Author |
Message |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:40 pm |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
Personally I think the law should be changed so that if a union member doesn't return a strike ballot paper, it count's as a no to strike action. At the moment you could have a 40% return with 60% voting to strike. That means only 24% of union members want to strike, but the strike goes ahead anyway. Militant members are more likely to return their ballot papers than non militant ones.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 6:34 am |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
While I agree - this should also be true for all elections inc local / national and Euro
|
Fri May 02, 2014 8:22 am |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
Not sure how that would work. Somebody has to be elected. But if the turnout was lower than 50%, no one would be.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 10:05 am |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
have compulsory voting like in Auz
|
Fri May 02, 2014 10:31 am |
|
 |
davrosG5
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am Posts: 6954 Location: Peebo
|
I really don't see why a union should be held to a higher democratic standard than the country it is in. Why should a union ballot be any different from a referendum? For example, if David Cameron is in a position to make good on his pledge to hold an in/out referendum on the EU would they declare it null and void if the actual turnout was well below 50% (as most elections are in this country)?
_________________ When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum. -Billy Connolly (to a heckler)
|
Fri May 02, 2014 10:49 am |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|
Or indeed the London mayoral election...
|
Fri May 02, 2014 1:05 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
If people have the opportunity to vote but fail to cast their ballot they are indicating lack of concern either way. It is explicitly false to interpret another person's non vote as a taking of sides.
It is also inherently self defeating to tell people what they must have an opinion about. Enforced voting is counterproductive; no matter what the topic, somebody somewhere doesn't care about it.
If the union is organising the ballot appropriately then nobody is being denied a chance to express their choice. Therefore their non vote is immaterial. Same applies to democracy in general.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 1:32 pm |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
Because everyone can vote at an election. Not everyone can vote on strike action. Did the people of London get to vote on the tube strikes? As strikers affect others, a majority of the membership should be in favour of it as they'll be expected to strike if the motion is carried. Either that or you shouldn't be allowed to strike if you couldn't be bothered to vote.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 3:16 pm |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|
That's actually incorrect. Not everyone affected by government policy has a vote. Did the people of Manchester vote for crossrail, that uses billions of pounds of central government funds but will not benefit them one jot? The bare face is the way our system works is almost always that some of us vote and the rest of us accept the decision because that's democracy. If we all threw the hump every time some people voted for something that we didn't like that we had to live with, the world would be a very much less fun place to live in. That's just not the way any of our democratic processes currently work. Now, I happen to agree that certain voting processes should be compulsory (voting in general elections for example, which I think I've mentioned before) but the fact is that's just not what we do and we can't have one rule for the votes we agree with, and another for the ones we don't. Unless we're Robert Mugabe, anyway.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 3:56 pm |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
As a person of London, I don't think I should get a vote on whether employees of an unrelated organisation get a strike. Strikes are supposed to negatively affect customers, so my opinion that they shouldn't do it as I might be irritated really has no bearing. If they want to make it harder for tube workers to strike, they should bite the bullet and declare them some kind of special category of ultra important worker. Then pay them accordingly. Throwing up silly procedural obstacles as a proxy for saying what you mean is dishonest. Unless they can show that a proportion are denied the actual right to vote for some reason, in which case existing legislation should suffice.
|
Fri May 02, 2014 4:03 pm |
|
|