Talk

Advanced search

To be shocked and not a little afraid of the Tory plans for trade unions announced today

(135 Posts)
thinkingmakesitso Wed 15-Jul-15 21:50:31

Sorry if there is already a thread on this, but I couldn't find one.

These plans go way too far and amount to a blatant attack on the Labour party - an attempt to destroy it once and for all.

No rights for workers at all - what would be the point of striking if your employer gets two weeks to organise agency staff to fulfil your role? What would it ever achieve?

Can anyone who voted Tory really say this is what they wanted? That this is any way fair? I feel utterly wretched about this. What right do these people have to do this?

LikeIcan Wed 15-Jul-15 21:52:56

I agree with you 100% - & I voted Tory.

wheresthelight Wed 15-Jul-15 22:03:00

i don't agree with strikes especially in key areas like the emergency services so it is fine by me if employers get advanced notice so they can make preparations.

As for needing a minimum 50% yes to strike vote - totally agree

remove funding to Labour - excellent imo, they have been beholden to the whim of non elected members for generations, we elect the people who stand not the socialist puppeteers behind the scenes

Sixweekstowait Wed 15-Jul-15 22:04:50

I'm old enough and wise enough not to use the word 'fascist' lightly- this is a fascist piece of proposed legislation that makes me thoroughly ashamed to be British. LikeIcan impressed at your honesty - I actually think that you will not be alone

FarFromAnyRoad Wed 15-Jul-15 22:05:39

If Labour is available to be 'destroyed' by this then Labour needs to get it's bloody act together and make itself less vulnerable to attack. Goodness me - you make it sound like they're a whimpering pool of misery on the floor not knowing whether to spread out or evaporate and die.............oh.........wait.... grin

thinkingmakesitso Wed 15-Jul-15 22:06:51

Just remind us again what percentage of the electorate voted in these people? I think it may have been just shy of 50% by 28%.

In what way is it 'excellent' for there to be no opposition party? It would be the end of democracy.

Sixweekstowait Wed 15-Jul-15 22:09:06

Wheresthelight- so why could Scotland have left the Union on a majority of those voting even if only eg 20% of the electorate had voted? And why, as a shareholder am I not asked if I want the company to donate to the Tory party? Sorry if these questions are too intellectually challenging for toy

Sixweekstowait Wed 15-Jul-15 22:09:56

toy you

Sixweekstowait Wed 15-Jul-15 22:10:42

Yes thinking - exactly why I used the word fascist

Sixweekstowait Wed 15-Jul-15 22:12:11

far - political parties need money and we all know where the Tories get it from

wheresthelight Wed 15-Jul-15 22:12:44

Why do you assume they would be intellectually challenging for me Bourdic? Because i have an opinion you don't agree with? Strikes me that lowering yourself to insulting me says more about your intellectual ability than it does about mine

UterusUterusGhali Wed 15-Jul-15 22:13:42

They're saying it's unfair on "hard working families" etc.

Hard working families are, y'know, employees!
This could be any of us.

IssyStark Wed 15-Jul-15 22:17:31

You haven't answered the questions where. Just ignore the ad hominem attacks but please do answer bourdics's questions as I'd like to know too.

BathtimeFunkster Wed 15-Jul-15 22:18:38

Yes, these suggestions come under the definition of fascist.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter Wed 15-Jul-15 22:19:56

Civil disobedience on the way, I hope.

DadfromUncle Wed 15-Jul-15 22:21:58

OP - No complaints about this thread as it's following a slightly different line, but the thread running about the reforms is here -

[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2426023-to-think-40-of-50-isnt-unreasonable]

wheresthelight Wed 15-Jul-15 22:22:41

re the shareholder question - i suggest you read the t&c's of your policy as this will be included in the small print.

with regards to scotland, it has no relevance. It is a country not a trade union so i fail to see why you have raised the issue, if they wanted to leave then so be it. i have plenty of friends who wanted the yes vote and many who didn't. My only interest was in why Alex Salmond seemed incapable of answering key questions

lem73 Wed 15-Jul-15 22:26:52

I believe we need strong unions. I think there are a lot of employees who are being exploited because of the decline of union membership. However it seems completely fair and logical that a strike should only go ahead if a majority of members vote for it.

Samcro Wed 15-Jul-15 22:28:08

yanbu\
the way we are going we will end up like it was before unions. a scarey place

Prettyinblue Wed 15-Jul-15 22:30:16

Absolutely horrific. Decent working conditions are fundamental to a prosperous economy and a strong democracy.

And these changes will lead to a degradation of working conditions.

Or should that be a further degradation (in part in correlation to the reduction of union membership.)

DadfromUncle Wed 15-Jul-15 22:30:50

wheresthelight

It's not "remove the funding to Labour" Any Union that doesn't wish to fund Labour isn't in any way obliged to, hasn't been for some time, and many don't. Individual TU members can also opt out. So Labour doesn't have any funding from people or organisations who don't wish to.

The proposal is to change to an opt-in version of the same - for purely practical reasons of inertia, with the Conservatives hoping that it will reduce Labour's funding. There is no logical reason for this, it's just a simple, practical and dogmatic attempt to choke off funding for Labour to weaken Labour.

It does seem a little as though you are hoping that Labour will cease to exist just because you don't like them and you "don't agree with strikes". That's not really a very good reason in a democracy, and it's hard to see how these funding changes are justified without any apparent concomitant transparency and reform in the way the Tories are funded.

Iggly Wed 15-Jul-15 22:33:50

Can the Tories also do something about the extortionate level of funding they get from business whose ideas sway policy.

Bearing in mind a lot of this comes from non-uk business who have no vote...?

It all seems a bit robert Mugabe to me.

First they fiddle with the constituencies to try and make it more tory heavy. Then they try and ditch Scotland. Then they try and break the unions.

It is similar to what the Nazis did before they became a dictatorship. Just saying

DadfromUncle Wed 15-Jul-15 22:35:28

eek isn't it a bit soon in the thread for Godwin's?

longfingernails Wed 15-Jul-15 22:40:04

I too am shocked by the Tory plans for trade unions; they don't go nearly far enough. I laid out my ideas several years ago here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/a1088369-Some-musings-on-how-to-neutralise-the-unions

Whilst the measures announced address some of my concerns, they are generally weak and wishy-washy, a typical Cameron compromise.

RagstheInvincible Wed 15-Jul-15 23:22:05

These plans go way too far and amount to a blatant attack on the Labour party - an attempt to destroy it once and for all.

YABU to be shocked. What else did you expect from a majority* Tory Govt? I also doubt if this will destroy the Labour Party. It's far more likely that Labour will destroy itself by lurching to the left and coming up with doctrinaire policies which, while appealing to Labour members will not appeal to the public at large.

(*"Majority" as in seats in the Commons; the percentage of the population who voted Tory in the last election is irrelevant).

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now