Public Sector Strike Day

[Nibble]

All - could we try to keep the personal insults down a little, please? It's obvious that a topic such as this will generate strong feelings, but do remember to play the ball, not the man.

I know you have only just been made a mod and are keen and all that but your constant little warnings on threads are really getting on my tits.

 

[WATFORD zero]

And i would apply this to electing MPs too, if turnout is less than 50% it should be re-run. that would get the politicians to shape up on their policy and campaining.

* although, I'd suggest McClusky check his facts. Cameron, Osborne, May, Hague, Clegg (got bored at this point) all got >50% of the vote, in constituencies with >50% turnout.

Are you suggesting that Parties put their front benchers in safe seats

 

[Goldstone1976]

I know you have only just been made a mod and are keen and all that but your constant little warnings on threads are really getting on my tits.

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

I'd dispute "constant", but that's subjective. Less subjective is "warnings"; I see no warning in my comment, just a request to keep the personal insults down in a thread that is bound to spark intense disagreement; intended to head off a potential situation where someone overstepped the mark and caused real offence.

It's inevitable that in a community with 5k+ active members no one will be able to please everybody

 

[Nibble]

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

I'd dispute "constant", but that's subjective. Less subjective is "warnings"; I see no warning in my comment, just a request to keep the personal insults down in a thread that is bound to spark intense disagreement; intended to head off a potential situation where someone overstepped the mark and caused real offence.

It's inevitable that in a community with 5k+ active members no one will be able to please everybody

God help us, another Hitony!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I know you have only just been made a mod and are keen and all that but your constant little warnings on threads are really getting on my tits.

It's not as annoying as someone making wild accusations who, when challenged to provide the evidence, suggests the original post was really some throwaway comment not intended to insult.

 

[Nibble]

It's not as annoying as someone making wild accusations who, when challenged to provide the evidence, suggests the original post was really some throwaway comment not intended to insult.

I'm not trawling through all your tedious right wing crap to prove a point to some right wing internet troll. I never made out it was a throwaway comment, we both know you have derided benefit claimants on here before and I don't care if t offended you or not.

 

[Greyrun]

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

I'd dispute "constant", but that's subjective. Less subjective is "warnings"; I see no warning in my comment, just a request to keep the personal insults down in a thread that is bound to spark intense disagreement; intended to head off a potential situation where someone overstepped the mark and caused real offence.

It's inevitable that in a community with 5k+ active members no one will be able to please everybody

Keep at it,abusive comments lead to people not posting,not what you want on a forum.

 

[drew]

I bet you still pay your subs to your union and if ever were in trouble at work through an incident or sickness, you would need the help of your union rep to save your job? Yet you betray them.
I think anyone that crosses the pickets should not be allowed union membership. If you don't agree with what your union is doing then leave!!
Oh and before you say 'you left your union', then you wouldn't be eligible for strike. Many cowards and selfish, cross the pickets yet still pay their subs and profit from conditions and pay rises that their unions negotiate. Profiting and taking the benefits that others have made sacrifices for, in my mind you can't get much lower.

I'm a member of a union but I don't subscribe to the archaic belief that no one should cross a picket line. It is up to the individual whether they stand by the reason for the strike in the first place.

Len McCluskey has attacked the PM and his comments concerning the low number of union members supporting a strike ...

"The whiff of hypocrisy coming from Cameron as he harps on about voting thresholds is overwhelming," he said. "Not a single member of his cabinet won over 50% of the vote in the 2010 election, with Cameron himself getting just 43% of the potential vote. ....quoted from this article http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/09/david-cameron-strikes-1m-walk-out-bully-threats.

isnt this a silly standpoint to take by McCluskey,surely the union strike vote is by paid up members of that union to decide on an issue,how on earth do you compare it to the vast proportion of the electorate who are not affiliated or paid up members to any political party.

seems a bit odd to me,.....no doubt someone will show me the error of my ways

Surely, he is merely pointing out that Cameron is just being hypocritical, ie that Cameron doesn't have a mandate from the majority of the electorate, nothing more nothing less!

WOW!!! Staggeringly uninformed!

We spent MORE than we earned! It's called a "budget deficit" and it meant that we spent everything we earned and then borrowed sh*t loads more so that we could spent that as well.


A little Economics 101 for you and the other ret~rds!
The "bank led recession" was caused by a sudden tightening of the debt market meaning that new money became extremely expensive to borrow. If you are living beyond your means and someone tells you that you can't borrow any more money then things start to go wrong.

Only those countries which were in deficit should have been impacted in this sort of situation. But because so many countries were overspending, the knock on impacts hit even the prudent countries - hence, worldwide recession.


1. The banks who packaged up impossibly complicated debt products to offload all the toxic debt and sold them to each other caused a sudden tightening of the market - they are the root cause of the problem. The regulators who allowed this to happen are also culpable here.

2. The banks who bought the packaged debt products were the secondary cause because they were too wrapped up in the bull market to actually do any basic analysis into the products they were trading.

