Tory Trade Union Reform

[ronaldo7]

It looks like the Tories want to push through reform of the Trade Unions with the bill going through Parliament. Facility time and check off are the main talking points.

They might have a fight on their hands trying to get it accepted in Scotland. The Scottish Government has already said it will request opt out to ensure positive relations between staff, and Trade Unions.

Edinburgh council voted today against implementing the proposals from the Westminster Government.

http://t.co/4LwcxFDHNv

[Betty Boop]

It looks like the Tories want to push through reform of the Trade Unions with the bill going through Parliament. Facility time and check off are the main talking points.

They might have a fight on their hands trying to get it accepted in Scotland. The Scottish Government has already said it will request opt out to ensure positive relations between staff, and Trade Unions.

Edinburgh council voted today against implementing the proposals from the Westminster Government.

http://t.co/4LwcxFDHNv

That's good news, because they are about to cut 2000 jobs, with possible compulsory redundancies.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/cash-strapped-council-to-cut-2000-jobs-1-3889037

[lucky]

TUs not allowed to use social media to campaign for strike action, new freshholds on ballot turnouts, police to be given names of pickets, facility time & check off to be removed. The list goes on. This is an attack on organised workers and their human rights it will lead to a more strikes as industrial relations will be too one sided. In the UK we have some of the most anti trade union laws in the western world yet the Tories want to make it worse. Time to fight back and even if that means breaking the existing laws

[johnbc70]

What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

[ronaldo7]

TUs not allowed to use social media to campaign for strike action, new freshholds on ballot turnouts, police to be given names of pickets, facility time & check off to be removed. The list goes on. This is an attack on organised workers and their human rights it will lead to a more strikes as industrial relations will be too one sided. In the UK we have some of the most anti trade union laws in the western world yet the Tories want to make it worse. Time to fight back and even if that means breaking the existing laws

We finally get something to agree on.:greengrin


What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

It's rather ironic that the Government who were elected by ~24% of the electorate are now telling the Trade Unions they must get over 50% of the members to vote for a strike before it's legal.

What's good for the goose and all that.

[Lester B]

What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

Just out of interest, are you a Trade Union member?

[johnbc70]

We finally get something to agree on.:greengrin



It's rather ironic that the Government who were elected by ~24% of the electorate are now telling the Trade Unions they must get over 50% of the members to vote for a strike before it's legal.

What's good for the goose and all that.

In the GE there were many options and many parties to vote for so totally different situation. In a strike vote there are only 2 options so impact is different.

So at the moment is it the case that there could be a workforce of say 10,000. Of those 10,000 then 3,000 took part in the vote and say 51% of the 3,000 voted to strike (so 1539 people) then the strike can be approved? So 15% of workforce voting for strike means it can go ahead?

[johnbc70]

Just out of interest, are you a Trade Union member?

Working in financial services there is little point, they have no power or influence at all.

[lucky]

We finally get something to agree on.:greengrin



It's rather ironic that the Government who were elected by ~24% of the electorate are now telling the Trade Unions they must get over 50% of the members to vote for a strike before it's legal.

What's good for the goose and all that.

I'm sure there's more that unites us than divides unless your a closet jambo

[Lester B]

Working in financial services there is little point, they have no power or influence at all.

That much is true in terms of collective bargaining and the financial sector is perhaps the most resistant of all to recognition agreements and added to the fact that not enough staff can get together to force a recognition agreement then that won't change. Without wishing to change the subject totally unions do have rights in terms on individual representation regardless of who the employer is though so I think there's always an argument for joining a union but I'm a full time union official so I guess I would say that!

The point about the hypocrisy of the government seeking such high thresholds when their own 'mandate' is based on such a small percentage has already been made. Another point is that industrial action is not synonymous with strike action. There are other ways of taking part in industrial action without withdrawal of labour. People hear industrial and think 'Strike' which isn't the case

[johnbc70]

That much is true in terms of collective bargaining and the financial sector is perhaps the most resistant of all to precognitions agreements and added to the fact that not enough staff can get together to force a recognition agreement then that won't change. Without wishing to change the subject totally unions do have rights in terms on individual representation regardless of who the employer is though so I think there's always an argument for joining a union but I'm a full time union official so I guess I would say that!

