If possible, would you as a soldier vote on strike action?

If the Army came to a similar situation as the Police, would you vote on strike action?

  • Yes - everyone has to modernise, including the Forces

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe - need to weigh up career fallout from potential refusal to soldier.....

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Never - long live the Queen and death to the traitorous scum!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#2
I voted 'No', but let me qualify that.

I would actually VOTE, as the question is posed, but would vote against taking strike action. What would striking achieve for the Armed Forces, apart from ostracising us from a public, who at present at least, think we are a bunch of good eggs. It would make us no better that the scumbag teachers and firemen for a start, and I couldn't be doing with that tag!

edited to add: I'm still up for the ARRSE coup however, just not standing around a makeshift fire drinking crap coffee and mumbling about how things are so unfair. Direct action would be far better!
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
No, no, no absolutely no.

The UK must trust us to do our job, with stout hearts, despite the meddling of ANY government. To even consider such an idea would be a complete betrayal of our nation.

Remember - we are here for the Monarch (whoever she or he is at any time), and for the people. We are charged with defending them. Nothing that I can realistically invisage would encourage me to mutiny in such a way.
 
#4
Not a chance. Its all very good us back in Blighty going on strike but the only people that would suffer would be our oppo's out on tour or elsewere around the world. It's just not how the army runs.

However I feel we should have better representation for all ranks at higher levels, ie MOD and HMG.
 
#6
There has to be a body of men who will bear any hardship, endure any deprivation, and put their duty and obligations before any self interest. This body represent what this country once was, and act in the memory of their millions of comrades who lived and died by that same maxim. These people are all that remain of value in this country, and they alone realise it.
 
#7
Legs said:
No, no, no absolutely no.

The UK must trust us to do our job, with stout hearts, despite the meddling of ANY government. To even consider such an idea would be a complete betrayal of our nation.

Remember - we are here for the Monarch (whoever she or he is at any time), and for the people. We are charged with defending them. Nothing that I can realistically invisage would encourage me to mutiny in such a way.
I can think of one thing at least that would encourage me to mutiny, your avatar for a start! :p
 
#8
definitely no, but a bit of work-to-rule might cause the politicians a problem.
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
deSTABlised said:
definitely no, but a bit of work-to-rule might cause the politicians a problem.
Work to rule? How's that then? Your contract basically says you'll do what you're told, when you're told, how you're told.

Seems to me that we already work to rule.
 
#10
I'm a civvy so haven't voted. If I was services I'd vote yes. You can't have a relationship of mutual respect between employer and employee unless both sides are collectively organised. The management side always organises collectively and what's good enough for them is good enough for employees. So there should be a UK services union in which people combine together to look after each other's interests and reach sensible agreements with the employer. For a union to function effectively it must have the legal right to strike. It's not rocket science and, frankly, it's amazing such basic stuff wasn't conceded in Britain years ago. It’s a hang-over from when the British state was terrified of revolutionary activity within civilian trade unions and saw the army as the last line of defense. All that’s gone now, unless you consider Bob Crow a dangerous revolutionary keen to nationalise the NAAFI. LOL

<cue frothing from anti-union Neanderthals keen to continue getting shafted by the employer>
 
#11
I have voted a very definite NO. :D

I mean why strike when we could take a leaf out of Cromwells book and purge the House of Commons! :wink:

I mean he got a statue for doing that and everything! Outside of Parliment too (assuming my memory hasn't totally gone forever). :twisted:
 
#12
Lesleycape said:
I have voted a very definite NO. :D

I mean why strike when we could take a leaf out of Cromwells book and purge the House of Commons! :wink:

I mean he got a statue for doing that and everything! Outside of Parliment too (assuming my memory hasn't totally gone forever). :twisted:
Didn't impress everybody though, they exhumed him 3 months after his death to hang, draw and quarter him. Bet that taught him a lesson!
 
#13
annakey said:
You can't have a relationship of mutual respect between employer and employee unless both sides are collectively organised...

