A government elected to absolute power by 23% of those entitled to vote, legislates that just to go on strike will require the support of 40% of those entitled to vote.
Update
I find further explanation is necessary. The government proposal is that not only must a majority of those voting cast their ballot in favour of a strike (which is democracy), but in addition that the number voting for the strike must also amount to 40% of those who were eligible to vote. Yet we have no such provision in a general election, where not only did the government get only 37% of those who did vote, it received under a quarter of the votes of those who were eligible to vote. the government is asking for a high
The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man and a slave. Anybody who believes that the British economy has a problem with too many workers’ rights is very far right indeed. The gap between rich and poor had expanded massively in both private and public sectors, as the gap between workers’ pay and bosses’ pay grows ever wider.
In fact the first focus of the Tory government is on removing rights that protect ordinary people from their betters, be they human rights or employment rights.
@ Fedup
If you believe that feminism comes from women, then you have to explain at least two things:
(i) What forum has ever existed for women to contribute to the feminist manifesto?
(ii) Why have women decided to move from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave feminism, and all in sync?
The last question acknowledges the absence of individuality in feminism, as they all appear to be in lock-step; this is indicative of something being driven, rather than being spontaneous.
You are sounding more and more ridiculous Jimmy Giro and boring.
What’s wrong with this?
‘Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.’
Try working in an establishment where females doing exactly the same job as the males, for the same number of hours, received 25% less in salary. I did, in the 80s.
Jimmy
“the feminist manifesto”
That’s not a real thing Jimmy.
@ Mary
“What’s wrong with this?
‘Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.’”
(i) Ritalin abuse of boys in feminised schools.
(ii) Public sector employing mostly women: estimates at 4:1 females to males.
(iii) Wife’s divorce settlements more generous than Husband’s.
(iv) Female felons given more lenient sentences that Males committing the same crime.
(v) NHS spends about 8 times more on females than males.
(vi) Most industrial deaths are Male: estimates about 95%
(vii) Most child murders (and therefore physical abuse) committed by women; yet men are accused the most. Female child murderers: estimates from USA data is about 70:30 female to male.
(viii) Male prison population is astronomical compared to female, despite (vii) above.
(ix) Most real casualties of war are men, yet rarely would one man give a white feather to another. Not many suffragettes buried at Tyne Cot !!!
@ Phil
Exactly.
Mary.
Everyone seems to forget the fact that their “mother” is a woman. Is she worth less than your “father?”. Your mother probably does more for you and for longer hours/years. And does it better.
I am all for women receiving the same pay as men because, they are more reliable, have less nonsense in their heads and will do the job asked of them better, in many other ways. Like, not trying to make the job last longer, especially if it is a dawdle. Women also take orders better than men. Men can be a right block to progress, in my experience.
Educate a woman, and you educate the world!
Women also create a happier working environment, and usually are very funny. In general.
Furthermore, if a women does not clean the toilets (it always seems to be a woman’s job) the boss gets sick as do the workers. You see bugs do not discriminate the way men do.
@ Robert Crawford
http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php
Speaking of terrorism, let me repeat what I just posted on the previous thread:
I just finished reading Guantanamo Diary, by Guantanamo inmate Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Slahi recounts how he was tortured until he gave the (false) testimony that his torturers demanded, among other things about 9/11.
I’ve long thought that the only rational purpose for the U.S.’s torture policy after 9/11 was to get desired false testimony, just the purpose for which Stalin’s NKVD used torture. Now we have testimony to this effect from one of the people who was subjected to the torture.
Now look at the chapter on the operational details of the 9/11 Commission Report and in particular the endnotes listing the sources. The sources for virtually all the details in that chapter are statements allegedly made by detainees who we know were tortured.
And that’s just one reason why a new investigation of 9/11 is needed. The report resulting from the previous official investigation is worthless.
To strike is a right consistent with core British values.
It has never been a core British value that in a arriving at a democratic decision we should be ordered to include the non votes of those who didn’t vote.
Although this undemocratic measure was included in the devolution referendums of the 1970’s it was subsequently recognised as not being British hence the 2014 referendums were on the basis of those who did vote.
To include a reference to the total potential voters is clearly an extreme way of frustrating democracy and presumably such extremism is inherently in conflict with core British democratic values.
