UKC

Is it right that our dear leader is asking the unions for a 40% yes vote before industrial action can take place, when they only got 36.9% and they're making the rules?

I don't think it is.

In reply to krikoman:

What's the problem? If an issue is important to a union surely they can persuade 40% of their members to vote to strike - if they can't then perhaps the issue doesn't actually warrant a strike.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

In reply to TMM:

Put it in your manifesto, I'll consider voting for that proposal.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


And if you wanted to vote for that manifesto you would be able to see your wishes granted via a simple majority vote.

If majority voting is deemed sufficiently equitable to determine the right of a five year government then why should it not be the case in when seeking to resolve industrial disputes?

Alasdair McDonnell, Social Democratic and Labour Party. Belfast South. 2015. Elected MP with 24.5% share of the vote.

In reply to krikoman:

So if only 36% of the population vote for a new government, we keep the old one?

I think you need to compare apples with apples.

With an election of 60% turnout 60% don't feel strongly enough about who governs us.

Compare that with strike action where 60% don't feel strongly enough to vote for action.

In reply to TMM:



The entire electorate get the chance to vote, because it affects everyone. Do all rail passengers get the chance to vote on whether the RMT strike? Because it kind of affects them, perhaps they should have a say in whether or not they think a strike is justified?


You can come up with as many examples as you like.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So we assume that the non-voters would have voted against a strike had they been forced to make a choice?

In reply to krikoman:


I don't agree with your sentiment, but you haven't even made the right comparison.

The Tories got 24.3% of all those eligible to vote, and that's what the 40% figure is for a strike ballot. The ballot is won by a simple majority (>50%), but the new proposal is that 40% of all eligible to vote must also support it, so it becomes a question of turnout.

On the government 36.9% figure, well this should have come up in 2005, when Tony Blair got in on the lowest ever popular vote (35.2%). There hasn't been much interest in electoral reform so that's the system we have. What system would you prefer?

In reply to krikoman:

Compare like with like. A strike vote is basically voting yes / know. An election is voting between many different options and hence the vote is bound to be diluted. 40% actually sounds low for a strike mandate (just as 50% sounded low for a vote to break up the UK)

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

So we assume that the non-voters would have voted against a strike had they been forced to make a choice?

Essentially yes and why not?
In fact, you could do it, so that only the people that wanted to strike actually need to submit a vote. As long as there are no restrictions/difficulties put on the voting process then there really shouldn't be a problem.
That way, a strike would only happen if people felt strongly enough about an issue to actually do something about it and as their actions are likely to effect others, then the onus should be on them to take that action.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


what difference does it make "when" it should have happened, if it's wrong it's wrong.

There's never interest in electoral reform because the people with the power to change the system, never want to change the system that got them there. Which is part of the reason the LibDems have virtually no MPs because they folded on their original demands of changing the system 5 years ago.

The German system seems to be a reasonable one, local rep and regional MP, but I'm sure there are others.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I don't think that's been suggested by anyone but yourself.




Well let's look at this from the other direction, 63% didn't want a Conservative Government , but ended up with one. Yet they are suggesting that less than 60% isn't enough to stop a strike.

In reply to krikoman:


The date means people have had 10 years to consider this situation and haven't got very worked up about it.


We had a vote on AV which the public rejected, not those in power. AV was a 'miserable compromise' but still an improvement if you want to see governments with higher support.


I agree the German system's good. Don't think we'll see change here in my lifetime.

In reply to krikoman:




Why go to Germany, what about Scotland?

It was decided to use a system called the Additional Member System (AMS).

This system allows people to have a local constituency MSP and also adds other members to make the overall result more proportional. In this way more viewpoints are represented in Parliament.

How the Additional Member System (AMS) works
There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs)
There are two ways an MSP can be elected.
Each elector (voter) has two votes.
Scotland is divided into 73 constituencies and each constituency elects one MSP.

These are known as constituency MSPs and are elected by 'first past the post' in exactly the same way as MPs are elected to Westminster. This is the elector's 'first vote'.

