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 (843 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
 
Replies:
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 04:48 PM
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.

What are you babbling about?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Jan 21 2015, 04:52 PM
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.
If the Union Leaders had a valid point which had the support of it's Members you would expect a solid majority of votes affirming such an action. The authority they are claiming is flaky either because they have not bothered to sell their position to their members or they, the members, just don't buy into it. The fact that such an action hurts those who are frail and/or sick who have no alternative but the State monopoly, for me, sums up their incorrigible disinterest in the plight of others, for what, a miserable 1%. Public Sector Workers are not a special group to be protected and need to understand that those who pay their wages through taxes have suffered to a much greater degree. The claim that Public Sector Workers also pay taxes is irrelevant.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:03 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 04:48 PM
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.

What are you babbling about?
I think he was taking the Michael.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Alberich
Jan 21 2015, 04:52 PM
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.


RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:08 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:03 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 04:48 PM
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.

What are you babbling about?
I think he was taking the Michael.


I think he was making a strawman argument or just babbling
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Alberich
Jan 21 2015, 04:52 PM
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.



If all of the members were given ballot forms then 13% supporting the action should be enough. It is the same system that the government uses in many cases.
A vote not cast should not be a no vote. Also you must consider that a strike call is not a demand to strike from the ' union bosses' as the OP claims
In the event it gives the members an opportunity to withdraw its labour lawfully. Many will not and it is no means certain that anyone will be in danger.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:03 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 04:48 PM
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.

What are you babbling about?
I'm bringing the reality of the proposal to strike home to those who would support it. They are, quite simply putting lives at risk, and that could be their own, or members of their families for political and financial gain. But you knew what I meant already.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 05:16 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:03 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 04:48 PM
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.

What are you babbling about?
I'm bringing the reality of the proposal to strike home to those who would support it. They are, quite simply putting lives at risk, and that could be their own, or members of their families for political and financial gain. But you knew what I meant already.


No you are not. You are claiming that people will be in danger and implying that the people who strike are doing it for cynical reasons. None of which you can support.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: If all of the members were given ballot forms then 13% supporting the action should be enough.

That is your opinion. But as this is also a matter of principle would you accept 10% or 5% as also being sufficient. Where would you draw the line.

gansao: It is the same system that the government uses in many cases.

Irrelevant. The question was wrt to this Union in this sector.

gansao: A vote not cast should not be a no vote.

Equally it cannot be considered a yes vote.

gansao: Also you must consider that a strike call is not a demand to strike from the ' union bosses' as the OP claims.

Demand is OK, nobody least of all me claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike. A Union Boss can demand, his Members are free to ignor, therefore he cannot command. This is just a tactic seeking to deflect from the fundamental question.

gansao: In the event it gives the members an opportunity to withdraw its labour lawfully. Many will not and it is no means certain that anyone will be in danger.

But the threat is still there. NHS Management will have to plan on the basis that it might not have access to such resources.
Will anyone die due to such a strike, well we will cry if they do and then say "it was worth it".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:26 PM
gansao: If all of the members were given ballot forms then 13% supporting the action should be enough.

That is your opinion. But as this is also a matter of principle would you accept 10% or 5% as also being sufficient. Where would you draw the line.

gansao: It is the same system that the government uses in many cases.

Irrelevant. The question was wrt to this Union in this sector.

gansao: A vote not cast should not be a no vote.

Equally it cannot be considered a yes vote.

gansao: Also you must consider that a strike call is not a demand to strike from the ' union bosses' as the OP claims.

Demand is OK, nobody least of all me claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike. A Union Boss can demand, his Members are free to ignor, therefore he cannot command. This is just a tactic seeking to deflect from the fundamental question.

gansao: In the event it gives the members an opportunity to withdraw its labour lawfully. Many will not and it is no means certain that anyone will be in danger.

But the threat is still there. NHS Management will have to plan on the basis that it might not have access to such resources.
Will anyone die due to such a strike, well we will cry if they do and then say "it was worth it".



