How far can the legislation introduced by the UK government be considered as the most influential factor in the decline of trade union membership The WritePass Journal

How far can the legislation introduced by the UK government be considered as the most influential factor in the decline of trade union membership Introduction How far can the legislation introduced by the UK government be considered as the most influential factor in the decline of trade union membership IntroductionREFERENCES:Related Introduction In the past years and in recent times there have been several factors influencing the decline of trade unions, these are ;Business trends, structural changes to industry and labour market changes which involved a change from   manufacturing sector to service sector, increase in self employment and more people taking up part-time jobs and temporary jobs. Other factors include individualism and HRM practices where employee management, development and training becomes the responsibility of HRM, employees having more performance related pay, and appraisal related to pay. The state however has been the most influential factor amongst those stated above in the decline of Trade unions in the UK.This is made evident by the high rate of Trade Union decline   between 1979 and 1997 during the conservative Government leadership of which legislation was introduced. Basically the conservative government, Magaret Thatcher being the prime minister at that time introduced legislation between 1979 and 1983 which involved a series of changes and events that resulted to a very high decline in trade union membership. One of the objectives of the conservative government was to exclude trade unions from any role in national policy making and this was achieved in 1979 and after 1979 was the regulation of the union’s decision making and electoral procedures (Henry 1989). During this period tactics such as secondary picketing which was used by miners (BBC NEWS) was made unlawful shown in the employment act of 1980 and 1982.   Furthermore, there was abolition of statutory recognition procedure in 1980.Employment act of 1988 and 1990 ensured removal of immunities protecting closed shop. The abandonment of political commitment to full employment leading to unemployment rate decreasing from 5.2% in 1979 to 11.2% in 1983 and thus a decline in trade unio n membership. In conclusion looking at the above stated factors and how they affect the decline of trade union. Government legislation has been proven to be the most comprising factor in the decline, however it is important to note that government intervention by way of legislation was only a reaction to the adverse effects which was perceived by the government. REFERENCES: Paul,E.(ed) 2003.   Industrial Relations Theory and Practice (2nd ed), Blackwell. Lee,W. and Rooner,J.(2005).The Rise and Fall of Unionised Labour Market. Hoque, K. and Bacon, N. (2008) Trade unions, union learning representatives and employer-provided training in Britain.  British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol 46, No 4, December. pp702-731. Blanchflower, D.G. and Bryson, A. (2008)  Union decline in Britain. CEP discussion paper. no 864. London: Centre for Economic Performance.

Why Tall Presidential Candidates Tend to Win

Why Tall Presidential Candidates Tend to Win During one of the Republican presidential debates before the 2016 election, the web search company Google tracked what terms Internet users were searching for while watching on TV. The results were surprising. The top search wasnt ISIS. It wasnt Barack Obamas last day. It wasnt tax plans. It was: How tall is Jeb Bush? The search analytics unearthed a curious fascination among the voting public: Americans, it turns out, are fascinated with how tall the presidential candidates are. And they tend to vote for the tallest candidates, according to historic election results and research into voter behavior. So, do the tallest presidential candidates always win? Taller Presidential Candidates Get More Votes   Its true: Taller presidential candidates have fared better through history. They havent always won. But they were victorious in a majority of elections and  the popular vote about two-thirds of the time, according to  Gregg R. Murray, a  Texas Tech University political scientist. Murrays analysis concluded that the taller of  the two major-party candidates from  1789 to 2012 won 58 percent of presidential  elections and received the majority of the popular vote  in 67 percent of those elections. The notable exceptions to the rule include Democrat Barack Obama, who at 6 feet, 1 inch tall won the 2012 presidential election against Republican Mitt Romney, who was an inch taller. In 2000, George W. Bush won the election but lost the popular vote to a taller Al Gore.   Why Voters Favor Tall Presidential Candidates Taller leaders are seen as stronger leaders, researchers say. And height has been particularly important in wartime. Consider  Woodrow Wilson at 5 feet, 11 inches, and Franklin D. Roosevelt at 6 feet, 2 inches.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"In particular, during times of threat, we have a preference for physically formidable leaders,† Murray told ​​The Wall Street Journal in 2015. In the research paper  Tall claims? Sense and Nonsense About the Importance of Height of US Presidents, published in Leadership Quarterly, the authors concluded:   The advantage of taller candidates is potentially explained by perceptions associated with height: taller presidents are rated by experts as greater, and having more leadership and communication skills. We conclude that height is an important characteristic in choosing and evaluating political leaders.Height is associated with some of the same perceptions and outcomes as is strength. For example, individuals with taller stature are perceived as better leaders and attain higher status within a wide variety of modern political and organizational contexts. Height of the 2016 Presidential Candidates Heres how tall the 2016 presidential aspirants were, according to various published reports. Hint: No, Bush wasnt the tallest. And a note: the tallest president in history was Abraham Lincoln, who stood 6 feet, 4 inches - just a hair taller than Lyndon B. Johnson. Republican George Pataki: 6 feet, 5 inches (quit the race)Republican Jeb Bush: 6 feet, 3 inches (quit the race)Republican Donald Trump:  6 feet, 3 inchesRepublican Rick Santorum:  6 feet, 3 inches (quit the race)Democrat Martin OMalley: 6 feet, 1 inch (quit the race)Republican Ben Carson: 5 feet, 11 inchesRepublican Chris Christie:  5 feet, 11 inches (quit the race)Republican Mike Huckabee:  5 feet, 11 inches (quit the race)Republican Bobby Jindal:  5 feet, 10 inches (quit the race)Republican Marco Rubio:  5 feet, 10 inchesRepublican Ted Cruz:  5 feet, 10 inchesRepublican John Kasich:  5 feet, 9 inchesRepublican Rand Paul:  5 feet, 9 inchesDemocrat Bernie Sanders:  5 feet, 8 inchesDemocrat Hillary Clinton:  5 feet, 7 inchesRepublican Carly Fiorina:  5 feet, 6 inches (quit the race)