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.....

or it's an indication that they don't care enough about NOT striking to say NO - don't you think it goes either way !

When people strike they lose pay. If people don't vote and the outcome is they go on strike they lose pay (unless they scab). If I didn't want to lose pay (or be called a scab) in the name of the strike I would make damn sure I voted no. If I was willing to lose a day's pay if the ballot went that way then it would be because I am happy to lose pay for the cause.

Govt want to push through a lot of changes that make people's working conditions worse, with or without TTIP which really is major, and they want to ensure there is as little resistance as possible. This is a move in that direction.

The Government also wants to allow agency workers to be brought in to cover for those striking.

Absolutely, not voting means you don't have a strong preference either way - the reason GE turnouts are low.

I you have a strong desire not to strike, then you'd vote.

It's a slippery slope. Erode the unions and you'll get a gradual erosion of all employee rights and benefits. Depends where you sit in the pyramid whether you see that as a good or bad thing.

Government elections are a false analogy. There are often multiple candidates, three or more of whom can be expected to take a fair chunk of the vote, meaning that under FPTP (which the public overwhelmingly voted to keep not that long ago) 40% can be a pretty good majority. In comparison, strike ballots have a simple Yes or No question. Given that strikes by teachers or Tube drivers etc affect millions of people that don't get a say at all, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask that at least 50% of the people who do get a say turn out to vote on it, and that 40% of them are in favour, before a strike happens. Otherwise you end up with a tiny group of people basically holding the whole country to ransom over their own selfish pay arguments.

YANBU.

It's not comparable to general elections because everyone is going to get a government whether they like it or not, but people actively opt in to union membership. Even then, they often only opt in because of the legal protection, so while I believe they should vote against a strike if they don't support it, I think if they don't vote then it can be taken as a given that they don't support strike action.

I don't see it as an attack on workers rights at all, in fact it would protect plenty of workers being able to even get to work in the case of tube drivers.

YANBU and after it happens we will wonder why it took so long.

After it happens I think you'll see why the govt want to weaken the unions.

^^ Exactly, wafflyversatile.

Those spouting about drafting others being able to do the jobs the strikers are not doing, temps being called in, have no idea what will come next.

It is a given that Unions have overstepped the mark a lot in the past, but to water down the rights of workers even more will rebound quite spectacularly.

What is really needed is a campaign that reduces the fear of voting, for or against. Reassuring people that their vote will be wholly confidential and that if they join a union they have a moral obligation to vote - as in you can't expect to get the benefits if you can't be arsed to vote. Maybe make it a legal requirement to vote... adding an abstain/undecided choice.

FWIW I know people who will not vote for a strike as they fear reprisals from the boss. I also know people who won't vote against a strike as they fear reprisals from colleagues. So assuming what a non vote means is dangerous.

Sajeed javed couldn't manage 40% in the general election though.

Maybe it wouldn't have seemed quite so unreasonable if the conservatives had agreed to secure electronic - instead of postal - balloting. Oh no. Out of the question because it might have increased the turnout.

Please don't be fooled into thinking this has anything whatsoever to do with industrial democracy.

I'm pretty shocked tbh to hear how fascist sajid javed is sounding.

Today he said: "we are One Nation, and we agree that the rights of trade unions should be respected, but we, as representatives of One Nation, also believe in the rights of employers and of working people". Or similar. Someone needs to give him a history lesson.

Here's something else a bit shocking that even thatcher baulked at.

Members will have to opt into the political levy (expected, in practice, to cut labour funding by up to two-thirds) whereas there is to be no restriction whatsoever on contributions to the Conservative party.

Welcome to conservative government for the next 20 years.

No restriction on Labour donations either through the unions or personally - all you have to do is actively choose to donate - like all conservative donors.

Fig

What is stopping someone making a donation to the Labour Party (or any other party for that matter)?

Hey carol all I'm telling you is the projected collapse in funding. If you think a one party state is a good thing, then good for you. Even thatcher wasn't convinced as even she understood how good government needs an effective opposition.

In Northern Ireland, where there has been an opt in mechanism for some time, one third of members actively opt in.

Of course if there were some handy hedge fund managers to make single donations, it wouldn't be an issue, but then errr we wouldn't really have two parties, so problem not solved.

People don't vote in strike elections for many reasons. I personally wouldn't vote as I'm not currently working but am still in a union. I don't think it would be right for me to vote for a strike when I wouldn't be taking part in it. Not voting doesn't mean no to a strike.

Gideon decided that reducing tax credits would force up wages. How will this happen? Anybody who complains about pay or conditions should "think themselves lucky they have a job".

Any union that voices discontent or calls for strike , their members should "think themselves lucky they have a job"

With a general background chorus of "we all have bad pay, pensions and conditions so why should you get any better"

How will putting unions past any point of being effective help any of that?

Are employers going to be suddenly possessed with excessive generosity?

Wait, how is it shocking that people joining a union now get to choose whether or not they want to subsidise the Labour Party?

What about people who want to join a union, but don't vote Labour?

PtolemysNeedle

"It's not comparable to general elections because everyone is going to get a government whether they like it or not"

It is completely comparable with voting in a general election as the current government received less than 1/3 of the votes and 1/3 of the eligible electorate didn't vote at all.

So the minority are in control of the minority.

Even if we take your point that that
"if they don't vote then it can be taken as a given that they don't support strike action."

So it must be taken that 60% don't support that government that we have in power. (and that the numbers add up to scrutiny)

Even though you point out that we will still get a government, we will also still get teachers, tube drivers etc. who will be as inept as the government because they are so pissed off by the system.

Personally I think everyone has the right to withhold their labour.... They just shouldn't have the right to come back to that job once they've done so! I don't get this 'right to strike'.... If people don't like their job and its conditions, they should look for another elsewhere...

I think that's probably the Government's view in their heart as well....

of course it's comparable - 60% turnout - 31% of the vote - rule the country

but you can't with hold your labour without a bigger vote?

Flashbang why do you think we have bank holidays off, safe working conditions, maternity leave, equal pay, limits of child labour, limits on working hours, mandatory breaks, sick pay, annual leave etc etc

because people REFUSED to accept shitty treatment - what kind of world would we have if people just shut up and out up - what a ridiculous argument

Flashbangandgone

"If people don't like their job and its conditions, they should look for another elsewhere..."

In my case I think my pay and conditions are good I am pissed off that people are trying to change them. So in your view what should I do to stop the changes from happening?

Boney. If conditions are changed and you don't find them acceptable then you should look for another job... It's all very well wanting a jon where pay and conditions are guaranteed and redundancies aren't permitted (I.e. Jobs for life) but this impedes development and innovation, and leads to a loss of competitiveness to other countries, which leads to an economic downward spiral, and the jobs market implodes under it's own unsustainable weight and everyone is worse off.

The reason I don't believe in strikes, and all that goes with it, is that it ultimately makes things worse for workers, not better.... Show me an example of where socialism has worked?