Just as claiming 13% is not enough is your opinion. What you cannot dispute is that each members was given the chance to vote and that failure to cast a vote is not a no vote.
Nope relevant. The system is approved by the government therefore it must be a sound system.
Strawman I never claimed that it should be a yes vote.I claimed that it should be discounted.
I provided the definition of demand. You should of read it. Also there is no evidence that union bosses are demanding that their members strike. So not only are they unable to demand it , they are not actually attempting to do so.
Strawman. I never claimed you claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike.
You have no idea what the NHS will have to plan. You have no idea whether anyone will be in danger . You have no idea how many members will strike. You have no idea.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The last killer union strike..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29560083


Meanwhile, hospital staff were seen leaving the picket lines to deal with patients in some places.

Union leaders had always said their members will be providing "life and limb" cover during the strike.

The expectation was that 999 calls would be answered and A&E units would remain open and that seems to have been the case, according to reports.


However, hospital outpatient appointments, community clinics and some routine operations seem to have been affected.

The Royal College of Midwives, which is taking action for the first time in its history, said in advance services for women giving birth were going to be unaffected. Instead, its members targeted antenatal and postnatal care.

Doctors and dentists were not involved. NHS sources said about 5% of staff who were expected in work did not turn up, although unions had always maintained the numbers not working would not reflect the strength of support across the workforce.

Rehana Azam, national officer of the GMB union, said: "Reports from across the country are that the strike action was rock solid. Members are determined to get government to listen to them.


Murdering militant bastards eh?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:38 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:26 PM
gansao: If all of the members were given ballot forms then 13% supporting the action should be enough.

That is your opinion. But as this is also a matter of principle would you accept 10% or 5% as also being sufficient. Where would you draw the line.

gansao: It is the same system that the government uses in many cases.

Irrelevant. The question was wrt to this Union in this sector.

gansao: A vote not cast should not be a no vote.

Equally it cannot be considered a yes vote.

gansao: Also you must consider that a strike call is not a demand to strike from the ' union bosses' as the OP claims.

Demand is OK, nobody least of all me claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike. A Union Boss can demand, his Members are free to ignor, therefore he cannot command. This is just a tactic seeking to deflect from the fundamental question.

gansao: In the event it gives the members an opportunity to withdraw its labour lawfully. Many will not and it is no means certain that anyone will be in danger.

But the threat is still there. NHS Management will have to plan on the basis that it might not have access to such resources.
Will anyone die due to such a strike, well we will cry if they do and then say "it was worth it".



Just as claiming 13% is not enough is your opinion. What you cannot dispute is that each members was given the chance to vote and that failure to cast a vote is not a no vote.
Nope relevant. The system is approved by the government therefore it must be a sound system.
Strawman I never claimed that it should be a yes vote.I claimed that it should be discounted.
I provided the definition of demand. You should of read it. Also there is no evidence that union bosses are demanding that their members strike. So not only are they unable to demand it , they are not actually attempting to do so.
Strawman. I never claimed you claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike.
You have no idea what the NHS will have to plan. You have no idea whether anyone will be in danger . You have no idea how many members will strike. You have no idea.
The strike will not be supported by the members, for they will understand the dangers and risks, as well as the loss of respect of striking. Those that voted to strike are hoping that the government will make alternative arrangement.
What they will not do is give in to the blackmail.
I take it you will not be volunteering to help the sick or injured? Don't drive or you may be one of the 9 killed on the roads, or the many seriously injured. Imagine a child on the way to school knocked over and injured , and no ambulance to attend the scene to give aid , or to take it to hospital A&E for life changing treatment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Jan 21 2015, 06:00 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:38 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:26 PM
gansao: If all of the members were given ballot forms then 13% supporting the action should be enough.

That is your opinion. But as this is also a matter of principle would you accept 10% or 5% as also being sufficient. Where would you draw the line.

gansao: It is the same system that the government uses in many cases.

Irrelevant. The question was wrt to this Union in this sector.

gansao: A vote not cast should not be a no vote.

Equally it cannot be considered a yes vote.

gansao: Also you must consider that a strike call is not a demand to strike from the ' union bosses' as the OP claims.

