* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
19-06-19, 06:07AM

Login with username, password and session length


  • Total Members: 7876
  • Latest: Xeontom
  • Total Posts: 58412
  • Total Topics: 1025
  • Online Today: 132
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 95
Total: 98

Author Topic: Is a 5% turnout a morally legitimate figure by which to decide elections  (Read 2430 times)


  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2495
The following is from the;

Usdaw- President and Executive Council Elections 2018

Amy Murphy (turnout 4.9%)

Executive Council;

South Wales and Western Division
Debbie Wilson
Elliot Osborne
(turnout 5.5%)

Eastern Division
Simon Vincent
Jacqui Thurgood
(turnout 4.6%)

Midlands Division
Andrea Watts
Kate MacLeod
(turnout 5.4%)

North Eastern Division
Mike Dixon
Brian Loughhead
(Turnout 5.0%)

Scottish Division
Jean Hession
Richie Venton
(turnout 5.2%)

Southern Division
John Barstow
Debbie Randall
(turnout 5.4%)

North West Division
Brenda Shaw
Jane Jones
Christopher Winwood
(turnout 3.9%)




  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2063
I think it's more a picture of 'faith in the union ' or lack of it.  Members feel that no matter who you vote for, you get the same, just as in Parliamentary Politics.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"


  • VLH Supporter
  • Newbie
  • ******
  • Posts: 48
What union agrees with the employer to  cut staffs wages disgrace


  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
It is a shame there is such a low turn out, but as much as I am unhappy about it I can't think of a better way of doing things.
To be honest it is not just the low turn out that is the problem. There is an old boys, or more like an old girls network of people who know each other from academy and stand down etc that work together to keep things like EC and DC to themselves. Most of these people spend anything from little to no time at their own jobs, and for this reason they only seem interested in keeping in good favour with the General Secretary. Because these people are on stand down they are able to get from store to store handing out their fliers and canvassing for votes, people tend to vote for those they have met or heard of. You may have noticed the same old faces popping up in every issue of Network and Arena, they will also be the ones who are chosen to speak at ADM and the ones who attend all the Divisional conferences and other functions. If you know how to do it and are prepared to put the effort in the union can be an excellent way of getting time off work.
Whoever lays their hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, i declare them my enemy.


  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
at the end of the day - all staff have the chance to be in the union and the chance to vote. To complain about the turnout and the resulting legitimacy of the union now is futile. If people cant be bothered to vote then they have to shut up and put up. I inculde myself in this I never vote so from this point feel I cant criticse the union


  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2495

If this were a political party election do you think that the press would be in uproar?
Do you think that the leaders of the Parties would be responding to the 'mass apathy'  as an issue and at-least 'promising' to do something about it?

I wonder (as I truly don't know) whether this 'mass apathy' has ever been flagged officially as an issue within the union hierarchy? And if it has been raised there must surely be records of such 'flagging' and at-least an action-plan put in place by leadership to find a solution to the very obvious problem?

The union seem to be all engrossed in increasing the union membership as if the more members they have the more power that they have. However 5% turnout of a million members is just as bad (in a non-numerical sense) as 5% turnout of 500 thousand members.

Surely any increase in the unions potency would be more easily addressed by making the members that they do have feel some sense of empowerment by a more accountable leadership.

In short;

Would it be easier to gain another 500,000 members, or would it be easier to enfranchise a further 5% of the members that they already have (both in my view lead to the same increase in 'active' participation in union matters)? Am I so wrong in my thinking?


  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 885
Surely the union leaders must see that 95% of members wanted none of the above. There is something wrong with the election process if only 1/20 vote


  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2495
and something even more wrong (in my view) with a leadership that seems unconcerned by the apparent non-problem.


  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1602
What union agrees with the employer to  cut staffs wages disgrace

 :thumbup: useless seven days a week