Going on strike whilst on probation

Fridge3

KME91 wrote: »

those members asked to be ballotted for strike action, and the members voted in favour of action. the members are now following through on the decisions they made.

Again, care to elaborate on those figures?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=31254657&postcount=46

KME91

jdturk wrote: »

Would you believe your member everytime if they said they were getting sacked because of their involvement in a strike or would you investigate as to whether or not they just were not upto the job.

I would investigate thoroughly. I always do, otherwise you find yourself being caught out unfortunately. in cases where it is clear that the reason for attempting dismisal is because the employee is not up to the job, i try and make sure that correct procedure is followed and the employee is gven reasonable chance to improve their game so to speak.

KME91

Fridge3 wrote: »

What happened to action short of strike?

there's a cross departmental overtime ban in place as we speak and further announcements on next steps will be coming out next week. if you're really interested then theinfo is all there to read on the pcs website.

KME91

Horace wrote: »

Scab is a word that PCS likes to use if someone dares cross one of their picket lines.

PCS like other unions like to bang on about equal work for equal pay but when their employers start to implement these rules then they start whinging and going on strike. The trouble with the civil service is that it needs to be trimmed..it is a huge monster with people employed to shuffle paper and not do an awful lot. What needs to happen with the civil service is that they need to bring back the civil service entrance exam and that way they can employ better staff than those who are often illiterate and plain yes men. I certainly do not see PCS standing up for a probationer who could lose his/her job for going on strike - are you going to pay his/her wages? Don't forget to tell your members that when they go on strike they are not getting paid.

it seems to me i'm being accused as a pcs rep of a lot of !!!!!! behaviour. i am always honest with my members about what the risks are with strike action, and the costs. and like i said before, I stand up for any member in trouble, probationer or not. and i have never called anyone a scab. so please back off and get your facts straight before suggesting otherwise.

KME91

Fridge3 wrote: »

PCS, like all unions are good at plucking exceptional headline figures and implying that they apply accross the board. IIRC, tens of thousands reduction in redundancy was quoted.

So, care to add any context to that rather than headline figures?

actually no i don't care to. all the information you need is on the pcs website and the cabinet office website. take the time to read it all and then form your opinion, i have. in a small number of cases people's redundancy packages will be reduced by tens of thousands, but in the vast majority of cases it will be a few thousand pounds. the reason for the action is as much the principle as it is the money. a unilateral change of contract to poorer terms with no consultation is illegal. and we intend to prove that.

KME91

Fridge3 wrote: »

Again, care to elaborate on those figures?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=31254657&postcount=46

Let’s start with the facts: 63.4% of members voted for strike action, and 81.4% voted in favour of industrial action short of a strike. This is a clear mandate from a democratic ballot of the union’s members.
The turnout for this ballot was 31.6%, which compares with previous national ballot turnouts in PCS and other unions where very similar results are obtained in postal ballots. The turnout in our ballot was broadly similar to that in recent local elections, and no one suggests local councillors have no mandate.

quoted direct from the pcs website.

18,000 people protested to the Cabinet Office consultation last year, a massive number of responses for a consultation of this kind, and 35,000 PCS members attended meetings and expressed their opposition to the government’s proposals, the largest such exercise the union has carried out.

every member had the chance to attend a meeting and tell the union what they want it to do. as i said before the action is member driven and led.

Fridge3

KME91 wrote: »

actually no i don't care to. all the information you need is on the pcs website and the cabinet office website. take the time to read it all and then form your opinion, i have. in a small number of cases people's redundancy packages will be reduced by tens of thousands, but in the vast majority of cases it will be a few thousand pounds. the reason for the action is as much the principle as it is the money. a unilateral change of contract to poorer terms with no consultation is illegal. and we intend to prove that.

Don't care, or don't know?

Either way I wasn't really anticipating any hard facts to answer a simple question because that would clearly show what you have already implied: "in a small number of cases the packages will be reduced by tens of thousands." All too easy to promote that and lose the context of what is at stake for the vast majority - a few thousand in context of a very good starting point.

I am aware of the PCS website and its flyers and, having scoured the website I am unable to find the information I need. I suspect it is not there, but if it is it's not immediately apparent considering the recent strikes regarding T&C's.

Striking for a principal is honorable, but implying it's about £££ in the ballot is misleading to say the least. Why not publish a table or something that shows everyone "what it means for them"?

A good rep should know and be able cite such figures to promote the cause, not hide behind "its on the PCS website". You probably won't care to comment on a working example either: £18k salary, 16yrs reckonable service, £43k severance, no discernable difference under new T&C's.

Good luck with proving change to T&C's is illegal.

ETA

KME91 wrote: »

it seems to me i'm being accused as a pcs rep of a lot of !!!!!! behaviour. i am always honest with my members about what the risks are with strike action, and the costs.

Fridge3

KME91 wrote: »

quoted direct from the pcs website.

There are around 500,000 civil servants.
262,000 were balloted by PCS. (the other unions representing around 100,000 workers have already surrendered and the rest aren’t in any union(
Only 52,000 of these have voted to go on strike


every member had the chance to attend a meeting and tell the union what they want it to do. as i said before the action is member driven and led.

Was there action short of strike before the strikes?

Bollotom

THEY CAME FIRST for the Tolpuddle Martyrs,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Tolpuddle Martyr.

THEN THEY CAME for the textile workers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a textile worker.

THEN THEY CAME for the coal miners,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a coal miner.

THEN THEY CAME for the postal workers,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a postal worker.

THEN THEY CAME for the airline workers
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn't an airline worker.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up

Pete111

Bollotom wrote: »

THEY CAME FIRST for the Tolpuddle Martyrs,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Tolpuddle Martyr.

THEN THEY CAME for the textile workers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a textile worker.

THEN THEY CAME for the coal miners,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a coal miner.

THEN THEY CAME for the postal workers,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a postal worker.

THEN THEY CAME for the airline workers
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn't an airline worker.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up

....and It might even still ring true if the last decade or so hadn't seen the biggest tranche of employment law ever implimented here in the UK to protect workers.

Mix that lot up with a sprinkle of no win no fee lawyers and Voila! Unions are past their sell by date,