BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[fincastle84]

Excuse me, but this chat should be held on the BAA thread, not the BA thread. The BA strike is finished, dead, over. The BAA strike will never happen. End of both stories!!!

[west lakes]

Slight drift, but Unite lose yet again!!

Whitehaven News | News | Sellafield tribunal win

[Papillon]

Lotpax

I think there is a very good argument that not voting is irresponsible, when it mandates very damaging industrial action that can affect many others.

Certainly. I'm not sure too many would disagree. The question is, whether forcing those who do not wish (or can't be bothered) to vote makes that any better. Again, do you really want up to 50% of those voting only doing so because they're forced? How valid would that be?

The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.

Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

[Mr Optimistic]

exhausted

are there any thoughts left to think or questions still to be asked ?

[Phil Rigg]

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.....

[KBPsen]

That point was reached a long time ago, Mr Optimistic.

[Diplome]

Gosh Mr. Rigg, this post isn't going to have a lot of depth, but please accept that its not due to my feeling the need to be "important". I'm quite sure in that reality

________________

West Lakes...your post makes me wonder if I know what "West Lakes" you are referring to in your nick.

[Argus]

As part of a recent trip to Europe, my wife and I flew from Paris to London on 16 Jul 10 via BA. I had previously tried to cancel this flight and use Eurostar instead. However, we stuck with BA because I couldn't get a refund due to the package we were travelling on.

I'm glad we did travel with BA. Although only a short flight, the service was excellent, the seats comfortable, the staff friendly and the food edible.

On complementing the staff, the CSD was quick to point out that none were members of the Union.

To use the Antipodean vernacular, Missus (with the double barrelled surname), I dips me lid! Thank you.

[Lotpax]

Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

Why? Democracy is based on the majority view.

[Landroger]

Papillon

I think there is a very good argument that not voting is irresponsible, when it mandates very damaging industrial action that can affect many others.
Certainly. I'm not sure too many would disagree. The question is, whether forcing those who do not wish (or can't be bothered) to vote makes that any better. Again, do you really want up to 50% of those voting only doing so because they're forced? How valid would that be?

Quote:
The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.
Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

Surely Papillon, indifference is what makes democracy so difficult? Not only which, there are many aspects of our lives where indifference is most definitely not optional. I found myself quite indifferent to paying my car tax yesterday - its gone up about 20% for no other reason than the government felt able to do that without much bad press, but I digress. To ignore the fact that my car tax is due, was simply not an option - very quickly someone will compel me to pay it or the car is taken away.

It is people who 'can't be bothered' who throw litter out of moving cars. It is not their right to do so and someone will, sometime, catch them at it and, quite rightly, punish them for doing so. If I see it on the roads, I tend to phone the local authority with the registration number. Not being bothered is not your right - it is not and should not be any part of public life.

I'm afraid I am of the 'rights are paid for by responsibilities' mind set - no responsibility, no rights. People have fought and died for the right to vote - and it doesn't much matter whether it is National Elections, Local Elections, Local Referenda, your Parochial Church Council or your Union trying to gauge support or opposition, then indifference is both a waste of a right and offensive to your peers.

The Australian government, on this rare occasion, have the right of it. Indifference is an antisocial - and intolerable - behaviour. Sorry about the rant Papillon - it isn't directed at you personally.

Roger.

[harrypic]

Apathy in voting has some very hard lessons in history - militants and fanatics will always be bothered to turn out and vote - although an extreme case, read how Hitler came to power....

[PAXboy]

As well as apathetic voters there seems to be a pre-disposition in humans to believe what they are told. If someone speaks convincingly and seems to know what they are talking about and is passionate ... name almost any dictator or president or Prime Minister. In fact, if I read the ancient history books correctly, people actually believed Tony Blair would make things better and that he was a man of his word ...

[somewhereat1l]

Tony Blair DID make the UK better.

[fincastle84]

Tony Blair DID make the UK better.

..........for Tony Blair & his family but no one else!!!!!

I suppose that in the same sentiment Duncan Holley has improved the lot of Bassa CC & made them much wealthier during the past 6 months.

[Rusland 17]

For all his faults - and, by God, there turned out to be many - Britain did become a better place during Tony Blair's adminstration. The recognition of Human Rights in British law, civil partnerships, the end of blood sports... the social changes were fundamental and generally positive. But that's probably a topic for Jet Blast.

[PAXboy]

It certainly is one for JB. I had no idea that mentioning TB would have such a reaction. So I'll leave it by pointing out that we have been made a target for terrorists and dissent and shown to be the poodle of the USA.

Next topic!

[Papillon]

Landroger, I'm not supporting the notion of indifference, I'm saying that people have the right to be indifferent and apathetic. Whether in a General Election or a union ballot, people have the right not to care. That they then deserve everything they get as a result of that indifference is a separate point. Forcing someone to vote is an illiberal act.

[Landroger]

Papillon

Landroger, I'm not supporting the notion of indifference, I'm saying that people have the right to be indifferent and apathetic. Whether in a General Election or a union ballot, people have the right not to care. That they then deserve everything they get as a result of that indifference is a separate point. Forcing someone to vote is an illiberal act.

I know you're not supporting it Papillon - I realised that when I re-read your post again - but you are propounding that the indifferent have the right to be so. It is that with which I disagree and while you might actually be right, that forcing people to vote is an illiberal act, I think the end justifies the means.

Apathy in voting has some very hard lessons in history - militants and fanatics will always be bothered to turn out and vote - although an extreme case, read how Hitler came to power....

Harrypic's observation is absolutely spot on and exactly why the relatively minor infringement of my rights, represented by requiring me to vote, is to be preferred and more beneficial to "society" - in the long view.

Roger.

[Papillon]

Indeed so. People have the right to be indifferent, stupid, ignorant, thoughtless and wrong as well - that's part of a democratic process. As soon as you add compulsion then you're also going to add huge number of votes that actually haven't been thought through, or are done for the sake of it. It is for those standing or proposing a position to exercise the minds of those they wish to vote. They need to earn the interest of the electorate.

I note the appearance of Godwin's Law within the thread, but in point of fact the NSDAP did have strong electoral support - the idea that a small party seized power is wide of the mark. Besides which, I am amused that anyone would choose to paraphrase Machiavelli when talking about democratic action.

[Juan Tugoh]

The right to vote is, in a wider democratic sense, also a duty. You cannot have the potentially ridiculous situation whereby 5 people out of a population of 10,000 vote and with only 4 candidates the one with only 2 votes wins. The situation of having less than 50% of those who voted delivering a winner is madness, yet it is the logical extension of the it is undemocratic to make me vote argument.

There is nothing undemocratic about society expecting and enforcing certain activities from its members. We all have a duty to behave within the law, merely having a system of voting does in no way absolve you from this duty. Democracy is not a free for all where you only do what you want to - that is anarchy. Society requires many things of its members, if it did not then society would break down, compulsion by the state is an absolute part of modern democratic society - it is naive to think otherwise.

However, if you do go down the line of making voting a duty, then there must also be an option which allows you to vote for "None of the above". Abstaining from voting is also an important part of democracy and is a political act. Apathy, on the other hand is not a political act. Abstaining does not mean just not voting it is a deliberate act of will. Those prepared to abstain should also be prepared to tick a box saying "Abstain".

When the outcome of a vote is as important as a general election or even as petty as a union vote for strike action we should not ever be in a situation whereby a small minority of militants can determine the outcome.

The issue of voting reform and "First Past the Post" or PR are frankly of secondary import when either can deliver power to an extreme position. It is far more important that everyone votes - even if their action is to spoil the ballot, this is also a political act. Going to a polling station and spoiling a ballot is, by far, better than doing nothing.