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
Killer Unions
Topic Started: Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM (842 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The industrial action planned by Unison, Unite and the GMB means ambulance crews will strike from noon until midnight on Thursday, Jan 29, while hospital workers will walk out from 9am to 9pm on the same day.



Quote:
 
Just 13 per cent of union members had voted to take part in the strikes.


These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground.

Quote:
 
Paramedic salaries start in Band 5, which ranges from £21,478 to £27,901
. Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
They deserve a 10% pay rise IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

How many will actually strike?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
Quote:
 
The industrial action planned by Unison, Unite and the GMB means ambulance crews will strike from noon until midnight on Thursday, Jan 29, while hospital workers will walk out from 9am to 9pm on the same day.



Quote:
 
Just 13 per cent of union members had voted to take part in the strikes.


These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground.

Quote:
 
Paramedic salaries start in Band 5, which ranges from £21,478 to £27,901
. Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps.

Killer unions?

You seem as addicted to bullshit hyperbole as a crack whore is to cocaine! ;D

If you are prevented from withdrawing your labour by the state we are once again on the road to serfdom, although I expect you'd probably embrace that, as long as you were sitting at the top of the table of course.

File under Screw everyone but big business and the banks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
Quote:
 
The industrial action planned by Unison, Unite and the GMB means ambulance crews will strike from noon until midnight on Thursday, Jan 29, while hospital workers will walk out from 9am to 9pm on the same day.



Quote:
 
Just 13 per cent of union members had voted to take part in the strikes.


These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground.

Quote:
 
Paramedic salaries start in Band 5, which ranges from £21,478 to £27,901
. Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps.

Killer unions?

You seem as addicted to bullshit hyperbole as a crack whore is to cocaine! ;D

If you are prevented from withdrawing your labour by the state we are once again on the road to serfdom, although I expect you'd probably embrace that, as long as you were sitting at the top of the table of course.

File under Screw everyone but big business and the banks.
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
Quote:
 
The industrial action planned by Unison, Unite and the GMB means ambulance crews will strike from noon until midnight on Thursday, Jan 29, while hospital workers will walk out from 9am to 9pm on the same day.



Quote:
 
Just 13 per cent of union members had voted to take part in the strikes.


These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground.

Quote:
 
Paramedic salaries start in Band 5, which ranges from £21,478 to £27,901
. Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps.

Killer unions?

You seem as addicted to bullshit hyperbole as a crack whore is to cocaine! ;D

If you are prevented from withdrawing your labour by the state we are once again on the road to serfdom, although I expect you'd probably embrace that, as long as you were sitting at the top of the table of course.

File under Screw everyone but big business and the banks.
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
For the first time in the history of the independent pay review body, the government has chosen to ignore its recommendation of 1% pay rise for all NHS staff.

The government is using all means necessary to reduce costs within the NHS, this includes no pay rises in line with inflation, in other words the real value of wages has been going down for 5 years.

Other means of demeaning professional health workers have included regrading, creating new and lower paid grades with worse conditions and worse terms, and this is at a time when the NHS is in crisis, where many workers are under immense pressure, some workers in A&E departments are actually working unpaid, in their own time, in order to alleviate the crisis.

Staff need to be treated well. The NHS is facing unprecedented challenges, telling more than half the workforce that they are not worth even a tiny pay rise will not help to engage them in meeting these challenges, and once again, as is often the case with this government, our NHS workers and staff are in a race to the bottom.

More and more doctors and nurses are now leaving the NHS, saying goodbye to Britain and heading for places like Australia, and if this government continues on its present course, these growing numbers will turn into a flood - the NHS is part of a free market, and the Australians are regularly over here tempting recruits.

The NHS is fast going down the plug - the Tories are in charge (for now)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
Quote:
 
The industrial action planned by Unison, Unite and the GMB means ambulance crews will strike from noon until midnight on Thursday, Jan 29, while hospital workers will walk out from 9am to 9pm on the same day.



Quote:
 
Just 13 per cent of union members had voted to take part in the strikes.


These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground.

Quote:
 
Paramedic salaries start in Band 5, which ranges from £21,478 to £27,901
. Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps.

Killer unions?

You seem as addicted to bullshit hyperbole as a crack whore is to cocaine! ;D

If you are prevented from withdrawing your labour by the state we are once again on the road to serfdom, although I expect you'd probably embrace that, as long as you were sitting at the top of the table of course.

