FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Banning public sector strikes
Banning public sector strikes
Jump to: Newest in thread
Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?"
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal."
Yeah this.^^ Ronald Reagan did something similar to the strikers in the USA.
They just don't want anyone to have rights or ask for what they want, we have to do whatever they want because our lives aren't ours. Although you're getting a wage for employment it doesn't make us slaves.
Because there's less jobs now and more population they think we are commodities with lesser value, which is true in a way but we still have rights. And tbh the way we employ people and how employment works needs to change so that more people gain employment, machines were made to make jobs easier and we should all be working less hours. Shouldn't be like this, especially not for menial jobs. Status quo won't change because it suits the most powerful employers just fine to use people as slaves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal."
85% of the workforce?
The down time, recruitment costs, training costs and all would be more than it would cost to make the employees a decent compromise on whatever they were asking for.
Then there would be the legal challenges along the lines of it being an unfair clause and therefore invalid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal.
85% of the workforce?
The down time, recruitment costs, training costs and all would be more than it would cost to make the employees a decent compromise on whatever they were asking for.
Then there would be the legal challenges along the lines of it being an unfair clause and therefore invalid."
85% of the workforce that is in the union which in reality is not often that high a percentage of the whole workforce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal.
85% of the workforce?
The down time, recruitment costs, training costs and all would be more than it would cost to make the employees a decent compromise on whatever they were asking for.
Then there would be the legal challenges along the lines of it being an unfair clause and therefore invalid."
That is why I said "could." But would you risk it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal.
85% of the workforce?
The down time, recruitment costs, training costs and all would be more than it would cost to make the employees a decent compromise on whatever they were asking for.
Then there would be the legal challenges along the lines of it being an unfair clause and therefore invalid.
85% of the workforce that is in the union which in reality is not often that high a percentage of the whole workforce. "
That's true. It would take a large number to be committed to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal.
85% of the workforce?
The down time, recruitment costs, training costs and all would be more than it would cost to make the employees a decent compromise on whatever they were asking for.
Then there would be the legal challenges along the lines of it being an unfair clause and therefore invalid.
That is why I said "could." But would you risk it?"
Me personally?
It would depend on the issue and the strength of feeling. Possibly. I'm not a bowing down and toeing the line type of person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How about, just perhaps, we look at this from a slightlt different perspective.
Let's say, for example, a strike ballot is called and there is a low turnout. Let's say, just for arguments sake, it's 25% and that all those that vote, do so for strike action.
Under the current system, this would result in a strike, yet only 25% have voted to strike - 75% have not.
Because of the fact that the right to vote is also the right not to vote, more people aren't taking part in the process. Now, if it were compulsory to vote in such ballots, then strike action would be avoided in my example - as the true decision of all those affected would be reflected.
So which is the right solution?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!"
cool.... maybe the same should be applied to forming governments in the future as well... as it is normally won by the party getting 25-30% of eligable vote.......
last time around the conservatives got 36% of the vote on a 65% turnout.... which means only .... so actually only 24% of all those eligible to vote actually voted conservative |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rsIdiotWoman
over a year ago
Bedworth |
"How about, just perhaps, we look at this from a slightlt different perspective.
Let's say, for example, a strike ballot is called and there is a low turnout. Let's say, just for arguments sake, it's 25% and that all those that vote, do so for strike action.
Under the current system, this would result in a strike, yet only 25% have voted to strike - 75% have not.
Because of the fact that the right to vote is also the right not to vote, more people aren't taking part in the process. Now, if it were compulsory to vote in such ballots, then strike action would be avoided in my example - as the true decision of all those affected would be reflected.
So which is the right solution?
"
Just because someone may choose not to take part in the vote it doesn't mean that they are against the strike. It just means that they do not want to cast a vote |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
cool.... maybe the same should be applied to forming governments in the future as well... as it is normally won by the party getting 25-30% of eligable vote.......
last time around the conservatives got 36% of the vote on a 65% turnout.... which means only .... so actually only 24% of all those eligible to vote actually voted conservative"
What did the other parties get? and who would be declared the winners as such, based on the 65% turnout?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal."
Haha Can you imagine Cameron trying to justify recruiting 100,000 nurses from abroad to replace nurses who refused to work- UKIP would have a field day and half the tory MP's would jump ship |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do they propose to stop people refusing to work?
Will they employ truant officers to march you back in and stand over you?
I don't think we would see people being marched back into work. But it would be a breach of the employment contract and could lead to dismissal.
Haha Can you imagine Cameron trying to justify recruiting 100,000 nurses from abroad to replace nurses who refused to work- UKIP would have a field day and half the tory MP's would jump ship"
It really does not just affect mass union-membership institutions. There are many industries and SMEs where there are a limited number of employees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!"
. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How about, just perhaps, we look at this from a slightlt different perspective.
Let's say, for example, a strike ballot is called and there is a low turnout. Let's say, just for arguments sake, it's 25% and that all those that vote, do so for strike action.
Under the current system, this would result in a strike, yet only 25% have voted to strike - 75% have not.
Because of the fact that the right to vote is also the right not to vote, more people aren't taking part in the process. Now, if it were compulsory to vote in such ballots, then strike action would be avoided in my example - as the true decision of all those affected would be reflected.
So which is the right solution?
