Grangemouth.............what if?

[banner18]

Having agreed and took action with union in the last 10 years no-one could accuse me of being anti union but I think there is more than this going on here and I really believe this is a bad move and less than a third of the workforce voted for this action and I bet half of them voted only to strengthen the union hand. So maybe a fifth or sixth of the workforce really believe in it?
Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

[Lincox]

Well, if ever a union member wished to weaken the strength and negotiating power, and hand over the lead to the employing company, Banner, you are the one for the job.
Lets all curl over and allow the capitalist right of this country to trod us into the turf and use us as fertiliser to strengthen the sod, so that they can harvest the crop for themselves.
Are we all going to capitulate or stick our necks and chests out and stare down this nasty bunch of inhuman b strds.

[fishtank]

Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

Prior to the consultative ballot and the subsequent threat of industrial action did you see any agreement on the table over pay or the protection of our terms and conditions?

That is the deal you get offered when you do nothing....nothing.
You're welcome to take that deal if you wish banner.

[k979aaa]

Having agreed and took action with union in the last 10 years no-one could accuse me of being anti union but I think there is more than this going on here and I really believe this is a bad move and less than a third of the workforce voted for this action and I bet half of them voted only to strengthen the union hand. So maybe a fifth or sixth of the workforce really believe in it?
Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

We do vote to strengthen the union hand without them you would be on minimum wage's, no sick pay, minimum holiday pay, no pension at all, do you banner18 think they our employers gave them out of charity to us all NO GOD DAMM IT WORKERS FOUGHT FOR YOUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS! IF YOU DONT FIGHT FOR THEM YOU WILL LOSE MORE THAN A FEW DAYS PAY!.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Having agreed and took action with union in the last 10 years no-one could accuse me of being anti union but I think there is more than this going on here and I really believe this is a bad move and less than a third of the workforce voted for this action and I bet half of them voted only to strengthen the union hand. So maybe a fifth or sixth of the workforce really believe in it?
Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

Changed your stance on Ballots Banner http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ot#p206655" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tories are also looking to introduce measures that would ban strike action that was not supported by a majority of all workers being called out on strike. At present strikes are legal as long as a majority is obtained from those voting in a ballot. The CWU action was not backed by a majority of Royal Mail's total workforce'.

That would be a dirty underhanded trick. Democratic decisions are based on a majority of those that are voting. That would mean for us not to be on strike, they would have presumed that the ones that didn't vote, count as a no vote. What a load of tosh. Totalitarianism!

[banner18]

Having agreed and took action with union in the last 10 years no-one could accuse me of being anti union but I think there is more than this going on here and I really believe this is a bad move and less than a third of the workforce voted for this action and I bet half of them voted only to strengthen the union hand. So maybe a fifth or sixth of the workforce really believe in it?
Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

Changed your stance on Ballots Banner http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ot#p206655" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tories are also looking to introduce measures that would ban strike action that was not supported by a majority of all workers being called out on strike. At present strikes are legal as long as a majority is obtained from those voting in a ballot. The CWU action was not backed by a majority of Royal Mail's total workforce'.

That would be a dirty underhanded trick. Democratic decisions are based on a majority of those that are voting. That would mean for us not to be on strike, they would have presumed that the ones that didn't vote, count as a no vote. What a load of tosh. Totalitarianism!

I don't agree with a law against strike action so I haven't changed my stance, merely pointing out the floor in the system. A law which required over half the number of employees to vote to enable a strike would stop almost any strike action. I am complaining because I am in the other camp, I am not saying people don't have the right to strike in this or any
Dispute.

[k979aaa]

Having agreed and took action with union in the last 10 years no-one could accuse me of being anti union but I think there is more than this going on here and I really believe this is a bad move and less than a third of the workforce voted for this action and I bet half of them voted only to strengthen the union hand. So maybe a fifth or sixth of the workforce really believe in it?
Maybe not going on strike will protect terms and conditions and maybe going on strike will threaten them?

Changed your stance on Ballots Banner http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ot#p206655" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tories are also looking to introduce measures that would ban strike action that was not supported by a majority of all workers being called out on strike. At present strikes are legal as long as a majority is obtained from those voting in a ballot. The CWU action was not backed by a majority of Royal Mail's total workforce'.

That would be a dirty underhanded trick. Democratic decisions are based on a majority of those that are voting. That would mean for us not to be on strike, they would have presumed that the ones that didn't vote, count as a no vote. What a load of tosh. Totalitarianism!

I don't agree with a law against strike action so I haven't changed my stance, merely pointing out the floor in the system. A law which required over half the number of employees to vote to enable a strike would stop almost any strike action. I am complaining because I am in the other camp, I am not saying people don't have the right to strike in this or any
Dispute.

Half the people of this very country did not vote for those who are in power NOW (CON/DEMS) why is apathy an excuse for repression?