Strike

[bluejon]

It probably gives more of an indication of the changes to the laws surrounding striking. Gone are the days when, like the miners in the 1980's, you had hundreds of people picketing their employers place of work, that's not legally allowable these days. There is a limit on the number of people who can picket outside a place of employment, I don't know what that limit is currently set to, but 6 seems about right.

I've just made a pretty rudimentary check, but as far as I can tell, there is no limit to a picketline in the UK. an employer can apply for an injunction in certain cases, but this did not happen yesterday. 6 people was a good indicator of the support the workers had for the strike. the fact the office was full tells the other side of the story

and for reference (yes, I know its Wikipedia, so if its wrong, so be it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_and_Labour_Relations_(Consolidation)_Act_1992

Check ou this link, the section headed "Mass Picketing"

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing

Not officially an enforceable law, but a "code of practice" that most unions will follow.

fair enough, but according to what I have been told, this simply wasn't the case yesterday. the picketline was only there for an hour and all. must have wanted their self righteous post strike starbucks

 

[tidyman]

There's some right old stuff and nonsense on here now. I'm not going to start quoting multiple posts but a few points.

Nobody wants to strike. Everybody would prefer issues to be resolved by arbitration. But if that isn't possible then the ultimate threat must exist to withdraw labour or nothing would ever be solved by arbitration.

Whether a non union strike breaker should be classed as a scab is a matter of opinion but I wouldn't waste any time arguing over it. There is no difference. If you break a strike, you are a certain type of person and the technicalities of whether you are an official scab or not is neither here nor there.

This idea that a union wanting staff of the same grades to be on different rates of pay is also hyperthetical nonsense. The union negotiates for all staff. Members and non members. Anyone who's lack of principles enables them to work during a strike, isn't going to worry about reaping benefits for something they haven't contributed towards achieving. And the company wouldn't allow it in any case. This is why I believe a closed shop should still be in operation. Not that that is ever going to happen again though.

The argument over the percentage of people who voted for action is another damp squid. It's also something certain members of the government are taking advice on whether they can get away with enforcing on union ballots. As someone has pointed out, they wouldn't even be in a postion to be making decisions on anything if the same rules applied to them. I'm not aware of any democratic election, anywhere where a majority of those eligible to vote is needed as opposed to a majority who actually do vote. It's laughable that people are justifying their strike breaking on this. If enough of them had bothered their arses voting against something they disagree with in the first place then there would have been no strike. Although I suppose they think, why bother, when they just ignore the result of the ballot if they don't like it anyway.

If people want to break strikes, they will. No amount of words will convince them they are in the wrong. I suspect most of them know they are really. I just wish they would at least have the decency to not insult the people who are fighting on their behalf by keeping quiet by not trying to justify their actions.

why is it laughable to justify breaking a strike when it is such a small majority of the union membership that has voted for it? especially when some of the underhand tactics of the unions have caused a situation when a significant number of strikes have been called without large numbers of union members being aware there was even a vote (which has happened a few times with the PCS)? there is an assumption on here that the unions are beyond reproach, and it is entirely incorrect, they are as bad as the bastards in power in some respects. the "picketline" yesterday was made up of 6 people out of a building that has 100's of workers in it, that gives an even better indication as to where the majority's affiliations lie.
me and my wife discussed her actions in depth before she did what she did yesterday as she has never broken a strike before, no matter how much it cost the family. whilst I accept there are some on here who will not see the sense in what she did, I respect her hugely for not bowing down to a ridiculously small number of people who are doing this for their own agenda, and are only causing even more harm to the people they are meant to be there to represent
and as it turns out, the vast majority of her fellow workers followed suit....

I don't particularly want to get personal with anyone on here. It isn't my style. But anyone who feels ok about breaking strikes is so far apart from everything I believe in that any debate is futile. As I've said, I think anyone who feels the need to defend why they would break a strike probably knows deep down they are wrong.

I'll answer your first question though as it's a general point that could apply to many things.

"Why is it laughable to justify breaking a strike when it is such a small majority of the union membership that has voted for it?"

It is called democracy. If you're a a member of an organisation then by joining you agree to their rules. They include adbiding by decisions made by members of that organisation via referendums. The turn out is irrelevant. If people can't be bothered voting and then wish to use the low turn out to justify ignoring the result, then that in my mind is laughable.

