Sign Petition against the Trade Union Bill

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The Nissan UK model of trade unionism works, all the rest of the jock militants can do one and feck off back to their champagne socialist holiday islands!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

You can't really compare a strike vote with an election of a representative though ( and I've had a small bet with myself of a Jammy Dodger that someone will mention that MPs don't need an overall majority to win ! ).

A strike doesn't HAVE to be held regardless - it would be rather poor that voters aren't represented because no candidate could gain a 51% majority. So voting for representation is completely different to voting to withdraw your labour.

Are you really telling me that if your union held a ballot that resulted in a strike being backed by a minority of the overall membership but you disagreed with the reason to strike that you'd still strike ?

I knew as soon as I wrote that comment that I'd regret using the world "election" and not "vote", which is what I meant. A comparison with a referendum is probably more apt where there does need to be a yes/no outcome. Ultimately there does need to be a decision on striking or not. Like I said, strike votes are well publicised by unions, if members are not in general agreement they can vote against, but choosing not to vote (which is their right) they are therefore nodding their approval to whichever outcome it is.

I would 100% strike in that situation - I am very much a believer in the idea that unions need to work in solidarity. No-one is forced to join the union.

I personally am frustrated when turnout for strike ballots in my union is low, but I don't see how it follows that strikes are undemocratic. One of the problems is that the nature of the job means that union membership is an absolute necessity for legal protection. However, members join from all different elements of the profession, many of them completely unaffected by the kinds of issues that prompt strike action. Not only are they unmotivated to vote, but they are also able to ignore the strike without any issues. They don't vote "no", because it is effectively nothing to do with them, but they pay their fees and therefore count on the statistic.

 

[Hampster Gull]

To be fair, in my line of work when we strike many staff choose to ignore it, take a day's pay, and nothing is said. I don't feel they should, mind.

Why shouldnt smeone work whn they disagree with the strike?

 

[Castello]

Don't see your problem. Just ignore the thread if you don't like it.

FWIW, I've signed. Not a great fan of trade unions, but respect their right to exist, and the right of workers to have a union they can join. This legislation is just pure Tory spite - and they know their supporters and those people that bankroll them will just love it.

This and ive signed

 

[drew]

"rights and freedom at work". Does that mean they will let workers who did NOT vote for a strike go to work if their union goes on strike?

As far as I'm aware, if you don't want to strike then you don't have to. Nothing to stop you. Yes, you might have to cross a picket line but it is still your choice.

Struggle to see why some can't see the hypocrisy of a government that was elected by less than 50% of the those that voted. let alone of the actual electorate consider they have a moral right to impose greater restrictions on trades unions!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Struggle to see why some can't see the hypocrisy of a government that was elected by less than 50% of the those that voted. let alone of the actual electorate consider they have a moral right to impose greater restrictions on trades unions!

*** sigh *** because electing a representative and voting to withdraw your labour are two ENTIRELY different things.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Why shouldnt smeone work whn they disagree with the strike?

Two reasons, in my opinion

Firstly, the whole premise of unions is of taking collective action - i.e. all agreeing to strike to protect the rights of perhaps just one member at an extreme level. If everyone can pick and choose when they take action, the union becomes powerless. If you are happy to call upon your fellow union members to help you out if you ever need it, then you need to be prepared to strike with them even if it's not your preference.

Secondly, and this is particularly relevant to my line of work, when we strike they shut the operation down. Therefore, the impact/point is made. However, non-union staff can still go into work and have a very cushy day and take home a day's pay (fair enough, they aren't in the union, why should they lose out). When union staff also go in to collect a day's pay, they are literally letting their striking colleagues take a financial hit for their benefit.

These are all internal issues within a union, and I don't believe they can or should be governed by law - but this is how I believe union members should act.

Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to be in the union, and if you feel that passionately about not taking action with your union colleagues you can always quit, even between the strike being announced and it taking place.

 

[GT49er]

agree with thatt, also neither the thread starter or the petition actually bother to provide any information on the bill or why its bad. it might be terrible, but if they dont say why, why should anyone sign it?

I think they're assuming, reasonably enough, but obviously wrongly, that people coming on this thread will be sufficiently intelligent and aware of current affairs to have a good idea of the nature of this bill.

 

[GT49er]

*** sigh *** because electing a representative and voting to withdraw your labour are two ENTIRELY different things.

Well, yes, that would be how it seems to your average (or even less than average) Tory. Agree with one, don't agree with the other.

