http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18889900

Damian Green would be better stepping into the real world. The whole 'sacking too many staff and spending way more than you thought you'd save' seems to happen an awful lot.

well here's the thing you see. In a functioning democracy, you don't need a member of the government's permission to go on strike. So whether Damian Green thinks it's acceptable or not is utterly irrelevant. Maybe, as the minister responsible and therefore effectively their manager, he should be explaining why they feel the need. Assuming he actually knows, of course.....

He should look on the bright side. If they're striking he doesn't have to pay them their wages that day.

So only 11.4% of union members voted to strike, but they're still doing it.
IMO the law should be changed so a non returned vote in a strike ballot should count as a no vote.

That's as equally bad an assumption as assuming it's a yes vote. A vote not cast should be considered neither yes or no, because that's what it is. A better system would actually have the ability to vote no, and if the 'no' votes won, the strike wouldn't be allowed. I believe part of the legal requirements for strike action do require a minimum ballot turnout though. Plus at the end of the day, even if you're a member of a union that has voted in favour of strike action, you're not legally required to actually go out on strike. if you want to go into work, you can, and you have legal protection against those on strike doing anything to stop you. Given the ballot result you'd expect the majority of staff to still go in anyway so the effect of the strike is going to be pretty marginal at best.

However (shoe on the other foot for a sec), given how the current administration has managed to tragically under-resource immigration services, even a few staff not turning up for work may be enough to send the whole system into gridlock. If that happens (IMO), both sides will be culpable.

Jon

I see no reason why unions should have to be held to a higher democratic standard than the people who run the country should be.
Didn't vote was by far the biggest 'party' in the last election (take you pick of council, general or European) and we're saddled with the sorry result running the country.
Until MP's are willing to accept similar rules on turnout for elections then there is no valid reason for Unions to do so IMHO.

+1 on that point.

I await the lectures from all parties urging the unions to “get around the table and negotiate” as if it‘s going to make any difference. Again, the politicians who seem to love arguing never seem to take their own advice and talk things out sensibly.

Since 1945 the voter turnout for general elections has never been below 61% for the Uk as a whole. If the turnout for a GE was at 20% then there would be serious "discussions" being had and we would probably be in the realm of mandatory voting like Australia.
Though if only 11.4% voted for action then the likely hood is that overall there wont be a massive walkout.
These days how many people can afford to lose a days pay because of a strike?
One thing is for sure, the Union leaders will not be losing any money.

According to this page, turnout in the 2001 election was 59.4%. That admittedly was the low point of a major trough, but.. y'know. I actually expect the turnout in 2015 to be rather low too, I suspect it might again dip below 60%... However, it's fair to say that turnout has never been below 50%, so even if the government didn't get an actual majority of the votes, you can at least say that the majority of the population did express their view.


There's also the point that union membership has been falling off a cliff for a good few years. Even if 100% of the people balloted turned out, that would probably now be significantly less than 100% of the employees in a particular sector. The days of the closed shop are long gone.


Well, neither will the politicians & managers whose policies have precipitated the conditions in which strikes happen. Happy staff who value the job they do rarely go on strike and they are also the most productive and therefore providing the best value for money in terms of work done for pay. A strike represents a failure both of workforce and management, IMO.

Jon

I agree, a stike demonstrates a failure to reach an accomodation between the workforce and management. This of course assumes at least one side is being accomodating, though now days both sides just seem to choose polar opposite sides and see what happens.
My comment about the Union leaders is just the rank hypocrisy they spout when they talk about pay, pensions, so called fats cats and working conditions when they themselves benefit from conditions, pay,pensions, grace and favour houses etc that a majority of their members can only dream of and then expect their members to lose money on strike actions that many of them disagree with or cant be bothered with.

Only because there isn't a "none of the above" option on electorl ballot papers

They're petrified it'd win.

We should start a party called None Of The Above.
I'll bet loads of people would be silly enough to put a cross in that box.

i do hope they do strike even if its for the whole duration of the 'so' called games ...
why can't employees be as mercenary as their employers

i see no problem with mercenary employees getting the most out of mercenary employers, they (management) set the rules, the employees simply follow their (management) rules

lord Coe and his cronies have had their money
we will be left with the 'long' term bill afterwards

may the 'games' fail, miserably ...

So so sad.