Trade Union reform.

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

well done, Godwin'd in second post.

Wahaaaay

 

[Technohead]

About time I am seriously thinking of resigning from my Union given the recent mandate they have passed internally where higher earners pay more than lower earners in subs.

And whats wrong with that? I'm on a relatively high pay scale and subsequently pay the highest rate of subs for my union membership, at £22.50 a month, which is about 0.5% of my gross annual salary. Somebody on a much lower salary than me may pay only £5.30 per month, but as a percentage of salary this equates to 0.7% so they still pay more than me in real terms. I'm all in favour of the more you earn the more you pay as long as the higher earners don't pay significantly higher in percentage terms .... after all isn't that one of the socialist principles that trade unions were founded on? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

And whats wrong with that? I'm on a relatively high pay scale and subsequently pay the highest rate of subs for my union membership, at £22.50 a month, which is about 0.5% of my gross annual salary. Somebody on a much lower salary than me may pay only £5.30 per month, but as a percentage of salary this equates to 0.7% so they still pay more than me in real terms. I'm all in favour of the more you earn the more you pay as long as the higher earners don't pay significantly higher in percentage terms .... after all isn't that one of the socialist principles that trade unions were founded on? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Well said sir,well said.

 

[Beach Hut]

And whats wrong with that? I'm on a relatively high pay scale and subsequently pay the highest rate of subs for my union membership, at £22.50 a month, which is about 0.5% of my gross annual salary. Somebody on a much lower salary than me may pay only £5.30 per month, but as a percentage of salary this equates to 0.7% so they still pay more than me in real terms. I'm all in favour of the more you earn the more you pay as long as the higher earners don't pay significantly higher in percentage terms .... after all isn't that one of the socialist principles that trade unions were founded on? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I'll tell you WTF is wrong with that it is the fact the Union Exec Committee decided as opposed to a vote on it which is far fairer.

 

[GT49er]

If no candidate for MP gets 40% then how is the constituency meant to be represented in Parliament ?

Then the constituency goes to the least unpopular candidate; if only one person votes, and the rest of the voters think all candidates are equally sh1t, then the candidate with one vote (a lot less than 1% of the electorate) gets in.

 

[Technohead]

I'll tell you WTF is wrong with that it is the fact the Union Exec Committee decided as opposed to a vote on it which is far fairer.

Fair point. So your not opposed to principle of a banding system of subs based on salary, more the undemocratic manner it was imposed without consultation with members. I'm with you on that

 

[alfredmizen]

Scab is a very seventies word and says everything about the hard left

No it doesn't, I couldn't be described as left wing, let alone hard left and I think that scabs are examples of some of the lowest forms of life.

 

[Gary1]

No it doesn't, I couldn't be described as left wing, let alone hard left and I think that scabs are examples of some of the lowest forms of life.

So someone who wants to work or may have no option due to finances or may not even agree with what the strike is about is on a level with paedophiles, rapists, terrorists etc. Nice one!

 

[Peteinblack]

We have many bosses and bankers paying themselves millions while millions of 'hard-working people' are paid poverty wages, some of the longest working hours and weakest employment protection laws in Europe, few workers' rights, chronic job insecurity, an expansion of zero-hours contracts, and unprecedented levels of stress in the workplace as employees are constantly pressured or bullied to do more and more each year or hit more targets, and yet on Planet Tory, it is the trade unions which are the problem.

Incidentally, if the Tories are so concerned about lack of accountability or democracy over the trade unions' political donations to the Labour Party, lets also have a legal requirement that companies must ballot their employees before donating money to the Conservative Party.

Let's have a level playing field - or do the Tories believe in one rule for the trade unions and workers, and another rule (do what you want) for employers and big business; yes, I know this is a rhetorical question!

 

[beorhthelm]

Incidentally, if the Tories are so concerned about lack of accountability or democracy over the trade unions' political donations to the Labour Party, lets also have a legal requirement that companies must ballot their employees before donating money to the Conservative Party.

Let's have a level playing field - or do the Tories believe in one rule for the trade unions and workers, and another rule (do what you want) for employers and big business; yes, I know this is a rhetorical question!

ironically, its only because of uniform rule that there isnt legislation to limit donations to political parties. Labour would certainly be far worse off is there was a limit. and why on earth should employees be consulted on donations from the company, they dont own it. you understand this?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So someone who wants to work or may have no option due to finances or may not even agree with what the strike is about is on a level with paedophiles, rapists, terrorists etc. Nice one!