File under Screw everyone but big business and the banks.
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.
Nothing silly about my post you bonkers biddy, these people do a tough and at times thankless job and in my opinion deserve at the very least a decent pay rise because what they are doing actually makes this country a slightly better place, unlike the majority of your causes it has to be said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Looks like the Tories are doing their best to destroy the NHS within then telling us that the NHS is not fit for purpose.
P*ssing on us and telling the media its raining............
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 21 2015, 02:13 PM


The NHS is fast going down the plug - the Tories are in charge (for now)
The Tories always lose the GE when the ef up the NHS, the fact it is not one of Dave's six priorities when he expects the elderly blue rinse Nazi's to vote for him smacks of unbeliebvable complacency.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Killer Government would be more apt.
RJD remarks that the Unions demands are for a meagre increase - affordable if not for the obsession with spending cuts. Already the NHS is struggling to cope, lives have been put at risk, and those in need of medical interventions are suffering longer waits as this government resorts to its minimalist policy.
A government that has given tax cuts to the least needy, and to business based on the pretence that these are needed, their gains returned through investment in wealth creation - BS.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Killer unions?

You seem as addicted to bullshit hyperbole as a crack whore is to cocaine! ;D

If you are prevented from withdrawing your labour by the state we are once again on the road to serfdom, although I expect you'd probably embrace that, as long as you were sitting at the top of the table of course.

File under Screw everyone but big business and the banks.
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.
Grab a passing five year old and ask them to explain to you the reasons the unions feel the need to call a strike.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 01:37 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Silly uniformed comment. It is not unusual to have such clauses in such contracts, but often getting them in costs. Best get yourself off that ladder in Sunderland and visit other EU countries.

The question you do not seek to defend is the one about the 13%.

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.


Your OP claimed 'union bosses' demanded a strike. The 'union bosses' do not DEMAND that their members strike.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 02:34 PM
Killer Government would be more apt.
RJD remarks that the Unions demands are for a meagre increase - affordable if not for the obsession with spending cuts. Already the NHS is struggling to cope, lives have been put at risk, and those in need of medical interventions are suffering longer waits as this government resorts to its minimalist policy.
A government that has given tax cuts to the least needy, and to business based on the pretence that these are needed, their gains returned through investment in wealth creation - BS.


Give it to the Paramedics then everyone else will require at least the same. Have the private sector workers had pay increases since 2008? Do we not now have a situation where the public sector pay package is better than that of the private sector. Do we now not find that Mr Average Joe in the private sector contributes more to the pensions of those in the public sector than he can afford for himself? Have we seen wage growth in the private sector to erode such disparities? That said the question was about whether or not 13% is sufficient authority to cause such disruption and hardship to those that are sick? Answer that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.


Your OP claimed 'union bosses' demanded a strike. The 'union bosses' do not DEMAND that their members strike.


Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:40 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

The question you need to address is how many will actually strike .
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.


Your OP claimed 'union bosses' demanded a strike. The 'union bosses' do not DEMAND that their members strike.
Then what do you call it? "Strike if you like", perhaps.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:45 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:45 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why? My question was wrt to the Union Bosses demanding a strike.


Your OP claimed 'union bosses' demanded a strike. The 'union bosses' do not DEMAND that their members strike.
Then what do you call it? "Strike if you like", perhaps.


Just about. For a union to CALL a strike then they must go through certain procedures. Which it seems that they have done. The ' union bosses' have no right to demand or coerce members to strike.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 02:34 PM
Killer Government would be more apt.
RJD remarks that the Unions demands are for a meagre increase - affordable if not for the obsession with spending cuts. Already the NHS is struggling to cope, lives have been put at risk, and those in need of medical interventions are suffering longer waits as this government resorts to its minimalist policy.
A government that has given tax cuts to the least needy, and to business based on the pretence that these are needed, their gains returned through investment in wealth creation - BS.


Give it to the Paramedics then everyone else will require at least the same. Have the private sector workers had pay increases since 2008? Do we not now have a situation where the public sector pay package is better than that of the private sector. Do we now not find that Mr Average Joe in the private sector contributes more to the pensions of those in the public sector than he can afford for himself? Have we seen wage growth in the private sector to erode such disparities? That said the question was about whether or not 13% is sufficient authority to cause such disruption and hardship to those that are sick? Answer that.
Derrrrrrrrrrrr.......

