Sadly, at least in areas I have seen for myself, it has been the Government seeking to engage, and the unions, generally, refusing. At first, though without the Opposition admitting it, there was good and fruitful engagement over the Health act - the process of refining it was used well on all sides. There was even co-operation in the early stages of the work on junior doctors. Then, almost overnight, co-operation was withdrawn, and proposals that had been drawn up together were branded as "unacceptable". Since then it has generally only been the Government that has made concessions. That is not union engagement. I see much the same trajectory among the Teachers. I do not know why - in those areas this government has actually been one of the least intransigent in recent history.
Sadly, the governments idea of engagement seems different to that of normal people. They want bodies simply to rubber stamp their proposals.
That, at least, is the view from my side having seen and been involved with my unions attempts to "engage" with the government on various matters. They simply didn't want to know unless it is to agree with them.
There are two main issues for both sides:
1) Trust - No one trusts a Tory and the Tories don't trust the unions to be anything other than militant ( 1970/80's views)
2) Pantomime - both sides have to be seen to act out the parts their members expect and people NOT aware that is what is going on.
I have always found an open, honest (if difficult) dialogue to be better at sorting out issues. That is my approach to the negotiations I undertake as part of my (volunteer) union role. Areas of difference can then be worked on directly.
However, both sides have to be prepared to do that and if they are solutions can usually be found that can keep each party happy. That doesn't mean everything ends perfectly but all sides get a result they can sell to their members.
On education I feel the forced acadamisation proposals will not go down well. They are seen as pandering to Tory donors, forcing change for the sake of change, of not being supported by detailed evidence of the promised substantial performance improvement and seeking to remove national collective pay bargaining as academy teachers are outside the currently agreed negotiation structure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If a strike is called in protest against Government policies, i.e. austerity measures as opposed to a workplace strike, wouldn't it be a political strike which I didn't think were legal.
whilst all theoretical no one is going to ask for a vote on such a strike. It might get tacked on the end of a current industrial dispute mind
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
All I did was to make a solitary statement that I had a feeling that this current Government would take no notice of a 24 hour co-ordinated union action.
From what you say, I must take it that what I did without fully entering into the debate goes against the protocol of this website, so to put matters right, I will now strike-through all the postings that I have made upon this thread prior to this one and offer my most sincere apologies to all contributors to this thread.
that is just the on line version of having a strop and taking your ball home! It is fine if you dint want to debate but you cant expect people with a different view not to challenge your perception of an issue.
Without that how do we know who is right? How do we test our own position? In the absence of a debate we must both assume we are right.