...<cue frothing from anti-union Neanderthals keen to continue getting shafted by the employer>
Whether this is ideology, philosophy, politics or good old fashioned bollux, who knows, but the essential point of those of us who have taken the shilling is that we are not simply 'employees' and the Crown is not simply our 'employer'. were it so, then a contemporary military force such as we know it would cease to exist. We accept that we sacrifice some of our liberties in order to be truly effective at delivering defence of everyone else's liberties.

And BTW, I'm not any kind of anti-union Neanderthal...before I joined the mob I was a union steward. However, whlist there is an undoubted place in a modern democracy for organised labour - in the military is not it.
 
#14
I voted no. Look what strike action did to teachers reputation and community status.

annakey said:
I'm a civvy so haven't voted. If I was services I'd vote yes. You can't have a relationship of mutual respect between employer and employee unless both sides are collectively organised. The management side always organises collectively and what's good enough for them is good enough for employees. So there should be a UK services union in which people combine together to look after each other's interests and reach sensible agreements with the employer. For a union to function effectively it must have the legal right to strike. It's not rocket science and, frankly, it's amazing such basic stuff wasn't conceded in Britain years ago. It’s a hang-over from when the British state was terrified of revolutionary activity within civilian trade unions and saw the army as the last line of defense. All that’s gone now, unless you consider Bob Crow a dangerous revolutionary keen to nationalise the NAAFI. LOL

<cue frothing from anti-union Neanderthals keen to continue getting shafted by the employer>
You will never be in the armed forces so your take isn't that important. However, I wish to point out that the army is not just a job or career, it is the defense of the country and that should not be at risk from industrial action. Who do you think the employer and employee is/are when it comes to the army annakey?

I am not anti-union annakey. I am a member of the same union as Bob Crow.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#15
Legs said:
No, no, no absolutely no.

The UK must trust us to do our job, with stout hearts and false tits!, despite the meddling of ANY government. To even consider such an idea would be a complete betrayal of our nation.

Remember - we are here for the Monarch (whoever she or he is at any time), and for the people. We are charged with defending them. Nothing that I can realistically invisage would encourage me to mutiny in such a way.
 
#16
Strikes are most successful when strikers are most needed by their employers. Thus the armed services could be called to industrial action when the country is in danger.

This is one of the most important reasons that we cannot strike.
 
#17
Legs said:
deSTABlised said:
definitely no, but a bit of work-to-rule might cause the politicians a problem.
Work to rule? How's that then? Your contract basically says you'll do what you're told, when you're told, how you're told.

Seems to me that we already work to rule.
I was thinking along the lines of commanders saying, 'No, actually what you want us to do isn't possible with the manning and equipment you've given us without unacceptably high levels of death and unpleasantness'. While what we do isn't strictly covered by the HASAWA 1974, there is still a duty of care placed on everyone in the CoC. Normal caveats apply, natch; we aren't going to stay in the FOB and drink tea just because terry might ambush us. But the 'can do' attitude isn't serving the army well in this instance; the politicians might take more notice if we said 'No' more often.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#18
Dontdreamit said:
Hypothetical, ludicrously unrealistic but the Dutch Army have a Union so maybe in the future... who knows eh! :D
Stupid point, badly made. Most European armies - as well as the US and Aussie armed forces - have unions or staff associations but none of them have the right to take industrial action and, so far as I am aware, none of them want it. It would be illegal, unworkable in practice and a complete affront to the oaths we have all taken to go down that route.
 
#19
Absolutely no, assuming I was still serving.

BTW, mention of armed forces professional associations in other countries is a red herring. They dont strike either.
 
#20
Sven said:
Strikes are most successful when strikers are most needed by their employers. Thus the armed services could be called to industrial action when the country is in danger.

This is one of the most important reasons that we cannot strike.
Just who is "we" in this context, Sven, you military man ,you? :D

I firmly agree that that we should never strike. Just not on.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top