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.....

Ohrhehugh it's not as straightforward as that.

This isn't the first time the conservatives have reversed the opt out. The last time they did this was in 1927, in revenge for the general strike. Funding fell by around a third, even though the Labour Party was at the height of its power and effectiveness. It's about the logistical difficulties that go with opting in. The conservatives aren't stupid - they know all this. And they also know that lots of people will think "surely if people want to contribute they just will etc etc".

Some of the current Tories are greedy and highly political - people like Osbourne and javed - this is their moment - democratic legitimacy and voice are for losers.

But yes I accept that labour is clearly at its lowest point - and this makes it an especially concerning time for democratic legitimacy.

There is no rule that makes the uk immune to single party rule. It may not look like that in theory, as there will be notional elections.

Ok, some will be employers and not be the workers that Labour claim to represent, so 99% was too high... 90%+ though

OTheHugeManatee

So there has to be a middle ground where the rights of the worker is taken in to account and balanced against the wants/needs of the company. Moving to far either way does nobody any good.

Flashbangandgone

"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."

So you would rather see someone leave than have a company profit from its employees? frankly if the company doesn't want to succeed then they can get rid of all of the "overpaid" employees and employ illiterate grunts that will not argue back. (at the moment they are complaining about schools when the employees do not know the job as soon as they enter the premises)

Where does the company profit when they don't see the worth of their employees?

Its all about balance, reducing the ability to strike does not improve productivity or profit.

So you would rather see someone leave than have a company profit from its employees? No, but it should be the employer's choice who and how much s/he pays their employees. S/he is free to make good or bad decisions in that respect.

Where does the company profit when they don't see the worth of their employees? I completely agree. A good company will invest always in its employees - it should do this freely though because it see this method as being the route to success, not because it has a 'gun held to its head' by striking workers.

The political fund opt out is to union is what PPI is to loans.

Plenty of people opted into the political fund unwittingly (as evidenced by the fact they didn't opt in when the position was reversed), in the same way plentry of people paid PPI unwittingly as part of their loan repayments.

PPI is universally recognised as morally wrong.... so should the political fund opt out. Trade Unionists who support the political fund opt out position do themselves absolutely no favours here.

I think those on the left who hark back to 'good old days' of the 60s and 70s need to recognise that the era of mass movements is over, and no amount of nostalgia and wishful thinking will get it back. Wouldn't it be better to channel social justice concerns in ways that reflect the dynamics and perspectives of a 21st century society in which we live?

Rather, PPI mis-selling is morally wrong, not PPI per se

It's nothing like PPI. The PPI miss-selling was based on lies like "you can't have this loan/credit card whatever without PPI" That was a straightforward lie. Union funding of Labour isn't that at all and to try and claim a moral equivalence doesn't make any logical sense. Union funding of Labour is open and transparent, and you seem to conveniently forgetting that many Unions don't have the political levy any longer, and any worker is free to opt out.

If you want an equivalent of PPI, perhaps opaque and secret funding of Parties by organisations and individuals who don't even live in the UK and certainly can't be trusted to have the best interests of the majority of ordinary UK folk at heart might be a better place to look.

The opt out might have presented difficulties in 1927. But the National Lottery manages to collect a couple of quid off millions of people every week. Charities use text message donations. We have modern technology, stuff that wasn't available in 1927. What's changed is the desire of working people to contribute to the Labour Party. My argument is that they should look to what's causing their support to shrink, not try and defend measures that keep it artificially inflated.

Comparisons with the general election is stupid; in a strike ballot you are given the choice between 2 options (strike or no strike); in a general election there could be up to 20 candidates.

I would argue in favour of a turnout threshold in a strike ballot, just as I would for runoff elections with only 2 candidates (e.g. French presidential election final round).

In general the proposed legislation is so minor compared to what it could be though. Cameron should be bolder.

So you people who don't think workers need strikes, do you feel the Dagenham machinists shouldn't have brought Ford production to a halt? You'd be perfectly happy getting paid less than male co-workers?

Garlick I support laws to have (anonymous) salary transparency in large companies and organisations; that information itself should be enough to reduce the gender gap.

