Strike but not in a Union?

Googlewhacker

Horizon81 wrote: »

Get over it! I got the word 'intimidating' from a local government policy, which stated that some workers may feel intimidated to cross the picket line. It's up to them how they feel about it, whether they agree with the strike or not and whether they cross it or not. It's a non violent show of strength and solidarity, and to put a face to the strike. Obviously some people will cross the line - whether they agree with it or not. My original question was whether, legally, they will be treated any different to union members should they go on strike.

But you feel that they should be feeling intimidated if they cross the line as per your previous statement and that they 'should be' so really this last post has no basis.

So I presume you won't be throwing insults at any co workers that cross the line, I presume you won't treat people who cross the line differently in later days?

Horizon81

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Also when only 1/4 of the unions actually voted for the strike this means that there will be a large percentage that don't agree with the strike and as such won't strike even if they are members....would you intimidate them???

Yawn. If you're in a union, usually you support it. That's the idea. A couple of years ago Unison voted for a strike and GMB voted against. Hence that day Unison members were on strike and GMB members went to work.

Horizon81

Googlewhacker wrote: »

But you feel that they should be feeling intimidated if they cross the line as per your previous statement and that they 'should be' so really this last post has no basis.

So I presume you won't be throwing insults at any co workers that cross the line, I presume you won't treat people who cross the line differently in later days?

They should feel morally wrong if they agree with the strike, don't want to join a union but do want to benefit from the fruits of its labours. If everyone thought like that then there would be no unions and no bargaining. Why should they profit from the unions hard work (and expense that all members pay into it)

Googlewhacker

Horizon81 wrote: »

Yawn. If you're in a union, usually you support it. That's the idea. A couple of years ago Unison voted for a strike and GMB voted against. Hence that day Unison members were on strike and GMB members went to work.

If its supported then why did only 1/4 of members vote for it?

Googlewhacker

Horizon81 wrote: »

They should feel morally wrong if they agree with the strike, don't want to join a union but do want to benefit from the fruits of its labours. If everyone thought like that then there would be no unions and no bargaining. Why should they profit from the unions hard work (and expense that all members pay into it)

I don't disagree with this in the slightest, I just took um-bridge that they should feel intimidated for making a personal choice.

asparagusnextleft

Googlewhacker wrote: »

If its supported then why did only 1/4 of members vote for it?

If three quarters were against it then they would have voted no, surely?

Horizon81

asparagusnextleft wrote: »

If three quarters were against it then they would have voted no, surely?

Exactly. Googlewhacker's argument falls apart for most ballots. It's the same every general election. The percentage of the uk population that actually voted for the leader certainly isn't over half. And a third of the electorate don't bother voting!

Jarndyce

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Also when only 1/4 of the unions actually voted for the strike this means that there will be a large percentage that don't agree with the strike and as such won't strike even if they are members....would you intimidate them???

Or a large percentage who are quite happy to go along with a democratic mandate. A mandate bigger than that which elected most local councillors and MEPs.

Googlewhacker

Horizon81 wrote: »

Exactly. Googlewhacker's argument falls apart for most ballots. It's the same every general election. The percentage of the uk population that actually voted for the leader certainly isn't over half. And a third of the electorate don't bother voting!

Which is why I would advocate that over 50% must vote for action to go ahead, that way you know 100% that it is supported by the majority.

Which is why for governments the alternate voting system probably would have been a better way to go than the current first past the post.

People don't vote because they are apathetic.

Googlewhacker

Jarndyce wrote: »

Or a large percentage who are quite happy to go along with a democratic mandate. A mandate bigger than that which elected most local councillors and MEPs.

I doubt it...