Which PS unions have voted against the strike on 30th?

Gumbo

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but you get groups like Impact saying that they're going to look at their rules to see if they can still go ahead with the strike despite not reaching the quorum necessary in the ballot to do so.

Seriously, this kind of behaviour should be viewed on with contempt. They had a ballot, their members voted No, it doesn't matter how small the margin was, the union officials should abide by their member's wishes.

theres alot of people now trying to find out how to leave our union, so to say they/us are unhappy is an understatment

nesf

kceire wrote: »

aghh right i see, but in my job, we only have impact as a union, so i dont know if that sceneario (sp) would happen.

is there places with 2 different unions on strike?

It's regularly a problem in schools with the TUI and ASTI. One strikes and then the other votes not to strike but still refuse to cross the picket line.

Tis messy to say the least.

kceire wrote: »

theres alot of people now trying to find out how to leave our union, so to say they/us are unhappy is an understatment

Good for them.

gerry28

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening and it appears that many of the higher grades voted no and most of the lower grades (lower paid) voted yes.

This could be a problem for impact. Maybe the lower grades should be in the CPSU rather than in impact along with the well paid higher grades.

nesf

gerry28 wrote: »

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening and it appears that many of the higher grades voted no and most of the lower grades (lower paid) voted yes.

This could be a problem for impact. Maybe the lower grades should be in the CPSU rather than in impact along with the well paid higher grades.

It was a secret ballot no?

gerry28

Plenty were willing to say how they voted

ParkRunner

When the CPSU had their strike a few weeks ago we, in a different union, were forced to walk past the picket. We were all refused annual leave too for the day. It wasn't a nice experience but we were left with no choice and the CPSU knew it so it wasn't any hassle. I wouldn't say IMPACT members will have any trouble if they cross the picket line.

nesf

gerry28 wrote: »

Plenty were willing to say how they voted

Eh, generally? Impact has a lot of members for you to draw conclusions like "low paid: Yes, high paid: No" generally based on what your co-workers said.

John_C

nesf wrote: »

Eh, generally? Impact has a lot of members for you to draw conclusions like "low paid: Yes, high paid: No" generally based on what your co-workers said.

He introduced his story saying:

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening

It was perfectly clear that he was giving his own experience.

nesf

John_C wrote: »

He introduced his story saying:



It was perfectly clear that he was giving his own experience.

Sure, I'm questioning his second post drawing general conclusions of problems within Impact based on such a small sample.

gerry28

Sure, I'm questioning his second post drawing general conclusions of problems within Impact based on such a small sample.

Admittedly a small sample and in no way scientific. But the strong impression I got today from my fellow workmates was that we as low paid public servants may be more suited to the CPSU.

*Honey*

The IMPACT vote lost because of the numbers of people who never exercised their vote. Rule 25 states that either 2/3 of those who did vote, voted yes, then it's a fair and true vote - the reality, based on the figures is that 64.7% of people who voted voted yes, the 2/3's rule required a Yes rate of 66%. The other part of Rule 25 states that at least half of those who can vote at all, voted yes - this means that some 28,000 (or so) people needed to vote yes but only 21,000 (or so) people did. Therefore, the yes vote was not passed.

However, some 57,000 (or so) people could vote and out of that over 24,000 people didn't. I don't know why, I was rather shocked at it myself. I'm wondering if this is a vote of no confidance in the Union itself or if people are just so bloody apathetic about it all (as I would imagine, if you were avidly against taking any industrial action of any kind, you would have voted No in the first place).

As to passing other pickets, it happens in my place - we have some 5 unions invovled and we have passed pickets in the past but only when all Unions were informed that our own Union wasn't invovled. It was all fine and those not on strike brought out coffee/tea etc to those who were (not that I can even remember what it was about now).

I find it rather shocking that so many people didn't vote at all - whether it be yes or no, but not to exercise your vote on one of the most important issues before the Union surprises me greatly.

As to what happens now? I don't know, I'm very interested myself. I do not subscribe to the view that the figures be ignored and they just go ahead and strike anyway... what is the point in having a vote in the first place if you're not going to listen to your own members... and I wonder if those not voting have actually stated their own opinions of the Union and it's issue by doing just that? In all my years of being involved in the Union, this action has surprised me the most.

is_that_so

*Honey* wrote: »

The IMPACT vote lost because of the numbers of people who never exercised their vote. Rule 25 states that either 2/3 of those who did vote, voted yes, then it's a fair and true vote - the reality, based on the figures is that 64.7% of people who voted voted yes, the 2/3's rule required a Yes rate of 66%. The other part of Rule 25 states that at least half of those who can vote at all, voted yes - this means that some 28,000 (or so) people needed to vote yes but only 21,000 (or so) people did. Therefore, the yes vote was not passed.

