implication of not striking (UNITE)

DVardysShadow

conway01 wrote: »

I congratulate all those public sector workers, who are not fools, who are not going out on strike.

I congratulate the present King of France for being neither bald nor French. [To use Bertrand Russell's example of an empty set]

Oldernotwiser

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It might well be but of course they may feel they have no choice in order to have help in any dispute.

Union membership works both ways; if you want your union to support you, you need to support your union.

Torry_Quine

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Union membership works both ways; if you want your union to support you, you need to support your union.

I can see what you're saying and in general I agree with you. However many may feel that this strike is unneeded. While at the same time needing membership as it is the only way to be represented in any work-place dispute

joebolton

SarEl wrote: »

joebolton wrote: »

I have been a member of PCS Union for the last 15 years ( including it's previous re-incarnations).

I broke the strike last time ( 30th June) and I will be going in on Wednesday.

I have decided the decent thing to do is to resign from the Union, as I no longer support the decisions made by the membershipQUOTE]

I respect your decision to resign - but it is the membership who decide on strikes and not the leadersship.

My decision is based on the executive.

In the 2000 election campaign, Serwotka pledged that he would only accept an average member's wage. However, in 2009 he received £86,244 in salary as well as £25,441 in pensions contributions and a £1,076 additional housing cost allowance.

Added to that the slavish defense of the indefensible within the workplace, supporting unproductive and beligerent members of staff at the detriment of the grafters.

PCS had a turnout of around 30% in the ballot to strike, of which 61% voted to strike.
So thats around 20% of the workforce.
80% of staff have no appetite to strike on this matter.

Yet we are forced to come out, or leave the union.

DVardysShadow

joebolton wrote: »

PCS had a turnout of around 30% in the ballot to strike, of which 61% voted to strike.
So thats around 20% of the workforce.
80% of staff have no appetite to strike on this matter.

Yet we are forced to come out, or leave the union.

Or 39% of a 30% turnout are against a strike. So only 12% are opposed to the strike.

The whole point of a union is that when the crunch comes, you all do the same thing.

joebolton

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Or 39% of a 30% turnout are against a strike. So only 12% are opposed to the strike.

The whole point of a union is that when the crunch comes, you all do the same thing.

And if you find yourself steam-rollered or intimidated into doing what the larger minority wants, you leave the Union.

Andy_L

joebolton wrote: »

And if you find yourself steam-rollered or intimidated into doing what the larger minority wants, you leave the Union.

Or you step up & get actively involved to change it

molerat

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Or 39% of a 30% turnout are against a strike. So only 12% are opposed to the strike.

The whole point of a union is that when the crunch comes, you all do the same thing.

18.3% of the union membership voted to strike, 81.7% of that membership did not vote to strike. About time strike ballots were set to at least a 60% turnout to be allowable.

RobertoMoir

molerat wrote: »

18.3% of the union membership voted to strike, 81.7% of that membership did not vote to strike. About time strike ballots were set to at least a 60% turnout to be allowable.

You're assuming that not voting is the same as voting no. I think that's as unfair as the union would be if they claimed that not voting was the same as voting yes.

molerat

I did not assume anything, I stated that 81.7% of the membership did not vote to strike, a fact, which is why I feel that a certain % turnout should be imposed to make a ballot valid.