Good old Serwotka.

Amp34 said:
That's not what was in the papers yesterday... The government specifically stated nothing had changed and that the union had backed down due to the massive negative backlash from the public (which there was).
Click to expand...

Since when are the papers always right? It's simple rhetoric from the government trying to save face in the eye of their voters and backbenchers.

A deal HAS been done, you'll have to trust me on that ;)
 
There really needs to be some sort of minimum turnout rule when it comes to votes like these, it makes a mockery of the system to not have at least a significant proportion of people turnout.

Have a clause in their participation of the union stating their membership requires turnout to all major ballots - maybe even give them an option to abstain from voting.
 
simulatorman said:
You sound just like a politician. ;)
Click to expand...

You have no idea how close you are to the truth ;)


Gackt said:
There really needs to be some sort of minimum turnout rule when it comes to votes like these, it makes a mockery of the system to not have at least a significant proportion of people turnout.

Have a clause in their participation of the union stating their membership requires turnout to all major ballots - maybe even give them an option to abstain from voting.
Click to expand...

As long as they also impose min turnouts on other forms of voting - i.e. general elections, referendums etc then fine - what's good for the goose is good for the gander :-)

In think you'll find there is significant support for min turnouts "behind the scenes" of most major unions. After all, how great would it look if a newspaper article ran with "80% of union members vote to strike" :-) If there is a min voting rule, it'd be much easier to persuade members of the need to vote. In fact, lets set the default position in such votes to "yes" unless you vote "no" - job done ;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom