marks

When will it end? We've looking like we are in with a chance overtaking Glasgow as the incapacity league table.

I also have a son in 6th year with a heavy year in front of him subject/exam wise so really hope the teachers dont strike anytime soon.

I also really, really hope this doesn't happen. It has been threatened a few times in recent years, but thankfully hasn't come to anything.

I am a member of a union and fully believe in the principle of unions, but I would hate to be put in a position where I had to decide whther or not to strike. I wouldn't want to be seen as a scab, but at the same time I would find it incredibly difficult to live with myself if any of my pupils' exam results suffered as a consequence of my being on strike.

You have a hard decision ahead of you, one which I do not envy. I believe that if strike action is justified then intellegent union members will have weighed up the pros and cons of any action and will make a decision based on sense, I trust teachers to be more sensible and better prepared to make those sort of choices with a cool head. I really don't know the ins and outs of why they are talking about balloting teachers, I assume it's pensions, but I do feel that if your collegues vote to strike and you are against it then you should trust them the most important thing is to make sure that as many people as possible let their feelings be known by voting, it's been touched upon before but lethergy is the reason that would influence a vote in the wrong direction.

If there is a strike then "scabs", I hate that term and all of it's associations, can find themselves in a horrible position and not just during and immediately after action, I can remember being in one job where I was told not to get too close to certain people because they crossed picket lines and this was years after the fact. I also remember working in a fabrication yard where apprentices cars were vandalised due to them going into work, totally out of order especially as apprentices should never be forced to strike they are protected by law and unions should also protect them.

Good post, you have educated me a little on the trust's purpose. I am happy to think that my posts may have loosened your thoughts about the role of unions although I have to disagree with your thoughts that union benefits enjoyed by non members are a side effect of principles rather than a mandate, any union worth it's salt will have a mandate to do what is best for the workforce and to protect them from bearing the brunt of cut backs eg losing out on pension rights.

I will concede that there are differences between the two types of organisation but their principles are the same, to represent a group of people who would otherwise struggle to have their voices heard.

Would it be okay to PM you later with some questions about the trust which I cannot find answers to on the trust's website? It wont be immediately, things to do.I thionk we may have strayed a little too far from the thread's purpose now.

Things will improve when the tax man closes Rangers down. Celtic's standards will drop due to lack of competition (unless they employ a specialist "Europa league backdoor legal team" to ensure progress every year after their success this year.

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

I long ago gave up worrying about the opinions of those who do no more than sit at home and mouth off via a keyboard.

If my willingness to step up to the plate and do more than mouth off sets me apart from those people and brings me in for a bit of criticism...so be it, I would rather be criticised for doing something than criticised for doing nothing at all.

People are entitled to their opinion, but I rest easy knowing that the Supporters Trust are at least trying, instead of expecting everyone else to do the work for them.

I wasn't really criticising - just couldn't resist the comparison in the face of your vitriolic attack on union leaders . I agree with every word of your response, but think that the points you make about union leaders probably apply to leaders of all sorts. It takes a certain type of personality to become a leader, and very often large egos with personal ambition tend to have the drive to take on those roles.

Green dot for managing to say in 4 lines what it took me half a page.

You are correct in that the thread is being dragged off topic but the comparison between STs and Unions is a good one.

Both are bodies elected to represent people in situations where they would not normally have a voice with respect to the organisations which they negotiate with.

Both unions and STs will never have 100% agreement amongst their membership over any issue which they represent.

Both Unions and STs representatives believe that their ideas are the best way forwards for the groups they represent and can become blinkered in those views, losing touch with the real reasons behind their existence.

There are differences though, a Union will hold meetings of all the membership regularly whereas most supporters trusts will only have an AGM open to people outwith the committee. Unions also post minutes of commitee meetings for the membership to have access to, trusts claim to be run for the whole support yet I do not see anywhere posted online or otherwise where I can view the minutes of commitee meetings. I also have an issue with having to have paid subscriptions for supporters trusts, if they are representing the fans then surely all fans should be members by default especially as supporters trusts usually have a very low membership to fan ratio.

I believe STs are a "necessary evil" as someone said about unions, sometimes their views can get in the way of progress but they have a lot to offer in other ways.

What is the procedure for forcing a ballot on ST commitee members? Eg if you were to feel that a commitee member was dragging the trust in the wrong direction, are the membership able to oust someone through democratic means?

IMO STs are more unbalanced than unions due to the fact that they are a minority group with a very very big voice and leverage, unions are more democratic and open with those they represent and ultimately more answerable to their peers.

I'll finish off by repeating, I realise that a lot of people work very hard for the trust but that can be said of unions too. You must get frustrated that some people look at the trust

with a great deal of mistrust and in another comparison with unions I feel the same way about people's mistrust of unions. Fans reap the benefit of the work STs do yet slate them when they disagree with their policies on other issues, especially those fans without membership of the trust. Workers will reap the benefits of a union, take the pay rises which reps have given up their time to negotiate (sometimes over months), enjoy a safer working environment because the union have a trained safety rep in place, take places on the training courses organised and provided for free, there are many many benefits to work unions have done which can be enjoyed by non-members and your membership will buy you even more.

STs are just unions for football fans.

Probably a lot of truth in that, and admittedly my own personal experiences with being left high and dry by a Union does little to endear me to them.

That's a bit like saying "I am not endeared to Indian food because I got the runs from a Tikka Masala once." Unions are only as good as their elected representatives, any member can put their name forward to become a rep and force a ballot if the current rep does not come up to standard. I have seen many excellent reps in my time and many self serving egotists.

As for the supporters' trust thing I know many people who find our trust to be lacking in certain areas, frankly I believe they are doing okay fund raising and getting the community together are particular strengths but incidents like when they pushed the club, through the press, to take action over Brewster I thought was over stepping their remit. I may not agree with everything about them, but as said, they are doing okay.

I think Duff has actually signed for Ayr utd - Bit of a come down for him after we offered him a new contract in the summer.

http://www.ayrunited..._squad_list.asp

He will play in the next round of the league cup though.

I see Sion are still chasing reinstatement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14952753.stm

Please don't mistake my comments as being in any way supportive of Unions.

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members. When you have an personal issue they can't be found anywhere, when they see the opportunity to do some hell-raising then they're all over you like a bad rash and you can't get rid of them.

In my experience the reason that you get those type of people in the positions they are in is because no-one else steps up to the plate to do the work, a little like the situation I have been reading about regarding getting volunteers for odd jobs around the stadium, then those who would like things done differently complain about it when they have representation or (action/inaction) they do not agree with. I do realise that through this website you (CaleyD) are known for your activities within the club, just using this as an example of lethargy close to home which is inherant in society.

Most union ballots are very poorly turned out, the strikes back in June had a 30% turn out for the ballot but had high majority in favour of action, people need to use their votes if they feel strongly about something.

There are some little bits in all the comments that are not true. It is true that anyone can join a union and it is true that, if, I believe, 75% of a workforce become members of a union then the employer must recognise them. However, if you, like me, are a member of a union but not recognised by the company you work for, then if your union calls a strike you cannot follow suit. The employer must first recieve written notice that a ballot will take place. The employer must then recieve written notice that strike action will take place. The employer who doesn't recognise the union is going to be a private sector employer, as all public sectors in this country are union recognised, who;s terms and conditions and pension schemes could be excellent. Should this employer be inconvenienced by industrial action that has no bearing on his business or staff?

The 75% figure is wrong.

Ballot (paragraphs 23-29)

A ballot will take place if a majority of the bargaining unit are not members, or where the CAC orders it. Unless the unions (on their own or with the employer) notify the CAC that they do not want this to proceed.

A scrutineer must be appointed and the ballot completed within 20 working days.

There are legal duties on the employer to co-operate with the ballot, provide lists of names and give the union access to campaign. There is a statutory code of practice which sets out the access requirements in more detail. This is intended to deal with obstruction from employers. The CAC has the power to order the employer to take steps to adhere to the code and, if they refuse to do so, to order that recognition is granted.

The CAC decides whether the ballot should be workplace or postal, or a combination of the two. The cost of the ballot is shared between the union and the employer.

To secure recognition, a union needs a vote in favour from a majority of those voting and 40% of those balloted.

CaleyD I believe that you are correct in your last post, this just goes to show that no matter how much we think we know everyone should consider that a union is a very handy thing when you find yourself in any type of dispute with your employer because they will have legal back-up if needed and if you are in a union they will have teams of legal back-up and advice ready to help you if needed, and not only in the workplace most unions will offer you legal advice and representation for issues outwith work as well. My mistake in my previous posts.

Doofers Dad, I am like you and find my current union to be of the more professional out there but if they do decide to strike then I trust my fellow employees who elected the officials from the shop steward to the leader. Democracy works on many levels and these "little Hitlers" can only take action which has been sanctioned by the workers which they represent by a majority vote. Just to put a point straight, the Nation did not vote for the Government we have today IIRC the smallest party to return MPs in the general election ultimately decided on who would form the Government. The Lib-Dems took over a week to decide where to go and made their decision based on how much power their paltry vote would buy, IMHO this is more a case of "undermining the process of parliamentary democracy" than workers fighting for their conditions.

However you look at it, withdrawing your labour is against your employment contract and therefore grounds for dismissal whether you're in the union or not. It is highly unlikely that an employer would target individual non-union employees in such circumstances although they would be within their rights to do so.

It is not against employment law so long as all the rules regarding industrial action are followed to the letter and therefore not grounds for dismissal, employers are bound by the law also, usually an employer who recognises a union will have been advised by their legal advisors to have proceedures for industrial action written into the terms and conditions of employment. Non-union member employees would IMHO be mad to strike without the backing of union membership and when you consider that you are within your rights to join a union at any time then signing the application form on the picket line when offered by a shop steward would be a wise thing.

Scotty, as the law stands in the UK an employer does have to recognise a union if the majority of employees of the company wish to be represented by a union. You are correct that employees can join a union which the employer does not legally recognise but if it was the case that a union was so weak that they could not force recognition through the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) then I doubt they would be calling for a strike in that workplace and seeing as how calling for members to come out in sympathy with union members of another company was outlawed (by Thatcher IIRC) then it is doubtful that anyone in that position would find themselves called to strike in the first place.

Yourpoint about people coming out in sympathy being on the wrong side of the law is also kind of moot as in that situation the union shop stewards would make sure that any employees striking who were not members are signed up ASAP, or at least given the oportunity, in order to protect those supporting them. I am also not sure that you are correct on the legal aspect of going on strike whilst not in a union but would have to look up more information on that point.

People can strike if they wish, but it will achieve absolutely nothing positive.

Not because their actions won't be listened to or gain any attention, but because there's little (if anything) that can be done to improve the situation in the current economic climate...certainly not without making cuts elsewhere.

It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean people are not justified in being angry and upset, but you can hold a gun to someone's head and demand all you want, if they don't have it, they can't give it to you.

This is correct and this is what the union leadership need to understand, this is what employers need to convince unions, who are looking at strike action, is the case and broker deals to achieve a solution which suits all. Reinstatement of conditions when things improve should be a carrot offered to the unions because, if not, the employers will not be too quick to reinstate any rights which have been lost by the workforce. The global economy is up sh*t street at the moment but the workforce should not be subjected to permanent downgrading.

The Georgia game was another major embarrassment for us. Major handling errors throughout the match. We couldn't score a try. We have scraped through with two victories against very poor opposition. Not a lot to be proud of there. I stand by my original assertion that this team is a bunch of bozzos. Send therm home!

That is not how the commentators saw it, it was seen as a hard won victory against a very powerful pack. The conditions were not good for free flowing, passing rugby and at the end of the day the result was in our favour. I bet you are the type of person who goes on holiday to complain about the accomodation whilst missing out on the wonderful sights and experiences a foreign country has to offer.

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

Then resign from your union, why should you pick and chose benifits from the union but decide to scab any industrial action, which you are correct is a last resort, aimed at protecting the rights of you and your fellow workers?

If you are so anti-strike then get on your soapbox and make your point, perhaps you can dissaude the membership from taking action, if not either resign your membership or support your union in the same way they would support you.

