The election heats up: Unions threaten chaos if Tories win, Cheryl no longer voting Labour - Polidicks

[quote] [B]Unite prepared to carry out illegal strikes if Tories win election[/B] Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite union, says he will not 'respect' anti-strike laws brought in by a majority Tory government Unite, one of Britain's biggest unions, has said that it is prepared to carry out illegal strikes if the Conservatives win the General Election. Len McCluskey, the Unite General Secretary, said that he is so concerned that a majority Tory government will bring in anti-strike legislation that the union is prepared to remove the words "so far as may be lawful" from its rule book. The Conservatives provoked a major row with the trade unions over sweeping plans to ban them from taking strike action without the support of at least 40 per cent of their members. Mr McCluskey said: "This proposed change in the constitution of the biggest union on these isles marks the sorry place we have reached in our national democracy. [img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02971/strike-strike-stri_2971407c.jpg[/img] "These words will go not because we are anarchists, not because we are suddenly planning a bank robbery - but because we have to ask ourselves the question, can we any longer make that commitment to, under any and all circumstances, stick within the law as it stands? "Unite remains determined to operate ever more effectively within the law, even when that law is an ass and ill-serves our people. But restricting the right to strike, attacking the capacity for trade unions to organise and conduct our own business in line with our own rules, belong to last century's consensus. They fail working people today," he said. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11485156/Unite-prepared-to-carry-out-illegal-strikes-if-Tories-win-election.html]Source[/url][/quote] In related news: [QUOTE]Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, the pop star, has disclosed how she may avoid voting Labour for the first time in her life because the proposed mansion tax would “f--- her over”. Fernandez-Versini, the newlywed X Factor judge, has joined a host of celebrities protesting against the tax, which would affect people who own houses worth more than two million pounds. The singer, who grew up on a council estate in Newcastle, said she now feels a greater responsibility to understand politics because she pays a “f---ing lot of tax”. She is now considering turning away from Labour, to “listen” more carefully to what other parties have to say. In an interview with the Telegraph to be published in Stella magazine this Sunday, she said: “It’s hard for me, because all my friends and family vote Labour.” [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11485070/Lifelong-Labour-voter-Cheryl-Fernandez-Versini-Mansion-tax-would-f-me-over.html]Source[/url][/QUOTE]

What more evidence do we need that the Unions are nothing but self-interested? They don't care about the people or even the rule of law, infact they're planning to deliberately strike against the democratic choice made by millions and in the process disrupt the lives of many more, what a vile thing do to.

So that union is upset because the Conservatives plan to change the law so that strike action must be supported by at least 40% of the union's members. Really? Surely it couldn't be that hard to shore up the support for strike action if it's for a just cause? Every time we get a new enterprise agreement at our workplace it can only be approved if at least 80% of employees vote in favour of it. But they're complaining about 40%.

We have a party denying they're in the pockets of the unions and a party open about being in the palms of bankers. The Tories are at least honest I guess.

Illegal strikes would certainly be interesting, especially if it became a general one. When it happened in France in May 1968, it really mixed up the whole country, and the 80s riots in London certainly had an effect on us (and nowadays the Tory government hopefully wouldn't be able to spin it as much). But frankly, I'm expecting a coalition this year, and hopefully not one where the Tories play a big role.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47361255]So that union is upset because the Conservatives plan to change the law so that strike action must be supported by at least 40% of the union's members. Really? Surely it couldn't be that hard to shore up the support for strike action if it's for a just cause? Every time we get a new enterprise agreement at our workplace it can only be approved if at least 80% of employees vote in favour of it. But they're complaining about 40%.[/QUOTE] Bearing in mind the vast majority of MPs don't get 40% of the total electorate. In the apolitical age we live in (At least in the UK) our already crippled Trade Unions will pretty much lose any ability to strike even in very important cases unless the media seriously promotes the trade unions which if you look at how the British media butchered the reputation of the unions under Thatcher is highly unlikely.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47361255]So that union is upset because the Conservatives plan to change the law so that strike action must be supported by at least 40% of the union's members. Really? Surely it couldn't be that hard to shore up the support for strike action if it's for a just cause? Every time we get a new enterprise agreement at our workplace it can only be approved if at least 80% of employees vote in favour of it. But they're complaining about 40%.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, it means they need 40% of union member to turn up and vote yes (and have a majority), i.e. if they had 79% vote for strike but only a 50% turnout, they can't strike, which is ironic because only 5% of Tory MPs would have been elected if they used the same rules.

