Nurses and Midwives on Strike

I am not backing any wrong horse and I am being very consistent.

I do not agree with striking in public service. But it is allowed by law, and so I have to live with it. I have no inconsistency in my opinion on the matter. I am being honest in my opinion, despite what you have stated.

So, if strikes are allowed to happen, then (morally) it should only be following a majority vote in favour. And when I say majority, then that means of the whole electorate - and not 9% of the electorate. I am not disputing their (legal) right to strike, I am disputing their moral right. Fortunately, moves are afoot to ensure that the two criteria, legality and morality are more in tune with each other and that the entire electorate (and common sense) should be taken into account.

I absolutely stick with my view that, if there is a general disatisfaction issue, or lack of interest issue, amongst the electorate, then that is because the matter at hand is just not compelling enough. Remember, we are talking about normal people here, and we ought to be recognising the fact that they are quite capable of deciding which issues are importnat to them. In this case £5pw wasn't one of them.

I do indeed think that £5 pw is too small to be striking over, and increasing the waiting lists, etc, for sick people. It is a trivial amount to risk lives or inconvenience the sick over. If the amount is much higher than a fiver, then I still wouldn't think a strike is right, but I would imagine that far more people would consider that their grievance would be worth fighting over.

So, I also think that those that cared more about the patients than themselves have better morals (in this particular matter) than those that voted to strike.

My two sisters in law, would not be in a position where they may refuse a Union negotiated pay rise, would they, as the pay rise was not negoiated, but independently arrived at? So your point is irrelevant.

To turn it round, would you feel it right that some pay rises should only be awarded to non-union members, separately from those negotiated by Unions for their members. If you dont believe in a closed shop, then you shouldn't be trying to divide the worforce in this way.

Many grievances interviews only allow the employee to be accomponied by a fellow employee or a union representative. As a fellow employee can often be awkward then the Union is the only other option. Almost invariably, the union representative will already be in payment by the company involved, so why should they not be happy to assist - at least until Counsel is required, further down the line.

Regarding Cathy Freeman, yes I suppose that she has a right to say what she did, as she was technically correct for some midwives, but she would have been more honest if she had said that a "minority of midwives are so near the end of their tether that they voted to strike". In other words, 60% were content with the status quo for now. To imply that they all were at the end of their tether, when over 60% didn't vote to strike, is being dishonest, in my opinion.

I note that many Unions require a far greater level of majority to change the status quo.

For example, one of the Union Councils represented in the NHS ballot require 75% of it members to vote for a change, before it can be implemented.

So, to sum up. I dont think public employees should be striking, but if they do, it should only be considered when a majority vote for it.

 

Are moves actually afoot or is it just on the Tory christmas wishlist alongside a majority in Parliament?

 

Yes you may be right. If they don't get a majority and have to rely on the LibDems again, then it wont happen.