Sign Petition against the Trade Union Bill

[drew]

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.

Even though I'm a union member, I disagree. If someone doesn't agree with a strike then I don't believe they should be forced to withdraw their labour.

 

[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.

I didn't mean to appear rude (post 35) but (please see my post 4 on this thread)

Collective action should only be considered when the issue at stake is one affecting all members and not when, for example, one member/employee has been suspended/dismissed for misconduct/failure to fulfill the normal expected standards of employment. (Your example exactly sets out how ridiculous it can be when the misconduct of an employee can result in, as you say, 'shut down the entire operation' . (The nonsense of unions holding the country to ransome for 'just one bloke' who has probably deserved shooting never mind firing)

My own experience (post 4) was that, as an individual not involved in a business where there was not potential to cause havoc to the UK economy, or where union leaders might achieve their moment of glory, then as I said, I was not worthy of a reply to my email.

 

[GT49er]

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

Except when voting to take strike action?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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



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.



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

I was a union member for the vast majority of my working life. More often than not, the vote went to not strike. My last job had a union that was a little more militant, but we had a postal vote. The vote to strike went ahead but a lot of eligible members didn't bother to vote at all.
By making the rule of over 50%, you will find that apathy will be replaced by determination and more members will get off their backside to vote.

 

[drew]

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.

You're missing the point. The current government, as with most governments, weren't elected by 50% of the members eligible to vote, ie the electorate. Why do they see that as a mandate to allow them to do as they please yet can't see that a legal ballot where the majority that chose to vote chose to strike is morally corrupt. Those that chose not to vote in a ballot are in fact making a choice to accept whatever the outcome is the ballot is. The same as those that chose not to vote in an election resign themselves to accepting whatever the outcome of that is. If the Tories are so adamant that the Union method of voting is wrong then why aren't they proposing a method to change the voting method at General Elections. I know, it's because it suits them. That's hypocrisy.

 

[GT49er]

By making the rule of over 50%, you will find that apathy will be replaced by determination and more members will get off their backside to vote.

Well, that would certainly be one in the eye for the Tories baying for this bill to go ahead!

Personally, am all in favour of more people getting off their backside to vote - in all ballots or elections - but I'm pretty sure that this isn' t the Government's intention in this case!

 

[nicko31]

Is there one to sign in favour of the bill? 3 out 4 of us get on with it..

 

[drew]

I didn't mean to appear rude (post 35) but (please see my post 4 on this thread)

Collective action should only be considered when the issue at stake is one affecting all members and not when, for example, one member/employee has been suspended/dismissed for misconduct/failure to fulfill the normal expected standards of employment. (Your example exactly sets out how ridiculous it can be when the misconduct of an employee can result in, as you say, 'shut down the entire operation' . (The nonsense of unions holding the country to ransome for 'just one bloke' who has probably deserved shooting never mind firing)

My own experience (post 4) was that, as an individual not involved in a business where there was not potential to cause havoc to the UK economy, or where union leaders might achieve their moment of glory, then as I said, I was not worthy of a reply to my email.

Possibly agree but I suspect in the vast majority of cases where someone is suspended due the reasons you state, no action is taken or considered by a union other than to ensure that due process is followed as per someone's contract. As I understand it, where unions do take action it is where the employer has got rid of someone for other reasons, eg being a union shop steward or maybe trumped up charges because their face doesn't fit.

 

[ferring seagull]

Possibly agree but I suspect in the vast majority of cases where someone is suspended due the reasons you state, no action is taken or considered by a union other than to ensure that due process is followed as per someone's contract. As I understand it, where unions do take action it is where the employer has got rid of someone for other reasons, eg being a union shop steward or maybe trumped up charges because their face doesn't fit.

Sorry but I was thinking particularly, as an example, about the London Underground having been shut down by Aslef because of a dismissal ! I may be wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

really? you're saying a union cant achieve a 50% turn out? you dont think much of unions then, though they seemed to do that when the issue has wide support amongst the members (like the recent tube strikes which would still carry).

