OK, today I'm on strike, as a local government worker. My pay was slashed by 5k (and I clawed back 2.5k on appeal) and I haven't had a pay rise for years. Nobody does my job when I'm not there, there is no cover, there is only me doing a government-required job (other councils have several staff doing the same work, the one I work for is lucky that I can just about cope with meeting crucial deadlines, despite looking after parents with disabilities (Ive had to reduce my hours and pay further to cope with no reduction in my job responsibilities, I just do them even quicker) and keeping an eye on a friend with a life-threatening illness.

 

So, when Tories threaten to remove the right to strike, a basic democratic right, voted for democratically, (I voted No to the strike, by the way, but support the democratic will of those who voted) that's not democracy, that's disallowing the right of people NOT to vote ie undecided one way or the other and happy to go with the decision of those who vote.

 

This proposal should only be permitted to go into law if the same principle is applied to politics. If the vast majority of people choose not to vote then the votes of those who have voted should also not be counted as relevant unless 50% of the population have voted.

 

Sorry to all those parents inconvenienced today, but a day off school for kids isn't the end of the world, I used to change schools regularly, completely new syllabus at various times of the school year and I managed to get a degree regardless. A day is nothing in the scale of things, so I don't take kindly to cameron's political point-scoring at the expense of loyal government workers who have put up with crap for years now. Perhaps if they spent more time chasing their rich tax-dodging buddies the deficit might not be quite so huge.

 

PS I'm not remotely concerned about losing my job. There is no way they can get rid of me and there's no way they could find anyone capable of doing it at the drop of a hat. Things, as far as I'm concerned, are cut to the bone already. Joining the ranks of the unemployed is turning into an attractive alternative for many these days....

 

 

 

 

One of the proposals being considered is for a minimum turnout of 60%. This is absolutely absurd. That would mean, for example, that if 10,000 people are eligible to vote, 5999 vote Yes with the remainder not voting at all, the vote will be invalid. However, if one person voted No, the vote would be valid. it would mean that members opposed to strike action would be positively encouraged not to vote at all.

 

The point about the assumption that people who don't vote are all opposed to strike action is a good one.

 

It is interesting that one of the keenest supporters of a change is one Boris Johnson. The turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38%.

One of the proposals being considered is for a minimum turnout of 60%. This is absolutely absurd. That would mean, for example, that if 10,000 people are eligible to vote, 5999 vote Yes with the remainder not voting at all, the vote will be invalid. However, if one person voted No, the vote would be valid. it would mean that members opposed to strike action would be positively encouraged not to vote at all.

 

The point about the assumption that people who don't vote are all opposed to strike action is a good one.

 

It is interesting that one of the keenest supporters of a change is one Boris Johnson. The turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38%.

 

Good points all. Pecksniffian politicians mouthing platitudes they think will win votes.

One of the proposals being considered is for a minimum turnout of 60%. This is absolutely absurd. That would mean, for example, that if 10,000 people are eligible to vote, 5999 vote Yes with the remainder not voting at all, the vote will be invalid. However, if one person voted No, the vote would be valid. it would mean that members opposed to strike action would be positively encouraged not to vote at all.

 

The point about the assumption that people who don't vote are all opposed to strike action is a good one.

This, basically. It'd be utterly ridiculous to create a system where not voting is more powerful and more likely a way to stop strike action than voting no.

 

But then, the Tories aren't really after a fair system here, they just want something that looks and sounds popular and which gets the few strikes we ever have down. I'm genuinely surprised we haven't had the basic right to strike full stop challenged yet by the Tories, in honesty.

This, basically. It'd be utterly ridiculous to create a system where not voting is more powerful and more likely a way to stop strike action than voting no.

 

But then, the Tories aren't really after a fair system here, they just want something that looks and sounds popular and which gets the few strikes we ever have down. I'm genuinely surprised we haven't had the basic right to strike full stop challenged yet by the Tories, in honesty.

I think there is still majority support for the right to strike. Obviously any attempt to end that right would obviously be challenged immediately under the Human Rights Act which may make the Act more popular. That's something the Tories definitely do not want.

Absolutely ridiculous proposal from Cameron, but I'd expect nothing less. I'm not a big fan of strike action, but I support employees right to strike - and if we use arbitrary barriers such as 60% turnout then you'd have to exclude the results of the 2001 general election, as the turnout for that election was a mere 59.4%.

 

How about the Tories get on with sorting out the more important problems facing the country - and fix the absolute mess around corporation tax.

Do the unions and public service workers not care about the knock-on effects these ridiculous strikes have on other working people? Demand for childcare has soared today and people have had to pay for that as they couldn't take a day off themselves. The strikers are very selfish.

