It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Government Strike Law Most ‘Oppressive In The Developed World’

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   


British trade union laws are the most restrictive in the developed world. This is a legacy of the Thatcher years, with legislation passed between 1979 and 1997, which made it harder for unions to gain recognition and raised the bar for ballots on strike action, requiring 40 percent turnout, making it much harder for unions to go on strike.

British Government Strike Law Most ‘Oppressive In The Developed World’

That's because the Tories are the most oppressive government in the developed world. Maybe? Yeah? No?




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'm confused...

Weren't Labour in power long enough to change the oppressive Conservative laws?.....if they'd wanted to?

Why didn't they?

Agree they're oppressive but it's not all down to one party.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: HumberWarrior

Indeed they were...

And also, I don't see why this is "oppressive", requiring a Union to get a majority vote for strike action from a majority of it's members is only fair, considering many strikes can be called from a militant minority voting for it which impacts millions around the country (rail, teachers etc)...

The only people calling it "oppressive" are the Unions themselves and only because they are having their substantial power to disrupt the nation over petty issues or minority voting curtailed.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

And I look at the French who strike at the drop of a hat, they still aren't any better off, they just find more things to strike about.

I agree the vote to strike should be over 40 it ensures only real issues are addressed.

But don't get me started on train drivers.
edit on 1 7 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: newsaddict


British trade union laws are the most restrictive in the developed world. This is a legacy of the Thatcher years, with legislation passed between 1979 and 1997, which made it harder for unions to gain recognition and raised the bar for ballots on strike action, requiring 40 percent turnout, making it much harder for unions to go on strike.

British Government Strike Law Most ‘Oppressive In The Developed World’

That's because the Tories are the most oppressive government in the developed world. Maybe? Yeah? No?


Because the Unions went completely overboard so the general public were happy to support measures to neuter them.

The Unions brought that on themselves.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Just a shame that the government itself was voted for by far less than 40% of the population shame they don't apply the same rules to themselves isn't it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: newsaddict

I believe 40% is oppressive and makes it much higher for employees to gain their rights.

Personally, I see the number should be around 20% or even 10% depending on the sector. That ensures that only important issues are taken up, while ensuring that employees get their say. The higher turnout, the less say there is, especially in low-paying sectors, where people are afraid on losing their by taking part of strikes.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: newsaddict

I believe 40% is oppressive and makes it much higher for employees to gain their rights.

Personally, I see the number should be around 20% or even 10% depending on the sector. That ensures that only important issues are taken up, while ensuring that employees get their say. The higher turnout, the less say there is, especially in low-paying sectors, where people are afraid on losing their by taking part of strikes.



Of course, that only works if you believe that a small percentage of employees should be able to blackmail employers.

I'd go with 10-20% as long as employers are guaranteed the right to terminate strikers' employment immediately and without repercussion, and mandatory jailtime for any striker (whether or not still employed) who seeks to prevent or interfere directly or indirectly in any way, shape, or form with any employee, supplier, or customer still trying to access the business.

The employer runs the business for their own sake, not for the sake of the employees. Don't like the conditions? Plenty of people who will be happy to work in those conditions, so the whingers can sod off and let someone else take the job.

Employers who need quality will end up making that employment attractive to candidates. If someone isn't able to provide quality then their options are to up-skill or make do with their lot in life. Someone has to be at the bottom of the ladder, after all.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: newsaddict

I believe 40% is oppressive and makes it much higher for employees to gain their rights.

Personally, I see the number should be around 20% or even 10% depending on the sector. That ensures that only important issues are taken up, while ensuring that employees get their say. The higher turnout, the less say there is, especially in low-paying sectors, where people are afraid on losing their by taking part of strikes.



Of course, that only works if you believe that a small percentage of employees should be able to blackmail employers.

I'd go with 10-20% as long as employers are guaranteed the right to terminate strikers' employment immediately and without repercussion, and mandatory jailtime for any striker (whether or not still employed) who seeks to prevent or interfere directly or indirectly in any way, shape, or form with any employee, supplier, or customer still trying to access the business.

The employer runs the business for their own sake, not for the sake of the employees. Don't like the conditions? Plenty of people who will be happy to work in those conditions, so the whingers can sod off and let someone else take the job.

Employers who need quality will end up making that employment attractive to candidates. If someone isn't able to provide quality then their options are to up-skill or make do with their lot in life. Someone has to be at the bottom of the ladder, after all.