Demand is OK, nobody least of all me claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike. A Union Boss can demand, his Members are free to ignor, therefore he cannot command. This is just a tactic seeking to deflect from the fundamental question.

gansao: In the event it gives the members an opportunity to withdraw its labour lawfully. Many will not and it is no means certain that anyone will be in danger.

But the threat is still there. NHS Management will have to plan on the basis that it might not have access to such resources.
Will anyone die due to such a strike, well we will cry if they do and then say "it was worth it".



Just as claiming 13% is not enough is your opinion. What you cannot dispute is that each members was given the chance to vote and that failure to cast a vote is not a no vote.
Nope relevant. The system is approved by the government therefore it must be a sound system.
Strawman I never claimed that it should be a yes vote.I claimed that it should be discounted.
I provided the definition of demand. You should of read it. Also there is no evidence that union bosses are demanding that their members strike. So not only are they unable to demand it , they are not actually attempting to do so.
Strawman. I never claimed you claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike.
You have no idea what the NHS will have to plan. You have no idea whether anyone will be in danger . You have no idea how many members will strike. You have no idea.
The strike will not be supported by the members, for they will understand the dangers and risks, as well as the loss of respect of striking. Those that voted to strike are hoping that the government will make alternative arrangement.
What they will not do is give in to the blackmail.
I take it you will not be volunteering to help the sick or injured? Don't drive or you may be one of the 9 killed on the roads, or the many seriously injured. Imagine a child on the way to school knocked over and injured , and no ambulance to attend the scene to give aid , or to take it to hospital A&E for life changing treatment.


Opinions and unsubstantiated claims .
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:07 PM
If the Union Leaders had a valid point which had the support of it's Members you would expect a solid majority of votes affirming such an action.



I wouldn't ...... There will be many (if not all) that do agree with the Union's point that will not vote with the Union.
Those with a conscientious problem, that care about what their strike action would do.
Those that cannot afford the loss of earnings.
Those that see it as a Political gesture, and one that will not in any way be enough to cause the government to accede to their request.
Those that are fearful of losing their job.
And of course the many that do agree but are not TU members.

It was once argued that the Unions were too powerful.
Today it is the opposite ........


Edited by Affa, Jan 21 2015, 06:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: Just as claiming 13% is not enough is your opinion.

It certainly is as it does not demonstrate that the Union has the backing of it's members and that for me is the litmus test.

gansao: What you cannot dispute is that each members was given the chance to vote and that failure to cast a vote is not a no vote.

Never made the claim never tried to dispute it, just made the only point of interest that whilst one cannot assume the vote to be no equally we cannot assume it a yes.

gansao: Nope relevant. The system is approved by the government therefore it must be a sound system.

Rubbish if that were the test then why would we ever change Laws? The Gov. approves lots of things that many disagree with.

gansoa: Strawman I never claimed that it should be a yes vote.I claimed that it should be discounted.

Again never said you did only that you claimed we should not assume it to be a no vote. Hence not a Strawman only a clarification.

gansao: I provided the definition of demand.

Where? Is this the Oxford English or your interpretation?

gansao: You should of read it.

Did hence the reason why I believe you confuse the meaning with that of "command".

gansao: Also there is no evidence that union bosses are demanding that their members strike. So not only are they unable to demand it , they are not actually attempting to do so.

They are able to demand such, nobody is gagging them, they are free to express their views. What they cannot do is command.

gansao: Strawman. I never claimed you claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike.

Never said you did and if you understood the term you would recognise exactly what you are about.

gansao: You have no idea what the NHS will have to plan. You have no idea whether anyone will be in danger . You have no idea how many members will strike. You have no idea.


So what one does not need to have more than a single brain cell to understand that if the Union calls for a strike and some Paramedics walk out on strike the probability is that lives will be put at risk. Seems to me that you wish to play down the responsibility NHS workers have towards Joe Public.

Me I think these Union Bosses are playing into the Tory hands and the strike will be totally counterproductive.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Jan 21 2015, 06:20 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 05:07 PM
If the Union Leaders had a valid point which had the support of it's Members you would expect a solid majority of votes affirming such an action.



