Strike law reforms

[OGH's Libido]

FOR! And in a big way.

Over here, a recent Deutsche Bahn strike cost the German economy over £500 million in one week, with more of that on the way. They wanted MORE pay and wanted to work LESS! Thievery. £500 million/week is absolutely ruinous, and combined with strike action plaguing Germany's airports, Germany is rapidly harming its excellent reputation as a place to live, visit and do business.

My view is that we need to be humble as a country and concede that we can't afford our prosperity to be put at risk like in Germany. Cameron has it spot on, in my view.

 

[beorhthelm]

agree with the principle of the policy, threshold needs adjustment. id say 50% turnout and 50% majority to carry. so that's at least 25% of those eligible, which i think is fair enough expectation. unions have taken the urine in recent years with strikes called on less than 10% of the members, so they've brought this upon themselves. they wouldn't allow such poor mandates on their internal decision making.

and i'd apply the same rules to parliamentary elections too, if you cant gain 25% of the votes for a seat you cant justifiably claim to represent it.

 

[Frampler]

These are awful, spiteful laws by a Government whose attitude to public sector workers is disgraceful and vindictive. I've got nothing but contempt for those cheering the Government along on this - quasi-fascists the lot of them.

 

[drew]

I actually think these reforms could strengthen unionised labour and the union movement. The problem we have at the moment, is that it is all too easy for union officials to call a strike thus impacting millions of innocent members of the public. With these changes, a strike will be more difficult to call (but still pretty FAR from difficult) so when one is called, it is more likely to garner public support.

It's hardly easy to call a strike when you have to have an organised postal ballot. It's not like the old days of the 70s when a show of hands would suffice.

I haven't suggested that at all. I've suggested that after talks have broken down that unions jump to strike action. Let's take the teachers as an example - straight to strike action rather than say refusing to monitor exams, stay past 4pm or refusing to attend staff meetings etc etc etc

Apologies if that was your train of thought but that's not how it seemed to appear in your post. That said, what else is there when talks break down other than taking action.

 

[Ernest]

FOR! And in a big way.

Over here, a recent Deutsche Bahn strike cost the German economy over £500 million in one week, with more of that on the way. They wanted MORE pay and wanted to work LESS! Thievery. £500 million/week is absolutely ruinous, and combined with strike action plaguing Germany's airports, Germany is rapidly harming its excellent reputation as a place to live, visit and do business.

My view is that we need to be humble as a country and concede that we can't afford our prosperity to be put at risk like in Germany. Cameron has it spot on, in my view.

It wouldn't happen in Germany

 

[clippedgull]

Rail workers in the RMT union to hold 24-hour and 48-hour strikes next month, after rejecting Network Rail pay offer..... BBC

 

[Ernest]

Rail workers in the RMT union to hold 24-hour and 48-hour strikes next month, after rejecting Network Rail pay offer..... BBC

Jolly good stuff, power to the WORKERS

 

[pb21]

FOR! And in a big way.

Over here, a recent Deutsche Bahn strike cost the German economy over £500 million in one week, with more of that on the way. They wanted MORE pay and wanted to work LESS! Thievery. £500 million/week is absolutely ruinous, and combined with strike action plaguing Germany's airports, Germany is rapidly harming its excellent reputation as a place to live, visit and do business.

My view is that we need to be humble as a country and concede that we can't afford our prosperity to be put at risk like in Germany. Cameron has it spot on, in my view.

If they are so vital to the economy they should be remunerated accordingly.

People who employ will always try to pay the least they can get away with, particularly in large companies and even more so where shareholders are involved, and the threat of, or action of, striking means they cannot get away with paying less than who they employ are ‘worth’.