You compare the private sector to the public sector, the public sector provides a service for all of us and in theory at least we all should get something out of it, and speaking with my employers hat on I provide a service with the main intention of enriching myself.

Can you see the difference here? Perhaps on this occasion grab a three year old?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:48 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:45 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:38 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Your OP claimed 'union bosses' demanded a strike. The 'union bosses' do not DEMAND that their members strike.
Then what do you call it? "Strike if you like", perhaps.


Just about. For a union to CALL a strike then they must go through certain procedures. Which it seems that they have done. The ' union bosses' have no right to demand or coerce members to strike.
Me thinks that you are squirming. Change the words if you like but the question remains exactly the same. Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:54 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:48 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:45 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Then what do you call it? "Strike if you like", perhaps.


Just about. For a union to CALL a strike then they must go through certain procedures. Which it seems that they have done. The ' union bosses' have no right to demand or coerce members to strike.
Me thinks that you are squirming. Change the words if you like but the question remains exactly the same. Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?



Is what this union doing legal under current laws?

A simple yes or no will do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 21 2015, 02:57 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:54 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:48 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:45 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Just about. For a union to CALL a strike then they must go through certain procedures. Which it seems that they have done. The ' union bosses' have no right to demand or coerce members to strike.
Me thinks that you are squirming. Change the words if you like but the question remains exactly the same. Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?



Is what this union doing legal under current laws?

A simple yes or no will do.
Yes, but that was not the question. Try the question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:54 PM
Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?



it is right for the Tories to wreak havoc on the poor and vulnerable and kill a lot more in the process that a paramedics strike ever will.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:54 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:48 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:45 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Then what do you call it? "Strike if you like", perhaps.


Just about. For a union to CALL a strike then they must go through certain procedures. Which it seems that they have done. The ' union bosses' have no right to demand or coerce members to strike.
Me thinks that you are squirming. Change the words if you like but the question remains exactly the same. Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?





Me thinks that you are trying to avoid the obvious by trying to undermine the person whom you cannot refute.
What you must come to terms with is that the procedures allow the strike to be called but does not compel anyone to strike.
There obviously was a low turn out to vote but the required majority must have been reached ( I do not believe a missed vote should be taken as a no vote in any ballot, do you?).
So maybe the unions are not such killers after all eh?

Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 02:59 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:54 PM
Is it right that the procedures allow a Union to authorise a strike when only a small minority of members have given their approval?



it is right for the Tories to wreak havoc on the poor and vulnerable and kill a lot more in the process that a paramedics strike ever will.
You are free to start a thread based on that question which is irrelevant to this one and no more than a smoke screen to hide from the question. If you do not want to answer the question just be intellectually honest for once.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 02:34 PM
Killer Government would be more apt.
RJD remarks that the Unions demands are for a meagre increase - affordable if not for the obsession with spending cuts. Already the NHS is struggling to cope, lives have been put at risk, and those in need of medical interventions are suffering longer waits as this government resorts to its minimalist policy.
A government that has given tax cuts to the least needy, and to business based on the pretence that these are needed, their gains returned through investment in wealth creation - BS.


Give it to the Paramedics then everyone else will require at least the same. Have the private sector workers had pay increases since 2008? Do we not now have a situation where the public sector pay package is better than that of the private sector. Do we now not find that Mr Average Joe in the private sector contributes more to the pensions of those in the public sector than he can afford for himself? Have we seen wage growth in the private sector to erode such disparities? That said the question was about whether or not 13% is sufficient authority to cause such disruption and hardship to those that are sick? Answer that.

I answered the HEADING ........ as for TU action.
In this designed employment climate where job insecurity rules, where the dread of not being able to meet the Mortgage/rent payment and the risk of the bailiff persuade employees to put up with exploitation, it is not surprising that so many that would otherwise agree with the Union policy find it much too difficult to vote for it.
To summarise - too many wrongs (insecurity, falling wages in real terms, TU legislation preventing representation and crucially support, increased pressure and demands), and the 'right' of it, of the right to be 'fairly' treat is lost ......... The pendulum has swung and has taken the power of the TU movement away.
This action will not harm the Government except in a demonstration of their callous attitude towards suffering, and is entirely politically motivated - to try to wreck the Conservative Party's election prospects. As such, if I were a member, I too would not vote for strike action. Cameron and the press, the media, have all the tools they need to turn this into a positive for the Right.


Edited by Affa, Jan 21 2015, 03:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: Me thinks that you are trying to avoid the obvious by trying to undermine the person whom you cannot refute.

No my question is extremely simple and I believe phrased in such a way as not to confuse. Why you cannot address it head on is beyond me.

gansao: What you must come to terms with is that the procedures allow the strike to be called but does not compel anyone to strike.

Strawman I did not claim that is did and also such has no relevance to my question. Whether an individual joins such a strike or not is irrelevant, my question is to do whether or not the Unions should have the authority to call such.

gansao: There obviously was a low turn out to vote but the required majority must have been reached ( I do not believe a missed vote should be taken as a no vote in any ballot, do you?).

Without such votes being declared I am in no position to assume which way they would have gone. Is that not the point?

gansao: So maybe the unions are not such killers after all eh?

So maybe they are and they are calling this strike for political reasons. Have you evidence to show that they are not? They certainly do not appear to have whipped up support from their members so how does one judge?

So why not answer my simple question?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:13 PM
gansao: Me thinks that you are trying to avoid the obvious by trying to undermine the person whom you cannot refute.

No my question is extremely simple and I believe phrased in such a way as not to confuse. Why you cannot address it head on is beyond me.

gansao: What you must come to terms with is that the procedures allow the strike to be called but does not compel anyone to strike.

Strawman I did not claim that is did and also such has no relevance to my question. Whether an individual joins such a strike or not is irrelevant, my question is to do whether or not the Unions should have the authority to call such.

gansao: There obviously was a low turn out to vote but the required majority must have been reached ( I do not believe a missed vote should be taken as a no vote in any ballot, do you?).

Without such votes being declared I am in no position to assume which way they would have gone. Is that not the point?

gansao: So maybe the unions are not such killers after all eh?

So maybe they are and they are calling this strike for political reasons. Have you evidence to show that they are not? They certainly do not appear to have whipped up support from their members so how does one judge?

So why not answer my simple question?



Me thinks you are squirming now.
I have already addressed it why you cannot understand it is beyond me.
You seem not go be able to understand strawman arguments either.You have claimed that the 'union bosses' DEMANDED a strike , remember?
Another point that went over your head. A vote not cast or spoiled.What way do you think these non votes went?  ::)
Have you evidence to show they are..and you accuse ME of posting a stawman.
What you are doing is simply accusing me of not answering a question to obfuscate.
The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that. What is it about this that you are struggling with?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: Me thinks you are squirming now. I have already addressed it why you cannot understand it is beyond me.

I do not see your answer so bear with me and repeat it again. Here I am looking for a clear answer to my question, not another question.

gansao: You seem not go be able to understand strawman arguments either.You have claimed that the 'union bosses' DEMANDED a strike , remember?

Not my point. The Strawman was to do with the claim that they are not compelled to strike which is not a claim I made. The words "demand" and "compel" have different meanings.

gansao: Another point that went over your head. A vote not cast or spoiled.What way do you think these non votes went?

I answered that very clearly, I repeat I do not know, but I would like to.

gansao: Have you evidence to show they are..and you accuse ME of posting a stawman.

Read above.

gansao: What you are doing is simply accusing me of not answering a question to obfuscate.

I think my words are clear, but your answer to my question is not.

gansao: The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted.

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that. What is it about this that you are struggling with?

I am struggling with getting a clear answer from you, but unless you correct me is, I believe, that you are comfortable with Unions calling for such strikes where only 13% of Members have given their approval as long as they, the Unions, have followed existing procedures of which you see no reason to change.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:34 PM
gansao: Me thinks you are squirming now. I have already addressed it why you cannot understand it is beyond me.

I do not see your answer so bear with me and repeat it again. Here I am looking for a clear answer to my question, not another question.

gansao: You seem not go be able to understand strawman arguments either.You have claimed that the 'union bosses' DEMANDED a strike , remember?

Not my point. The Strawman was to do with the claim that they are not compelled to strike which is not a claim I made. The words "demand" and "compel" have different meanings.

gansao: Another point that went over your head. A vote not cast or spoiled.What way do you think these non votes went?

I answered that very clearly, I repeat I do not know, but I would like to.

gansao: Have you evidence to show they are..and you accuse ME of posting a stawman.

Read above.

gansao: What you are doing is simply accusing me of not answering a question to obfuscate.

I think my words are clear, but your answer to my question is not.

gansao: The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted.

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that. What is it about this that you are struggling with?

I am struggling with getting a clear answer from you, but unless you correct me is, I believe, that you are comfortable with Unions calling for such strikes where only 13% of Members have given their approval as long as they, the Unions, have followed existing procedures of which you see no reason to change.



Oh dear. Keep asking the same question and claim that I didnt answer it .
I will answer it again......

The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that.
If that means only 13% have voted for it then so be it because.....
The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not.

Now I will address your claim that a .... Union can demand that members strike.
demand
1.
an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right.

Well they cannot can they? The union has called a strike but not demanded that they DO strike.
So thats one of your claims refuted.

Also you call the unions involved killer unions because of the strike but have posted nothing to support this.
Maybe you should.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 03:49 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:34 PM
gansao: Me thinks you are squirming now. I have already addressed it why you cannot understand it is beyond me.

I do not see your answer so bear with me and repeat it again. Here I am looking for a clear answer to my question, not another question.

gansao: You seem not go be able to understand strawman arguments either.You have claimed that the 'union bosses' DEMANDED a strike , remember?

Not my point. The Strawman was to do with the claim that they are not compelled to strike which is not a claim I made. The words "demand" and "compel" have different meanings.

gansao: Another point that went over your head. A vote not cast or spoiled.What way do you think these non votes went?

I answered that very clearly, I repeat I do not know, but I would like to.

gansao: Have you evidence to show they are..and you accuse ME of posting a stawman.

Read above.

gansao: What you are doing is simply accusing me of not answering a question to obfuscate.

I think my words are clear, but your answer to my question is not.

gansao: The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted.

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that. What is it about this that you are struggling with?

I am struggling with getting a clear answer from you, but unless you correct me is, I believe, that you are comfortable with Unions calling for such strikes where only 13% of Members have given their approval as long as they, the Unions, have followed existing procedures of which you see no reason to change.



Oh dear. Keep asking the same question and claim that I didnt answer it .
I will answer it again......

The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that.
If that means only 13% have voted for it then so be it because.....
The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not.

Now I will address your claim that a .... Union can demand that members strike.
demand
1.
an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right.

Well they cannot can they? The union has called a strike but not demanded that they DO strike.
So thats one of your claims refuted.

Also you call the unions involved killer unions because of the strike but have posted nothing to support this.
Maybe you should.

gansao: Oh dear. Keep asking the same question and claim that I didnt answer it . I will answer it again......The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Not disputed, never was. Classic Strawman.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that.

Not disputed, never was. Classic Strawman.


gansao: If that means only 13% have voted for it then so be it because..... The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not.

The question remains "is the 13% sufficient authority"?

gansao: Now I will address your claim that a .... Union can demand that members strike. demand 1. an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right. Well they cannot can they? The union has called a strike but not demanded that they DO strike. So thats one of your claims refuted.

Not disputed, not my claim. Classic Strawman. You need to understand that there is a difference between the words "demand" and "command" and I have previously said that you are free to use other words in order that you can concentrate on the question.

gansao: Also you call the unions involved killer unions because of the strike but have posted nothing to support this. Maybe you should.

No I asked a question that you appear to wish to avoid. You have not even confirmed or otherwise my take on what you opinion actually is. I see no reason to change that do you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:59 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 03:49 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:34 PM
gansao: Me thinks you are squirming now. I have already addressed it why you cannot understand it is beyond me.

I do not see your answer so bear with me and repeat it again. Here I am looking for a clear answer to my question, not another question.

gansao: You seem not go be able to understand strawman arguments either.You have claimed that the 'union bosses' DEMANDED a strike , remember?

Not my point. The Strawman was to do with the claim that they are not compelled to strike which is not a claim I made. The words "demand" and "compel" have different meanings.

gansao: Another point that went over your head. A vote not cast or spoiled.What way do you think these non votes went?

I answered that very clearly, I repeat I do not know, but I would like to.

gansao: Have you evidence to show they are..and you accuse ME of posting a stawman.

Read above.

gansao: What you are doing is simply accusing me of not answering a question to obfuscate.

I think my words are clear, but your answer to my question is not.

gansao: The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted.

Again a Strawman as this is not my claim.

gansao: The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that. What is it about this that you are struggling with?

