Union voting to need 50% turnout?

[Wyvern]

Conservatives may declare war on unions with new strike rules

Simply press speculation to fill column inches or Tory rabble-rousing? Having stigmatised the out of work, the disabled, and now the elderly (according to the Big Issue) they are having another go at the unions?

Interesting that Patrick McLoughlin has come out against the idea.

Perhaps we could apply the same rule to Parliamentary elections.

Plan would make strikes illegal unless at least 50 per cent of union members voted in a ballot

 

[SS4]

It's entirely plausible but the Tories have been against the organised workers since the former's formation. They used force to put the Luddites down
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looks like PCS are the new NUM. Note how the former are "militant" rather than "active" [in defending members' pay and conditions]. This is the media bias the unions have to fight against.

 

[Flamingo]

Should it be applied to all issues decided by votes? By-elections, votes in Parliament and Councils? What about people who actively (or passively) abstain?

 

[Lampshade]

This should be applied to anything democratic; a government has no mandate if it's been elected with 35% of a minority turnout.

 

[Bungle73]

How can there be a mandate for a strike when the majority of union members didn't vote for there to be one? The difference with parliamentary elections is that one way or another there HAS to be a winner.

 

[Oswyntail]

This should be applied to anything democratic; a government has no mandate if it's been elected with 35% of a minority turnout.

How can there be a mandate for a strike when the majority of union members didn't vote for there to be one? The difference with parliamentary elections is that one way or another there HAS to be a winner.

Exactly, Bungle. It is rather trendy with the chatterers to take the Lampshade line, but it does question the legitimacy of most governments in my lifetime. The argument is itself only legitimate when dealing with single-issue questions (eg: strike or not?)

 

[CatfordCat]

How can there be a mandate for a strike when the majority of union members didn't vote for there to be one? The difference with parliamentary elections is that one way or another there HAS to be a winner.

Exactly, Bungle. It is rather trendy with the chatterers to take the Lampshade line, but it does question the legitimacy of most governments in my lifetime. The argument is itself only legitimate when dealing with single-issue questions (eg: strike or not?)

In a ballot on industrial action, union members can vote for one of two choices - i.e. to take industrial action, or not to take industrial action.

One of those choices wins the ballot.

Similarly, if only two candidates put up for an election (quite rare at parliamentary elections, but not unknown in council seats) then one or other wins the ballot, however low the turnout.

I don't see how you can legitimately have a situation where if someone doesn't vote, then their vote in effect gets counted as choice B rather than choice A.

 

[Clip]

In a ballot on industrial action, union members can vote for one of two choices - i.e. to take industrial action, or not to take industrial action.

One of those choices wins the ballot.

Similarly, if only two candidates put up for an election (quite rare at parliamentary elections, but not unknown in council seats) then one or other wins the ballot, however low the turnout.

I don't see how you can legitimately have a situation where if someone doesn't vote, then their vote in effect gets counted as choice B rather than choice A.

Given the RMTs latest and rather distasteful 'freeloader' campaign then the laws should be tightened up. I know of a few strike actions where less than 20% had voted and less than 30% of those said to strike.

And they are still waiting for their money that the reps had promised them. And that's shameful

 

[12CSVT]

How can there be a mandate for a strike when the majority of union members didn't vote for there to be one? The difference with parliamentary elections is that one way or another there HAS to be a winner.

If more members vote 'yes' than vote 'no' then there should be a mandate to strike.

Typical that the nasty party are always looking for ways to screw up union members.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
I don't see how you can legitimately have a situation where if someone doesn't vote, then their vote in effect gets counted as choice B rather than choice A.

In a strike ballot, those entitled to vote are asked to show their commitment to a distinct action (strike or not). IMHO it is common sense that a distinct action should not be taken unless the majority of those entitled to vote support it, otherwise that action is likely to fail.
In an election, the voters are not voting for specific actions (unless the candidates are single-issue independents). They are voting to elect someone who will represent them (and, in theory, party manifestos are simply there as an indication of what line the representative thinks will most benefit the voters). There is no commitment to any action or actions (which is quite sensible. How should a community decide between A who advocates an action they approve of and another they do not want and B whose stance is quite the opposite?). When a representative is elected, it is her duty to find out what the community desires, and represent that. Ok, so that never happens, but it is still the theoretical case. Because of this flexible, representative element, it is still legitimate to be voted in without the support of the majority of your community. Once incumbent, you should not just represent your narrow party line, but the views of the whole community.

 

[Mojo]

Furthermore, in order to vote in an election for Parliament or Councils, you don't have to pay subs or go out of your way to fill in a form to join an organisation.