However, some 57,000 (or so) people could vote and out of that over 24,000 people didn't. I don't know why, I was rather shocked at it myself. I'm wondering if this is a vote of no confidance in the Union itself or if people are just so bloody apathetic about it all (as I would imagine, if you were avidly against taking any industrial action of any kind, you would have voted No in the first place).

As to passing other pickets, it happens in my place - we have some 5 unions invovled and we have passed pickets in the past but only when all Unions were informed that our own Union wasn't invovled. It was all fine and those not on strike brought out coffee/tea etc to those who were (not that I can even remember what it was about now).

I find it rather shocking that so many people didn't vote at all - whether it be yes or no, but not to exercise your vote on one of the most important issues before the Union surprises me greatly.

As to what happens now? I don't know, I'm very interested myself. I do not subscribe to the view that the figures be ignored and they just go ahead and strike anyway... what is the point in having a vote in the first place if you're not going to listen to your own members... and I wonder if those not voting have actually stated their own opinions of the Union and it's issue by doing just that? In all my years of being involved in the Union, this action has surprised me the most.

Hints of the Lisbon vote about this TBH. My own view and having listened to union leaders talking nonsense for some considerable time is that they are not a lot different from the government in being completely out of touch. I get the impression that some are acting like petulant children now that the excessive power leveraged through "partnership" has been taken from them.
The "strike" as it stands is against anything they want it to be and will in all likelihood achieve absolutely nothing. It panders to random, unfocussed anger and yet another round of finger pointing. The government won't be listening or watching as they busy themselves avoiding another bout of political suicide.

iseethelight

I'm a member of the CPSU. We had one vote for the 1 day strike now thats being used to enter into this on the 30th. Did I vote on that? I don't believe I did and whats more I and most of my colleagues would vote against another strike yet were not being given the opportunity.
I firmly believe if the CPSU balloted for this action it wouldn't pass because they have shown no direction or even an alternative suggestion.

Godge

Be clear about this. IMPACT members did not vote against a strike.

They voted in favour of a strike by a margin of 65% to 35%. This would be enough to pass any referendum.

However, the union rules require a two-thirds majority which they fell short. By finding a way around the rule, the executive may be accused of sharp practice but some on this thread have suggested they would be going against the majority of the vote. Not true.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but you get groups like Impact saying that they're going to look at their rules to see if they can still go ahead with the strike despite not reaching the quorum necessary in the ballot to do so.

Seriously, this kind of behaviour should be viewed on with contempt. They had a ballot, their members voted No, it doesn't matter how small the margin was, the union officials should abide by their member's wishes.

Insert Lisbon cliche. No, means No.

Anyway, if they can find away around the vote, they should vote again, ala Lisbon2.

Suddenly Lisbon is looking very democratic.

nesf

Godge wrote: »

Be clear about this. IMPACT members did not vote against a strike.

They voted in favour of a strike by a margin of 65% to 35%. This would be enough to pass any referendum.

However, the union rules require a two-thirds majority which they fell short. By finding a way around the rule, the executive may be accused of sharp practice but some on this thread have suggested they would be going against the majority of the vote. Not true.

The quorum was 66%, it was not reached, ergo no one is being at all disingenuous when they say they voted not to strike. It also failed the second requirement which was half of total members voting for strike action which they didn't.

Both requirements for strike action were failed. It's pretty clear cut what the union leaders should do.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Insert Lisbon cliche. No, means No.

Anyway, if they can find away around the vote, they should vote again, ala Lisbon2.

Suddenly Lisbon is looking very democratic.

And if a second day of protest is called they'll be able to ballot them again. There is nothing in that Impact vote that says otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with them balloting them again. The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

And yet they're still meeting today to discuss the result - what is there to discuss? They didn't get what they needed so there should be no strike. If they can change their own rules to suit the executive's needs then I think their own members should be worried about the precedence this would set.

Zzippy

This strike is a joke!
It will achieve nothing, except save the govt a few million in wages.
It will serve to further alienate other people.
It will be portrayed in the foreign media as Irish people striking for more pay - i.e. greedy.
A strike should be a last resort. Work to rule, no overtime, etc, should all be used before strike action.
Union leaders are forcing this through without consideration for their ordinary members on low pay who can't afford to lose a day's pay.

