War on the public sector and unions

[Penistone999 10]

In comparison to the private sector, we should have the same rights.

 

---------- Post added 28-09-2015 at 21:04 ----------

 

 

Doctors are voting on strike action; should they have that right, the same as people in other jobs?

 

You do . You have the right to find another job if you arnt happy with the terms of your current one.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

You do . You have the right to find another job if you arnt happy with the terms of your current one.

 

What if you're happy with the terms and conditions, but your employer wants to change them?

[Penistone999 10]

What if you're happy with the terms and conditions, but your employer wants to change them?

 

if they want to change them to ones you arnt happy with, them you are free to find another job.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

if they want to change them to ones you arnt happy with, them you are free to find another job.

 

So if the government decides to force the massive pay cut onto junior doctors, you believe that they should either quit and follow alternative career paths, or work abroad?

 

Wouldn't that have an adverse effect upon the rest of the country?

[glennpickard 10]

many people believe that public unions should not be allowed to strike. This would includes nurses, doctors, firemen, ATC, teachers, police etc. The public are paying their salaries, benefits and pensions but they are the ones to suffer ! Even people such as pilots/mechanics on UK and international services. They are licensed by the public body but once given that privilege, should they be allowed to withdraw service if they have a dispute with an employer ?

I would prefer to see these issues, if leading to potential withdrawal of labour, such as safety, contracting out, salaries/benefits etc, be forced to go to binding arbitration, with arbiters equally selected by labour and government groups.

 

Todays conditions are very different from those in the 1950s- 1980s with so many strikes then, striking was called "The english disease !" But on the other side of the coin employees are purposely providing primarily p/t jobs with minimum salaries and no benefits, making it very difficult for young people especially, to progress

[L00b 441]

So if the government decides to force the massive pay cut onto junior doctors, you believe that they should either quit and follow alternative career paths, or work abroad?

Perhaps they should indeed, and leave the government to handle the adverse effect and learn the error of its ways.

 

In the same way an employer would have to handle losing key staff temporarily or permanently and learn the error of its ways.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Perhaps they should indeed, and leave the government to handle the adverse effect and learn the error of its ways.

 

In the same way an employer would have to handle losing key staff temporarily or permanently and learn the error of its ways.

 

I'm not sure that forcing a few Tory MPs to take up their expensive advisory positions in business early would mirror the cost to the country if the NHS were forced to run without junior doctors.

[Manlinose 10]

But if only 27% felt bothered enough to vote, was it really such a big issue to warrant a strike? I don't think 50% turnout is a big ask. The difference with public sector is that I, as a taxpayer, am still paying for the service through taxation. It's not optional. If conditions are bad enough to strike I wouldn't begrudge that, but if less than 50% bother to vote then I wouldn't think conditions were that bad.

 

In local government elections, turnout usually struggles to get above 35% - does that mean no local authority should have any legal standing and should all be banned?

[El Cid 220]

If Tesco go on strike, I'd shop elsewhere. If my doctor is on strike and I'm ill, or my house is on fire but firefighters are on strike, or my kids are needing education but teachers are on strike, I'm still paying my taxes for the service I'm not receiving.

 

It was a poor example. A few years ago the lack of fuel almost brought the country to a standstill, have they had their right to strike taken away?

 

Just make these same rules apply to everyone, they could actually makes the support for strikes stronger.

Instead of ballot papers being sent to the wrong address, they will make sure the address details are correct.

Other countries that have similar rules for higher turnout(for all workers) do not rely on just mail for the ballot. They have workplace and electronic voting.

 

And that is when it comes back to my main gripe, these rules are not being brought in to stop strikes, but to alienate the public sector and the unions.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 06:19 ----------

 

In local government elections, turnout usually struggles to get above 35% - does that mean no local authority should have any legal standing and should all be banned?

 

Yes, because it is undemocratic, there should be a minimum turnout for all.

And anyone funding the Tory party should be forced to wear an identification armband, just like they want for union organisers

Edited September 29, 2015 by El Cid

[alchresearch 215]

As has already been said, its all down to low turnout and the way the unions manipulate the figures to show a high turnout - "80% voted to strike" but how valid is it if only 30% of the union's membership bothered to vote?

 

Unions provide the ballot papers, information about the strike and pre-paid return envelopes. It takes less than a couple of minutes to vote, and if it concerns your workload or salary or even your job, why on earth wouldn't you?

[unbeliever 10]

Don't forget that we're talking, again, about protected strike action.

This is where employees are not allowed to be fired, disciplined or any any other way suffer for the fact that they've en-masse decided not to go to work against the wishes of their employer, despite being fit for work.

 

The government election analogy is not apt. When a voter decides not to vote in an election they're saying that they don't mind who runs that government. There's no implied support for one thing or the other.

There's a clear sampling bias in union strike ballots as those in support of strike action are far more likely to vote than those against. Don't forget that a 50% turn-out could still mean that only 25.1% of the members involved actually support the strike. An alternative option would be to require support of >50% of those eligible to vote (making the inference that a non-voter is a non-supporter).

 

The idea behind the 50% turn-out rule is that the unions will have to go to the trouble of making sure that everybody in the union, rather than just the most active union members (who are more likely to support a strike), is aware of the ballot and has enough information, time and guidance to express their opinion. In that case getting a 50% turn-out should not really be a challenge.

 

You can always go on strike anyway. You just might get fired. Don't forget that. It is therefore quite false to suggest that you're right to strike has been eroded, removed or in any other way threatened. We could just remove the protected status of union industrial action in law completely. Then anybody could strike at any time without all this performance, but if they're being unreasonable, they'll just get fired.

[El Cid 220]

When a voter decides not to vote in an election they're saying that they don't mind who runs that government. There's no implied support for one thing or the other.

There's a clear sampling bias in union strike ballots as those in support of strike action are far more likely to vote than those against.

 

Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish.