Strike on 30th June

[Blue Maverick]

But according to media of the ones that voted 92% voted in favour, maybe the next time the call for a vote the ones who didn't should then you will get a better picture, however if they vote no next time they might as well disband the union as it will serve no purpose to them whatsoever, the government can then erode workers rights and welcome to the dark ages.

 

[PragueBlue]

In my wife's school only 3 teachers voted yes to a strike. The rest either said no or didn't bother. Still, the 3 that will strike will be on the gates and the rest will be working as usual.

The parents have been told that it's 'Business as Usual'.

I guess that's the way it should be. Those that want to strike can do so, while those that don't want to strike aren't forced to.

Yep agree with this but then those that don't should be turfed out the union and any new agreement that is reached they should not be entitled to.

Assuming the union hadn't taken subs of those members for that very purpose then fair enough.

I have always found that individual negotiations are a fairer way to go anyway. Any improvement of conditions should be based on that individuals own performance.

 

[Anonymous]

It's their membership that does. The very people whose best interests they purport to hold true and dear.

sorry, i got you confused with law74.

He's my niece.

Transexual?

 

[cyberblue]

In my wife's school only 3 teachers voted yes to a strike. The rest either said no or didn't bother. Still, the 3 that will strike will be on the gates and the rest will be working as usual.

The parents have been told that it's 'Business as Usual'.

so are the rest of the teachers going to forgo the rights the union have won for them

 

[BimboBob]

In my wife's school only 3 teachers voted yes to a strike. The rest either said no or didn't bother. Still, the 3 that will strike will be on the gates and the rest will be working as usual.

The parents have been told that it's 'Business as Usual'.

so are the rest of the teachers going to forgo the rights the union have won for them

Forgo what rights? This will prove and do nothing. A pointless strike. It's going to happen anyway.

 

[BTH]

I guess that's the way it should be. Those that want to strike can do so, while those that don't want to strike aren't forced to.

Yep agree with this but then those that don't should be turfed out the union and any new agreement that is reached they should not be entitled to.

Erm...what? A new agreement set by 30% of the workforce aimed at 100% of them?

Look at us, we are in a small group but we can negociate pay rises and you can't...ner ner ne ner neeer.

How about scrapping the Teachers Unions seeing the majority can't be arsed with them?

These threads raise a whole host of issues. Will the teachers who said no to a strike also say no to any improved terms and conditions, any improved pay deal that may come along, increased job protection, improvements to pensions etc. etc? No, and do you know why? Because, in my experience these kind of people are happy to let others make sacrifices in terms of time and money, but very, very quietly reap any benefits borne from collective bargaining. The last time I was on a picket line a constant jibe thrown at the er... strike-breakers as they ghosted in, hiding in their hats and crash helmets, listening to their iPods and making imaginary phone calls from 7am was that they were riding on the backs of their colleagues' sacrifices. I'd be interested to hear anyone argue that one.

By the way, the idea of individuals negotiating their own deals might work in your local carpet shop or sunbed emporium where only a handful of staff work, but can you imagine employing this policy across the civil service or local government? No, of course you can't, and to exclude non-union members from any deals brokered by collective bargaining would be illegal.

And yes, I know there are any number of people on here who really don't understand any of this and shoot from the hip from some 1970s' timewarp that they seem to have become stuck in or have heard/read about. Of course, times have changed, in some respects at least, but do people genuinely believe that public sector workers should work longer, pay more, and receive less as the dreadful Danny Alexander seems to think? This is as ludicrous as the widely held idea that all public servants will receive so-called "gold-plated" pensions when anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that this only applies to top bosses.

Moreover, if people cannot see that Cameron - together with his hapless stooge, Clegg - is merely finishing the job that Thatcher began (e.g. dismantling the state, scorched earth policies, hiving off the NHS to their rich friends and usual suspects because Labour founded it in more austere times and they hate it/don't use it etc.) then they need their heads examining - assuming there'll be a publicly funded and run clinic/hospital left in which to do so, of course.

Moreover, forget the Daily Mail's view: this isn't just about the public sector. This is about everybody, because everybody will suffer one way or another before long. Mark my words on this.

But back to the unions. Anyone who signs up to join a union knows that - before long - they might just have to strike. If they're not prepared to do so after an official ballot then maybe they shouldn't be in a union? These people are similar to soldiers who are happy to be trained in a trade and travel the world, but as soon as they're sent to the battlefield they desert and then claim they didn't sign up to fight in a war!

