We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Trade Union Ballot Regulation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Konservative Partiet
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 3490
Description[?]:
| We propose this change to ensure that Unions are acting for the good of all it's members and not just those who actively vote. This will also encourage members to vote if they are passionate about an issue, giving the Unions a stronger mandate to take action. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
Current: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
Proposed: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:28:59, May 24, 2013 CET | From | De venstregrønne | To | Debating the Trade Union Ballot Regulation |
| Message | This in effect means that everyone who abstains from voting or simply forgets to do so is counted as a no vote, making it near impossible for a trade union to get the required votes to protect their members interests. Such a rule is blatantly unfair and undemocratic and would never be applied in a national election. I note that at the last Stortinget election turnout was only 57% and there is no reason to believe it would be higher than that in a trade union ballot. Does LKP want it to be the case that a massive majority of voting members can be in favour of a strike yet have their wishes completely denied simply because a significant number of union members forgot to return their ballots in time? If this law passes I fear there will be a large rise in illegal strikes and that is surely not good for our economy. Cecilie Eriksen, Minister of Internal Affairs |
| Date | 19:48:55, May 24, 2013 CET | From | Liberal Konservative Partiet | To | Debating the Trade Union Ballot Regulation |
| Message | On the flip side, the union could organise a vote, and only publicise it to members who they know would back it. Thus forcing a strike on all members when not all are in favour. I strongly believe that if a member supports a motion, they will vote for it. Can the Minister explain her statement regarding a rise in illegal strikes as a result of this? From where I am standing the current state of affairs is open to abuse, but strikes are not illegal, nor would we propose that they are. Where does the illegality come from? In my view, if members are not making the effort to vote when one is called, they shouldn't be members at all. Perhaps if people are not bothered by having a strike, there shouldn't be one? Jørgen Devold, Leader of the LKP. |
| Date | 00:28:45, May 25, 2013 CET | From | Indigoblå Liga | To | Debating the Trade Union Ballot Regulation |
| Message | I must agree with Ms. Eriksen this time, this bill would make strikes near impossible. She makes a good point when referring to our policy for national elections. The option to abstain is different from a no vote and signals that the voter neither strongly opposes nor supports the measure and wants to leave the decision up to others. Furthermore, I am sure an existing regulation requires trade unions to publicize upcoming votes to all members and if not we would surely support one. The League will vote to uphold the current laws. Lukas Magnussen (IL) Industry Spokesperson |
| Date | 12:53:26, May 25, 2013 CET | From | Liberal Konservative Partiet | To | Debating the Trade Union Ballot Regulation |
| Message | I am surprised and dissapointed that our friends in the Indigoblå Liga have opted to side with the Government on this. I strongly believe that Union apathy is no reason to hold a strike. If a member does not take a yes or no vote, it should be considered as a lack of support for the strike action. The law does not dictate how Unions publicise a vote, therefore the current system is open to abuse by Unions. Regarding the point related to the similarities between this matter and the national elections; there is a massive difference here. The nation requires an election to provide a government, the nation requires a government to operate normally. A union should hold an election to decide on whether to strike or not, however, whatever the outcome of the vote, the union and the nation will continue to operate. If we take this example: a union holds an election, 50% of it's members vote in the election. 27% vote for industrial action with 23% voting against. 27% of members have dictated to the remaining 73% that they must stop work and strike. Now that does not make sense to me. Clearly if apathy for a strike is high, it really shouldn't go ahead. Jørgen Devold Leader of the LKP. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 63 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 212 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." - Don Reagan |