What do you think of Trade Unions today? - Page 5

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

what did you mean here then?

That if the unions are forced into accepting a full vote and a 50% result as the only valid vote, it'd be wrong for government to accept less.

I don't think it should apply to unions, and I don't think it should apply to government either.

llamatron · 23-07-2012, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

That if the unions are forced into accepting a full vote and a 50% result as the only valid vote, it'd be wrong for government to accept less.

I don't think it should apply to unions, and I don't think it should apply to government either.

you wouldn't have to force anyone to vote. If 51% of the workforce want a strike they will vote for it! If 90 % are not bothered enough to vote we can assume they are content.

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

we can assume they are content.

Assume what you want, aslong as you don't build policy on it.

The one thing we can know is that if they didn't vote, then they didn't vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

you wouldn't have to force anyone to vote.

Secondly, do you read anything I write? 'Forced to accept a full vote' was what I wrote, not marching people up to a ballot box.

llamatron · 23-07-2012, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

Assume what you want, aslong as you don't build policy on it.

The one thing we can know is that if they didn't vote, then they didn't vote.

and they are therefore not bothered about a strike, thus they are content.

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

and they are therefore not bothered about a strike, thus they are content.

Non-sequitur. You can't follow your conclusion from your premise. You can only assume that they're content with the situation.

harvey19 · 23-07-2012, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

Non-sequitur. You can't follow your conclusion from your premise. You can only assume that they're content with the situation.

Or may realise that strike action is not the way to achieve their aims nowadays.

llamatron · 23-07-2012, 13:10

I think we are mixing up contents.

I am saying they are content not to strike, if they don't vote they don't want a strike. They may want to continue negotiating or whatever else but by not voting they show they do not want to strike.

PaliRichard · 23-07-2012, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

either you want a strike, you are opposed to a strike or you are not bothered either way. If you are not bothered you are content (otherwise you would be bothered). If you are bothered and do not vote you are an idiot and have chosen not to cast a vote so again you aren't bothered.

I don't agree, and I will use the government as an analogy.

I don't vote in elections, not because I'm not bothered, but because none of the parties represent my opinions by a majority.

The same can be said for people voting to strike (I have personally always voted in strike ballets btw). There are many people who aren't happy with the suggestions being put forward by the employer, but either have no confidence in the union or don't believe the union's argument is a good one - they disagree with both sides.

That doesn't mean they are content, it doesn't mean they don't want a strike, but it certainly doesn't make them 'idiots'. The view of for/against/not bothered is a very black and white way of looking at things and doesn't really resemble real life.

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamatron

by not voting they show they do not want to strike.

We're trading conclusions again, because the opposite can also be true.

By not voting they show they do not oppose a strike.

llamatron · 23-07-2012, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

We're trading conclusions again, because the opposite can also be true.

By not voting they show they do not oppose a strike.

you need a mandate to strike, not to not strike.

harvey19 · 23-07-2012, 14:34

The simple solution is to send each member a voting form asking if they want to strike. Include a sentence that states if the slip is not returned it will be assumed it is a no vote and counted as such.

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by harvey19

if the slip is not returned it will be assumed it is a no vote

Why assume it is a no vote?

alchresearch · 23-07-2012, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

Why assume it is a no vote?

Because they don't care enough to vote about something that affects them?

Chris_Sleeps · 23-07-2012, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by alchresearch

Because they don't care enough to vote about something that affects them?

They don't care enough to vote against it either.

Just wondered why we're assuming that if a person is given a choice between A or B, that silence must mean B.

llamatron · 23-07-2012, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

They don't care enough to vote against it either.

Just wondered why we're assuming that if a person is given a choice between A or B, that silence must mean B.

you are implying there is no difference between opting in and opting out of something. There is! Think of the organ donar register, people are arguing about whether it should be opt in or opt out because there is a big difference.

alchresearch · 23-07-2012, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

They don't care enough to vote against it either.

Which goes to prove that the current system is flawed.

Unison has 1.3 million members. During the last public sector strike:

Only 196,000 bothered to vote.

Out of that, 149,000 voted yes.

So only 149,000 out of 1300000 definitely made their intentions clear - 8%. But Unison claimed that 76% of its members wanted to strike.

harvey19 · 23-07-2012, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

Why assume it is a no vote?

Because the slip for a yes vote would be returned.
Couldn't be simpler.
100% of the membership involved in the decision of whether there should be a strike.

harvey19 · 23-07-2012, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

They don't care enough to vote against it either.

Just wondered why we're assuming that if a person is given a choice between A or B, that silence must mean B.

Because it is stated on the voting form.

Lounge Jay · 23-07-2012, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

They don't care enough to vote against it either.

Just wondered why we're assuming that if a person is given a choice between A or B, that silence must mean B.

When Union members are balloted it is obviously because the union bosses want a strike...you are not seriously suggesting that not voting can be considered a yes?!

jcelli · 23-07-2012, 17:13

strikes are a last resort and if the nhs day is anything to go by it gives workers a peaceful means of protest. As for the 1980s can you imagine the pubilc sector workers including the police personal behaving like that. I organised and run a picket line on the 30th november, Yes its not nice crossing a picket line but I experienced more aggression from car drivers that drove dangerously at a picket line than any aggression shown by the picketers.