BahrainLad
In an "election" where there is a simple either/or, 25% does not give you a mandate.
So if the vote had gone the other way to accept the pay offer then that wouldn't have given a mandate for it to be accepted?
Face facts - many people can't be bothered to vote for
anything (unless its Big Brother
) - to say that just because some couldn't be bothered to vote that the outcome doesn't have any validity in nonsense.
Of those
prepared to vote the majority was in favour of strike action - full stop.
Buster The Bear
So what is the deal offered by management and refused by staff via a democratic ballot and therefore what was the reasoning by the union for refusing a management proposed binding arbitration?
Deal on offer is inflation or inflation +2% over 3 years (the +2% if you make it non-pensionable)
As to binding arbitration - if the company says that it will accept
any outcome of binding arbitration, then by definition it will be able to accept a judgement that totally agrees with the unions claim - if it can meet the unions claim
after binding arbitration why can it not negotiate before?
Nobody wants to go on strike, but we are now at the end of August still no further forward on a pay rise that was due to be
paid at the beginning of January. There is money available in the company - any employee can point out the massive amounts of waste that still go on - so a sensible agreement all round can still be found.