Liberal Democrats - ban strikes!

[Dravinian]

the term 'no-strike agreement' is obviously being passed around Lib Dem circles at the moment, cause that's a few time they've mentioned it. Was a really typical sentiment from Labour right-wingers back in the day - like a pleasant sounding way of getting industrial peace. Completely ignoring the logic of them. Why does a union consent to a no-strike agreement? Obviously in exchange for better terms. The same better terms that the government can't afford, that provoked the strike...

I don't believe this argument is true.

The Unions give up the right to strike for protection from the whims of politicians. By having an independent group decide wage increases you forestall any chance of Government having a "savings" run and attempting to make those savings at the expense of your wages.

Government secures a no-strike agreement which protects both the public and them.

Both sides win a small amount in the agreement, yet wages are still controlled by a group looking at the larger picture of inflation vs private sector wages vs government spending etc etc

 

[Dravinian]

And if workers find that such an "independent" group does not satisfy their demands, should they then be prevented from striking?

Yes since that is the heart of the agreement and without that, there is no agreement to be had.

Both sides gain from the agreement, protection from strikes and protection from government "initiatives"

 

[Poi E]

Yes since that is the heart of the agreement and without that, there is no agreement to be had.

Both sides gain from the agreement, protection from strikes and protection from government "initiatives"

Bloody hell.

And if the workers did go out on strike, what would a Lib Dem government do to them?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't believe this argument is true.

The Unions give up the right to strike for protection from the whims of politicians. By having an independent group decide wage increases you forestall any chance of Government having a "savings" run and attempting to make those savings at the expense of your wages.

Government secures a no-strike agreement which protects both the public and them.

Both sides win a small amount in the agreement, yet wages are still controlled by a group looking at the larger picture of inflation vs private sector wages vs government spending etc etc

How on earth does having an 'independent' body (funded and working to a rubric drawn up by one side of any dispute) give you any protection at all? It doesn't. All it gives you is a body coming up with a figure.

This is the historic record of how these things work - the govt rejects finding they disagree with or acccepts ones they agree with. Either way they do exactly what they want. For example using the current teachers dispute - an independent body recommended that the current pay settlement should be looked at again if inflation rose above 3.25%, which it did in April last year. The govt simply said no, we're not looking at it again. And that was that.

Indepedent bodies tend not to be very independent either. Easily molded, manipulated and sweet talked by those with power.

No-strike deals, whether linked to independent bodies or not, are a voluntary laying down of workers most powerful weapon. They're a joke.

 

[poster342002]

No-strike deals, whether linked to independent bodies or not, are a voluntary laying down of workers most powerful weapon. They're a joke.

Agree. Why, therefore, did the left herald the oh-so-gracious "re-allowing" of trade unions at GCHQ on the condition of a no-strike agreement as a "victory"?

 

[Poi E]

These sorts of "no strike" deals stink to high heaven of the deregulated labour market that NZ suffered under in the 1980s and 1990s. Fucking vicious, the likes of which the UK never saw.

 

[butchersapron]

And another thing, if independent bodies are so good and fair, why do they need to be tied to no-strike deals?

 

[Lo Siento.]

I don't believe this argument is true.

The Unions give up the right to strike for protection from the whims of politicians. By having an independent group decide wage increases you forestall any chance of Government having a "savings" run and attempting to make those savings at the expense of your wages.

Government secures a no-strike agreement which protects both the public and them.

Both sides win a small amount in the agreement, yet wages are still controlled by a group looking at the larger picture of inflation vs private sector wages vs government spending etc etc

Aside from the obvious questions, ie. who appoints the 'independent group' and what about issues that fall outside the remit of a collective bargaining agreement

Again, why would unions agree to this unless they thought they'd do better than under the present system? And if they would do better, why would the government agree to it?

 

[Lo Siento.]

Agree. Why, therefore, did the left herald the oh-so-gracious "re-allowing" of trade unions at GCHQ on the condition of a no-strike agreement as a "victory"?

don't know the details, maybe they felt it was better than banning unions outright, and that once you've established a membership it's easier to challenge the no-strike agreement?

 

[Dravinian]

Bloody hell.

And if the workers did go out on strike, what would a Lib Dem government do to them?

Well it isn't like I talk for the Lib Dem government, but surely if you break an agreement most usually any agreement or terms you had end. I expect the Lib Dem Government would nullify the agreement and decide wages without an independent body.

 

[Dravinian]

How on earth does having an 'independent' body (funded and working to a rubric drawn up by one side of any dispute) give you any protection at all? It doesn't. All it gives you is a body coming up with a figure.

This is the historic record of how these things work - the govt rejects finding they disagree with or acccepts ones they agree with. Either way they do exactly what they want. For example using the current teachers dispute - an independent body recommended that the current pay settlement should be looked at again if inflation rose above 3.25%, which it did in April last year. The govt simply said no, we're not looking at it again. And that was that.

Indepedent bodies tend not to be very independent either. Easily molded, manipulated and sweet talked by those with power.

No-strike deals, whether linked to independent bodies or not, are a voluntary laying down of workers most powerful weapon. They're a joke.

But the teachers don't have a no strike agreement, therefore they have no leverage to make the Government act on an independent groups advice.

To use the Government ignoring an independent bodies advice as justification while no agreement is in place is a bit odd. The whole point of the agreement is that both sides have to adhere to it, there is nothing for the Government to gain from following independent advice except the gratitude of teachers, which will last about as long as it takes for you to say it.

Well it seems to me that you want both worlds, you want to be upset that the Government didn't follow independent advice on wages levels for teachers, but you also want to believe that independent bodies aren't really independent and don't provide anything of value to workers.

Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, and then still have your cake.

 

[biff curtains]

Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, and then still have your cake.

Damn those greedy workers!

 

[Lo Siento.]

But the teachers don't have a no strike agreement, therefore they have no leverage to make the Government act on an independent groups advice.

To use the Government ignoring an independent bodies advice as justification while no agreement is in place is a bit odd. The whole point of the agreement is that both sides have to adhere to it, there is nothing for the Government to gain from following independent advice except the gratitude of teachers, which will last about as long as it takes for you to say it.

Well it seems to me that you want both worlds, you want to be upset that the Government didn't follow independent advice on wages levels for teachers, but you also want to believe that independent bodies aren't really independent and don't provide anything of value to workers.

Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, and then still have your cake.

don't be daft. It's not contradictory to point out that arbitration services are government appointees (and therefore not impartial) and still complain that the government ignores them. The fact that the government doesn't even listen to its own advisors when it comes to determining what's fair, speaks volumes as to their bad faith.

 

[Dravinian]

Damn those greedy workers!

Yet I was not talking about workers, I was talking about someones desire to think independent bodies should be obeyed while believing they are worthless.

 

[Dravinian]

don't be daft. It's not contradictory to point out that arbitration services are government appointees (and therefore not impartial) and still complain that the government ignores them. The fact that the government doesn't even listen to its own advisors when it comes to determining what's fair, speaks volumes as to their bad faith.

If they weren't impartial surely they would just come to an agreement that they knew the Government wanted therefore stopping anyone from suggesting the Government isn't ignoring them?

"The NUT has rejected the a three-year pay deal put forward by an independent pay review body. The deal is worth 2.45% this year, followed by increases of 2.3% in the following years."

Like that for instance.

Which basically ruins the idea that the Government isn't following the Pay Reviews recommendations.

You see how from my point of view, it doesn't logically make any sense. Either the review is independent and chooses a pay raise the Government doesn't like, thus the Government ignores it, or it isn't impartial and picks a pay raise the Goverment wants and therefore the Government doesn't ignore them.

It can't be both. You can't claim that the review is biased, if it still chooses a pay agreement the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore. That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[_angel_]

I have no idea why teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike. It's not like they are the emergency or medical services and peoples actual lives depend on them.

 

[butchersapron]

Yet I was not talking about workers, I was talking about someones desire to think independent bodies should be obeyed while believing they are worthless.

That's not what i said at all. I said that the govt already have an agreement with an independent body (the independent School Teachers' Review Body) that if inflation reached 3.25% then they would review the current pay structure, yet when it did they simply refused to. That's how much they value these independent bodies and their recommendations. Why on earth do you think they'd have done anything different if the union had gone even further and signalled in advance their willingness to bend over? That they'd have agreed to the review? It's madness.

The govt, as this case and others show, is more than willing to ignore independent bodies, so why on earth should people agree to throw away one of their most potent weapons to stop the govt doing it.

Wht do you think is the better guarantee - the word of a politician or your own freedom of manouvere?

 

[Demosthenes]

I have no idea why teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike. It's not like they are the emergency or medical services and peoples actual lives depend on them.

much of the economy depends on teachers providing childcare. they've potentially got more power as a union than pretty much anyone, - cept maybe people who deliver food to supermarkets.

 

[butchersapron]

If they weren't impartial surely they would just come to an agreement that they knew the Government wanted therefore stopping anyone from suggesting the Government isn't ignoring them?