 

[Bungle73]

If more members vote 'yes' than vote 'no' then there should be a mandate to strike.

Typical that the nasty party are always looking for ways to screw up union members.

Oh? So if only one person actually does bother to vote, and they vote in favour of a strike that means there's a mandate for strike does it?

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Oh? So if only one person actually does bother to vote, and they vote in favour of a strike that means there's a mandate for strike does it?

Yes.

Whether more than one person would actually take strike action in those circumstancez is another matter.

 

[Flamingo]

In a strike ballot, those entitled to vote are asked to show their commitment to a distinct action (strike or not). IMHO it is common sense that a distinct action should not be taken unless the majority of those entitled to vote support it, otherwise that action is likely to fail.
In an election, the voters are not voting for specific actions (unless the candidates are single-issue independents). They are voting to elect someone who will represent them (and, in theory, party manifestos are simply there as an indication of what line the representative thinks will most benefit the voters). There is no commitment to any action or actions (which is quite sensible. How should a community decide between A who advocates an action they approve of and another they do not want and B whose stance is quite the opposite?). When a representative is elected, it is her duty to find out what the community desires, and represent that. Ok, so that never happens, but it is still the theoretical case. Because of this flexible, representative element, it is still legitimate to be voted in without the support of the majority of your community. Once incumbent, you should not just represent your narrow party line, but the views of the whole community.

Nice theory, doesn't happen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's entirely plausible but the Tories have been against the organised workers since the former's formation. They used force to put the Luddites down

Indeed, it has been said that there was a period when more British troops were engaged in activities in Britain against the Luddites than were engaged in the fight against Napoleon in the Peninsula War. Legislation enacted by the British government at the time of the suppression of the Luddites included that of making "Machine Breaking" as a capital offence under the terms of the Frame Breaking Act and the Malicious Damage Act.

But I wonder what this interesting review of past British history has anything remotely to do with percentages of union members in a ballot conducted by a trades union...we are not discussing a government sponsored but a trades union ballot.

 

[Oswyntail]

Nice theory, doesn't happen.

One can only hope. We are too used to seeing only labels - Tory, Labour, The Union - and letting them stop us having to think. And, of course, most of our "representatives" think they are representing "the party" and not all their constituents, or "the union" and not the best interests of all the workers. But getting the British to think has always been an impossible task. I would thoroughly recommend listening to the lyrics of Private Willis' aria from Iolanthe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B55YgD1gr0c) if you think it is a recent phenomenon

 

[O L Leigh]

There had been some rumblings a while ago about changes to the voting system. Unless you actually voted "yes" you would be deemed to have voted "no", whether you actually voted or not. Frankly it was a monstrous proposal that would have guaranteed a "no" vote almost every time and undermined the democratic principle. This new idea is frankly no better.

O L Leigh

 

[Oswyntail]

There had been some rumblings a while ago about changes to the voting system. Unless you actually voted "yes" you would be deemed to have voted "no", whether you actually voted or not. Frankly it was a monstrous proposal that would have guaranteed a "no" vote almost every time and undermined the democratic principle. This new idea is frankly no better.

O L Leigh

But the democratic principle is equally undermined when a small group can commit a larger group to a course of action to which they are opposed or indifferent. The problem comes with managing that indifference, but setting a quorum does mean that those who are seeking the action need to convince enough colleagues not to be indifferent. Persuasion is also an important part of the democratic process

 

[O L Leigh]

Then why limit the proposals simply to union ballots when the effect is the same across all "democratic" processes? How come the local Police Commissioner elections can be allowed to stand when the turnout was below 15%?

If a person eligible to vote is indifferent then they accept the outcome. If they are unhappy with the outcome then the solution is clear; they should have cast their vote. But then, part of the democratic process is the acceptance that every now and then you won't get the outcome that you as an individual have voted for. In most cases, a small number of people will commit a larger group to a certain course of action.

O L Leigh

 

[Flamingo]

Given that we live in a country where the "first past the post" electoral system has resulted in a massive distortion of public representation (and I know, has been agreed to be kept by that electorate), any complaints about small numbers distorting results by a government (or indeed electorate) that accepts that system is at best disingenuous and ill-informed, at worst hypocritical.

As somebody has already pointed out on the thread, unions are "private" organisations that one has to join and pay subs to. If the members of these organisations wish to do things in a certain way, isn't it up to them?

 

[O L Leigh]

As somebody has already pointed out on the thread, unions are "private" organisations that one has to join and pay subs to. If the members of these organisations wish to do things in a certain way, isn't it up to them?

