|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2023 14:30:25 GMT
1) The banning of all public sector unions. All public sector employment contracts will include a clause forbidding union membership
This will not be rigorously enforced and only become an issue if the employee later attempts to take action on behalf of any union he turns out to be a member of.
The pay and conditions of the public sector will be decided solely by the sitting (elected) government.
2) All public sector employees should lose the right to vote in national elections during their public employment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2023 18:00:58 GMT
1) The banning of all public sector unions. All public sector employment contracts will include a clause forbidding union membership This will not be rigorously enforced and only become an issue if the employee later attempts to take action on behalf of any union he turns out to be a member of. The pay and conditions of the public sector will be decided solely by the sitting (elected) government. 2) All public sector employees should lose the right to vote in national elections during their public employment. Denying millions of people, including soldiers and firemen and policemen risking their lives for us, not to mention doctors, nurses and teachers a vote is draconian and monstrously antidemocratic. Denying them the right to union membership where they already have it would be another assault on basic freedoms. Because it is not merely the right to strike you are proposing to ban but actual union membership itself. Unions often fight against such things as unfair dismissal and their existence in the workplace deters a lot of potentially bad behaviour. Your proposals seem motivated more by negative malice than anything positive. If we are going to start disenfranchising millions of people - which we definitely shouldnt be doing by the way - the place to start is not with working people but all those who are not working and contributing by their labour. Disenfranchising those with low levels of intelligence might make more sense too. But no, one person one vote for all is such an essential tenet of democracy that we shouldn't be disenfranchising anybody - not retirees or the unemployed, not the intellectually challenged. And not specific groups of workers either. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 14, 2023 22:29:16 GMT
What would count as "Public Sector"? I work for a private contractor but within the public sector. The government don't have the right to tell me whether I can join a union or not, but they also don't dictate or negotiate my wages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 14, 2023 22:32:07 GMT
Unions do much more than wage negotiations. Banning unions for public sector workers makes me a bit uneasy tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2023 23:32:07 GMT
Unions do much more than wage negotiations. Banning unions for public sector workers makes me a bit uneasy tbh. Unions can do all sorts things, but realistically none of them can be properly attached to public service. The union's official role is pay and conditions of employees. However, the employer here is the taxpayer and the taxpayer has no choice but to pay. Think of it like a symmetry. The taxpayer (employer) has lost his discretion not to employ, (pay) and so to balance things out, the 'employee' should also lose some discretion. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 15, 2023 0:24:48 GMT
Unions do much more than wage negotiations. Banning unions for public sector workers makes me a bit uneasy tbh. Unions can do all sorts things, but realistically none of them can be properly attached to public service. The unions official role is pay and conditions of employees. However, the employer here is the taxpayer and the taxpayer has no choice but to pay. Think of it like a symmetry. The taxpayer (employer) has lost his discretion not to employ, (pay) and so to balance things out, the 'employee' should also lose some discretion. Yes it makes sense what you say. The deal in the past was if you worked for the public sector you would get paid less but have a secure job and not have to work particularly hard vs private sector, high pay, hard work and out if the boss feels like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 15, 2023 7:20:19 GMT
Surely the spectre of a public sector union litigating against the government to try to prevent its members having to do what they have been hired to do - in this case deal with illegal immigrants according to the extant legislation - is reason enough to support Orac's proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 15, 2023 8:11:15 GMT
Surely the spectre of a public sector union litigating against the government to try to prevent its members having to do what they have been hired to do - in this case deal with illegal immigrants according to the extant legislation - is reason enough to support Orac's proposals. Wouldn't you strip back the scope of a Union's remit rather than doing away with them altogether in the public sector? I agree with Bentley and would feel uneasy with this notion, but Orac and yourself make good points. Could a balance between the two not be found? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 15, 2023 8:16:24 GMT
Perhaps instead we should at successful arrangements in place elsewhere. Germany, for example, where middle-range and senior civil servants (Beamter) are not allowed to join a union and are not permitted to strike. The quid pro quo is better pay, better working conditions and almost total job security.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 15, 2023 8:26:01 GMT
Perhaps instead we should at successful arrangements in place elsewhere. Germany, for example, where middle-range and senior civil servants ( Beamter) are not allowed to join a union and are not permitted to strike. The quid pro quo is better pay, better working conditions and almost total job security. In the UK all civil servants have almost total job security. I'm not convinced that banning union membership or the right to strike will actually achieve much - even when they are not on strike their performance is pretty dire. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 8:38:51 GMT
Surely the spectre of a public sector union litigating against the government to try to prevent its members having to do what they have been hired to do - in this case deal with illegal immigrants according to the extant legislation - is reason enough to support Orac's proposals. Wouldn't you strip back the scope of a Union's remit rather than doing away with them altogether in the public sector? I agree with Bentley and would feel uneasy with this notion, but Orac and yourself make good points. Could a balance between the two not be found? I think what makes people uneasy is an improper comparison with the private sector . In private sector negotiations there is a proper balance of interests engaged directly. If the negotiations go one way, the employer loses (he literally pays for it) and vice versa. This keeps the whole thing honest. The employer (for instance) can't form a mutual interest pact with the unions against the payer - because he is the payer. Public sector employment conditions should be indirectly set by elections, rather than a faux 'industrial negotiations' in which the payer plays no part. There should be no 'negotiation' beyond the election of a government |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 8:51:17 GMT
Unions do much more than wage negotiations. Banning unions for public sector workers makes me a bit uneasy tbh. Unions can do all sorts things, but realistically none of them can be properly attached to public service. The union's official role is pay and conditions of employees. However, the employer here is the taxpayer and the taxpayer has no choice but to pay. Think of it like a symmetry. The taxpayer (employer) has lost his discretion not to employ, (pay) and so to balance things out, the 'employee' should also lose some discretion. They can act for members and groups of members in many scenarios. Pay negotiations are only part of their function. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 9:00:31 GMT
Unions can do all sorts things, but realistically none of them can be properly attached to public service. The union's official role is pay and conditions of employees. However, the employer here is the taxpayer and the taxpayer has no choice but to pay. Think of it like a symmetry. The taxpayer (employer) has lost his discretion not to employ, (pay) and so to balance things out, the 'employee' should also lose some discretion. They can act for members and groups of members in many scenarios. Pay negotiations are only part of their function. I would submit that, to the extent this represents a confrontation with the elected management, none of this is proper (re public sector employment). People who feel something is unfair can raise the matter with their mp or try to make it an issue in an election. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 9:09:46 GMT
They can act for members and groups of members in many scenarios. Pay negotiations are only part of their function. I would submit that, to the extent this represents a confrontation with the elected management, none of this is proper (re public sector employment). People who feel something is unfair can raise the matter with their mp or try to make it an issue in an election. Not necessarily a confrontation . More if a representation. Sometimes it’s better to be represented by an outside source committed solely to your interests rather than someone from the workplace or paid by your employer |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 9:12:30 GMT
I would submit that, to the extent this represents a confrontation with the elected management, none of this is proper (re public sector employment). People who feel something is unfair can raise the matter with their mp or try to make it an issue in an election. Not necessarily a confrontation . More if a representation. Sometimes it’s better to be represented by an outside source committed solely to your interests rather than someone from the workplace or paid by your employer None of that needs to happen within a union. The civil service employees will be free to offer each other employment advice and information |
|
