to think 40% of 50% isn't unreasonable?

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

Just that really. I'm not looking at the other aspects of the proposals, but I personally don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least 50% of the affected union members to vote, and at least 40% of them to back any strike actions.

Strike Crackdown

I also think that Voting in General Elections should be mandatory, but that's another discussion.....

[contortionist]

It's 40% of the total (and 50% of the turnout). So if there's only a 50% turnout, then 80% would need to be in favour.
Or if there's an 60% turnout, then 66% would need to be in favour.

[gallicgirl]

Governments are usually elected on less.

Why should the bar be higher?

[FurtherSupport]

No, it's not reasonable. As contortionist says, it's 80% really.

Striking is inconvenient for us all and I don't always support the issues in debate by any means, but a world where the rights won by the activism of the labour movement don't exist is not one I want to live (or work) in.

[ghostyslovesheep]

what Gallis said really

if members of a union are concerned enough to vote then their vote counts - if people don't vote they can't really moan if they are called out on strike by the votes of those who do

[DadfromUncle]

I agree it's reasonable - but it should be applied to parliamentary elections too, both at national and local level.

BTW it wouldn't have prevented the recent London tube strike.

Also I should be able to actively opt-in (or not) to donations to the Tory party made by companies I do business with.

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

Governments are usually elected on less.

Which is why I highlighted that I think voting should be mandatory.

To my mind, if 51% of your total workforce can't be arsed to vote, then there isn't much of a problem is there?

Not sure about contortionists maths - if 100 people are employed, 50% have to vote (50 people), 40% of them have to want to strike - so 20 people. That's 20% of your total workforce that have voted to strike.

Surely that's not un-achievable?

[0x530x610x750x630x79]

can we have the same rules about goverment elections, so if we don't get 50% turnout the goverment is illegal and we can close them down?

I know it makes our local council an illegal council :)

[0x530x610x750x630x79]

Not sure about contortionists maths - if 100 people are employed, 50% have to vote (50 people), 40% of them have to want to strike - so 20 people. That's 20% of your total workforce that have voted to strike.

if you have 100 people 40% of them is 40 people so 40/50 of the people voting have to want to strike so 4/5 = 80%

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

if you have 100 people 40% of them is 40 people so 40/50 of the people voting have to want to strike so 4/5 = 80%

OK, 40% is 40 people, 50% of them is 20 people.

50% of your turnout have to be in favour....

It's still 20%

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

of the overall workforce

[SomewhereIBelong]

and public sector strikes would need the backing of at least 40% of those eligible to vote

So 40 % OF THE WHOLE WORKFORCE - not of those who actually voted.

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

Ah no, got that totally wrong,

40% of those eligible to vote must back action for strikes in core public services (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services). Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.

So it would mean 40 people would have to vote for strike action out of a possible 100.

Still don't see it as unreasonable

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

x post

[FurtherSupport]

Yes, so 100 people in the workforce (or union?) 50 need to vote and 40 need to vote for the strike. 40/50 = 80%

[wafflyversatile]

Even if everyone had to vote governments could and would still win on less than 50% of the vote.

It's an attack on workers' rights. I'm not in favour of attacks on workers' rights.

[SomewhereIBelong]

I think it is a good idea - there needs to be a proper mandate from all staff for strike action ( this at least means that people will be more inclined to get off their bums and vote one way or another) - not 80% couldn't be bothered to vote, so 10% of the workforce get the say

[TeacupDrama]

I read it as a minimum of 40% must vote for a strike ie 40 out of a 100employees, the minimum valid turnout is 50% so if only 50% vote 40/50 must vote yes ( ie 80% of voters) however if turnout was 60%;ie 40/60 is 66% and if 80% voted and you would need 41 votes against 39 as 40/40 would not count 50.1%

I think a 50% turnout and then a simple majority that way basically equates to non voters being counted as no voters

I do not think calling a strike of a 100 employees when only 20 voted and only 11 voted in favour is right

you also have to ask why don't members of unions actually vote in strike ballots why are turnouts often below 20%, it's not like a general election when you can't decide between candidates it is a straight yes/no

[ghostyslovesheep]

not 80% couldn't be bothered to vote, so 10% of the workforce get the say

no 100% of UNION members in the workforce get a say - if 80% don't take it that is their choice - they still got a say

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

See, I read 40% of those eligible to vote as 40% of the whole lot of voters, not 40% of those that turn up.

So if only 40 people turned out to vote & they all voted to strike, that'd be a 40% call to strike - it certainly wouldn't be 100% because 60% of those eligible decided not to vote at all for whatever reason.

[NewFlipFlops]

I read it as 40% of total who can vote with 50% being the minimum turnout that would be accepted as a valid ballot. So it's 40% unless you think the 50% who didn't vote don't count at all.

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

no 100% of UNION members in the workforce get a say - if 80% don't take it that is their choice - they still got a say

Exactly, all this proposal would do would be to make sure that 40% have to get off their bums & vote - it's harder to get a strike through due to voter apathy.

[wafflyversatile]

Why do you think the govt might want to make it harder for unions to get a vote to strike through?

[Georgina1975]

YABVU.

The current government wants to renegotiate our membership of the European Union. It is not really about immigration (it cannot be) but, as they have quietly mentioned, pesky health and safety legislation (nothing wrong with it - interpretation might be slightly bonkers but that is a different discussion) AND employment legislation. On the latter, lots of waffle about red tape blah, blah, blah.

The bottom line is that they want the cost of business to be cheaper. That will be paid for by the workforce in terms of pay and conditions. Not surprising they want to dismantle the Unions still further in preparation.

We (the workforce) should be very concerned about these erosions.

[Cherryblossomsinspring]

If people couldn't be arsed voting, that's an indication that they don't care enough about the issue to strike. So therefore a strike should not go ahead.

[meddie]

I think they are doing this as a precursor to altering a lot of public sector pay and conditions (ie unsocial hours etc)