Proposed Conservative Trade Union Legislation

[DarloRich]

I realise this will be the same as standing on the third rail but here goes:

The Conservatives are set to introduce the widest ranging changes to Trade Union Legislation in 30 years.

Trade Union Bill: Ministers deny 'attack on workers' rights'.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33529248

Whilst i am sure this will be welcomed by their supporters, whose views of Trades Union are coloured by at least 30 year old stereotypes, I believe these changes are nothing more than unnecessary partisan politics designed to play to the gallery and will result in people being disadvantaged and treated much less fairly than they are now.

The very people the Conservative party say they represent, the decent working families, will be the ones who suffer as a result of these changes. It seems the race to the bottom is about to speed up.

what do you think............

 

[SS4]

I'll believe them when they apply the same rules to general elections! Note also how this is being piggbacked on tube strikes in London whilst inconvenience (for that's all it is) high.

I also suspect we won't hear a thing from most of the Press against this if at all - those papers who alleged free speech was being censored when Leveson was making his recommendations are exercising their right to effectively mute the left.

The new laws would force unions to give employers 14 days notice of strike action and allow them to bring in agency staff to cover for striking workers.

This is the most outrageous thing in the article (I never bothered with the comments section!) IMO. It'll render the entire point of striking useless and the Tories know it

 

[ainsworth74]

I have no problem with a minimum turnout requirement but after that it should be straight majority rather than requiring a certain percentage in favour. Similarly I don't object to the 14 day notification period but allowing agency staff to cover is also wrong in my view. If an organisation can try and mitigate by using it's own staff then that's fair enough but bringing in temporary outside workers is wrong in my book. I'm also not opposed to changing to having to 'opt-in' rather than 'opt-out' of the political levy.

As I often find with this Government and the previous Coalition Government it's a mixed bag. Some stuff I think is quite good other stuff causes me a great deal of concern.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the Conservatives have a point about not allowing a minority of workers voting in favour of a strike to finish up causing widespread disruption.

However, by the same argument 64% of people who voted at the recent General Election did not vote Conservative. It seems they are telling others to tidy their houses, when their own house needs tidying.

 

[A-driver]

To be honest, they are using the tube strikes to speed it up but Aslef are one union the new laws will have very little impact on! Almost all Aslef strike ballots in recent history have had 80%+ turnouts with 80%+ yes votes so way in excess of the proposed laws and agency train drivers with required route and traction knowledge to operate a service is unlikely to happen for logistical purposes.

Bigger unions like the RMT may have more trouble as the problem is that when a ballot goes out which only concerns a small section of the workforce (ie guards) all members (so cleaners/depot staff/clerical staff etc) will be balloted and many won't bother voting as they may not see much point in voting to loose pay over a completely separate area of the business.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the Conservatives have a point about not allowing a minority of workers voting in favour of a strike to finish up causing widespread disruption.

However, by the same argument 64% of people who voted at the recent General Election did not vote Conservative. It seems they are telling others to tidy their houses, when their own house needs tidying.

Not allowing a minority to cause disruption is something I'm in favour of but as I say above, it's not always a case of the majority not wanting a strike, smaller unions like Aslef which only represent a small section of the workforce are unlikely to be majorly affected by these new laws.

 

[gazthomas]

I am not a member of a union, but I agree, the government needs the same mandate!

 

[meridian2]

I think it's a good idea, but they should end the exploitation by union bosses with their over-inflated salaries.
Too often whenever a strike is called, a union member has to 'tow the line'.

 

[A-driver]

I think it's a good idea, but they should end the exploitation by union bosses with their over-inflated salaries.

Too often whenever a strike is called, a union member has to 'tow the line'.

That's nothing to do with the public or government though. Union boses are paid for out of subs and if members are happy paying 6figure salaries to the leaders then it's down to them, not the public.

 

[SS4]

I think it's a good idea, but they should end the exploitation by union bosses with their over-inflated salaries.
Too often whenever a strike is called, a union member has to 'tow the line'.

You need to pay high salaries to get the best people.

(sound familiar? )

 

[ainsworth74]

I am not a member of a union, but I agree, the government needs the same mandate!

So what would have happened after the 2015, 2010, 2005, 1974 (both) and 1929 elections when the largest party failed to secure more than 40% of the vote (and 2001 was only by whisker at 40.7%)?

