Attacking trade unions and trade unionism

[belboid]

So a 50% turnout and a 40% in favour before you can legally strike.

Pity these percentages don't apply to those running for government. the cunts.

someone must have done the figures for how many MP's would actually have been elected on this threshold. Less than 100 fer sure

 

[Pickman's model]

someone must have done the figures for how many MP's would actually have been elected on this threshold. Less than 100 fer sure

i don't think that the passage of a ballot for strike action and an election to parliament for five years are entirely equivalent.

 

[belboid]

i don't think that the passage of a ballot for strike action and an election to parliament for five years are entirely equivalent.

of course they're not, so what?

 

[Pickman's model]

of course they're not, so what?

so why the fuck are you going on about it as though there was some sort of equivalence, as though the level of involvement of the one had any possible relationship or bearing on the other? as i've pointed out several times, a nearer and more appropriate measure would be the proportion of mps who participate in and vote on legislation, and of course the proportion of councillors who vote on and pass measures at a local government level. unless and until legislation receives the level of support proposed for strike ballots, it should be considered illegitimate.

 

[treelover]

So we have the Tories proposals to expunge what it left of trade unionism in the UK.

1. Impose the demand for a 50% turnout in industrial action ballots.

2. Impose the demand for 40% of eligible member to vote in favour of industrial action in 'essential services' including transport and education.

3. Make the presence of more than 6 pickets a criminal rather than civil offence.

4. Allow employers to contract casual workers to cover strike days - this is alongside the two weeks’ notice demanded for strike action.

5. Limit facility time afforded public sector trade union reps.

6. Subject unions to an expanded regime of fines for a widened range of potential offences.


There is more but you get the picture. These proposals are aimed at attacking the most effective unions (e.g. RMT and PCS) and undermining the very idea of organised labour, the notion of being a trade unionist, of belonging to a union.


Unsurprisingly it's more of the same neo-liberal ideological attacks which are trying to finalise the social cleansing of social housing.

Louis MacNeice

The media seems to concentrating on the turnout requirements, not mentioning things like criminalising mass picketing, etc.

 

[treelover]

 

[Pickman's model]

what union do you belong to, treelover?

 

[belboid]

so why the fuck are you going on about it as though there was some sort of equivalence, as though the level of involvement of the one had any possible relationship or bearing on the other? as i've pointed out several times, a nearer and more appropriate measure would be the proportion of mps who participate in and vote on legislation, and of course the proportion of councillors who vote on and pass measures at a local government level. unless and until legislation receives the level of support proposed for strike ballots, it should be considered illegitimate.

this is why you're shit at politics.

Things don't have to be 'equivalent' to be compared and contrasted. I think most people would recognise a hypocrisy in someone elected by maybe 20% of the electorate demanding a significantly higher proportion of a vote in order to be able to legally withdraw labour.

 

[likesfish]

torys got in with a 36.5% share of the vote so has anyone mentioned how this is fair then
40% of a strike
36.5% to run the country

 

[Pickman's model]

The media seems to concentrating on the turnout requirements, not mentioning things like criminalising mass picketing, etc.

^^ the guardian


^^the mail

 

[Pickman's model]

this is why you're shit at politics.

that doesn't answer the question "so why the fuck are you going on about it as though there was some sort of equivalence, as though the level of involvement of the one had any possible relationship or bearing on the other?"

 

[Citizen66]

I think its equivalent to them arguing that a union shouldn't have a mandate for 'weeks upon weeks' off one ballot. They get a five year one.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

And who knows, there might be the development of new creative tactics to get round this legislation.

I heard somewhere that in Australia, instead of striking, transport workers let everyone ride for free. Seems like a brilliant way of fucking the bosses and getting the public on side.

 

[Pickman's model]

this is why you're shit at politics.

Things don't have to be 'equivalent' to be compared and contrasted. I think most people would recognise a hypocrisy in someone elected by maybe 20% of the electorate demanding a significantly higher proportion of a vote in order to be able to legally withdraw labour.

they might recognise the hypocrisy. but by harping on the hypocrisy you ignore two larger issues, the one the lack of legitimacy (which was of course raised around the election of police commissioners) and the other that your hypocrisy line has a sell-by date: you can't keep harping on about it without boring people. and let's face it it's been knocking round for some years now. my argument about the involvement of politicians with the measures they pass has, i believe, the possibilities of a greater longevity as the different standards they hold people to will be constantly held up before people. your simplistick notion won't last the course and your blindness to the illegitimacy argument supports my view that any politicks you do are very much of the basick variety.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think its equivalent to them arguing that a union shouldn't have a mandate for 'weeks upon weeks' off one ballot. They get a five year one.

yes. but then every time you see parliament there's no fucker there. where's the 50% of members? where's the 40% voting in favour of every bill? what do they do with those five years?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

torys got in with a 36.5% share of the vote so has anyone mentioned how this is fair then
40% of a strike
36.5% to run the country

Yes, but as Cameron et al have repeatedly said, nurses and tube drivers are vital to the country. Savvy?

 

[Citizen66]

yes. but then every time you see parliament there's no fucker there. where's the 50% of members? where's the 40% voting in favour of every bill? what do they do with those five years?

Cause more misery than any strike can muster.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's a scabs' charter.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, but as Cameron et al have repeatedly said, nurses and tube drivers are vital to the country. Savvy?

likesfish? savvy? never!

 

[Pickman's model]

Where the fuck have we ended up - a place where the only real chance of any of this being changed is the house of lords.

Everything about this is vile and a sign of much we've lost. The only possible positives are that in order to get a strike, union officials and reps - at least where there are enough of them - will have to get out and talk to members. And who knows, there might be the development of new creative tactics to get round this legislation.

yes let's surrender before this has had its first reading in the commons

 

[Citizen66]

Yes, but as Cameron et al have repeatedly said, nurses and tube drivers are vital to the country. Savvy?

If they're vital to the running of the country then I suggest he stops attacking them.

 

[Pickman's model]

If they're vital to the running of the country then I suggest he stops attacking them.

whereas i think we all know we can get on without mps.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Assuming they get passed eventually, any thoughts on how to resist/defeat them? You'd presume that union leaders will talk a good game and then capitulate. So, it'd be up to workplace activists to make them unworkable...

 

[belboid]

they might recognise the hypocrisy. but by harping on the hypocrisy you ignore two larger issues, the one the lack of legitimacy (which was of course raised around the election of police commissioners) and the other that your hypocrisy line has a sell-by date: you can't keep harping on about it without boring people. and let's face it it's been knocking round for some years now. my argument about the involvement of politicians with the measures they pass has, i believe, the possibilities of a greater longevity as the different standards they hold people to will be constantly held up before people. your simplistick notion won't last the course and your blindness to the illegitimacy argument supports my view that any politicks you do are very much of the basick variety.

utter drivel, and irrelevant nonsense.

I don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck about how many MP's voted for a piece of legislation (except in the vague sense that it shows how lazy some MPs are), and whenever bills are close, they get more than 40% anyway, so its a rather weak argument. If only MP's who received more than 40% of the electorate were able to vote, things might be (a little) different.

Police Commissioners ARE seen to be lacking in legitimacy, which makes it a good argument. And just because you are easily bored, dont hold everyone else to your low standards

 

[DotCommunist]

mail leads with 'Cameron war on union bullies'

still, theres always wildcats and workplace sabotage

 

[Pickman's model]

utter drivel, and irrelevant nonsense.

I don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck about how many MP's voted for a piece of legislation (except in the vague sense that it shows how lazy some MPs are), and whenever bills are close, they get more than 40% anyway, so its a rather weak argument. If only MP's who received more than 40% of the electorate were able to vote, things might be (a little) different.

Police Commissioners ARE seen to be lacking in legitimacy, which makes it a good argument. And just because you are easily bored, dont hold everyone else to your low standards

i may be bored: but at least i'm not boring.

 

[Lo Siento.]

utter drivel, and irrelevant nonsense.

I don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck about how many MP's voted for a piece of legislation (except in the vague sense that it shows how lazy some MPs are), and whenever bills are close, they get more than 40% anyway, so its a rather weak argument. If only MP's who received more than 40% of the electorate were able to vote, things might be (a little) different.

Police Commissioners ARE seen to be lacking in legitimacy, which makes it a good argument. And just because you are easily bored, dont hold everyone else to your low standards

I think the problem with turnout comparisons as an argument is that you're starting from the position of trying to argue that low strike ballot turnouts are *only* as unrepresentative as politicians are. Which is fine, but people hate MPs and see them as out of touch and unrepresentative.

For me the argument against it is simply that it denies the people who are interested and who do vote the right to withdraw their labour, just because their workmates haven't offered an opinion. It does this to solve a largely fictitious problem - where an unrepresentative minority forces workers out of strike against their will. Not only does this problem not really exist, if it did exist it would already be illegal - it's illegal to compel someone to join a union, it's illegal to exercise any kind of compulsion to participate in a strike.

 

[belboid]

i may be bored: but at least i'm not boring.

so self-unaware

 

[belboid]

I think the problem with turnout comparisons as an argument is that you're starting from the position of trying to argue that low strike ballot turnouts are *only* as unrepresentative as politicians are. Which is fine, but people hate MPs and see them as out of touch and unrepresentative.

For me the argument against it is simply that it denies the people who are interested and who do vote the right to withdraw their labour, just because their workmates haven't offered an opinion. It does this to solve a largely fictitious problem - where an unrepresentative minority forces workers out of strike against their will. Not only does this problem not really exist, if it did exist it would already be illegal - it's illegal to compel someone to join a union, it's illegal to exercise any kind of compulsion to participate in a strike.

indeed, the principle will always be the key argument, rather than any comparison with lawmakers or whoever. But every argument helps, and pointing out tory hypocrisy is always fun.

 

[Pickman's model]

so self-unaware

there's no depth to your politics: the only argument you've advanced to counter the tory plans is that it is hypocritical. you didn't consider the low turnout for mps might make them illegitimate, you didn't consider the way in which the low turnouts are more likely through the way ballots have to be conducted by post rather than electronically or at the workplace, you didn't come up with Lo Siento.'s point above. your politics seem, on the strength of your contributions to this thread, to be one-dimensional and unimaginative. and when your politics let you down you let ad hominems and insults (e.g. "this is why you're shit at politics") take their place.