Jimmy Giro,
Physics and Chemistry eh! That explains a lot. The reductionist mindset for one. You really are close to the point where you know more and more about less and less. Not much further now and you will know everything about nothing.
Anyway. What is this “we” you are on about? As in your 11.09 am missive “we can handle austerity.”
WTF happened to the principled stance of 09.34 am against anything that smacks of “group effort”? Sounds bloody socialist to me, based of course on your definition. You’ll be telling us next that you’ve got a mate who you go out drinking and, shock horror, socialising with, which, as we all know from the doctrine according to Jimmy Giro, is not “natural” according to what planet you were on at 09.34 am.
Assuming that this “we” business was a bit of backsliding from the one true faith it would seem reasonable to conclude that as someone who clearly believes in consistency that you also do not go in for any of this “unnatural” socialist practice of democratic government which requires people to act together, both as political parties, who also act as a coherent non spontaneous bloc, and voters who vote to be governed by groups of other people which is clearly socialism, According To The Doctrine Of Jimmy Giro (ATTDOJG).
I take it, also, that when you take up this alleged job you will be working alone, on you own, with no supervision as an individual stand alone profit centre. As working with another person or persons in any form of team or joint enterprise would also, ATTDOJG, constitute an unnatural act for believers like your self, Jimmy, in the sacred sanctity of autonomous, stand alone, atomised individualism. Anything else would clearly be unnatural socialism, would it not?
In fact, what the bejesus are you doing on this site Jimmy? Mixing and actually socialising with other human beings? Indulging in the common cause socialism of trying to influence other autonomous entities?
Do you not feel dirty and ashamed at your deviant behaviour? Should you not retire to your cell to give yourself a damn good self whipping to purge your soul of your sins of socialism?
Tell you what, seeing as I like you today (I might not like you tomorrow) I’ll have a word with the other dirty sinful socialists who post on here, practicing their deviant behaviour by actually socialising (ugh) online with others towards a common purpose rather then practicing the natural act of spontaneous combustion of pure atomised individuals, ATTDOJG.
If you promise not to commit any further acts of deviant socialism, ATTDOJG, by not continuing to socialise with others which the act of frequenting this site represents, I think I can persuade everyone else to forget you ever came on this site and committed these blatant acts of deviant socialism, ATTDOJG.
In fact I am reasonably confident that within a short space of time every single one of us deviant socialists, ATTDOJG, will be saying Jimmy who?
In ancient Athens, when the citizens voted for who should be ostracized, the vote was not effective if 6,000 citizens did not vote. If fewer than 6,000 voted, no one was ostracized.
JimmyGiro.
Rearing a child is a very difficult job, especially if the child is a wee crier. A child constantly crying (for no apparent reason) can drive a woman on her own crazy. Even if she is only alone for say 8 hours a day when the baby’s father is out working.
I am not a fan of using anything American as a “template” for anything.
The wrong diet, especially sugar, can be a trigger for violence. Sugar creates acid, and a baby’s wee digestive system can be easily upset by giving him/her a lolly to shut him/her up!
Which only makes matters worse.
I once heard a qualified children’s nurse who had just become a new mother herself say, ” I now know why some mothers batter their own child”.
A wee constant crier even after the GP says there is nothing wrong with the child is difficult.
The midwife who helped my mother bring me into the world used to say, ” when it cries, fill it’s mouth”. With a nipple, not a lolly that is.
When I feel like crying now 70 years on, there is no nipple for me, productive or otherwise.
Where did I go wrong?
@ Dave Hansell
“Anyway. What is this “we” you are on about? As in your 11.09 am missive “we can handle austerity.””
The long term unemployed men, referred to @ 10:22 am:
“But then that would upset the feminists and sodomites, who make up most of the PUBLIC sector workforce; whereas most long term unemployed are men.”
And continuing on this theme of voting, core British values and extremism.
In Hornsey, North London back in 1903 Ilya Nikolayevich Ulanov (aka Lenin) and his faction outvoted Lev Bronstein (aka Trotsky) and his faction. Thereafter Lenin’s lot having won the majority of the vote became known as the party of the majority (Bolsheviks) and Trotsky and co became the party of the minority(Mensheviks) and the rest is history.
Now why didn’t Trotsky think to require a % of all the members?
(Yes there is a GCSE history exam today)
Is it because Trots wasn’t a company lawyer?
It is in the area of company law that votes are sometimes counted as a % of all the potential votes. Its funny that the Tories should apply this principle to unions. They did a similar thing under Thatcher and applied the rule in Foss v Harbottle from a company situation to unions. If the conservative party is an unincorporated association then it would be funny if a rogue tory member had cause to apply the same rule within the conservative party!?
@ Dave Hansell
By the by, your last line tells me what you think counts as an attack: “Jimmy who”. Clearly identity is a big thing for you; which may account for you Narcissistic trait of using lots of words to say very little. ‘Here I am, here, look, omg, I here, look every body, its me writing…. lots and lots, I very popular, you must agree, or I’ll make up acronyms at you… because you’re not me… me me me me’ etc.
Was that democratic 1903 meeting of revolutionaries in Hornsey consistent with core British values?
Might it not be suggested that our hosting of such groups on this island is what has kept the peace here i.e. a consistent British value may have been to host extremism on a quid prop quo that such ideas and practice are for export only? Undermine that and ………?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32723645
Under the proposals, ministers would be able to silence any group or individual they believe is undermining democracy or the British values of tolerance and mutual respect.
“One can understand a government’s determination to prevent extremism that might lead to radicalisation and terrorism. But where to draw the line? And indeed, how do we draw up a definition?
There is, it seems to me, an inherent contradiction between banning orders and the core British value that one should be tolerant of different viewpoints.
History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream. ”
Mark Easton BBC
Here is one of those daft e-mail attempts at humour that arrive in the inbox.
How do you take your porridge in the mornings?
A tough old sheep farmer from Scotland gave some good advice to his grandson. He told him that the secret to a long life was to sprinkle a pinch of gunpowder onto his porridge every morning. The grandson followed this dictum religiously until his death at the venerable age of 103.
He left behind him 14 children, 30 grandchildren, 45 great grandchildren, 25 great great grandchildren……….
And a forty foot hole where the crematorium used to be.
Mary.
A cracker!
He went out with a bang then!
Here’s what could happen:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/call-for-scottish-labour-to-break-from-uk-party-1-3769989
It would deal with the not wholly unjustifiable fears of Scotland becoming a one-party state. And it would allow Scottish Labour to assert its opbjections to global corporatism without being tied to the union. Possibility?
“My point was that, even when a strike is legal, it is not a good idea if it causes the public to lose sympathy for the people doing it.”
Does it not occur to you, Abe Rene, that strikers have worked this out themselves? They have also done the arithmetic and concluded that striking almost always involves sacrifice on their parts. They know, too that they will face not just public antipathy to any action inconveniencing consumers but the vicious opposition of media controlled by the employers.
Nevertheless in a society which makes almost everyone dependent on wage labour to survive the right to strike is the only means that people have to protect themselves from abuse by the powerful.
I am sorry that you need to be informed on these matters- this is a debate which lasted throughout the C19th and much of the C20th, at the end of which it was considered to be concluded.
As to the proposal itself it smacks of real totalitarianism. We already understand that the Police power, including the most comprehensive surveillance system ever imagined-far beyond anything of which Orwell ever conceived- will be mobilised to monitor any attempts by employees to organise to beat this system. Any leaders- the equivalents of the Clyde shop stewards-will be neutralised, any meetings monitored, any plans shared with their employers.
Nothing ever written about state control in the Soviet Union or eastern Europe comes close to describing the current potential control of the state over potential protestors, strikers or dissent of any kind.
At the same time the state is unapologetically devoted to advance the interests of capitalists. It sees the job of keeping down labour costs as crucial to its support of the economy.
As someone, above, suggested this is a real challenge to the SNP. If it can preserve the right of Scots to strike when they choose, rather than when a Court of Law (accessible only to the wealthy) decides that they may, there is some hope for democracy this side of revolution. If this law, and the totalitarian controls which it will necesssarily involve, takes effect Trade Unions and associations of working people will be put in a position which will make life under the Combination Acts seem enviable.
Two hundred years ago Scots miners lived in a system of virtual slavery, bound by long term contracts enforced by the state, but they had more real freedom, in terms of alternatives, than they would have under this law which will put the onus of proving that a walkout is backed by those actually involved in it on the workers before they take action and while the employer can decide who is qualified to vote.
Ah yes,the old 40% rule I have bad memories of that.
http://www.scottishpoliticalarchive.org.uk/wb/pages/referendum/1979/40-rule.php
Were the dead counted as no votes.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/return-of-the-living-dead/
If it was one shareholder, one vote (it’s one share one vote at the moment, so big shareholders act rather like the union vote in Labour used to), and a 50% mandatory threshold, there’d be a few fewer fatcat bankers kicking around:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/24/barclays-agm-protests-shareholders-pay-bonuses
Prince Dobbies “Black Spider Memos” have just been released,heavly redacted of course,in order to show Prince Chazza,isn’t a buffoon.
The monarchy shouldn’t be in interfering in governmental matters period.
Re my last comment,I wonder if the 26 valets,have any workers rights,or indeed if they’re on zero-hour contracts
The duchy owns 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, including Prince Charles’s Gloucestershire home of Highgrove. It has provided incomes to successive Princes of Wales since the 14th century.
The assertion that the estate is inseparable from Charles has allowed him to use its gross profits to fund private and official spending including 26 valets, gardeners and farm staff. In the past five years he has received more than £86m from the arrangement.
Are you serious? The chemical cosh is used in the wider world to subdue and make compliant the oppressed from the word go, and you blame another bunch of oppressed for doing so?
Cheaper to pay , and less ambitious than their male counter parts, as well as safe in the knowledge that glass ceiling will put pay to the aspirations of the most ambitious, and no danger of taking the old boys jobs
Statistically men are paid more than women and are generally the bread winners, hence reflected in the divorce settlements. (no feminist conspiracy at work)
Most judges are men and may fall for the guile of the wayward women, hence the sentencing that can be lenient, further would you like to start jailing mothers and infants together? How about pregnent women giving birth in jails?
Because females are likely to go to their doctors for various ailments, unlike their mail counterparts that will only end up in hospital on a gurney ten minutes from total shutdonw.
These deaths occur in heavy industry that usually employ males, as the females are considered “weak/soft/tender”
for a 1.1, you have taken this hook line and sinker have you not?
Statically women are more likely to be in contact with children, hence they stand more likely to harm the said children, the reportage of the corporate media is not a “feminist manifesto” article, but reflective of the prevalent attitudes, that women are soft/weak/fickle/incapable of murder!
You are just padding this one, you have already pointed this out in (iv)
So because the banksters have found males to be more expendable than females, and send these males as cannon fodder into various battles it is the females fault!
Notwithstanding the above you have earlier stated;
which forum existed for the Christians whom were fed to the lions to contribute towards a Christian manifesto?
Which forum existed for the prisoner of war camps to contribute towards a Campers manifesto?
Are you for real with this line of argument?
The oppressed half of the humanity has never been in sync other than in Lysistrata.
What are you on about?
Whilst the Rohingya are being extirpated, and the world looks the other way, accepting their genocide tacitly; included in the ranks of the luminaries ignoring the unfolding tragedy one Aung San Suu Kyi the defender of the human rights, and the champion of the “Anglo-Saxon ideals/values” of “respect for life” and her sponsors here in UK and elsewhere. The memorials of the past genocides evidently only means that, and has nothing to do with the unfolding genocide of Rohingya, or the slow genocide of the Palestinians.
You are blaming the oppressed for their oppression, and pontificate; they deserve to be oppressed?
Snap out of it! You are fighting the wrong shadows, the real culprits are swanning around right before your eyes and are selling their snake oil; “individuality/freedom/choice/democracy”! Even sadder is the fact that you are spending time and effort to legitimise the oppressors, and demonise the oppressed. Do you realise that?
JimmyGiro
Is the late Christopher Hitching one of your heroes by any chance?
Might have guessed
Who in their right mind in this day and age could argue against equal rights for women. Only a misogynist I think! As a scientist surely you must realize that an equal and opposite list could illustrate the antithesis of your argument…get real and grow up or stop taking the Ritalin cos its clouding any possibilities for rational thinking.
@Bevin “Does it not occur to you, Abe Rene..”
I don’t think the debate about the right to strike is over by any means. In each generation there will be debate about how the common good should be balanced against it. In each the government has the democratic mandate to decide how the common good can be best be implemented.
@ Johnstone
“stop taking the Ritalin cos its clouding any possibilities for rational thinking.”
Is that why feminists give it to boys?
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/09/philip-zimbardo-boys-are-a-mess