Although a strike or even the threat of one generally puts numbers on memberships, a few people desert unions on the eve of strikes (i.e. by resigning) in order to cross a picket line with impunity, as if it's suddenly nothing to do with them, only to rejoin once the dust has settled! While it would be illegal to stop them from doing so, do our resident Tories/micro-capitalists - despite their apparent lack of any kind of moral compass - think this is right?

Ballots cost unions a lot of money to organise and are subject to stringent laws. Often the turnout is poor, unfortunately, but there seems to be this idea that a majority on a low turnout is somehow unethical and not a valid mandate. Most governments in this country have been elected along similar lines while the current coalition government has no mandate to govern at all and doesn't have any ethics - not that these points appear to deter the wannabe strike-busters...

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Yep agree with this but then those that don't should be turfed out the union and any new agreement that is reached they should not be entitled to.

Erm...what? A new agreement set by 30% of the workforce aimed at 100% of them?

Look at us, we are in a small group but we can negociate pay rises and you can't...ner ner ne ner neeer.

How about scrapping the Teachers Unions seeing the majority can't be arsed with them?

These threads raise a whole host of issues. Will the teachers who said no to a strike also say no to any improved terms and conditions, any improved pay deal that may come along, increased job protection, improvements to pensions etc. etc? No, and do you know why? Because, in my experience these kind of people are happy to let others make sacrifices in terms of time and money, but very, very quietly reap any benefits borne from collective bargaining. The last time I was on a picket line a constant jibe thrown at the er... strike-breakers as they ghosted in, hiding in their hats and crash helmets, listening to their iPods and making imaginary phone calls from 7am was that they were riding on the backs of their colleagues' sacrifices. I'd be interested to hear anyone argue that one.

By the way, the idea of individuals negotiating their own deals might work in your local carpet shop or sunbed emporium where only a handful of staff work, but can you imagine employing this policy across the civil service or local government? No, of course you can't, and to exclude non-union members from any deals brokered by collective bargaining would be illegal.

And yes, I know there are any number of people on here who really don't understand any of this and shoot from the hip from some 1970s' timewarp that they seem to have become stuck in or have heard/read about. Of course, times have changed, in some respects at least, but do people genuinely believe that public sector workers should work longer, pay more, and receive less as the dreadful Danny Alexander seems to think? This is as ludicrous as the widely held idea that all public servants will receive so-called "gold-plated" pensions when anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that this only applies to top bosses.

Moreover, if people cannot see that Cameron - together with his hapless stooge, Clegg - is merely finishing the job that Thatcher began (e.g. dismantling the state, scorched earth policies, hiving off the NHS to their rich friends and usual suspects because Labour founded it in more austere times and they hate it/don't use it etc.) then they need their heads examining - assuming there'll be a publicly funded and run clinic/hospital left in which to do so, of course.

Moreover, forget the Daily Mail's view: this isn't just about the public sector. This is about everybody, because everybody will suffer one way or another before long. Mark my words on this.

But back to the unions. Anyone who signs up to join a union knows that - before long - they might just have to strike. If they're not prepared to do so after an official ballot then maybe they shouldn't be in a union? These people are similar to soldiers who are happy to be trained in a trade and travel the world, but as soon as they're sent to the battlefield they desert and then claim they didn't sign up to fight in a war!

Although a srike or even the threat of one generally puts numbers on memberships, a few people desert unions on the eve of strikes (i.e. by resigning) in order to cross a picket line with impunity, as if it's suddenly nothing to do with them, only to rejoin once the dust has settled! While it would be illegal to stop them from doing so, do our resident Tories/micro-capitalists - despite their apparent lack of any kind of moral compass - think this is right?

Ballots cost unions a lot of money to organise and are subject to stringent laws. Often the turnout is poor, unfortunately, but there seems to be this idea that a majority on a low turnout is somehow unethical and not a valid mandate. Most governments in this country have been elected along similar lines while the current coalition government has no mandate to govern at all and doesn't have any ethics - not that these points appear to deter the wannabe strike-busters...

What a load of clutching at straws bollocks. If all else fails hit the guilt trip button. Get a fuckin grip.

 

[BTH]

Erm...what? A new agreement set by 30% of the workforce aimed at 100% of them?

Look at us, we are in a small group but we can negociate pay rises and you can't...ner ner ne ner neeer.

How about scrapping the Teachers Unions seeing the majority can't be arsed with them?

These threads raise a whole host of issues. Will the teachers who said no to a strike also say no to any improved terms and conditions, any improved pay deal that may come along, increased job protection, improvements to pensions etc. etc? No, and do you know why? Because, in my experience these kind of people are happy to let others make sacrifices in terms of time and money, but very, very quietly reap any benefits borne from collective bargaining. The last time I was on a picket line a constant jibe thrown at the er... strike-breakers as they ghosted in, hiding in their hats and crash helmets, listening to their iPods and making imaginary phone calls from 7am was that they were riding on the backs of their colleagues' sacrifices. I'd be interested to hear anyone argue that one.

By the way, the idea of individuals negotiating their own deals might work in your local carpet shop or sunbed emporium where only a handful of staff work, but can you imagine employing this policy across the civil service or local government? No, of course you can't, and to exclude non-union members from any deals brokered by collective bargaining would be illegal.

And yes, I know there are any number of people on here who really don't understand any of this and shoot from the hip from some 1970s' timewarp that they seem to have become stuck in or have heard/read about. Of course, times have changed, in some respects at least, but do people genuinely believe that public sector workers should work longer, pay more, and receive less as the dreadful Danny Alexander seems to think? This is as ludicrous as the widely held idea that all public servants will receive so-called "gold-plated" pensions when anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that this only applies to top bosses.

Moreover, if people cannot see that Cameron - together with his hapless stooge, Clegg - is merely finishing the job that Thatcher began (e.g. dismantling the state, scorched earth policies, hiving off the NHS to their rich friends and usual suspects because Labour founded it in more austere times and they hate it/don't use it etc.) then they need their heads examining - assuming there'll be a publicly funded and run clinic/hospital left in which to do so, of course.

Moreover, forget the Daily Mail's view: this isn't just about the public sector. This is about everybody, because everybody will suffer one way or another before long. Mark my words on this.

But back to the unions. Anyone who signs up to join a union knows that - before long - they might just have to strike. If they're not prepared to do so after an official ballot then maybe they shouldn't be in a union? These people are similar to soldiers who are happy to be trained in a trade and travel the world, but as soon as they're sent to the battlefield they desert and then claim they didn't sign up to fight in a war!

Although a srike or even the threat of one generally puts numbers on memberships, a few people desert unions on the eve of strikes (i.e. by resigning) in order to cross a picket line with impunity, as if it's suddenly nothing to do with them, only to rejoin once the dust has settled! While it would be illegal to stop them from doing so, do our resident Tories/micro-capitalists - despite their apparent lack of any kind of moral compass - think this is right?

Ballots cost unions a lot of money to organise and are subject to stringent laws. Often the turnout is poor, unfortunately, but there seems to be this idea that a majority on a low turnout is somehow unethical and not a valid mandate. Most governments in this country have been elected along similar lines while the current coalition government has no mandate to govern at all and doesn't have any ethics - not that these points appear to deter the wannabe strike-busters...

What a load of clutching at straws bollocks. If all else fails hit the guilt trip button. Get a fuckin grip.

One line, eh? Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

 

[ernesto]

Erm...what? A new agreement set by 30% of the workforce aimed at 100% of them?

Look at us, we are in a small group but we can negociate pay rises and you can't...ner ner ne ner neeer.

How about scrapping the Teachers Unions seeing the majority can't be arsed with them?

These threads raise a whole host of issues. Will the teachers who said no to a strike also say no to any improved terms and conditions, any improved pay deal that may come along, increased job protection, improvements to pensions etc. etc? No, and do you know why? Because, in my experience these kind of people are happy to let others make sacrifices in terms of time and money, but very, very quietly reap any benefits borne from collective bargaining. The last time I was on a picket line a constant jibe thrown at the er... strike-breakers as they ghosted in, hiding in their hats and crash helmets, listening to their iPods and making imaginary phone calls from 7am was that they were riding on the backs of their colleagues' sacrifices. I'd be interested to hear anyone argue that one.

By the way, the idea of individuals negotiating their own deals might work in your local carpet shop or sunbed emporium where only a handful of staff work, but can you imagine employing this policy across the civil service or local government? No, of course you can't, and to exclude non-union members from any deals brokered by collective bargaining would be illegal.

And yes, I know there are any number of people on here who really don't understand any of this and shoot from the hip from some 1970s' timewarp that they seem to have become stuck in or have heard/read about. Of course, times have changed, in some respects at least, but do people genuinely believe that public sector workers should work longer, pay more, and receive less as the dreadful Danny Alexander seems to think? This is as ludicrous as the widely held idea that all public servants will receive so-called "gold-plated" pensions when anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that this only applies to top bosses.

Moreover, if people cannot see that Cameron - together with his hapless stooge, Clegg - is merely finishing the job that Thatcher began (e.g. dismantling the state, scorched earth policies, hiving off the NHS to their rich friends and usual suspects because Labour founded it in more austere times and they hate it/don't use it etc.) then they need their heads examining - assuming there'll be a publicly funded and run clinic/hospital left in which to do so, of course.