 

[beorhthelm]

Struggle to see why some can't see the hypocrisy of a government that was elected by less than 50% of the those that voted.

find a strike ballot that offers more than two options and you'd have a point.

there's nothing wrong with expecting a group that will inconvience tens or hundreds of thousands of people to at least get half of their members to turn out for a vote. i to pass that means support from 25.1% of their members, wheres the problem? i recall some recent strikes being on as little as 10%, how is that justified?

MPs are returned, not governments. if people want the government to receive 50% of the population, or 25% then campaign for that to happen. i'd sign up, though not sure how you'd do that with the constituency system.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

"rights and freedom at work". Does that mean they will let workers who did NOT vote for a strike go to work if their union goes on strike?

No. They will call them a scab and threaten them with violence. Just like the good old days.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well, yes, that would be how it seems to your average (or even less than average) Tory. Agree with one, don't agree with the other.

FFS - is it really that difficult ? Let's break it down into small bite sized chunks.

You're electing a representative, let's say an MP. Maybe there's four candidates - Mr A gets 20%of the votes cast, Mrs B gets 25% of the votes cast, Miss C gets 40% of the votes cast and Mr D gets 15% ( we'll ignore spoiled ballots for simplicity ). So NOBODY has got that magical over 50% mark. Are you seriously suggesting that the people in that area get no representation because nobody got an overall majority - or maybe - just maybe, to ensure the people get a representative, we allow the person with most votes to win ?

Now let's apply that to a strike vote - only two options here - yes or no. But of course Unions are formed by members - that's their whole strength, power in numbers. It is utterly illogical that a strike can be called if a majority of ALL the members don't vote for it. Under the current rules you could have a Union of 1m people - only 10 bother to vote and of them only six vote in favour to strike. So six people can call 1m people out on strike. Utterly absurd.

EDIT - and I'm not a Tory.

 

[jakarta]

Hmm, don't think this thread is going the way the OP intended...

 

[jamie the seagull]

The thread title sounds like a typical union message to it's members.
The Union leaders who earn not short of 1m tell there "members" to strike and a small minority vote yes and everyone is out.
In my opinion if someone does not vote then that vote should count as a "no".
They should not just count the yes/no votes for the minority who actually vote.

 

[ferring seagull]

two reasons, in my opinion

firstly, the whole premise of unions is of taking collective action - i.e. All agreeing to strike to protect the rights of perhaps just one member at an extreme level. If everyone can pick and choose when they take action, the union becomes powerless. If you are happy to call upon your fellow union members to help you out if you ever need it, then you need to be prepared to strike with them even if it's not your preference.

Secondly, and this is particularly relevant to my line of work, when we strike they shut the operation down. Therefore, the impact/point is made. However, non-union staff can still go into work and have a very cushy day and take home a day's pay (fair enough, they aren't in the union, why should they lose out). When union staff also go in to collect a day's pay, they are literally letting their striking colleagues take a financial hit for their benefit.

These are all internal issues within a union, and i don't believe they can or should be governed by law - but this is how i believe union members should act.

Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to be in the union, and if you feel that passionately about not taking action with your union colleagues you can always quit, even between the strike being announced and it taking place.

bollocks !

 

[ATFC Seagull]

bollocks !

Well, that tore my point apart.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Hmm, don't think this thread is going the way the OP intended...

Quite, can we set up a thread supporting the bill?

 

[GT49er]

FFS - is it really that difficult ?

Well, I don't find it difficult.......

Now let's apply that to a strike vote - only two options here - yes or no. But of course Unions are formed by members - that's their whole strength, power in numbers. It is utterly illogical that a strike can be called if a majority of ALL the members don't vote for it. Under the current rules you could have a Union of 1m people - only 10 bother to vote and of them only six vote in favour to strike. So six people can call 1m people out on strike. Utterly absurd.

Six votes to bring out a million workers would, I agree, be absurd. But it doesn't work like that. Never has. Never even with show-of-hands ballots (which I agree, should not be allowed). Large unions, however, may have a strike issue concerning a small part of their constituency, not the whole membership. A local issue, perhaps.
What this legislation is trying to do, in support of the Tory's employer friends, is to put a stop to all strikes. Ever. Too make the conditions for a legal strike almost impossible to achieve, and to legitimise the use of strike-breakers (who will probably be threatened with their Jobseekers allowance being cut off if they don't comply). The Government isn't looking for a level playing field, a reasonable compromise, or any sort of negotiation; they are just out to crush trade unionism altogether.

EDIT - and I'm not a Tory.

.....and just for the record, I'm not a trade unionist either.......

 

[drew]

*** sigh *** because electing a representative and voting to withdraw your labour are two ENTIRELY different things.

Almost a nice swerve. Democracy is democracy. No real reason to change the existing rules.

 

[Silkster365]

No way I'm signing that