Not to find some ascerbic comment from Dave concerning the latest moves
to reduce strikes in essential services?
--
Tim Lamb

I actually think that they should ballot all people not just members of a
union. They could then sell them the idea of joining one.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Not to find some ascerbic comment from Dave concerning the latest moves to
reduce strikes in essential services?
--
Tim Lamb

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 11:54:05 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
Not to find some ascerbic comment from Dave concerning the latest moves
to reduce strikes in essential services?
--
Tim Lamb

There already was legislation about that.
This is an extension of existing.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Not to find some ascerbic comment from Dave concerning the latest moves
to reduce strikes in essential services?

Obviously a priority given the huge number of working days lost through
strikes. ;-)

Of course having been kicked in the ******** over human rights, Euro
referendum and fox hunting, a nice soft target will keep them sweet with
the Torygraph readers.

I can well remember Thatcher's legislation, just after it came in. All it
did was to kick lazy union members into voting. Made not a scrap of
difference to any outcome, in my experience. Just gave everyone more
paperwork to do.

It does confirm my belief that union bashers have simply no knowledge of
them - other than the lies and half truths they read in the press.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Not to find some ascerbic comment from Dave concerning the latest moves
to reduce strikes in essential services?

Obviously a priority given the huge number of working days lost through
strikes. ;-)

Of course having been kicked in the ******** over human rights, Euro
referendum and fox hunting, a nice soft target will keep them sweet with
the Torygraph readers.

I can well remember Thatcher's legislation, just after it came in. All it
did was to kick lazy union members into voting. Made not a scrap of
difference to any outcome, in my experience. Just gave everyone more
paperwork to do.

It does confirm my belief that union bashers have simply no knowledge of
them - other than the lies and half truths they read in the press.

I was only ever very briefly in DATA. Most of my proper job career was
lower tier management so I have a moderately jaundiced view of unions
and their objectives.

In my day it was leveraging overtime in exchange for allowing specialist
contractors on site.

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.

Planned efficiencies cost me my job in 1983 but I was fortunate in
having a farming career to fall back on.

Whether the proposed changes will prevent public service strikes is
beyond my knowledge but if that % of employees support strike action
then the general public should have some sympathy for them.


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

I was only ever very briefly in DATA. Most of my proper job career was
lower tier management so I have a moderately jaundiced view of unions
and their objectives.

I have memories of a works meeting of a staff union (ASTMS) I was
once a member of. One of the committee sounded off about his
disappointment at lack of support from members regarding some
issue. He seemed nonplussed when I put it to him that the idea
was that his place was to represent his members' views.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Clearly wasn’t the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

But that didn't stop some of the press saying
some of that industrial action was political.

It clearly was with Scargill.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Clearly wasn’t the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

What may be 'clear' to you most likely is the exact reverse. Usually the
case with those of limited mental ability.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

On Friday, 17 July 2015 12:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

That depends on the individual, I know why as in one situation this happened to me at a meetign where the collge was askign the technical staff if they wouldn't mind if they didn;t pay us in the 3rd week of the month but put it back to the last day of the month to save the college money.
I though it a good idea and wanted to vote for it by rasing my hand and did, but noticed few others doing it so put my hand down before it got counted.. Then a long term union leader explained why this wasn't the good idea it seemed, and why I shouldn't vote to accept it. So intimidation can be good or bad.


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.

That sentance confuses me. When we had a vote for other action it was typically striking during our lunch hour or before or after our working hours, which I thought was stupid so only mdid it once. The last two times I've been on stike I told my manager and I didn't come in so they stoped me a days pay which is fair. I wasn;t prepared to come in and stanbd on a picket line trying to convince others to not come to work.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 12:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

That depends on the individual, I know why as in one situation this
happened to me at a meetign where the collge was askign the technical
staff if they wouldn't mind if they didn;t pay us in the 3rd week of the
month but put it back to the last day of the month to save the college
money. I though it a good idea and wanted to vote for it by rasing my
hand and did, but noticed few others doing it so put my hand down before
it got counted. Then a long term union leader explained why this wasn't
the good idea it seemed, and why I shouldn't vote to accept it. So
intimidation can be good or bad.


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.

That sentance confuses me. When we had a vote for other action it was
typically striking during our lunch hour or before or after our working
hours, which I thought was stupid so only mdid it once. The last two
times I've been on stike I told my manager and I didn't come in so they
stoped me a days pay which is fair. I wasn;t prepared to come in and
stanbd on a picket line trying to convince others to not come to work.

But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action have
been the law for some 30 years now?

To hear some talk you'd think it was still a show of hands.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

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

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

What may be 'clear' to you most likely is the exact reverse.

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

But that didn't stop some of the press saying
some of that industrial action was political.

It clearly was with Scargill.

On 17/07/2015 22:38, 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.

It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there were
closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work.
And yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

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?

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.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

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

In article ,
Rod Speed 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.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

And your inane comments are? Formed by you believing something you've read
or heard very secondhand.

My guess is you wouldn't know a decent day's work if it bit you in the
arse. And it's even more obvious you were never part of a team or
workforce.

--
*Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.*

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

On 18/07/2015 00:03, Rod Speed wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him. That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so
they could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out
for their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Of course Dave will deny this.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there were
closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work.
And yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were at
least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

If you earn money, you can't opt out of paying tax or NI etc - much as
many would love to. Of course those who like to pay no tax would still
expect the same benefits of being part of society as everyone else.

Much the same as union membership. If the union negotiates better pay and
or conditions, non members still get the benefit.

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.

Other thing with a closed shop in a craft union, is anyone with a ticket
for that grade is going to be at least reasonably competent. Because other
than trainees, you couldn't get the appropriate ticket until you had
completed some time in that position successfully.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there
were closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work. And
yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were at
least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

I happily joined the ABS when I went to work at the BBC. I was even a
member of Branch Committee for a time. However a strike was called in
1973/4 to demand a pay rise. The Governement had introduced a pay freeze
which meant that the BBC was unable to give one, even if they had wanted
to. I was never aware of being asked whether I wanted to go on strike. I
was simply told that would be the case.

If you earn money, you can't opt out of paying tax or NI etc - much as
many would love to. Of course those who like to pay no tax would still
expect the same benefits of being part of society as everyone else.

Much the same as union membership. If the union negotiates better pay and
or conditions, non members still get the benefit.

When I was a victim of the BBC Legionella Outbreak, the relevant union,
BECTU I suspect, offered non-members free access to the Union's solicitors.
This turned out to be a serious problem, since the solicitor advised
accepting the first offer from the insurance company. Some of us wrote
back saying this was not good enough; we received a very rude letter
effectively saying "find your own solicitor". One of the recipients of this
letter was on the Union NEC - it did not go down well. But the sad thing
about this episode was that those who needed the compensation the most took
the union solicitor's advice and accepted the original offer. I eventually
received nearly 3 times the original offer.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him. That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so
they could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out
for their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Of course Dave will deny this.

Why would anyone need to deny your fantasies, dennis?

Only way the rules of a union can be changed is through a democratic
process. Not by one man.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

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

In article ,
Charles Hope wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there
were closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work. And
yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were
at least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

I happily joined the ABS when I went to work at the BBC. I was even a
member of Branch Committee for a time. However a strike was called in
1973/4 to demand a pay rise. The Governement had introduced a pay freeze
which meant that the BBC was unable to give one, even if they had wanted
to. I was never aware of being asked whether I wanted to go on strike. I
was simply told that would be the case.

So you got chucked out of the union - obviously a closed shop - so unable
to work again? ;-)

Seriously, are you saying you got no chance to vote? Was this because of a
shift pattern?

I well remember that dispute. The BBC were delighted to avoid giving any
form of pay rise and invented extra ones of their own. While all around
were perhaps complying to the letter of the law but finding ways round it.
We had several examples of skilled mature full time staff members being
eligible for benefits.

One reason why I left and went to ITV. Main one being close to no longer
being able to afford my modest mortgage.

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Charles Hope wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there
were closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work. And
yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were
at least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

I happily joined the ABS when I went to work at the BBC. I was even a
member of Branch Committee for a time. However a strike was called in
1973/4 to demand a pay rise. The Governement had introduced a pay
freeze which meant that the BBC was unable to give one, even if they
had wanted to. I was never aware of being asked whether I wanted to go
on strike. I was simply told that would be the case.

So you got chucked out of the union - obviously a closed shop - so unable
to work again? ;-)

No, I left - of my own ccord.

Seriously, are you saying you got no chance to vote? Was this because of a
shift pattern?

No, I was working office hours

I well remember that dispute. The BBC were delighted to avoid giving any
form of pay rise and invented extra ones of their own.

That's one view, Another is that they had budgetted for apay rise, but
couldn't give it. Then there was a court ruling about getting parity with
ITV and so a pay rise did actually happen.

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.

Seriously, are you saying you got no chance to vote? Was this because
of a shift pattern?

No, I was working office hours

Was it by any chance action being taken on an earlier vote?

I well remember that dispute. The BBC were delighted to avoid giving
any form of pay rise and invented extra ones of their own.

That's one view, Another is that they had budgetted for apay rise, but
couldn't give it. Then there was a court ruling about getting parity
with ITV and so a pay rise did actually happen.

Well there you go. ITV had better pay rates because of a strong union. And
you eventually benefitted without contributing.

Bit like MPs being 'forced' to take a large pay rise while all around them
- and under their control - get a tiny one.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

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

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

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?

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 are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

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

On 18/07/2015 13:00, Dave Plowman (News) 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.

On 18/07/2015 14:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him. That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so
they could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out
for their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Of course Dave will deny this.

Why would anyone need to deny your fantasies, dennis?

Only way the rules of a union can be changed is through a democratic
process. Not by one man.


See I said he would deny it even though its true.

On 18/07/2015 13:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there were
closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work.
And yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were at
least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

Even one case is not pointless unless you are a unionist.


If you earn money, you can't opt out of paying tax or NI etc - much as
many would love to. Of course those who like to pay no tax would still
expect the same benefits of being part of society as everyone else.

Much the same as union membership. If the union negotiates better pay and
or conditions, non members still get the benefit.

On the other hand you get unions demanding sole negotiating rights
making it hard for an individual to go and get more pay if they are
better at the job than the union average.


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.

Lucky you, shame it wasn't true for everyone.


Other thing with a closed shop in a craft union, is anyone with a ticket
for that grade is going to be at least reasonably competent. Because other
than trainees, you couldn't get the appropriate ticket until you had
completed some time in that position successfully.


Like having to be in a union to be an actor, really skilled and needing
loads of training that job. Don't you recall that closed shop either?

In article , "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.

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.

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.

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.
--
bert

On 18/07/2015 18:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:

On 18/07/2015 13:00, Dave Plowman (News) 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.

You mean as in: "That's pretty unanimous, Brothers."


Of course in Dave's world that didn't happen. Just like you didn't have
thousands of miners descending on a pit that was still working.

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

"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.

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

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

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.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 18/07/2015 00:03, Rod Speed wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him.

True.

That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so they
could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out for
their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Yeah, particularly with the rent free housing for life etc.

Of course Dave will deny this.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It didn't matter what the relationship with your friends was, there were
closed shops, if the union kicked you out you didn't work.
And yes they did kick people out when they voted against the union
instructions.

Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were at
least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

If you earn money, you can't opt out of paying tax or NI etc - much as
many would love to. Of course those who like to pay no tax would still
expect the same benefits of being part of society as everyone else.

Much the same as union membership. If the union negotiates better pay and
or conditions, non members still get the benefit.

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.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 18/07/2015 00:03, Rod Speed wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) 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.

Clearly wasn't the case with Scargill so your
personal experience is completely irrelevant.

Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him.

True.

How does that work when you run the industry into the ground such that your
union no longer has any members :-)

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him. That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so
they could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out
for their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Of course Dave will deny this.

Why would anyone need to deny your fantasies, dennis?

Only way the rules of a union can be changed is through a democratic
process. Not by one man.

He didn’t change the union rules when he got the union to pay for his flat,
he
just did it and didn’t tell the members he was getting the union to pay the
rent.

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?

--
*My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine.

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

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 14:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Scargill had changed the rules in the num so the members couldn't sack
him. That's why the democratic union of mine workers was formed, not so
they could strike break but because Scargill and his chums were scum out
for their own gains whatever the cost to others.

Of course Dave will deny this.

Why would anyone need to deny your fantasies, dennis?

Only way the rules of a union can be changed is through a democratic
process. Not by one man.


See I said he would deny it even though its true.

Doubt you know what truth is dennis. Since you obviously believe every
word you read in the Mail.

--
*CAN VEGETARIANS EAT ANIMAL CRACKERS?

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Citation, please. And lets have loads of examples. To prove they were
at least common rather than so rare as to be pointless.

Even one case is not pointless unless you are a unionist.

And any even half reasonable person does not make an exception the norm.

But I doubt you understand such a simple concept.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

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