Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

Thanks. Yes the posters on this particular board do seem to be particularly right of centre compared to the general population.

I would say that the vast majority on here are centre ground. In that they openly debate topics without any necessity to making a point political in nature.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

63% of voters did not vote for the Conservative party in the 2015 general election.

But you said

they wouldn't be bothered with trying to introduce new laws, which are so repressive and anti-democratic

What's the vote required to currently call a strike?

And cause misery to thousands of rail and rail commuters. Let alone the cost to the economy.

Southend1

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, and we have Mrs Thatcher to thank for that.



That's certainly one angle on things, but meanwhile, back in the real world ...



Agreed, but in the case of unions, this had to be imposed upon them with laws crafted to prevent their own rather nasty flavour of violence and intimidation.

I experienced first hand their unfettered hatred of those prepared to work, and if the fetters introduced since then have made them nicer people as per your observations, surely that's win win?

Let's just reflect for a moment. Who are these "nasty" unions who love "violence and intimidation"?

Well for a start there are six and a half million trade union members in the UK. Not insignificant in number. Can all or even a significant proportion of these six and a half million people be nasty and violent types? Surely not.

The majority are female. Those employed in professional occupations are also more likely to be union members.

So we are talking about six and a half million people from all kinds of occupations across the spectrum from care workers to academics.

They aren't some kind of scary extremist bogeyman; they are ordinary people. Chances are the person who drove the bus you caught to work this morning, your family doctor, the teacher at your kids' school, maybe even your next door neighbour, are all union members.

There are a small minority of bad apples, of course. This reflects the make up of our society as a whole. However the trade union movement as a whole exists to achieve equality and fairness and strives to achieve it by peaceful means.

So, although your wife had a nasty experience once at the hands of a few people, who it seems behaved appallingly, and you are rightly outraged as a result, it is important not to let this cloud your view of all trade unionists.

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

63% of voters did not vote for the Conservative party in the 2015 general election.

Yes

so you do support the 50% yes requirement for strikes

and you would like to reform the national electoral system

why didn't you just say that : isn't that the approved official double speak TU answer?

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's the vote required to currently call a strike?

More than 50% of votes cast in a ballot must be in favour of industrial action, which is clearly a democratic way to take the decision.

There is therefore no need to introduce restrictive and undemocratic thresholds that, if applied to MPs in the same way, would result in most constituencies not actually having one.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

Don't forget that anyone who strikes for a day will lose a day's pay and few people will do that lightly.

My experience in the public sector. Is that people accrue hours working flexi time in order to take a day off. So as not to lose a days pay. As a result it doesn't impact work flows either. Appears people prefer to look after no 1 first. I'm sure if a days pay was at stake then they wouldn't so keen. With 1% pay rises. There's no financial incentive to.

Southend1

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes

so you do support the 50% yes requirement for strikes

and you would like to reform the national electoral system

why didn't you just say that : isn't that the approved official double speak TU answer?

Of course I support a requirement for 50% of members who vote in an industrial action ballot to be in favour for it to go ahead. This is currently the way these ballots work and there is no need to introduce restrictive legal threshold levels that would prevent people from standing up for their rights at work.

I therefore do not support the requirements proposed in the trade union bill, particularly when the government is adamant it will not enhance the democratic nature of these ballots by allowing secure electronic voting or workplace balloting which would make it easier for members to express their wishes.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

More than 50% of votes cast in a ballot must be in favour of industrial action, which is clearly a democratic way to take the decision.

Cast doesn't equate to democratic.

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My experience in the public sector. Is that people accrue hours working flexi time in order to take a day off. So as not to lose a days pay. As a result it doesn't impact work flows either. Appears people prefer to look after no 1 first. I'm sure if a days pay was at stake then they wouldn't so keen. With 1% pay rises. There's no financial incentive to.

There may be a small minority of people in a small minority of occupations who are able and willing to do that but in reality it is insignificant compared to the number of people who would lose a day's pay. It might work for a tax officer for example but not for an ambulance driver, a school dinner lady, a college lecturer, etc

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Cast doesn't equate to democratic.

Does the current government have a democratic mandate to run the country then, given that almost two thirds of the votes cast were against the Conservatives, without even counting the proportion of eligible voters who abstained - only 24% of the total electorate actually voted for the Conservatives.

If it was proposed that parliamentary elections be carried out with the same thresholds as proposed for industrial action ballots, no politician would support it. Why then should working people be subjected to these draconian rules which would prevent them from protecting their rights?