Jump to content

The SPFL vote vote


Who done it?  

496 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Coventry Saint said:

*Googles 'French for Zombies'*

The literal translation is badger (and I could be wrong with the gender, I always am with French), but it's got a more pejorative meaning "with the kids on the street" (or les enfants dans la rue, as it were)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Green Day said:

Amiens relegated with 10 games left and 4 points adrift. The French league have given them a gallic shrug and told them to f**k off.

Also, apparently Marseille (2nd spot) havent been making c***s of themselves calling for enquiries and legal challenges....................

 

 

Marseille. Great bunch of guys.

PEDs >>>EBTs

⚪🔵⚪

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ric said:

 

 

Ok, I'll answer both your points in one if you don't mind. This is how I see it, someone like craigkille who clearly has a better understanding than I do on this sort of thing may correct me later.

The SPFL governs the league. Teams need to be members to play in the league. SPFL is also conducting the vote. A vote whose outcome directly affects the teams. For the SPFL then to influence any club via lobbying (and that it is the key term in this) seems like a huge conflict of interest. Should they be allowed to advise? Sure. Should they be allowed to say "we'd like the vote to pass/fail"? Again, yes. Lobbying however is a different thing. In a political sense it's often seen as a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".

Whether the SPFL have bullied clubs? Who knows, probably not but have they used their weight as the governing body to influence? Probably. The issue is, even if it's above board (and I am making no claim either way) the use of the term lobbying opens it up to accusations and we all know that Rangers will take any bait possible to have a go.

As for the analogy of a union, it's simply not the same. The union may run a vote, they may influence or even lobby its members, but unions represent employees and no person is required to be part of a union to be an employee. FWIW I think unions do a good job, this is no dig at them.

 

 

The union executive governs the union, The members who vote are members of the union The executive makes a recommendation and campaigns for its proposal Except in the case of national elections the union conducts the vote on all resolutions A vote which directly affects all members.  As a full time officer for a large union I know that this is how this works 

Exactly the same as "The SPFL governs the league. Teams need to be members to play in the league. SPFL is also conducting the vote. A vote whose outcome directly affects the teams."

I don't consider canvassing for your view to be bullying  I actually think its the responsibility of a leadership to openly work to get what they think is in the best interest of their members  supported. It's not as if those who oppose the proposal are sitting quietly on the sidelines!

The Tories, bosses and anti-union types have tried to ban union executives campaigning for their view on the premise that this is bullying but strangely only by the union side! Usually as a  sideshow attempt to demonise unions as somehow undemocratic in order to weaken the workers bargaining power by distancing them from their union

Likewise as has been said already I bet the opponents of the SPFL proposal were phoning round too as is their right if they think that's the right outcome. But of course only one side is accused of bullying!!

Glad to hear your positive view about union and not I'm genuinely trying to prolong this debate so I'll leave it there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

The union executive governs the union, The members who vote are members of the union The executive makes a recommendation and campaigns for its proposal Except in the case of national elections the union conducts the vote on all resolutions A vote which directly affects all members.  As a full time officer for a large union I know that this is how this works.

Right, but to be an employee you don't need to be a member of a union. That's the subtle difference here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Danny said:

The union executive governs the union, The members who vote are members of the union The executive makes a recommendation and campaigns for its proposal Except in the case of national elections the union conducts the vote on all resolutions A vote which directly affects all members.  As a full time officer for a large union I know that this is how this works 

Exactly the same as "The SPFL governs the league. Teams need to be members to play in the league. SPFL is also conducting the vote. A vote whose outcome directly affects the teams."

I don't consider canvassing for your view to be bullying  I actually think its the responsibility of a leadership to openly work to get what they think is in the best interest of their members  supported. It's not as if those who oppose the proposal are sitting quietly on the sidelines!

The Tories, bosses and anti-union types have tried to ban union executives campaigning for their view on the premise that this is bullying but strangely only by the union side! Usually as a  sideshow attempt to demonise unions as somehow undemocratic in order to weaken the workers bargaining power by distancing them from their union

Likewise as has been said already I bet the opponents of the SPFL proposal were phoning round too as is their right if they think that's the right outcome. But of course only one side is accused of bullying!!

Glad to hear your positive view about union and not I'm genuinely trying to prolong this debate so I'll leave it there

Scottish fitba fans sure are defensive of the spfl these days. There's phoning around and there's phoning around, as far as I know, no one has accused the opponents of bullying behaviour. 

Telling cash strapped clubs that were struggling badly that they could only get their cash if voted in the leagues favour could be seen as coercion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Danny said:

The union executive governs the union, The members who vote are members of the union The executive makes a recommendation and campaigns for its proposal Except in the case of national elections the union conducts the vote on all resolutions A vote which directly affects all members.  As a full time officer for a large union I know that this is how this works 

Exactly the same as "The SPFL governs the league. Teams need to be members to play in the league. SPFL is also conducting the vote. A vote whose outcome directly affects the teams."

I don't consider canvassing for your view to be bullying  I actually think its the responsibility of a leadership to openly work to get what they think is in the best interest of their members  supported. It's not as if those who oppose the proposal are sitting quietly on the sidelines!

The Tories, bosses and anti-union types have tried to ban union executives campaigning for their view on the premise that this is bullying but strangely only by the union side! Usually as a  sideshow attempt to demonise unions as somehow undemocratic in order to weaken the workers bargaining power by distancing them from their union

Likewise as has been said already I bet the opponents of the SPFL proposal were phoning round too as is their right if they think that's the right outcome. But of course only one side is accused of bullying!!

Glad to hear your positive view about union and not I'm genuinely trying to prolong this debate so I'll leave it there

Would a union actively campaign to reach a decision that seriously harms some of their members?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pansjambo said:

Would a union actively campaign to reach a decision that seriously harms some of their members?

Yes, if the net benefit justifies it.  The needs of the many... 

I've seen it happen in union salary negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pansjambo said:

Would a union actively campaign to reach a decision that seriously harms some of their members?

I'll also second @The DA here, as the c**t McCluskey is a die hard Brexiteer yet the majority of the union members are against it. He still used the Unite block vote to handcuff Labour. Who themselves were being led by a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ric said:

I'll also second @The DA here, as the c**t McCluskey is a die hard Brexiteer yet the majority of the union members are against it. He still used the Unite block vote to handcuff Labour. Who themselves were being led by a liar.

I cant disagree with that right enough... however I dont think thats what DA means

Edited by pansjambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The DA said:

Yes, if the net benefit justifies it.  The needs of the many... 

I've seen it happen in union salary negotiations.

What if the union leaders were telling their members that they could only get X wage rise if they accept Y redundancies - but that wasn't entirely true. And into the bargain their was some dispute about the conduct of the count. Is that okay, brother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pansjambo said:

I cant disagree with that right enough... however I dont think thats what DA means

I'd read "yes" but not the rest of it. I'm an idiot. That is all .. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a union actively campaign to reach a decision that seriously harms some of their members?
Yes, absolutely! During workload downturns it wasn't uncommon for shop stewards to ask me to make some of their members redundant so the remaining guys could get their 'two nights and a Sunday' back.[emoji849]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

What if the union leaders were telling their members that they could only get X wage rise if they accept Y redundancies - but that wasn't entirely true. And into the bargain their was some dispute about the conduct of the count. Is that okay, brother?

"What if"

"Some Dispute"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...