You are the ghost of Thatcher....

Whilst I agree with your sentiment the employer should also repay worker commensurate to their gains, treating workers like subhuman scum whilst reaping huge profits is not fair just because you are the boss.

You should do right by your workers, greed is evil, people work hard and the wealth should be shared fairly.

It's is your full on attitude above that shows the need of unions.

I do however draw the line at making demands that put the business in a bad place and I agree the boss should reap the rewards, but not without paying respectfull benefits to those helping you get rich.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
You are the ghost of Thatcher....
...
It's is your full on attitude above that shows the need of unions.


I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

Imagine you're getting £10 per hour. Do you know how much your £10 an hour costs me as an employer? Factor in some of the recent changes and you're costing me £20+ per hour - and that's discounting some of the other costs like equipment, expense accounts etc.

Are you giving me £20's worth of work per hour? Because if you're not, you're already screwing me out of 50% of the value of what I'm paying for you to come to work.

If you were on £10 per hour and your boss came in and asked you to do the work of two people, would you complain? Because that's what you actually cost him. And here's you asking for the wealth to be shared fairly on the one hand, while screwing him out of 50% of your value on the other. Hah.

Try remortgaging your house, taking out loans, and taking risks to fund a business. See how much of the profit you feel you deserve to take home if it works.


edit on 2-7-2015 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Meh, hit quote instead of edit!
edit on 2-7-2015 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Trade unions were original setup during the industrial revolution to stop rich businessman from exploiting children and workers doing ridiculous hours in horrendous conditions. It got way out of hand during thatcher years, for example if they decided they wanted a longer tea break they could just shout "alright lads tools down lets go on strike" putting the whole country to ransom. The workers and unions shot themselves in the foot because thatcher called there bluff and had no choice but to put an end to it. I don't blame thatcher or the conservatives for introducing these laws.


edit on 2-7-2015 by PickledOnion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

If you can't organize your business so your employees are worth more than what you pay them then you are not running a successful business and should probably close it down. I run a small business and I honestly make decent money just off the sweat of my employees which I pay them well for.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Slickinfinity

How dare you run a successful business! Those poor workers!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: EvillerBob

If you can't organize your business so your employees are worth more than what you pay them then you are not running a successful business and should probably close it down. I run a small business and I honestly make decent money just off the sweat of my employees which I pay them well for.


You're missing the point.

If your employee decides they need to be paid more than they are worth to you as a business, how would you respond?

That's the issue. That's what the Unions ended up fighting for. They stopped seeing a business with employees and started to see a cash cow to be milked.

I don't care about living wages. I'm going to pay you what you're worth to the company. If someone wants to try and strong-arm me into paying more, then to hell with them. If they want to be paid more, they should make themselves worth more. I'm already paying far more than they actually realise.

Incidentally, I need people with very particular skills and ability who I can trust to make serious on-the-spot decisions based on their own judgement. The pay and conditions I offer reflect that, so "living wage" is alien territory to us. It's absolutely not a 9-5 office job.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob Do you know how much your £10 an hour costs me as an employer?


i don't care.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: EvillerBob Do you know how much your £10 an hour costs me as an employer?


i don't care.


You don't, and shouldn't, need to care.

If you're happy getting that much money for the work that you do, and your employer is happy to pay you that much for the work that you do, everyone is happy.

You only need to start caring if you decide to tell the employer how much you're worth.

Incidentally, I've picked up some decent work in the past by pointing out to companies that while I'm invoicing more per hour than the posted rate as a contractor, it's still a lot cheaper than if they were paying for an employee. So, sometimes it pays well to care!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Why worry about strikes? All the jobs have been sent to Asia and all the new immigrants take what jobs are left.

Now that is Tory and Labour cooperation if there ever was.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: edward777
Why worry about strikes? All the jobs have been sent to Asia and all the new immigrants take what jobs are left.

Now that is Tory and Labour cooperation if there ever was.


All the jobs? What the hell am I doing at work now then? They didn't tell me! Or the 31+ million people in employment in the UK...

I reckon you should get on Twitter and let them all know - we could have all been enjoying the sunshine instead of being at our non-existent jobs or letting the immigrants take over...




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
There's no need for unions in the UK, workers have an adequate sufficiency of rights and protection.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join