Sign Petition against the Trade Union Bill

[desprateseagull]

I doubt the government will take any notice, unless massive signatures received on a gov.uk petition..

 

[Surf's Up]

Won't be signing I'm afraid - firstly it's only right that Unions get a decent majority of ALL their members voting for strike action before doing so. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with an employer being allowed the use agency workers in the event of a strike. A worker has decided to withdraw their labour - that is THEIR decision - if the job needs doing then the employer should have every right to get it done ( albeit it will be more expensive for them ). I've never seen anyone object to the Army covering for striking firemen in the past.

I won't be signing either, for the above reasons.

 

[Flex Your Head]

The unions are a disgrace.

What? All of them? Have you got anything to back up that bold statement, or are you just resorting to knee-jerk, ill-informed stereotyping?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Won't be signing either....it's a job suicide note...having worked through the 70s and 80s I've seen enough of their practices...strikes for the most stupid of reasons....a little puddle of water and they called out for everyone to down tools for 'wet conditions' in reality they wanted to slow down the job to make it last.
Most people know the condition of the job before they elected to start...don't like it,take your labour elsewhere...simples.

 

[Bladders]

 

[BLOCK F]

No.

 

[portslade seagull]

Hasn't taken long for the Corbynites to get going. Having worked thru late 70/80s and been involved most strikes ended up with job's being lost once ended. A big NO from me

 

[Hotchilidog]

Signed.

 

[drew]

Won't be signing either....it's a job suicide note...having worked through the 70s and 80s I've seen enough of their practices...strikes for the most stupid of reasons....a little puddle of water and they called out for everyone to down tools for 'wet conditions' in reality they wanted to slow down the job to make it last.
Most people know the condition of the job before they elected to start...don't like it,take your labour elsewhere...simples.

Wouldn't expect any other comment from you. Do you genuinely believe that strikes called now are on the same basis as back then?

 

[Tarpon]

 

[drew]

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.

Got a link?

 

[goldstone]

What? All of them? Have you got anything to back up that bold statement, or are you just resorting to knee-jerk, ill-informed stereotyping?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Of course I don't have anything to back up my statement. All I know is that (in my opinion) everything connected with trades unions is bad. They undoubtedly served a useful purpose decades ago when there were few rights for workers, but those days are far behind us and they are now dinosaurs serving only to line the pockets of their fat-cat leaders. Financial statements published by the Trade Union Certification Office show that almost 40 union leaders have received six-figure pay packages in the past year, including one union leader who received £230,000.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

I will not sign.

 

[drew]

Of course I don't have anything to back up my statement. All I know is that (in my opinion) everything connected with trades unions is bad. They undoubtedly served a useful purpose decades ago when there were few rights for workers, but those days are far behind us and they are now dinosaurs serving only to line the pockets of their fat-cat leaders. Financial statements published by the Trade Union Certification Office show that almost 40 union leaders have received six-figure pay packages in the past year, including one union leader who received £230,000.

 

[piersa]

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

Thank you Peter Jones.

 

[Landgull]

Won't be signing I'm afraid - firstly it's only right that Unions get a decent majority of ALL their members voting for strike action before doing so. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with an employer being allowed the use agency workers in the event of a strike. A worker has decided to withdraw their labour - that is THEIR decision - if the job needs doing then the employer should have every right to get it done ( albeit it will be more expensive for them ). I've never seen anyone object to the Army covering for striking firemen in the past.

This.

 

[Landgull]

No way am I signing.

No way back to the 80's and their terrible strangle hold.

This.

 

[Landgull]

No from me as well. When I was in a closed shop union back in the early eighties, I resented being forced out of work and when a couple of years ago I could only get agency work etc. etc.

This.

 

[Landgull]

Why shouldnt smeone work whn they disagree with the strike?

No reason at all.It's freedom of choice.

 

[Landgull]

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!

What Government has ever had more than 50% of the voting public?