Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:30 am
Jukesays
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 30 2004 Posts: 7779 Location: Sorting my Erection out & Helping Conroy With his!
Sal Paradise wrote:Exactly my point the unions will deliberately force a poor situation in the hope of a bigger prizes - the workers are just pawns in a game. Fortunately the unions so intellectually sluggish they get beat every time.
So a union/workers "Getting Beat" is a good thing? Irrespective of what the issue is???
Surely if they have a valid concern it would be a good thing if they won?
Their incompetence at achieving a good result shouldn't distract away from the intention of their action
Fans Forum 28.08.08 Fan from Haydock
"I've got one word for you Mr Chairman - Penalty Count"
[quote="The Daddy"]I've got one word for you all......Steve Hanley[/quote]
Some Salford fan said to me and I quote "You are by far and away the most Handsome & Knowledgeable Rugby League Fan in England!"
I thanked him and went on my Merry way!
RIVERCAVE DWELLER OF THE YEAR 2015!
"The club used you last night and didn't tell the truth."
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:41 am
Mild Rover
Moderator
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12647 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote:So less than 50% can dictate a strike - you think that is democratic in a binary vote? Even Brexit got >50%
I think the point being made is that a strike requires 50% of all votes casts in favour AND 40% of all possible votes.
If that is correct, a 51% vote in favour would require nearly 80% participation in the ballot. Or on 60% participation you’d need an approx. 66% vote in favour to sneak home, for example.
Brexit got 52% of votes but on ‘only’ 72.2% turnout - so not 40% of all those eligible.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Mild Rover wrote:I think the point being made is that a strike requires 50% of all votes casts in favour AND 40% of all possible votes.
If that is correct, a 51% vote in favour would require nearly 80% participation in the ballot. Or on 60% participation you’d need an approx. 66% vote in favour to sneak home, for example.
Brexit got 52% of votes but on ‘only’ 72.2% turnout - so not 40% of all those eligible.
Thank you, that's correct and it underpins my original point that Unions are more democratic than GEs or the recent referendum.
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:49 am
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Jukesays wrote:So a union/workers "Getting Beat" is a good thing? Irrespective of what the issue is???
Surely if they have a valid concern it would be a good thing if they won?
Their incompetence at achieving a good result shouldn't distract away from the intention of their action
Depends on the circumstances - if like at Grangemouth they were going to bring the depot to a standstill unless the Ineos submitted then yes - SW trains just the same.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:53 am
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mild Rover wrote:I think the point being made is that a strike requires 50% of all votes casts in favour AND 40% of all possible votes.
If that is correct, a 51% vote in favour would require nearly 80% participation in the ballot. Or on 60% participation you’d need an approx. 66% vote in favour to sneak home, for example.
Brexit got 52% of votes but on ‘only’ 72.2% turnout - so not 40% of all those eligible.
So we are saying if the firm has 100 employees of which 80 are members of the union only 60 vote so as long as 32 vote for it passes so a strike can be called if 32% of the workforce call for it?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:51 pm
Jukesays
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 30 2004 Posts: 7779 Location: Sorting my Erection out & Helping Conroy With his!
Sal Paradise wrote:Depends on the circumstances - if like at Grangemouth they were going to bring the depot to a standstill unless the Ineos submitted then yes - SW trains just the same.
You originally stated that it was a good thing they get Beat EVERY Time? Is that not what your saying now?
Seems to be what your saying is that it depends on the circumstance now - And if that's the case then in those circumstances the issues they are bringing to the table are Worthwhile and you want them to Win?
Sounds like they do serve a purpose to me?
Oh - And being slightly sarcastic - Where did you get this evidence about those Depots/The rail industry? Wouldn't be anecdotal would it?
Fans Forum 28.08.08 Fan from Haydock
"I've got one word for you Mr Chairman - Penalty Count"
[quote="The Daddy"]I've got one word for you all......Steve Hanley[/quote]
Some Salford fan said to me and I quote "You are by far and away the most Handsome & Knowledgeable Rugby League Fan in England!"
I thanked him and went on my Merry way!
RIVERCAVE DWELLER OF THE YEAR 2015!
"The club used you last night and didn't tell the truth."
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:29 pm
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Jukesays wrote:You originally stated that it was a good thing they get Beat EVERY Time? Is that not what your saying now?
Seems to be what your saying is that it depends on the circumstance now - And if that's the case then in those circumstances the issues they are bringing to the table are Worthwhile and you want them to Win?
Sounds like they do serve a purpose to me?
Oh - And being slightly sarcastic - Where did you get this evidence about those Depots/The rail industry? Wouldn't be anecdotal would it?
What I am saying this if the employer wont budge the unions will lose every time because their position is much weaker - ask most workers would the rather work on lower pay or not work at all they will choose the former therein lies the problem for the union. SWT wont cave in and there is nothing the union can do to change that dynamic - its been in the news for months so just Google it? or isn't that sufficient for you.
I have said before and I will say it again I don't see where the unions fit in the modern working environment - so I don't see a major incident in the private sector that they can win.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:15 pm
Mild Rover
Moderator
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12647 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote:So we are saying if the firm has 100 employees of which 80 are members of the union only 60 vote so as long as 32 vote for it passes so a strike can be called if 32% of the workforce call for it?
Yes.
Although obviously, 20 of them would not be eligible to strike as non-union members.
Similarly, if there were only 10 union members, and 4 out of 7 who participate in the ballot vote to strike, it’d be a legally mandated strike, for everybody except the 90 non-union members.
Or if there were 66.65 million employees, but only 46.60 million were eligible to participate in the ballot and 13.05 million did not cast a vote, you’d need at least 18.64 million (rather than, for example, 17.41 million) for the walk out.
Sal Paradise wrote:So we are saying if the firm has 100 employees of which 80 are members of the union only 60 vote so as long as 32 vote for it passes so a strike can be called if 32% of the workforce call for it?
Yes.
Although obviously, 20 of them would not be eligible to strike as non-union members.
Similarly, if there were only 10 union members, and 4 out of 7 who participate in the ballot vote to strike, it’d be a legally mandated strike, for everybody except the 90 non-union members.
Or if there were 66.65 million employees, but only 46.60 million were eligible to participate in the ballot and 13.05 million did not cast a vote, you’d need at least 18.64 million (rather than, for example, 17.41 million) for the walk out.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Post subject: Re: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:13 am
Mash Butty
International Star
Joined: Jun 29 2011 Posts: 1522 Location: PIE IN THE SKY DISH
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/ ... us-policy/ On the local news last night a partially sighted person stated that his boss told him that "he had to go to work" - non essential - and to do so he has to catch public transport. He was having difficulty shopping - he has to touched the items-if they are there - and partially blind people don't have the same entitlements as other vulnerable people, e.g. they don't get the urgent deliveries that "true"vulnerable get from supermarkets. They obviously struggle to see 2m. God knows how they get through the toilet process at work in a safe manner but then again how does anyone? Do the Tories have any idea about anything that they get involved in?
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/ ... us-policy/ On the local news last night a partially sighted person stated that his boss told him that "he had to go to work" - non essential - and to do so he has to catch public transport. He was having difficulty shopping - he has to touched the items-if they are there - and partially blind people don't have the same entitlements as other vulnerable people, e.g. they don't get the urgent deliveries that "true"vulnerable get from supermarkets. They obviously struggle to see 2m. God knows how they get through the toilet process at work in a safe manner but then again how does anyone? Do the Tories have any idea about anything that they get involved in?
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 107 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
