Striking and the courts

[Amp34]

Well with tube workers being balloted again for strike action I do wonder how there is possibly any chance of them not balloting for a strike during the olympics, knowing they will be able to get whatever they want .

How about the government change the law so all public services cannot strike without getting court approval first? Obviously we have bans on strikes for other industries (fire, police, military) but an outright ban is too strong IMO, instead the RMT should have to go to court to prove they are right to strike (whether over pay, jobs, safety), with cases for and against. If the RMT win they can strike, if TFL win then any strike on that issue would be classed as an illegal strike and arrests and sackings could be legitimately made.

Now I'm not a huge fan of the slightly authoritational nature of this suggesting but the RMT just seem to be out of control in this matter. Other suggestions could include opening the unions up to competition by artificial means to minimise disruption if one union strikes but that has complications as well.

Any other suggestions on how to solve the issue?

 

[Castiel]

Tube Drivers Balloting to strike?

Are they?

 

[Freakbro]

There seem to be enough obstacles and hoops to jump through already to be able to call a strike, involving the courts to have to ask permission a) doesn't seem right to me and b) would involve more cost and lengthy proceedings.

 

[stockhausen]

Where would limits on the right to strike end? Should it affect ALL public sector workers? Should only private sector workers have the right to strike? I was under the impression that current legislation makes it very difficult to organise a strike anyhow?

It seems to me that if a majority of employees want to withdraw their labour, they should have that right; they do after all have no other effective way of counteracting the dictatorial behaviour of unreasonable employers. I believe that this issue is much better addressed in Germany - how do they manage it?

Having written all that, I do agree that Tube workers and their management do seem to be particularly prone to confrontation and I would certainly not want to be living or working in London when the Olympics are on

 

[scorza]

I thought the RMT had just struck a deal of a 0.5% above inflation payrise for the next four years in return for not striking during that period. Sounds like a good deal for all parties imo.

It seems to me that if a majority of employees want to withdraw their labour, they should have that right; they do after all have no other effective way of counteracting the dictatorial behaviour of unreasonable employers. I believe that this issue is much better addressed in Germany - how do they manage it?

German companies (maybe just the large ones) are required by law to have a structure very similar to the old Works Councils that we had in this country until the last Conservative government got rid of them.

 

[RDM]

It seems to me that if a majority of employees want to withdraw their labour, they should have that right; they do after all have no other effective way of counteracting the dictatorial behaviour of unreasonable employers.

Would you support a change in the law that meant the above had to be true before a strike was legal then? As it isn't the case at the moment.

 

[stockhausen]

Would you support a change in the law that meant the above had to be true before a strike was legal then? As it isn't the case at the moment.

Isn't it

As I understood it, In order legally to take strike action a trade union must provide notice to the employer(s) affected, ballot its members and get a majority voting for industrial action.

Sadly, as has been shown in a number of recent cases (e.g. Brutish Airways), this isn't in fact always enough

 

[scorza]

Isn't it

As I understood it, In order legally to take strike action a trade union must provide notice to the employer(s) affected, ballot its members and get a majority voting for industrial action.

Sadly, as has been shown in a number of recent cases (e.g. Brutish Airways), this isn't in fact always enough

Trap sprung! He's talking about how you count the members who didn't vote. Anti-union people would like to presume they voted against the strike.

 

[Freakbro]

Would you support a change in the law that meant the above had to be true before a strike was legal then? As it isn't the case at the moment.

I'm not in favour of requiring a supermajority, in a case like this I don't see how it can be right to count an abstention as a no vote. Do we have any voting systems in this country that require it?

From what I can see looking around the world it's there generally to protect enshrined laws, like constitutions, or minority rights.

Edit : yea, you walked into that one Stockhausen...tut tut

 

[Nemesis379]

Why not just sack them, then hire other people, then they cant do shiz?

 

[Trifid]

I'd rather see a change of law so anyone who strikes is not guaranteed to return to their job the next day.