"
any such legislation enacted by any party would i think only ensure a massive turnout and an equally large yes vote..
the solution is not to implement similar policies that we rightly criticise dictatorships for..
more 'stay with us please' to their core voters to assuage the impending drift to ukip.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them."
they are being removed in several area's of the public sector, they will probably all be gone in a cpl of years..
next, MP's pensions eh..?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly. And it just seeks to restrict the right to withdraw one's labour - the Tolpuddle Martyrs were shipped to Australia for that....hmmm might not be a bad idea lol."
Surely that is covered by TUPE Regulations these days lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them."
Unlike bailing out the "merchant bankers"(rhyming slang inttended) with their ridiculous pension pots who caused the chaos in the first place?????? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!"
I don't agree with banning strikes if turnout has been below a certain threshold.
However as a non-union member in a heavily unionised workforce I've seen the other side, that often people feel like they can't vote 'no' but they don't actually want to strike, so they just don't vote - so I've always questioned the legitimacy of the unions declaring that strike action is what their members want off the back of such poor turnouts.
Same goes when the strike action is taking place, many of those 85% just feel too intimidated or nervous to cross a picket line even if they don't agree with the strike action and want to work, so treat it as a day's unpaid leave. Compare the numbers on picket lines or marches with the numbers just treating it like a day off and that'll show you how many usually feel really strongly about what's going on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them.
they are being removed in several area's of the public sector, they will probably all be gone in a cpl of years..
next, MP's pensions eh..?
"
Not many final salary schemes still out there, even in the 'gold plated' public sector. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them.
they are being removed in several area's of the public sector, they will probably all be gone in a cpl of years..
next, MP's pensions eh..?
Not many final salary schemes still out there, even in the 'gold plated' public sector. "
Perhaps only for those in the First Division Association(that is to say the trade union for "senior" civil servants ie the Whitehall Mandarins) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them.
they are being removed in several area's of the public sector, they will probably all be gone in a cpl of years..
next, MP's pensions eh..?
Not many final salary schemes still out there, even in the 'gold plated' public sector.
Perhaps only for those in the First Division Association(that is to say the trade union for "senior" civil servants ie the Whitehall Mandarins)"
If so, then you're talking about a very small number of people so the argument against it would be on principle rather than financial grounds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them."
Hmmmm. My terms and conditions were crap when I was asked to go and fight wars in lands far and near. But you know what? Something called loyalty to the crown seemed more important.
Now I work in a different uniformed service. You don't hear what I do but I work in extremely dangerous circumstances. And my colleagues and I lay our lives on the line daily. The T and C s were shit when I joined. But more fool me I still had that loyalty to the crown and country. Now you want me to take even worse T and Cs? I've given you my loyalty. How about some back?
And the rub? People like me tend to die 2 or three years after retirement as we are so knackered from what we do. And I don't retire until 68! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Im in a union and as much as I dont agree with strike action, sometimes getting the union in happens to be the only resolution for talks.
in the 9 years ive been at my job we havent striked
noone wants the strikes in my sector let alone the public |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!"
Ah Tories still wanking over Thatcher I see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Everyone should have the right to withdraw their labour and this is a key element of workers rights in the UK. But this should be a last resort after all else has failed. I think union ballots should be secret and there should be a higher threshold then at present, if a workforce feels strongly enough to strike the least we, as the public who are those impacted by strikes, should be able to see that those striking have a strong mandate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!. Surely if you are unhappy with your working terms and conditions the solution is very simple, you leave your current employer and seek a role elsewhere . The current final salary pension schemes are totally unsustainable. We can hardly be expected to continue subsidising them.
they are being removed in several area's of the public sector, they will probably all be gone in a cpl of years..
next, MP's pensions eh..?
Not many final salary schemes still out there, even in the 'gold plated' public sector.
Perhaps only for those in the First Division Association(that is to say the trade union for "senior" civil servants ie the Whitehall Mandarins)
If so, then you're talking about a very small number of people so the argument against it would be on principle rather than financial grounds. "
Precisely- but the Tory dogma is being dressed up as "fiscal responsibility" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Latest Tory commitment is to not allow strikes unless 40% of eligible voters have said yes - think democracy seems to have gone out of the window as MPs not subject to same quota rules for election.First they took our redundancy agreements...and nobody cared;then they took our pensions...and nobody cared; civil rights anyone??
BTW yes only about 20% vote in ballots, but usual compliance of union members with result if strike is called is nearer 85%. Thats democracy!!
Ah Tories still wanking over Thatcher I see."
And you know what? I haven't had a pay rise in this parliament. Indeed, not since 2008.
I've traditionally voted Tory. As The Who said . Won't Get Fooled Again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im in a union and as much as I dont agree with strike action, sometimes getting the union in happens to be the only resolution for talks.
in the 9 years ive been at my job we havent striked
noone wants the strikes in my sector let alone the public "
There used to be a concept called "Whitleyism" which was designed to resolve issues without resorting to industrial action- whatever happened to that I wonder? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can understand why the government would say no to a strike in the public sector, but like any other area you should be allowed to down tools and strike."
The government made a big thing about the so called military covenant.
If they don't allow certain sectors of the public services to strike then that covenant should be extented to those sectors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can understand why the government would say no to a strike in the public sector, but like any other area you should be allowed to down tools and strike.
The government made a big thing about the so called military covenant.
If they don't allow certain sectors of the public services to strike then that covenant should be extented to those sectors."
Either that or just implemwent the recomendations of independent pay review bodies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