I wouldn't ...... There will be many (if not all) that do agree with the Union's point that will not vote with the Union.
Those with a conscientious problem, that care about what their strike action would do.
Those that cannot afford the loss of earnings.
Those that see it as a Political gesture, and one that will not in any way be enough to cause the government to accede to their request.
Those that are fearful of losing their job.
And of course the many that do agree but are not TU members.

It was once argued that the Unions were too powerful.
Today it is the opposite ........




Indeed. How many of the usual suspects would be claiming that unions should be curbed if there was a higher percentage of votes for striking?
It is pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that this mild action by the unions involved is because they are frustrated and desperate to be heard.
The NHS unions are usually very careful to reduce the impact on patients as much as they can.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao: Indeed. How many of the usual suspects would be claiming that unions should be curbed if there was a higher percentage of votes for striking?

Well as the Usual Suspects are from the lhs of the debate I guess none, but I would be swayed by a clear majority of members supporting such action. That said I believe there are jobs where a none-striking clause should be part of the contract.

gansao: It is pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that this mild action by the unions involved is because they are frustrated and desperate to be heard.

Only interested in the principle. If a Union Boss is frustrated because he cannot sell a course of action to his members then best he goes home and cries to his wife.

gansao: The NHS unions are usually very careful to reduce the impact on patients as much as they can.

Not sure I believe this, but we shall see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

It has been said (myself amongst others) that in the seventies we got the likes of Scargill because of Business intransigence and refusal to consult the Unions or (God forbid) involve Union representation in decision making. In other words it was Confrontation that gave us militant Union leaders ........ that cause is again with us.
There are as of 2013 approx 7 million TU members in the UK ..... do not be surprised if the belligerent style does return and the return of the militant leader.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 06:23 PM
gansao: Just as claiming 13% is not enough is your opinion.

It certainly is as it does not demonstrate that the Union has the backing of it's members and that for me is the litmus test.

gansao: What you cannot dispute is that each members was given the chance to vote and that failure to cast a vote is not a no vote.

Never made the claim never tried to dispute it, just made the only point of interest that whilst one cannot assume the vote to be no equally we cannot assume it a yes.

gansao: Nope relevant. The system is approved by the government therefore it must be a sound system.

Rubbish if that were the test then why would we ever change Laws? The Gov. approves lots of things that many disagree with.

gansoa: Strawman I never claimed that it should be a yes vote.I claimed that it should be discounted.

Again never said you did only that you claimed we should not assume it to be a no vote. Hence not a Strawman only a clarification.

gansao: I provided the definition of demand.

Where? Is this the Oxford English or your interpretation?

gansao: You should of read it.

Did hence the reason why I believe you confuse the meaning with that of "command".

gansao: Also there is no evidence that union bosses are demanding that their members strike. So not only are they unable to demand it , they are not actually attempting to do so.

They are able to demand such, nobody is gagging them, they are free to express their views. What they cannot do is command.

gansao: Strawman. I never claimed you claimed that anyone commanded anyone to strike.

Never said you did and if you understood the term you would recognise exactly what you are about.

gansao: You have no idea what the NHS will have to plan. You have no idea whether anyone will be in danger . You have no idea how many members will strike. You have no idea.


So what one does not need to have more than a single brain cell to understand that if the Union calls for a strike and some Paramedics walk out on strike the probability is that lives will be put at risk. Seems to me that you wish to play down the responsibility NHS workers have towards Joe Public.

Me I think these Union Bosses are playing into the Tory hands and the strike will be totally counterproductive.



Your opinion , your litmus test.It demonstrates that there is a majority of the people who voted. My litmus test.

I never claimed you did.I made the point that a non vote is not a no vote by extension that would mean it would not be a yes vote either.

If the government supports this system then you are simply flying in the face of systems approved by the establishment.Establishment opinions trump your opinions. Thats my opinion in this case

Not a clarification. I never suggested this at any time. There was nothing to clarify.


I pulled the definition off the internet. Most people know what it means. You do not apparently.


I didnt confuse it with command. You are the one that confused it with command. Or try to imply that I did

No they are not. I would look at that dictionary again. They are not free to demand that their members strike and more importantly they are not doing so.

If you understood the term you would not have attempted the strawman argument.

