dennis@home wrote:
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.



I blame the employers. If they trained enough people, every time one
lot went on strike, the replacements could take over and do the work.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:13:16 +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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

On 20/07/15 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In general, things only ever get near a vote for industrial action when
negotiations have failed.

Wrong.

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.

Wrong.

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.

More fool you.

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


Well, exactly.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 20/07/2015 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


The more you post the more I think you have never seen a union in the
70's. Which is why the laws were put in place.

On 20/07/2015 11:18, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:13:16 +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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...


Yes but this is about union laws and why they are there and why the
unions shouldn't be free to do what they like.

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

Completely different, you need to know how your MP voted, ****wit.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
dennis@home wrote:
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.

I blame the employers.

More fool you.

If they trained enough people, every time one lot went on strike, the
replacements could take over and do the work.

Corse there are never any picket lines and goons
standing over anyone who does that, eh ?

In message . com,
lid writes

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


The more you post the more I think you have never seen a union in the
70's. Which is why the laws were put in place.

Or '50's/60's. Cue dock workers.

--
Tim Lamb

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
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?

Firms which have survived realise the importance of good industrial
relations. Those that didn't went under. Prime example being the now
largely foreign owned motor industry - with much the same unions and
workforce that was once at loggerheads with the likes of BL.

Vastly less union membership, due to the way many are employed these
days. Contract and freelance. Result being the vast numbers now on
poverty wages. Exactly the intention of those who don't like labour to be
organised.

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.

A union knows if it has support from its memebers. And nothing it does -
or any legislation - will make the slightest difference to union bashers.

FFS - all you need to do is read the piffle here about 'hands up ballots'
when secret and postal has been the law for 25 years...

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.

Dennis, why not just be honest for once and come clean that you'd like to
outlaw all industrial action? After all you obviously think you are
management of some sort who's word should be law and workers grateful for
any crumbs from your table.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
t took a very brave or stupid man to put his hand up in a no vote at
many meetings.

Which meeting were those, dennis? Ones you attended?

BTW, why are you on and on about this? Thatcher changed the law so secret
ballots are now required. Some 25 years ago.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

I blame the employers. If they trained enough people, every time one
lot went on strike, the replacements could take over and do the work.

Ever tried talking to an employer about a decent raining scheme?
Such things cost. Much cheaper for that employer to poach trained staff
from elsewhere.

But thanks for confirming you've never worked in industry.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

Nice that one person on here seems to know that.

Trouble is they didn't have the outcome that the legislators were hoping
for. Which sort of proved the total nonsense that a few militants lead the
rest along like sheep.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:08:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for parliamentary
elections either. Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.
And the same for voting within parliament.

--
*I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.*

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/07/15 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In general, things only ever get near a vote for industrial action when
negotiations have failed.

Wrong.

The resident expert on everything pronounces. Must be true.

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.

Wrong.

You now claim to know what I personally have observed? Your crystal ball
is working overtime.

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.

More fool you.

You would go for a vote on industrial action knowing the majority of
members would say no?
You've not got any experience of such things, have you? If you had you'd
realise what a stupid statement that was.

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


Well, exactly.

And you've proved it.

--
*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 . com,
dennis@home wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.


The more you post the more I think you have never seen a union in the
70's. Which is why the laws were put in place.

It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, dennis, but its 2015 now.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...


Yes but this is about union laws and why they are there and why the
unions shouldn't be free to do what they like.

But an employer should be?

--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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?

Completely different, you need to know how your MP voted, ****wit.

Suppose it is too much to expect you to read before you answer?

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

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

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for parliamentary
elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would would
better.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can bloody
debate and vote.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for parliamentary
elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would would
better.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can bloody
debate and vote.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for
parliamentary elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would
would better.

The good thing about it *not* being compulsory is that it's an indicator
of how well the political system is working - or not.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can
bloody debate and vote.

Actually that's not all they're paid to do.

It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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

On 20/07/15 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Firms which have survived realise the importance of good industrial
relations.
Workers who have lost their jobs realise the importance of good
industrial relations.

Golden egg, goose, kill.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 20/07/2015 11:08, dennis@home wrote:

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.


larger mortgages and debt = less strikes.

On 20/07/2015 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Dennis, why not just be honest for once and come clean that you'd like to
outlaw all industrial action? After all you obviously think you are
management of some sort who's word should be law and workers grateful for
any crumbs from your table.


Stupid comments again.
I have no problem with industrial action if its for a good reason.
H&S would be one example.
Plain greed is not a good reason.

On 20/07/2015 13:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
t took a very brave or stupid man to put his hand up in a no vote at
many meetings.

Which meeting were those, dennis? Ones you attended?

BTW, why are you on and on about this? Thatcher changed the law so secret
ballots are now required. Some 25 years ago.


Why do you keep deying it happened and that is why we have the laws we have?

On 20/07/2015 13:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.


The more you post the more I think you have never seen a union in the
70's. Which is why the laws were put in place.

It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, dennis, but its 2015 now.


So why do you deny it happened, you have done so all through this thread
even when we were discussing the miners strikes. You do remember them,
they happened a while ago.

Adrian posted
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:13:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
It took a very brave or stupid man to put his hand up in a no vote at
many meetings.

It isn't just the risk of intimidation or ostracism; it is known to be
psychologically very difficult for ordinary people to publicly dissent
from their close colleagues' strongly expressed beliefs. There are
exceptions, but they are exceptions.

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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

Have they? Anyway, what is legal is not the same as what is actually
done. I was involved in a strike in 1989 in which no secret ballot was
ever held. Everything was done by a show of hands. And in the end we all
got sacked.

--
Les

On 20/07/2015 13:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...


Yes but this is about union laws and why they are there and why the
unions shouldn't be free to do what they like.

But an employer should be?


There are more laws that an employer has to obey.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:57:07 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

I was involved in a strike in 1989 in which no secret ballot was
ever held. Everything was done by a show of hands. And in the end we all
got sacked.

Yes, going on illegal strikes often has that end result.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/07/2015 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Dennis, why not just be honest for once and come clean that you'd like
to outlaw all industrial action? After all you obviously think you are
management of some sort who's word should be law and workers grateful
for any crumbs from your table.


Stupid comments again.
I have no problem with industrial action if its for a good reason.
H&S would be one example.
Plain greed is not a good reason.

Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

Can't be too hard if there is a need for more legislation.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

On 20/07/2015 18:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/07/2015 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Dennis, why not just be honest for once and come clean that you'd like
to outlaw all industrial action? After all you obviously think you are
management of some sort who's word should be law and workers grateful
for any crumbs from your table.


Stupid comments again.
I have no problem with industrial action if its for a good reason.
H&S would be one example.
Plain greed is not a good reason.

Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

Can't be too hard if there is a need for more legislation.


Give me a recent one that wasn't.

Adrian posted
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:57:07 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

I was involved in a strike in 1989 in which no secret ballot was
ever held. Everything was done by a show of hands. And in the end we all
got sacked.

Yes, going on illegal strikes often has that end result.

I wouldn't know, and I bet you don't either. But at least you now know
that some strikes *were* approved by an open show of hands less than 30
years ago.

--
Les

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

I don't think the *show of hands* in the jury system is that close to
either a union decision or parliamentary procedure. The jurors have no
interest in the outcome.

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.


--
Tim Lamb

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

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

voting for or against a strike IS a yes/no choice,.

the fact that some may accept the view of the majority is beside the point,
because that situation occurs in a national election.

but what's different about voting for MP is you may get a choice of one from
6. It's unreasonable in that circumstance to insist that the winner gets a
majorly of the electorate voting for them.

(we could, of course, have STP, but the electorate was asked if they wanted
that and gave it a resounding NO. It is not acceptable for the unions to
overrule that vote because its suits their individual circumstances)

tim

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

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for parliamentary
elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would would
better.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can bloody
debate and vote.
They do according to party whip system. Those who might be absent on
other business can pair with someone who is also going to be absent but
would vote the opposite way.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for
parliamentary elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would
would better.

The good thing about it *not* being compulsory is that it's an indicator
of how well the political system is working - or not.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can
bloody debate and vote.

Actually that's not all they're paid to do.

It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

First parliament now the jury system. Where next in your desperate
attempts to avoid accepting that the changes proposed are reasonable and
proportionate.
Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.

Who is "they" in this context?
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:13:16 +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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...
And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...


Yes but this is about union laws and why they are there and why the
unions shouldn't be free to do what they like.

But an employer should be?

They're not.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
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.

Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

Nice that one person on here seems to know that.

Trouble is they didn't have the outcome that the legislators were hoping
for.
Yes they did in the short term until the militants found ways to distort
the system again.
Which sort of proved the total nonsense that a few militants lead the
rest along like sheep.

No they drove them along like lambs.
--
bert