Because union activities, specifically with regard to industrial disputes, are governed by legislation and have to comply with the law in order for any strike or other disruptive action to be legal.

O L Leigh

 

[Oswyntail]

....As somebody has already pointed out on the thread, unions are "private" organisations that one has to join and pay subs to. If the members of these organisations wish to do things in a certain way, isn't it up to them?

If the effects of what they do is confined to the membership, then fine. But it isn't always. For instance, a strike by a minority union can affect the viability of a company where the majority of employees are non-union and happy to be so. It's like the masons - I am happy for them to do whatever they want within the confines of their lodges, but if they start using their masonic brotherhood to influence matters outside the club I want them regulated!

 

[O L Leigh]

And in what way does that not apply to larger scale things like general elections and the activities of a "democratically" elected government...? The activities of a minority elected administration can have massive effects on a country, even where this goes against the will of the electorate.

This isn't just about union activities. You can't take out one part of the democratic process that you don't like because it can give unpopular outcomes and make changes to it in an attempt to impose control on the process without applying it across the board. Whatever you claim, it does undermine the democratic process when you interfere with a system in the way described. Whatever you think, it really is a monstrous attempt to infringe an individual's civil liberties. Open the door to this and what else will you let through?

Oh, and as I stated above, union activities are regulated. They have to comply with the law.

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

I'm a union member, and I wish more of my colleagues would vote on the rare occasions we have a ballot. Why they don't, I do not know - you pay your subs to earn that vote so why you'd not use it is beyond me! In any case, if more people vote and it does go against management, that would give the reps a far better hand to play with in negotiations...

 

[MrC]

If more members vote 'yes' than vote 'no' then there should be a mandate to strike.

Except that can then backfire badly on the pro-strike voters and the union's credibility when those who didn't vote then proceed to carry on working.

The unions have seen their own popularity plummet in recent years and sometimes I wish they'd have a good long look at how their own internal working practices alienate large chunks of their members. There are a good number of people who seem to keep up their subs purely to retain Thompsons' services and other side benefits and who haven't been to a branch meeting, let alone voted, for 10+ years.

 

[Oswyntail]

And in what way does that not apply to larger scale things like general elections

As I said before, a union vote is for a specific action, an election is for a representative and does not commit to any specific action

and the activities of a "democratically" elected government......

Which are not voted for in an election. They are meant to be scrutinised (and are) by our elected representatives, or at least those of them that are not just party hacks.

 

[Flamingo]

If an election is not a vote for and against specific policies, what is the manifesto published for, and why vote for anybody if they do not have to commit themselves (morally, if not legaly) to follow certain declared policies on issues?

sorry, your arguement has too many holes in it.

 

[tbtc]

How many elections have there been with a minimum turnout?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Scottish devolution vote in the late '70s, something like 40% of the electorate needed to vote "yes" (as well as a majority of those who voted).

 

[Oswyntail]

If an election is not a vote for and against specific policies, what is the manifesto published for, and why vote for anybody if they do not have to commit themselves (morally, if not legaly) to follow certain declared policies on issues?

sorry, your arguement has too many holes in it.

The manifesto has no legal status whatsoever, and does not bind the winning candidate to implement it, or even support it. It is simply a guide, to indicate to voters what lines the party may take. Which is how all parties find they have to drop "manifesto commitments" as soon as they bump up against the reality of being in government. The idea of the "mandate" is also frequently misunderstood. The "mandate" is the authority given to the elected member to represent the views of the constituents, or the authority given to the grouping with the majority of seats to form a government, not an order to take certain actions.
The elected representative is there to represent the constituency, and this might involve rejecting a party line if the views of the constituency are against it (for instance, if it would result in shutting down the major employer in the constituency).
I realise this is all theoretical, because most elected representatives prefer the easy life and being told to do what their party wants. But it is that, reinforced by the whipping system that is eroding democratic principles.

 

[O L Leigh]

As I said before, a union vote is for a specific action, an election is for a representative and does not commit to any specific action Which are not voted for in an election. They are meant to be scrutinised (and are) by our elected representatives, or at least those of them that are not just party hacks.

It doesn't matter because it is not the point. The point is that there is a democratic process at work that the government is attempting to interfere with simply because the outcome of that democratic process is sometimes unpopular.

Whether you are voting for an action or a representative or for whatever reason, there should not be interference in order to skew the results. Minority outcomes often happen as a consequence of ballots due to low turn-out. So why should only union ballots be required to show at least 50% engagement rate?

O L Leigh