the pre-1997 era when Wild-cat strikes and secondary picketing driven by Trade Union Bosses with a political agenda brought Britain to it's knees. Is that the sort of environment we wish to see again or are we for some responsibility? If so what does not mean in numerical terms?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 09:23 AM
Lazy logic to equate a national Plebiscite with that of a Trade Union calling for a strike, it is not analogous. The argument that a Gov. can be formed with less than 40% of the votes therefore Trade Unions should be allowed to call strikes with 10% or less votes is clearly illogical.
Only to you RJD, just how many more repressive measures are the Tories going to implement or propose before you wake up and smell the coffee.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
Should a Labour government come to power next May, how many people would wager money on the prospect of them reversing such anti-strike laws?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 10:14 AM
Should a Labour government come to power next May, how many people would wager money on the prospect of them reversing such anti-strike laws?
I doubt any such law can get through Parliament before the general election, so repealing it is not an issue.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Strike laws have moved too far in favour of state and management.

I am not in favour of any further curtailment.

In fact a bit of 1970's style strike a wage inflation would come in handy right now.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
Apart from a visceral hatred of ANYTHING the Tories do, I have yet to see any argument to counter in a sensible manner their proposals. If an industrial dispute is deadlocked, and the members feel so unjustly treated that strike action is the only option, then surely they will always be able to achieve the percentage of votes favouring a strike as required by the new law?? Or should the tail continue to wag the dog?. In any case, 40% support from the workforce involved is rather generous in my view. 51% would be my starting point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Jan 11 2015, 10:52 AM
Apart from a visceral hatred of ANYTHING the Tories do, I have yet to see any argument to counter in a sensible manner their proposals. If an industrial dispute is deadlocked, and the members feel so unjustly treated that strike action is the only option, then surely they will always be able to achieve the percentage of votes favouring a strike as required by the new law?? Or should the tail continue to wag the dog?. In any case, 40% support from the workforce involved is rather generous in my view. 51% would be my starting point.
Ugh, FPTP, no thanks.

How about PR for those who only want to strike a little bit?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Jan 11 2015, 10:52 AM
Apart from a visceral hatred of ANYTHING the Tories do, I have yet to see any argument to counter in a sensible manner their proposals. If an industrial dispute is deadlocked, and the members feel so unjustly treated that strike action is the only option, then surely they will always be able to achieve the percentage of votes favouring a strike as required by the new law?? Or should the tail continue to wag the dog?. In any case, 40% support from the workforce involved is rather generous in my view. 51% would be my starting point.
But it embodies pure hypocrisy

A Prime Minister can commit the country to all sorts of things including war when only backed by a minority of the electorate but wants to ban a Trade Union from calling a strike (note that does not compel anyone to actually strike) when backed by a majority of members that voted on the issue

The system we have now works well, the evils of the closed shop and strikes called with no proper vote have gone. With so many companies as effective monopoly employers then an effective Trade Union counter balance is a necessity.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 10:21 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 10:14 AM
Should a Labour government come to power next May, how many people would wager money on the prospect of them reversing such anti-strike laws?
I doubt any such law can get through Parliament before the general election, so repealing it is not an issue.
Congratulations PS, a very neat way of avoiding the point so lets put it another way.

How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

(please do not assume from the question that I am anti-trade union or a supporter of anything that would destroy them)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM


How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

None, but my point still stands, the current government stands no chance of enacting a law before the general election.
The Tories are want to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut:-


Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 09:27 AM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 09:23 AM
Lazy logic to equate a national Plebiscite with that of a Trade Union calling for a strike, it is not analogous. The argument that a Gov. can be formed with less than 40% of the votes therefore Trade Unions should be allowed to call strikes with 10% or less votes is clearly illogical.
Only to you RJD, just how many more repressive measures are the Tories going to implement or propose before you wake up and smell the coffee.


