Plans to Shackle Industrial Action Have a More Sinister Purp

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Plans to Shackle Industrial Action Have a More Sinister Purpose

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nigel-s ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So now we know what the Conservative manifesto will say about industrial action.

Strike ballots will require a 50% turn out to be valid. Breaches of the picketing code of practice will be criminalised. A whole new list of rules and regulations will be introduced that will be almost impossible for unions to meet. So even when a union meets the threshold requirement, employers will have plenty of new opportunities to get injunctions against a strike.

This goes far further than anything Mrs Thatcher did in limiting the right to strike. Such a turn out threshold is very rarely met by ballots involving more than a small workforce. It adds up to an effective end to the right to strike for many groups of workers - normally the kind of measure that we associate with dictatorships, not democracies.

No doubt we will be told it would be much better for unions to sort out their differences with employers by talking rather than striking. Unions agree with this - and indeed collective bargaining takes place across the country every day of the week and strikes are rare.

But for negotiations to work each side has to have some power. The individual relationship between an employer and employee is inevitably one-sided. Employees get back some power by banding together in unions, and the threat to withdraw labour, though rarely implemented, makes negotiations work. Oliver Twist was not negotiating when he asked for some more as he had no power.

And the effect of union negotiations spreads through the economy. Union collective bargaining sets pay rates, paves the way on flexible working and equal opportunities, and delivers better pensions. These then spread to other companies. If you weaken the ability of unions to bargain, then there will be consequences throughout the economy, union and non-union.

There is increasing concern about a growing gap between those at the top of society and the rest. This is not just driven by concerns that it is unfair that the majority have suffered a living standards crisis while those at the top have not. It also flows from a realisation that inequality makes for economic inefficiency and unstable economies. When wages fall, people borrow more - and when that fed into sub-prime mortgages the banking system nearly collapsed.

Organisations as far away from unions as the IMF now say that more collective bargaining has wider economic benefits.

But Conservative plans take us in the opposite direction. They look like part of an effort to exclude the many from the fruits of recovery and reserve them for the few.

And when we look at the detail we find a mixture of the absurd and the chilling. The ballot threshold has the bizarre effect of making abstentions more powerful than votes against a strike. Think of a ballot that just meets the 50 per cent turnout threshold. It would only take a few people who voted against to have abstained instead to make the ballot invalid as the turnout would fall below the threshold.

Notably absent is any proposal to increase turn-out. Strike ballots can only take place by post.

Yet we live in an era when communications has moved on-line. Most of our post these days is bills and junk mail - and it is not surprising that people often miss ballots. No-one wants to go back to votes by show of hands in company car parks, but allowing secure and secret online balloting would be bound to increase turn-out (You can join our online campaign action in support of this).

All the small print in this week's announcement about ballot rules simply adds bureaucratic burdens to unions. Members only vote to strike - and thus lose pay - if they feel strongly about an issue. More rules about ballot wording will not affect results, but will make it easier for lawyers to find fault and seek injunctions against strikes that clearly have proper support but have missed one tiny bit of red tape.

And as for bringing the criminal law into the regulation of pickets (which are of course already subject to public order law) I cannot make the case against this better than [urlhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100279650/the-trade-union-extremists-must-be-curbed-but-making-unsupported-strikes-criminal-could-backfire/]Norman Tebbit does at the Telegraph here[/url].

Of course strikes can inconvenience people, but you do not have to support every bit of industrial action to see that the right to strike is both a basic human right and a way of reducing the gap between those at the top and the rest of us. After more than a decade of falling living standards we should be clear that shackling unions has a much more sinister purpose than reducing the odd bit of hassle.

[janitor]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

[Danelectro]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

the conservative party got something like 28% of the total votes available at the last general election with non voters being the largest group with 39%.

[Brain Fury]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

I thought the proposal was that 50% of eligible union members need to vote in a strike ballot and that a majority of those needed to be in favour of a strike e.g. potentially 26% of the total.

Isn't the equivalent in a general election the overall turnout which last time was 65% not the percentage of votes for each party?

I strongly support the right to strike and a ballot shouldn't be restricted to only the postal method but I am also inclined to think that it should not be acceptable to strike if more than 50% of the membership don't even bother to vote.

[Lounge Lizard]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

the conservative party got something like 28% of the total votes available at the last general election with non voters being the largest group with 39%.

And none of the Police and Crime Commissioners were voted for by more than about 10% of the electorate.

[borders]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

I thought the proposal was that 50% of eligible union members need to vote in a strike ballot and that a majority of those needed to be in favour of a strike e.g. potentially 26% of the total.

Isn't the equivalent in a general election the overall turnout which last time was 65% not the percentage of votes for each party?

I strongly support the right to strike and a ballot shouldn't be restricted to only the postal method but I am also inclined to think that it should not be acceptable to strike if more than 50% of the membership don't even bother to vote.

so you agree with the Tory proposal then !!?? there is always a BUT with you !! look I realise its a conflict of interest but do you have to try and make out you are one of " blokes " , we know which side your bread is buttered and I accept you have a point of view like the rest of us but just cut out the patronising bull .....

[Brain Fury]

This is good from a government that couldn't obtain an out right working majority, maybe we could make general elections the same way, no party can form a government unless they have backing of 50% of the population! as they struggle together 50% of the population to vote! then we have a three way coalition.

I thought the proposal was that 50% of eligible union members need to vote in a strike ballot and that a majority of those needed to be in favour of a strike e.g. potentially 26% of the total.

Isn't the equivalent in a general election the overall turnout which last time was 65% not the percentage of votes for each party?