The point about the hypocrisy of the government seeking such high thresholds when their own 'mandate' is based on such a small percentage has already been made. Another point is that industrial action is not synonymous with strike action. There are other ways of taking part in industrial action without withdrawal of labour. People hear industrial and think 'Strike' which isn't the case

Not sure I get this hypocrisy argument. When I went to vote I think I had the choice of about 8 parties to vote for, so the vote is clearly going to be spread out and in theory it makes it more difficult for one party to have such a clear margin of victory. If I vote whether to take industrial action or not then surely it's a Yes/No vote so I have 2 choices as opposed to 8.

I don't see how it can be argued that a strike is valid when you have a situation where say 10% of the workforce vote and then of that 10% just over half vote in favour.

Under the new rules you can still have a situation of using the 10,000 where 5,500 vote and of that 51% vote on favour of action so the action is still valid/legal despite only 2,805 out of the 10,000 voting for it.

[Hibrandenburg]

What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

Just means that management only have to intimidate only 50% of the workforce into not striking instead of 81%.

[Beefster]

Just means that management only have to intimidate only 50% of the workforce into not striking instead of 81%.

That's a very 'little man needs someone else to stand up for him' viewpoint IMHO. I've never worked for any company where 80% of employees were timid little creatures willing to be intimidated into anything but maybe I've just been lucky.

I've no strong opinion on the union reforms because I haven't been paying attention but I doubt that your view of the UK workforce is particularly accurate.

[JeMeSouviens]

What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

Why should it be declared illegal if only 19% have voted against it?

[johnbc70]

Why should it be declared illegal if only 19% have voted against it?

Sorry but genuinely don't follow the point your making?

What I am saying is today you can have a workforce of 10,000 and only 20% may vote, of that 20% only 51% may vote for action so that means just over 10% of the total workforce voted for action and it is authorised.

Where is your 19% coming from?

[Hibrandenburg]

That's a very 'little man needs someone else to stand up for him' viewpoint IMHO. I've never worked for any company where 80% of employees were timid little creatures willing to be intimidated into anything but maybe I've just been lucky.

I've no strong opinion on the union reforms because I haven't been paying attention but I doubt that your view of the UK workforce is particularly accurate.

I seen it first hand and believe me it ain't pretty.

[ronaldo7]

Not sure I get this hypocrisy argument. When I went to vote I think I had the choice of about 8 parties to vote for, so the vote is clearly going to be spread out and in theory it makes it more difficult for one party to have such a clear margin of victory. If I vote whether to take industrial action or not then surely it's a Yes/No vote so I have 2 choices as opposed to 8.

I don't see how it can be argued that a strike is valid when you have a situation where say 10% of the workforce vote and then of that 10% just over half vote in favour.

Under the new rules you can still have a situation of using the 10,000 where 5,500 vote and of that 51% vote on favour of action so the action is still valid/legal despite only 2,805 out of the 10,000 voting for it.

Following your logic, 51% of Employees have to vote for strike action, so Government's should have to be voted in with 51% of the Electorate.

Democracy doesn't work like that. Whoever gets off their arse to vote, deserves the result, and those not bothering deserve it too.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That much is true in terms of collective bargaining and the financial sector is perhaps the most resistant of all to recognition agreements and added to the fact that not enough staff can get together to force a recognition agreement then that won't change. Without wishing to change the subject totally unions do have rights in terms on individual representation regardless of who the employer is though so I think there's always an argument for joining a union but I'm a full time union official so I guess I would say that!

The point about the hypocrisy of the government seeking such high thresholds when their own 'mandate' is based on such a small percentage has already been made. Another point is that industrial action is not synonymous with strike action. There are other ways of taking part in industrial action without withdrawal of labour. People hear industrial and think 'Strike' which isn't the case


Dont know that its hypocrisy.

The TU's own party have never sought electoral reform, so you have to assume they are also happy with the system as it is.

If parliament votes to change that, then it will change. Just like if parliament votes to ensure TUs need a majority of the workforce, then it will happen.

Just another juncture on the TU's long slide to irrelevance.

[johnbc70]

Following your logic, 51% of Employees have to vote for strike action, so Government's should have to be voted in with 51% of the Electorate.

Democracy doesn't work like that. Whoever gets off their arse to vote, deserves the result, and those not bothering deserve it too.

I think your getting confused between those voting and those voting for action. The new proposal is that 50%+ need to vote, not that 50%+ of workforce need to vote for action. So you can still have a perfectly valid industrial action if less than half vote for it. For example 10,000 in the company, 51% of workforce then take part on the vote, of that 51% then another 51% vote for action. So that is 2,601 people or 26% of the total workforce and the strike is still valid.

[Hibrandenburg]

Following your logic, 51% of Employees have to vote for strike action, so Government's should have to be voted in with 51% of the Electorate.