If you wish to run your life with false logic then that is your choice. This is a debating forum, I think, therefore my question remains. Yardstick or no Yardstick, if the former then define it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 10:21 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 10:14 AM
Should a Labour government come to power next May, how many people would wager money on the prospect of them reversing such anti-strike laws?
I doubt any such law can get through Parliament before the general election, so repealing it is not an issue.
Congratulations PS, a very neat way of avoiding the point so lets put it another way.

How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

(please do not assume from the question that I am anti-trade union or a supporter of anything that would destroy them)
The answer is none as we all know. Things have already too far in the employers and government direction and now this rotten government wants to make the situation even worse. Comes back to my previous suggestion, that if people were treated fairly there would be no need to strike. All this incompetent government seems to want to do is cause an era of conflict.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 11:15 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM


How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

None, but my point still stands, the current government stands no chance of enacting a law before the general election.
The Tories are want to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut:-


Posted Image
Your claim is that there is no problem to solve, best ask those that use the London Underground and parents of children who attend schools. The question is one of principle and needs to be addressed as such and not swept under the carpet.
Nice graph, if only we had had so regulations to control Trade Unions back in the 1960s onwards. What was the accumulated working days lost in the UK during the 1970s? Best check these against the relative pay advantage of British Workers at that time against those in Germany and France. Yep the word was "advantage".
All I see here is obfuscation from the Usuals, why will they not address matters of principle? We see the same unprincipled attitude from the left wrt to State borrowing. Yep the word is "unprincipled".



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:28 AM
If you wish to run your life with false logic then that is your choice.
No false logic involved RJD, if David Cameron can be Prime Minister on the back of 25% of the electorate what is wrong with a strike being called on a simple minority of those who bothered to vote?
I am currently having to put up with a very profligate Police and Crime Commissioner who only got 28.05% of a 14.65% turnout to get his very highly paid non-job.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 11:29 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 10:21 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 10:14 AM
Should a Labour government come to power next May, how many people would wager money on the prospect of them reversing such anti-strike laws?
I doubt any such law can get through Parliament before the general election, so repealing it is not an issue.
Congratulations PS, a very neat way of avoiding the point so lets put it another way.

How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

(please do not assume from the question that I am anti-trade union or a supporter of anything that would destroy them)
The answer is none as we all know. Things have already too far in the employers and government direction and now this rotten government wants to make the situation even worse. Comes back to my previous suggestion, that if people were treated fairly there would be no need to strike. All this incompetent government seems to want to do is cause an era of conflict.
You obviously know nothing of the history of such industrial relations in the UK. Your claim that all people want is to be treated fairly is subjective and bogus. If you are able to define what "fair" means then I can describe the necessary Law. The question here is what level of votes makes calling a strike action fair. Please advise.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 11:36 AM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:28 AM
If you wish to run your life with false logic then that is your choice.
No false logic involved RJD, if David Cameron can be Prime Minister on the back of 25% of the electorate what is wrong with a strike being called on a simple minority of those who bothered to vote?
I am currently having to put up with a very profligate Police and Crime Commissioner who only got 28.05% of a 14.65% turnout to get his very highly paid non-job.
I cannot help you Mr Smurf as your education does not allow you to understand basic logic. It matters not what is said or the basis of western scientific thought for the last 400 years as you have a system all of your own, logic is what you decide. I will not waste my time with that matter with you.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Today we have a Conservative Party considering altering the laws on union votes and union democracy.

That Conservative Party is governing this country with a mandate of only around one third of all votes cast in the election, and two thirds of which did not vote Conservative, I think its a case of "we will decide what is, and what is not democracy, because we know best".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 11:45 AM
Today we have a Conservative Party considering altering the laws on union votes and union democracy.

That Conservative Party is governing this country with a mandate of only around one third of all votes cast in the election, and two thirds of which did not vote Conservative, I think its a case of "we will decide what is, and what is not democracy, because we know best".

Why cannot you address the simple question of what is fair? "Fair" is something that rolls off Lefty lips so readily so why not apply your Yardstick here?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:38 AM
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 11:29 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 10:21 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Congratulations PS, a very neat way of avoiding the point so lets put it another way.

