Liberal Democrats - ban strikes!

[butchersapron]

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.

Argh!! NO, not agreeing with you does not equal unbiased!!!

 

[Lo Siento.]

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.

But if I'm on the other side I'm unlikely to find his advice very favourable to my interests, am I? So, I'd think it unfair that he was allowed to decide on any agreement between me and you.

And... if you still rejected his advice and offered me an even worse agreement, I'd pretty obviously use your friend's advice against you in an argument, no?

 

[Dravinian]

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.

You keep going on about the benefits of a successful strike, I don't think you understood, let me try for the third time, and as it is only a minor point of logic, the last time.

To come to an agreement would involve a lot of people sitting around for a long time deciding the details of the agreement, then they would create a body to be the pay review, then they would draft up rules and regulations and reponsibilities and burdens of each side. This would probably take awhile and cost a lot of money.

To then completely ignore the agreement means that all of that was of no benefit to anyone.

What has this got to do with strikers getting what they want? Absolutely nothing, since all of the above time, effort and money was still completely wasted when one side abandoned the agreement.

The point being if any side had the idea of not adhering to the agreement, it would be rather pointless to involve themselves in the process.

As to the idea that such an agreement hurts a union if the Government decides to renege on its side of the agreement, I don't think that is true. When it happened recently as with the Police Service most of the public opinion was on the side of the Police because it was well publicised that the Government had made this agreement and was now trying to change the terms of the agreement, by ignoring the pay reviews recommendations regarding back dating the pay.

Such an agreement helps a union, becuase it shows that the Union was happy to agree to no strikes, just so long as they were given a fair pay deal. The Government not wishing to honour that agreement is always going to come off looking worse.

As to Unbiased, yes lazy choice of word, clearly anyone who is a 'friend' in the context you used it will not be unbiased, bias was indicative of the concept. I merely meant to say that the level of bias is not so bad as to make them valueless in a dispute if their reasoning for coming to a decision is influenced by more then just what Government desires.

 

[Dravinian]

I am also a little annoyed with myself, because I do not accept your premise that no pay review body can ever be independent, yet I am arguing petty points about how biased a disagreeing 'friend' is.

So no I refuse the entire premise that no independent pay review body can be unbiased and refuse to debate the petty particulars of how unbiased someone is who can come to a decision the government does not like.

Prove that no pay review body can be independent.

 

[butchersapron]

You keep going on about the benefits of a successful strike, I don't think you understood, let me try for the third time, and as it is only a minor point of logic, the last time.

To come to an agreement would involve a lot of people sitting around for a long time deciding the details of the agreement, then they would create a body to be the pay review, then they would draft up rules and regulations and reponsibilities and burdens of each side. This would probably take awhile and cost a lot of money.

To then completely ignore the agreement means that all of that was of no benefit to anyone.

What has this got to do with strikers getting what they want? Absolutely nothing, since all of the above time, effort and money was still completely wasted when one side abandoned the agreement.

The point being if any side had the idea of not adhering to the agreement, it would be rather pointless to involve themselves in the proces.

As to the idea that such an agreement hurts a union if the Government decides to renege on its side of the agreement, I don't think that is true. When it happened recently as with the Police Service most of the public opinion was on the side of the Police because it was well publicised that the Government had made this agreement and was no trying to change the terms of the agreement, by ignoring the pay reviews recommendations regarding back dating the pay.

Such an agreement helps a union, becuase it shows that the Union was happy to agree to no strikes, just so long as they were given a fair pay deal. The Government not wishing to honour that agreement is always going to come off looking worse.

As to Unbiased, yes lazy choice of word, clearly anyone who is a 'friend' in the context you used it will not be unbiased, bias was indicative of the concept. I merely meant to say that the level of bias is not so bad as to make them valueless in a dispute if their reasoning for coming to a decision is influenced by more then just what Government desires.

It doesn't look like a minor point to me. It looks like it's your whole point. That once an agreement to abide by the recommednations of an 'independent' body and based on a no-strike agreement from the unions is in place it woul;d benefit no one to pull out or break the agreement. It seems that your understanding of the term 'benefit' is limited as i've just gien you two examples where one party to the agreement could see benefit to breaking the agreement.

And again, for the third time of asking, if these independent bodies are going to be so fair and equitable in their recommendations (you don't say why you're so sure of this mind you) why then must unions lay down their arms and agree to a no-strike deal to access them? And what is the other side laying down? Not a sausage as far as i can see.

Further, 'independent' bodies tend to be staffed by people who share the same institutional priorities and politics as the state (including their own preservation and awareness of their need to appear as useful to the state to achieve this) not the immediate needs of those whose pay and working conditions are being discussed and drawn up. I’d far rather rely on the direct expression of those needs by those workers than civil servants - and no-strike agreements inevitably blunt these and force them into institutional channels all the better to neuter and dampen them. It’s their whole purpose.

 

[Dravinian]

I am not saying there is no benefit to one side breaking the agreement. I am saying there is no benefit to one side coming to the table if it knows it is going to break the agreement. Since it makes the entire process a complete waste of time.

The very fact that both sides are willing to come to the table and go through the process would indicate that both sides were wanting the process to work.

And again, for the third time of asking, if these independent bodies are going to be so fair and equitable in their recommendations (you don't say why you're so sure of this mind you) why then must unions lay down their arms and agree to a no-strike deal to access them?

I am sorry I thought this was answered long ago when I discussed how both sides gain. Let me go back and quote it. from page 2.

"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."

Further, 'independent' bodies tend to be staffed by people who share the same institutional priorities and politics as the state.

I think it is possible to create an independent body.

 

[butchersapron]

I am not saying there is no benefit to one side breaking the agreement. I am saying there is no benefit to one side coming to the table if it knows it is going to break the agreement. Since it makes the entire process a complete waste of time.

The very fact that both sides are willing to come to the table and go through the process would indicate that both sides were wanting the process to work.

And again, for the third time of asking, if these independent bodies are going to be so fair and equitable in their recommendations (you don't say why you're so sure of this mind you) why then must unions lay down their arms and agree to a no-strike deal to access them?

I am sorry I thought this was answered long ago when I discussed how both sides gain. Let me go back and quote it. from page 2.

"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."

Further, 'independent' bodies tend to be staffed by people who share the same institutional priorities and politics as the state.

I think it is possible to create an independent body.

Both sides have to agree to the overall recomendation. Once they are both informed of the results of the independent bodies deliberations then they're in a position to decide if benefits them more to abide by it or to reject it. Not before. And guess what, one side can think that it'll benefit it more to reject it. That's how these things work - not by a prior insistence that it it's impossible to benefit by rejecting the proposals, but by cold hard interest.

No, sorry that's not an answer to my question - i asked why, if you're so convinced that these 'independent' bodies will come up with fair an equitable proposals, are unions to be required to aceess them? I didn't ask what, in your model you imagine would be the advantages for them to agree to such a daft proposal. That's a different thing altogther

 

[Dravinian]

Both sides have to agree to the overall recomendation. Once they are both informed of the results of the independent bodies deliberations then they're in a position to decide if benefits them more to abide by it or to reject it. Not before. And guess what, one side can think that it'll benefit it more to reject it. That's how these things work - not by a prior insistence that it it's impossible to benefit by rejecting the proposals, but by cold hard interest.

No, sorry that's not an answer to my question - i asked why, if you're so convinced that these 'independent' bodies will come up with fair an equitable proposals, are unions to be required to aceess them? I didn't ask what, in your model you imagine would be the advantages for them to agree to such a daft proposal. That's a different thing altogther

That is the whole point of the agreement though, you give up the right to judge whether you like the pay raise and accept that it is an independent bodies recommendation that is best for everyone and not just you or not just beneficial to the government.

You have to bear in mind, just because a Pay Review is fair and a Government's offer is different doesn't indicate that the Government offer is unfair, just that it is different. Just because the Bus isn't red, doesn't mean it IS blue. It could be any colour.

So the idea that a pay review's offer is the only fair option and therefore unions should have an automatic right to access it is not a valid one.

 

[butchersapron]

That is the whole point of the agreement though, you give up the right to judge whether you like the pay raise and accept that it is an independent bodies recommendation that is best for everyone and not just you or not just beneficial to the government.

You have to bear in mind, just because a Pay Review is fair and a Government's offer is different doesn't indicate that the Government offer is unfair, just that it is different. Just because the Bus isn't red, doesn't mean it IS blue. It could be any colour.

So the idea that a pay review's offer is the only fair option and therefore unions should have an automatic right to access it is not a valid one.

Yes, that's the whole point, and exactly why i'm against such proposals. For all the reasons i've posted in this thread, not one of which i think you've adequately dealt. But i'm not going to pursue them any further.

