In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 12:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

I think the *show of hands* at a mass meeting was always open to
intimidation and that the Thatcher changes were in the right
direction.

Every time I read this I ask the individual if they would personally
be intimidated into raising their hand if they didn't want to.

That depends on the individual, I know why as in one situation this
happened to me at a meetign where the collge was askign the technical
staff if they wouldn't mind if they didn;t pay us in the 3rd week of the
month but put it back to the last day of the month to save the college
money. I though it a good idea and wanted to vote for it by rasing my
hand and did, but noticed few others doing it so put my hand down before
it got counted. Then a long term union leader explained why this wasn't
the good idea it seemed, and why I shouldn't vote to accept it. So
intimidation can be good or bad.


I'd also ask why they only ever think a decision to take industrial
action would be influenced in this way, rather than not to take action.

That sentance confuses me. When we had a vote for other action it was
typically striking during our lunch hour or before or after our working
hours, which I thought was stupid so only mdid it once. The last two
times I've been on stike I told my manager and I didn't come in so they
stoped me a days pay which is fair. I wasn;t prepared to come in and
stanbd on a picket line trying to convince others to not come to work.

But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action have
been the law for some 30 years now?

To hear some talk you'd think it was still a show of hands.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

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