You're missing the point. The current government, as with most governments, weren't elected by 50% of the members eligible to vote, ie the electorate.

im not missing your point at all, just showing how it has a significant flaw. you are simply ignoring the counter arguement and logic that you cant enforce 50% when there are more than two options. and overlooking that unions wont need 50%, they need 25%, which does apply to a substantial majority of MPs. if we had a rule of 50% turnout it wouldnt make any difference to the election* as every seat achieved that, and with a multiplicity of options, less than 25% is a natural possibility. if you want to, you could advocate a pure PR system, then apply that to unions too (with the same result as this bill if you hadnt twigged).

 

[drew]

Sorry but I was thinking particularly, as an example, about the London Underground having been shut down by Aslef because of a dismissal ! I may be wrong.

Well you might also be right! What we would need to know are the reasons for the dismissal and why the Union felt it was worth fighting against.

 

[pastafarian]

i dont understand

what happens/changes if i sign the petition on the labour website

 

[GT49er]

Is there one to sign in favour of the bill? 3 out 4 of us get on with it..

Evidence? Or are you just some kind of second rate spin doctor?

Remember, most people didn't even vote for this government, let alone for some of their more extreme right wing legislation. You may, of course, based on your assumption that three quarters of the population agree with you, find this somewhat hard to believe.........

 

[Flex Your Head]

When a Tory describes parts of his own party's policies as something from Franco's fascist Spain, then surely something is somewhat amiss? Do all of you who support this bill and are lining up to support it not have any reservations at all?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/david-davis-attack-tories-trade-union-bill-franco

 

[beorhthelm]

When a Tory describes parts of his own party's policies as something from Franco's fascist Spain, then surely something is somewhat amiss? Do all of you who support this bill and are lining up to support it not have any reservations at all?

probably. i only particularly support the 50% turnout rule, having been put out by a hand full of RMT members shutting down the tube because managment saked a drunk. the Labour petition isnt interested in the details of the Bill, apparently its all against, so the battle lines are drawn.

 

[goldstone]

Absolutely will not sign. Top marks to the government for tackling this issue. The unions are a disgrace.

 

[drew]

probably. i only particularly support the 50% turnout rule, having been put out by a hand full of RMT members shutting down the tube because managment saked a drunk. the Labour petition isnt interested in the details of the Bill, apparently its all against, so the battle lines are drawn.

That might be the tory press reporting the dispute but that wasn't the reason for the strike. If you check it out, the driver had type 2 diabetes which can give false breathalyzer readings. The employer was aware of the condition and should have done a urine test to get a correct reading but they failed to do so. Due process wasn't followed and the Union had a ballot. All the time they were willing to go to ACAS and agreed to abide by any ruling but Transport for London, no doubt under the influence of BOJO, and gagging for a conflict refused to do so.

https://despisethelies.wordpress.com/tag/alex-mcguigan/

 

[beorhthelm]

That might be the tory press reporting the dispute but that wasn't the reason for the strike. If you check it out, the driver had type 2 diabetes which can give false breathalyzer readings.

you would be talking about a more recent strike. i refer to the one from about mayne ten years ago? when the driver (or maybe two of them) where caught drunk and a locker full of booze. RMT still backed them though, Crow called the members out though very few voted. still stopped half the tubes though. gagging for a conflict? that will be RMT, they are constantly on the case for getting action for something, as if its the purpose of the union. their turn outs are usually low, and there was all that nonsence in scotland with the vote rigging. RMT alone have done alot of harm to the union image.

 

[Husty]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/free...c=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whytubestrikeshelplondoners

 

[Chicken Run]

A clear attack on workers and worker rights. Agency staff allowed to break strikes. The never ending race to the bottom will speed up considerably if this bill gets passed.

Please sign here:

http://www.labour.org.uk/w/trade-union-bill-petition

Thank you for posting this link, having now digested it I have decided i wont sign but good luck anyway!