I'm a card carrying union member. I have been since I left school and started working in Barr and Stroud, a historic engineering company in Glasgow, that has since been swallowed up by a multinational. It also moved site to from the west of Glasgow to the south side, so not only has a historic company vanished, but a stunning old building has been demolished to make way for a supermarket.
But I digress.
As I say, I've been a union member for a few months shy of 30 years, and in that time have taken part in industrial actions. I did this because I believed they were right, they were (unfortunately necessary), and in all cases a result (or at least a happy compromise) was obtained.
Not this time. There has been two one day strike previous to today's, which I did take part in, and took my turn on the picket line for. Not this time.
What's so different this time? I'll tell you.
The vote in favour of today's action, was 20 for, 0 against. There were approximately 30 people at the meeting, out of a membership of about 130. There were no "against" votes, as there was no point. The first question was "those in favour". 20. There was no way the remaining 10 could make a difference, so officially it was 10 abstentions.
Now, out of a membership of over 100, I don't think 20 voting to strike is a mandate. Yes, I know that's the majority of the people who attended the meeting. A meeting that was held at short notice so we could take action on the same day as other unions, but to my mind not a mandate.
Then there's the fact that some of the more militant people, always seem to have conveniently taken a day off that just happens to coincide with the day of action. Call me cynical, but if you are party to information that allows you to take a day off PRIOR to the rest of us being told when the day of action is, I call foul.
The same people, when there was a work to rule in previous years, they were happy to do all the overtime that was going.
So, do I feel guilty? No.
Like I said earlier, I do agree with the principles of the action, but not based on the numbers voting for it. There should be a quorum when it comes to votes on industrial action.
But I digress.
As I say, I've been a union member for a few months shy of 30 years, and in that time have taken part in industrial actions. I did this because I believed they were right, they were (unfortunately necessary), and in all cases a result (or at least a happy compromise) was obtained.
Not this time. There has been two one day strike previous to today's, which I did take part in, and took my turn on the picket line for. Not this time.
What's so different this time? I'll tell you.
The vote in favour of today's action, was 20 for, 0 against. There were approximately 30 people at the meeting, out of a membership of about 130. There were no "against" votes, as there was no point. The first question was "those in favour". 20. There was no way the remaining 10 could make a difference, so officially it was 10 abstentions.
Now, out of a membership of over 100, I don't think 20 voting to strike is a mandate. Yes, I know that's the majority of the people who attended the meeting. A meeting that was held at short notice so we could take action on the same day as other unions, but to my mind not a mandate.
Then there's the fact that some of the more militant people, always seem to have conveniently taken a day off that just happens to coincide with the day of action. Call me cynical, but if you are party to information that allows you to take a day off PRIOR to the rest of us being told when the day of action is, I call foul.
The same people, when there was a work to rule in previous years, they were happy to do all the overtime that was going.
So, do I feel guilty? No.
Like I said earlier, I do agree with the principles of the action, but not based on the numbers voting for it. There should be a quorum when it comes to votes on industrial action.
No comments:
Post a Comment