I'm in PS and a member of SIPTU. We didn't even receive a ballot. I'm now told that in spite of this, my union voted for strike action, and I have to strike. I'm expected to picket the office on Monday.
I'm now looking into leaving the union. I was lucky enough the boss let me take a day's leave on Monday. I've no intention of striking when I wasn't even consulted.

*Honey*

nesf wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with them balloting them again. The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

I agree - I'm a member of IMPACT and I would be wholly against the management of the Union going against their own rules. In fact, they haven't. I feel that the apathetic attitude of the members says a lot about the feelings they have of those who manage the Union. Being a Union member for most of my working life, I have to say that I am very disappointed with this results and with the Union themselves - and here I mean the membership, those 24,000 who just didn't get up off their arses to vote one way or another. How can someone not have an opinion with the country the way it is? I don't mind if you vote Yes or No, but Goddamn, have an opinion about your own future!!!!

mad m

Zzippy wrote: »

I was lucky enough the boss let me take a day's leave on Monday.

I find this amazing, I was informed by a memo from head office, that no one can take a days holidays on monday because of the strike .....:rolleyes:

Zulu

I said that the unions striking would lose them any little sympathy they have remaining from the private sector colleagues who have taken massive pay cuts, are losing their jobs, and don't have the security & pensions that the CS & PS have. I stand by that.

If the unions go ahead and strike, after their member didn't vote in favour of it? The private sector will (and rightly so) be disguised by the despicable greed displayed. How could they expect any sympathy?
Ironically, strike action now, could cost the unions any power they have: the private sector and the public at large would be appalled.

nesf

*Honey* wrote: »

I agree - I'm a member of IMPACT and I would be wholly against the management of the Union going against their own rules. In fact, they haven't. I feel that the apathetic attitude of the members says a lot about the feelings they have of those who manage the Union. Being a Union member for most of my working life, I have to say that I am very disappointed with this results and with the Union themselves - and here I mean the membership, those 24,000 who just didn't get up off their arses to vote one way or another. How can someone not have an opinion with the country the way it is? I don't mind if you vote Yes or No, but Goddamn, have an opinion about your own future!!!!

Abstaining could be read as a lack of interest or confidence in the union's activities. I don't know, it would be interesting to a survey looking at people who abstained.

jonsnow

Zzippy wrote: »

This strike is a joke!


I'm in PS and a member of SIPTU. We didn't even receive a ballot. I'm now told that in spite of this, my union voted for strike action, and I have to strike. I'm expected to picket the office on Monday.
I'm now looking into leaving the union. I was lucky enough the boss let me take a day's leave on Monday. I've no intention of striking when I wasn't even consulted.

my mothers a teacher and wanted to vote against strike action.she didnt get her ballot either.how widespread is this!!!(members not even getting their ballots)

Zzippy

jonsnow wrote: »

my mothers a teacher and wanted to vote against strike action.she didnt get her ballot either.how widespread is this!!!(members not even getting their ballots)

Not one person in our office got a ballot, and because we are all different grades we are all represented by different branches of the union. That makes me suspect its pretty widespread, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate. Most of the people I know are not in favour of strike action, aside from the points I listed earlier most people can't afford to lose a day's pay. I suspect the union executive knows this too and didn't want to take the risk of losing the ballot.
I got an email today from my union rep directing me to picket on Monday, she can f*** off.
If I had got a ballot I would have voted no.

Godge

IMPACT decided today that they could not go against their vote - they respected the outcome (unlike the Govt. over Lisbon)

However, the AHCPS voted 60-40 against strike action.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

IMPACT decided today that they could not go against their vote - they respected the outcome (unlike the Govt. over Lisbon)

Well, 65% is quite a majority, plus, "will we strike or not?" is easy to understand.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Well, 65% is quite a majority, plus, "will we strike or not?" is easy to understand.

Eh, 65% voted to strike. If they were publicly musing about striking after 65% voted No they'd be a bit nuts.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Eh, 65% voted to strike. If they were publicly musing about striking after 65% voted No they'd be a bit nuts.

Indeed!

PS. Still while embarassingly climbing down, "will we strike or not?" is an easy question!

No Consolodated treaties there!

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed!

PS. Still while embarassingly climbing down, "will we strike or not?" is an easy question!

No Consolodated treaties there!

It's a very easy question, and quorums requiring more than 50% to pass motions aren't that unusual either. But yes, embarrassing.