[QUOTE=The mouse;47361071]What more evidence do we need that the Unions are nothing but self-interested? They don't care about the people or even the rule of law, infact they're planning to deliberately strike against the democratic choice made by millions and in the process disrupt the lives of many more, what a vile thing do to.[/QUOTE] Isn't self interest the whole point of a trade union? To look out for it's members politically? That's their whole function. They don't care about the rule of law per se because part of what they do is attempt to change laws through strike action. At least they directly represent people which is miles better than the corporate lobbying which probably has a bigger sway in government. You have a problem with them disagreeing with a 'democratic choice of millions of people'? This is a tory policy, which was not written or voted for specifically by the public. The tories are a party with 46.5% of the seats in parliament, which they got with just 36% of the vote, a vote which had a turnout of 65% (and we can think of the extra 35% as being 'none of the above' - you may not agree with them or way they express their 'none of the above,' but apparently you're an advocate for democratically representing the people based on what they indicated in an election, so what they indicated should stand) The democratic mandate our government has is embarrassing. They basically don't have one. Even through our over-rewarding election system, they don't have enough seats for a proper majority. Compare 36% of 65% of the whole population voting for a massive manifesto that doesn't have every single policy on it being a mandate to represent that entire population, to 40% of an entire workforce voting on a single issue being a mandate to strike on that single issue on behalf of them. 40% of an entire workforce feeling strongly enough about something to strike about it is a huge amount of people, and certainly an amount of people who should be represented.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;47362138]Isn't self interest the whole point of a trade union? To look out for it's members politically? That's their whole function. They don't care about the rule of law per se because part of what they do is attempt to change laws through strike action. At least they directly represent people which is miles better than the corporate lobbying which probably has a bigger sway in government. [/QUOTE] But what right do they have to protest changes in the law when people voted for it, the whole point of a democracy is majority rule(based on turnout atleast) and the if they can't accept that then that's their problem. [QUOTE=CrumbleShake;47362138]You have a problem with them disagreeing with a 'democratic choice of millions of people'? This is a tory policy, which was not written or voted for specifically by the public. The tories are a party with 46.5% of the seats in parliament, which they got with just 36% of the vote, a vote which had a turnout of 65% (and we can think of the extra 35% as being 'none of the above' - you may not agree with them or way they express their 'none of the above,' but apparently you're an advocate for democratically representing the people based on what they indicated in an election, so what they indicated should stand) The democratic mandate our government has is embarrassing. They basically don't have one. Even through our over-rewarding election system, they don't have enough seats for a proper majority. Compare 36% of 65% of the whole population voting for a massive manifesto that doesn't have every single policy on it being a mandate to represent that entire population, to 40% of an entire workforce voting on a single issue being a mandate to strike on that single issue on behalf of them. 40% of an entire workforce feeling strongly enough about something to strike about it is a huge amount of people, and certainly an amount of people who should be represented. [/QUOTE] This argument is utterly fatuous, it doesn't matter how much of the total population voted for the government because out of all the parties which people voted for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats received the best mandate and therefore get to form the government, that's just how democracy works. People who either didn't vote for either of those 2 parties or didn't vote at all just have to accept the result. Whist in Strike Ballots, you have to assume that if someone doesn't vote to strike then they are tacitly voting not to strike and that if the need to strike is all that dire then they would have no problem getting their turnout up. This means that unless a strike ballot reaches 50% of turnout it is intrinsically both illegitimate and undemocratic.

[QUOTE=The mouse;47361071]What more evidence do we need that the Unions are nothing but self-interested? They don't care about the people or even the rule of law, infact they're planning to deliberately strike against the democratic choice made by millions and in the process disrupt the lives of many more, what a vile thing do to.[/QUOTE] Whenever you post your dumb anti-union tirades it just makes me think that you've never worked in an environment where a union is needed. Unions exist to protect the rights of the worker, they act as a form of representation and as a method of bargaining, helping workers keep livable wages and manageable hours. You can moan about disruption to schools, hospitals etc. but the reality is that if you were in the same situation you'd want to be a part of a union too. Especially nowadays where people are being squeezed harder and harder working in the public sector. But by your word I'm sure everybody would like to work in sweatshop conditions instead for jack shit pay, those vile unions giving those working class plebs a voice in their workplace.

