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

[thinkingmakesitso]

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?

And there should be no political levy or corporate political giving.

Generally strikebreakers (whether agency workers, volunteers, or just ordinary workers with the moral fortitude to cross the picket line) should be rewarded and encouraged; in particular, if a strikebreaker shows more aptitude and motivation than the striker, it seems to me to be completely legitimate to sack the striker and hire the strikebreaker.

Obviously longfingernails you have never lived in the real world. I have dealt, as a union rep, wit a man who was disciplined for being off sick aftet working for 40 years, and never having a day off previously, a woman who was unfairly sacked, oh, and if that's not enough two suicides through bullying. But I expect you thing that's all OK. And those caes were the tip of the iceberg

Those all seem to be fairly legitimate cases for union involvement.

What do those examples have to do with strike law ballots, opt-in versus opt-out for political contributions, and union bigwigs having undue influence?

As far as I can tell, that is the main thrust of the changes being suggested.

If your job can be effectively replaced by agency workers ith 2 weeks notice, it is not very difficult and you have no bargaining position anyway. Other people can and will do your job at the same pay and conditions, so give them the job.

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

You cannot equate the requirement to get 40% in a two way ballot with getting 40% in an election, which is at least 8 ways, although in individual seats, up to 20 ways.

If you are saying the government needs a comparable result to get elected, then what you are actually saying is the governemnt needs at least 10% of the electorate to vote for them. In fact this government has many times higher, so you have nothing to complain about.

I am a member of a union and I often wonder why more people aren't

That said, I would go for strikes needing an even higher percentage, if most members cant be arsed to vote, is it a mandate to strike?

Re picket lines, I've never crossed one but have heard grim stories from those who have

Re hiring strike breakers, I'm not clear what the current law is on this to be honest. Is there anything to stop my employer calling a temp agency if I go on strike? I didn't think there was.

I'm alarmed by the Conservative attitude to workers generally. I feel like they think we are meant to just be bullied into submission and only big bosses deserve respect.

totallybewildered - I see your point, but a very small proportion of the population voted for these people, and yet their policies are changing the face of the country at a shocking pace and in ways that will never be remedied: The NHS, the BBC as we know it, the sense that we look after he vulnerable, and now, democracy itself. On a majority of 12 seats. That's not right.

butterfly - As a former rep, I know that many people who don't vote throw away all union stuff , didn't see the ballot paper, forgot, knew that others would vote 'yes' so didn't bother themselves etc, but do want to strike. The unions should do more to communicate with them effectively, yes, and maybe this move will motivate people, get them angry and make them more proactive about these things. I hope so.

It is absolutely against the rules for your employer to employ agency staff or redeploy existing staff to cover your role if you strike. There is no point in striking if everything carries on as normal without you.

If they want to strike they will vote Yes. They are not children.

totally

Thank god for your post....I though I was going mad

I keep hearing that "why do the unions have to have 50% when the Tories didn't" remark everywhere. Newspaper, radio, TV

If it's a yes/no question you must surely need more people to vote

And why is there such a low turnout for Union votes...or is it not low?

I have been involved in numerous situations involving trade union ballots. Typically industrial action is pushed by the militant few and not supported by the majority, hence we don't see it much.

TUs have a valuable role in the workplace in supporting members through disciplinaries etc, their role in negotiating terms is however frequently obstructive to business efficiency and if a business is not efficient then ultimately its employees suffer when the business closes.

It's not about bullying employees, there is a whole raft of legislation in this country to protect employee rights, it's about making sure businesses survive and public sector organisations aren't crippled by payments they can't afford.

The Scottish referendum, the EU referendum was/ will be yes/ no but no minimum turn out required. Explain that.

Pepper pig - there may be a raft of legislation protecting workers rights - try enforcing them if you're not in a union. And then try acceasing an ET - oh wait a minute I can't afford it

@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%.

You do understand that we have a First Past the Post system don't you? That it is impossible under that system to get an outright majority victory result? The highest post war result was 49.7% by the Conservatives in 1955! Did you complain when Tony Blair was elected with 35% of the vote in 2005?

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

Hyperbole much?

As I said, the unions play a valuable role in dealing with disciplinary/grievance disputes.

