As we approach the 30th of November when a number of unions in the UK have planned to strike to make their point to the government about pensions I felt it was time to look at the ballots they hold.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
Now hang on a minute. I have to stand up for freedom here. If people choose not to vote then it is up to them.
ReplyDeletePersonally I have chosen not to be a member of the local union, Prospect. Frankly that is because I have so far found them to be toothless and ineffective or else emasculated by management. But even Prospect has voted overwhelmingly to strike on the basis of the proposed cuts.
The current pension scheme for the majority of us is far from the 'gold plated' scheme that senior civil servants get, and even if I survive to retirement age I will get less than I will get from a previous company scheme that I will have left 23 years earlier.
And now the UK government suggests halving the benefits from its already hopeless scheme. I was very dubious about entering this scheme at the outset, but judged that it was at least safe. Now I regret that decision.
I even considered for a moment the idea of joining Prospect.
@PE I did say it would be unpopular!
ReplyDeleteHowever I think we need to therefore take it as read that someone who does not vote is not in favour of strike action. They have the right to vote if they do wish to strike.
With that assumed, we then need to look at the Yes votes as a percentage of the eligible voters rather than the turnout in order to decide whether there really is a mandate for action.
@PE For Prospect, what percentage of the eligible voters voted for strike action?
ReplyDelete@PE If your previous company scheme was invested in the stock market then the 23 years of potential growth may have helped. Having had two previous employers, and due to changes in the schemes I now have four small pension funds from them.
ReplyDeleteThe two from my previous employer are not only worth very little, but as growth is frequently less than the management charge, they have a total cash value significantly less than when I left that company.
Those from my first employer may just about buy a pint (of milk!) a week.
My understanding is that public sector pensions are typically a variation on the final salary scheme (scrapped by my previous employer as with many in the private sector). This means that the pension is based on a ratio of the final x years average salary where the ratio is determined by number of years service.
Unless you really stuff up, your salary in that period will exceed your salary now, and the ratio will increase as you continue to work for the employer - hence your pension will go up and not down.
I don't think you can take it as read that someone who does not vote is not in favour of strike action. They also have the right to vote if they do not wish to strike. They didn't vote either way!
ReplyDeleteI know for a fact that there were many problems with people not receiving in time, or not receiving at all their ballot papers.
I think we do have to take it as read that the system for voting may need review.
However, I also accept that there is a degree of apathy among some voters too.
I also agree though, that voting or not is a personal choice.
Below are the figures for the NASUWT Ballot (the vote for action is based on a turnout of 40% of eligible members), thought you might find them interesting. I was surprised at what I initially thought was a low turn out, but it was put into perspective by the fact that:
• The 2011 Welsh Assembly was elected on a turnout of 42%
• The AV referendum had a turnout of 41%
• The turnout in most local elections is between 30% and 40%
• The 2010 General Election turnout in the UK was only 65.1%
The overwhelming vote for industrial action is the first national ballot by the Union for over a decade.
NASUWT members voted emphatically and decisively for industrial action.
Over 220,000 teachers and school leaders took part in the ballot, the biggest of any single teachers’ union.
• 82% voted “Yes” for strike action
• 91% voted “Yes” for action short of strike action
Allison: The point I am making is that for strike action to be called I believe there needs to be a positive vote for action by a majority. Apathy should not rule.
ReplyDeleteAs for the NASUWT ballot, if as you say there was a 40% turnout and 82% voting for strike action, then only about 33% positively showed they were in favour of strike action.
I agree with you that if people do not want a strike they should actively vote No.
It will be interesting to see at the end of the day today whether those who chose to strike respected the rights of those who did not wish to strike and allowed them free and unhindered access to their place of work.
Its getting a bit late to be debating now, I've got work in the morning! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from my own experience at school today, the rights of those who did not wish to strike were respected and they were allowed free and unhindered access to their place of work.
However... the approximately 5% who chose not to strike grumbled and complained that they were actually expected to turn up and do a days work, thought that they could roll n at 8:30am and leave at 3:30pm and one of them even had the audacity to phone at 9:00am and say that a family member was unwell and they were needed at home. It was pointed out to them that if they were not at work they would be losing a days pay like their colleagues taking industrial action!