In article ,
bert wrote:
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.

What a sheltered life you have lead.

Quite the contrary. Have considerable direct experience of trades unions
up to TUC level.

Unlike the majority who simply read and believe what they are groomed to
do so. I'm really quite surprised so many are so gullible.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

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

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:46:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What a sheltered life you have lead.

Quite the contrary. Have considerable direct experience of trades unions
up to TUC level.

But, of course, you have a completely open mind on the subject, and
aren't coming at the question with one side already strongly preferred...?

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
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?

Try reading what I actually wrote. The clue is 'successful'.

In the miners case they would all have been out of work shortly anyway. So
just a last stand. Which many - if even half human - would understand.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Then if most want it, the vote is carried.

Of course the likes you only believe in a majority vote when that majority
agrees with your repellant views.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
My guess is you wouldn't know a decent
day's work if it bit you in the arse.

Guess again. Much of the time I worked all night
with no change whatever in the amount I was paid
because access to the very expensive equipment was
only possible that way because it was doing other
stuff during the day.

As I said, wouldn't know a day's work.

They probably put you on night shift in an attempt to keep you away from
humans.

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
My union operated what was known as an agency shop. Basically, anyone
who didn't want to be a member for whatever reason (religious or
whatever) could pay the same union subscription to a recognised
charity. And only a handful chose to do so.

Because there is no reason why any damned union
gets any say on what they have to pay a charity.

Didn't expect you to understand the concept. Or any concept, come to that.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Which is what I said a few days ago: the job of a union should be to
look after its members' *interests*. And that includes recognising when
an industry is disappearing and preparing for that day constructively.

No argument with that.

But what most seem to think a unions' main job is to protect the interests
of the 'country' or 'public' as they see those.

But don't seem to worry much when big business is only concerned with its
own narrow interests.

For example, do you think Murdoch gives a toss about the UK? Except as a
place to make profits from? Etc etc.

There are now a large number of multi-national companies in the UK making
a lot of money by paying minimum wages and even less tax. Not a union in
sight.

Of course that's what many here think is fine. As they don't have to work
for them.

Oh - those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals are a primary
reason for the country's massive deficit.

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:46:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What a sheltered life you have lead.

Quite the contrary. Have considerable direct experience of trades
unions up to TUC level.

But, of course, you have a completely open mind on the subject, and
aren't coming at the question with one side already strongly
preferred...?

Got a far more open mind on the subject than most contributing here who
simply post what they've read. And believed implicitly.

When you experience events which you later see reported in the press etc
directly contrary to your own experience, you do tend to learn they often
lie.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

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

On 18/07/2015 16:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Charles Hope wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Charles Hope wrote:
So you got chucked out of the union - obviously a closed shop - so
unable to work again? ;-)

No, I left - of my own ccord.

Right. So no longer possible for you to influence the way the union
operated. But hardly anything to do with a closed shop which I
originally commented on.

but a lot to do with decisions being made by ALL the members

Are you saying it wasn't made by the majority?

Strike decisions are seldom made by a majority, why do you think the
unions are bleating about the proposals to make it so they do have to
have closer to a majority?


Did you ever find out why you (think you) didn't get a vote?

It rather stands to reason that even with a postal vote not everyone will
get the chance to vote.

Why would that be?
Sure some will choose not to but why shouldn't they all have the
opportunity?

On 19/07/2015 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an opportunity
to vote against action?

Yes.

No.
Some meetings there was a call for a show of hands and the action
passed, no need for a show the other way.

So not being able to count is one of your many failings?


Stop posting idiotic comments.

On 19/07/2015 15:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:46:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What a sheltered life you have lead.

Quite the contrary. Have considerable direct experience of trades
unions up to TUC level.

But, of course, you have a completely open mind on the subject, and
aren't coming at the question with one side already strongly
preferred...?

Got a far more open mind on the subject than most contributing here who
simply post what they've read. And believed implicitly.

When you experience events which you later see reported in the press etc
directly contrary to your own experience, you do tend to learn they often
lie.


Yes I agree but you also see stuff reported that agrees with what you
have seen so not all of its a lie. You assume its a lie because you
haven't seen it which is just about as closed a mind as you can get.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Oh - those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals are a primary
reason for the country's massive deficit.


Yet another example of your total ignorance of economics.

Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:46:22 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What a sheltered life you have lead.

Quite the contrary. Have considerable direct experience of trades unions
up to TUC level.

But, of course, you have a completely open mind on the subject, and
aren't coming at the question with one side already strongly preferred...?

Of course not!

dennis@home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an
opportunity
to vote against action?

Yes.

No.
Some meetings there was a call for a show of hands and the action
passed, no need for a show the other way.

So not being able to count is one of your many failings?


Stop posting idiotic comments.

Dennis, remember, he may well be an idiot! Drivel's replacement?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't made by the majority?

Strike decisions are seldom made by a majority,

You'd have to explain what you mean by a majority.

why do you think the unions are bleating about the proposals to make it
so they do have to have closer to a majority?

Given we elect the far more important government with no such proviso,
don't you understand why?

--
*America is so advanced that even the chairs are electric.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an opportunity
to vote against action?

Yes.

No.
Some meetings there was a call for a show of hands and the action
passed, no need for a show the other way.

So not being able to count is one of your many failings?


Stop posting idiotic comments.

What is idiotic about being able to count?

Sometimes there is such a clear majority (for or against) on a show of
hands that there is no point in a count. When it is not obvious, a count
is done.

--
*My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe.

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Oh - those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals are a primary
reason for the country's massive deficit.


Yet another example of your total ignorance of economics.

So you're saying the income a government gets from taxes is of no
importance?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, of course. But that's what it reads
like.

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an
opportunity
to vote against action?

Yes.

No.
Some meetings there was a call for a show of hands and the action
passed, no need for a show the other way.

So not being able to count is one of your many failings?


Stop posting idiotic comments.

Dennis, remember, he may well be an idiot!

Glad you're siding with dennis. So I take it you can't count either?

I've been at lots of 'hands up' ballots. Tellers are appointed beforehand.
If the result is close, maybe even several re-counts. Exactly like a
general election. Do you really think a significant minority would allow
otherwise?

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Which is what I said a few days ago: the job of a union should be to
look after its members' *interests*. And that includes recognising when
an industry is disappearing and preparing for that day constructively.

No argument with that.

But what most seem to think a unions' main job is to protect the interests
of the 'country' or 'public' as they see those.

Nonsense
But don't seem to worry much when big business is only concerned with its
own narrow interests.

Big business has the same pressure. It's first duty is to survive.
For example, do you think Murdoch gives a toss about the UK? Except as a
place to make profits from? Etc etc.

Well being in the service sector if the UK doesn't do well he won't make
those profits.
There are now a large number of multi-national companies in the UK making
a lot of money by paying minimum wages and even less tax. Not a union in
sight.

The caring one nation Conservative government is introducing a living
wage without any pressure from unions.
Of course that's what many here think is fine. As they don't have to work
for them.

Oh - those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals are a primary
reason for the country's massive deficit.

********
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't made by the majority?

Strike decisions are seldom made by a majority,

You'd have to explain what you mean by a majority.

Simple.
Which definition would you prefer? The government proposal is a
reasonable compromise. They could have gone a lot further and insisted
on a majority of those entitled to vote. It's now up to the unions to
respond responsibly or ultimately face more draconian measure.
why do you think the unions are bleating about the proposals to make it
so they do have to have closer to a majority?

Given we elect the far more important government with no such proviso,
don't you understand why?

That is a totally fatuous argument. A government election is a
multi-choice selection. And you will notice there is a great deal of
concern about the turnout falling below 70% leading to some suggesting
that voting should be made compulsory. The current proposal for strike
action is that only 50% need vote. Too soft in my view.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 13:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
er. I have never attended such a meeting. Is there always an
opportunity
to vote against action?

Yes.

