Nurses and Midwives on Strike

Imho, the demise of the unions is a great pity. And yes, I was a member of various ones. The TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs' Assoc.), NUS (National Union of Seaman - with an a), various incarnations of the PCS (Civil Servants' union) and a branch committee member of the lattter. While I'd agree that the unions did have too much power back in the 70's, their reduction to their present minimalist state means there is now an unhealthy division between the power of management and their workforces. Most of the work I used to undertake involved individual grievances though, not calling out members on strike.

It seems that most of the workforce have now been 'bludgeoned into submission' by Thatcher's excesses and the unwillingness of subsequent Labour governments to redress the balance.

 

That's a strange place to have kept your tonsils. Maybe it was a courgette. A cost-effectieve, organic placebo. Presumably you were in no position to see exactly what it was at all ...

 

Haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect if you offered NHS workers a pay rise based on whatever they could save out of the current NHS budget (without ruining quality of service) I bet they would soon find enough to give themselves a very handsome rise all round.

 

Did it give you a rise?

 

Quite. There are people out there who pay good money for that sort of thing ...

 

It did. Initial!y I felt pain, then pleasure, then guilt and confusion, then righteous indignation, then rage and then I beat up some benders and felt OK again.

 

This explains a lot. I was slow to pick up on the situation, whereas Jumbolina spotted it ages ago. Taking into consideration your previous, often excellent, posts over the past few weeks, it didn't even enter my head that you were a traditional Union man. I always felt that I could smell one from a thousand paces. That is why I couldn't understand your intransigent stance on this thread in the face of facts.

My senses had let me down. But now everything is clear.

Only a Union man would claim that 10% support gives a mandate for a strike.

 

Just like only a Tory could espouse the idea that 10% of the population having 90% of the wealth is a natural and desirable state of affairs?

Seriously though, your antennae are in poor shape if you didn't spot where Kelso was coming from.

 

That is just untrue. It would be desirable for more wealth to trickle down "naturally". But trying to force it does not work. As we all should know by now.

But yes, to my shame, Kelso fooled me!

 

Well that begs the question of what you might mean by a 'traditional' union man. I doubt one of those would necessarily admit that the unions 'did have too much power back in the 70s'.

And only someone whose motive is to flagrantly manipulate a vote to achieve the end they desire would claim that the opinions of anyone other than those who actually bothered to vote should count in an election. x (my smartphone would appear to be an emoticon free zone)

 

ZZT's "antennae are in poor shape". What are you suggesting Moose? That ZZT's some sort of voracious, mutant insect? You could be right ...

 

Or a crayfish that's fallen into a tub of cooling water at a nuclear power station?

 

Even if you don't, most people would respect non voters the right to "abstain" in specific types of ballot as the very act of voting yes/no implies that they think the vote had a legitimate cause in the first place. The Union asked employees if they should disrupt an essential public service for £5 pw. Given that possibility the vast majority didn't even give it legitimacy by bothering to vote. There was no "flagrant manipulation" just a lack of interest in striking.

Fortunately, I see that most employees had more morals than the militants. By most accounts the strike was poorly supported up here. I drove by the Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham yesterday (the main hospital) and I saw about 5 pickets and a dog at the main gate. My two sister-in-laws (both nurses), went into work as usual and said that the strike had zero effect.

I think that it isn't power the Unions have lost, as much as credibility. No longer can they treat their members like idiots.

 

Ahh. So now we have it. ZZT sets himself up to speak for 'most people'. Has Kim Jong-un actually been hiding out advising you on setting up your new dictatorship?

Voting no wouldn't imply an acceptance of the question asked as being 'a legitimate cause'. Quite obviously, if you didn't think the question was 'legitimate' you should vote no. If you voted yes then you obviously thought it was 'legitimate'. Isn't that the sort of stuff they teach at Meerkat kindergarten?

Strikers went to some lengths to make sure that services weren't disruptive to the extent that lives were threatened or that women were giving birth in the back of taxis. The strength of feeling should be indicated to you by the fact that this was the first time in their 133 year history that the Royal College of Midwives had gone on strike. They wished to make a point. They did. What they could really do without though is the likes of you lecturing them on their morals and integrity. So you think that going out on strike for an extra fiver a week was an unworthy and minimalist cause? Would you rather they went on strike for an extra 50 quid a week then?

Was the dog a big one? Are your sisters-in-law union members who crossed their own picket line or selfish, non-union members who simply pick up the salary increases negotiated on their behalf while cowardly distancing themselves and taking some sort of ephemeral, moral high-ground? If the latter, then let's hope for their sakes they don't ever require representation in a personal grievance case.

What the unions have lost is the support of a potential membership hinterland who have any faith any more in anything they do making any real difference to their lives at all. That feeling of powerlessness is represented by a relative lack of collective trade union solidarity, dissatisfaction with Westminster and its processes, a conviction that the bosses and bankers continue to get away with murder with nothing being done to stop them and 45% of Scots wishing to leave the Union entirely. It's all part of the same thing. Given that, then some will 'hunker down' and bury their heads in the sand while others will become increasingly stroppy. Whichever, as I've indicated before, it's the start of dangerous times and where it all might lead becomes increasingly unpredictable.

 

More than half the midwives couldn't be bothered to vote at all. What sort of "strength of feeling" is that? Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, said: "Midwives are at the end of their tether." yet 13,000 midwives just couldn't be bothered to vote either way! I just cannot see why, if Cathy Warwick was being honest with "at the end of their tether", 13,001 and of the 26,000 midwives just didn't vote to support their association.

And your other statement was wrong. 45% of Scots did not wish to leave the Union entirely. 37.81% of the Scottish electorate voted to leave. The other 62.19% didn't!

 

Erm. Point 1. Because of the general inertia around 'what's the point'. I may be completely pissed off with the situation but, whatever I do won't make any difference. What an appalling place to drive conscientious health professionals into.

Point 2. Yet again, you put no-shows in the same camp as no voters and manipulate your stats. accordingly in an election of your choice while declining to give them the same high profile in other elections that have delivered a result you like. No-shows are simply non-engagers. They've compromised their chance to have their voice heard. But know what? I'd really love them to show up and vote even if that meant the vote going against my own wishes. You don't do that. You're manipulative in your statistical arguments for your own ends. It's really not very nice.

 

Also, you seem to have missed the point Arakel made yesterday too. Dont assume that all no-shows are necessarily closet no voters.

 

Re the midwives, sorry I am genuinely puzzled. One minute you are saying this...

"The strength of feeling should be indicated to you by the fact that this was the first time in their 133 year history that the Royal College of Midwives had gone on strike".

the next minute you are saying this...

Because of the general inertia around 'what's the point'

Do they care, or don't they?

Re the voting figures Kelso. READ MY POST! You say that "It's really not very nice". Please explain.

I said that 62.19% of the electorate did not vote to leave the Union. That is a fact! I am not assuming anything. My figures are based on the official results. 44.7% of the 84.59% turnout voted yes. That means 37.81 (44.7% of 84.59%) of the electorate voted to leave, whilst the other 62.19% didn't vote to leave (100% - 37.81%). Where am I manipulating figures? (genuine question).

Whereas, you are just plain wrong to say 45% of Scots want to leave.

 

Re. point 1. Well it's a fact that the Midwives hadn't previously had a strike in their 133 year history. Are you seriously saying that Cathy Warwick's position was driven simply by political militancy? Maybe she was 'reading between the lines' a bit. Something you do all the time in claiming that no-shows necessarily mean No. But know what? She doesn't even have to do that anyway! You're really backing the wrong horse here. Your original table indicated that the Midwives' turnout was 49% (best in show), 82% of those voted Yes (best in show), which delivered a 40% vote OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE in favour of strike action (best in show). Already, maybe an unprecedented result (unless it's a Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin election). But, by my Meerkat kindergarten calculations, that would only require that 20% of the remaining 51% of those that didn't vote to say Yes and deliver an overall Yes vote OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE in favour of strike action. A likely result given Arakel's post and maybe unprecedented. Wanna mix it with a stats. argument with me mate, then you'll need to get up earlier in the morning.

On your second point your stats. are fine. But of course, yet again, you want to drag in the percentage of the electorate argument as opposed to the percentage of those that vote as taking precedent in those examples you choose for your own ends. It's becoming boorish and repetitive now. I certainly said it'd become circuitous. It has. As indicated previouly, I'm quite content to let other observers judge who's in the ascendancy here. Besides which, I made loads of points in my #154 which you haven't even begun to address yet. I've seen it all before though. You address the points you think you might have a chance with and ignore the others. Doesn't cut any mustard with me. What are you scared of?

 

I'm certainly not scared of you Kelso!

I just don't really understand your points. Genuinely.

I just don't understand how a 9.5% backing in the Unison ballot is a majority.
I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that over 90% did not back a strike.

So then I looked at your post #154 as you were upset I didn't address your "points". I must admit, the first time I was confused by it, so I moved on. But in fairness to you. I'll take a look at your questions and "points" again.

Were you upset that I didn't answer the question "Has Kim Jong-un actually been hiding out advising you on setting up your new dictatorship?" If so, the answer is NO.
Was it the question "Isn't that the sort of stuff they teach at Meerkat kindergarten?" The answer is NO again.
Was it the question "Would you rather they went on strike for an extra 50 quid a week then?" The answer is NO.
Maybe it was this question " Was the dog a big one?" Answer NO.
Or maybe "Are your sisters-in-law union members" NO again.

Wow, almost had me on the run with those questions!

Maybe it was the points you wanted me to address....
Well I had already addressed you point about the midwives "strength of feeling"
Was it the abstention point.? If so, I have already explained that I think that a lack of a vote, ia a lack of support. You seem to think that a lack of a vote is to be ignored.
Was it the point that I shouldn't be making judgements on the morals of the staff? But then you go and say this in the very next paragraph "cowardly distancing themselves and taking some sort of ephemeral, moral high-ground?"
Was it the rant in the last paragraph that you wanted me to address? Well I pointed out that your figures were wrong (although you have ignored the fact). But, as for the rest of it, to be honest, I don't understand it. Maybe you could enlihghten me in non-union speak language, brother.

Yep, you certainly had me on the run there Kelso.:scared1::scared1:

But, if I have missed any more of your "zztop destroying" points or questions, just let me know specifically before I have the chance to dive for cover.

But, all in all, Kelso, I am disappointed that our chats have resorted to this, as I found some of your earlier posts interesting and most thought provoking. :fighting1:

At least we can have a laugh together. This comment was particularly funny "Wanna mix it with a stats. argument with me mate, then you'll need to get up earlier in the morning.";D;D;D;D;D;D:sign1:

By the way, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for others "I'm quite content to let other observers judge who's in the acendancy here." If they have any sense, they would have died of boredom ages ago.

 

The only majority which matters is the majority in the actual ballot, regardless of which way the vote goes. Everyone knows the rules going into it. The default state of the issue is neutral (anything else is a biased question) and whichever side gets the most votes, wins.

That's all there is to it. Any discussion over how X% might have voted if they had decided to get involved is pointless. They chose not to get involved (for whatever reason) so they're completely irrelevant. The only people who matter at the ones who bothered to engage with the question.

It's the simple reality of all refendums, strike ballots and general elections.

 

I have said several times that I am not trying to guess how the non-voters would have voted if forced. I also know, that under the current rules, it is only the voters that count. I am just making the additional point that, for example, Unison could only persuade 9.5% to vote in favour of the strike and 90.5% didn't support it actively. That is indisputable. You can take 1 in 10 as a mandate if you wish, but I think it does no such thing, and is actually undemocratic. It is called a plebiscite vote. One where a vote result does not represent the view of the entire electorate.

I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. I think a majority is 50.1%, you think it can mean 9.5%.

Hopefully, the proposed changes will bring us all back to common sense where a majority will not mean 10%.

Referendums all over the world use different criteria that often try and acknowledge the poor democracy in a lower turnout by implementing higher majorities required of say, two thirds or three quarters of the actual votes would be required to disturb the status quo. Italy, for example, say that a minimum of 50% +1 turnout is required before a majority (of the votes) can be accepted.

Your own point about the neutrality is just not right for some types of referendum. If Watford fc balloted the Club ,ember ship on the new colour of our strip, blue or red, then it is a neutral option. But if the club said that they were going to keep yellow unless a majority of votes wanted blue, then that is obviously not neutral. It is a fair question to suggest that the status quo should be maintained unless a majority of the electorate want a change.

Clearly, the General Election was a neutral situation, whereas the Scottish Referendum wasn't. They are completely different scenarios.

 

You don't need to guess because it's irrelevant.

The rules are the rules. Whether 1% or 99% of the union can't be arsed to vote, you only count the opinions of those who bother to venture them. It's true in all things and, quite rightly, it always will be. To do otherwise is to put the result of anything into the hands of the apathetic. That's not how democracy should work because we should never presume to know the mind of those who don't bother to share it.

You don't empower the apathetic, that's absolutely ludicrous.

 

So, you only look at the rules and everything else is irrelevant. So the 86% of the Unison workers who either were not convinced by the Union, or could not make a clear decision, are irrelevant.

Right.

I shall be watching your posts with interest!

 

Another unsubtle attempt to rearrange was was said, but no.

My point (since apparently everything needs to be spelled out to you in extreme detail or risk being rewoven into something else entirely) is that everyone knows the rules of a ballot going into it. If your supposed silent majority felt there should be no strike action they have no excuse not to go and vote no.

It's mindbogglingly simple logic.

The fact you seem to extort the virtue of a society where nothing could ever change if 51% of eligible voters people can't be bothered to vote is beyond ridiculous. I have never, ever seen or heard someone argue for such wanton empowerment of the apathetic before. Quite frankly, I doubt that I ever will again because it's farcical.

Your "86%" figure is precisely why some people are so dismissive of statistics. You clearly don't understand that the statistical likelihood of the ballot resulting in no strike if turnout had been 100% is close to zero, and you clearly don't understand why either. "86%" is hatchet-job mathematics leveraged to find the answer that you want to find. The ballot is extraordinarily statistically significant and the odds of a 100% turnout changing the result to "no strike" are astronomically large.

But don't take my word for it. Take your table of results, walk into the office of a highly qualified mathematician who specialises in statistics and probability, and let him walk you through it.

 

Your post is laughable. I have not said that we should ignore the rules of a ballot. It was the government of the day that introduced them in the first place. But we should just change the rules. Fortunately, that is what the government will be trying to do if they get in next time.

You say that they should just vote no. But say they just are not sure, say they don't find either argument strong enough. Which box would they tick then. You criticise me for making assumptions, but you are doing it. We don't know why they didn't vote, we only know that they were not convinced by the Union enough to vote for the strike. And that is my point, nothing more.

So, I am not saying that the strikes were illegal, I am saying they are morally wrong, because the Unite Union was only able to convince 9.5% to agree with their case and vote for the strike. You cannot deny that, no matter how hard you try. Why would you even want to deny it, it is so plainly true, is it not?

I don't need to ask any statistician and that is not because I have an A Level in statistics. I actually studied for 18 months and then dropped out in favour of my other subjects, Physics, Engineering Drawing and Maths. But it is totally irrelevant. You just need basic arithmetic from junior school.

Your second last paragraph is just too confusing for me to understand. What are you on about? Maybe I should have studied A Level English (or gobblygook instead).

Let's be clear. We are not talking about a generally apathetic group of people here. Midwives are not homeless, drug addicts, alcoholics or strays that can't be arsed to get themselves to the local polling station in the rain. They are highly professional, caring, responsible individuals, who could not be motivated enough by the Union to tick a box on a piece of paper that was handed to them, or who could not decide either way. That is totally different.

Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that say out of 20 voters, 17 vote and out of them 11 vote for a strike for a majority. Why is it too big a stretch that out of 30,000 highly responsible midwives, 15,001 vote as a majority to strike (being at the end of their tether, and all)? Please explain that to thicko Zztop.

As I said, I shall be interested to hear your views on subjects such as legal tax avoidance, or business owners paying legal but low wages to unqualified immigrants rather than qualified locals, to increase their already high profits. After all, everybody knows the rules, don't they?

 

"The ballot is extraordinarily statistically significant and the odds of a 100% turnout changing the result to "no strike" are astronomically large."

By this logic when voter turnouts for general elections are low that should be of zero concern. if a 14% sample size at Unison is sufficient, then why do we dismay so much when we have a 65% turnout at a General Election?

 

Grrrrr. How scary is that eh? Been busy. Haven't gone away. Yes, my last epistle was a wee bit 'pithy'. Just shows what a couple of glasses of merlot can do. You'lll be glad to know that I'll give you a substantive reply to all you say later this p.m. ...

 

"We" don't despair. I'm perfectly happy with the unengaged/apathetic not voting. They don't tend to have a clue what they're actually voting for so it's far better that they don't get involved.

 

Hold on. On the one hand you are telling us that the 15% Unison sample means that if turnout were 100% then the chance of the vote being to not strike would be close to zero. On the other hand you are telling us that those who don't vote don't have a clue about what they are voting about. Seems inconsistent.

 

Your original point was framed in the context of the general election, which is a bit wider than a single issue.

Context.

 

I think he is consistently inconsistent, to be fair.;D

 

It is quite an easy assumption to make, that people vote for things they really care about, and generally do not vote for things which they do not care about. People were not that likely to vote against others protesting to get them a higher salary. Sitting in the warm, not losing any of their own salary whilst hoping for a successful outcome is what the majority did. If you made it mandatory for a yes vote to mean that all members had to stand out and protest with them, I am sure many more would have voted against industrial action.

Also, the final result of a poll should be looked at, but clearly turnout cannot be ignored. A small turnout gives less legitimacy, hence why protest voters often abstain from voting.

If you want to take workers out of hospitals, out of their jobs, you should have a mandate from at least 50% of your membership.

 

This post is only half complete but I've been losing the will to live. Apologies that it's taken so long to deliver and that I promised that it was imminent twice before but kept getting diverted. I need to go and lie down in a darkened room now. Oh I can't, the game's starting! There will be more to follow at some point I'm afraid though ...

Right here goes. Better late than never. You came back to me on five 'points', three of which you knew fine well were meant to be humourous and an attempt to make my post more readable and didn't require an answer.

The third was serious though. As you were belittling the cause as being too minimalist to consider strike action over, I reasonably asked you if it might be justified if the sums were more significant?

And the fifth point was serious too. Way back in your #153 you implied all the strikers were militants and lacking in moral fibre (thereby neatly introducing union speak, the impugning of the striker's moral integrity and the classification of them all as clones of each other in a oner) and also implied that the non-strikers were somehow superior moral beings. So I got the answer I expected. That your sisters-in-law weren't union members. So I reasonably asked - what would their moral position be on accepting a pay rise, negotiated collectively on their behalf by a union of which they were not a member? Would they refuse it? Would they refuse to drink from a water-cooler delivered by union negotiations with management? I think not on both occssions.

Certainly 'militants' do exist within trade unions. They're a diminishing breed though but can still be off-putting to both members and potential members. They will have 'ideas above their station' and try and exert undue influence. They're unlikely to have any problem with the Unison ballot figures because they have an 'agenda'. (B.t.w. - I do have a problem with those figures - more on that later). They're likely to be some shade of Trotskyist and can often be spotted hanging around on street corners, bravely trying to foist copies of the Socialist Worker onto an unsuspecting public. I say bravely because they very rarely get rid of one. Give me a few copies of the Big Issue to get shot of any day of the week.