I am struggling with getting a clear answer from you, but unless you correct me is, I believe, that you are comfortable with Unions calling for such strikes where only 13% of Members have given their approval as long as they, the Unions, have followed existing procedures of which you see no reason to change.



Oh dear. Keep asking the same question and claim that I didnt answer it .
I will answer it again......

The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that.
If that means only 13% have voted for it then so be it because.....
The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not.

Now I will address your claim that a .... Union can demand that members strike.
demand
1.
an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right.

Well they cannot can they? The union has called a strike but not demanded that they DO strike.
So thats one of your claims refuted.

Also you call the unions involved killer unions because of the strike but have posted nothing to support this.
Maybe you should.

gansao: Oh dear. Keep asking the same question and claim that I didnt answer it . I will answer it again......The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols .

Not disputed, never was. Classic Strawman.

gansao: The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not. Yes I agree with that.

Not disputed, never was. Classic Strawman.


gansao: If that means only 13% have voted for it then so be it because..... The unions have a right to call a ballot over grievances, they followed the protocols . The votes that were cast were counted. The unions called the strike and the members are more or less allowed to decide to follow the strike or not.

The question remains "is the 13% sufficient authority"?

gansao: Now I will address your claim that a .... Union can demand that members strike. demand 1. an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right. Well they cannot can they? The union has called a strike but not demanded that they DO strike. So thats one of your claims refuted.

Not disputed, not my claim. Classic Strawman. You need to understand that there is a difference between the words "demand" and "command" and I have previously said that you are free to use other words in order that you can concentrate on the question.

gansao: Also you call the unions involved killer unions because of the strike but have posted nothing to support this. Maybe you should.

No I asked a question that you appear to wish to avoid. You have not even confirmed or otherwise my take on what you opinion actually is. I see no reason to change that do you?


You still seem to be unable to comprehend a strawman argument. The question i.....s the 13% sufficient authority.. has been answered. You keep repeating strawman doesnt refute this.
You DID claim that a union can demand that members strike ffs look at your own OP. It has been refuted.
You titled the OP killer unions and claim that they put those that have no alternatives at risk yet you refuse to back this claim up.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: You still seem to be unable to comprehend a strawman argument.

I think I do and have demonstrated that the points, well some of them, that you raised fit neatly into that category. To be clear:
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

gansao: The question i.....s the 13% sufficient authority.. has been answered. You keep repeating strawman doesnt refute this.


Sorry but you didn't answer my question directly but sought to impose points that I had not claimed. The question was extremely simple and you could have answered with a yes or no, but instead put up a number of classic Strawmen.

ganso: You DID claim that a union can demand that members strike ffs look at your own OP. It has been refuted.

Yes I said demand but that does not mean command.

gansao: You titled the OP killer unions and claim that they put those that have no alternatives at risk yet you refuse to back this claim up.

Why should I? I am looking for an answer to my question, the one that you have spent a lot of time seeking to avoid. I think there are jobs where such strike action based on such thin authority are not in the interests of those using this public service, they cannot go elsewhere, they are generally frail and/or very sick. Looks and smells like an irresponsible abuse of power too me and I understand why the Tories want to get the Laws changed. Now if they had an over whelming mandate, that would be a different matter, but they don't.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 02:44 PM
Affa
Jan 21 2015, 02:34 PM
Killer Government would be more apt.
RJD remarks that the Unions demands are for a meagre increase - affordable if not for the obsession with spending cuts. Already the NHS is struggling to cope, lives have been put at risk, and those in need of medical interventions are suffering longer waits as this government resorts to its minimalist policy.
A government that has given tax cuts to the least needy, and to business based on the pretence that these are needed, their gains returned through investment in wealth creation - BS.


Give it to the Paramedics then everyone else will require at least the same. Have the private sector workers had pay increases since 2008? Do we not now have a situation where the public sector pay package is better than that of the private sector. Do we now not find that Mr Average Joe in the private sector contributes more to the pensions of those in the public sector than he can afford for himself? Have we seen wage growth in the private sector to erode such disparities? That said the question was about whether or not 13% is sufficient authority to cause such disruption and hardship to those that are sick? Answer that.
Purely for your information, wages are now rising faster than inflation, that is according to the ONS, but clearly this must be happening only in the private sector, as the vast majority in the public sector are on either bare minimum increases, or still on wage freeze s.

