Is there an election soon or something?

The Conservatives provoked a major row with the trade unions over sweeping plans to ban them from taking strike action without the support of at least 40 per cent of their members.

In an article for The Telegraph, Patrick McLoughlin, announced the proposed crackdown on industrial action, which will be included in the Tory election manifesto, in order to stop union bosses holding Britain “to ransom”.

Ah, yes, I think there is.

Rally the base, eh?

27 comments on “Is there an election soon or something?

  1. It is pretty desperate stuff. The 70s are long forgotten. Do people still care?

    Although I am amazed they don’t need a majority of their members even now.

  2. Why should Unions be any different than the state?. If the twats of NuBluZaNuLibLab can get in on 22% (or whatever the fuck it was) why should Unions not act on that basis? The hypocrisy of these creatures is stomach-turning. One law for us…

    Also shows the contempt Camorgueron has for voters. 5 years of metromarxist shite, every promise broken—but now “We’ll get those Union hacks with their beer and sandwiches at number ten…er is Red Robbo still alive?” Evil fuckwits.

  3. It is nice to see them eager to implement the policies needed by 1975 Britain.

    Next up, a ban on platform shoes, clackers and lawn darts.

  4. How about no government unless 40% of the electorate vote for the party that wants to govern?

    That would really improve things!

  5. Then why not adopt the policy of that otherwise odious fellow FDR, and ban unions from government jobs. They could always call it their New Deal.

  6. Guido, writing under his real name this time, has a much better answer: Don’t ban strikes – sack strikers

    I wonder also if permitting third party claims for damages against striking unions would work – I don’t see why for example someone prevented from getting to work by the trains being deliberately sabotaged should be left out of pocket.

  7. Belgium finds it notoriously difficult to form governments. A plot of Belgium’s GDP growth, against the often lengthy periods during which Belgium has no government, would be instructive.

  8. We need to remember at this point that everyone has the right to withdraw their labour. If they don’t, it’s called slavery. They have no right to retain their job if they do so. An employer who cannot divest himself of an unwanted employee is also in a form of slavery, of an inverted kind. No laws governing any of this are necessary or beneficial to a society. It is the compulsory bindings introduced by socialism that create the mess.

  9. Strikes are hardly the issue they once where. The main strikes now are in the “public” sector. Now I stand second to no one in my hatred of statism in general and socialism in particular. But I also believe in fairness and decent treatment of employees. If a private actor (individual, company, corp, etc–not a theaterist) owns a business he/she is within their rights to sack strikers. The best thing about a free market economy would be lots of jobs so sacking would not be the threat that it is in the socialistic shithole we have now.

    The state is something else. Govt employment is a very nice billet–at the top end. Lower down it is poorly paid and staff are treated like shit. As I say, in a private business and a free market world (there would be virtually no govt jobs cos virtually no govt anyway) people would leave a bad employer. In todays world –not so easy. The political and bureaucratic scum employing people did not create the stolen resouces they hand out. Most of them are useless twats who couldn’t run a real business. I don’t want to see a system where low-level people are left at the mercy of turds like Francis Maude, Greyling and the Fish-Faced Hag. These are some of the nastiest types to be found anywhere and even I don’t want to see them throwing their lard-arsed weight about, fucking over a lot of little people who have lost any means of hitting back. Even if they are govt employees. I believe that the political pricks increasingly nasty treatment of their own workforce has been both a symptom and an enabler of their present equally nasty attitude towards us –their supposed employers.

    If the state is to be rolled back then lets get rid off not just small-fry state employees but their far more expensive and more dangerous masters. That would be fair–employment queue for all. But not a system that leaves the arseholes at the top free to continue to waste and destroy the rest of us and act like tin gods with their own employees who have been deprived of any means of redress.

  10. “If they don’t, it’s called slavery.” Except when it’s called a “contract”.

    No. A contract does not compel. It is an agreement. If somebody breaks it, there may be a civil case for damages, if damages can be proved. But it does not compel work.

    Simply put; if I am contracted to work for you from 9 to 5, and I decide to go home at 3pm, you can sack me (I’ve already broken the contract) or sue me. But you can’t lock me in and force me to work. Similar (relevant to other contentious threads here) that if somebody has agreed to have sex (“consent”) that doesn’t compel them to continue if they don’t like it.

  11. @Mr Ecks: “I don’t want to see a system where low-level people are left at the mercy of turds like Francis Maude, Greyling and the Fish-Faced Hag. These are some of the nastiest types to be found anywhere and even I don’t want to see them throwing their lard-arsed weight about, fucking over a lot of little people who have lost any means of hitting back.”

    Francis Maude, Greyling and the Fish-Faced Hag, to use Mr Ecks’s words, are some of the nastiest types.

    Perhaps, Mr Ecks might wish to explore co-ownership on the Baxi model: http://www.baxendaleownership.co.uk/

  12. “Govt employment is a very nice billet–at the top end. Lower down it is poorly paid and staff are treated like shit” In the US federal government it’s the other way round, in the sense that High Up people earn much less than they’d get in the private sector, Low Down people much more. How can you be confident that that’s not true here too?

