RMT playing fair?

[Clip]

Now, this isnt about bashing the RMT or anything like that so please try and stick on topic and answer the question posed.

Now,I know of a group of contractors who went out on strike this evening - even though the madate to strike was very very low - 10 people out of 150 so they say but they still went out, well some did.

But, they also had an RMT rep cross the picket line and go into where the people who wanted to work were and started offering them money if they were to go out on strike and join them - presumably because of such a low vote and turnout.

Is this right both legally and morally? Its been a while since Ive had to read up on strike action as we havent had any for ages so though a few bods in here could help me along with it.

cheers

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Need more info really. Was it a valid strike from a recognised trade union, or a bunch of blokes deciding amongst themselves that they were going to down tools?

 

[Clip]

Was organised by the RMT themselves.

 

[Jock]

did the RMT executive sanction the strike....?

was the offer of payment sanctioned from the unions strike fund...?

you appear to know what its about given the line of your postings, can you enlighten us any further.

 

[Clip]

did the RMT executive sanction the strike....?

was the offer of payment sanctioned from the unions strike fund...?

you appear to know what its about given the line of your postings, can you enlighten us any further.

Yes they did.

thats just it on your second point - no one knows - they just ahd the rep going round telling people that they would get paid if they went out as they had such a poor turn out - possibly as its the last paypacket before christmas that would be affected.

The question is, are they playing fair by telling people they would pay them if they then went out after turning up actually wanting to work.

 

[Jock]

Yes they did.

thats just it on your second point - no one knows - they just ahd the rep going round telling people that they would get paid if they went out as they had such a poor turn out - possibly as its the last paypacket before christmas that would be affected.

The question is, are they playing fair by telling people they would pay them if they then went out after turning up actually wanting to work.

well, i would like to think that, going off my own past expierience the Lead Official for the company in question would have communicated the issue of the strike fund payment down to the Local Reps on site, who in turn wouldve (or shouldve) organised their members.

It appears, from what your saying, to be badly organised at a local level and not nationally. An issue that their local RMT branch should be able to resolve.

 

[Clip]

From what I have heard,locally the organisation is a shambles and tells the staffs incorrect information about what they will achieve and how best to do things.

But, yeah, I know it all comes from the Union funds, but these people had elected to work and not strike so are they right to then be going in and telling them they will get paid if they then come out of work?

 

[313103]

For a start only 10 people voting for strike as opposed 150 not voting for a strike would indeed not be a mandate for 'legalised' industrial action and if this is the case the union could find itself in hot water as well as being embarresed. I would be astounded if this is the case.

What area is this, as the union have about 15 different local disputes going on at the time and a couple are now suspended. I could then try to find out the what the ballot numbers were.

 

[Clip]

It didnt sound right to me either when he said it but he says he has a letter confirming that it was just 10 so ill take him on his word on that.

 

[The Ham]

It didnt sound right to me either when he said it but he says he has a letter confirming that it was just 10 so ill take him on his word on that.

If only 15 people vote; 10 to strike and 5 not to strike with 135 not voting, would this not count as a "mandate to strike"?

 

[michael769]

I think that the suggestion of poor organisation is the likely explanation. Certainly the issue of strike allowances should have been communicated well in advance of the strike.

With only 10 out of 150 members voting if favor of a strike the very low turnout (basically max turnout - excluding spoil papers - would be 19) would suggest a high degree of apathy or lack of awareness over the issue by most members. With such a level of apathy the RMT should not be surprised that compliance with the strike is low - these days folks are not willing to lose pay or mess their employers about over issues that they neither support nor have some sympathy with unless a majority of their colleagues do support it.

Personally I would argue that in such a circumstance the local RMT organizers would be better spending their time understanding how the level of apathy shown has arisen and what they could be doing to better represent their members interests in issues that said members actually care about.

 

[Oswyntail]

...With only 10 out of 150 members voting if favor of a strike the very low turnout (basically max turnout - excluding spoil papers - would be 19) would suggest a high degree of apathy or lack of awareness over the issue by most members. .....

There is, of course, another option, that the non-voting members had considered the issue in detail, thought strike action was not the way forward, but did not wish to embarrass the union by "defeating" its line, perhaps naively thinking that a low turn-out would suggest to union officials the whole thing was not worth getting het up over.
A related question: do such votes have a "quorum"? In most voting organisations (though not all) such a low turnout would invalidate the vote, potentially.

 

[HH]

This doesn't sound like the RMT of my experience. As anyone knows I'm not a huge fan of 'comrade' Crow, but generally he and RMT HQ know how to organise things. And these days they usually have a pretty good handle on local activity.

I don't want to call anyone a liar, but this seems highly unlikely. 10 votes out of 150 staff? You risk not only looking stupid, but also bad publicity and handing management a nice victory on a plate. I don't think Bob would be amused. We need to be told where this action is so someone can check the facts.

 

[michael769]

I don't want to call anyone a liar, but this seems highly unlikely. 10 votes out of 150 staff? You risk not only looking stupid, but also bad publicity and handing management a nice victory on a plate. I don't think Bob would be amused. We need to be told where this action is so someone can check the facts.

Assuming the 10 votes is correct the next question is does the 150 figure represent the number of people eligible to vote in the ballot or is that the entire workforce inluding non- rmt members and non-involved job functions?

 

[12CSVT]

If 10 people vote in favour of a strike, and 5 people vote against, then by my calculations that is two-thirds of those who bothered to vote being in favour.

Say as much as you like about the low turnout, but the turnout for the PCC elections wasn't much better.

 

[Jonny]

If 10 people vote in favour of a strike, and 5 people vote against, then by my calculations that is two-thirds of those who bothered to vote being in favour.

Say as much as you like about the low turnout, but the turnout for the PCC elections wasn't much better.

IMO a turnout threshold for strike votes to be valid is a good idea, as it makes sure that the membership as a whole supports the strike. It at least makes it harder for general secretaries to lead a strike, rather it means that if the threshold is met then a strength of feeling exists among the workforce for a strike.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

IMO a turnout threshold for strike votes to be valid is a good idea, as it makes sure that the membership as a whole supports the strike. It at least makes it harder for general secretaries to lead a strike, rather it means that if the threshold is met then a strength of feeling exists among the workforce for a strike.

surely the responsibility lies with the members getting off their collective backsides and vote, hate to see the continuous "I didn't want to strike". well did you vote? No I didn't but that's not the point bulls**t" people cannot complain if they cannot be arsed to vote.

 

[The Ham]

surely the responsibility lies with the members getting off their collective backsides and vote, hate to see the continuous "I didn't want to strike". well did you vote? No I didn't but that's not the point bulls**t" people cannot complain if they cannot be arsed to vote.

I have some sympathy for this view, however there maybe situations beyond members control which means that they are unable to vote or their vote doesn't count. A few which I can think of include postal delays and being on holiday.

I do however think that there should be some form of minimum percentage of those entitled to vote for a strike to be valid. As if 33% vote for strike 27% vote against and 40% don't vote how can that be a clear vote for a strike?

I do however think 50% (voting in favour) would be too high maybe somewhere around the 35% mark (assuming that was more than 50% of those that voted in favour) would be a good level and would enable unions to clam that they had a good level of support of their membership. This would also make it more likely to receive support from the public and would give the union a strong argument when presenting their case to the employer.