[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

So who calls a strike ballot? Who gives the members the information on which they will decide how to vote? Who goes so far as to recommend members to vote 'yes' in a strike ballot?

Portraying the Trades Union bosses as impotent and entirely at the command of their members is as nuts as suggesting the members are all brainless.

Like any ballot, it is up to those who vote to decide to go on strike, I always thought that was the point of a ballot. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

But non-striking workers don't ask the strikers to make sacrifices on their behalf. If someone wants to go on strike then fine, so long as they do it within the law. But they shouldn't think they automatically deserve support, gratitude or obligation from people who exercise their legal, democratic right not to go on strike.

No they don't, but they are happy to accept the benefits for the sacrifices the strikers make on their behalf. I have seen non-strikers walk past picket lines waving payslips at the striking workers and mocking them, is that acceptable as well.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

....and the press will portray the strikers as being heartless and uncaring when it is in fact those same people who continually go above and beyond the call of duty to care and tend for the poor, the vulnerable and those in greatest need.

Modern day strikes aren't caused solely by trade unionists for political ends. The vast majority of strikes are as a result of a breakdown in negotiations. The people who don't work at the front line are every bit of culpable for allowing strikes to happen than those who have to make the sacrifice of withdrawing their labour.... but that doesn't make as good reading in the right wing press.

And very often those breakdowns are specifically engineered by management to goad the unions into further action. A case in point in Walsh's announcement to withdaw benefits of strikers at British Airways. This move is a deliberate attempt to provoke the striking workforce to dig in even deeper.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

What an absurd demand. Here's a few off the top of my head - there are plenty of others, as you well know, but I have better things to do than spend all afternoon trawling the web for links.

1980 Steel Stike - 13 weeks of 'often violent scuffles' (see para. 6).

1984 Maltby picket line violence

1986 Battle of Wapping

And don't think you can neutralise the significance of the murder of David Wilkie by mentioning it first - it is an absolutely classic example of what can happen when you demand that everyone else should be on strike just because that's what you want to do. Here's a link for that tragedy, seeing as we're talking about it:

1985 Miners jailed for pit strike murder



Lots, I expect. That still doesn't grant unions the absolute right to do whatever they want, run closed shops and insist on 100% support for any industrial action they may choose to call, which seems to be what you're advocating.

I know I'm being pedantic, but he did ask:

Originally Posted by ashgray
Please enlighten me how many people died or were injured during the strikes of the seventies with proof please.
oh yes and i do know of the taxi driver that died during the miners strike and i don't condone it one bit.

I believe those occurred in the eighties