A strike is a decision to change the status quo - if you applied a 50% mandate to parlimentary elections, and kept the status quo if less, the we would have had a conservative gvt since the 1930's.

those who believe an opt-in will reduce donations to the Labour party are basically saying stealing from unionised employees is the right thing to do

the unions were against the Dagenham machinists and did not initially support the strike as they were in favour of men being paid more.

Unionised labour actually reduces overall employment, because they protect current members, not future members or workers generally.

There is a BIG difference between a strike vote and a political election.

The strike vote is a two way vote.

The election could be anything from 2-20. but is likely to be AT LEAST 8 ways.

So the 40% can reasonably be applied to a strike vote, but not an election.

totallybewildered

"The strike vote is a two way vote.

The election could be anything from 2-20. but is likely to be AT LEAST 8 ways."

That would depend on where you live, here we have a three way vote.

Which would be the same as a strike vote,

all out strike.
no strike.
work to rule.

But this isn't about the number of policies that you are voting on, it is about the required number to get a legal mandate.

If the government requires less than 30% of the vote why should this be any different any other legal action?

The answer is for only direct individual members of political parties to be allowed to make donations for political funding and for those donations to be capped at, say, £100 a year.

But this will never happen because do you realise how few individual members the Conservative party actually has? I can't believe how many people are not disturbed by the idea that one side's finances are to be wrecked - a party whose funding structure is based on lots if tiny contributions from individuals who are free to opt out if they want to, while a party whose funding is from unregulated and huge donations from opaque hedge funds and the like, collected at private dinners where they eg auction off internships to their friends is able as go on as they please, and that's somehow ok. Just wow.

A vote for a strike is different to a vote at a general election. In a GE you choose between 2 or more candidates. For a strike you are asked if you support a strike. If you don't vote, you're apathetic. It's not unreasonable to assume apathy is not a positive vote in favour of a strike, and therefore does not mandate action.

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.*

Same goes for government really.

Not really gallicgirl. We have to have a government of some form. The same isn't true about a strike.

Given that people don't have to strike if their union calls for a strike, the new rules are clearly not desgned to protect workers from power hungry union bosses, but to weaken the power of unions. The decline in union power since the 70s has seen a vast movement of wealth away from most workers. Productivity has increased by about 80%, but the median real wage has only increased by about 20%. That's a lot of extra wealth that is created that is not going into the pockets of most workers.

Rules that tie unions' hands undermine their power to get workers deal that maintain their share of the value produced by their work. Employers are always organized. They don't have to meet government requirements on decision making in order to say no to a request for a pay rise. They can make their own rules.

I'm sure I heard (Radio 4) that the majority of union members are women-who are generally less powerful in the workforce as it is (more likely to be part-time/earn less/ further down career ladder). So now become less powerful.
I would agree with the changes if ...
same applied to elections
MPs stopped voting themselves much higher than inflation pay rises
I could trust employers to treat employees fairly.

It is also not comparable to a GE because in a GE all citizens of the country (assuming they are over 18 / not in prison etc) who are affected by the government have the right to vote for the government. In strike action there can be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in London, who are affected by the outcome but have no say, therefore the bar should be higher

I think that is an empty argument really...firstly in order to vote people have to register and secondly the poor treatment of NHS workers / teachers etc affects us all every day but is under the radar...EG poorly trained / bloody exhausted nurses may equal poorer treatment that is still just good enough. Trade unions could help prevent the situation becoming worse...so their positive input isn't noticed by the pooulace; just the inconvience when there are strikes.

Labour has had some very large personal donations - £11 million from David Sainsbury alone from 2002-2008

Largest individual donation I can find for the Conservatives was £5 million from Paul Getty in 2001.

All listed here

bakingdiva

So you are saying that a minority of people that have greater power over the overwhelming majority of people that didn't vote for them should be able to work on a mandate backed by a minority of people? Surely they should have a higher bar.

bakingdiva
"In strike action there can be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in London"

I hadn't realised that only London was affected by strikes.

If this is a reference to the tube strikes I suspect that the 40% won't make much of a difference as the underground workers are fairly militant.