You need more than one brain cell to understand that the NHS workers are so aware of their responsibility that the risk to the public will be negligible.
One only needs a single brain cell to over estimate the impact the strike will have on emergency patients.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Jan 21 2015, 06:37 PM
gansao: Indeed. How many of the usual suspects would be claiming that unions should be curbed if there was a higher percentage of votes for striking?

Well as the Usual Suspects are from the lhs of the debate I guess none, but I would be swayed by a clear majority of members supporting such action. That said I believe there are jobs where a none-striking clause should be part of the contract.

gansao: It is pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that this mild action by the unions involved is because they are frustrated and desperate to be heard.

Only interested in the principle. If a Union Boss is frustrated because he cannot sell a course of action to his members then best he goes home and cries to his wife.

gansao: The NHS unions are usually very careful to reduce the impact on patients as much as they can.

Not sure I believe this, but we shall see.


Nope the usual suspects are from the frightened old men side of the debate that would argue against strike action if were through a higher vote. They would just use a different argument.Good pay should be part of the contract.

Nope. the union is its members.

Believe what you want. That was my original point. How many will strike?
Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM

Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


The elephant in the room across the NHS and also private nursing homes, is an increasing number of staff just fed up to the back teeth and walking off of the job. (The government may have hoist itself with it own petard changing the pension rules. I can see a mass disappearance of staff in April.
The unions are the least of the governments worries.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 08:02 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM

Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


The elephant in the room across the NHS and also private nursing homes, is an increasing number of staff just fed up to the back teeth and walking off of the job. (The government may have hoist itself with it own petard changing the pension rules. I can see a mass disappearance of staff in April.
The unions are the least of the governments worries.
Must be an English thing walking of the job,in the nearly 18 years in my area you could count the leavers on one hand unless it was for another nhs job,or retirement
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 08:02 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM

Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


The elephant in the room across the NHS and also private nursing homes, is an increasing number of staff just fed up to the back teeth and walking off of the job. (The government may have hoist itself with it own petard changing the pension rules. I can see a mass disappearance of staff in April.
The unions are the least of the governments worries.



Moral is rock bottom in the NHS, teaching, Fire service as well as other public services. Motivation will be eroded people who can leave will leave and be replaced by people who in turn will be demotivated.
Where will these staff go after they walk out?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 08:19 PM

Where will these staff go after they walk out?
I suspect the change in pension rules ones already have that planned.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 08:19 PM
papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 08:02 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM

Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


The elephant in the room across the NHS and also private nursing homes, is an increasing number of staff just fed up to the back teeth and walking off of the job. (The government may have hoist itself with it own petard changing the pension rules. I can see a mass disappearance of staff in April.
The unions are the least of the governments worries.



Moral is rock bottom in the NHS, teaching, Fire service as well as other public services. Motivation will be eroded people who can leave will leave and be replaced by people who in turn will be demotivated.
Where will these staff go after they walk out?
Maybe they can all become funeral directors,after all the UK government needs someone to bury the 600,000 that's going to die soon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

papasmurf
Jan 21 2015, 08:31 PM
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 08:19 PM

Where will these staff go after they walk out?
I suspect the change in pension rules ones already have that planned.


That doesnt address the question. Be more specific, maybe.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM


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.

But then on the other hand my free market muppet nobody got to vote on the various PFI contracts dumped on the NHS, nobody had a say on which hospitals became ruinous trusts and nobody got any choice over the scrapping of various services that WILL put lives at risk.

I suspect you are barking up the wrong tree, you can't miss it someone carved the words profit motive in it's bark.

File under confused and bitter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
. . . 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.

You have very seriously missed several points.

-The Union is not demanding that its members strike is it? It is calling on its members to strike. As gansao says, many won't and if there is any serious accident they will work again

- the Employer is operating as a cartel in a monopolistic position. You would and I believe have screamed blue murder if a monopoly was allowed to unfettered set financial conditions that dominated your life. Yet you argue for this for some of the lowest paid hard working people in our society.

- If as such a monopoly you have an Independent Review mechanism to avoid such issues then you have two choices in life. Either accept its recommendations or be a complete shit.

As for the 13% that's just a red herring. Most of those that did vote voted for a strike.

