It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
British trade union laws are the most restrictive in the developed world. This is a legacy of the Thatcher years, with legislation passed between 1979 and 1997, which made it harder for unions to gain recognition and raised the bar for ballots on strike action, requiring 40 percent turnout, making it much harder for unions to go on strike.
originally posted by: newsaddict
British trade union laws are the most restrictive in the developed world. This is a legacy of the Thatcher years, with legislation passed between 1979 and 1997, which made it harder for unions to gain recognition and raised the bar for ballots on strike action, requiring 40 percent turnout, making it much harder for unions to go on strike.
British Government Strike Law Most ‘Oppressive In The Developed World’
That's because the Tories are the most oppressive government in the developed world. Maybe? Yeah? No?
originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: newsaddict
I believe 40% is oppressive and makes it much higher for employees to gain their rights.
Personally, I see the number should be around 20% or even 10% depending on the sector. That ensures that only important issues are taken up, while ensuring that employees get their say. The higher turnout, the less say there is, especially in low-paying sectors, where people are afraid on losing their by taking part of strikes.
originally posted by: EvillerBob
originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: newsaddict
I believe 40% is oppressive and makes it much higher for employees to gain their rights.
Personally, I see the number should be around 20% or even 10% depending on the sector. That ensures that only important issues are taken up, while ensuring that employees get their say. The higher turnout, the less say there is, especially in low-paying sectors, where people are afraid on losing their by taking part of strikes.
Of course, that only works if you believe that a small percentage of employees should be able to blackmail employers.
I'd go with 10-20% as long as employers are guaranteed the right to terminate strikers' employment immediately and without repercussion, and mandatory jailtime for any striker (whether or not still employed) who seeks to prevent or interfere directly or indirectly in any way, shape, or form with any employee, supplier, or customer still trying to access the business.
The employer runs the business for their own sake, not for the sake of the employees. Don't like the conditions? Plenty of people who will be happy to work in those conditions, so the whingers can sod off and let someone else take the job.
Employers who need quality will end up making that employment attractive to candidates. If someone isn't able to provide quality then their options are to up-skill or make do with their lot in life. Someone has to be at the bottom of the ladder, after all.
originally posted by: Forensick
You are the ghost of Thatcher....
...
It's is your full on attitude above that shows the need of unions.
originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: EvillerBob
If you can't organize your business so your employees are worth more than what you pay them then you are not running a successful business and should probably close it down. I run a small business and I honestly make decent money just off the sweat of my employees which I pay them well for.
originally posted by: EvillerBob Do you know how much your £10 an hour costs me as an employer?
originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
originally posted by: EvillerBob Do you know how much your £10 an hour costs me as an employer?
i don't care.
originally posted by: edward777
Why worry about strikes? All the jobs have been sent to Asia and all the new immigrants take what jobs are left.
Now that is Tory and Labour cooperation if there ever was.