That last point looks like a dangerous new suggestion btw - sounds a bit like the govt should be able to impose different 'fair' conditions than what the 'independent' bodies that you were just placing such faith in come up with. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Dravinian]

Yes, that's the whole point, and exactly why i'm against such proposals. For all the reasons i've posted in this thread, not one of which i think you've adequately dealt. But i'm not going to pursue them any further.

That last point looks like a dangerous new suggestion btw - sounds a bit like the govt should be able to impose different 'fair' conditions than what the 'independent' bodies that you were just placing such faith in come up with. Is that what you're saying?

No I am saying your plea as to why unions shouldn't automatically be given the pay that independent bodies recommend is that this recommendation is not the only example of a fair pay deal, it is just one example of one that the pay review recommended.

As to your other arguments they revolved around the bias of independent review boards, which you have not really justified and the idea that Unions look bad in the press if they strike after Government has broken a no strike agreement, despite evidence to the contrary.

So not sure how more adequately I was supposed to answer those arguments. Your final argument was that Unions should have a right to independent pay review recommendations without having to give up anything, but you have not suggested why they should get something for nothing, I assumed the implication was that this is a fair deal why shouldn't they get it, but as I said, it is not the only possible fair deal, it is just one example of a fair deal. So why should they automatically get that fair deal, why shouldn't Government be able to find a deal that is still fair yet does what Government needs it to do.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I am also a little annoyed with myself, because I do not accept your premise that no pay review body can ever be independent, yet I am arguing petty points about how biased a disagreeing 'friend' is.

So no I refuse the entire premise that no independent pay review body can be unbiased and refuse to debate the petty particulars of how unbiased someone is who can come to a decision the government does not like.

Prove that no pay review body can be independent.

Easy. All pay review bodies have to appointed by someone. Therefore they aren't independent.

Maybe a randomly selected jury of peers (a la trial by jury) could be, but they wouldn't have the necessary knowledge to draw up a collective bargaining agreement, so they'd have to choose between different options drawn up by somebody. Maybe 1 by the government, 1 by the union. Now that'd be good

 

[butchersapron]

No I am saying your plea as to why unions shouldn't automatically be given the pay that independent bodies recommend is that this recommendation is not the only example of a fair pay deal, it is just one example of one that the pay review recommended.

As to your other arguments they revolved around the bias of independent review boards, which you have not really justified and the idea that Unions look bad in the press if they strike after Government has broken a no strike agreement, despite evidence to the contrary.

So not sure how more adequately I was supposed to answer those arguments. Your final argument was that Unions should have a right to independent pay review recommendations without having to give up anything, but you have not suggested why they should get something for nothing, I assumed the implication was that this is a fair deal why shouldn't they get it, but as I said, it is not the only possible fair deal, it is just one example of a fair deal. So why should they automatically get that fair deal, why shouldn't Government be able to find a deal that is still fair yet does what Government needs it to do.

What plea? I've said no such thing? I've not talked about unions having access to fair deals via independent bodies. I thin you've severely misread me. I'll explain it one more time. I aksed why, if in your estimation these 'independent' bodies will be offering fair and equitable recommendations, then why should the union have to give a no-strike agreement to access them. Surely it wouldn't matter?

I also asked a further related question as to what the govt would be giving up if the unions give up their right to strike - i didn't get a reply, but i had assumed from the gist of your other posts that they would be forced to agree to the proposals of the independent body (which i don't count as giving up anything as it goes). But now it appears that they don't even have to agree to this bare minimum. The whole process now seems to be unions sign no-strike agreements in order to be bound to a 'fair' recommendation by an 'independent' body, but the govt isn't bound to this. They can come up with an impose their own 'fair'agreement! You have got to be joking? You've just undermined the only possible basis on which to hang this argument.

Well, the idea of 'independent' bodies not being all that indepedent due to institutional, social and political ties to one side of a dispute, not mention shared educational and cultural backgrounds, or funding from one side and their need to preserves their future role and usefullness to that same side strikes me as knocking a rather large hole in the whole daft proposal myself.

I don't see how you can reject the suggestion that the media generally portrays unions and all industrial action in as unfavourable and hostilea light as possible. And that's before any action based on the rejection of a deal offered under a no-strike agreement. They'd have a field day. (And what 'evidence to the contrary' did you offer?)

 

[Dravinian]

I aksed why, if in your estimation these 'independent' bodies will be offering fair and equitable recommendations, then why should the union have to give a no-strike agreement to access them. Surely it wouldn't matter?

Are you just not reading what I write?

Just because that pay offer is fair doesn't mean it is the only fair option.