I can't remember if you're the one who justifies breaking a strike because you are not in the union or the one who is in it but has found other reasons to convince yourself working during a strike is acceptable. I don't really care either way.

Maybe other people are interested in the various sob stories and excuses strike breakers come up with to justify their actions. I'm not one of them so I will bid this thread farewell.

 

[Blue Punter]

Some good posts Poninoz & Tidyman.

All this bullshit about the turnout. It doesn't matter what the % of vote was. It the majority vote was to strike, then that's the course of action to be taken. The analogy has already been made about politicians and local councilors elected with a very small % of the eligible electorate.

The notion that this strike was not important because there wasn't coppers cracking skulls on the picket line is absurd. Mass picketing is a thing of the past anyway.

Then there's the lies about the office being full. The offices weren't full. People with a bit of moral fibre and sense of collectivism stayed away yesterday.

 

[mackenzie]

It certainly wasn't full at our place by all accounts.

 

[cyberblue]

Okay, looks like i can officially call myself a scab then.

Now you surely know the answer to your question, if a pay rise was gained then of course i wouldn't turn it down - my priority is providing for myself and my family so i'll take whatever i can get no matter how it is won. That won't happen though, why would the government give us a pay rise just because 25% of the workforce stay home for a day?

My wife also works at the same office so a strike would be 2 days pay lost from the family budget over something we're not overly concerned about.

Well i hope you & your wife can hold your head up high as thousands of union members are fighting ,& losing money on your behalf (they are in the same boat as you)but you will & have done ,gladly take all pay rises & benifits such as holliday ,pay sickness benifits maternaty leave ,.reduction in the working week .personaly i think you should both be embarrased & ashamed of yourself have you no respect ?

As I said before, but seemed to be missed/ignored, if Fuzzy Logic isn't actually a member of the union, as he has stated, then he isn't allowed to strike alongside the union members. He could, potentially, chose to honour the strike and refuse to work on that day, but he wouldn't be protected by the same legal rights a striking union member would be. He would be open to disciplinary action from the company which could result in many different forms of action up to and including dismisal.

If he had any balls he would join the Union as he admits he wouldnt refuse any benifits won .plus i doubt very much he would be disciplend for not crossing the picket line .how would management no if he was not is the union anyway .you my friend are trying to defend the indifensable

 

[bluejon]

Some good posts Poninoz & Tidyman.

All this bullshit about the turnout. It doesn't matter what the % of vote was. It the majority vote was to strike, then that's the course of action to be taken. The analogy has already been made about politicians and local councilors elected with a very small % of the eligible electorate.

The notion that this strike was not important because there wasn't coppers cracking skulls on the picket line is absurd. Mass picketing is a thing of the past anyway.

Then there's the lies about the office being full. The offices weren't full. People with a bit of moral fibre and sense of collectivism stayed away yesterday.

sorry fella, but it isn't a lie, its the truth. hmrc office off deansgate, was business as usual by all accounts. the reason? only a very small minority agrees with the aims of these strikes. they are being done to keep the pcs in the headlines, whilst changing exactly nothing.
as for the notion that a strike isn't important if coppers aren't cracking skulls, that is not what I said. but it is an indicator that the government does not give two shits about what the unions are doing
the general feeling is that work to rule strikes should be called, as this could potentially make a difference, but the union is refusing to do this
and as for moral fibre, you don't know me from adam. I have taken an (admittedly not huge) international company to court for treating their staff like shit, and I won. I did not do it for money (I just about broke even), I did it because it was the right thing to do and the company in question now have to treat their staff with a bit more respect. I am surprised that I now have the views I have, as a few years ago I would have been arguing with all of you, but the game has changed. we need to change. the unions are not working for us anymore (as labour's backing of the law to change the ruling in the poundland dwp case clearly shows)

 

[BlueRob01]

It isn't about whether or not the unions are working for us anymore - there are obviously good and bad unions/reps etc.
But let's not forget, any employer will pay staff as little as they can get away with and sack any of us as soon as look at us if it suits. There is no fairness or sense of right and wrong. It is naivety in the extreme to think any different.
What it is about is democracy, a vote is a vote and that's that no matter how small the margins. It is also about morality.
I agree with the previous point. Anybody who a) can remotely try and justify crossing a picket line and diluting what colleagues and often friends are trying to achieve is beyond any reasonable understanding to me so I guess we will always be poles apart no matter what and b) trying to justify doing so indicates an inherent knowledge, however buried, those actions are indefensible.