Democracy doesn't work like that. Whoever gets off their arse to vote, deserves the result, and those not bothering deserve it too.

Spot on!

[ronaldo7]

I think your getting confused between those voting and those voting for action. The new proposal is that 50%+ need to vote, not that 50%+ of workforce need to vote for action. So you can still have a perfectly valid industrial action if less than half vote for it. For example 10,000 in the company, 51% of workforce then take part on the vote, of that 51% then another 51% vote for action. So that is 2,601 people or 26% of the total workforce and the strike is still valid.

You're right, it's too confusing. How about we just stick to the rules and the majority wins, whether that be 2 to 1 or 2,601 to 2,600:aok:

[johnbc70]

You're right, it's too confusing. How about we just stick to the rules and the majority wins, whether that be 2 to 1 or 2,601 to 2,600:aok:

It is not really that confusing - 50% need to vote, not 50% need to vote for it.:aok:

[ronaldo7]

It is not really that confusing - 50% need to vote, not 50% need to vote for it.:aok:

Nope, one side needs more votes than the other, whether that be 1-0, 2-1, or 5,001-4,999:aok:

[johnbc70]

Nope, one side needs more votes than the other, whether that be 1-0, 2-1, or 5,001-4,999:aok:

I am guessing your being facetious now - fair enough if you want to go down that road, but really is it pretty simple to understand.

[Bristolhibby]

What the issue with the change that 50% or more of the workplace need to vote for a stike to be lawful? Seems fair? If the members feel strongly enough then getting 50% will not be a problem, why should a strike go ahead if say only 20% of people voted for it.

Because that's how democracy works. If you want a say, you have to vote.
You can only count the votes cast and action the will of majority of votes.

If 3 people are arsed to vote and two vote for strike. Strike action it is.

[johnbc70]

Because that's how democracy works. If you want a say, you have to vote.
You can only count the votes cast and action the will of majority of votes.

If 3 people are arsed to vote and two vote for strike. Strike action it is.

I think the general public are getting frustrated with the fact that strikes are being called that are not properly supported by the union in questions members. That is what is being proposed to change and that seems fair to me.

[Bristolhibby]

I think the general public are getting frustrated with the fact that strikes are being called that are not properly supported by the union in questions members. That is what is being proposed to change and that seems fair to me.

Quite frankly the issues are between the employer and the staff. Getting public support although is a great thing is not necessary.

I wish the public got equally pissed off with management / government ******g about with the working mans pay and working conditions. Trade Unionism is the last bastion of workers power. It's an attack on that power by the government pure and simple. And obviously the people to benifit from these laws are the share holders/Tory donors.

J

[johnbc70]

Quite frankly the issues are between the employer and the staff. Getting public support although is a great thing is not necessary.

I wish the public got equally pissed off with management / government ******g about with the working mans pay and working conditions. Trade Unionism is the last bastion of workers power. It's an attack on that power by the government pure and simple. And obviously the people to benifit from these laws are the share holders/Tory donors.

J

Sure thousands of commuters who can get their usual train/bus will also benefit and not be subject to strike action because 15% of a workforce voted for it.

[Bristolhibby]

Sure thousands of commuters who can get their usual train/bus will also benefit and not be subject to strike action because 15% of a workforce voted for it.

I wrote this on the TAMB when the tube strikes were in full swing.

"Safety critical as well. Genuine concerns about sleep patterns from extended night shifts, etc.

More power to them. One of the few groups of working class workers who genuinely wield some power in the job place. The rest of us have had the **** kicked out of us so bad we don't dare complain.

Instead of bad mouthing a group of workers, we should be asking why isn't everyone on a decent wage with decent terms and conditions?

"Divide and conquer" alive and kicking. Backed up by a complicit media."

[RyeSloan]

Quite frankly the issues are between the employer and the staff. Getting public support although is a great thing is not necessary. I wish the public got equally pissed off with management / government ******g about with the working mans pay and working conditions. Trade Unionism is the last bastion of workers power. It's an attack on that power by the government pure and simple. And obviously the people to benifit from these laws are the share holders/Tory donors. J

Is that the same government people want to take back railways, energy and postal services? I get confused at people's flip flop nature of why they want more government influence but then complain about it when it's exercised.

Anyway that aside I'm no believer in industrial action, seems to me the losses in wages rarely seems to make up for the concessions it may bring. If you want to withdraw your labour then you are free to do so by leaving the company! Workers rights seem to be pretty well defined in EU law and good companies look after their staff and their T&C's...bad companies will not of course but as per the above that's surely a sign to their staff that maybe they should consider supplying their labour elsewhere.

