Can the LibDems sink any lower?

dtsazza

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Workers should always have the right to strike.

Since it's very relevant to the topic at hand - why?

Why is the right to break contractual terms of employment (voluntarily entered into) so important? What would happen if striking didn't have a special status, but was treated as any other case of not showing up for work?

This isn't meant to be a leading question by the way, I genuinely don't see the reason(s) why it's fairer this way.


To pre-empt some responses a little, the way I see it is that there are two classes of grievances. One where your company is obliged by law/contract to do things the way you want but aren't (e.g. not providing PPE/sexual harassment); and the other where you'd like things to be different but there's no requirement on the company to do so (e.g. better pay/lower hours). In the first case, the company is required to solve the problem so you don't need to strike about it - just get the legal balls rolling. In the second case, those are the terms you agreed to when you took the job; if you don't like them, find a better job somewhere else. (And if you can't find a better job somewhere else, your demands are just hot air as no-one is offering them for someone in your position.)

StevieJ

dtsazza wrote: »

Since it's very relevant to the topic at hand - why?

Why is the right to break contractual terms of employment (voluntarily entered into) so important? What would happen if striking didn't have a special status, but was treated as any other case of not showing up for work?

This isn't meant to be a leading question by the way, I genuinely don't see the reason(s) why it's fairer this way.

Where does compulsory redundancy fit into that?

dtsazza

StevieJ wrote: »

Where does compulsory redundancy fit into that?

Are they allowed to make you redundant (according to the law and your contract)? If not, the first one, and you can (threaten to) take them to court over it.

Otherwise, they're just exercising their right to terminate your contract. In which case, it's the second category.

StevieJ

dtsazza wrote: »

Are they allowed to make you redundant (according to the law and your contract)? If not, the first one, and you can (threaten to) take them to court over it.

Otherwise, they're just exercising their right to terminate your contract. In which case, it's the second category.

You mean like workers exercising their legal right to strike?

dtsazza

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean like workers exercising their legal right to strike?

Touch!. But this is in the hypothetical situation where striking isn't enshrined - are you arguing, then, that it's unfair for companies to be able to fire anyone in that world? I don't consider the fact that one can be fired, justification for allowing striking.

torontoboy45

Generali wrote: »

Her Government did I think. However, according to the article:




If it's meant to be illegal to take coordinated strike action and there is a loophole in the law then it's probably reasonable to change the law.

you're confusing 'co-ordinated' with 'secondary' (or 'sympathy') action.

the latter was outlawed by 80's employment legislation.

if vince wants a punch-up with the brotherhood he's going the right way about it, notwithstanding the fact that TU movement is weaker than it's been for a century....er...I think that's already been mentioned.

WhiteChristmas

Leaving aside the logistics of organising a strike like the pitiful level of union membership these days, just who is this co-ordinated action going to hurt?

An effective general strike needs to paralyse the infrastructure and hit the powerbrokers in their pockets. In the 20s, the miners, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]transport workers, dockers, printers, builders, iron and steel workers[/FONT] were all on board; these days, most of that work has been offshored.

What effect will a public sector strike have, other than highlighting which services the public protests about losing (or, more pertinently, the ones it doesn't)?

StevieJ

The LibDems are now peddling their progressive policies in the Torygraph :eek: The Tories must think it is Christmas everyday having such fall guys.

Mr Alexander warned millions of trade union members that it would be a "colossal mistake" to spurn the Government's pensions deal and sacrifice the best offer they will be made "for years to come".
Writing in the Daily Telegraph , he said public sector workers risk even bigger cuts in their gold-plated pensions if they strike.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Public-sector-work-six-years-tele-535740825.html?x=0

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

The LibDems are now peddling their progressive policies in the Torygraph :eek: The Tories must think it is Christmas everyday having such fall guys.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Public-sector-work-six-years-tele-535740825.html?x=0

maybe the libs know their party is finished and are trying to get the big boys to let them join their gang permanently?

MikeR71

I hate to make such comparison, but if strike action becomes illegal then what exactly is the difference between a progressive western democracy like ours and the dictatorial backward systems of some 3rd world and middle eastern countries like Iran and Syria? In those countries the strike laws are very very limited and you have to have all sorts of permission to do so which you never get.

If striking becomes outlawed and a criminal offence, then what's the difference between our social system and their autocratic one?

p.s. I know the obvious differences but I am asking about the right to strike in particular.