Would you?

[lovejoy]

Which goes to show how much loyalty the present leadership engenders I'm afraid.

More to do with more home-owners with mortgages than any lack of faith in Hayes/Ward I think.
More part-timers as well.
And a massive change in popular thinking. Fewer union members (was it a closed shop in '71?) and less public acceptance of strikes because the media has changed as well.
So nothing to do with loyalty I'm afraid.

so long ago cant remember if it was a closed shop but few people had mortgages in those days there's no way people could stay out so long nowadays i honestly dont know what will happen when the vote is no.

If my friend..... if

[clashcityrocker]

I suspect those reasons may play a part however many put their personal issues aside last year and voted overwhelmingly for strike action.

Yet if the ballot for strike action had mentioned 7 weeks I don't believe it would have returned a yes vote.
We could barely get 50% of our members to stand on the picket line.
Of those that did most wanted to do 5am-7am so it didn't interfere with their "day off".
And a lot were only too keen to put in the o/t to clear the backlog.
Most voted overwhelmingly for a little bit of strike action.

[fishtank]

I suspect those reasons may play a part however many put their personal issues aside last year and voted overwhelmingly for strike action.

Yet if the ballot for strike action had mentioned 7 weeks I don't believe it would have returned a yes vote.

To be fair CCR the 1971 strike ballot did not mention 7 weeks either.

We could barely get 50% of our members to stand on the picket line.
Of those that did most wanted to do 5am-7am so it didn't interfere with their "day off".
And a lot were only too keen to put in the o/t to clear the backlog.
Most voted overwhelmingly for a little bit of strike action.

I can't comment on your office but ours voted overwhelmingly for a lot of strike action from june until HQ let us down with the interim "form of words".

[clashcityrocker]

To be fair CCR the 1971 strike ballot did not mention 7 weeks either.

But 1971 was a different world. They probably expected to be on strike for an extended period.
When we voted overwhelmingly for strike action we knew it would be short (and sweet?)

I can't comment on your office but ours voted overwhelmingly for a lot of strike action from june until HQ let us down with the interim "form of words".

A lot of strike action but one day at a time. You didn't lose 7 weeks money in one go.
If that was the prospect would your office have been so supportive of strike action?
I salute you and your colleagues for the sacrifices you made and I understand your disappointment (for want of a better word) but I doubt if that could be replicated nationally.