Employees can expect to see a 2.5 per cent rise in pay over 2015, Hay Group said today. Meanwhile, inflation – annual growth in prices – is forecast to be 1.7 per cent in 2015

http://www.cityam.com/1418090962/uk-salaries-set-continue-beat-inflation

The difference of course between a doctor working in the private sector, and one working in the NHS, is that there is no real pressure in the private sector, no Accident & Emergency departments, no trauma, hardly any intensive care units and very few highly specialized units.

What you fail to understand is that this is not a pay rise to keep up with inflation, indeed it will not be a cost of living increase, it is a mere 1%, and it has not been asked for or demanded by the workers, it has actually been recommended by a independent body.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:06 PM
You are free to start a thread based on that question which is irrelevant to this one
It is very relevant to your comment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 01:19 PM
How many will actually strike?
It is the duty of all trade union members and their families and relatives, no matter what union they are associated with, and all their socialist supporters, not to become ill or in need of their services as a gesture of solidarity and support on any of the strike days. Sudden life threatening illnesses, or accidental injuries, should be avoided at any cost and by any means, and put off for another day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
This simply proves that the government is on the right track when it states its intention of reforming industrial relations law to prevent strike action when only a small minority vote in support. 13% is a pathetic mandate upon which to call a strike that could well endanger patients well being.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
K: Purely for your information, wages are now rising faster than inflation, that is according to the ONS, but clearly this must be happening only in the private sector, as the vast majority in the public sector are on either bare minimum increases, or still on wage freeze s.

Yes but, has the private sector made up for the loss in wages post 2007/08? You see it's wages were not frozen and secured by the State.

K: Employees can expect to see a 2.5 per cent rise in pay over 2015, Hay Group said today. Meanwhile, inflation – annual growth in prices – is forecast to be 1.7 per cent in 2015

Excellent news, but how long will it take to recover the ground lost due to wage reductions?

http://www.cityam.com/1418090962/uk-salaries-set-continue-beat-inflation

K: The difference of course between a doctor working in the private sector, and one working in the NHS, is that there is no real pressure in the private sector, no Accident & Emergency departments, no trauma, hardly any intensive care units and very few highly specialized units.

I don't think Joe Public working in the private sector, the one who saw his wages fall and his neighbour's frozen because he is lucky to have a public sector job, is really thinking about Doctors.

K: What you fail to understand is that this is not a pay rise to keep up with inflation, indeed it will not be a cost of living increase, it is a mere 1%, and it has not been asked for or demanded by the workers, it has actually been recommended by a independent body.

Another Strawman as I did not claim such. Just answer the question which is about the basis of authority to call for such a strike.

You have to state why the Public Sector Employees should get preferential treatment over those in the Private Sector before one can demand sympathy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 04:42 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 03:06 PM
You are free to start a thread based on that question which is irrelevant to this one
It is very relevant to your comment.
Only in your twisted opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 04:40 PM
gansao: You still seem to be unable to comprehend a strawman argument.

I think I do and have demonstrated that the points, well some of them, that you raised fit neatly into that category. To be clear:
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

gansao: The question i.....s the 13% sufficient authority.. has been answered. You keep repeating strawman doesnt refute this.


Sorry but you didn't answer my question directly but sought to impose points that I had not claimed. The question was extremely simple and you could have answered with a yes or no, but instead put up a number of classic Strawmen.

ganso: You DID claim that a union can demand that members strike ffs look at your own OP. It has been refuted.

Yes I said demand but that does not mean command.

gansao: You titled the OP killer unions and claim that they put those that have no alternatives at risk yet you refuse to back this claim up.

Why should I? I am looking for an answer to my question, the one that you have spent a lot of time seeking to avoid. I think there are jobs where such strike action based on such thin authority are not in the interests of those using this public service, they cannot go elsewhere, they are generally frail and/or very sick. Looks and smells like an irresponsible abuse of power too me and I understand why the Tories want to get the Laws changed. Now if they had an over whelming mandate, that would be a different matter, but they don't.




I Once again you are doing nothing but obfusgate by repeating ' strawman'.
I answered you question. There is no strawman. There is just your repeated attempt to ask the question then claim strawman when I do.


You said demand. I supplied a definition of 'demand'. You were wrong in your claim. Now YOU are making a strawman by using a different word..command. Which is NOT the word you used or what I refuted. Strawman  ::)


Why should you? Because you claimed it.

These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk.

Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk


You made specific claims that you cannot back up. You made a specific claim that I refuted.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply