How it Works12 mins ago
How Dare The Unions Talk About Democracy?
27 Answers
http://
/// The Conservatives provoked a major row with the trade unions over sweeping plans to ban them from taking strike action without the support of at least 40 per cent of their members. ///
/// Mr McCluskey said: "This proposed change in the constitution of the biggest union on these isles marks the sorry place we have reached in our national democracy. ///
So the Unions think that it is a sorry place that we have reached in our national democracy. for the Conservatives to ban strikes unless they have at least 40% support of their members?
/// The Conservatives provoked a major row with the trade unions over sweeping plans to ban them from taking strike action without the support of at least 40 per cent of their members. ///
/// Mr McCluskey said: "This proposed change in the constitution of the biggest union on these isles marks the sorry place we have reached in our national democracy. ///
So the Unions think that it is a sorry place that we have reached in our national democracy. for the Conservatives to ban strikes unless they have at least 40% support of their members?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
.
bit of a storm in a teacup
Days lost by strikes are at their lowest. Would have been a big deal in the late seventies when unions looked on their privileges as untouchable but times change
bodies set up in law, unions or councils - whcih are legal bodies and not like you and I who walk around and talk -have to be reminded that they are set up in a legal framework and so have to abide by it.
that is a long sentence for - they cant break the law but must obey it
and if they dont absolute chaos reigns - look at the Cyril Smith saga... or Rochdale, or phone hacking or South Staffs or.... Morecambe bay
bit of a storm in a teacup
Days lost by strikes are at their lowest. Would have been a big deal in the late seventies when unions looked on their privileges as untouchable but times change
bodies set up in law, unions or councils - whcih are legal bodies and not like you and I who walk around and talk -have to be reminded that they are set up in a legal framework and so have to abide by it.
that is a long sentence for - they cant break the law but must obey it
and if they dont absolute chaos reigns - look at the Cyril Smith saga... or Rochdale, or phone hacking or South Staffs or.... Morecambe bay
At least numerically, the unions have a point. When was the last time that, nationally, a government secured 40% support from the electorate? Even locally, there are plenty of MPs who don't command such support -- 111 MPs elected in 2010 had polled fewer than 40% of the total votes, and if you extended that to include considering votes not cast then the figure would be much higher still.
So imposing this standard on Unions (who are hardly meant to be a shining beacon of democratic legitimacy) and ignoring it in the place where democracy is supposed to really matter strikes me as a massive double standard.
Most strikes are called on fairly low turnout, it is true, and it's a shame that people aren't as engaged with the Unions as they used to be. Perhaps this is partly because in recent years the Union leadership has been completely unrealistic in its aims and grasp of economics; regardless, with so many people disengaged from Unions at the moment this legislation would have the likely effect of making illegal any future attempts at strike action. With the Unions' strongest bargaining chip no longer possible, the long-term consequence is that they have no power to fight any regressive changes by employers. That doesn't seem to be a good thing, although in practice I doubt the changes effected would be so dreadful for employees. But the principle is that workers must have a way to fight changes that they don't agree with, even if their fight is in vain (and on many occasions it certainly should be).
Low turnout never made PPCs, or MPs, or governments, or mayors, or local councillors, illegitimate -- at least, not in the eyes of our current democracy -- and I don't see why a turnout threshold should be applied exclusively to unions.
So imposing this standard on Unions (who are hardly meant to be a shining beacon of democratic legitimacy) and ignoring it in the place where democracy is supposed to really matter strikes me as a massive double standard.
Most strikes are called on fairly low turnout, it is true, and it's a shame that people aren't as engaged with the Unions as they used to be. Perhaps this is partly because in recent years the Union leadership has been completely unrealistic in its aims and grasp of economics; regardless, with so many people disengaged from Unions at the moment this legislation would have the likely effect of making illegal any future attempts at strike action. With the Unions' strongest bargaining chip no longer possible, the long-term consequence is that they have no power to fight any regressive changes by employers. That doesn't seem to be a good thing, although in practice I doubt the changes effected would be so dreadful for employees. But the principle is that workers must have a way to fight changes that they don't agree with, even if their fight is in vain (and on many occasions it certainly should be).
Low turnout never made PPCs, or MPs, or governments, or mayors, or local councillors, illegitimate -- at least, not in the eyes of our current democracy -- and I don't see why a turnout threshold should be applied exclusively to unions.
If the Conservatives can make changes to a Union's Constitution, why cannot a Union change the Conservative Party's rules?
A rule whereby if a Conservative MP gets less than 40% of the vote of the electorate then that MP has no voting rights in the House of Commons, would be a good one for starters.
A rule whereby if a Conservative MP gets less than 40% of the vote of the electorate then that MP has no voting rights in the House of Commons, would be a good one for starters.
Gromit
/// A rule whereby if a Conservative MP gets less than 40% of the vote of the electorate then that MP has no voting rights in the House of Commons, would be a good one for starters. ///
Would that rule also apply to Labour and the Lib/Dems, if so might as well sell off Westminster and change it into affordable flats.
/// A rule whereby if a Conservative MP gets less than 40% of the vote of the electorate then that MP has no voting rights in the House of Commons, would be a good one for starters. ///
Would that rule also apply to Labour and the Lib/Dems, if so might as well sell off Westminster and change it into affordable flats.
-- answer removed --
One doesn't even have to like Unions to recognise that it's important to have some level of balance between workers' rights and desires, and those of their employers. In recent years, the Unions have -- frankly -- lost the plot somewhat, trying to fight the governments austerity measures despite the fact that there was evidently little real choice but to implement spending cuts. But on the other hand their various strike actions have had little real impact. The unions are, naturally, losing some level of power, especially since the heady and stupid days of the 1970s when they were practically running the country. Thank goodness we've moved on from that; but forcing the issue even further, so that Unions can't even call those lame-duck strikes in the first place, is a step too far and takes away the needed balance.
jim360
/// I don't think it is reasonable, no. Apathy at the ballot box doesn't make the decision of those who do vote illegitimate -- here, or anywhere else. ///
How can you say it is apathy at the ballot box, perhaps some just don't agree with the reason for striking, perhaps some cannot see the reason is strong enough to give up their wages/salary?
It called democracy, at least they are not demanding an overall majority vote.
/// I don't think it is reasonable, no. Apathy at the ballot box doesn't make the decision of those who do vote illegitimate -- here, or anywhere else. ///
How can you say it is apathy at the ballot box, perhaps some just don't agree with the reason for striking, perhaps some cannot see the reason is strong enough to give up their wages/salary?
It called democracy, at least they are not demanding an overall majority vote.
Again, the question then has to be asked why such standards are not being applied at MP elections. There are no grounds for applying tighter standards to strike votes.
You cannot defend applying this rule here, but not at strikes. It is a Conversative ideology only, an attempt to bottle up Unions once and for all.
The threat of calling illegal strikes is, incidentally, the least of the problems such a law would face. There is a very good chance that the legislation would be overturned in courts.
You cannot defend applying this rule here, but not at strikes. It is a Conversative ideology only, an attempt to bottle up Unions once and for all.
The threat of calling illegal strikes is, incidentally, the least of the problems such a law would face. There is a very good chance that the legislation would be overturned in courts.
jim360
/// You cannot defend applying this rule here, but not at strikes. It is a Conversative ideology only, an attempt to bottle up Unions once and for all. ///
Yes and Labour ideology in allowing the Unions to bring the country down on it's knees.
A total of 29m working days were lost to strikes in 1979, compared with 2m in 1990. Power cuts were standard and industries were limited to a three-day working week to conserve energy. The candle was almost a unit of currency.
/// You cannot defend applying this rule here, but not at strikes. It is a Conversative ideology only, an attempt to bottle up Unions once and for all. ///
Yes and Labour ideology in allowing the Unions to bring the country down on it's knees.
A total of 29m working days were lost to strikes in 1979, compared with 2m in 1990. Power cuts were standard and industries were limited to a three-day working week to conserve energy. The candle was almost a unit of currency.
Like I said earlier, I am grateful that the power of Unions was massively curtailed in the 1980s. The situation in the late 1970s was intolerable.
That doesn't undermine the importance that Unions have had, both historically and for the future, in securing the balance between workers' and employers' rights. This measure serves to undermine that balance.
That doesn't undermine the importance that Unions have had, both historically and for the future, in securing the balance between workers' and employers' rights. This measure serves to undermine that balance.
ANOTHEOLDGIT, how can you say it is democracy when there has to be at least 40% of the members in favour of a strike.
In Parliament, new laws and amendments are passed most days.There are 650 MPs and only forty of them need be present to have a vote.That means that a vote could go 22-18 and the law or amendment fails or goes to the next stage in the process.
Twenty-two out of 650 MPs is 3.38% but the Government wants to set a bar more than ten times that to vote for strike action. Is that logical or fair?
In Parliament, new laws and amendments are passed most days.There are 650 MPs and only forty of them need be present to have a vote.That means that a vote could go 22-18 and the law or amendment fails or goes to the next stage in the process.
Twenty-two out of 650 MPs is 3.38% but the Government wants to set a bar more than ten times that to vote for strike action. Is that logical or fair?
Jim, //At least numerically, the unions have a point. When was the last time that, nationally, a government secured 40% support from the electorate?//
That analogy doesn’t work. Entitlement to vote in Government elections isn’t restricted to members of political parties, and in fact only a small minority of the electorate hold political party membership, whereas those entitled to vote in union decision-making must be members of that union. With that in mind, I think 40% is extremely generous.
That analogy doesn’t work. Entitlement to vote in Government elections isn’t restricted to members of political parties, and in fact only a small minority of the electorate hold political party membership, whereas those entitled to vote in union decision-making must be members of that union. With that in mind, I think 40% is extremely generous.
Latest Posts
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.