You can actually run an ET case on your own. Yes there is now a fee to put in a claim but that is the same as any litigation (I am not in favour of fees in the ET by the way).

Oh yes really easy doing it all by yourself - completely level playing field

I think removing the union levy will in the long term improve Labour's effectiveness as a political party, not weaken it.

Labour was formed to be the voice of a mass industrial working class - the political arm of the unions - but we no longer have a mass industrial working class, and the unions themselves are only really active in the public sector. So union funding of the Labour Party doesn't represent the interests of all working people - it represents the interests of public sector employees. This is reflected in its gradual drift away from being a popular party. You only have to glance at the current Labour leadership elections to see that in its current form Labour lives in a narrow sectarian bubble and most of its leading lights haven't a clue about the desires and interests of the people it is supposed to speak for.

Ordinary (private sector) working people have no voice in the Labour Party, which help might explain why Labour doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of speaking to them or for them, or getting voted for by them. If Labour has to raise its money from the working population directly, rather than coasting along in a public-sector bubble on its union levy money, we might see the party actually coming up with some policies that are genuinely popular. Or even populist. That would be a proper opposition party, not the current slippery cadre of centrist apparatchiks.

Well I hope that all of you who support employment rights will vote to remain in the EU, as we need the EU legislation to give us any rights at all.

That said, David Cameron has been muttering about getting us taken out of the social chapter, so if he gets its way (fortunately unlikely) we still won't have any rights whether we stay in the EU or not.

The changes to the percentages are very hypocritical. However, I can only agree with changing the rules on picketing - I don't agree that because I am on strike I should be able to intimidate someone else who isn't striking. It is a very personal decision.

Agency staff - well facetiously it would be useful to be able to keep schools open if teachers go on strike! That aspect is up for consultation anyway, although query whether the government will take any notice if it gets a response it doesn't like.

This government is really nasty - this, attacking the BBC, wanting to relegalise fox-hunting. Can't they just get on with running the country and leaving things that are fine alone?

if he gets HIS way not its.

mumminhants

Well I hope that all of you who support employment rights will vote to remain in the EU, as we need the EU legislation to give us any rights at all.

Are you really suggesting that this government are going to entirely repeal the:

Employment Relations Acts of 1999 and 2003
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975
The Equal Pay Act of 1970
The Race Relations Act 1976
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
The National Minimum Wage Act, 1998
The Working Time Directive 1999
The Employment Relations Act 1999

?or just admit that there was a tiny bit of hyperbole in your statement?

I think removing the union levy will in the long term improve Labour's effectiveness as a political party, not weaken it.

Do you really, honestly, think that's David Cameron's intention?

Of course not. But I still think that will be the effect. If that happens only in the long term, by causing the Labour Party to wither away and die to be replaced by a left-wing party with genuine popular support, then we still end up with a more effective opposition to the Tories. Which can only be of benefit to democratic debate

Are you really suggesting that this government are going to entirely repeal the: list of various employment acts.

I think she's suggesting that the government will try, as it has stated, to remove the UK's obligations under EU law.

Rather than just delaying important protections for workers for years as they have been doing, they want to opt out entirely of any EU laws intended to protect workers.

It's hard to imagine that repealing some of the laws they were forced to accept as a condition of being part of the same trading bloc wouldn't happen if they were to either gain such concessions (they won't) or leave the EU.

Hmm

Employment Relations Acts of 1999 and 2003- Labour
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Conservative (repealed and replaced by 2010 Act)
The Equal Pay Act of 1970 - Labour
The Race Relations Act 1976- Labour
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995- Labour
The National Minimum Wage Act, 1998- Labour
The Working Time Directive 1999- Labour
The Employment Relations Act 1999- Labour

Notice anything?

Hyperbole?

I don't think so actually. Looking at your list:

Employment Relations Acts of 1999 and 2003- Labour yes
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Conservative (repealed and replaced by 2010 Act) ok probably not but will make it even more difficult to claim
The Equal Pay Act of 1970 - Labour ditto
The Race Relations Act 1976- Labour ditto (actually all covered by the Equality Act 2010)
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995- Labour (same as above)
The National Minimum Wage Act, 1998- Labour Living wage so ok that will stay in some form or another
The Working Time Directive 1999- Labour this is an EU requirement so yes it will go
The Employment Relations Act 1999- Labour yes