No.
Some meetings there was a call for a show of hands and the action
passed, no need for a show the other way.

So not being able to count is one of your many failings?


Stop posting idiotic comments.

Dennis, remember, he may well be an idiot!

Glad you're siding with dennis. So I take it you can't count either?

I've been at lots of 'hands up' ballots. Tellers are appointed beforehand.
If the result is close, maybe even several re-counts. Exactly like a
general election. Do you really think a significant minority would allow
otherwise?

But you operate in the chummy world of the BBC. Not proper workers.
Different story in the car factories and shipyards etc.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't made by the majority?

Strike decisions are seldom made by a majority,

You'd have to explain what you mean by a majority.

why do you think the unions are bleating about the proposals to make it
so they do have to have closer to a majority?

Given we elect the far more important government with no such proviso,
don't you understand why?

strike ballots are yes/no choices

electing a government is not

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Then if most want it, the vote is carried.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, how many choose to
change the way they vote when it becomes clear that how
the originally intended to vote is going to be a minority view.

Secret ballots eliminate that.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
My guess is you wouldn't know a decent
day's work if it bit you in the arse.

Guess again. Much of the time I worked all night
with no change whatever in the amount I was paid
because access to the very expensive equipment was
only possible that way because it was doing other
stuff during the day.

As I said, wouldn't know a day's work.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I did plenty in the day time too.

They probably put you on night shift

No one put me on anything. I decided for myself when I would do things.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
My union operated what was known as an agency shop. Basically, anyone
who didn't want to be a member for whatever reason (religious or
whatever) could pay the same union subscription to a recognised
charity. And only a handful chose to do so.

Because there is no reason why any damned union
gets any say on what they have to pay a charity.

Didn't expect you to understand the concept.

There is no concept, just another union ****ing over.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
My guess is you wouldn't know a decent
day's work if it bit you in the arse.

Guess again. Much of the time I worked all night
with no change whatever in the amount I was paid
because access to the very expensive equipment was
only possible that way because it was doing other
stuff during the day.

As I said, wouldn't know a day's work.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I did plenty in the day time too.

They probably put you on night shift

No one put me on anything. I decided for myself when I would do things.

That breadmaking must've been a *******.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Which is what I said a few days ago: the job of a union should be to
look after its members' *interests*. And that includes recognising when
an industry is disappearing and preparing for that day constructively.

No argument with that.

But what most seem to think a unions' main job is to protect the interests
of the 'country' or 'public' as they see those.

Nope, they just don’t believe that the goons who just sit on their lard
arses in trains that are perfectly capable of driving themselves shouldn’t
be able to demand they get paid more than they are already very well
paid to do nothing and bring that particular bit of their industry to a
halt in an attempt to get what they have no right to get.

In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't made by the majority?

Strike decisions are seldom made by a majority,

You'd have to explain what you mean by a majority.

why do you think the unions are bleating about the proposals to make it
so they do have to have closer to a majority?

Given we elect the far more important government with no such proviso,
don't you understand why?

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed? Is the vote to be of the whole union, the
branch involved in the dispute, other branches that may get involved if a
dispute takes place?

You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

electing a government is not








--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Then if most want it, the vote is carried.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, how many choose to
change the way they vote when it becomes clear that how
the originally intended to vote is going to be a minority view.

Secret ballots eliminate that.

Try and keep up. We've had secret ballots for such things in the UK for
some 25 years. Perhaps one day your country will catch up. I'm sure you'll
take longer.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote

those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals
are a primary reason for the country's massive deficit.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

The reason for that is because your stupid politicians never
had the balls to raise as much in taxes as they were spending
and chose to run up an immense national debt and were then
actually stupid enough to deregulate the banks so that when
the **** hit the fan, as it always does sometime, they had to
bail out the worst of the banks to avoid another great depression
or worse and THAT’S what produced the country's massive deficit.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Oh - those low wages and tax evasion from multi nationals are a primary
reason for the country's massive deficit.


Yet another example of your total ignorance of economics.

So you're saying the income a government gets from taxes is of no
importance?