 

[AntoniC]

My point of view ( as a Civil Servant & PCS Union member for nigh on 27 years) is that I do agree with the changes because perhaps it will make all those TU members who have never voted in a ballot, vote when they realise if they dont their T&C`s will be worsened.

The one line though that does really stick in my craw is the Govt propaganda that Trade Unions are bad all employers good.

Not in my experience with my employer, I have been told that all pay rises will be restricted to 1% of the paybill till 2020.

For me my last 3 years pay awards have been 0.7%, 0.5% and 0.5% all non-consolidated so they dont count towards my pension, and so my pay hasnt increased since 2013.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's nothing to do with the public or government though. Union noses are paid for out of subs and if members are happy paying 6figure salaries to the leaders then it's down to them, not the public.

Has any railway union ever campaigned for " a living daily strike pay"?

Perhaps I am not fully aware of the meaning of "union noses" that you state in your posting above, but "snouts in the trough" are another form of "noses" that were so well portrayed in "Animal Farm".

 

[northwichcat]

So what would have happened after the 2015, 2010, 2005, 1974 (both) and 1929 elections when the largest party failed to secure more than 40% of the vote (and 2001 was only by whisker at 40.7%)?

I'm of the opinion that if a party gets a minority of the share of votes, then they shouldn't be able to have over 50% of the MPs in parliament and be allowed to vote through all the policies they agree on.

I think the Lib Dems were undervalued in the last government as they prevented some Conservative policies which would have proved unpopular going through. One such blocked policy would have made it easier for employers to sack workers and reduced compensation paid to sacked workers.

 

[meridian2]

That's nothing to do with the public or government though. Union noses are paid for out of subs and if members are happy paying 6figure salaries to the leaders then it's down to them, not the public.

By 'public' I take it you mean those that aren't part of a union, because they aren't mutually exclusive you know?

 

[Harpers Tate]

A bit of a dumb comparison in my opinion - that between the vote in an election vs. the vote in a strike ballot.

In the case of a strike, you can deem the vote effectively invalid due to low turnout.
In the case of a government, (sadly?) we do have to have one so you get stuck with whichever one gets the greater number of seats from votes.

As to the need for legislation (and being devil's advocate here) if certain trades unions had been less concerned with militancy and more concerned with protecting not only their members direct interests, but also the interests of their employers (which in reality reciprocates around and becomes in part the members' interest), such measures may not have been thought necessary.

 

[Yew]

First they came for the Socialists...

 

[A-driver]

By 'public' I take it you mean those that aren't part of a union, because they aren't mutually exclusive you know?

I mean those not in the union. What my Union leaders are paid is nothing to do with anyone outside of Aslef. Myself and my fellow members pay their salaries out of our subs and if we felt it excessive we have ways of highlighting that and voting for a lower salary. As a non Aslef member, the general secretaries salary is nothing to do with you or the government to be blunt.

Has any railway union ever campaigned for " a living daily strike pay"?



Perhaps I am not fully aware of the meaning of "union noses" that you state in your posting above, but "snouts in the trough" are another form of "noses" that were so well portrayed in "Animal Farm".

What are you on about with a living daily strike pay? What relevance is it?

Noses was an autocorrect typo, I meant bosses and have now corrected it.

As for snouts in the trough etc, you go on about left wing cliches but out of all the posters on this forum you post more worn out cliches and blinkered right wing views than anyone! Animal farm has little to do with trade unions. Of course politically they swing to the left but that doesn't automatically make socialism or animal farm at all relevant. This thread is about the government attempting to attack the unions. Combined with other policies and budget announcements it appears the reason for this is to allow further attacks on workers rights making it a nation where the employers control the employees lives and have total control over them...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

First they came for the Socialists...

.....but they weren't in, as they were all out on strike....

 

[meridian2]

. As a non Aslef member, the general secretaries salary is nothing to do with you or the government to be blunt.
..

I think you'll find the 'general secretary's salary's respective cat is out of the bag, so to speak, so it may be irrelevant to me but it is common knowledge, so one can debate it's value despite not being a member.