The 'second vote' is used to elect 56 additional members. Scotland is divided into 8 parliamentary Regions and each region elects 7 regional MSPs. In the second vote the voter votes for a party rather than a candidate. The parties are then allocated a number of additional members to make the overall result more proportional. The regional MSPs are selected from lists compiled by the parties. These MSPs are also sometimes referred to as List MSPs.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx

In reply to FactorXXX:

Assuming that all members were at home to be informed of and receive and then able to return the postal vote, which is currently the only allowed method of voting. If the law was changed to allow secure online voting then there's room for a good debate, but until then this just looks like a ploy to castrate collective bargaining.

In reply to krikoman:


That is plain wrong. For 63% a Conservative government was not first choice. That is very different to "63% didn't want a Conservative Government "

In reply to krikoman:

The FPTP system is not about electing "our dear leader", it works by electing a local representative, all of which go together to form a Government and an Opposition.

People who quote that type of statistic either inadvertently or deliberately misunderstand how it works, whatever I happen to think about the vote (I would take the line that as with any election the views of those who fail to vote are simply disregarded, so I don't agree with Cameron's proposal either).

Neil

In reply to GrahamD:
Sort-of. There will also be those who use the system as it is intended, and vote for their local representative. So you could also say "For 63%, their local Conservative candidate was not their first choice as their representative in Parliament".

As an example, one reason I decided not to vote for my local Lib Dem candidate was that she does not live in the constituency. I firmly believe all candidates should live in the constituency they represent, and as a result will not vote for one who does not. I also am reluctant to vote for a candidate who withholds their address from the ballot paper, which seems a modern phenomenon.

In reply to GrahamD:


Indeed.

Many people are just not interested in which party governs us.

Many of us are interested on a local level.

I live in a conservative safe seat with a high turnout of conservative voters. There really is no point in me voting, regardless of whether it's to add to the conservative vote or to vote for another party.

In reply to krikoman:

The 40% rule would only apply to designated vital public services, but elsewhere they want to introduce a 50% turnout rule. Sounds reasonable at first - after all 51% of 49% is only a quarter. But surely it would mean that no voters simply wouldn't vote, as that would make it harder for a yes vote to be carried. Democracy ? I don't think so

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Let me rephrase that then "63% weren't convinced enough to vote Conservative".

In reply to krikoman:


Or Labour, or Libdem, or UKIP, or Green... It's meaningless.

In reply to krikoman:


What's the alternative ? never having a government ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes that's exactly what I suggesting. FFS!

I was making the comparison between what the Conservatives got and what they expect of others!!!

It's not that hard to see there's an imbalance, I didn't suggest that because of this Cameron should self-immolate or blow up the houses of parliament.

In reply to Jim C:


What's wrong with the Scottish system is that it would lead to 1000 MPs in Westminster. Scotland has far too much bureaucracy per person. If you add the MSP, MP, MEP you've almost got one each.

Also, England has a more diverse economic landscape. If you lump regions together in England to reduce constituency size you end up with rural areas mixed in the cities. Virtually impossible to represent the whole area as the MP is most likely to be city based and will appeal to the highest density of voters.

Other than that, yes the system works to produce proportionality.

The voting system for the UK is a mess. We lack enough credible parties for proper coalition politics, we get strange results like this time, a simple AV would probably give permanent labour. The SNP situation is so ridiculous it's funny - try explaining to a foreigner that Scotland voted to stay in the UK but send 56 UK-hating MPs to Westminster to represent them in their desire to remain in the UK.

In reply to Jim C:


Which seems like a very bad idea, one person one vote seems a good principle to stick to.

There is also the problem with list systems, especially national list systems, that they hand even more power to the party machines and take it away from the voters. All a candidate has to do is to curry favour with the party hierarchy, they are then almost guaranteed a seat, short of total collapse of a major party. It also removes the local link, though this is frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance, given the tendency to parachute candidates who have no local connection in, ignoring local views - worse by some parties than others, but they are all guilty of it.

One system that seems to have some merit is single-transferable vote, multi-member constituency. So you have say 10 MPs for a constituency, 8 of them are directly elected, the remaining 2 are used to adjust for a party that had a significant number of votes but nowhere enough to win a seat. Or accumulate together to do the same for 20, with some threshold, say 5% of the total votes before a party gets anything. So the local link is retained, possibly even strengthened, a maverick fighting a specific local cause can still get in, but a more proportional result is returned and no vote is wasted.

FPTP certainly seems to have outlived its shelf life, but any replacement should very much NOT be argued for the advantage of one political slant, or quoting the result of one specific election, but to produce a better system to reflect the changing reality to a multi-party situation. Nor should phoney arithmetic about counting non-voters, or representing people who did not vote for the winning party as having by default voted against it, or having voted for their principal opponents, which is clearly nonsense, and partisan nonsense at that.

It is amusing how selective people can be in their indignation that their preferred party did win (i.e. was not even the leading party in terms of votes cast), and somehow try to obfuscate that by attacking the counting method. We do need a better system, but not to give one particular slant a bonus.

Of course one cannot be sure that people would vote the same way in a more proportional system, or one where votes counted for more, even in "safe" areas. But these are real problems, that do need addressing. But all systems have their downsides, there is no perfect system. FPTP is simple and comprehensible, with its "winner takes all" effect, but it is increasingly looking anachronistic.

In reply to krikoman:

Anyway, let's get back on topic: is it a good thing to erode the rights of workers? Who does it benefit to render unions essentially useless?

In reply to Jack:
Who does it benefit to render unions essentially useless?

Exploitative employers is my guess.

I watched a conservative MP ( yes. Tory) stand up and call for a change in the law with regard to Zero Hour contracts, just yesterday I think it was listened to only by the SNP( the Labour Party were not anywhere to be seen to speak for or against the proposition. )

His point was that zero hour contracts had a place , but only where employers were not able to take advantage. And where they did, he wanted to bring the law to bear on such employers.

But surely, this is a hammer to crack a nut, and where unions would come in, and negotiate a fair deal for both parties without having to resort to law.

If you want the flexibility of a ZHC then that is fine, but it should be a choice, as should the right , should you choose to, to be represented by a union.

Edit :- only replaced joy

In reply to Jack:


Of course not, and it's the employers who are benefiting.

I have a few mates on zero hours and they get f*cked about something rotten, called in at the last minute, not wanted at the last minute. They have two or three jobs and working under these rules they can't plan when they are working or who they are working for.

It always amazes me how we need a parliamentary debate to sort some shit idea that's been rushed through, when some common sense and respect would have highlighted the problems in the first place.

They've created another monster with these so called "apprenticeships" when they should be called get people off the "dole books labour".

It is part of the problem with people not trusting our leaders any more , when they can't call a spade a spade and everyone knows what's going on, yet they continue with their bullshit as if normal people can't see for themselves what's going on.

In reply to krikoman:

Because lots of people on zero hour contracts actually enjoy them.

Outlawing them would affect the majority who it works well for.

It's difficult.

In reply to FactorXXX:

One can't make any assumption on the intention of the non voters in either direction. There are lots of other elections that have been held recently where turnout has been woeful and the mandate of the elected individual questionable, most notably the police commissioners! What the Tory measures are aimed at is preventing people striking. That right has been hard won, with many lives lost in the process. It should not easily be taken away. The point of a strike is inconvenience, if there was none, there would be no,point in striking.

In reply to kipper12:
Alternatively it could be aimed at stopping people who depend on their wages from being stopped from working by a minority who aren't.

My wife is in a union. When the teachers call a strike over pensions the classroom assitants and dinner ladies lose their money for the day.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




Maybe that's true, but from the evidence I have to hand, i.e. my mates, they hate them.
They have no power, no consistency and get f*cked about all the time, they can't plan anything because work can tell them they need them in at short notice. If they say f*ck it and do what they have organised they are punished with less or no work.

I suppose anyone can say a lot of people like any sort of shit, but without evidence that's a bit hard to confirm, isn't it?

I can imagine how great it must be to not know how much money I'll be earning this week or which job is going to let me down at the last minute.

In reply to krikoman:

It's also great to work for a good employer who calls you up and asks you if you want to work for some extra money.

There is lots of eveidence and statistics to show that zero hours contracts work well for a lot of people.

The conservatives have already outlawed exclusive zero hour contracts in the last government.

In reply to krikoman:


General elections and strike ballots are totally different things. The default position is we have to have to have a government so we get the one most people voted for but we don't have to have strikes. Of course if all else fails a strike may become the last resort to resolve a problem but presumably in that case enough people could be bothered to get off their arse and vote for it.

In reply to krikoman:

There have always been zero hours contracts in the economy,casual labour is an old name for it.yes it is crap if you are looking for a stable long term job.then maybe the answer is for your mates to retrain or move away from the area. I have the same discussion with a nephew of mine who has been on a zero hours contract with pound land for a couple of years .he is always moaning about it, but never gets off his backside and looks elsewhere/he dismisses doing more education / or refuses to move to another city.I can see his future is not very good, and it's a shame.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

That's the point of industriAl action surely. If no one was inconvenienced no one would notice and it would be pointless. You have to remember, strike action is a last resort, no one really wants to loose pay over a dispute. Sometimes there is nowhere else to go.

In reply to kipper12:


But if there really is nowhere else to go and your demands are reasonable then surely enough of the Union membership will be motivated to vote.

In reply to kipper12:


But the people who are inconvenienced are often the people who have nothing to do with the issues whatsoever. In the case of transport workers, they can strike all they want and it doesn't bother the paymasters. It is the innocent public that take the pain and the government that take the hit.

In reply to neilh:


Move to another area? Really, so he sells his house, moves the kids to a different school, then him and his missus find new jobs, somewhere to live and schools for their children. While simultaneously losing contact with their friends, their support structure and an area they love?

Seems a bit much for someone who is willing to work and are reliable solid workers.

I just happen to see them as exploited, these contracts might be fine for those who like them but not for the majority. They are very easy for the employer to take advantage off and very difficult for the employee to have any control at all.

In reply to krikoman:


2/3 of people on zero hours contracts are reported as being satisfied with them. That leaves about 0.7% of the workforce who are on such contracts and unhappy with them. Probably we should find a way to swing the balance towards the employee in such cases but in the greater scheme of things it is not an enormous issue in society.

How would you amend the system to protect that 0.7%?

In reply to krikoman:

Strange that there is a huge lack of labour in the South East. That is rapidly being filled by migrant European labour that is doing exactly that.

No one is 'owed' a job.

Read up on your history. Particularly the industrial revolution part where people moved from the countryside and built large towns around mines and factories.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Living in what sort of conditions 6 to a room and hot bedding, sounds great.

But yes I suppose the could do that, might not be very nice for his daughters but never mind eh!

In reply to Postmanpat:


By whom? and where is this information?

Like I said I don't know that many people who are on these contracts, but the one's I do know don't like them, so you're information obviously differs to mine.

In reply to krikoman:



None of the people I work with live like that.

I've just received our internal jobs list. 43 vacancies all well above average wage. With very good terms and conditions.

In reply to krikoman:


>
CIPD survey.

http://www.careersavvy.co.uk/high-job-satisfaction-reported-across-zero-hou...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Doesn't exactly sell the idea though does it?

While I can understand it might be OK for single people with no mortgage to pay and no dependants I can still sympathise with the people who are messed around or frightened to turn down a shift for fear of reprisals.

In reply to krikoman:



For a substantial proportion of people it appears to work well. Overall it seems to be no more unpopular than other forms of employment. We don't mount campaigns against all those do we?

Having said that, there is clearly a case for examining changes in the contracts to stop the sort of problems you are highlighting (as there no doubt are in other employment contracts) Any thoughts?

In reply to Postmanpat:


So, if I am reading this correctly CIPD asked the EMPLOYERS if the people they employed on ZHC were happy, and they said yes.

That sound fair enough to me.

"The survey of 2,500 EMPLOYERS 'discovered' that job satisfaction amongst those on zero hour contracts was 60%, compared to 59% for the average UK employee."