Also worth reading what the Union has to say on the matter:
http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/nhs-pay/what-is-the-issue/
Edited by Steve K, Jan 21 2015, 10:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.



What do you mean by, "the members are more or less allowed to follow the strike or not"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 05:53 PM
The last killer union strike..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29560083


Meanwhile, hospital staff were seen leaving the picket lines to deal with patients in some places.

Union leaders had always said their members will be providing "life and limb" cover during the strike.

The expectation was that 999 calls would be answered and A&E units would remain open and that seems to have been the case, according to reports.


However, hospital outpatient appointments, community clinics and some routine operations seem to have been affected.

The Royal College of Midwives, which is taking action for the first time in its history, said in advance services for women giving birth were going to be unaffected. Instead, its members targeted antenatal and postnatal care.

Doctors and dentists were not involved. NHS sources said about 5% of staff who were expected in work did not turn up, although unions had always maintained the numbers not working would not reflect the strength of support across the workforce.

Rehana Azam, national officer of the GMB union, said: "Reports from across the country are that the strike action was rock solid. Members are determined to get government to listen to them.


Murdering militant bastards eh?
Does ACAS still exist.?
When Unions and employers meet together they talk and both sides listen. To say that no one listens including Government negotiators, is just nonsense.
All strikes end in discussions and negotiation. Strikes are just a form of hostage taking , with blackmail with threats and trying to get their own way by force. The ambulance crews are already in the top 1% of the worlds richest people  ::)

I remember a dock strike in London where the union led dockers struck for more money. The employers said they could not afford it.
The union said they would not go back unless they got their way. The employers said they would have to close if they did not get back to work. The Union said they would not return until the employers gave way.
The employers closed the business down and the employees lost their job in the days when there was no redundancy pay
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The title of this thread is very sensationalist and something of an exaggeration, infact it could easily be a Daily Mail headline, but bearing in mind that the unions have made every effort to cover urgent and emergency care, the title is also very unfair.

The right to strike is a basic right for almost all employees, and in most cases is a last resort, usually after negotiations have been exhausted, and in this particular instance the unions are not really asking for very much, all they would like is for the government to honour a recommendation by an independent pay body.

The independent pay body was set up by the government to make fair and impartial recommendations on pay, which begs the question "why bother"if your simply going to ignore the recommendations.

The government is poking a stick into a hornets nest, the threats of taking away the right to strike on some whimsy excuse about democracy is pathetic, my local Tory police and crime commissioner was elected on 13% turnout - should we declare her election void. ?

What are the unions supposed to do exactly ?, roll over and simply let the government walk all over them perhaps ?, how did we get to a situation where working people have rights ?, was it by standing up to governments and employers, or was it by accepting what was on offer. ?

If the health unions demands were unreasonable, like for example an inflation busting pay rise, then I might have some sympathy for the government, but it isent unreasonable to ask the government to abide by their own rules - is it. ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 06:37 PM
gansao: Indeed. How many of the usual suspects would be claiming that unions should be curbed if there was a higher percentage of votes for striking?

Well as the Usual Suspects are from the lhs of the debate I guess none, but I would be swayed by a clear majority of members supporting such action. That said I believe there are jobs where a none-striking clause should be part of the contract.

gansao: It is pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that this mild action by the unions involved is because they are frustrated and desperate to be heard.

Only interested in the principle. If a Union Boss is frustrated because he cannot sell a course of action to his members then best he goes home and cries to his wife.

gansao: The NHS unions are usually very careful to reduce the impact on patients as much as they can.

Not sure I believe this, but we shall see.


Nope the usual suspects are from the frightened old men side of the debate that would argue against strike action if were through a higher vote. They would just use a different argument.Good pay should be part of the contract.

Nope. the union is its members.

Believe what you want. That was my original point. How many will strike?
Until you see the negative results of the action you cannot gauge what they will be.


Sorry but I Christened the lefties here as Usual Suspects years ago at the other place, go find your own label.

I do not think that we are looking for anything other than establishing a situation where the Union can claim that it has the clear authority established by polling it's members, nothing more nothing less, however, the Usuals wish to obfuscate. It is not possible to claim that 13% of the Membership is equivalent to a mandate.

