Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Some musings on how to neutralise the unions

56 replies

longfingernails · 21/11/2010 13:24

I think we should have some common sense changes to strike laws, and political donation laws, which will help update the Thatcher era legislation (which was excellent, but did not go far enough) to clamp down further on the union menace.

The political levy could be directed at whichever party the union member wishes - not just Labour. Union bosses must not be able to veto donations to any legitimate party.

The default option for political levies must be to opt out. Union members must make an active effort to opt in.

Unions must have a minimum turnout of 50% for a ballot for strike action to be legitimate.

Unions must not be allowed to ballot for a strike of more than 24 hours at a time.

The notice period for a strike should be extended to 3 months.

If strikebreakers have more effective job performance during strikes than the standard workers, it should be legal to fire the striker and hire the strikebreaker in their place.

It should be encouraged in legislation to allow a worker's striking/strikebreaking to be taken into account when determining performance related bonuses and other discretionary pay/perks.

Far more jobs, including those on the Tube, should be counted as "essential occupations" and be forbidden from striking.

And the big one: unions must pay back the cost of each strike, as decided by an independent arbitration panel, to the employer.

What do you all think?

OP posts:
Igglybuff · 21/11/2010 16:19

What do you mean by The Left?! That's such a ridiculous generalisation. Do you think the Left are a collective mafia? What about The Right? Why don't they rein in the BNP, the EDL and money grabbing bankers who happily take taxpayer bailouts with little conditions. It's a silly thing to say.

JulesJules · 21/11/2010 15:17

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

reallytired · 21/11/2010 15:13

Union memebers already have some say in where their levy goes. Certainly its the case for unison.

There is a choice between labour and general union campaign funds. (Ie. Campaigns against agesism, sexism, racism and rights for the disabled.)

There is help if you face a false allegation. For example in schools children often make false allegations of abuse against staff. Its madness not to belong to a union if you work in a school.

I think the OP forgets how much unions do. If it wasn't for unions there would be no maternity leave, men would be paid more than women for the same job, children would still be working down the mines.

I think that workers should have the right to strike. Deciding not to work is a bargaining tool.

Its not complusory to go on strike and its down to the indivdiual worker. The worker loses a day's pay by going on strike. Its not done lightly. Especially when the public sector is facing a lot of redunancies.

vixel · 21/11/2010 15:01

I deplore unnecessary strikes and I fear we are going to see a lot of them in the next few years but your measures are far too draconian

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:56

Igglybuff If the left don't rein in the likes of the Bob Crowe and Len McCluskey, then what do they expect?

OP posts:
Igglybuff · 21/11/2010 14:52

What exactly is wrong with the unions? Yes there are some disputes which are a bit Hmm but overall they do a good job IMO. It's not all strikes you know.

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:41

edam The unions take care of all the paperwork and administration for donations via the political levy to the Labour party.

They should make it similarly easy for members to donate to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party if a member wants to do so.

OP posts:
edam · 21/11/2010 14:37

No we won't, politicians hate them. They are also ruddy expensive. We'll have one on AV because that was the price the Lib Dems demanded for joining the Tories.

Our union laws are already far more restrictive than other Western democracies, btw.

Union members who opt out of the political levy are free to put an equivalent amount of money into the political party that matches their own views, btw. So what's the problem?

onimolap · 21/11/2010 14:30

edam re: voting - in terms of elections, that's true.

In terms of arrangements put to the vote within organizations, the requirement for a quorum is common (eg in Students' Unions). It is the latter model that could apply here. If the call for strike action were genuinely supported, then there would be nothing to worry about.

No problem with shareholders' votes on corporate political donations either.

Or with extending that to customers too, providing the customers of unionized organizations also get their say in the union's political activities. But I don't really support this as I think the logistics are counter-productively complex.

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:16

We will have a referendum on AV next May too.

In general, I think we will have more referenda (referendums?) in the future than we have done in the past.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:14

edam If I were a member of a union, and wanted my political levy to go to the Tories, or UKIP, I couldn't do it.

I am saying that the unions should be forced to donate a portion of their political levy to UKIP, if that is the wish of a portion of their members.

OP posts:
edam · 21/11/2010 14:13

How many referenda do we have in this country? Can't think of one since we joined what was then called (IIRC) the EEC.

edam · 21/11/2010 14:12

Oh, and trade unions can only call a strike if the proposal is supported by a majority of the voters in a secret (postal) ballot. Seems fair to me. Members can then decide whether or not to take part in the strike.

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:11

edam I have no objection, in principle, to minimum turnout thresholds for local and general elections too. Then if a constituency or ward couldn't be bothered to vote, they can forfeit electoral representation.

Practically, though, there is a big difference between elections to office, and strike ballots (which are more like referendums). I would definitely have minimum turnout thresholds for referendums.

OP posts:
edam · 21/11/2010 14:10

longfinger - we agree on something, then. I'd add in customers too - after all, it's our money they are donating (and getting peerages for hence the right to make our laws).

Btw, re. the political levy - union members do not have to contribute to this. They can choose not to fund donations to political parties.

If a union wants to create a political fund, they have to seek the agreement of their members via a secret ballot. Same applies if they have a political fund and want to continue after a period of ten years.

edam · 21/11/2010 14:07

Btw, you could do some research into legislation on strikes and the political levy before criticising them.

And re. voting laws - there is no requirement in any voting system in this country to have a minimum threshold saying 'yes'. Abstentions or failure to vote does not equal 'no'. If this was introduced for parliamentary elections, we'd have very few MPs.

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/11/2010 14:04

edam I would support a ballot of shareholders before political donations are made from companies.

OP posts:
edam · 21/11/2010 13:59

Right, and I assume you want to be fair and ban donations from big business too? Unless all employees and customers agree, of course.

onimolap · 21/11/2010 13:57

I can agree with the parts of your post about targetting any political donations more closely in line with the wishes of the membership, and with having a required minimum turn out for a valid strike ballot.

Not the rest though.

Wordsonascreen · 21/11/2010 13:53

wear googles and cut them under running water

complimentary · 21/11/2010 13:51

Riven. 'Leaving the EU' may be closer than you think, with what's going on in Ireland.

sarah293 · 21/11/2010 13:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

complimentary · 21/11/2010 13:49

What about the police and the armed forces? If they strike, who would control the masses?Grin