In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Umm.. Depends on the relationship with other voters. There is always
going to be some pressure to vote the same way as close colleagues.
Perhaps not the level of intimidation implied by the media but
nevertheless pressure not apparent with a secret ballot.

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.

er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an opportunity
to vote against action?

I was very much involved with my union when the Thatcher reforms were
brought in - postal and secret ballots etc.

They made not a scrap of difference to the expected outcome.

OK. So a strike vote had to be taken seriously by the management team.

I personally have never been involved in any form of industrial action
which didn't start at grass roots level. If my union 'head office' had
attempted to start industrial action for some form of political or
whatever reason they'd have been sacked by the members. But that didn't
stop some of the press saying some of that industrial action was
political. Which of course was exactly what union bashers wanted to read.

ISTM that pay and conditions are legitimate union concerns but job
security should not be. NUM and current RMTaction is suspect.


--
Tim Lamb