The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Clamping down on strikes

The Tories cannot ban strikes, or it'll haunt them at the next election. Instead, they should:

-Require 90% of eligible members to vote on strike action
-Require 80% of those who voted to be in favour of strike action

Simple. This way Labour cannot say "Tories banned the unions", they didn't they simply raised the threshold. If you're going to strike, you should have a large majority.....

Scroll to see replies

Strike action is often needed for defending workers rights, so you need to have a balance. Requiring 90% of members to vote and 80% of those voted to be in favour is disgustingly undemocratic. Especially when you consider that almost no politicians are elected on turnout anywhere near 90%.
Such a thing would only be fair if the same treatment applied to general elections and referendums as well.
Rather than clamping down on strikes, we should be clamping down on the need to strike.

Stop the government from being able to take away workers' rights and proper pay (Y)
Reply 4
Avatar for TeeEm
TeeEm
19
Original post by billydisco
The Tories cannot ban strikes, or it'll haunt them at the next election. Instead, they should:

-Require 90% of eligible members to vote on strike action
-Require 80% of those who voted to be in favour of strike action

Simple. This way Labour cannot say "Tories banned the unions", they didn't they simply raised the threshold. If you're going to strike, you should have a large majority.....


how about then in order to win an election

-Require 90% of eligible voters to vote, for an election result to be valid
-Require 80% of those who voted to be in favour of a given party, in order to form a government.
b2.jpg12.4KB
Original post by RFowler
Strike action is often needed for defending workers rights, so you need to have a balance. Requiring 90% of members to vote and 80% of those voted to be in favour is disgustingly undemocratic. Especially when you consider that almost no politicians are elected on turnout anywhere near 90%.


Except in North Korea :ahee:

On a serious note, the voter turnout on today's LU strike was impressive.
How about: if workers strike, they don't get paid for those days and are fined 2x their pay for not working when they should be. Essential services should not be going down for selfish reasons such as pay rises.
Original post by HigherMinion
How about: if workers strike, they don't get paid for those days and are fined 2x their pay for not working when they should be. Essential services should not be going down for selfish reasons such as pay rises.


The Tube is legally not an 'essential service', and although this isn't simply over a pay rise, why shouldn't workers be allowed to put pressure on their employers to improve their conditions?

If TfL were to impose the above conditions on their staff taking industrial action, a 1980s style miners' strike situation would ensue, which the government probably wouldn't get away with in this era.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by rockrunride
The Tube is legally not an 'essential service', and although this isn't simply over a pay rise, why shouldn't workers be allowed to put pressure on their employers to improve their conditions?

If TfL were to impose the above conditions on their staff taking industrial action, a 1980s style miners' strike situation would ensue, which the government probably wouldn't get away with in this era.


So you think workers come before business owners, right? No matter how big or small? You don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially as a self-entitled worker as a civil servant. Because one way or the other you are allowing workers to strike with no repercussions. That lack of repercussions is the silly part.
Reply 9
Avatar for billydisco
billydisco
OP
3
Original post by TeeEm
how about then in order to win an election

-Require 90% of eligible voters to vote, for an election result to be valid
-Require 80% of those who voted to be in favour of a given party, in order to form a government.

What has that got to do with strikes? Nothing.
Reply 10
Avatar for billydisco
billydisco
OP
3
Original post by rockrunride
why shouldn't workers be allowed to put pressure on their employers to improve their conditions?

Improve their conditions? They aren't working down a ****ing coal mine mate!
Reply 11
Avatar for billydisco
billydisco
OP
3
Original post by Skip_Snip
Rather than clamping down on strikes, we should be clamping down on the need to strike.

Stop the government from being able to take away workers' rights and proper pay (Y)

The pay was stated in their employment contract....... they accepted the contract. Dont like it? Leave
I, like ~57 million+ people in this country, don't live or work in London, so couldn't care less what a bunch of overpaid button pushers do or don't do.

The fact that these strikes are national news is nothing short of idiotic.
Reply 13
Avatar for billydisco
billydisco
OP
3
Original post by Drewski
I, like ~57 million+ people in this country, don't live or work in London, so couldn't care less what a bunch of overpaid button pushers do or don't do.

The fact that these strikes are national news is nothing short of idiotic.

London is pretty important, its where most of the country is run from..... :wink:
Original post by billydisco
The pay was stated in their employment contract....... they accepted the contract. Dont like it? Leave


Quite. Like everyone in the private sector who don't strike and aren't part of childish unions, they have the right to quit and find another job.

The offer by TfL was very fair.
Original post by Drewski
I, like ~57 million+ people in this country, don't live or work in London, so couldn't care less what a bunch of overpaid button pushers do or don't do.

The fact that these strikes are national news is nothing short of idiotic.


The cost of crippling industrial action affects us all.
Original post by billydisco
London is pretty important, its where most of the country is run from..... :wink:


And anyone important enough to matter in the running of the country wouldn't be caught up in any tube issues.
Reply 17
Avatar for TeeEm
TeeEm
19
Original post by billydisco
What has that got to do with strikes? Nothing.



It is as ludicrous as your suggestion.
that is what it has to do with your suggestion.
Reminds me of boris johnson saying that unions needed a 66% turnout on a ballot to strike for it to have democratic legitimacy when he himself was elected on a 40% turnout.
Oh the hypocrisy of the right.
Original post by Mad Vlad
Quite. Like everyone in the private sector who don't strike and aren't part of childish unions, they have the right to quit and find another job.

The offer by TfL was very fair.

Pretty much a nub of capitalism that, rather then be angry at the government who have robbing your pension, you're angry at those in the public sector who haven't been robbed as much.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you