Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

V996 – Trade Union and Strike Action Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    41.30%
    On the contrary, No
    50.00%
    Abstain
    8.70%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Employers' downside (the loss of a livelihood) is no greater than employees' - you say they're taking more risk when defining it in a pointless measure of monetary capital, when the only really relevant measure is loss of expected utility, which is largely the same for both sides. Property has no place in moral argument as it can only be justified as a consequence of a pre-existing morality.



    A union calling a strike does not oblige all members of the union to strike, and it is illegal (as it should be) for employers to discriminate based on union membership.



    I didn't refute it because it's a laughably bad argument. All this does is add another hurdle to members of the union being able to strike. Those who choose not to strike even upon a vote to do so gain absolutely no freedom from this, since they can not strike either way. All it does is delegitimise valid strikes, thus limiting the power of union members. It's completely daft to view this any other way.
    employers absolutely have more risk; their profits are dependant on how well the company does, employees get their pay check no matter what. A pre existed morality anyone who isnt a batshit communist or anarchist would accept.

    totally irrelevant points to what they're responding to.

    it's not a bad arguement. it's not even something that can be argued against. members get more say over when strikes happen: fact.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    employers absolutely have more risk; their profits are dependant on how well the company does, employees get their pay check no matter what. A pre existed morality anyone who isnt a batshit communist or anarchist would accept.
    Employees get their paycheck unless the company fails (i.e. the downside risk of the employer).

    totally irrelevant points to what they're responding to.

    it's not a bad arguement. it's not even something that can be argued against. members get more say over when strikes happen: fact.
    They're only irrelevant if you have absolutely zero understanding of the relevant issues.

    Of course it's something that can be argued against because it's patently wrong. Members have less say over whether they can strike: fact. Whether a strike happens or not doesn't matter if you don't plan to strike personally because it won't affect you at all negatively, and might even affect you positively.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Employees get their paycheck unless the company fails (i.e. the downside risk of the employer).



    They're only irrelevant if you have absolutely zero understanding of the relevant issues.

    Of course it's something that can be argued against because it's patently wrong. Members have less say over whether they can strike: fact. Whether a strike happens or not doesn't matter if you don't plan to strike personally because it won't affect you at all negatively, and might even affect you positively.
    and employers lose profits if the business has a bad month; something which can be down purely to the employees as it happens. Especially if they decide to strike, for example.

    No they just had nothing to do with those specific points.

    Wrong. Do you know how a vote works? Us non commies have this system of letting people decide, rather than deciding we dont like something and then massacring the people we disagree with. I think its better this way.

    if strikes can't happen unless more people vote for it, then the will of the people have more of an influence over whether a strike happens. It's just inarguable.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    and employers lose profits if the business has a bad month; something which can be down purely to the employees as it happens. Especially if they decide to strike, for example.

    No they just had nothing to do with those specific points.
    Okay, but nevertheless employers have massive market power due to the fact that human labour is not like any other product. They are already over-compensated in terms of risk in the present system. Also, the safety net of unemployment benefits etc is exactly the same for employers and employees. Finally, the greater risk shouldn't be borne out in a market advantage at all, because they also receive the entirety of the upside. That means the risk they take on is irrelevant to the relationship between employers and employees.

    Wrong. Do you know how a vote works? Us non commies have this system of letting people decide, rather than deciding we dont like something and then massacring the people we don't like. I think its better this way.
    Yes, I know how a vote works. That's why I'm not saying a majority of people who vote voting against should nevertheless permit a strike to take place. However, imposing minimum turnout requirements not only means not showing up is a more effective vote against than actually voting, but assumes that all those who don't care either way are voting against, and is thus fundamentally against the democratic principle you seek to invoke. This makes trade unionism so much less democratic.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)

    if strikes can't happen unless more people vote for it, then the will of the people have more of an influence over whether a strike happens. It's just inarguable.
    But someone not voting on a strike doesn't mean their will is for the strike not to happen - that contention is just beyond absurd. This is no more reasonable than saying 'a strike will happen unless a majority of all union members vote against it'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    But someone not voting on a strike doesn't mean their will is for the strike not to happen - that contention is just beyond absurd. This is no more reasonable than saying 'a strike will happen unless a majority of all union members vote against it'.
    No it doesn't, but it does mean, for the majority of those voting (there will be that 0.5% who were ill or something) who don';t care enough to vote for it. If enough people don't care enough to vote for it, then a strike shouldn't happen.

    atm the drastic and damaging effects of a strike can happen without a clear mandate.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    No it doesn't, but it does mean, for the majority of those voting (there will be that 0.5% who were ill or something) who don';t care enough to vote for it. If enough people don't care enough to vote for it, then a strike shouldn't happen.

    atm the drastic and damaging effects of a strike can happen without a clear mandate.
    'atm the drastic and damaging effects of a tory government can happen without a clear mandate'

    exactly the same argument. You, along with anyone else, should feel free to support this Bill, provided you also accept it is profoundly undemocratic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, but nevertheless employers have massive market power due to the fact that human labour is not like any other product. They are already over-compensated in terms of risk in the present system. Also, the safety net of unemployment benefits etc is exactly the same for employers and employees. Finally, the greater risk shouldn't be borne out in a market advantage at all, because they also receive the entirety of the upside. That means the risk they take on is irrelevant to the relationship between employers and employees.



    Yes, I know how a vote works. That's why I'm not saying a majority of people who vote voting against should nevertheless permit a strike to take place. However, imposing minimum turnout requirements not only means not showing up is a more effective vote against than actually voting, but assumes that all those who don't care either way are voting against, and is thus fundamentally against the democratic principle you seek to invoke. This makes trade unionism so much less democratic.
    They have massive market power, over their own livelihoods and property, which is as it should be. Employees now have several rights protected in law (most of which i agree with), and they willingly accept the contracts they signed up to. And if the other side has such greener grass, more people would h=take the "easy road" and set up their own businesses. But they don't. They stay in their jobs, and (like pretty much every human) grumble occasionally at their lot.

    It's a tiny obstacle if people actually want to strike.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    They have massive market power, over their own livelihoods and property, which is as it should be. Employees now have several rights protected in law (most of which i agree with), and they willingly accept the contracts they signed up to. And if the other side has such greener grass, more people would h=take the "easy road" and set up their own businesses. But they don't. They stay in their jobs, and (like pretty much every human) grumble occasionally at their lot.

    It's a tiny obstacle if people actually want to strike.
    Yeah basically you're just ignoring simple economics here because it doesn't suit you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'atm the drastic and damaging effects of a tory government can happen without a clear mandate'

    exactly the same argument. You, along with anyone else, should feel free to support this Bill, provided you also accept it is profoundly undemocratic.
    even though the tories were voted in.

    GEs and spefic votes on one thing should have different standards, hence the Brexit vote was rightly non past the post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yeah basically you're just ignoring simple economics here because it doesn't suit you.
    this is an impressive feat in that you;ve managed to write a sentence conveying no information whatsoever.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    even though the tories were voted in.

    GEs and spefic votes on one thing should have different standards, hence the Brexit vote was rightly non past the post.
    But neither should have turnout requirements. I'm sure you'll agree that the petition to impose a turnout requirement on the Brexit vote is a little silly.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    this is an impressive feat in that you;ve managed to write a sentence conveying no information whatsoever.
    To expand: monopsonies in the labour market, which prevent it operating efficiently, are economic fact. This is why things like a minimum wage, workers' rights and the ability to strike make the market more efficient.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    But neither should have turnout requirements. I'm sure you'll agree that the petition to impose a turnout requirement on the Brexit vote is a little silly.
    Not at all. I'd have happily imposed a, say, 65% req for a brexit vote to be valid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    To expand: monopsonies in the labour market, which prevent it operating efficiently, are economic fact. This is why things like a minimum wage, workers' rights and the ability to strike make the market more efficient.
    This issue doesn't have a necessary link to monopolies though.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Not at all. I'd have happily imposed a, say, 65% req for a brexit vote to be valid.
    Hm, okay, that surprises me. I still think that's undemocratic (and fwiw I voted remain), but it's definitely more consistent with the rest of your rhetoric.

    (Original post by banterboy)
    This issue doesn't have a necessary link to monopolies though.
    I mean, it does, since this is fundamentally just a labour market adjustment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Hm, okay, that surprises me. I still think that's undemocratic (and fwiw I voted remain), but it's definitely more consistent with the rest of your rhetoric.



    I mean, it does, since this is fundamentally just a labour market adjustment.
    a monopoly can certainly impact these things, but every strike action isnt inherently linked to monopolies surely.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    a monopoly can certainly impact these things, but every strike action isnt inherently linked to monopolies surely.
    Monopsonies, not monopolies. There is massive buyer power in any labour market, which only really starts to ebb when unemployment rates are insanely low.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Monopsonies, not monopolies. There is massive buyer power in any labour market, which only really starts to ebb when unemployment rates are insanely low.
    they amount to the same thing in this instance fundamentally. Although i will admit to misreading you.

    Nah, in some sectors but not all of them. Theres different companies and stuff.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Saracen's Fez Can my vote please be changed from Abstain to Aye?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.