 

[northwichcat]

My point of view ( as a Civil Servant & PCS Union member for nigh on 27 years) is that I do agree with the changes because perhaps it will make all those TU members who have never voted in a ballot, vote when they realise if they dont their T&C`s will be worsened.

The one line though that does really stick in my craw is the Govt propaganda that Trade Unions are bad all employers good.

Not in my experience with my employer, I have been told that all pay rises will be restricted to 1% of the paybill till 2020.

For me my last 3 years pay awards have been 0.7%, 0.5% and 0.5% all non-consolidated so they dont count towards my pension, and so my pay hasnt increased since 2013.

My Father was a civil servant for all his working life and PCS member. He stopped being a civil servant when the Conservative government at the time (led by a certain female PM) decided that the number of civil servants will be reduced and to do that they forced a significant number of civil servants who'd celebrated their 50th birthday in to early retirement. The PCS couldn't prevent that happening but presumably they provided necessary help and support. Fortunately, legislation brought in during the last Labour government now makes it illegal to force people in to early retirement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What are you on about with a living daily strike pay? What relevance is it?

Just trying to draw a comparison between what the union members decide is a daily wage figure worth fighting for to live on and what the union feels is enough for them to live on when strike pay is to the fore.

 

[A-driver]

Just trying to draw a comparison between what the union members decide is a daily wage figure worth fighting for to live on and what the union feels is enough for them to live on.

Still not sure what you are on about or what the relevance is.

I think you'll find the 'general secretary's salary's respective cat is out of the bag, so to speak, so it may be irrelevant to me but it is common knowledge, so one can debate it's value despite not being a member.

The cat was never in the bag was it? It's never been a closely guarded secret what the GSs salary was. Just something the right wing press now love to talk about whenever possible.

You can debate all you want but at the end of the day the government has nothing to do with what union boses are paid. As I say, that is purely down to the membership to decide.

 

[meridian2]

Thank you for giving me permission, despite you telling me it has nothing to do with me I can still debate it

Wasn't hard, was it?
:roll:

 

[A-driver]

Thank you for giving me permission, despite you telling me it has nothing to do with me I can still debate it



Wasn't hard, was it?

:roll:

I'm saying you can debate what you want but it's still nothing to do with you. your proposal for the legislation to include something about it was what I was arguing with.

 

[gazthomas]

So what would have happened after the 2015, 2010, 2005, 1974 (both) and 1929 elections when the largest party failed to secure more than 40% of the vote (and 2001 was only by whisker at 40.7%)?

A re-election. If we're to operate a democracy surely it should be based on the views of the majority. The Australian approach of mandating full participation may be the only way to do it. I'm not advocating it, but maybe.....

 

[meridian2]

I wasn't on sort of campaign to change the member's salary.

Your implication that I can't make this distinction, and your repetition of being blunt , is frankly downright priggish, not that I cared.

 

[Kite159]

An election has more than 2 options at who to vote for so the votes will be spread out more than a vote with 2 options (yes or no), so it can't be a fair comparison.

Requiring a 50% turnout is fair, personally I would put the required turnout to be at 67% to cover 2 thirds of the membership.

Fortunately, legislation brought in during the last Labour government now makes it illegal to force people in to early retirement.

Wasn't the banning of enforced retirement age down to the EU?

 

[A-driver]

An election has more than 2 options at who to vote for so the votes will be spread out more than a vote with 2 options (yes or no), so it can't be a fair comparison.



Requiring a 50% turnout is fair, personally I would put the required turnout to be at 67% to cover 2 thirds of the membership.







Wasn't the banning of enforced retirement age down to the EU?

Why so high? The torys are assuming that not voting should be counted as a 'no' vote. In fact if someone dosnt vote it is often because they are prepared to go with the flow and trust the majority decision. If that is the case, and it is a majority yes, then it should be treated as such.

 

[muddythefish]

Cooper and Kendall were entirely correct today when she labelled this proposed legislation as ideologically driven.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ndidates-ideologically-driven-union-crackdown

For myself, I am relatively well paid and I owe that entirely to being a member of a strong union that stands up for its workers.

This legislation is deplorable and just another attack on workers' rights and conditions by this government.

 

[Senex]

Cooper and Kendall were entirely correct today when she labelled this proposed legislation as ideologically driven.

So what? Unless you want to argue that Labour governments never did anything that was ideologically driven.