"The NUT has rejected the a three-year pay deal put forward by an independent pay review body. The deal is worth 2.45% this year, followed by increases of 2.3% in the following years."

Like that for instance.

Which basically ruins the idea that the Government isn't following the Pay Reviews recommendations.

You see how from my point of view, it doesn't logically make any sense. Either the review is independent and chooses a pay raise the Government doesn't like, thus the Government ignores it, or it isn't impartial and picks a pay raise the Goverment wants and therefore the Government doesn't ignore them.

It can't be both. You can't claim that the review is biased, if it still chooses a pay agreement the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, you miss the point by miles. The govt can appoint independent bodies, when they agree with their recommednations they'll take them on board, when they don't they'll just ignore them (as in the example i mentioned). The fcat that independent bodies sometimes make suggestions that the govct doesn't like doesn't mean that all bodies are therefore substantively independent or that their recommendations are are fair. You're jumping to far too mnay conclusions from too little evidence.

And of course you can argue that a body that doesn't do exactly what the government wants operates largely in their favour - if they didn't make suggestions slightly different from the govts from time to time they would sinmply be rejecetd wholesale. It's part of how they seek to gain credibility from the non-govt side.

And what do you mean

"You can't claim that the review is biased, if it still chooses a pay agreement the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore."

that's the whole point, no matter what agreements it recommends the govt will do what it wants and argue that it had no choice but to do so. Then we have the very healthy situation of a govt breaking an agreement but the unions being forced either to abide by a no-strike agreement or publically breaking that no-strike agreement with all the propoganda and political ammunition this gives the state. No thank you.

 

[Lo Siento.]

If they weren't impartial surely they would just come to an agreement that they knew the Government wanted therefore stopping anyone from suggesting the Government isn't ignoring them?

"The NUT has rejected the a three-year pay deal put forward by an independent pay review body. The deal is worth 2.45% this year, followed by increases of 2.3% in the following years."

Like that for instance.

Which basically ruins the idea that the Government isn't following the Pay Reviews recommendations.

You see how from my point of view, it doesn't logically make any sense. Either the review is independent and chooses a pay raise the Government doesn't like, thus the Government ignores it, or it isn't impartial and picks a pay raise the Goverment wants and therefore the Government doesn't ignore them.

It can't be both. You can't claim that the review is biased, if it still chooses a pay agreement the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore. That doesn't make any sense at all.

it makes perfect sense if you're not living in black vs white world. Things can be biased without completely acting under the orders of the higher authority.

 

[Dravinian]

As I said earlier Butchersapron, there is no leverage here to follow the independent pay review if there is no agreement. A no-strike agreement removes the ability of the Government to just arbitrarily decide to follow an indepedent pay review or not.

"Things can be biased without completely acting under the orders of the higher authority."

In the context you are using it; everyone is biased to some extent in someway, it is natural human nature to be influenced by your experiences.

The context of the discussion is that it is biased to the point of being untrustworthy and of no value. Which is clearly not the case if it can come to decisions the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore.

 

[butchersapron]

As I said earlier Butchersapron, there is no leverage here to follow the independent pay review if there is no agreement. A no-strike agreement removes the ability of the Government to just arbitrarily decide to follow an indepedent pay review or not.

"Things can be biased without completely acting under the orders of the higher authority."

In the context you are using it; everyone is biased to some extent in someway, it is natural human nature to be influenced by your experiences.

The context of the discussion is that it is biased to the point of being untrustworthy and of no value. Which is clearly not the case if it can come to decisions the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore.

No it doesn't, it in no way does that. An example of govt duplicity is the pay review promised once inflation rose above a certain level that was flat out rejected. What on earth makes you think they wouldn't do the exact same in a situation of a binding agreement that tied the unuions arms behind its back? They'd do whatever they wanted. They always do- unless made to do different - and that usually only happens through strikes or the threat of strikes. They know that, that's exactly why they want no-strike agreements spread as far and as wide as possible.

And, as i asked earlier, if you're convinced that indendent bodies proposals would be sensible and equitable with no bias shoen to either side then why on earth do unions need to sign no-strike agreements to gain acesss to them?

Some bodies are undoutbdly biased and utterly worthless - one potnetillay not being so means nothing in the wider picture. I don't see why you're prepared to argue that workers should drop their defences just because something is pre-fixed by the magic word 'independent'.

 

[Lo Siento.]

"Things can be biased without completely acting under the orders of the higher authority."

In the context you are using it; everyone is biased to some extent in someway, it is natural human nature to be influenced by your experiences.

The context of the discussion is that it is biased to the point of being untrustworthy and of no value. Which is clearly not the case if it can come to decisions the Government doesn't like and is forced to ignore.

Bit of nuance please.

You can still ignore a friend's advice.

 

[Dravinian]

Then the agreement would be voided and the workers could strike.

Which benefits no one, and makes the whole point of coming to such an agreement pointless in the first place. I think if both sides are willing to come to the table and agree that an independent body will decide pay increases in the best interests of everyone, then that would at least go someway to indicating that both sides were going to adhere to the agreement.

Or else, why bother coming?

Of course one side or another can break the agreement, but this is true of most agreements, it isn't usually a justification for not coming to an agreement.

 

[butchersapron]

Then the agreement would be voided and the workers could strike.

Which benefits no one, and makes the whole point of coming to such an agreement pointless in the first place. I think if both sides are willing to come to the table and agree that an independent body will decide pay increases in the best interests of everyone, then that would at least go someway to indicating that both sides were going to adhere to the agreement.

Or else, why bother coming?

Of course one side or another can break the agreement, but this is true of most agreements, it isn't usually a justification for not coming to an agreement.

Workers could potentially strike in a postion where no-strikes had been written into new contracts, where an atmosphere in which strikes were discouraged by both sides prior to the dispute and where the govt could portray strikers as wereckers prepared to sacrifice the public good for their own private benefit - nein danke.

What do you mean 'benefits no one'? If the strikers are victorious, or win broad concessions then there's the benefit right there. A benefit that would undoubtdly place other public sector workers in better postion to forward their own claims as well.

No, there's no benefit in voluntarily putting yourself in a straitjacket just before you go out and start fighting tigers.

 

[Dravinian]

You can still ignore a friend's advice.

If he was giving you the advice you wanted to hear, then there would be no reason to ignore him. That is rather the point.

If a pay review is giving figures that the Government would prefer to ignore, then in my mind that is unbiased enough to warrant it having some value.

 

[Dravinian]

Workers could potentially strike in a postion where no-strikes had been written into new contracts, where an atmosphere in which strikes were discouraged by both sides prior to the dispute and where the govt could portray strikers as wereckers prepared to sacrifice the public good for their own private benefit - nein danke.

What do you mean 'benefits no one'? If the strikers are victorious, or win broad concessions then there's the benefit right there. A benefit that would undoubtdly place other public sector workers in better postion to forward their own claims as well.

No, there's no benefit in voluntarily putting yourself in a straitjacket just before you go out and start fighting tigers.

Breaking the agreement benefits no one.

Since it means everyone wasted a lot of time coming to the agreement in the first place. Rather makes the entire agreement pointless if one side or another decides to break it.

You are not putting yourself in a straitjacket before you go and fight tigers, you are basically putting the tigers in a cage and removing them from the arena. That is the whole point, with the agreement you are no longer 'fighting' for your pay, you are allowing an independent body decide pay increases.

 

[Lo Siento.]

If he was giving you the advice you wanted to hear, then there would be no reason to ignore him. That is rather the point.

If a pay review is giving figures that the Government would prefer to ignore, then in my mind that is unbiased enough to warrant it having some value.

But he's still your friend, ie. ultimately on your side. Even if you don't agree to his advice.

 

[Dravinian]

But he's still your friend, ie. ultimately on your side. Even if you don't agree to his advice.

Yes but the point is, this means that the advice he is giving is being measured by something other then your approval. Which means that he isn't just interested in telling you what you want to hear.

Which means that it has value as unbiased in a dispute.

 

[butchersapron]

Breaking the agreement benefits no one.

Since it means everyone wasted a lot of time coming to the agreement in the first place. Rather makes the entire agreement pointless if one side or another decides to break it.

You are not putting yourself in a straitjacket before you go and fight tigers, you are basically putting the tigers in a cage and removing them from the arena. That is the whole point, with the agreement you are no longer 'fighting' for your pay, you are allowing an independent body decide pay increases.

Nonsense. Here's a scenario. The govt rejects an independent recommendation and imposes it's own plan (as has often happened). The union - not used to fighting and being pinned down by the knowledge of how it'll be portrayed in the media any by the govt - caves in (as has often happened). The govt has won and part of its victory was the climate created by the no-strike agreement. Do you not realise how these things work? The govt will do this for its own benefit without thinking twice.

Here's another one - the union rejects the recommendations and decides to strike, they win and gain all their targets. That's one possible benefit.

And no, you're putting yourself in the cage with the tiger, and agreeing not to fight it whilst it sharpens it's teeth - and locking the door behind you.