3. EVERYONE who was living beyond their means - countries, governments, businesses and individuals - were the victims, but with a very large dose of blame because of their own negligent behaviour. If you're not constantly borrowing money then you don't give a sh*t if the debt market tightens up!

4. When too many people are part of #3 and too many banks are part of #2 then we all suffer, including the prudent ones.

The British Government, under New Labour, were part of #3 and we are now paying the price.

Just to clarify, my understanding is that when Blair came into power, the national debt was reduced to it's lowest level since the beginning of the 90s. I assume that was done because the economy was generating a surplus but correct me if I'm wrong. The next few years we operated at a slight deficit to increase public spending but that all went pear shaped in 2008! Perhaps it would have been better if I had made clear I was referring to the earlier part of the Labour government than the latter part!

I agree that the British Government were part of 3# but it would have been which ever party was in power.

To also call you out on this particular point.

Firstly: If you bothered to read all of my post I specifically mentioned that money can more to another country, but is still in circulation - its in the Global Economy, just not the Local one. It doesn't makes the facts of my post any less valid!

Secondly: We are a net receiver of property investment money in this country. Considerably more money from other countries flows into our local Economy from foreign property investors (domestic, commercial and from Oligarchs & Princes). So this actually pumps more into our waterfall for it to cascade down as I described earlier.

You really need to actually get out and learn some stuff because you are spectacularly ignorant.

My statement about overseas property purchases surely is correct. We might live in a global economy but when someone spends money overseas, that money is out of our economy and into another country's economy. We do live in a global economy and some of that money may work it's way back into ours but there is no guarantee. I appreciate your comment that we are currently a net beneficiary of inward property investment but that doesn't really alter what I said, it merely puts some context into the current situation. That could change, although unlikely.


Surely the point about debt, whether the government, football clubs or individuals, is that it should be manageable. Most could not enjoy the standard of living we have if it were not for taking on some form of debt during our lifetime.

 

[drew]

its a clever distraction by McCluskey. as far as im aware, no one is suggesting a majority vote for action, only that a majority actual take part in the vote. so you'd only need 25.1% required to carry a vote. if you cant get 25% of your members to turnout for an issue, then you dont really have support. McCluskey is redirecting attention, but the vast majority of people wont be fooled and will see it as a reasonable restriction of union power.

It's not a distraction, it's a statement of truth. The present government came to power on a minority of eligible votes. The Tories even failed to win an overall majority over all other parties and had to rely on the LibDems whoring themselves out. The right to withdraw labour is a fundamental human right and restrictions on the rights of labour are the hallmark of every dictatorial system that has ever existed.

I have to agree with D here. It is hypocritical of a leader of the government whose party were not chosen by the majority of voters to complain about an action that was not chosen by the majority of the union membership.

Having said that, maybe there should be changes to the voting systems in both scenarios, ie that voting should, as I believe it should, be mandatory (you would obviously have to include the 'none of the above' option) and then we can see who has the moral high ground.

 

[Captain Sensible]

If you were ever in trouble at work blah blah, I have met self important self serving union reps that you speak of. After sub's were paid for 20 years plus you thought they might have come running when needed, well the local rep couldn't even return phone calls until the regional office were contacted. Even they dragged their feet so slowly that their inefficiency matched the government agency that they were being asked to challenge. A belated resolution was only achieved by the threat of legal action. The union and their rep? Nowhere in sight. Absolute saddo's who are worse than most of our politicians who we at least know are acting in their own self interest, The union officials blackmail people into following the union line with sneering comments of people taking the benefits of membership but not supporting the cause etc etc, whilst in reality these officials are still sitting on a gravy train of self importance harking back to the 70's and their inadequacies are evident for all to see.



You sound like a hate filled, control freak determined to smash those with a mind of their own, are you a union rep?

Dinosaur from the past, fighting against evolution and extinction. Good riddance.

Not a rep, but have helped in legal disputes with employers for wrongful dismissal claims. I do have a left view of things however, I don't believe those hundreds of thousands that striked are all left viewed politically.
Something made them do it. They all felt an injustice. To be a member of a union and even if you Vote No to strike, if more than 50% of your membership votes for strike you are obligated to do as the majority have voted. Either that or leave the Union! You obviously have had a bad experience, yet why still be a member? If you hate them and they are all Dinosours etc etc, why pay to be a member and why stay? There must a reason?
If you are not a member anymore then fine. But too many Vote to strike, then walk over the line because they dont have the resolve for it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

To be a member of a union and even if you Vote No to strike, if more than 50% of your membership votes for strike you are obligated to do as the majority have voted.

Please show me which unions that carried out strike action yesterday had 50%+ members vote for strike action. At a guess I'd suggest it was one - the FBU.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Please show me which unions that carried out strike action yesterday had 50%+ members vote for strike action. At a guess I'd suggest it was one - the FBU.

I haven't been following what the results were of each union, but in law to get a mandate to strike, a vote of all members with a return of 50%+ of those that return ballots needs to be achieved. Some Unions have differing internal rules but the legislation on strike votes is quite clear. The Strikes yesterday were deemed legal therefore the correct procedures must have been followed. I'm not gonna show you anything, find it yourself. I'm just telling you that the required number of vote was achieved.
The Government can spin figures and call it a minority all they want, fact is it was enough.
Bottom line, the Government or Company get the union it deserves.

 

[beorhthelm]

Please show me which unions that carried out strike action yesterday had 50%+ members vote for strike action.

or a union that had 50% turnout. NUT turnout was 27%, so a minority of about a quarter of a union, representing one subset of teachers, closed the schools.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I haven't been following what the results were of each union, but in law to get a mandate to strike, a vote of all members with a return of 50%+ of those that return ballots needs to be achieved. Some Unions have differing internal rules but the legislation on strike votes is quite clear. The Strikes yesterday were deemed legal therefore the correct procedures must have been followed. I'm not gonna show you anything, find it yourself. I'm just telling you that the required number of vote was achieved.
The Government can spin figures and call it a minority all they want, fact is it was enough.
Bottom line, the Government or Company get the union it deserves.

or a union that had 50% turnout. NUT turnout was 27%, so a minority of about a quarter of a union, representing one subset of teachers, closed the schools.

Don't these two posts contradict each other ? Surely the NUT had neither 50% of voting members in favour of strike action nor did they have 50% turnout ? Doesn't that mean the NUT went on strike illegally based on the criteria in Captain Sensible's post ?

 

[keaton]

The private sector is always quicker to react to changes in the economic outlook than the public sector. To some point it is the nature of the beast so to speak, a big unwieldly organisation like NHS cannot change overnight. So when the recession hit people employed in private industry saw their wages stagnate far earlier than those in local government, they also saw industry shedding jobs at a far faster rate than could ever be achieved by a publicly funded body. The last 10 years have also seen the nigh on disappearance of fat pension schemes that are still being enjoyed by many in local authority employment.

None of this has been painless for anyone. But my point is this, the public sector takes far longer to make necessary savings and cuts and therefore the issues that need to be tackled take longer to be addressed, and as sure as night follows day we still have a budget deficit. Once that is eradicated higher pay rises and increased staffing can be considered. Even then teachers and firefighters will still fight against having to work longer, whereas others no longer have anything to fight against on this topic, the law has already been changed. In essence, the private sector was first in and is now first out of the recession, the public sector is, as ever, a few years behind.

Before the recession hit nearly every council in the country had committed so some pretty large cost-cutting measures.

 

[drew]

or a union that had 50% turnout. NUT turnout was 27%, so a minority of about a quarter of a union, representing one subset of teachers, closed the schools.

It was still a legal strike. More than 50% of those that voted, voted to strike. It is no different to the argument saying Cameron has no mandate to govern because he didn't get more than 50% of the turnout, let alone the electorate (although that applies to every British Governments, at least since WWII). It could be argued that if you chose not to vote, you are content to accept the decision of the majority that do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Don't these two posts contradict each other ? Surely the NUT had neither 50% of voting members in favour of strike action nor did they have 50% turnout ? Doesn't that mean the NUT went on strike illegally ?

no, it highlights problem well. they only count returned ballots, so only need 50% of those returned. so NUT turnout of 27% needs only 13.6% of the membership in favor. as it was it was around 90%, because those voting tend to vote for rather than against the unions actions. so its quite easy to softly rig a ballot by discouraging those against from voting either way - i recall this is what one union was found doing a short while ago.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Don't these two posts contradict each other ? Surely the NUT had neither 50% of voting members in favour of strike action nor did they have 50% turnout ? Doesn't that mean the NUT went on strike illegally based on the criteria in Captain Sensible's post ?

Edit..
50% of returned ballots

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

no, it highlights problem well. they only count returned ballots, so only need 50% of those returned. so NUT turnout of 27% needs only 13.6% of the membership in favor. as it was it was around 90%, because those voting tend to vote for rather than against the unions actions. so its quite easy to softly rig a ballot by discouraging those against from voting either way - i recall this is what one union was found doing a short while ago.

I belong to Unite,personally it would take something exceptional for me to strike,my private sector job pays well within it's field,i feel respected,i feel valued,i can also see how others at my place of work don';t appreciate this,but they are lazy,not all,but some,like as in the public sector too,my message to my fellow colleagues is go out and get the like for like job at the same pay and conditions then,i doubt most could.....

 

[beorhthelm]

It was still a legal strike. More than 50% of those that voted, voted to strike. It is no different to the argument saying Cameron has no mandate to govern because he didn't get more than 50% of the turnout,

it is different, as his mandate comes from having a majority of parliamentary seats*, not votes. its also different as most parliamentary seats do have a majority turn out, and as i've said before i certainly would say they change the law so a minimum turnout is required.

(*in coalition of course)