No, he is saying that low wages and tax evasion are not
the reason for your country's current massive deficit.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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.

Then if most want it, the vote is carried.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, how many choose to
change the way they vote when it becomes clear that how
the originally intended to vote is going to be a minority view.

Secret ballots eliminate that.

Try and keep up.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

We've had secret ballots for such things in the UK for some 25 years.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.

On 20/07/2015 00:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Try and keep up. We've had secret ballots for such things in the UK for
some 25 years. Perhaps one day your country will catch up. I'm sure you'll
take longer.


Yes we have those things even though trade unions still don't want them!
Some democracy they are.

On 20/07/2015 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed?

No undecided are allowed, at best the unions used to have another show
of hands in favour of their motion if they thought people would change
their minds. The vote for action is always a majority of those that
voted, not those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions
don't like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:18:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed?

No undecided are allowed, at best the unions used to have another show
of hands in favour of their motion if they thought people would change
their minds. The vote for action is always a majority of those that
voted, not those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions
don't like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

If you aren't convinced that a strike is justified, surely the only
correct option is to vote "No"?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Try and keep up. We've had secret ballots for such things in the UK for
some 25 years. Perhaps one day your country will catch up. I'm sure you'll
take longer.


Yes we have those things even though trade unions still don't want them!

For the reason they give extra unnecessary work to the volunteers who run
a union at grass roots level.

What annoyed the government is that secret ballots didn't give the results
the likes of you passionately believed they would. The types who believed
all industrial action was caused by a few activists which the rest
following like sheep.

The true sheep are those so stupid to believe all the anti-union
propaganda in the press.

Some democracy they are.

And those types don't give a stuff about democracy. Except when it gives
the result they want.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/07/2015 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed?

No undecided are allowed, at best the unions used to have another show
of hands in favour of their motion if they thought people would change
their minds.

Care to run that by me again in English?

The vote for action is always a majority of those that
voted, not those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions
don't like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

Like a vote in the House of Commons, then?

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:18:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed?

No undecided are allowed, at best the unions used to have another show
of hands in favour of their motion if they thought people would change
their minds. The vote for action is always a majority of those that
voted, not those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions
don't like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

If you aren't convinced that a strike is justified, surely the only
correct option is to vote "No"?

In general, things only ever get near a vote for industrial action when
negotiations have failed. And the workforce are well aware of this. I've
personally never seen any vote for industrial action where the result
wasn't an overwhelming majority in favour. Can't really see any point in
going to the vote if you don't already know there is a big majority in
favour of it.

The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the way
of actual experience in how unions work.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

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

On 20/07/2015 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Try and keep up. We've had secret ballots for such things in the UK for
some 25 years. Perhaps one day your country will catch up. I'm sure you'll
take longer.


Yes we have those things even though trade unions still don't want them!

For the reason they give extra unnecessary work to the volunteers who run
a union at grass roots level.

What annoyed the government is that secret ballots didn't give the results
the likes of you passionately believed they would. The types who believed
all industrial action was caused by a few activists which the rest
following like sheep.

Rubbish, why do you think there are less strikes now?
If there is a real grievance than secret ballots just make the unions
job easier as they can actually show that there is support from members.

Its a shame that some unions think that if they have a ballot and then
have a series of one day strikes spread out over the year(s) that they
don't need to re-ballot the members.

On 20/07/2015 10:26, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:18:30 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

strike ballots are yes/no choices

Really? No undecided allowed?

No undecided are allowed, at best the unions used to have another show
of hands in favour of their motion if they thought people would change
their minds. The vote for action is always a majority of those that
voted, not those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions
don't like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

If you aren't convinced that a strike is justified, surely the only
correct option is to vote "No"?


It took a very brave or stupid man to put his hand up in a no vote at
many meetings. If you were lucky they just sent you to Coventry, things
could be much worse. Dave will deny anything ever happened if you voted
against a union show of hands and he should know he has been to every
union meeting ever held anywhere in the country.