(I will tell my daughter that she was just making up all that crap about being messed , around, turning up after driving 15 miles, to be told that they were not needed, or that she MIGHT be needed in the afternoon!
She was often out of pocket for petrol never mind her time.)

Edit added quote.

In reply to Jim C:

You do realise that your daughter being unhappy with a ZHC doesn't mean that everybody on a ZHC is unhappy? Like if I tell a story about someone being happy on a ZHC it doesn't mean everyone's happy.

In reply to Jim C:


No. The segment about employee attitudes was filled in by employees.


Why would you do that, rather than just assume she is one of the 40% who are not satisfied with their job?
Should I tell my daughter who found her zero hours contract perfectly OK that she was wrong?
The survey clearly allows for both situations and basing one's views on a few personal anecdotes is obviously not reliable anyway.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Where did I make such a statement?

I was simply first calling into question asking employers if they staff were happy, as an accurate method of assessiong ZHC satisfaction. (clearly there could be problems with that methodology, I would hope at least you might acknowledge?)

As for my daughter she was certainly unhappy with hers', so as that is the best example I have of a ZHC I shared that.
(It SHOULD have been good, as she was a student and she wanted to work in around studying and exams, but it did not work out that way.)

If the rest of UKC have good news stories then great lets hear them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am right now filling in a survey from my employer.

I don't know what they do with the responses. as it is my Employer that control the questions and the data submitted, it is not handled independently.

Most people I know answer these internal 'surveys' with, lets say some care.


Edit:- corrected to my employer)

In reply to Jim C:


Exactly, in the same way they might expect some retribution for not being available for work, they might not see that saying "no this is shit" won't affect their chances of earning some money this week.

In reply to krikoman:

Its what other people do- economic migration is common.There is no god given right that you have to stay in 1 location for life.

In reply to krikoman:

But that isn't what happened. The methodology, which isn't ideal, but was independently conducted by YouGov is here

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

In reply to MG:



" All respondents have HR responsibility within their organisation, which may or may not be their sole and primary function within their organisation"

By this very statement these are large companies with someone in charge of HR, it would be interesting to know how many people on Zero hours don't work for companies with any HR department.

I do work for a number of motor manufacturing companies and all the evidence I've seen is that zero hours benefits the employer much more than the employee and people working along side these zero hour employees a get a much better deal on full contract with greater benefits and security.

While I can see that it might be OK for some people, I can also see there's a large number who are being exploited under these contracts.

In reply to krikoman:

Slow down and now read the relevant part of the text. Section 2

In reply to krikoman:

I agree that these contracts and similar practices *can* be abused, but the evidence suggests that it is a fairly small problem in the scheme of things, and also that for some they do work well.

In reply to MG:
The main evidence is a small survey badly run and challenged by many on pretty solid research grounds with respect to the quality of the research process and how representative the results are (especially given the contract form relies on a steady stream of the ignorant in contract terms who by the time they get annoyed no longer have a job)

So the apparent happiness is that many employed on ZHCs are glad to get some work and have absolutely no idea of the additional benefits which accrue with the alternative of a more (expensive to employers) formal part-time or fractional contract. I have taken people who initially told me they felt satisfied with such contacts and turned them into local campaigmers against ZHCs (once they realised what they were losing out on and how dishonest HR had been).

If they are really so good, simply give workers the right to choose them against a more formal contract. I have met intelligent workers who know the relative contractural benefits and prefer ZHCs but they are very few and far between.

In reply to MG:



I have now read this, and tried to put myself in the place of a 'bad employer' being 'invited' to participate.

If approached by YouGov on behalf of the CIPD , would a bad employer not just simply decline to participate in the survey?
As it says in the Methodology ( of those that agreed to participate) thus very likely there is a skewing the result before any opinions were collected.

A building based on a weak foundation, is never going to be safe, so better not to bother even laying the first brick, until that foundation is underpinned .
If only the good employers (with nothing to hide ) participated then you could naturally expect a higher number of 'satisfied' employees.
IF the (Methodology has covered that, then fair enough, I have missed that.

I finished a yearly survey just today, I had a email from the HR advising us to complete it, the same day an email from the CEO also asking that the survey is completed.