A members ballot is just that, a ballot, a method of deciding on action taken by the union by asking it's membership what action they would like to take. You have the right to vote no to any action, just as the Union leadership who were elected by yourself and the rest of your collegues have the right to ask for the opinion of their membership. It's called democracy, it's the greatest thing to happen to the civilised world.

I'd say that the Kiwis are going to get their bonus point today.

And there it is, try number four, bonus point in the league. Could FIFA not adopt a similar system? Score four goals = bonus point in league, lose by one = bonus point (the Rugby Union WC if you score four tries you get a bonus point and lose by less than 7 points is a bonus point)

Those Kiwi's are a joy to watch, their second try was as the commentator described "utter class"

True Zoid, I think we need a win against Argentina and we cannot let our guards down versus Georgia and Romania (this is where we will fail if we do fail) the England match is just one of those matches. It's the derby of all derbies and England are known for under respecting teams when it really matters, whereas Scotland win matches they should have no chance in but throw away matches against "lesser opposition".

Rugby Football World Cup begins today, do any of you have an interest? Who do you think will win it? Can Scotland better their best ever 4th place?

I am assuming that this post is in the correct section as this is "other football", think how many of you moan when the Americans call "Grid Iron" football, when really all the disciplines are just evolutions of the same game.

The Kiwis and Tongans squaring off in the Haka and Kailao, now there is a pre match psyche up that makes Celtic's huddle look like a male love in.

Further on it says ....

"Tynecastle security manager Peter Croy told the jury he heard Wilson call Lennon a "fenian b******". Wilson denied it, insisting he called the Ulsterman a "f****** w****r"."

Perhaps the jury decided to disregard this man's evidence on the fact that he claimed to be a lot closer to the incident than he actually was, if he is mistaken about something as crucial as this then his whole testimony could be erroneous.

The way I see it Scotty is that people up and down the country are admitting to things they have not done in pleading diets for their cases to be disposed of sooner, usually with the feeling that sentencing will be lighter. The jury had reasons to find that the prosecution did not prove their case either with regard to the religious aggrevation and the assault.

I don't see how you believe we are both right, the cops had nothing to do with pressing for religious aggrivation to be pursued . If anything the PFs office, possibly under pressure of the Scottish Parliament, are to blame for failing to secure a guilty plea on the assault charge and failed to prove their case at trial.

Even if they chose not to believe that and throw out the sectarian aspect, not an assault...? Really?

As mentioned in my previous post, I have read reports that the guy was prepared to plead to the breach charge, and also to the assault charge if the cops would drop the religious tag on them ... they would not, so he pled not guilty.

The more I read, the more it sounds like the cops over-reached on the charges and just could not prove them. they werent prepared to let go of the religious tag in the charge so the case was not proven. In my eyes, it was definitely an assault, and I think most would agree .... but there is no way any of us can say for sure it was religiously motivated. It might have been, it might not have been so perhaps, not-proven is actually the correct verdict !

I am not sure about where you live but in Scotland it is the procurator fiscal who decides whether or not any parts of the charge can be dropped in return for a guilty plea, not the "cops".

I believe, from reports about the case, the jury in this case were given the option of removing the "religiously aggravated" parts of the charge to allow a guilty verdict on assault.

Fair play, didnt hear he still got the clink on the radio, probably because they concentrated on the not proven guilty part. That said, it was clear what his intention was, and who his target was. It could be argued if it was sectarian, why didnt he attack the first Celtic person on the bench

He spent over 100 days on remand, he was not jailed yesterday. The sectarian element was argued and was not proven to have existed, the jury also had the option of removing the sectarian part of the charges to secure an assault conviction. I find it hard to believe that someone who admits having not listened to a 3 minute radio report properly can come out and say they still hope there is scope for someone to be jailed even after a jury, a Sheriff and two legal teams have considered all the facts over a period of four days. No wonder there are so many ill informed opinions on Scottish football web forums.

Hope they can still jail the idiot,

He was jailed, for 110 days, I know many people with a string of assault charges on their records who have not done a day jail time, John Wilson was not convicted of assault. This case has been blown out of proportion due to the media coverage of it.