As for the strike I find it rather callow to ask that we wait for proof of deaths before warning that there may be an increased risk of such. Your statement just sums up my firm belief that the continuous claim of being on the moral high ground by the lefties is just a sham.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 10:19 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
. . . 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.

You have very seriously missed several points.

-The Union is not demanding that its members strike is it? It is calling on its members to strike. As gansao says, many won't and if there is any serious accident they will work again

- the Employer is operating as a cartel in a monopolistic position. You would and I believe have screamed blue murder if a monopoly was allowed to unfettered set financial conditions that dominated your life. Yet you argue for this for some of the lowest paid hard working people in our society.

- If as such a monopoly you have an Independent Review mechanism to avoid such issues then you have two choices in life. Either accept its recommendations or be a complete shit.

As for the 13% that's just a red herring. Most of those that did vote voted for a strike.

Also worth reading what the Union has to say on the matter:
http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/nhs-pay/what-is-the-issue/
I am not unhappy if you wish to change the word "demanding" as I differentiate it's meaning from that of the word "commanding".

I note that the Fire Brigade Union "ordered" --------. What is the difference between "ordering" and "demanding". Me thinks this is no more than smoke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 22 2015, 08:47 AM
The title of this thread is very sensationalist and something of an exaggeration,
Quite.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 22 2015, 09:09 AM
krugerman
Jan 22 2015, 08:47 AM
The title of this thread is very sensationalist and something of an exaggeration,
Quite.
Of course it is and it did exactly the job it was designed to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 09:14 AM
Of course it is and it did exactly the job it was designed to do.
Not really, your mindset about trade unions is obvious, you would prefer there to be no unions at all and give employers a free rein to be as big (illegitimate people) as they like with no comeback.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 09:07 AM
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 10:19 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
. . . 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.

You have very seriously missed several points.

-The Union is not demanding that its members strike is it? It is calling on its members to strike. As gansao says, many won't and if there is any serious accident they will work again

- the Employer is operating as a cartel in a monopolistic position. You would and I believe have screamed blue murder if a monopoly was allowed to unfettered set financial conditions that dominated your life. Yet you argue for this for some of the lowest paid hard working people in our society.

- If as such a monopoly you have an Independent Review mechanism to avoid such issues then you have two choices in life. Either accept its recommendations or be a complete shit.

As for the 13% that's just a red herring. Most of those that did vote voted for a strike.

Also worth reading what the Union has to say on the matter:
http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/nhs-pay/what-is-the-issue/
I am not unhappy if you wish to change the word "demanding" as I differentiate it's meaning from that of the word "commanding".

I note that the Fire Brigade Union "ordered" --------. What is the difference between "ordering" and "demanding". Me thinks this is no more than smoke.
No they did not "demand". Maybe that's what the Daily Misery told you they said

The "called" for strikes. http://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2014/10/fire-strikes-escalate-firefighters-call-four-days-strike-action-protect-pensions-public-safety/

Did you have no rebut to the points about the NHS operating a monopoly and then rejecting independent proposals on salaries?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 22 2015, 08:47 AM
The title of this thread is very sensationalist and something of an exaggeration, infact it could easily be a Daily Mail headline, but bearing in mind that the unions have made every effort to cover urgent and emergency care, the title is also very unfair.

The right to strike is a basic right for almost all employees, and in most cases is a last resort, usually after negotiations have been exhausted, and in this particular instance the unions are not really asking for very much, all they would like is for the government to honour a recommendation by an independent pay body.

The independent pay body was set up by the government to make fair and impartial recommendations on pay, which begs the question "why bother"if your simply going to ignore the recommendations.

The government is poking a stick into a hornets nest, the threats of taking away the right to strike on some whimsy excuse about democracy is pathetic, my local Tory police and crime commissioner was elected on 13% turnout - should we declare her election void. ?

What are the unions supposed to do exactly ?, roll over and simply let the government walk all over them perhaps ?, how did we get to a situation where working people have rights ?, was it by standing up to governments and employers, or was it by accepting what was on offer. ?