Some staff, myself included, are sceptical of the level of employer involvement in the survey, and that involvement undoubtably effects the responses people give.
(I would argue to be more favorable to the employer than perhaps a clearly hands off trusted , truly secret and independent pollster might obtain.

This survey certainly looks impressive, but I do think it's worth is more as a PR exercise for employers and the Personnel industry.

In reply to Jim C:





See P.43, "employee outlook". The employee sample was chosen independently of the employer sample. It was chosen from the organisation's regular employee polling universe.
Unless I'm misunderstanding it.

In reply to Offwidth:


Actually, one of the things the CIPD survey highlights is ignorance on both sides of the stipulations of the contracts, including the protections against unfair dismissal etc.

I don't suppose the survey is entirely reliable but I see it quoted by, amongst others, UNISON, the TUC,(not, unsurprisingly the positive bits) various parliamentary and government reports, and legal organisations. I haven't found any researched critical assessments. Do you know of some?


Good idea.

In reply to Postmanpat:
A few Unions had researchers pick holes in the methodology (piss poor really for such a supposedly august institution but mainly as they tried to pretend it was more than it was, when they could have been honest about it being more of an exploratory survey and urged caution with the results) but it's the ignorance bit that makes the most difference (and yes it works both ways). I think the survey was a useful 'wake-up-call' for the Unions as they were lazily making the assumption that the membership (or eligible non membership) were mainly informed and unhappy. As I said above, in my experience when the actual situation is explained the vast majority of academic employees that I talk to would prefer a part-time contract and at the other end the (outsourced) cleaners are cynical but scared of rocking the boat and losing neccesary income. Its an unequal relationship, alternatives exist and when that choice is offered with full information few would choose the ZHC. A few employers were special in their scuminess: holding exclusivity on such contracts ...at least that is being forced out; yet in practice if people repeatedly exercise their right not to take on the work they will soon not be asked to work, unless they are the rare ones with the skill urgently needed (in which case why not run as a consultancy?)

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree with this ^^

Add in to that the fact that a lot of migrant workers who are on these zero hours contracts :-
1) Don't fully understand what they have signed up for, if they've signed anything.
2) Don't know what other options are available.
3) Are just so happy to be earning in a day what takes then a week to earn back home, that they don't care.
4) Are just grateful for a job.

all of which could skew the survey in favour of a positive outcome.

In reply to krikoman:







All of which could be true for all sorts of people in all sorts of jobs with all sorts of contracts.
I am not saying zero hours contracts all all wonderful but about 2.4% of the workforce is in
them. Would it be surprising that a proportion of people in not very well paid, not very stable employment are not happy? Should we just stop these jobs existing?

If not, apart from educating people better on how their employment contracts work and what alternatives might be available, what do you suggest?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well according to the survey it's 3.1% of the workforce and that was 2 years ago.
Even at 2.4% it's still around 1 million people, so not an insignificant number.


You said it not very stable!! Why not make this instability less so?


I would suggest a limit on the number of people a company can have on ZHC.
A maximum length of time people can be employed on ZHC without being offered a permanent post, with the same laws we have about making people redundant then taking other people in the same job.

Equal rights for the same job, if someone on a ZHC is working alongside someone who isn't they should be given the same rights and opportunities, again after a period of time.

A written contract should be given in all cases, so people can understand what the limitations and what's expected of them.

There's probably more.

Obviously, these would apply to companies over a certain size and to long term ZHC employees.

In reply to krikoman:
It's hard to tell how many there really are. You would think things were pretty tightly monitored in Universities compared to some employers but when our framework came in it was clear the institution had no proper records of the actual number of part time staff it had. ZHC were not used then but I strongly suspect (based on very good reasons) the institutional level contract recording is even more lax. Also, in the other direction, there will be staff double, triple or more counted. We almost certainly have more on such academic contracts than on any other (part-time academic staff used to outnumber permanent staff 2:1 and the staff doing these roles are pretty much all now on ZHC)

In reply to krikoman:



Both of the above examples would risk 'some employers' just cutting staff that coming up to the maximum time before they can claim more rights.