How much of Margaret Thatcher's trade Union legislation was repealed by a later Labour government?

(please do not assume from the question that I am anti-trade union or a supporter of anything that would destroy them)
The answer is none as we all know. Things have already too far in the employers and government direction and now this rotten government wants to make the situation even worse. Comes back to my previous suggestion, that if people were treated fairly there would be no need to strike. All this incompetent government seems to want to do is cause an era of conflict.
You obviously know nothing of the history of such industrial relations in the UK. Your claim that all people want is to be treated fairly is subjective and bogus. If you are able to define what "fair" means then I can describe the necessary Law. The question here is what level of votes makes calling a strike action fair. Please advise.



What rubbish, it is obvious that you fail to realise that in those companies that people are treated fairly and as equals to management that they are happier in their jobs and more productive. If your leadership get their way and effectively ban the right to strike then people will simply work unofficially to rule and relations together with productivity will inevitably suffer.

File under right wing outmoded claptrap.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:41 AM
I cannot help you Mr Smurf as your education does not allow you to understand basic logic.
It is you who does not understand logic RJD, it is OK for David Cameron to wreck millions of people's lives when he has no majority mandate to do so, but is isn't for a union to strike when they don't have a majority mandate. That is combination of Kafka and Pavlov.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:55 AM
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 11:45 AM
Today we have a Conservative Party considering altering the laws on union votes and union democracy.

That Conservative Party is governing this country with a mandate of only around one third of all votes cast in the election, and two thirds of which did not vote Conservative, I think its a case of "we will decide what is, and what is not democracy, because we know best".

Why cannot you address the simple question of what is fair? "Fair" is something that rolls off Lefty lips so readily so why not apply your Yardstick here?

No - it is you that fails to understand, the simple rule of democracy as applied in this country is, and always has been - the wishes of those who turn up to vote, its really quite simple.

If we went along with these bent proposals, should we then apply the same rules to council elections, general elections, or should it only apply to unions because it fits in with the Tory agenda.
What of the CBI, board rooms, directors or the selection of MP s, should this rule also apply there too. ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:35 AM
Your claim is that there is no problem to solve,

No I haven't RJD.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 11 2015, 12:08 PM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:41 AM
I cannot help you Mr Smurf as your education does not allow you to understand basic logic.
It is you who does not understand logic RJD, it is OK for David Cameron to wreck millions of people's lives when he has no majority mandate to do so, but is isn't for a union to strike when they don't have a majority mandate. That is combination of Kafka and Pavlov.
Sorry Mr Smurf but you have failed to address the point as to why I claimed the logic to be false. Do that first and then maybe we can allow you to move ground.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 12:00 PM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:38 AM
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 11:29 AM
somersetli
Jan 11 2015, 11:00 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The answer is none as we all know. Things have already too far in the employers and government direction and now this rotten government wants to make the situation even worse. Comes back to my previous suggestion, that if people were treated fairly there would be no need to strike. All this incompetent government seems to want to do is cause an era of conflict.
You obviously know nothing of the history of such industrial relations in the UK. Your claim that all people want is to be treated fairly is subjective and bogus. If you are able to define what "fair" means then I can describe the necessary Law. The question here is what level of votes makes calling a strike action fair. Please advise.



What rubbish, it is obvious that you fail to realise that in those companies that people are treated fairly and as equals to management that they are happier in their jobs and more productive. If your leadership get their way and effectively ban the right to strike then people will simply work unofficially to rule and relations together with productivity will inevitably suffer.

File under right wing outmoded claptrap.
So you are also not capable of reading a simple graph.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 12:08 PM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:55 AM
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 11:45 AM
Today we have a Conservative Party considering altering the laws on union votes and union democracy.

That Conservative Party is governing this country with a mandate of only around one third of all votes cast in the election, and two thirds of which did not vote Conservative, I think its a case of "we will decide what is, and what is not democracy, because we know best".

Why cannot you address the simple question of what is fair? "Fair" is something that rolls off Lefty lips so readily so why not apply your Yardstick here?

No - it is you that fails to understand, the simple rule of democracy as applied in this country is, and always has been - the wishes of those who turn up to vote, its really quite simple.

If we went along with these bent proposals, should we then apply the same rules to council elections, general elections, or should it only apply to unions because it fits in with the Tory agenda.
What of the CBI, board rooms, directors or the selection of MP s, should this rule also apply there too. ?
Just to be clear are you saying that a Union comprised of 100,000 Members say, that has a ballot where only 5,000 vote and of these 3,000 of these say strike is a clear expression of the democratic will of the membership? That question deserves a simple yes or no with no obfuscation or false analogies. So which is it? Yes or no? If you think "no" then my next question is "what would be"?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 12:26 PM
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 12:00 PM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:38 AM
Lewis
Jan 11 2015, 11:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You obviously know nothing of the history of such industrial relations in the UK. Your claim that all people want is to be treated fairly is subjective and bogus. If you are able to define what "fair" means then I can describe the necessary Law. The question here is what level of votes makes calling a strike action fair. Please advise.



What rubbish, it is obvious that you fail to realise that in those companies that people are treated fairly and as equals to management that they are happier in their jobs and more productive. If your leadership get their way and effectively ban the right to strike then people will simply work unofficially to rule and relations together with productivity will inevitably suffer.

File under right wing outmoded claptrap.
So you are also not capable of reading a simple graph.
What simple graph? Please provide it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 12:08 PM
RJD
Jan 11 2015, 11:55 AM
krugerman
Jan 11 2015, 11:45 AM
Today we have a Conservative Party considering altering the laws on union votes and union democracy.

That Conservative Party is governing this country with a mandate of only around one third of all votes cast in the election, and two thirds of which did not vote Conservative, I think its a case of "we will decide what is, and what is not democracy, because we know best".

Why cannot you address the simple question of what is fair? "Fair" is something that rolls off Lefty lips so readily so why not apply your Yardstick here?

No - it is you that fails to understand, the simple rule of democracy as applied in this country is, and always has been - the wishes of those who turn up to vote, its really quite simple.

If we went along with these bent proposals, should we then apply the same rules to council elections, general elections, or should it only apply to unions because it fits in with the Tory agenda.
What of the CBI, board rooms, directors or the selection of MP s, should this rule also apply there too. ?
To put that another way should a vote be lost on a small majority i.e. 49% for with 51% against.

Recently Scotland had a referendum on remaining in the union, presumably a simple majority would have seen them depart. Would that have been right if you applied the same logic as that proposed for trade unions.













Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

High unemployment, job insecurity, have given the employer the upper-hand, and it is exploited. Trade Union powers to curb management excesses are weakened, but the most troubling consequence of this climate of fear (of losing one's job) is that membership of the Unions has fallen, and even those that are members have little faith that the Union can secure their livelihood.
People will not strike (vote for) even if they are being exploited, are justified, because of the fear of the dole queue.

Oh; and it wasn't true that it was a war. Unions v Government, "who governs Britain", in the eighties, and there's certainly no truth in it now.
Another false Tory soundbite.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 11 2015, 01:44 PM
High unemployment, job insecurity, have given the employer the upper-hand, and it is exploited. Trade Union powers to curb management excesses are weakened, but the most troubling consequence of this climate of fear (of losing one's job) is that membership of the Unions has fallen, and even those that are members have little faith that the Union can secure their livelihood.
People will not strike (vote for) even if they are being exploited, are justified, because of the fear of the dole queue.

Oh; and it wasn't true that it was a war. Unions v Government, "who governs Britain", in the eighties, and there's certainly no truth in it now.
Another false Tory soundbite.


Why is it impossible for anyone on the left to define what fairness means in such a ballot. All I see is obfuscation. The left always seeks to avoid difficult questions, well difficult for them anyway.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply