The issue is not forcing anyone to vote but to increase the requirement to call IA from the current greater than 50% of those who vote to greater than 50% of union membership or even to greater than 50% of those employees who are eligible to join the union. This latter more stringent requirement incorporates the first component of choosing to vote in favour as to whether an employee chooses to join the union or not.
When a union calls an IA ballot I would suggest that it is invariably the militant minority calling the ballot who will predominantly vote with the non-militant majority choosing to sit on the fence. For what it is worth they may as well just have a "show of hands" as they used to in the past and do away with the complexities of a third-party monitored secret ballot.
The result will always be "our members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action....." when it could equally be said "a minority of all employees who are eligible to join the union have chosen to exercise their legally protected option of causing substantial damages to their employer and all parties with whom their employer conducts business while the majority of eligible employees are indifferent".
The legally protected ease under which substantial damage can be caused to so many by so few at the individual cost to them of substituting a few days strike pay for salary does appear very unfair. But the law was never about fairness.....
Last edited by Phil Rigg; 13th Aug 2010 at 22:22.