[QUOTE=Streecer;47362403]Whenever you post your dumb anti-union tirades it just makes me think that you've never worked in an environment where a union is needed. Unions exist to protect the rights of the worker, they act as a form of representation and as a method of bargaining, helping workers keep livable wages and manageable hours. You can moan about disruption to schools, hospitals etc. but the reality is that if you were in the same situation you'd want to be a part of a union too. Especially nowadays where people are being squeezed harder and harder working in the public sector. But by your word I'm sure everybody would like to work in sweatshop conditions instead for jack shit pay, those vile unions giving those working class plebs a voice in their workplace.[/QUOTE] I'm not against Unions, just their leaders. Their leaders have nothing in common with their members, their paid huge amounts of money to complain and whinge whilst instead of helping their members they funnel millions of pounds into the Labour party. Their leaders are intransigent ideologues with a insatiable hatred for pretty much anyone who disagrees with them and then claim to do it in the name of the people.

[QUOTE=The mouse;47362428]I'm not against Unions, just their leaders. Their leaders have nothing in common with their members, their paid huge amounts of money to complain and whinge whilst instead of helping their members they funnel millions of pounds into the Labour party. Their leaders are intransigent ideologues with a insatiable hatred for pretty much anyone who disagrees with them and then claim to do it in the name of the people.[/QUOTE] No, you're against unions. You've made that much clear when you complained about them striking, you know, the things unions are started for? [QUOTE]Infact they're planning to deliberately strike against the democratic choice made by millions and in the process disrupt the lives of many more, what a vile thing do to.[/QUOTE] Right here. I don't see any complaints about the leadership or how much they get paid. [QUOTE]They funnel millions of pounds into the Labour party[/QUOTE] Because the Labour party is traditionally pro-union, and by extension, pro-worker. Why wouldn't they try to fund their campaign? Why is this so different to every other donation that the parties get given?

[QUOTE=Streecer;47362456]No, you're against unions. You've made that much clear when you complained about them striking, you know, the things unions are started for? [/QUOTE] I'm sorry I didn't realise you had a problem with seeking a clear democratic mandate before potentially disrupting the day for millions of people based off the whim of a Union boss. [QUOTE=Streecer;47362456]Right here. I don't see any complaints about the leadership or how much they get paid.[/QUOTE] The Union bosses are the ones who decide to strike. [QUOTE=Streecer;47362456]Because the Labour party is traditionally pro-union, and by extension, pro-worker. Why wouldn't they try to fund their campaign? Why is this so different to every other donation that the parties get given? [/QUOTE] Don't you think that money could be used to directly help their members rather than funding the Labour party?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47361255]So that union is upset because the Conservatives plan to change the law so that strike action must be supported by at least 40% of the union's members. Really? Surely it couldn't be that hard to shore up the support for strike action if it's for a just cause? Every time we get a new enterprise agreement at our workplace it can only be approved if at least 80% of employees vote in favour of it. But they're complaining about 40%.[/QUOTE] The problem is voter participation is extremely low across the board. Even getting half of a union to vote is extremely hard. Now try getting the vast majority of those who showed up to vote yes.

By funding the Labour party they are helping the members. Fptp means its generally Labour or Tories, svc there's no way having Tories in power is good for the members.

[QUOTE=The mouse;47362326]But what right do they have to protest changes in the law when people voted for it, the whole point of a democracy is majority rule(based on turnout atleast) and the if they can't accept that then that's their problem. This argument is utterly fatuous, it doesn't matter how much of the total population voted for the government because out of all the parties which people voted for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats received the best mandate and therefore get to form the government, that's just how democracy works. People who either didn't vote for either of those 2 parties or didn't vote at all just have to accept the result. Whist in Strike Ballots, you have to assume that if someone doesn't vote to strike then they are tacitly voting not to strike and that if the need to strike is all that dire then they would have no problem getting their turnout up. This means that unless a strike ballot reaches 50% of turnout it is intrinsically both illegitimate and undemocratic.[/QUOTE] Well, if they are able to lead with most of the country disliking them, that is not democracy. The problem is not with the tory party there but with FPTP, however.