Why should the Unions have that offer and not an offer that is equally fair that the Government wants, which suit the needs of the Government. You are asking the Government to give up its ability to find a fair deal that suits its needs and to accept a possibly different fair deal provided by an independent review body.

Why should the government do that for nothing? The Quid Pro Quo is that the Unions agrees not to strike.

The whole process now seems to be unions sign no-strike agreements in order to be bound to a 'fair' recommendation by an 'independent' body, but the govt isn't bound to this. They can come up with an impose their own 'fair'agreement! You have got to be joking? You've just undermined the only possible basis on which to hang this argument.

Now I am pretty sure you are just not reading what I am saying.

It would take to long to correct you, read over what I have said earlier in this post and what i have said in other posts, you will see that I have said absolutely nothing like what you have written here. You have taken two different arguments and mashed them together.

Well, the idea of 'independent' bodies not being all that indepedent....

I don't think being cynical counts as evidence that a pay review body can't be independent.

Surely any agreement about an independent body would involve some talk about the make up of that independent body and would have to be seen to be independent by both sides before being accepted.

I don't see how you can reject the suggestion that the media generally portrays unions and all industrial action in as unfavourable and hostilea light as possible. And that's before any action based on the rejection of a deal offered under a no-strike agreement. They'd have a field day. (And what 'evidence to the contrary' did you offer?)

I pointed out the recent action by the Police that was generally recieved in Public well and the Government was seen as the bad guys.

Also if the Government enters into a deal to agree to an independent review board and then reneges on that deal, it will look bad.

 

[butchersapron]

Are you just not reading what I write?

Right, let's deal with this first as there's obviously some blockage. You said to me:

No I am saying your plea as to why unions shouldn't automatically be given the pay that independent bodies recommend is that this recommendation is not the only example of a fair pay deal, it is just one example of one that the pay review recommended.

which had precisely nothing to with anything i have written on this thread. I haven't argued that unions should automatically be given the pay that independent bodies recommend, i haven't argued or written a single thing about unions automatically being given the pay that independent bodies recommend. I simply haven't talked about that. And certainly not in connection with some other 'fair' deal from the govt.

As for this other thing that you suddenly threw in out of the blue about 'fair' deals aside from whatever 'independent' bodies have put forward - i don't know why you brought it in and so asked you what you meant. It's obviously based on the same misreading of my post as quoted above. It's nothing to do with me. I'm simply trying to make sense of why you mysteriously brought it in - and the only thing i could think of was that you were arguing that the fact that there could be 'fair' deals outside of what the independent bodies recommended and that the govt has the right to impose these.

I can see now that you're saying that the govt agreeing to abide by the findings of an 'independent' body rather than their own 'fair' deal equals the unions agreeing to a no-strike agreement. But it's not is it, because the union are doing the exact same thing as the govt (i.e agreeing to a binding pay review and forgeoing their own idea of what constitutes a fair' deal plus giving up the right to strike. The two are in no way in balance.

As for the idea of institutional bodies being biased simply being a matter of my personal cynicism (and that's hard won experience based cycnicism, not something to be so lightly dimissed), well there's thousands and thousands of studies and pieces of research into just that - expectations, habits, education, background etc all helping to form a corporate view amongst a range of offical bodies that translates into shared assumptions of what should happen and how. I don't see how and why putting 'independent' in front of some body automatially cleanses it of these biases and assumptions.

Well, if that's your evidence a) i disagree with your interpretation - i think the lack of support for the police march spoke for itself and b) even if you're right it no way means that the media is pro-union or will not take the opportunity to demonise any other union or industrial action, given that it already does so and without the excuse of them breaking a no-strike agreement c) the police haven't broken a no-strike agreement, so the cases are not actually directly comparable.

 

[Dravinian]

The two are in no way in balance.

Unions are giving up the right to say yes or no to a deal. The Government is giving up the right to control how that deal is constructed in the first place.

I think the balance would be fair in a no-strike agreement.

without the excuse of them breaking a no-strike agreement

A Union would only be breaking a no-strike agreement if they disagreed with an independent bodies recommendation, and if you accept the review body as unbiased, then you have to accept that in this instance it would be the Unions wanting more then was considered fair by the review body after agreeing to abide by its decision, so why shouldn't they suffer bad press for it.

As for how fair an independent body can be, that should be part of the negotiations in the agreements. When both sides agree on a fair set of rules for making up the Independent Body then you can move forward. If one sides feels the body will not be independent then there is no agreement.