Strike

[Blue Punter]

Jonmc, any chance of a response to my question at the end of Page 24?

Hi Mate, not sure thats aimed at me - isnt it bluejon who is saying about the number of voters. I dont know about that.

My apologies mate, I've amended it.

 

[Jc3065]

A bit late I know but I was on strike. And will be again I have been a civil servant for most of my career starting in the RAF then in the DSA I accepted a wage lower than the private sector in agreement that I would have a half decent pension now that pension has been raided to the tune of £9000 plus a year and to get this lower payment I have to pay £65 peri nth extra AND work 7 years longer for it.

 

[KpxSte]

Why would you accept a lower wage during your working life when you have kids, mortgages etc to pay for, in favour of a better pension at the tail end of your life when you could drop dead at any moment? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Matty]

Your'e very quick to accuse him of lying, I'm not so sure that's fair. Anyway for what it's worth here's what he said about this in 2011 All very interesting, and all totally irrelevant.
He earns far more than the average civil servant, that's a fact.
He said he would earn the same as the average civil servant, that's a fact.
His excuses, the fact he's returned some of the money, the fact he doesn't NOW claim to earn the same as the average civil servant, are of no consequence. Is he doing what he said he'd do in his election promises? No. It really is that simple.

So breaking an election promise 10 years ago makes Serwotka completely untrustworthy and condemns everything he has said since as a possible lie? I'm not sure why you prefer the distinctly dodgy Taxpayers Alliance version of his election address rather than that of the man himself.
Notice he says he promised to take a salary "much closer to the average member" not "the same", but I agree it was clearly an unwise statement and one he probably deeply regrets. Not enough to use as a basis to junk everything he's done since though.

I had already been obliged to leave PCS for a different union in 2000 but I remember the bitterness of Serwotka's election. At the time he was portrayed as an evil Scargill throwback but he has turned out to be one the best PCS leaders. You mentioned your own union earlier in the thread. May I ask which one it is and whether you have supported any industrial action it has taken?
If you think it's relevant of course ;-)

My Union is Unite, we've never had to strike, although we did threaten to do so during more "boom" times when our employer tried to screw us with a 0% payrise (despite the economy doing fine and the company making sizeable profits). The company caved at the last minute and offered us a decent deal that we accepted.

 

[law74]

Over 50% of the Union membership (ie those eligible to vote), didnt vote in favour of the strike therefore the strike should be ignored.
Over 50% of the electorate didnt vote for a tory government, therefore no one should have to accept paying more for their wine, spirits, smokes, or having their salaries capped, or having to work longer and pay more to get less of a pension.

I think this argument has some merit.

 

[metalblue]

Over 50% of the Union membership (ie those eligible to vote), didnt vote in favour of the strike therefore the strike should be ignored.
Over 50% of the electorate didnt vote for a tory government, therefore no one should have to accept paying more for their wine, spirits, smokes, or having their salaries capped, or having to work longer and pay more to get less of a pension.

I think this argument has some merit.

When was the last time any government got over 50% of the turnout vote let alone the eligible vote?

 

[law74]

Over 50% of the Union membership (ie those eligible to vote), didnt vote in favour of the strike therefore the strike should be ignored.
Over 50% of the electorate didnt vote for a tory government, therefore no one should have to accept paying more for their wine, spirits, smokes, or having their salaries capped, or having to work longer and pay more to get less of a pension.

I think this argument has some merit.

When was the last time any government got over 50% of the turnout vote let alone the eligible vote?

I have not got a clue, but if we can only go by the votes cast and make decisions on those, then a vote on possible strike action has to be taken the same as a vote for a new government.

 

[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.

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?

alright lad. god knows if you'll even see this reply, didn't spot the question to be honest until I was having a look over the thread

first of all, where my wife works isn't a call centre, so yes, the turnout might have been very different. she's old school HMRC, goes out to businesses, makes sure procedures are in place etc (and for the record, no, she isn't management). different type of staff, but to be fair, her office is old school HMRC, with a previously very strong union backing

this is as far as i can gather, but most people there are up for industrial action, specifically working to rule, but the union isn't putting that to a vote. why, is anyone's guess, as it would probably be a lot more effective than these constant one day strikes, that cause no trouble to the govn at all. there seems to be a lot of disaffection with the union, that they are only in this to score political points, and not genuinely make a difference, and act to preserve the rights of the working people. in a nutshell, the same reason few people vote in the general election, complete disaffection with the whole set up

if i had to stand by one point I've made in everything I've said, it would be this. we are now living in a post industrial society. the days of mass industrial disruption are over, mainly because there is no industry to disrupt. the extremely important part that unions once had to play is now over, and we need to figure out what comes next. we absolutely do need some sort of collective voice, because a very small minority is completely bumming us at the minute, and its going on all over the world. and i do not believe we will get the change we want via some vote every five years for one of a small number of parties who do not give a shite about any of us

 

[Blue Punter]

Thanks for the reply.

In your response, you mention that a lot of people are disaffected with the union and their course of action. However it still doesn't change the fact that more members voted to strike than opposed the strike. As such union members should abide with the majority vote. If the vote was not to strike, I would have followed the result of the democratic decision made.

If people are so disaffected with the work of the union and not willing to follow the result of the ballot, then in my opinion they should withdraw their membership. It creates antagonism within the workplace, when some people are willing to make the sacrifice and others are not.

You allude to the changing landscape of industrial relations and this is true. You emphasise that we need a collective voice, yet justify your spouse crossing a picket line. Which in it's very essence weakens the position of the union and its members.

You highlight the reduced powers that unions hold. Legislation is a factor, however the biggest factor is the lack of collectivism. The fact that some people have no qualms about crossing a picket line whilst others endure the financial hardship of following the ballot vote. Our nearest neighbours France have shown that if people stick together, change can happen.

Despite their weakness in terms of membership, French trade unions have been able to mobilise their members for mass action, and, on occasion, change government policy. The government was forced to withdraw its plans for a new employment contract for young workers in 2006, while in 2010 there were massive demonstrations between September and October protesting at the government’s pension plans. The six demonstrations, which were organised jointly by six union confederations, brought large numbers onto the streets – up to 3.5 million people in the biggest day of protest, according to figures from the CFDT, and up to 1.3 million, according to the police.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Why would you accept a lower wage during your working life when you have kids, mortgages etc to pay for, in favour of a better pension at the tail end of your life when you could drop dead at any moment? It doesn't make any sense.

You could apply this logic to Nurses, Teachers, Carers

Have a read up on Maslows 'Hierarchy of needs' to understand what drives and motivates people