I actually agree with Mr Mizen although I will not go as far in my description of them. I hear what you're saying, and understand it, but I prefer people to stick together for the greater good.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We have many bosses and bankers paying themselves millions while millions of 'hard-working people' are paid poverty wages, some of the longest working hours and weakest employment protection laws in Europe, few workers' rights, chronic job insecurity, an expansion of zero-hours contracts, and unprecedented levels of stress in the workplace as employees are constantly pressured or bullied to do more and more each year or hit more targets, and yet on Planet Tory, it is the trade unions which are the problem.

Incidentally, if the Tories are so concerned about lack of accountability or democracy over the trade unions' political donations to the Labour Party, lets also have a legal requirement that companies must ballot their employees before donating money to the Conservative Party.

Let's have a level playing field - or do the Tories believe in one rule for the trade unions and workers, and another rule (do what you want) for employers and big business; yes, I know this is a rhetorical question!

This.

 

[wellquickwoody]

And whats wrong with that? I'm on a relatively high pay scale and subsequently pay the highest rate of subs for my union membership, at £22.50 a month, which is about 0.5% of my gross annual salary. Somebody on a much lower salary than me may pay only £5.30 per month, but as a percentage of salary this equates to 0.7% so they still pay more than me in real terms. I'm all in favour of the more you earn the more you pay as long as the higher earners don't pay significantly higher in percentage terms .... after all isn't that one of the socialist principles that trade unions were founded on? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I think you will find that £22.50 is more than £5.30 in real terms ie. money. Don't let statisticians fool you otherwise.

 

[Bozza]

I actually agree with Mr Mizen although I will not go as far in my description of them. I hear what you're saying, and understand it, but I prefer people to stick together for the greater good.

So someone who isn't in a union and doesn't believe in the particular cause being debated should miss out on work and should sacrifice their own income for the 'greater good'?

It's very much a one-way street in Leftie-land isn't it?

1) Respect our right to withdraw labour please.
2) Please note we do not respect your right to continue working to provide for your family.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Westdene point is for most MP,s 'get in' in or around 32/38 % vote in their favour. Now how in the dam well ask for Unions to get 40% ?

When voting for a strike there are only two option to vote for, yes or no. When voting for a MP there can be many candidates standing and the votes are shared out among them. If only two candidates were allowed to stand then you would expect a higher majority.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

So someone who isn't in a union and doesn't believe in the particular cause being debated should miss out on work and should sacrifice their own income for the 'greater good'?

It's very much a one-way street in Leftie-land isn't it?

1) Respect our right to withdraw labour please.
2) Please note we do not respect your right to continue working to provide for your family.

Spot on Bozza. The "Scabs" were treated despicably by the strikers in the 1970's. Far worse than the police treated the strikers.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

I'll tell you WTF is wrong with that it is the fact the Union Exec Committee decided as opposed to a vote on it which is far fairer.

The Unions hate democracy. This whole story is about the Unions being told they must behave in a democratic fashion if they want to strike and they are up in arms. "How dare the nasty Tories take away our undemocratic right to call a strike when ever we feel like it".

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So someone who isn't in a union and doesn't believe in the particular cause being debated should miss out on work and should sacrifice their own income for the 'greater good'?

It's very much a one-way street in Leftie-land isn't it?

1) Respect our right to withdraw labour please.
2) Please note we do not respect your right to continue working to provide for your family.

I presumed Gary1 was talking about union members. I don't care too much about non-union members working. But if you sign up to a union it's wrong to strike break.

 

[Peteinblack]

ironically, its only because of uniform rule that there isnt legislation to limit donations to political parties. Labour would certainly be far worse off is there was a limit. and why on earth should employees be consulted on donations from the company, they dont own it. you understand this?

Yes, I do understand this, but their work produces the goods or products which are then sold to produce the profits (wealth creation) which are then used to pay their bosses' salaries and bonuses, the shareholders' dividends and make donations to the Conservative Party. Besides, if that money was not being siphoned off into donations to the Conservative Party, many firms could afford to employ a few more people (and reduce the welfare bill) or pay their staff decent wages - 'sorry, you can't have a pay rise this year; we've just spunked £2 million to the Tory Party'.

Of course, I understand that as a Tory, you want maximum restrictions on trade unions and their activities (dressed up in the rhetoric of democracy, fairness, accountabilty, transparency, etc), but no limits should ever be placed on big business or employers. God forbid that workers should have any say in the company they work for, and whose wealth they help to create.

You love 'democracy' for the trade unions, but want companies to be run autocratically, without any say or input from the workforce whatsoever.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I presumed Gary1 was talking about union members. I don't care too much about non-union members working. But if you sign up to a union it's wrong to strike break.

Phew .... I was worried I was a scab for crossing picket lines at client sites when I'm not even in a union.