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.....

strikes aren't strictly socialist - they are just people combining to fight for better conditions - I gave you a fair few good things that came out of that by way of example :)

You realise that people are being made redundant still? and that unions make sure that is done fairly and within the law not that they don't happen

Reducing pay and conditions would also lead to a rather big downward spiral - if you don't believe in strikes you don't have to a) join a union and b) strike - they aren't compulsory

Flashbangandgone

That is the reverse of reality when employers reduce the wages conditions of the workforce, the workforce becomes disillusioned and creativity is stifled and production drops.

Until we recognise the value of the workforce and stop rewarding those that that are wealthy for purely having money the workforce will be full of illiterate monkeys getting paid peanuts. You get what you pay for there is a reason for the brain drain.

This does not mean I believe in unfettered market forces.... I do believe that state has an important role to provide basic protections for employees such as minimum notice periods, statutory redundancy pay, minimum holiday entitlement, minimum wage etc., but this doesn't extend to giving employees the right to put employers into a straitjacket. As for improvements to workers' rights in recent history such as the working time directive, minimum wage and holiday, none of these have come about through strikes but through the actions of elected Governments or EU decisions.

That is the reverse of reality when employers reduce the wages conditions of the workforce, the workforce becomes disillusioned and creativity is stifled and production drops.

More fool any employer who does that.... Their profits would fall along with their productivity as They become bettered by a more enlightened employers who paid attention to their employees' needs.

but how often do people strike? seriously? it's not the 1970's

people generally strike when they really feel under threat - such as in the public sector where YOU are losing services due to cuts (you may not be aware of that until you need them) - strikes are trying to protect jobs and services but even so we've had 1 this year!

and I didn't get paid for that - so that saved them some money!

You realise that people are being made redundant still? and that unions make sure that is done fairly and within the law not that they don't happen

I have no issues with unions existing and protecting their members in this way... I'm not anti-union.

More fool any employer who does that.... Their profits would fall along with their productivity as They become bettered by a more enlightened employers who paid attention to their employees' needs.

Where is the growth for the company whose employee outgrows the wage structure that is in place?
The employee goes off to pastures green and is employed by those that recognise the potential in the employee and the previous employer stagnates, losing out on innovative ideas that would further the companies potential.

Basically you pay someone what they are worth and there is no need to strike.

I'm pro-union in principle and in favour of he right to strike. But I think unions need to sort themselves out. They really ought to be able to get the majority of their members to vote. One way or another. Having the majority abstaining is crazy.
Can union reps not go round and physically collect a sealed vote from everybody in work or something? Only people off sick or on holiday should be missing.

Museum mum workplace balloting is a great idea - you could have a sealed ballot box and even an assessor funded by the union to make sure it is done fairly and confidentially.

Sadly the conservatives are not in fact interested in enabling people to vote in strike ballots, so they insist ballots still need to be run on the 1980s model, using the post, to home addresses. They do this because they know it costs a lot of money to run an accurate postal ballot, and impedes the turnout.

Where is the growth for the company whose employee outgrows the wage structure that is in place?

Well, the employee attempts to negotiate with his/her employer. If the employer doesn't feel able or willing to change their pay or conditions, and the employee decides to get another job, then I don't see the problem, or where striking features.

That is the reverse of reality when employers reduce the wages conditions of the workforce, the workforce becomes disillusioned and creativity is stifled and production drops.

Up to a point, you're right. But a major reason why British industry ground to a halt in the 1960s and 1970s was because nationalised, highly unionised industries became increasingly stagnant and uncompetitive and were prevented by union lobbies (for perfectly good reasons of their own, from the union point of view) from adjusting to new technologies and new expectations. The old, pre-reform unions have a solid share of responsibility for the Thatcherite backlash and have never owned up to just how badly their conservatism and intransigence fucked up British industry long before Thatcher decided the only way forward was to shut it all down to make way for some mythical 'information economy'.

but how often do people strike? seriously? it's not the 1970's

Not often, but I don't see the logic in this argument... Crime has also reduced since the 70s.... But this isn't an argument in support of criminal activity?!

As for public services, people do have the right to demonstrate, lobby and vote to express their dissatisfaction.... I just don't believe that striking is an appropriate way to express our disagreement.

