 |
 |
In response to John W: > I'm not missing that question but, per the first comment I made in > this discussion, I am doing my best to find aspects of possible > discussion (on the "Radical Statistics" list) that have at least > something vaguely to do with numbers, if not really 'statistics'. The > 'prior question' to which you refer might be regarded as political, > sociological or philosophical, but surely not in any way related to > anything 'numerical'! > Sometimes the relevant question for people who care about statistics is the question of whether a number should be used. This is why I was trying to contrast formal mechanisms of consent and agreement (which numbers are useful in calculating) with substantive agreement (a less quantifiable space). For me the core argument about stats within this issue is to highlight the inapplicability of abstract quantification! > This is where some statistics would be useful. One would imagine that > most of those who 'really want a strike' will usually make the effort > to vote for it. I would be very interested to know what proportion of > those who do not vote "but still adhere to the ballot result" (quite > possibly through fear of intimidation etc.) would actually be happier > not to be on strike. Armed with that statistic, we would be much more > able to judge to what extent a particular 'voting threshold' is > resulting in individuals getting the result that 'they really would > most like'. > These are perhaps not only impossible statistics to collect, but also unhelpful. For instance, including questions of potential intimidation means we'd have to also ask what percentage of workers would be members of the union but aren't, or would strike but don't, because of employer intimidation (e.g. victimisation - a much more immediately consequential threat). I don't think that either are measurable. And, given that strikes occur in specific social contexts, data that abstract from the concrete conditions and multiple social pressures faced by workers to try and discover what they'd hypothetically 'really like', are likely to be thoroughly unreliable. We can at best measure what workers do or don't do. Finally, speaking as someone who has voted for strike action and taken such action, I would have always 'been happier not to be on strike'. Going on strike is sometimes necessary, but usually a last resort and never a positive choice. So my guess is that close to 100% of those who do participate would be 'happier not to be on strike', but for whatever reason feel that they should participate! btw, if you want some stats there are nice figures on what workers do - and the (low) rates of strike in the UK here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/labour-disputes/annual-article-2014/art---labour-disputes-2014.html#tab-Review-of-1995-to-2014 and analysis here of the data in light of the current proposals: http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/implications-trade-union-bill#.VadoHNS0LoY.twitter. Rachel. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************