Why doesn't every company with "British" in its name go and get itself into a total balls-up...?

How come none of these unions seem to know the rules? What do they actually do all day?

I'm sure all these unions are only balloting for strikes to justify their positions and whatever members are paying them. I think the next ballots should be to sack these useless (and probably very nicely paid) union bosses and get some competent ones for a change.

The unions are weak now - as we will see with the public sector strikes, Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions for good !

Don't fret my old pudding. It's not the rules that are the problem its the flexible interpretation of them that causes these situations - and not just in terms of strike ballots and industrial relations legislation.

If you ever become personally involved in anything which involves the legal profession you will find you are on shifting sand no matter how solid you think your grounds are.

I know of someone who got seriously hurt in an industrial injury involving a large vehicle - which was caused through human error by another employee. The intial compensation claim has been whittled down to a fraction of what it was by well paid lawyers acting for the company who are not just keen to minimise the cost of the payout but also prevent a precedent.

Similarly I know of someone else on similar solid legal grounds whose struggled like buggery over an open and shut legacy issue that was challanged.

You see its all about resources. I'ts about the company having more money to throw at this issue to tie down any challanges by looking for re-interpretations and previously unthought of loopholes - no matter how obscure, outrageous, or daft. The disparity in financial resources between a large multinational and a Union is so vast that the Union side cannot afford to get tied down and play this game because even with strongest hand (just like poker) they cannot afford to see the hand of the employer - no matter how weak it is.

Those, now long gone, so called "Moderate" Union leaders who succesfully argued to accept these sort of laws have made a noose around the neck of every working person in the country because if an employer wishes they can use the law to prevent any strike no matter how many hoops the Unions go through; no matter how tightly they adhere to the law. They will always find a way around to draw the Unions into a legal game they cannot hope to succeed in.

But, as I said, don't fret. Because if anyone really believes this load of codswallop about technicalities they need taking into protective custody for their own good.

I smell a deal here.

Either:

The Union did not get the result it was hoping for - in which case it's hiding behind this bullshit about technicalities whilst seeking another meeting with company to see what it can get out of the situation.

Or:

They got the result they were wanting. Communicated it to the company and agreed talks for a better deal under the provisio that the ballot result would not be communicated to the outside world or the Union's membership.

If there is a slight improvement on the last rejected offer - say making the unconsolidated element of the deal between Jan. 2010-April 2010 into a consolidated one or slightly upping the % on offer from January 2011, but making that unconsolidated - then you can bet your shirt it was the former.

If, however, the deal which is reached before the next ballot can get off the ground is more significant than this - say a two year deal offering more in the second year but moving it back to the original April (2011) pay review date - the chances are that its the latter of the above two possiblities.

These Union bosses on their 6 figure salaries should be treated in the same way as the business bosses they complain about. If they cannot do their job right then the membership should sack them. It is not that difficult to follow the rules that have been their for years, just as company bosses have to do every day with the array of legislation they have to follow.

Why doesn't every company with "British" in its name go and get itself into a total balls-up...?

There was a company decades ago known as 'British Telecom' (after names GPO and British Telecommunications) that was in national ownership and there may still be reference to that name in small print somewhere on the back of BT phone bills, but the firm calls itself 'BT'. Likewise 'BP', another multinational, that only very old timers call 'British Petroleum' out of habit. I think that BA calls itself 'British Airways' but like the others mentioned is nowadays mostly foreign-owned.

I see that the spectre of unemployment has now reached the Daily Mail-reading classes, judging by the number of them blogging here all day, and the poor spelling.

Ignore the Tories laws. We've done it before and won. In the 70s the law lords invented a new law and caved in to a near general strike when the dockers ignored anti union laws and took action. We've done it loads of times since. The TUC are a disgrace. The only way we will beat back these attacks is to take strike action and ignore the courts and the spineless TU bureaucrats.

Wow ! a union that is actually working for its members. At least the CWU took note of the concerns that BT raised about the balloting process, had the sense to check this with their legal team and then pulled the plug on the ballot quickly. Might be a small amount of egg on face, but the union has done the right thing and saved itself a chunk of cash and a lot of credibility with its members. Add on that they have reopened negotiations and it is plain to see that the CWU are genuinely trying to do the best by their members. Sincerely hope that management are able to respond accordingly.

@reddan
" Ignore the Tories laws. We've done it before and won".

Have you forgotten about the miiners strike, and the print workers strike. Not so successful. Breaking the law just damages the cause, even if it is just. Perhaps this was the best outcome for all - more talks.

Instead of wasting money on union subs, why don't workers invest in shares in the company they work in?

That way, they build up an asset instead of wasting money, learn something about the concept of risking your own capital, learn about ownership, and maybe start thinking about the good of the company. They could use a union style organisation to coordinate a block vote, thereby giving them a valid, genuine say in the way the company is run. Why in this day and age do people still not realise that companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders as it's them who OWN it.

‘The CWU's climbdown comes as relations between unions and the government come under pressure. Today the Cabinet Office denied that ministers were planning to cut redundancy terms due to civil servants, a move that could have lowered the cost of slimming down the public sector. Employers groups are also calling for further tightening of trade union legislation. Last month the CBI said unions should need to secure the support of at least 40% of all workers before a strike would be legal as well as a majority of those who vote.’

_

So the CBI employers’ organization demands a ‘40%’ union ‘support‘ turnout hurdle before a strike vote plus a ‘majority’ vote is ‘legal’.

Based on this undemocratic ‘40%’ turnout (what happened to a simple democratic majority with no minimum turnout?) demand it would make the ultra low 34.70% UK turnout vote in 2009 for the European Elections MEPs illegal under the '40%' turnout demand!

I assume the Tory MPs and their ‘democratic’ ‘libertarian’ coalition partners - the Lib-Dems - also agree with this minimum ‘40%’ demand for Union ‘turnout’ for strike votes? but not for UK Euro elections or Westminster parliamentary elections?!?

One simple election law for MPs and MEPs and an employer imposed draconian election laws for the unions and workforce!

I thought we had moved on from the draconian undemocratic Combination Acts? Clearly not!

P.S.

Euro elections.

Source and link:

http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/results-2009-european-elections-uk

'Source: Regional Returning Officers; calculations: European Parliament

Last updated: 17 July 2009 '

Euro elections results.

Source link:-

http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/results-2009-european-elections-uk

Euro elections results.

Source link:-

http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/european-elections/results-2009-european-elections-uk

@Mr Smart

Nah, you got it wrong. The CBI want a strike to be deemed legal provided
a) there is an overall majority of votes in favour of a strike and
b) the number of votes cast in favour of strike action constitutes more than 40% of the total number of members polled.

So if the union ballots 1000 members and only 700 reply, the strike is only legit if more than 400 have voted for action.

In reality if you look at recent ballots for strike action, the turnout has been around 80%+ so any majority in favour would automatically guarantee the support of over 40% of those polled. Thus it isn't really a problem. Where it gets shaky is when the apathy rules and turnout is low. Now in those circumstances it could be argued that the union has not really got a mandate from its members. Moreover, there is a greater possibility that more staff will ignore the strike call, diluting the effectivness of any strike action. So it may be in the unions' interest to play along with the CBI this time.

Judging by the contribution from YoublomminLefties its readers of the Dandy as well as the Daily Heil who are turning up on CiF.

For junior's information the majority of the workforce that existed at the time of the BT piratisation in 1984 took free shares in the company - as well as subscribing to sharesave schemes which they purchased with their own money.

& this remains the case today - despite the fact that the result of going down this road has meant that over 100k jobs have been shed in the race to appease shareholders& the staff who fell for this con (as well as those who did not) have suffered as a consequence.

A clear case of the fact that occassionally turkeys do vote for Christmas. You cannot pay your utility, food, mortgage & other bills with a share certificate. Which is why the majority, - although this is shrinking for various reasons I won't go into - despite taking the poisoned chalice of shares which are against their own best interests, continue to pay Union subs.

Again, for juniors information - if he's still up & not gone to bed yet - it matters no how many shares the workforce has because even when clubbed together with other individual & independent shareholders the total number of voting shares is a miniscule fraction of the amount of shares held by institutional shareholders who can weild this "Block Vote" to greater effdect than any so called "trade union Baron" ever could.

But you'll never here anyone moaning about that particular bloc voting system.

Sorry junior, its been tried, tested, & found wanting - a long time ago before you were a gleam in the milkmans eye.

If i were you I'd get a lot more experience of real life before coming on boards like this & making a complete wassock of yourself.

To move on:

markinberks.

I suspect you don't realise it - but you have made Mr Smarts point for him.

Which is what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. & if you've never heard that one before I'd suggest you are too young to come on here & play with the grown ups.

i.e. If that's the sort of democratic requirements that is good enough for Unions to adhere to than, as Mr Smart cleary states, the same has to apply to MP's, MEPs, & by extension ALL elections. I mean, it's not hard to understand. Even a blind man on a galloping horse can see what Mr Smart is getting at.

Anyway, to the main point.

Following on from my previous post.

If this ballot - the result of which has not been released by the CWU - did not go the way of the Executive's and Activist's recommendation than it follows logically any deal now made will fall into one of 3 categories:

1. A worse deal than what was last offered.

2. The same deal that was last offered and rejected.

3. A slightly improved offer to help the Union save face and maintain "good" future IR.

From this it also follows that if any one of these 3 possibilities turns out to be the end result than it is reasonable to assume the initial premise - that the vote went the wrong way for the Union - is accurate and correct.

However, if the logic of this argument is to hold than its opposite must also be the case.

i.e.:

That if it turns out that the outcome of any talks prior to another ballot are that an offer other than the three above listed options - i.e. a significantly improved offer - is made than it must be the case that the vote actually went the way of the Union and that it is the company's face which is being saved.

Following on from this a further premise can be made.

That any significantly improved offer over & above the three possibilities listed must be as a result of those who voted in favour of industrial action.

That is to say if this turns out to be the outcome than it is those who have voted for industrial action who have achieved that outcome not only for themselves but also for those who voted against industrial action and those in that position who would have come into work if industrial action had taken place.

However, as above, for this position to hold it must also be conceeded that by the same logic the opposite must also be true.

i.e. that if the outcome is any one of the three listed options above than the lower offer/outcome has been achieved by those who voted against industrial action & has to be accepted not only by them but also those who voted in favour of industrial action.

That is to say that voting against industrial action has weakened the Unions bargaining position and also that of the workforce to the extent that a worse outcome has resulted.

If this turns out to be the case then the company now knows it can do whatever it likes & the majority of the workfoce will roll over and let their own throats be cut.

Of course, when this occurs it will not stop those responsible from bellyaching like mardy arsed three year olds & blaming anyone else but themselves.

Thank whatever god you subscribe to that this generation were not around during Dunkirk & the Battle of Britain.