Maybe raising the legitimacy to strike such that 50% of those eligible to vote, do vote is a good thing, but your opinion really does suggest that you are in a race to the bottom and want to be the 1st one there.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I went on strike for 2/3 weeks in 1987 (NCU v British Telecom). I didn't want to go on strike because I was buying my first flat at the time but I voted for industrial action.
The reasons were that Telecom had made huge profits on the back of privatisation and we (the workers) wanted a reasonable pay settlement that reflected that success (a not outrageous for the time 4.5% springs to mind but I could be wrong). Management refused and offered something like 1.5% so an overtime ban was imposed. One Thursday selected people were called in to se their manager and told to sign a bit of paper agreeing to work Saturday overtime; many of those chosen never worked OT. They refused so were suspended, triggering a walk out. Every single person, throughout the UK who walked out did so to support their friends and colleagues.

For that reason, if no other, strike action should always be a viable option. If you want to restrict, by law, who can strike and when, then it's only fair to limit, by law, provocative behaviour by management designed to escalate industrial action.

Oh, for what it's worth, the union offered, unconditionally, to maintain essential services such as hospitals, emergency services, doctors. Management in South Downs district refused this unless we also agreed to maintain big business such as Amex, Legal & General, IBM etc. In the end, there were a emergency services needing attention and they were done by local managers with unofficial assistance from our members; I don't know of a single person, even the most militant, who wouldn't have turned out to ensure that the essential services were maintained.

That was all down to BT adopting a "macho management" stance towards the unions who represented workers within the company. Management told us as CWU members that if we refused to cross a NCU picket line it would be classed as taking secondary industrial action and we would be suspended. Industrial Relations sunk to an all time low and never recovered. It wasn't at all surprising when five years later BT began their massive voluntary redundancy programme that over 30,000 jumped at the chance to leave on the same day.

 

[OGH's Libido]

If they are so vital to the economy they should be remunerated accordingly.

.

Nonsense and bad economics. Their bargaining power owes everything to the importance of the railway rather than their abilities and capabilities. Rail chiefs are already talking about driver-less trains, as they have in Copenhagen.

That the network didn't grind to a halt was down to core of drivers who had sworn on the German constitution when they signed up. As a result, they can't strike. If they don't like the terms, they can retrain and find new employment.

 

[Chicken Run]

So the law should stay as it currently is ?

Being really honest I couldn't give a damn

 

[Yoda]

Sadly the Unions jump to strike action before actually coming up with other innovative and intelligent ideas for hit the employers - teachers being the prime example.

Err! Actually, they do. It's called working to rule and not doing any overtime. Unfortunately, the way greed is in this Country, those not a member of the Unions more than make up for it so they have no choice but to ballot for strike action.

 

[sir albion]

Abolish all striking as let's face it unless you work in the public sector its a pointless poll.
Striking in this country is the same old shite,tube workers,teachers etc and these are the ones that earn bloody good money compared to most.

All or nothing it's that simple

 

[ROSM]

I would have more sympathy with protecting essential public services, If those services were controlled in effect by the public. As they're not in many cases, and owned by companies that declare profits and shareholder return then I can't seek to support a distinction between them and other strikes.
II

 

[attila]

Tories received 24% of the votes from eligible electors. They want to introduce a law outlawing strikes supported by less than 40% of eligible union members.
Sheer, rank hypocrisy. Needless to say, their pet (free?) press doesn't point this out.
Recommended reading: Robert Tressell's 'Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. Written 100 years ago and even more relevant now. And set in Sussex.
See you at Glastonwick if you're coming

 

[seagulls4ever]

Tories received 24% of the votes from eligible electors. They want to introduce a law outlawing strikes supported by less than 40% of eligible union members.
Sheer, rank hypocrisy. Needless to say, their pet (free?) press doesn't point this out.
Recommended reading: Robert Tressell's 'Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. Written 100 years ago and even more relevant now. And set in Sussex.
See you at Glastonwick if you're coming

They probably don't point it out because it's an illogical argument, as I mentioned previously. In the general election you have more than a mere yes or no option, so clearly the vote is going to be more spread out. They're two completely different types of votes.