Moreover, forget the Daily Mail's view: this isn't just about the public sector. This is about everybody, because everybody will suffer one way or another before long. Mark my words on this.

But back to the unions. Anyone who signs up to join a union knows that - before long - they might just have to strike. If they're not prepared to do so after an official ballot then maybe they shouldn't be in a union? These people are similar to soldiers who are happy to be trained in a trade and travel the world, but as soon as they're sent to the battlefield they desert and then claim they didn't sign up to fight in a war!

Although a srike or even the threat of one generally puts numbers on memberships, a few people desert unions on the eve of strikes (i.e. by resigning) in order to cross a picket line with impunity, as if it's suddenly nothing to do with them, only to rejoin once the dust has settled! While it would be illegal to stop them from doing so, do our resident Tories/micro-capitalists - despite their apparent lack of any kind of moral compass - think this is right?

Ballots cost unions a lot of money to organise and are subject to stringent laws. Often the turnout is poor, unfortunately, but there seems to be this idea that a majority on a low turnout is somehow unethical and not a valid mandate. Most governments in this country have been elected along similar lines while the current coalition government has no mandate to govern at all and doesn't have any ethics - not that these points appear to deter the wannabe strike-busters...

What a load of clutching at straws bollocks. If all else fails hit the guilt trip button. Get a fuckin grip.

not so funny now are we, i think its you who needs to get a grip you tory apologist

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

These threads raise a whole host of issues. Will the teachers who said no to a strike also say no to any improved terms and conditions, any improved pay deal that may come along, increased job protection, improvements to pensions etc. etc? No, and do you know why? Because, in my experience these kind of people are happy to let others make sacrifices in terms of time and money, but very, very quietly reap any benefits borne from collective bargaining. The last time I was on a picket line a constant jibe thrown at the er... strike-breakers as they ghosted in, hiding in their hats and crash helmets, listening to their iPods and making imaginary phone calls from 7am was that they were riding on the backs of their colleagues' sacrifices. I'd be interested to hear anyone argue that one.

By the way, the idea of individuals negotiating their own deals might work in your local carpet shop or sunbed emporium where only a handful of staff work, but can you imagine employing this policy across the civil service or local government? No, of course you can't, and to exclude non-union members from any deals brokered by collective bargaining would be illegal.

And yes, I know there are any number of people on here who really don't understand any of this and shoot from the hip from some 1970s' timewarp that they seem to have become stuck in or have heard/read about. Of course, times have changed, in some respects at least, but do people genuinely believe that public sector workers should work longer, pay more, and receive less as the dreadful Danny Alexander seems to think? This is as ludicrous as the widely held idea that all public servants will receive so-called "gold-plated" pensions when anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that this only applies to top bosses.

Moreover, if people cannot see that Cameron - together with his hapless stooge, Clegg - is merely finishing the job that Thatcher began (e.g. dismantling the state, scorched earth policies, hiving off the NHS to their rich friends and usual suspects because Labour founded it in more austere times and they hate it/don't use it etc.) then they need their heads examining - assuming there'll be a publicly funded and run clinic/hospital left in which to do so, of course.

Moreover, forget the Daily Mail's view: this isn't just about the public sector. This is about everybody, because everybody will suffer one way or another before long. Mark my words on this.

But back to the unions. Anyone who signs up to join a union knows that - before long - they might just have to strike. If they're not prepared to do so after an official ballot then maybe they shouldn't be in a union? These people are similar to soldiers who are happy to be trained in a trade and travel the world, but as soon as they're sent to the battlefield they desert and then claim they didn't sign up to fight in a war!

Although a srike or even the threat of one generally puts numbers on memberships, a few people desert unions on the eve of strikes (i.e. by resigning) in order to cross a picket line with impunity, as if it's suddenly nothing to do with them, only to rejoin once the dust has settled! While it would be illegal to stop them from doing so, do our resident Tories/micro-capitalists - despite their apparent lack of any kind of moral compass - think this is right?

Ballots cost unions a lot of money to organise and are subject to stringent laws. Often the turnout is poor, unfortunately, but there seems to be this idea that a majority on a low turnout is somehow unethical and not a valid mandate. Most governments in this country have been elected along similar lines while the current coalition government has no mandate to govern at all and doesn't have any ethics - not that these points appear to deter the wannabe strike-busters...

What a load of clutching at straws bollocks. If all else fails hit the guilt trip button. Get a fuckin grip.

One line, eh? Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

This response falls well short of the best that you can do as well.

And it's only one line too.