Why Strike Ballots are Undemocratic
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10361675 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ben Saunder (0000-0002-5147-6397, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 620-627 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Political Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0032-3179 • E-ISSN: 1467-923X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-923x.13211 |
| OpenAlex | W4311030043 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
Since 2016, new legislation governing strike ballots has made it more difficult for trade unions to achieve a mandate for industrial action. Such a mandate now requires that a majority of members vote in the ballot. This article argues that these balloting processes are undemocratic. The turnout requirement means that a mandate for industrial action does not simply depend on its level of popular support amongst union members. This has surprising consequences. Sometimes opponents of action would be better advised to abstain, rather than to vote against it. Thus, it is not always clear how they should vote. Whatever they do, their actions may be counterproductive. Further, even when they do know how best to promote their desired outcome, there may be a conflict between voting strategically and clearly expressing their true preferences. Consequently, there is no guarantee that the outcome of the ballot accurately reflects what people really want
Action (physics · Ballot · Business · Economics · Industrial action · Law and economics · Legislation · Mandate · Outcome (game theory · Political science · Politics · Turnout · Voting · Digital Economy and Work Transformation · Labor Movements and Unions · Law
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |