Union bashing
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 OldFella  London 15 May 15 8.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 6.49pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 6.43pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.10pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action. There's no inconsistency. We need somebody to run the country - what do you suggest we do if there's low turnout; have no government? Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above. EDIT: and just to be clear, I don't accept for a second that you truly believe that last sentence, which, in itself, is a neat little straw man (ironically). Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.59pm) No, what I'm saying is that you can contrast the situation. 35% of the Electorate didn't vote, and the Conservatives got 36% of the votes of those who did. The interest of the conservatives isn't in fairness, democracy in unions, its about reducing their capacity to act and most notably to take strike action. I don't doubt that the Conservatives want to quell the (admittedly diminishing) powers of unions - and I'm absolutely behind them on that one. However, there is simply no comparison between a general election and a yes/no strike vote.
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with as a question,that's simply silly,intentionally or otherwise. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.46pm) You should change your name to pompouseagle Seconded, thirded and fourthed !!
Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it.. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| TUX redhill 15 May 15 8.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.47pm
Quote TUX at 14 May 2015 8.51pm
Quote ChuFukka at 14 May 2015 7.22pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm
Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.
A lesson in contradicting yourself.
Elections are about choosing representatives; there is no simple way to interpret abstentions as it isn't a case of support/oppose. As we need a government, it makes sense that the one chosen should be that with the most votes (or seats, in FPTP), ignoring the people who choose not to vote. The difference is that motions to strike are about yes or no, and, because having a strike is not a matter of national importance, assuming an abstention is an indication of 'don't really care' is not only viable, but the most reasonable option. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.48pm) Why complicate an argument that ultimately is ''not particularly complex''?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 May 15 8.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote OldFella at 15 May 2015 8.29pm
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 6.49pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 6.43pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.10pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action. There's no inconsistency. We need somebody to run the country - what do you suggest we do if there's low turnout; have no government? Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above. EDIT: and just to be clear, I don't accept for a second that you truly believe that last sentence, which, in itself, is a neat little straw man (ironically). Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.59pm) No, what I'm saying is that you can contrast the situation. 35% of the Electorate didn't vote, and the Conservatives got 36% of the votes of those who did. The interest of the conservatives isn't in fairness, democracy in unions, its about reducing their capacity to act and most notably to take strike action. I don't doubt that the Conservatives want to quell the (admittedly diminishing) powers of unions - and I'm absolutely behind them on that one. However, there is simply no comparison between a general election and a yes/no strike vote.
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with as a question,that's simply silly,intentionally or otherwise. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.46pm) You should change your name to pompouseagle Seconded, thirded and fourthed !! ...................................................
Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 9.08pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 May 15 8.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 6.49pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 6.43pm
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with as a question,that's simply silly,intentionally or otherwise. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.46pm) You should change your name to pompouseagle Thank you sweetie pie.Coming from you that is a badge of honour Could change my name to "Up Himself 3" as a mark of homage to you and the original mark 1 version perhaps
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 May 15 9.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 6.55pm
I still think the comparison is appropriate to raise. When the government had the AV referendum,less than 40% of those entitled to vote did and the outcome was determined by a "No" vote of c.28% of those entitled to vote.I don't recall the government saying the "No" vote outcome had no legitimacy. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 9.06pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 May 15 9.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What about recent elections for Police commissioners? These were deemed legitimate by Dave despite the low turnout. With a turnout of just 10.3%, the West Midland’s police and crime commissioner (PCC) byelection represents another historic low for voter participation. Sadly, this follows from the original PCC election in November 2012, where the turnout averaged just 15.1%. We often talk of low turnouts and political disengagement but these figures exceed even the lowest peacetime turnouts. Far below such low turnout elections as the 2012 Manchester Central byelection (18.2%) or the 1999 European elections (24%). In a sense though, this latest result is still above what might have been expected given that the West Midlands PCC poll in 2012 saw a turnout of 12.3%.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 15 May 15 9.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Surely the unions will easily get 40% to vote for action when the toiling masses are being treated as slaves by the exploitative capitalist class and their so called 'democratically' elected puppet governments? After all, all they have to lose is their chains?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ambrose7 Croydon 15 May 15 9.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 9.08pm
What about recent elections for Police commissioners? These were deemed legitimate by Dave despite the low turnout. With a turnout of just 10.3%, the West Midland’s police and crime commissioner (PCC) byelection represents another historic low for voter participation. Sadly, this follows from the original PCC election in November 2012, where the turnout averaged just 15.1%. We often talk of low turnouts and political disengagement but these figures exceed even the lowest peacetime turnouts. Far below such low turnout elections as the 2012 Manchester Central byelection (18.2%) or the 1999 European elections (24%). In a sense though, this latest result is still above what might have been expected given that the West Midlands PCC poll in 2012 saw a turnout of 12.3%.
The reason those are so low is that very few people have an opinion on the matter. However, the goal of strike action is to change the employment terms of all employees. Surely if all employees could have their terms changed, at least 40% should believe in it? Anything less and your legitimacy argument goes the other way. How can less than 40% be a legitimate group to change the terms of the other 60%?
26th January 2010 - Enter Administration |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 May 15 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 9.04pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 6.55pm
I still think the comparison is appropriate to raise. When the government had the AV referendum,less than 40% of those entitled to vote did and the outcome was determined by a "No" vote of c.28% of those entitled to vote.I don't recall the government saying the "No" vote outcome had no legitimacy. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 9.06pm) A much better comparison, but you're wrong. The two sources I've just checked say turnout was 41%.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TUX redhill 15 May 15 9.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 9.16pm
Surely the unions will easily get 40% to vote for action when the toiling masses are being treated as slaves by the exploitative capitalist class and their so called 'democratically' elected puppet governments? After all, all they have to lose is their chains? Human nature (in the main) is to let somebody else do the work for them. This applies in every walk of life regardless of their political stance.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 May 15 9.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 9.37pm
A much better comparison, but you're wrong. The two sources I've just checked say turnout was 41%.
Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 9.47pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 May 15 10.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 9.43pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 9.37pm
A much better comparison, but you're wrong. The two sources I've just checked say turnout was 41%.
Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 9.47pm)
The turnout exceeded expectations. Would you have been happier that a 10% turnout voted the other way?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.