In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
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 ask again. Would you vote against your better judgement for a strike etc
just to toady up to colleagues? Especially since such action will result
in you losing pay - if only in the short term?

Me personally, no. But I think that is due more to an upbringing in an
agricultural environment where *friends from the village* were not
encouraged and spare time spent farming rather that at the pub with
mates from work.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. Just far from common - unlike what some
people would like us to believe.

But in any case, in all such disputes I've been involved in, the vast
majority were in favour of such action. So no point in trying to
intimidate the few against to change their view. Indeed such action could
well have had the opposite effect if known about. ;-)

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?

Yes. We always did a show of hands for and against and abstaining. And
made sure the numbers added up to the total present. But were only dealing
with perhaps 1000 or so max. Could be more difficult at mass meeting with
a close vote.

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.

Think it always was. My union had many members who weren't 'traditional'
Labour etc supporters. Perhaps even the majority. And few really objected
to the reforms. Just thought them - in our case - unnecessary. And did
give the volunteer union officials more work to do.

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.

A union exists to protect the jobs of its members. Job security is part of
that. All successful businesses are only successful due to the efforts of
the workforce. Lead by a decent management. It is so obvious as to hardly
need stating.

Even the extent that *protecting jobs* destroys the industry? Once
international trade was freed from tariff controls, our workforce became
exposed to lower cost production elsewhere in the world.
Striking to maintain employment and resisting productivity improvements
was bound to fail. I am not suggesting the unions should have simply
rolled over but negotiated the best possible deal for redundancy and
residual employees.




--
Tim Lamb