 

[Danthus]

The rules should be changed so that 51% of the total members have to vote for industrial action.

As it stands I think I am right in saying it just needs a majority vote from the total votes returned.

 

[mattyfez]

Nail them to a cross and set them on fire. Socialist pigs.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The rules should be changed so that 51% of the total members have to vote for industrial action.

As it stands I think I am right in saying it just needs a majority vote from the total votes returned.

Maybe a modification to the existing requirements for striking is necessary but to demand 51% turnout (minimum as that's assuming all who turnout actually are in favour) is perhaps setting the bar a little high. If it were say a minimum of 60% of total members voting but simple majority of those members then that might be a more equitable number to go with.

We can't really draw many conclusions from the people not voting except that they either do not feel strongly enough about the issue to vote or that they could not vote for some reason. The suggestion that it must be a majority of total members seems to presume that if you don't feel strongly enough about it to vote for strike action that you are effectively against it and I'm far from convinced that is completely sound as an assumption.

Does anyone know what is the standard figure returned in ballots for unions? If such figures are available then it might become easier to suggest a sensible figure for required returns to initiate strike action.

 

[RDM]

Trap sprung! He's talking about how you count the members who didn't vote. Pro-union people would like to presume they voted for the strike.

Fixed to have the bias the other way?

I personally don't assume either way, but the current legislation certainly doesn't mean that the majority of employees have to vote for strike action for it to be legal, just the majority of employees in the union that take part in the ballot, vote for strike action.

Using the recent PCS strike ballot as an example. 61.1% in favour of strike action with a turnout of 32.4% gives 19.8% of the unionised workforce voting FOR strike action and 12.6% voting AGAINST strike action. You would be hard pressed to say that either have any real mandate.

 

[Tefal]

replace them with computer controlled trains?

 

[Danthus]

replace them with computer controlled trains?

Yes, it will happen at some point anyway.

 

[Cosimo]

replace them with computer controlled trains?

It will happen.

 

[scorza]

Fixed to have the bias the other way?

That's not true is it, for non-votes you can either assume they voted Yes, No or don't count them at all. I say that the only reasonable thing to do is to not count them. I certainly wouldn't agree that for a strike ballot to be rejected, you'd need >50% of the voting population to vote that way.

I personally don't assume either way, but the current legislation certainly doesn't mean that the majority of employees have to vote for strike action for it to be legal, just the majority of employees in the union that take part in the ballot, vote for strike action.

What's wrong with that? If the non-voting population don't like it they can either a) vote against the strike in future ballots, or b) leave the union so they never have to strike.

Using the recent PCS strike ballot as an example. 61.1% in favour of strike action with a turnout of 32.4% gives 19.8% of the unionised workforce voting FOR strike action and 12.6% voting AGAINST strike action. You would be hard pressed to say that either have any real mandate.

I'd say the strikers had a clear mandate under the rules of the ballot. Voter apathy is no excuse for maintaining the status quo. A government rarely gets >50% of the total voting population, does that mean there is no mandate for them to govern? I say not.

 

[RDM]

What's wrong with that? If the non-voting population don't like it they can either a) vote against the strike in future ballots, or b) leave the union so they never have to strike.

You need to be slightly less defensive, I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I was just pointing out why stockhausen's statement is currently not the case. For a strike to be legal you do not need a majority of the workforce to agree to it.

If a minimum turnout was introduced on strike ballots then Unions would need to start working somewhat harder to convince people to both vote and to vote for strike action.

I'd say the strikers had a clear mandate under the rules of the ballot. Voter apathy is no excuse for maintaining the status quo. A government rarely gets >50% of the total voting population, does that mean there is no mandate for them to govern? I say not.

A strike is slightly different from a General Election due to the multi-party nature of our electoral system. Regardless I would suggest that if turnout was ever to drop to as low as 32% then I am not sure I would say that the government had a clear mandate.