I strongly support the right to strike and a ballot shouldn't be restricted to only the postal method but I am also inclined to think that it should not be acceptable to strike if more than 50% of the membership don't even bother to vote.

so you agree with the Tory proposal then !!?? there is always a BUT with you !! look I realise its a conflict of interest but do you have to try and make out you are one of " blokes " , we know which side your bread is buttered and I accept you have a point of view like the rest of us but just cut out the patronising bull .....

I never try to "make out" I am anything. I think what I think whether you or anybody else agrees with it or not. I consider other points of view if they can be backed up with logical argument but simple "black and white" partisanship or inaccurate interpretation isn't going to cut it. Perhaps my problem is that I try to head off those arguments straightaway. For you it is always just going to be a matter of "us and them" and you seem to have problems with any opinion more complex than that. That's why you think there is a "but".

I do tend to agree with the proposal that a strike vote should involve at least 50% of those eligible to vote. In fact I thought that before the Tories proposed it. At the moment I can't see why not. I have of course seen the knee jerk argument about the percentage of the vote that the Tories got at the last election but as I demonstrated the comparison doesn't work. The comment about Police * Crime Commissioners is more relevant.

[borders]

you right it " is them and us " and if you think that is just a simplistic argument then you are simply taking it out of context. maybe you should be at the Tolpuddle Martyrs today and you could educate yourself about how simple the struggle has been between capital and labour [ or not ] over the ages . it maddens me too when barely 50% of people can be bothered to vote on their own pay and conditions never mind anything else . but do you seriously think that what the Tories propose will help to create a more Democratic Society ? really ? you need to read through it again . people need to feel that they are actually part of society and their votes and opinions do actually count for something. and there is a case to be said that the unions actually hold back the real anger of the people in some cases and disputes and do the elite a favour because if the penny ever does actually drop some day , we are the many and they are the few.

[Lounge Lizard]

you right it " is them and us " and if you think that is just a simplistic argument then you are simply taking it out of context. maybe you should be at the Tolpuddle Martyrs today and you could educate yourself about how simple the struggle has been between capital and labour [ or not ] over the ages . it maddens me too when barely 50% of people can be bothered to vote on their own pay and conditions never mind anything else . but do you seriously think that what the Tories propose will help to create a more Democratic Society ? really ? you need to read through it again . people need to feel that they are actually part of society and their votes and opinions do actually count for something. and there is a case to be said that the unions actually hold back the real anger of the people in some cases and disputes and do the elite a favour because if the penny ever does actually drop some day , we are the many and they are the few.

I've been to the Tollpuddle Martyrs Museum this year and it's quite a humbling experience.
And it's so sad that so many people today will read in the Daily Mail of what the Conservatives are planning and not bat an eyelid.

[Brain Fury]

you right it " is them and us " and if you think that is just a simplistic argument then you are simply taking it out of context. maybe you should be at the Tolpuddle Martyrs today and you could educate yourself about how simple the struggle has been between capital and labour [ or not ] over the ages . it maddens me too when barely 50% of people can be bothered to vote on their own pay and conditions never mind anything else . but do you seriously think that what the Tories propose will help to create a more Democratic Society ? really ? you need to read through it again . people need to feel that they are actually part of society and their votes and opinions do actually count for something. and there is a case to be said that the unions actually hold back the real anger of the people in some cases and disputes and do the elite a favour because if the penny ever does actually drop some day , we are the many and they are the few.

I don't think anybody has claimed that requiring a majority of eligible members to vote in a strike ballot will create a more democratic society have they? In my opinion it is simply an entirely reasonable expectation. I can't understand why somebody would support strike action but not be prepared to vote for it but would this additional requirement not simply inspire them to do so next time?

I don't support any of the other proposals. I also think that there ought to be other options for strike ballots besides postal voting.

[DirtyHarry]

Why anybody should be surprised that the scum in Westminster want to effectively end our right to strike, amazes me.
If one thing stands out from the last 30-40 years, it's how successive governments have waged war on hardworking people, hardworking despite the long hours, low/stagnant pay.
As others have stated, the 50% guideline should apply to the political scum too.
What is in effect, a minority government, has way too much power to make the lives of Millions of people an absolute misery.
Democracy, my arse.

[mailman71]

Why anybody should be surprised that the scum in Westminster want to effectively end our right to strike, amazes me.
If one thing stands out from the last 30-40 years, it's how successive governments have waged war on hardworking people, hardworking despite the long hours, low/stagnant pay.
As others have stated, the 50% guideline should apply to the political scum too.
What is in effect, a minority government, has way too much power to make the lives of Millions of people an absolute misery.
Democracy, my arse.

Spot on,ridiculous rules set out by millionaires trying to keep the serfs down.
How any working class person could agree with anything these right wing morons propose is beyond me thank goodness I have only 2 years left to work.

[Dumpys Rusty Nuts]

Hey, lets all vote Labour, they will look after us.

[Edward Hunter]

members of a union pay subs every week. They elect their union leadership, and for that money entrust that leadership to do the right thing on their behalf. SO is a ballot really necessary at all if the union leaders decide that despite extensive negotiations on an issue a strike is now needed? The membership has already given them the mandate to negotiate on their behalf by electing them in the first place. Its like the government of the day having a vote by the public on every issue that goes through the house of commons, when the MPS have already been elected by the public to do that job.

[borders]

Why anybody should be surprised that the scum in Westminster want to effectively end our right to strike, amazes me.
If one thing stands out from the last 30-40 years, it's how successive governments have waged war on hardworking people, hardworking despite the long hours, low/stagnant pay.
As others have stated, the 50% guideline should apply to the political scum too.
What is in effect, a minority government, has way too much power to make the lives of Millions of people an absolute misery.
Democracy, my arse.

absolutely spot on