Strike ballots under the 2016 Trade Union Act: Unions mobilise to counter the latest legal onslaught

IF 1.6 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOURNAL Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI:10.1111/irj.12349
Dave Lyddon
{"title":"Strike ballots under the 2016 Trade Union Act: Unions mobilise to counter the latest legal onslaught","authors":"Dave Lyddon","doi":"10.1111/irj.12349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 2016 Trade Union Act (TUA) added ‘draconian’ restrictions to the already tortuous postal balloting regime for holding lawful strikes. The government predicted that 29–35% of ballots would lose. Using data from trade union returns to the Certification Officer, the first detailed account of ballots under the TUA shows that unions have, generally, mobilised successfully to ‘get the vote out’. Far fewer ballots now fail to win a simple majority; the 50% turnout barrier has led to only half the predicted losses; the 40% yes-vote rule in ‘important public services’ has limited independent effect. To avoid reballoting under the 6-month ballot mandate, unions often launch into longer (mainly discontinuous) strikes. Judged on these criteria, the TUA has failed, which suggests further legislation will follow. Some national ballots have been lost, but the tactic of disaggregated ballots has seen unions strike (associated) employers where threshold turnout has been achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":46619,"journal":{"name":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOURNAL","volume":"52 6","pages":"479-501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/irj.12349","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irj.12349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2016 Trade Union Act (TUA) added ‘draconian’ restrictions to the already tortuous postal balloting regime for holding lawful strikes. The government predicted that 29–35% of ballots would lose. Using data from trade union returns to the Certification Officer, the first detailed account of ballots under the TUA shows that unions have, generally, mobilised successfully to ‘get the vote out’. Far fewer ballots now fail to win a simple majority; the 50% turnout barrier has led to only half the predicted losses; the 40% yes-vote rule in ‘important public services’ has limited independent effect. To avoid reballoting under the 6-month ballot mandate, unions often launch into longer (mainly discontinuous) strikes. Judged on these criteria, the TUA has failed, which suggests further legislation will follow. Some national ballots have been lost, but the tactic of disaggregated ballots has seen unions strike (associated) employers where threshold turnout has been achieved.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据2016年《工会法》进行罢工投票:工会动员起来应对最新的法律冲击
2016年的《工会法》(TUA)对已经曲折的邮寄投票制度增加了“严厉”的限制,以举行合法罢工。政府预测29% - 35%的选票将会失败。根据工会向认证官员提供的数据,TUA下的第一个详细选票记录显示,工会通常成功地动员起来“把选票拉出来”。现在很少有选票不能赢得简单多数;50%的投票率障碍只导致了预期损失的一半;在“重要公共服务”中,40%赞成票的规定具有有限的独立效力。为了避免在6个月的投票期限内重新投票,工会经常发起更长时间的(主要是不连续的)罢工。根据这些标准来判断,TUA是失败的,这意味着进一步的立法将紧随其后。一些国家的选票已经丢失,但分散投票的策略已经看到工会罢工(相关的)雇主,投票率达到了门槛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOURNAL
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOURNAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Trade-union engendered employee trust in senior management: A case study of digitalisation Introducing sectoral bargaining in the United Kingdom: Why it makes sense and how it might be done Creating a local managerial regime in global context: The case of the Bangladesh ready-made garment sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1