If the health unions demands were unreasonable, like for example an inflation busting pay rise, then I might have some sympathy for the government, but it isent unreasonable to ask the government to abide by their own rules - is it. ?
Market forces always apply, with wage levels set by demands for employees and the number willing to take what is on offer... If people do not like the wagers on offer they walk away, and if the demand for labour is high wages rise.
On the news yesterday it said the demand for bricklayers was high, and where the daily rate was £100 a day. it is now £150 a day. If the ambulance crews don't like the wages they get they can withdraw their labour, and there will be difficulties for a while, but it will adjust in time
Its called supply and demand
. No employer is going to pay more than they can afford to , and employees cannot demand more than the market will support.
How many applicants are there to become ambulance crews or paramedics? If there are many, the government or local authorities can pick and chose what they are willing to pay up to the point where the numbers satisfy the need.
Can I remind all that it is not the government paying but taxpayers.
I posted two links, one on population numbers and their growth, and another on individual wealth and income compared with the rest of the world. 95% of the world are poorer than us, all willing to work and compete and gaining skills, willing to do so at much lower wages. That is huge competition for us, and unless we produce quality goods that others demand at the cost they are willing to pay, in direct completion to all the others, then we are going to slide back wards. High wage demands with shorter working weeks beyond that that brings in the money to pay the higher wages is going to make us uncompetitive in the world and the work will go elsewhere, and our own unemployment will rise. and wages will be reduced., and so the circle will continue. But of course that is just more rubbish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 22 2015, 11:11 AM
Market forces always apply, with wage levels set by demands for employees and the number willing to take what is on offer... If people do not like the wagers on offer they walk away, and if the demand for labour is high wages rise.
Market forces do not apply if you have an employer in a monopoly position in that local area - and guess what the NHS is, that very same monopolistic employer.

Quote:
 
. . .Can I remind all that it is not the government paying but taxpayers. . . .
OK but can I point out that the government is effectively seeking to syphon money from the NHS workers so that within a real terms protected overall budget it can be seen to fund headline grabbing extra cancer care etc .

But now they don't have the headlines they wanted. How tough
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 09:04 AM
I find it rather callow to ask that we wait for proof of deaths before warning that there may be an increased risk of such.

But will you not apply the same critique to government A&E closures and other cuts to services that increase the risks of unnecessary premature deaths? Include people having to wait longer hours to be seen by a doctor and add in their unnecessary suffering, and Oh, the growing number of patients having much needed operations cancelled because there are no 'beds'.

What were you saying about morals, and 'sham'?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 22 2015, 11:07 AM
RJD
Jan 22 2015, 09:07 AM
Steve K
Jan 21 2015, 10:19 PM
RJD
Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM
. . . 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.

You have very seriously missed several points.

-The Union is not demanding that its members strike is it? It is calling on its members to strike. As gansao says, many won't and if there is any serious accident they will work again

- the Employer is operating as a cartel in a monopolistic position. You would and I believe have screamed blue murder if a monopoly was allowed to unfettered set financial conditions that dominated your life. Yet you argue for this for some of the lowest paid hard working people in our society.

- If as such a monopoly you have an Independent Review mechanism to avoid such issues then you have two choices in life. Either accept its recommendations or be a complete shit.

As for the 13% that's just a red herring. Most of those that did vote voted for a strike.

Also worth reading what the Union has to say on the matter:
http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/nhs-pay/what-is-the-issue/
I am not unhappy if you wish to change the word "demanding" as I differentiate it's meaning from that of the word "commanding".

I note that the Fire Brigade Union "ordered" --------. What is the difference between "ordering" and "demanding". Me thinks this is no more than smoke.
No they did not "demand". Maybe that's what the Daily Misery told you they said

The "called" for strikes. http://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2014/10/fire-strikes-escalate-firefighters-call-four-days-strike-action-protect-pensions-public-safety/

Did you have no rebut to the points about the NHS operating a monopoly and then rejecting independent proposals on salaries?

Twaddle you are making much of a word chosen by me to describe the situation and I am very comfortable with it, however, that is not the crux of the argument more like a means of screening away the key question. Demand is not command and I doubt that the word :"request" covers it.




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