Count me in.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Sign Petition against the Trade Union Bill
- Thread starter Captain Sensible
- Start date
Count me in.
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
Just in case some people are unaware of what is proposed (like I was until a few minutes ago) the main points are:-
At least 50% of members entitled to vote must do so for ballots on industrial action to be valid. Currently balloting rules do not require any specific level of participation by union members.
40% of those eligible to vote must back action for strikes in core public services (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services). Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.
Removal of restrictions on using temporary workers to cover for striking staff. A ban has been in place since 1973.
Tightening rules on ballot mandates. This would prevent unions undertaking action based on historic strike ballots.
Unions must appoint a picketing supervisor to help provide protection for non-striking workers. Employers will be able to seek injunctions or damages from unions that break these new rules.
Increasing to 14 days from seven days the notice a union must provide workers ahead of a strike.
I'd support all of those with the possible exception of the one about core public sector workers. 40% of all eligible to vote having to be in favour of strike action is very high. So it should be, in my opinion there should be a higher requirement for core public sector strikes (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services) than non-core or private sectors but maybe not as high as this.
At least 50% of members entitled to vote must do so for ballots on industrial action to be valid. Currently balloting rules do not require any specific level of participation by union members.
40% of those eligible to vote must back action for strikes in core public services (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services). Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.
Removal of restrictions on using temporary workers to cover for striking staff. A ban has been in place since 1973.
Tightening rules on ballot mandates. This would prevent unions undertaking action based on historic strike ballots.
Unions must appoint a picketing supervisor to help provide protection for non-striking workers. Employers will be able to seek injunctions or damages from unions that break these new rules.
Increasing to 14 days from seven days the notice a union must provide workers ahead of a strike.
I'd support all of those with the possible exception of the one about core public sector workers. 40% of all eligible to vote having to be in favour of strike action is very high. So it should be, in my opinion there should be a higher requirement for core public sector strikes (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services) than non-core or private sectors but maybe not as high as this.
That's the point I'm making!!!!!
Strikes are at a historic low. There are reasonable relations between most unions and employers, so why is the government trying to antagonise things? I would be more inclined to vote for a strike now than before, and I have always voted for action short of a striker historically.
If it ain't broke..............
If it ain't broke..............
Nail on the head.
One wonders what the government have in store that they fear might cause unrest?