www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/B88BF1AF-7440-4F5D-8CD86F339315E80F
The Union Says
In a ballot of the union's 15,700 members in the Home Office - which includes UKBA, the Identity and Passport Service and Criminal Records Bureau - there was a 57.2% vote for a strike and a 75.8% vote for other forms of industrial action.
Err no - Wrong.
15,700 were balloted, but the ballot turnout was only 20%. Thats 3,140 people.
Of those 57.2% voted for a strike, so thats 1796 people out of 15,700 -
Less than 10% voted for strike action!!!
|
Don't get me started Zeddo. Serwotka is a re-incarnation of seventies ASTMS leader Clive Jenkins. Very little attempt to listen to what staff at grass roots actually want and it will show when large numbers cross the picket lines and work.
My boss is sufficiently senior to have the choice of joining the First Division Association and has done so. Wish I had same option.
|
|
Home Office votes for action - that'll be a cold day in hell. :-) (joke not meant to cause offence)
|
The other thing is that legislation from eighties either requires ballot papers to be sent to home addresses or has a strong presumption for that to be the case.
Inevitably a few are treated as junk mail and many more go in the 'think about later' pile and don't get looked at again until after the ballot has closed.
I'm not advocating a return to mass meetings and shows of hands but secret ballots in the workplace, with appropriate tellers and counting arrangements might resolve this problem with turn out which helps neither side.
|
Twas ever thus, though. The current leader of the PCS is not a lot different to the leaders of the IRSF (Inland Revenue Staff Federation), which was merged into the PCS some time ago. The difference is, in them days, if there was a ballot it tended to be limited to a single department (eg: Inland Revenue) and did not cover a whole section of the civil service.
Serwotka (sp?) is a modest man, with much to be modest about, to misquote Churchill.
|
For several months I have had the suspicion that the long queues at Heathrow immigration are the result of secret, unofficial action by the staff.
Maybe I'm paranoid.....
|
>> For several months I have had the suspicion that the long queues at Heathrow immigration
>> are the result of secret, unofficial action by the staff.
>>
>> Maybe I'm paranoid.....
>>
no, ever since this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15648367
staff working strictly to rule was a certainty.
|
>> >> For several months I have had the suspicion that the long queues at Heathrow
>> immigration
>> >> are the result of secret, unofficial action by the staff.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I'm paranoid.....
>> >>
>>
>> no, ever since this
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15648367
>>
>> staff working strictly to rule was a certainty.
>>
>>
>>
Isn't working to rule effectively unsanctioned industrial action and a sackable offence? That's what we were told by the union at my last airline.
|
|
I didn't know you'd worked for Ryanair!
|
...working to rule...
Working to rule is not a wise threat to make for some journalists - it would mean we'd have to work harder.
|
>> Isn't working to rule effectively unsanctioned industrial action and a sackable offence? That's what we
>> were told by the union at my last airline.
Unsanctioned, ie unofficial, action is sackable. If it's sanctioned by the union following a ballot then IIRC there is some protection - at least as far as Members are concerned.
|
>> Twas ever thus, though. The current leader of the PCS is not a lot different
>> to the leaders of the IRSF (Inland Revenue Staff Federation), which was merged into the
>> PCS some time ago. The difference is, in them days, if there was a ballot
>> it tended to be limited to a single department (eg: Inland Revenue) and did not
>> cover a whole section of the civil service.
>>
>> Serwotka (sp?) is a modest man, with much to be modest about, to misquote Churchill.
>>
+1
|
If you thought our industrial relations were bad???
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18905514
|
|
Home Office staff vote for action. At last they're going to do some work.....................
|
|
Seems to me if they are on strike they are not working so that is inaction
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sat 21 Jul 12 at 09:11
|
|
It is their choice if they want to go on strike.If nobody listen you are asking for trouble.
|
>> It is their choice if they want to go on strike.
Yes, their exceptionally selfish choice.
|
Does anyone know why it should be so difficult to legislate for industrial action to require a majority of union members eligible to vote - rather than just those who do vote?
If that were the case, most of the strikes in recent years wouldn't have happened.
Last edited by: Avant on Sat 21 Jul 12 at 18:33
|
>> Does anyone know why it should be so difficult to legislate for industrial action to
>> require a majority of union members eligible to vote - rather than just those who
>> do vote?
To start with there's a presentational problem. We don't require a majority of eligible voters to elect an MP or a Councillor. Neither was it required (on a simple Y/N question) in the electoral reform referendum.
The capacity to form a union and strike, with some legal protection against reprisals is a reasonable way of combating the 'inequality of arms' between the employer and employee. While we might need legislation to avoid a return to the union excesses of the seventies (though they were arguably as much to do with incompetent management in fifties/sixties) a balance needs to be retained.
The nature of the present system, where ballots go to the employees home, make low turnout a near cert - too many papers get forgotten/mislaid/treated as junk.
|
|
It might be a selfish choice in your opinion Westpig but it is still their choice.If members arn't willing to turn out for a ballot and a vote is taken they have themself to blame.Strike action for the majority of people is a last resort it will be loss of wages and maybe jobs.
|
Its very simple really, if you are allowed to withdraw your labour, the company should be allowed to withdraw your employment.
Both should be be prepared for the risks of enacting the principal.
|
After the industrial revolution (so called) the condition of the working class - non-skilled manual workers - became really unbearable. People had to work long hours for damn all, children had to work for even less, and they had to live in unhealthy, overcrowded conditions. There was no job security. Obviously some employers were better than others, but in a capitalist system profit rules. No one can afford to be too sentimental.
By dint of long, arduous struggle in which violence and the law were freely deployed by bosses - all the workers could manage was a bit of retaliatory violence - and with some support from, e.g., the nonconformist churches and a few middle and upper-class humanitarians, organized labour finally established, early in the last century, a practical system in which strike action was legal and could be used to improve the behaviour of bad firms.
By the fifties and sixties the 'strike weapon' was being over-used and was damaging British industry. Mrs Thatcher put an end to that, but did nothing about the greedy corrupt suits equally responsible for damaging industry.
You have to have a working knowledge of the history. Without that it's just meaningless blather whichever 'side' you are on.
|
>>If members arn't willing to turn out for a ballot and a vote is taken
>> they have themself to blame.
Most people join the Union so that they can avail themselves of the legal benefits etc. They don't give a toss about much else.
The left wingers know this and exploit the rest, that's how it works.
|
|
I was toying with it the other day - simply for the benefits, I don't give a toss about anything else. I wouldn't strike though.
|
>> Most people join the Union so that they can avail themselves of the legal benefits
>> etc. They don't give a toss about much else.
>>
>> The left wingers know this and exploit the rest, that's how it works.
That's the management/media line. The truth is far more complex.
Do people really think that Underground workers follow Bob Crowe like sheep? Of course not; a strong union has preserved their working conditions and improved their pay. Neither were Public Servants on strike last November led by the nose. I took that one but worked through the last on basis that with abolition on horizon govt can pay me for the day. I just walked past the picket and wished him a cheery 'good morning Phil'.
My views on Serwotka and his allies are set out early in this thread. There's a low turnout in union elections for same reason as strike ballots - papers sent home get mislaid and put on the 'later' pile. OTOH people of otherwise moderate views will vote for a left wing slate because they know those candidates are the people with the aptitude and experience to face up to management.
Attempts by overt moderates to field their own slate of candidates have generally failed. I cannot remember the details now but the old Civil Service clerks union, CPSA, nearly pulled itself to bits twenty five years ago after electing an aggressive but clueless 'anti left' president.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Jul 12 at 10:36
|
>> My views on Serwotka and his allies are set out early in this thread. There's
>> a low turnout in union elections for same reason as strike ballots - papers sent
>> home get mislaid and put on the 'later' pile.
No, honestly - 80% of papers do not get "mislaid" or "forgotten". They get deliberately ignored or the ICBA'd syndrome.
>>OTOH people of otherwise moderate views
>> will vote for a left wing slate because they know those candidates are the people
>> with the aptitude and experience to face up to management.
I would like to know what the turnout was for election of the officials. bet you any money you like it was, hmm lets see. About 20% i guess.
|
There's
>> a low turnout in union elections for same reason as strike ballots - papers sent
>> home get mislaid and put on the 'later' pile. OTOH people of otherwise moderate views
>> will vote for a left wing slate because they know those candidates are the people
>> with the aptitude and experience to face up to management.
Rubbish.
A significant chunk of the workforce do not relate to the left wing leaders in the slightest. They do however wish to have the back up, legal or otherwise of the union benefits. So they join.
They don't mislay or forget their union ballot papers...the whole lot goes straight in the bin.
...and as for that bit about admiring the left wing leaders for standing up to management ...deary me..how about 'irritance at their continuous antagonistic stance, but hey ho I still ought to have the union benefits'.
|
Westpig,
I can only relate my own experience and from discussion that of colleagues in the same white collar union as is calling the action in the Border Force. The local guy is a fairly rabid lefty but people of other persuasions vote for him because he's actually got a good record, particuarly in personal cases.
OTOH there's too much union focus on fighting stuff they'll not win and not enough on ameliorating the consequences of stuff that's going to happen. We've had a game to get them to engage with us on getting best deals for staff on closure. Another office being moved out of London had similar problems, even as floors of their office were surrendered to the landlord, in getting anything done about transfer to new site or flexible working because that's 'accepting defeat'.
|
>> My views on Serwotka and his allies are set out early in this thread. There's
>> a low turnout in union elections for same reason as strike ballots - papers sent
>> home get mislaid and put on the 'later' pile. OTOH people of otherwise moderate views
>> will vote for a left wing slate because they know those candidates are the people
>> with the aptitude and experience to face up to management.
>>
>
Yes I remember teh success of A Scargill and Red Robbo... And the print unions..
Any half competent management gets round aggressive unions in the end: even if it means outsourcing work abroad.
|
I was in my union. Not really the most likely of members as I only joined after being victimised by a manager.
Years passed, I did strike (not many strikes in my business), and to be honest, the fact a union existed kept my employer mostly honest. Plus, when I had to retire early on health grounds, the union involvement probably paid my membership fees many times over.
|
|
I was a trade union member for practically all my working life. When I joined my final employer, trade union membership was a condition of employment. It all worked fine until the company offered the shop-floor workers a new contract of employment which they rejected. The company said that they therefore had no option but to make everyone redundant and close the factory. Fortunately I was able to get a job at one of their other factories ~ but this time the management refused to talk to any union representatives. I remained a union member just in case. I understand that the company has now lost the financial backing of its previous owners and now has to stand on its own two feet. I can't see it lasting much longer. The rot set in when they refused to talk to any trade union representatives and it became a case of everyone for themselves and the Devil take the hindmost.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Mon 23 Jul 12 at 09:17
|
There you go again always bashing the unions.Germany has the most powerfull unions and a well paid workforce.They use works councils and employees are part of decision making.
If people are willing to go on strike management hasn't done their job in my opinon.Regarding the print onions Mr Murdoch made sure of their demise a fine fellow.>:)
|
|
Certain unions seem determined to want to wreck the Games. They were interviewing the Home Office union bloke on the news yesterday, typical union type, speaking in the peculiar stilted way that they seem to adopt. Not the type of person I'd want to share a dinner table with. Dreadful ferret faced little creature.
|
>> There you go again always bashing the unions.Germany has the most powerfull unions and a
>> well paid workforce.They use works councils and employees are part of decision making.
>>
>> If people are willing to go on strike management hasn't done their job in my
>> opinon.Regarding the print onions Mr Murdoch made sure of their demise a fine fellow.>:)
>>
Eddie Shah did it before Murdoch.. The print unions deserved what they got...We had them in printing plants and they basically wanted no change - in anything.
|
If any Union stuck to generally supporting workers rights in a pragmatic, sensible fashion, with a healthy eye on the bigger picture.......then I'm fully in support. They are a sensible foil to harsh management decisions.
However........they aren't normally like that are they?
The dogmatic, exceptionally selfish, 'grab what you can regardless of the consequences', mentality kicks in....(and some even do what they do for extreme Left political principles e.g. deliberately disrupt the government of the day to try to unseat them)...for that reason I despise most of them.
I have worked quite closely over the years with several Union reps. The last one was a decent bloke. He'd fight his member's corner if he had to, but would back off when he was flogging a dead horse. If they were all like him, I wouldn't have a problem. They are not, he was the exception to the rule.
|
We used to have London Docks until the unions started being silly.
Now, no more docks, no more work - the unions did a good job for their members didn't they.
|
>> Now, no more docks, no more work - the unions did a good job for
>> their members didn't they.
>>
London Underground are planning to eventually have driverless trains, not because it will result in massive savings - but because it removes the disruptive power that is wielded by the Union bosses.
re. Serwotka and the "settlement" of the strike yesterday
Union view:
"Speaking one hour before the government was due to launch a high court challenge against the looming strike, the PCS general secretary, Mark Serwotka, said a Home Office decision to hire 1,100 staff – including 800 border employees – had convinced the union to cancel its plans. "We believe that significant progress means that there is no case for the union to proceed with industrial action tomorrow," he said."
Government view:
"Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: ‘No concessions have been made by the Government. Posts are being advertised to fill gaps left by normal staff turnover.
‘We are pleased that the PCS leadership has seen sense and called off this irresponsible strike which was not supported by the majority of members. "
|
@ John H,
PLease tell me you don't think Serwotka fibs while the Minister is a paragon of truth!!
It's a get out for both of them.
|
The London docks were not killed by the Unions, they were killed by the advent of containerisation. The Old London Docks were not suitable with both transport links or suitable large wharf space.
Ok Tilbury was due to take over from the London docks with containers in mind, and the union ( and dock labour board) were poised to take a grip on that as well, but then came the deep water, union free private Felixstowe.
So in short the london docks were on a path to death, union or no union.
|
My dad ran a small engineering company whose workers were all highly skilled and respected by the management.
The one and only time a union rep turned up soliciting membership the workforce were so horrified by what he proposed they physically threw him out of the building.
My own union (BALPA) creams off 1% of my gross income in return for membership. While I don't think they're always acting in my best interest, it gives me a vote on issues affecting me at the airline, and like political stuff, unless you're prepared to cast your vote you shouldn't be entitled to whinge about what you end up with.
|
Home Office staff vote for action. - Bromptonaut