[QUOTE=The mouse;47362326]This argument is utterly fatuous, it doesn't matter how much of the total population voted for the government because out of all the parties which people voted for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats received the best mandate and therefore get to form the government, that's just how democracy works. People who either didn't vote for either of those 2 parties or didn't vote at all just have to accept the result. [/quote] That's not 'just how democracy works.' Democracy at it's purest is about representing people as well as possible. A solid actual democracy would mean that the majority of people support every single policy. Every single policy would have to have 50%+ support. Democracy isn't about taking a blind leap of faith into supporting a party and then accepting every mistake they make because that's 'just how democracy works'. Maybe it's 'just how our particular form of democracy that's not really very democratic works.' That's a very different statement. What we have is a shitty version of representational democracy, since we have FPTP over-rewarding established parties with regional support, and under-rewarding parties without solid regional support, so it's next to impossible for small parties to take off, so everyone feels they have no choice but to vote for one of two main parties so as to not waste their vote even if they don't support their policies, we have an incredibly strong party whip system meaning votes almost always fall directly along government lines so a sitting government can get anything through even when, in a coalition situation, the smaller party in government is totally against the policy and the public is against that policy, and we have a statistically appallingly representative parliament. 62% are white men aged over 40. I don't understand why you think that a mandate from this system is so sacred. Is it because, in this case, the it has worked in your favour and forwarded your particular agenda? Or is it just naivety? [quote]Whist in Strike Ballots, you have to assume that if someone doesn't vote to strike then they are tacitly voting not to strike and that if the need to strike is all that dire then they would have no problem getting their turnout up. This means that unless a strike ballot reaches 50% of turnout it is intrinsically both illegitimate and undemocratic.[/QUOTE] No, what we can assume about the people who didn't turn out is that they don't feel strongly either way. Maybe the issue doesn't directly affect them enough for them to vote on it yet they don't oppose it, or maybe they feel that they know what the result will be so they don't feel the need to bother. When it's a case of a yes or no vote on something, if someone feels strongly either way about it, they'll turn out. Trade Union members know that not turning out means that their vote isn't counted in it, so if they don't support a strike, why would they still not be turning out? [editline]20th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;47362483]The Union bosses are the ones who decide to strike.[/quote] What? [quote=gov.uk]A trade union can only call for industrial action if a majority of its members involved support it in a properly organised postal vote - called a ‘ballot’[/quote]

[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;47362018]Bearing in mind the vast majority of MPs don't get 40% of the total electorate. In the apolitical age we live in (At least in the UK) our already crippled Trade Unions will pretty much lose any ability to strike even in very important cases unless the media seriously promotes the trade unions which if you look at how the British media butchered the reputation of the unions under Thatcher is highly unlikely.[/QUOTE] The MP vote isn't comparable because you have one vote for often more than two choices. You have the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and a range of smaller party and independent candidates. With the decision to strike it's a 'yes' or 'no'. [editline]21st March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;47362087]If I remember correctly, it means they need 40% of union member to turn up and vote yes (and have a majority), i.e. if they had 79% vote for strike but only a 50% turnout, they can't strike, which is ironic because only 5% of Tory MPs would have been elected if they used the same rules.[/QUOTE] Turn up for where? I thought this stuff was determined by postal ballot? At the least, a union rep could go around to every workplace and give every union member a ballot to take home and fill out, then bring it back the next day.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47363550]The MP vote isn't comparable because you have one vote for often more than two choices. With the decision to strike it's a 'yes' or 'no'.[/QUOTE] Yes. Exactly. So if you feel either way in a strike ballot, you can vote and your voice is heard easily. There's no way someone can want it neither way, and hate both striking and not striking. Yet with an election, it's very very possible to hate all the parties who have any chance of getting in, or to feel like the whole system is unrepresentative, or to dislike at least one thing on each party's policy program whilst feeling like voting for the party you dislike the least (yet still dislike) isn't a very smart or democratic approach to politics and isn't how things should be. A none of the above vote is a legitimate thing that makes sense in a general election, but makes no sense in the context of a simple, direct yes/no vote.