OTheHugeManatee

Sound analysis... Good post!

Hugh manetee

People who want to join a union but don't want to contribute to the Labour Party just opt out.

Actually only 15 unions are affiliated to the Labour Party, although they include the largest unions.

Btw not opting into the political fund will also stop the union funding all sorts of other campaigns eg against NHS privatisation or sure start closures, or for the living wage, or to campaign in the EU referendum. The aim (or if not the aim, then certainly the result) is to shut off political voices.

I do get the point about wanting to support other political parties/objectives. But that's what the opt out is for.

fundamentally, the Labour Party is supposed to be a party funded by working people - unless they opt out. The clue is in the name. The opt out mechanism works because labour's funding is made up of thousands of tiny donations from workers, funnelled through unions (sorry, "barons"), while conservative funding is made up of funding from corporates and wealthy individuals.

A partial answer is for a cap on individual donations and employer/shareholder approval of corporate donations. However with a majority (even though tiny), right now the conservatives can force this through. Effectively this is a one in a generation opportunity for them.

This is why they are doing it early - while they still have at least a majority of 12 - and capitalising on the disorientation of labour.

However it raises very serious - indeed generation defining - issues of political legitimacy.

If these working people really gave a shit, surely they'd still contribute? After all, most of the squillions generated by the National Lottery come from people in lower socioeconomic brackets. If they can pony up a quid for the lottery surely they could pony up a quid for the Labour Party? At least, they might if they really thought the Labour Party was acting in their interests. As it is, it appears the Labour Party is worrying that many of them will think the chances of benefiting from the Lottery (1 in 14 million) is better, and stop contributing their tithe.

The problem isn't that poor people can't afford to fund the Labour Party, it's that they aren't likely to do so unless it's whisked off them at source, like National Insurance, without them noticing. I would suggest the problem here isn't with asking people to chip in, it's with the value proposition they're being asked to chip in to.

the Labour Party is supposed to be a party funded by working people - unless they opt out.

I couldn't agree less! It's akin to saying the BNP should be a party of all British citizens, unless they choose to opt out!

Which is why we are now on the road to single party corporatism, funded by a tiny elite.

Flash bang I don't care whether you agree - it's just a historical statement - the Labour Party was set up as the party of working people. Obviously it's no longer generally accepted as the party of working people, but that's a separate issue.

With regard to the points in funding, although it's not something I relish, and is generally not particularly popular, a mechanism for the state funding of parties is better for our democratic system than the current system of billionaires and unions donating and buying influence, though I say this through gritted teeth.... It's the least worst option in my view.

Why should the bar be higher?

The clue in in the title... It's a union. If the members cannot unify their opinion... If more than half of them cannot even being bothered forming an opinion, you can hardly call yourself a 'union'. And if less that 40% of your membership even care enough to agree on an issue! then they can hardly be said to be united.

It is merely a measure to ensure poeple 'care' about an issue, and don't allow little militant dictators to hold employers/employees hostage for the purpose of furthering their own political careers.

Well you are not going to get state funding on the conservative watch, so instead, thanks to the reforms in the TU bill, we will have a conservative government indefinitely until something truly terrible happens, which was my original point.

Figment. Perhaps, but in my opinion it is exceedingly arrogant for any organisation to assume it speaks for a person when that person hasn't assented to that organisation.... I think my analogy stands. If the BNP assumed that all white Britons were its members unless they actively opted out, as this was the group they claim to represent, there would be righteous outrage!

Your analogy does not stand.

The British labour movement has transformed the position of the working classes in Britain.

Comparing that to the BNP on the basis of the names of two political parties, of completely different levels of support and influence is asinine in the extreme.

Figment - surely none of this would be a problem if only working people generally felt the Labour Party represented their interests? If that were the case surely it would get funded, after all there are many millions of working people in the UK who could each throw in a quid or two.

99% of adults in this country work, aspire to work, or have retired from work, either in paid employment, as volunteers or as SAHPs.... What % of those voted for Labour.... When voter turnout is included, it didn't reach 50% even in its heyday and often far, far lower.... Hardly worthy of assuming it represented the full 99%