I did work in a business that had collective bargaining for a while...not some thing I always found particularly beneficial to be honest and actually found it all a bit strange.

That said I'm not sure of the requirement to get over 50% of those eligible to vote...seems to me if you are a member of a union and they hold a ballot then a simple majority of those that voted should be enough. I assume a lot of these ballots have lowish turnouts as the result is pretty much a given anyway.

[johnbc70]

I wrote this on the TAMB when the tube strikes were in full swing.

"Safety critical as well. Genuine concerns about sleep patterns from extended night shifts, etc.

More power to them. One of the few groups of working class workers who genuinely wield some power in the job place. The rest of us have had the **** kicked out of us so bad we don't dare complain.

Instead of bad mouthing a group of workers, we should be asking why isn't everyone on a decent wage with decent terms and conditions?

"Divide and conquer" alive and kicking. Backed up by a complicit media."

Can you describe a tube driver with a starting salary of £49K, rising to £50-60K after 5 years as working class? Also who is 'the rest of us' you refer to as the people I speak to across various industries and professions do not come across as 'having the **** kicked out of them'

[ronaldo7]

I think the general public are getting frustrated with the fact that strikes are being called that are not properly supported by the union in questions members. That is what is being proposed to change and that seems fair to me.

I'm not sure you're correct here. I thought the public were behind the Nurses, Teachers, and Firemen when they took action. Imo the UK Government are wanting to pick a fight with Railway workers in London, and are wanting to drag the whole Trades Union Movement into the scrap.

I'm sure the Union members are not whipped to appear on the vastly diminishing picket lines.

Do they really think they'll be able to stop workers organising themselves through social media?

Seems to me that Boris can't get to work in the mornings, so let's all bash the Unions.

[marinello59]

I'm not sure you're correct here. I thought the public were behind the Nurses, Teachers, and Firemen when they took action. Imo the UK Government are wanting to pick a fight with Railway workers in London, and are wanting to drag the whole Trades Union Movement into the scrap.

I'm sure the Union members are not whipped to appear on the vastly diminishing picket lines.

Do they really think they'll be able to stop workers organising themselves through social media?

Seems to me that Boris can't get to work in the mornings, so let's all bash the Unions.

:agree:
There really is no need for this legislation, it's Cameron doing what he thinks a Tory leader should do.

[givescotlandfreedom]

Working in financial services there is little point, they have no power or influence at all.

Then it's to their workers to do something about that. Influential unions didn't get where they are by doing nothing about it.

[lucky]

Sure thousands of commuters who can get their usual train/bus will also benefit and not be subject to strike action because 15% of a workforce voted for it.

Bollocks, the recent strikes on LUL have been very well supported, my own Union Aslef had a huge mandate from our members. Over 80% turnout and over 90% in favour of action. So these new anti worker laws would not have made any difference. I don't get how non union members complain about organised workers getting better T&Cs, surely the solution is to get organised too.

[johnbc70]

Bollocks, the recent strikes on LUL have been very well supported, my own Union Aslef had a huge mandate from our members. Over 80% turnout and over 90% in favour of action. So these new anti worker laws would not have made any difference. I don't get how non union members complain about organised workers getting better T&Cs, surely the solution is to get organised too.

80% turnout and 90% in favour is great, if you read what I said then I don't have a problem with that. It's when there is a 15% or 20% turnout I don't think the action seems fair, the new rules are suggesting a turnout of 50% or more is required. The members obviously felt strong enough to turn out in big numbers so again I don't have an issue if there is action on the back of a vote with such high turnouts.

[lucky]

80% turnout and 90% in favour is great, if you read what I said then I don't have a problem with that. It's when there is a 15% or 20% turnout I don't think the action seems fair, the new rules are suggesting a turnout of 50% or more is required. The members obviously felt strong enough to turn out in big numbers so again I don't have an issue if there is action on the back of a vote with such high turnouts.

You need to read what you said. Clearly you talk about only 15% supporting action. These new laws will have an adverse effect on industrial relations. Unions might not ballot as much due to these ridiculous laws but resentment will build up and the likelihood is unofficial action or longer strike action when workers do get balloted.

[johnbc70]

You need to read what you said. Clearly you talk about only 15% supporting action. These new laws will have an adverse effect on industrial relations. Unions might not ballot as much due to these ridiculous laws but resentment will build up and the likelihood is unofficial action or longer strike action when workers do get balloted.

I am not making a secret of the fact if 15% of members supporting action it is questionable if it is valid. Surley if the issue that the union wants to ballot on is that important and fundamental then asking more than 50% of member to at least vote should not be a problem, then in cases where they have genuine concerns valid action can be taken? Why would active union members not make the effort to at least vote?

Why is it ridiculous to ask more than 50% of members to at least vote?

[lucky]

I am not making a secret of the fact if 15% of members supporting action it is questionable if it is valid. Surley if the issue that the union wants to ballot on is that important and fundamental then asking more than 50% of member to at least vote should not be a problem, then in cases where they have genuine concerns valid action can be taken? Why would active union members not make the effort to at least vote?

Why is it ridiculous to ask more than 50% of members to at least vote?

Because we don't demand 50% turnout in any other ballot. It's a simple majority of those who vote. How many politicians are elected on 50% turnout then over 50% of those that voted?

[johnbc70]

Because we don't demand 50% turnout in any other ballot. It's a simple majority of those who vote. How many politicians are elected on 50% turnout then over 50% of those that voted?

But that is what people think is wrong and want it changed. Just because nobody else does it is that the sole reason not to do something, if we lived by those rules nothing would progress. Electing a politician when you have a choice of parties to pick from is not the same as a Yes/No vote.

Why would a union not get a 50% turnout for an important vote?

[ronaldo7]

Clear and unequivocal position on the Tory Trade union bill.

https://t.co/qAedpKOozn

[xyz23jc]

Clear and unequivocal position on the Tory Trade union bill.

https://t.co/qAedpKOozn

Even he's happy about it... :greengrin


https://vine.co/v/enI9VbpPegt

[southfieldhibby]

Because we don't demand 50% turnout in any other ballot. It's a simple majority of those who vote. How many politicians are elected on 50% turnout then over 50% of those that voted?

Except once.

[RyeSloan]

Because we don't demand 50% turnout in any other ballot. It's a simple majority of those who vote. How many politicians are elected on 50% turnout then over 50% of those that voted?

Jeremy Corbyn for one ;-)

As has been pointed out UK politicians are not generally elected in a binary vote. It's worth noting that general elections have always had over 50% participation so it's easy to extrapolate that if there was only two parties in each seat then the winner in each would pass your hurdle.

[johnbc70]

I will repeat - why would a union not get a 50% turnout for an issue that is so important to them they have taken as far as to vote for action? If its that important then 50% should not be an issue, if less than 50% vote was it really that important after all?

[Just Alf]

I will repeat - why would a union not get a 50% turnout for an issue that is so important to them they have taken as far as to vote for action? If its that important then 50% should not be an issue, if less than 50% vote was it really that important after all?

Ok, taking that on board (I see where you're coming from :agree: ) ..... to help with the "numbers", what is actually wrong with electronic voting which would help reduce costs?

[southfieldhibby]

Because we don't demand 50% turnout in any other ballot. It's a simple majority of those who vote. How many politicians are elected on 50% turnout then over 50% of those that voted?


Except once.

I'll requote this just to make sure you saw it. So there is precedence, wrong then and wrong now, but precedence is what changes laws. Ironic if a Labour imposed rule in the 70's would 35 + years later be the eventual downfall of Union balloting rules,eh?

[Hibrandenburg]

I will repeat - why would a union not get a 50% turnout for an issue that is so important to them they have taken as far as to vote for action? If its that important then 50% should not be an issue, if less than 50% vote was it really that important after all?

I'd agree if it could guarantee that voting was not only compulsory but also confidential. There's history of employers manipulating ballots so until you can ensure that's not the case then the rule needs to stay.

[johnbc70]

Ok, taking that on board (I see where you're coming from :agree: ) ..... to help with the "numbers", what is actually wrong with electronic voting which would help reduce costs?

If done in a secure way I don't see an issue with online voting (which is I assume what you mean).

[johnbc70]

I'd agree if it could guarantee that voting was not only compulsory but also confidential. There's history of employers manipulating ballots so until you can ensure that's not the case then the rule needs to stay.

When I had a quick look to see what history there was of employers manipulating votes I struggled to find much, lots about the union members rigging votes though. Do you have some examples to share?

[Hibbyradge]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12241499_785892154849768_5783348086998074186_n.jpg ?oh=733ce5ec5e0396fe8db7a22afcb26462&oe=56B4D8D4

[Hibrandenburg]

When I had a quick look to see what history there was of employers manipulating votes I struggled to find much, lots about the union members rigging votes though. Do you have some examples to share?

Mostly personal experience. People being sent out of Base when ballot is planned, employees being called in for personal interviews, memos being sent out threatening job losses if strikes take place, threats to individual employees and managerial manipulation of roster planning on ballot days.

From my experience most people are glad to have union representation but are terrified of management knowing they're members.

[Hibbyradge]

I was told today that Home Office staff are not being allowed to use Home Office stationery or pens to take part in a union vote next week.

Seriously. :faf:

[Just Alf]

If done in a secure way I don't see an issue with online voting (which is I assume what you mean).

Ta, that's my view also....... And apologies, as usual I should have worded it better, my understanding is that the Unions stated they'd accept the 50% element if online voting was also allowed, the Government turned it down for some reason...... Possibly thinking thin end of the wedge and it would naturally spread out to other elections? Westminster etc? :dunno: Personally I'd think it would be a good thing

[RyeSloan]

Mostly personal experience. People being sent out of Base when ballot is planned, employees being called in for personal interviews, memos being sent out threatening job losses if strikes take place, threats to individual employees and managerial manipulation of roster planning on ballot days. From my experience most people are glad to have union representation but are terrified of management knowing they're members.

Yet they are all employees of the same business...I've always struggled with the management and us type attitude. Maybe just me or maybe just my industry that makes me feel like that but it strikes me a massive and costly cultural failing of that business to have such a divide. I assume it is more prevalent in some industries and sectors than it is in others?

[lucky]

Ta, that's my view also....... And apologies, as usual I should have worded it better, my understanding is that the Unions stated they'd accept the 50% element if online voting was also allowed, the Government turned it down for some reason...... Possibly thinking thin end of the wedge and it would naturally spread out to other elections? Westminster etc? :dunno: Personally I'd think it would be a good thing

It was Len McCluskey of Unite who said it. It's not evey unions position. But electronic voting is safe and would help increase the turnout.

[Just Alf]

It was Len McCluskey of Unite who said it. It's not evey unions position. But electronic voting is safe and would help increase the turnout.

Ah yes, that was it. :aok: .. It rang a bell and I knew that element had been rejected for some reason which I'm still not clear about but "feels" political in an attempt at making the 50% harder to achieve, I might just be cynical though! :agree:

[ronaldo7]

Scotland's First Minister makes it clear.

https://t.co/p3D9OHSwx8

"If the bill becomes law, we will not willingly or voluntarily co-operate with it or implement it in Scotland".

Neil Findlay Labour Msp reponds... Empty words, blah blah blah.

When are Labour going to get back to attacking the Tories?

[Colr]

I see comrade Jez wants to bring back secondary picketing and sympathy strikes.

[Bristolhibby]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12241499_785892154849768_5783348086998074186_n.jpg ?oh=733ce5ec5e0396fe8db7a22afcb26462&oe=56B4D8D4

TBH I managed to set up my direct debit no problem.

Electronic balloting is being resisted as it would enable Trade Unions to meet the 50%.

The Tories just want to prevent strikes, by hook or by crook, weakening trade unions further.

We have some of the most restrictive anti trade union legislation in the Western world, would the French or the Germans for that matter be accepting this tosh?

J

[johnbc70]

Electronic balloting is being resisted as it would enable Trade Unions to meet the 50%.


J

Why is it a precieved problem that getting more than 50% of members to at least vote is an issue? If the problem or concern is so big a strike ballot is called then is it unreasonable to expect more than 50% to actually make the effort to vote. If say only 40% voted then was it really that big an issue, 60% obviously thought not.

[lucky]

Hearing that a juridical review is going to be sought against the Presiding Officers decision not to accept a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament. Full details this week

[Bristolhibby]

Why is it a precieved problem that getting more than 50% of members to at least vote is an issue? If the problem or concern is so big a strike ballot is called then is it unreasonable to expect more than 50% to actually make the effort to vote. If say only 40% voted then was it really that big an issue, 60% obviously thought not.

Why is it a problem to treat Union ballots like practically every other ballot in the world? I was pointing out a way to increase voter participation but if 49.9% of TU members vote it shouldn't be declared void. Not voting is equally legitimate action. You personally might not vote for strike action, but respect your fellow members in that instance and support their right to strike.

Quite frankly imho anything that helps the working man retain a bit of power should be supported, including their right to withdraw labour.

We've had minimum turnouts (independence referendum in the 70's) and are universally seen as unfair. Why should TU votes be any different? 50% or not?

J