But seeing as I've already raised 'collective bargaining', then sure - I do believe in it. I think the current trend towards individual contracts is divisive. In particular, it is one very significant reason why women continue to get paid less than men for the same or similar work. Because men are more pushy and assertive than women when it comes to contract and salary negotiations. That's pretty divisive. By all means have all sorts of financial or other incentives for particularly good work beyond the call of duty and beyond a simple annual increment and have robust disciplinary procedures for poor work and ultimately a sanction of dismissal. It probably is too difficult to dismiss sub-standard staff in the public sector. But most union work at the level I was involved in was much more centred around personal grievance cases. They occur all the time and management will virtually invariably take the side of the senior member of staff, even when they've got 'previous'. My wife (no shrinking violet) once ran foul of a particularly nasty, misogynistic piece of work. Even a union case against him didn't get him to back down and it took a threat of serious violence on my part to resolve the situation. I've also seen, on a number of occasions, non-union members wishing to join the union, 'in retrospect', because they have a grievance and wish to be represented. Now that's an interesting moral question, and supposedly technically and even strictly against the rules, but I've certainly seen it waved through.

Finally, on this defence of trade unions section of this post (you'll be glad to know I've now covered two of my six scribbled pages of A4 notes), you may find it helpful if I list some further union terms which we might add to our lexicon to facilitate further deliberations, as you have indicated you wish to proceed down that route. Well I think we've already covered Union baron, militant, comrade, brother and collective bargaining. Might I also introduce closed shop (don't believe in it), scab and blackleg (abhore both terms) and 'show of hands at the factory gate' (very intimidatory for disenters and now overtaken by postal ballots even if you do still have to declare your name on it to prevent fraud). hope this list is helpful. I doubt it is exhaustive. Please feel free to add to it, as and when, as shall I, and use any or all of these terms as you wish.

So moving on. I see no inconsistency in acknowledging that both Cathy Freeman was right to say "midwives are at the end of their tether" and that there remains an issue around 51% of her constituency not voting. She had a good turnout (could have been better), an overwhelming majority of those that voted in support of the strike and, I would defend, a mandate for it. Only an unreasonable devotion to your 50%+1 (which, as you will know, is not the same as 50.1% - bit loose there) of the electorate argument, which does carry an impeccable logic, but is a bar you know will never be crossed, would deny that. The Unison figures are an entirely different matter. You fail to acknowledge that low turnouts are part of a wider dissatisfaction issue which is recognised by all politicians across the spectrum and all commentators on it. Are you unique in not recognising that? You draw a distinction between the subset of those voting in these union elections around issues that 'directly affect them' with those voting in a general election. Are you seriously suggesting that people voting in a general election aren't voting on issues that 'directly affect them'? You consistently change horses to make your points. When I said you were 'backing the wrong horse' I meant the 'good filly Midwife'. But it doesn't matter to you. You're quite happy to leap seamlessly onto the 'old nag Unison' at any point. For you they're interchangeable. I go right back to your #4. "I could never agree with strikes in the public sector - good case or not". Well that's clear then. But then what I think you do is identify an obvious democratic deficit - the Unison figures - and use them as a tool in attempting to deny the health workers their right to strike. Why not just be honest and upfront? Why not say - 'No public sector workers, who are paid from the public purse, are allowed to strike, (in the same way that the Police, Army and Prison Officers aren't, for public safety reasons)'? Now I'd disagree with that, but I'd respect its logic, honesty and integrity.

t.b.c. ...... zzzzzzzz

 

How does it work? If you voted no, do you still strike? If you didn't vote at all, do you still strike?

Why vote at all? Just ask if they want to strike and those that do can vote with their feet.