I don't support the reforms but I don't think that's a good argument against them.

 

[attila]

They probably don't point it out because it's an illogical argument, as I mentioned previously. In the general election you have more than a mere yes or no option, so clearly the vote is going to be more spread out. They're two completely different types of votes.

I don't support the reforms but I don't think that's a good argument against them.

Too right they are different types of votes. TU votes HAVE to be postal. I think it is an established fact that a far smaller percentage of the electorate would vote if they could only do so by postal ballot. The fact that the 'turnout' is taken into the equation and people are not allowed to have workplace ballots is just part of the whole stitch up. (Cue bleating about 'intimidation'. What about breakfast table 'intimidation' by the Sun, Mail, Express, Star, BBC, ITV....)

 

[seagulls4ever]

Too right they are different types of votes. TU votes HAVE to be postal. I think it is an established fact that a far smaller percentage of the electorate would vote if they could only do so by postal ballot. The fact that the 'turnout' is taken into the equation and people are not allowed to have workplace ballots is just part of the whole stitch up. (Cue bleating about 'intimidation'. What about breakfast table 'intimidation' by the Sun, Mail, Express, Star, BBC, ITV....)

That's a better argument. You should have made it in the first place!

I would suggest workplace ballots are probably very hard to monitor to ensure nothing untoward is going on. I would also suggest the turnout of Labour or Conservative Party members is higher than the general electorate as a whole. I'm sure there would still be a very high turnout from these members if they could only vote by postal ballot, and similarities can be drawn from being member of a union. But I don't know where this established 'fact' as come from. Has researched published any findings on this matter?

Though I do think there should still be a minimum 50% turnout, but a simple majority rather than 40% of the eligible electorate required. If you're not prepared to vote on such an important issue then you shouldn't be part of the union. It's not exactly hard to post a ballot. In many ways it is much easier, which is why 5.5m people chose to vote by postal ballot in the 2010 GE (out of 7m ballots issued). But based on what you have said, ways of increasing turnout should be looked into. Maybe they can encourage members only to join if they are prepared to vote on such issues?

 

[OGH's Libido]

I would have more sympathy with protecting essential public services, If those services were controlled in effect by the public. As they're not in many cases, and owned by companies that declare profits and shareholder return then I can't seek to support a distinction between them and other strikes.
II

This is an interesting point. But employees are entitled to become shareholders, aren't they?

 

[Bry Nylon]

(Cue bleating about 'intimidation'. What about breakfast table 'intimidation' by the Sun, Mail, Express, Star, BBC, ITV....)

Here's a scenario for you.

The FBU vote for strike action. I'm not in the FBU and furthermore I don't agree with their dispute, so I (along with many other firefighters) choose to continue to provide fire and rescue cover over the designated strike periods. During the strike periods appliances aren't mobilised from fire stations - as that is seen as potentially inflammatory - no pun intended. So instead we decamp to pretty basic facilities (industrial units and the like) which we use as our base for 12, 24, 48 hours - however long the action lasts.

The drill usually goes something like this. Within the first few minutes of the strike starting we get mobilised to a malicious false alarm - maybe a small bin fire in a car park or just a straight forward hoax call to a specific address. When we pitch up, FBU members are there - faces covered and filming us on their phones, shouting abuse and telling us they're going to work out who we are, where we live and hope that are families are safe whilst we're out working etc etc. Not nice. Then then follow us back to to our temporary turn-out location (the whole point of getting us out in the first place is to find out where we are based during the strike) and essentially just hang about trying to intimidate us. Films get posted on social media, hate mail has been sent to fire stations and they also do that childish 'turning their back' thing when back on Watch or on training courses etc.

Of course, this is by no means all of them. Probably a minority. But don't come on here saying "cue bleating about intimidation" as if it is insignificant - when some pretty nasty and committed people start making implied threats to you and your family, because you choose to go to work.

Keep up the limericks.