"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

It isn't toadying up that is involved, its much more
about going along with what most want to make
it easier to operate with them in the future etc.

Especially since such action will result in
you losing pay - if only in the short term?

Some do when it looks like most are voting that way.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. Just far from common

In fact its much more common than you claim.

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.

That is in fact what picket lines do all the time.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that you only ever see picket
lines when the vast majority are not in favor of the strike ?

Indeed such action could well have had
the opposite effect if known about. ;-)

That might be true of the operation you worked for but clearly
isn't with the worst of the rabid unions like with Scargill.

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.

You have no way of knowing what the result would have been without
a secret ballot involved unless you are actually trying to claim that every
single time anything was ever put the vote it always got up, both before
and after secret ballots were introduced.

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.

Not when that industry is changing how things are done automation wise.

Job security is part of that.

And killing that part of the industry with unreasonable claims
doesn’t do that. That's what happened with the US auto unions,
what they stupidly imposed on the industry came very close to
sinking GM completely.

All successful businesses are only successful due to the efforts of the
workforce.

Any workforce needs to have successful businesses to provide the jobs.

Lead by a decent management. It is so obvious as to hardly need stating.

So is the reverse.