The union definition of a majority

In yesterday’s blog post, I looked at the decision by the Public and Commercial Services Union to go on strike. I also noted the support of other trade unions. However, I pointed out the fact that whilst these unions claim there was a ‘clear majority’ of the members who support the action, these so-called majorities were actually just percentages of very low turnouts. They cannot possibly reflect the overall feeling of all members.

Today’s blog post provides you with more information about the votes, as well as some details about the current situation.

Found on Google Image Search (Actual source - Vimeo)

More from the PCS

Another article on the PCS website allows you to see the accurate results of the vote. Yesterday’s figures were based on the rough membership total mentioned on the PCS website. Here are the actual results:

1. Question – Are you prepared to take part in strike action?

• Number voting YES – 48,573 (61.08% of valid vote)
• Number voting NO – 30,948 (38.92% of valid vote)

That means that only 31.66% of the members returned valid votes and 19.34% voted ‘Yes’.

It seems that my calculations yesterday were more-or-less accurate, but the spoiled papers means that the number of accepted votes was even lower/worse.

Despite the poor numbers, the PCS still said this in one of their ‘Comment’ articles:

“PCS members have voted by a clear majority in favour of strike action and action short of strike, in the dispute over pensions, pay and job cuts.”

That’s clearly wrong and it’s misleading the public.

Mark Serwotka

Mr Serwotka is the General Secretary of the PCS and has (naturally) been very vocal throughout this period. The following is just some of what he had to say in this Guardian article:

“The clear majority in favour of a strike shows that public servants – who provide vital services across the country – are not prepared to stand back while everything they have ever worked for is taken from them,” he said.

The government claims this is about rebalancing pensions, but it has already admitted that the money it saves will go straight to the Treasury to help pay off the deficit in what amounts to nothing more than a tax on working in the public sector.

I have been at every one of the negotiating meetings with the government, and what we’ve been told is that they won’t budge on increasing the pension age, they won’t budge on their plans to double or triple contributions, and they won’t budge on the value of our members’ pensions being slashed.”

Serwotka seems to think that he is speaking for all affected people, when he clearly isn’t and he perpetuates thislie about a majority.

The second part of the above quote is where he actually becomes more agreeable. It’s obvious that some people are going to feel unhappy, because more is going to be taken out of their salary each much and that means they are less able to cover day-to-day costs. They may not see the money for a number of years either. However, those two actions he mentions in the second paragraph can easily co-exist.

Strikes should always be considered a last resorted after all other methods of negotiation have been exhausted. At that point, the majority (and I mean an ACTUAL majority) of affected people have to want it. In the third paragraph, he mentions that he has been to a number of negotiation meetings and that is admirable. However, I think that more could have been done. It seems that Serwotka was too quick to propose strike action at a time when there is no guarantee that it will work.

More support from other unions

In my previous post, I noted that the ATL and NUT have also voted for strikes (both also had questionable majorities). The Association of School and College Leaders also seem to be lenging their support. They only have 15,000 members, but it’s another name on the list. They sent the following letter to David Cameron recently:

This article tells us that UNISON have balloted 30,000 of it’s members about the issue too. Their General Secretary – Dave Prentis – went as far as calling the Government’s actions a ‘threat’:

“The threat is clear,” said Mr Prentis: “A 50% increase in contributions for a 50% cut in benefits, where everyone will lose out.”

Finally…

I have never denied that this will affect the take-home income of many people. It’s also worth noting the list of trade unions that support the action is continuing to get longer. However, the majority of people who supply these unions with membership fees are either apathetic about the changes to pensions or don’t think strikes are the best course of action.

The union leaders have been too reactionary and the lack of a decent quoracy figure for these votes definitely doesn’t help them either.

So, what do you think?