Unions and Pensions

le_loup

Meeper wrote: »

And will the ballot only be considered "valid" if a minimum turnout is obtained? Should the lack of turnout be construed as a "no" vote? It does in my eyes, because if people don't turn out to vote yes, they obviously don't have sufficient passion about the matter to do so.

And if the small turnout voted NO, would you feel the same? Would the answer then become a YES vote?
Is a government voted in by a minority still valid?

jem16

Andy_L wrote: »

I suspect apathy, I think they just want someone else to wave a magic wand and make the problem go away.

You may be right.

However within my own union, the EIS, there was a supposed outcry from the members when the EIS recommended accepting new T&C last April as they felt that non acceptance would see job cuts and they were trying to protect the membership. Strike action was also decided against due to the low return in the last ballot which also asked about strike action.

One month later came the AGM, usually attended by the mangement committee members. At that AGM there were some demonstrators and people speaking up against the EIS so called apathy.

Less than 3 months later, we have a ballot for strike action and the EIS recommending a "Yes" vote". This is mostly down to the backlash from the previous ballot.

However what do we get? A 54% turnout, which whilst it's much better than the Unison turnout, is still low. If the membership was really annoyed last time, why didn't they vote this time?

jem16

le_loup wrote: »

And if the small turnout voted NO, would you feel the same? Would the answer then become a YES vote?

It's not fair to assume either way.

The only fair way is to stipulate a minimum turnout and force people to give their opinion instead of sitting on the fence.

atush

Fairzo wrote: »

Don't disagree but it's a natural instinct of self preservation. If the roles were reversed I wouldn't anticipate much sympathy.

The thing is I do have sympathy to an extent, but do realise they can't have what they want and fail to see why they can't see this after their initial shock.

worried_jim

I joined my union about two years ago. I work for a bank that has laid off 30,000+ employees since 2007 and when I joined it was a lousy place to work, depressing atmosphere and we were treated like the proverbial.
Previous to joining I thought that unions were dinosaurs after growing up in the 80's and remembering the teachers one day strikes (brilliant at the time for kids) and of course the miners and Arthur Scargill (like the mines would be open today with global warming if they had won). I pay £10 per month and the union is not affiliated to the Labour party, I wouldn't have joined otherwise.
I joined as it was quite likely that I may have been made redundant and I was given the impression that union members may get a bigger payout and be a little harder to get rid of. During my membership I have had my C.V. written by them and had two weeks "free" travel insurance. I have never needed to contact them and have had no issues, things have improved greatly in the office and the threat of redundancy has almost passed. I get a newsletter from them which is becoming more and more militant, it recently compared some new procedure the bank were trying to introduce to the Arab Spring uprising! It is negative about absolutely everything and exaggerates and scaremongers every little issue. It is as if it is being run by chicken lickle and the sky is falling in and is getting to the point where I may leave but I am now paranoid to do so in case the day I do I actually need them. So they have me.

CLAPTON

worried_jim wrote: »

It is as if it is being run by chicken lickle and the sky is falling in and is getting to the point where I may leave but I am now paranoid to do so in case the day I do I actually need them. So they have me.

just out of curiosity
it what way is it the unions fault that one day you might need them?

Meeper

Twist, twist, twist. You really should, Clapton, put your profession in your signature as "I do my best to twist what people are saying at all times".

Worried Jim is posting that he currently feels that the direction in which his union is going is not in line with his personal viewpoints, so he wants to leave. He is, however, caught between a rock and a hard place because he recognises that when they are not being militant bullies they do, in fact, do some good work and he may be in need of their more valuable services in the future. So, as he says, they have him.

CLAPTON

Meeper wrote: »

Twist, twist, twist. You really should, Clapton, put your profession in your signature as "I do my best to twist what people are saying at all times".

Worried Jim is posting that he currently feels that the direction in which his union is going is not in line with his personal viewpoints, so he wants to leave. He is, however, caught between a rock and a hard place because he recognises that when they are not being militant bullies they do, in fact, do some good work and he may be in need of their more valuable services in the future. So, as he says, they have him.

I'm sure Jim can speak for himself.

I have managed to survive in jobs without being a member of a union; it was my choice;
equally I have been a member of a union too; that was my choice too
I've walked through picket lines too as I refuse to be bullied by anyone and didn't agree with the strike

And I vote for political parties that I have policies that I don't agree with ; my choice too

atush

I am sure Jim will when he comes back. I too beleive that is is stuck where he is as if he now quits and needs his union in the future (such as being accused of simething he has not done etc) he will be on his own.

It is sad to see unions taking their Labour party beliefs and using them to the detriment and against the wishes of, their members. Unions work for their members, and not the labour party. The members pay the dues, after all.

CLAPTON

atush wrote: »

I am sure Jim will when he comes back. I too beleive that is is stuck where he is as if he now quits and needs his union in the future (such as being accused of simething he has not done etc) he will be on his own.

It is sad to see unions taking their Labour party beliefs and using them to the detriment and against the wishes of, their members. Unions work for their members, and not the labour party. The members pay the dues, after all.

legal insurance is very very cheap unless you mean that a union might invoke a strike on his behalf

but then I'm twisting things again