 

[bluejon]

It isn't about whether or not the unions are working for us anymore - there are obviously good and bad unions/reps etc.
But let's not forget, any employer will pay staff as little as they can get away with and sack any of us as soon as look at us if it suits. There is no fairness or sense of right and wrong. It is naivety in the extreme to think any different.
What it is about is democracy, a vote is a vote and that's that no matter how small the margins. It is also about morality.
I agree with the previous point. Anybody who a) can remotely try and justify crossing a picket line and diluting what colleagues and often friends are trying to achieve is beyond any reasonable understanding to me so I guess we will always be poles apart no matter what and b) trying to justify doing so indicates an inherent knowledge, however buried, those actions are indefensible.

agreed 100% on employers paying the minimum they can, and they will. I also am aware that it is collectivised union action that has got us a lot of the workers rights and benefits we now enjoy. however, this current round is a load of horse shit. we live in a post industrial society, where the stopping of an office for a day here or there has nothing like the effect that stopping the assembly line, or the pit for a day made
I am not justifying, I am debating, there is a huge difference. I stand by my position, and strangely feel very comfortable with it, but I understand that many people on here will disagree with me. this is fine

 

[Blue Punter]

Some good posts Poninoz & Tidyman.

All this bullshit about the turnout. It doesn't matter what the % of vote was. It the majority vote was to strike, then that's the course of action to be taken. The analogy has already been made about politicians and local councilors elected with a very small % of the eligible electorate.

The notion that this strike was not important because there wasn't coppers cracking skulls on the picket line is absurd. Mass picketing is a thing of the past anyway.

Then there's the lies about the office being full. The offices weren't full. People with a bit of moral fibre and sense of collectivism stayed away yesterday.

sorry fella, but it isn't a lie, its the truth. hmrc office off deansgate, was business as usual by all accounts. the reason? only a very small minority agrees with the aims of these strikes.

I personally know lots of people in both ABH & TBH who were striking yesterday, so you're talking a load of Eartha Kitt when you say it was business as usual. I'd be amazed if people were not drafted in from other floors to work in the Enquiry Centre in ABH or the call centre in TBH.

As for your assertion that only a small % agree with the aims of these strikes, I'll put it in bold for you in the hope that the penny might drop.

There was more people who voted to strike than people who voted not to strike.

As you seen very keen to labour this point, can you answer me a very simple question:

If so few members agreed with the aims of the strike, why didn't the overwhelming majority vote AGAINST the strike, thus averting it?

 

[BlueRob01]

It isn't about whether or not the unions are working for us anymore - there are obviously good and bad unions/reps etc.
But let's not forget, any employer will pay staff as little as they can get away with and sack any of us as soon as look at us if it suits. There is no fairness or sense of right and wrong. It is naivety in the extreme to think any different.
What it is about is democracy, a vote is a vote and that's that no matter how small the margins. It is also about morality.
I agree with the previous point. Anybody who a) can remotely try and justify crossing a picket line and diluting what colleagues and often friends are trying to achieve is beyond any reasonable understanding to me so I guess we will always be poles apart no matter what and b) trying to justify doing so indicates an inherent knowledge, however buried, those actions are indefensible.

agreed 100% on employers paying the minimum they can, and they will. I also am aware that it is collectivised union action that has got us a lot of the workers rights and benefits we now enjoy. however, this current round is a load of horse shit. we live in a post industrial society, where the stopping of an office for a day here or there has nothing like the effect that stopping the assembly line, or the pit for a day made
I am not justifying, I am debating, there is a huge difference. I stand by my position, and strangely feel very comfortable with it, but I understand that many people on here will disagree with me. this is fine

Fair point about the debating and I for one respect your right to your own actions of course. Personally I would always suggest you are still justifying those actions to yourself perhaps, but given my points and thoughts above I am always going to think that. I used to work in the Civil Service and was on strike in the 90's. As a manager of staff it was difficult to seperate the need to be professional and fair to those that chose to cross the picket line, the vast majority of whom I liked and got on with, and my personal thoughts of them doing so.