In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
In the union I was in, it made not a scrap of difference to the outcome of
any ballot. The results were always as predicted.

So why did the unions fight so hard to keep a system that invited
intimidation?

Dunno. Mine didn't. Except of course to speak out against any legislation
from a goverment which was so right wing.

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally out
of touch with the real world of trades unions. In other words they
believed what they read in the gutter press, rather than doing their own
research.


My father suffered intimidation by union "reps" over strike ballots.

Either they were union reps or they weren't. Reps are elected by the
members.

The real world still has union "reps" intimidating people, even with so
called secret postal votes.

How can you intimidate someone who has a secret vote? Isn't even trying to
likely to prove counter effective?

If you think there wasn't intimidation then you must have been one of
the ones doing it.

That's the sort of insult I'd expect from the likes of you.

In all my many years of membership I never saw any intimidation. Nor would
there have been any need for it anyway - the vast majority supported any
action. It wouldn't have been proposed unless the majority wanted it.

I was always amused by the idea of the majority of hairy arsed miners
being intimidated by a handful of activists.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.