    Once you get outside London, there are great tracts of the country where cushy government jobs are pretty well paid.

  13. Ian B – “Next up, a ban on platform shoes, clackers and lawn darts.”

    I believe Boney M is still touring ….

  14. Dearime: No

    Clerical assistants, admin etc don’t earn enough full-time to be a family breadwinner. Some years ago ZaNu had to give emergency pay rises to a whole raft of admin assistants to avoid the embarrassment of breaking their own minimum wage laws. The bosses also fiddled the entry scales so instead of a years probation and then a max of 5 years to reach the rate of pay at which the job was advertised some people had worked twice that an still not reached the full rate for the job.

    For the boss class 5000 Senior CS pukes and 60,000 or so managers it is indeed a cushy job. For 100-150 thousand more who have obtained one or two promotions (itself a corrupt process in many cases) the wages aren’t too bad. But more than half of the jobs are not well paid at all and the boss class are plain nasty.

    Charlieman: I know little about co-ops or “private” socialistic organisations. Not really interested. I just want to see fair play. The perception that the public sector is well paid and cosy is false. It is if you are one of the top-end turds–but not otherwise.

  15. Please don’t take my post as being in sympathy with the public sector. By all means lets have a proper plan to get rid of it altogether, a step at a time until only the market is left.

    However–most on this blog would not support such a plan. So, if you still want some kind of public sector then it should be fair not a playground for the nasty arseholes at the top.

  16. Mr Ecks – “However–most on this blog would not support such a plan. So, if you still want some kind of public sector then it should be fair not a playground for the nasty arseholes at the top.”

    But this is a problem of moral character. Not law. People have tried the French route of ever more complex rules designed to protect workers from being bossed about by ar$es. It doesn’t work. For one thing, it gives ar$es at the bottom endless opportunity to make other people miserable.

    We need bosses to be gentlemen. Francis Fukuyama pointed out that only countries that have a properly feudal past are high trust societies with large companies. We used to be one of them. So we need to embrace our horse riding, Saracen-slaying past and insist that some things are not gentlemanly and shouldn’t be done. Won’t happen of course.

    And the sh!ts in high office will always ensure that the laws do not apply to them.

  17. Ecks,

    > Why should Unions be any different than the state?. If the twats of NuBluZaNuLibLab can get in on 22% (or whatever the fuck it was) why should Unions not act on that basis? The hypocrisy of these creatures is stomach-turning. One law for us…

    No, the charge of hypocrisy doesn’t stick here; you’re not comparing like for like. The analogy to a general election would be a union leadership election, where much the same rules will apply: if there are four candidates, the winner might well only have 27% of the vote or whatever. (I imagine some unions have weird convoluted election rules and maybe two-way run-offs, but that’s their own choice, nothing to do with the law.) A strike ballot is a vote on just one issue, hence analogous to a referendum. And no, you can’t win a two-way referendum with 22% of the vote.

    It is also perfectly reasonable, in a yes/no single-issue vote, to count non-voters as supporting the status quo. At the very least, it is unreasonable to count non-voters as opposing it. And that’s what the unions are doing with strike ballots. “10% of our members votes to strike; 9% voted not to; therefore we have majority support for our strike.” When what such a vote obviously really demonstrates is that the overwhelming majority of members don’t give a fuck.

    I’m just appalled that the so-called Conservatives are pushing for 40% support instead of 50. Pathetic.

  18. BIW,

    > Guido, writing under his real name this time, has a much better answer: Don’t ban strikes – sack strikers

    I’m not sure that is a better idea, because it is in fact the same idea. The proposed strike “ban” is actually just a definition of the difference between an authorised and an unauthorised strike. Workers get various legal protections when they go on a strike that has been legally ballotted; otherwise, they may be treated as if they have simply not turned up to work — sacked, for instance. The 40% threshold would simply make it possible for employers to sack strikers who go on strike with only 39% support. Forcing people out of bed at gunpoint is a straw man.

  19. SQ2: An election is a referendum on which gang of criminals is to be the “government”. Nor are all Union votes just on strike/no strike–often time votes have covered a range of options.
    If people not voting is to be taken as significant then “none of the above” has won numerous GEs in this country.

    And if people are being messed over by scum without means of redress you obviously couldn’t give a shit so long as it isn’t you. You should meet up with Maude and Greyling and the Hag. You’d get on like a house on fire.

  20. Ah, the mistakes we make. For months, I’ve been happily skipping anything more than the first half-sentence of every comment starting with “Ecks”, happy in the knowledge that it’s all just spittle-flecked rage against THEM FUCKING WIMMIN and absolutely anyone ever to cross his path as he storms through the Tesco car park snarling at crisp packets. And then I engaged him. What an idiotic thing to do.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.