Do the unions and public service workers not care about the knock-on effects these ridiculous strikes have on other working people? Demand for childcare has soared today and people have had to pay for that as they couldn't take a day off themselves. The strikers are very selfish.

 

We didn't strike but a numbers of teachers brought their kids into school if their school was striking. A lot of other professions could probably do the same. The whole point is to prove that workers are willing to do anything to improve the conditions of their job so inconvenience is the idea. I chose not to strike but I support the right of others to do so. The world does not revolve around where people can dump their kids for 6 hours.

Do the unions and public service workers not care about the knock-on effects these ridiculous strikes have on other working people?

Why are they ridiculous? Perhaps if you knew what it was like to take a 20% real terms pay cut, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. They do care. That's why they've tried negotiating with the government for so long.

Do the unions and public service workers not care about the knock-on effects these ridiculous strikes have on other working people? Demand for childcare has soared today and people have had to pay for that as they couldn't take a day off themselves. The strikers are very selfish.

Of course they care, they generously created more opportunities for childcare work.

 

 

I do personally find the strikes unnecessary and ineffective. It wouldn't be so bad if the people striking actually formed a picket line or actively showed their support in another method, however all but a small minority seem to just take it as unpaid leave and find something nice to do with a sunny day instead. To be honest, at our place, I tend to find there is a direct correlation between those on strike and those who are pretty darn awful at their job in the first place and the only thing it proves is how little impact their absence actually makes!

 

Of course they care, they generously created more opportunities for childcare work.

I do personally find the strikes unnecessary and ineffective. It wouldn't be so bad if the people striking actually formed a picket line or actively showed their support in another method, however all but a small minority seem to just take it as unpaid leave and find something nice to do with a sunny day instead. To be honest, at our place, I tend to find there is a direct correlation between those on strike and those who are pretty darn awful at their job in the first place and the only thing it proves is how little impact their absence actually makes!

The problem is that picket lines are legally restricted to having to be below a certain number. There are huge restrictions which came in during the 80s which have left a lot of picket lines totally toothless.

Do you know what the number is out of interest? There is usually about 4 people at most on our picket line - although I can see that those it most affects are those that are least able to afford to take a day's unpaid strike and so those that care the most are possibly actually in work.

 

 

 

 

I think it's somewhere between 6 and 8 per picket line.

Even if the picket lines are cut in numbers, people could still march or, you know, something. Most people I know that were striking today were just using it for shopping or turning it into a long weekend. I just don't get the impression that those on strike are necessarily doing it for the reasons it was organised.

You arte not allowed more than about 6 on a picket line, the council I work for most people are not in the union and dont pay fees so there are rarely more than 2 on a picket line. They do however prefer to go on the lunchtime march, not lose a days pay, and enjoy any benefit from improved pay offers resulting from the minority who do make the effort. They all support the strike - as long as they don't have to lose said days pay and stand to benefit from it. There is no ill will between any parties, not even management.

 

Re: families inconvenienced, most of my fellow striking workers also have kids and are truly struggling to manage on their wages. They are in this position out of desperation. They aren't being selfish, theyve sat and taken every cut and slashed staff numbers and increased workload without complaint since 2007. There comes a point when you have to make an point to be taken seriously, and one day (without pay, saving the taxpayer cash, the work will still get done by the same people on strike, regardless of a measly day off) isn't a major inconvenience any more than having to sort something out for the day when a child is poorly. These are less-than-average waged non-political families for the most part, not militant extremists, despite what the Tories are trying to portray them as.

What I find the funniest is that those right-wingers who go on rants about strikes are generally ALSO the type of people who complain that all public-sector workers are just a drain on "the taxpayer" and don't actually do anything worthwhile. If public-sector workers are so pointless and don't contribute anything to the economy/country, then it wouldn't actually MATTER if they went on strike would it?

Edited July 10, 201411 yr by Danny

What I find the funniest is that those right-wingers who go on rants about strikes are generally ALSO the type of people who complain that all public-sector workers are just a drain on "the taxpayer" and don't actually do anything worthwhile. If public-sector workers are so pointless and don't contribute anything to the economy/country, then it wouldn't actually MATTER if they went on strike would it?

Logic has never been a strength of your average Tory.

What I find the funniest is that those right-wingers who go on rants about strikes are generally ALSO the type of people who complain that all public-sector workers are just a drain on "the taxpayer" and don't actually do anything worthwhile. If public-sector workers are so pointless and don't contribute anything to the economy/country, then it wouldn't actually MATTER if they went on strike would it?

Or that they say that unions are 'HOLDING the COUNTRY to RANSOM!' whilst backing the people who whine that if the top rate of tax goes up to 50% they'll leave the UK and we'll go bankrupt.

Even if the picket lines are cut in numbers, people could still march or, you know, something.

A lot of them do!