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?

Of course not. But I still think that will be the effect.

You kind of contradict yourself there!

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

Well what you seem to forget is that there is no real appetite in the UK for a traditional left wing party, what made New Labour electable was that they moved to contest the middle ground. The SNP are left of centre but far away from being 'left wing', they rode to power on a wave of nationalism and the supine surrender of Labour north of the border. The moment Ed made noises about moving even a tiny bit to the left he was destroyed in the polls. The fact that all the old school lefty parties, namely, the Workers Party, the Socialist Labour Party, TUV and SDLP barely registered a result on election night (two were actually beaten by the Monster Raving Looney Party) speaks volumes as to what the electorate think.

LikeICan - I hope you're still following this thread because I know I'm a little late to the game. Please don't take this the wrong way because it's a genuine question not an attack but if you oppose this why did you vote for the Conservatives, at least a lot of this was in their manifesto (I think).

Well what you seem to forget is that there is no real appetite in the UK for a traditional left wing party

I think the UK electorate is wary of change, which is what Labour always seems to represent. Whereas the Tories have managed to occupy the "like now but better" space, which seems less threatening.

TUV an old school lefty party? Eh?

Not sure what your point is?

All you have done is list what party enacted a piece of legislation? Is your hypothesis suggesting that because labour brought in legislation then by deafult the Conservatives are going to abolish it? Even Thatcher with her huge majorities in the 80s did not attempt to undo the Equal Pay act or Race Relations Act. What point are you trying to make?

"TUV an old school lefty party? Eh?"

Apologies George, you are right, I mistook them for someone else!!

You kind of contradict yourself there!

No I don't. I'm saying it may not be David Cameron's intention to strengthen the opposition party but that will, in the long term, be its effect. I don't see any contradictions there.

Well what you seem to forget is that there is no real appetite in the UK for a traditional left wing party

I didn't say it would be replaced by a 'traditional left-wing party', I said it'd eventually be replaced by a party with actual popular support.

The best article I've found about what might replace Labour as they currently are and actually be popular is still here.

thinkingmakesitso - I have only ever been a member of one union but they send out advanced emails, we know about discussions, they send voting papers in good time.

If someone really wants to strike, I can't see why they would ignore all that. They might not strike because they can't afford to lose pay, but I can't take it seriously that someone wants to strike but couldn't be doing with the paperwork!

I don't think it's true to say there's no appetite for a traditional left wing party in the UK by the way - I think there wasn't a real option on the table to have one this time around.

The voting threshold is a disgrace but I am more outraged by the legalisation of replacing striking workers.
In practice though I can't see how that can work in all but a few cases. There will be very few ways to replace most professions safely, at a sensible cost or in the volumes required. The chaos ensuing from that could be more disruptive than a short strike.

When I worked even in those companies which had unions (like the Civil Service) I would never join. I have always believed that if you don't like your job, for whatever reason, leave and find another one.

When the unions were first created they did a good job of protecting the workers from the conditions in which they worked. That is no longer the case.

Anything this government can do to curtail union powers is a good thing IMO.

OT

I didn't say it would be replaced by a 'traditional left-wing party', I said it'd eventually be replaced by a party with actual popular support.

No you said it would be replaced by a left-wing party, your words not mine.

butterfly

There were plenty of left wing parties out there during the General Election, most of them just got beaten by The Monster Raving Looney Party, Respect or the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol parties.

Even if we moved to PR electorial system they would barely make a dent on election day.

I am a staunch trade unionist, but I completely support the requirement for a 50% in favour ballot before calling strike action. I think that this will give strikes a legitimacy that in the past some have lacked (looking at you London Underground), and reduce the opportunity for the right wing press to snipe about them.

I don't like the ability to hire agency staff to cover strike action, though could be persuaded if the legislation extended the right to strike to certain critical professions which are currently not able to strike.

If the Labour Party can't inspire members of a union to just tick a box on a website to confirm that it should receive funding from them, and cannot find alternative sources of income, then it really is in dire straits. I know inertia means that there will be a reduction in income from the unions, but I also don't think that this is a wholly bad thing. Labour needs to innovate to remain relevant in the 21st century, and being beholden to the trades union is not, IMHO, going to help it to do so.

reduce the opportunity for the right wing press to snipe about them.

That is definitely the triumph of hope over experience.

Interesting post otherwise. I'm not in favour of making it harder for people to do things they want but are too lazy to do.

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty
Dream on. By all accounts the recent LU strikes would've been OK under the new proposals - Lo and Behold, following a future round, the Government decides they'll have to make it more difficult (after all the horror articles in the Mail, Express etc).

Why can't the Tories just be honest and say they want to ban all strikes because they don't like the lower orders getting above themselves.

Yeah, I know, I know... It's such an easy pot shot to take, though, isn't it? "Only 27% of your membership voted to strike, this shouldn't be allowed"

If the Labour Party can't inspire members of a union to just tick a box on a website to confirm that it should receive funding from them, and cannot find alternative sources of income, then it really is in dire straits. I know inertia means that there will be a reduction in income from the unions, but I also don't think that this is a wholly bad thing. Labour needs to innovate to remain relevant in the 21st century, and being beholden to the trades union is not, IMHO, going to help it to do so.

Exactly this. It's not as though working people are incapable of putting up small amounts of money for something they think is in their interests. Take the National Lottery: it manages to rake in squillions every week, most of it coming from lower socio-economic brackets. All these people manage to find the time and spare change to cough up two quid for something that gives them a 1 in 14 million chance of benefiting. So surely they are able to put their hands in their pockets for the political party that is supposed to be their voice? If Labour thinks it has a better than 1 in 14 million chance of benefiting working people, it ought to feel justified in asking for funding.

Only it sounds as though Labour is actually worried that most working people couldn't give a stuff about seeing them funded. Probably because - as the rise of UKIP attests - many even of Labour's old traditional voters don't think Labour speaks for them at all any more. Except Labour are saying working people should continue funding them by inertia, anyway. Which is basically saying that it's fine for what was once a broad-based political movement to wither away into a sort of worthy metropolitan think-tank, bankrolled by levies taken from working people who otherwise wouldn't give them a second thought.

PanGalactic You're right, I did say it'd be a left-wing party. I didn't say it'd be traditional. Thinking about it, though, you're right - I should have said 'opposition' party, not 'left-wing' party. I will correct myself and say I think it'd be replaced by a populist party. Which, as I've said, would do wonders for the breadth of political debate in the country.

The Union movement lost its legitimacy in the 1970s when it trued to overthrow elected Govts.

If it had stuck to protecting workers and not playing politics it would be better supported.

Unions do little to protect workers - especially in public sector where its leadership often has a common interest with the leadership of the public sector bodies.

The anti-strike changes are bloody scary

It's quite clear they're preparing for NHS strikes. They know what's going to come now they've frozen pay again and cutting unsociable hours.

I'm not shocked at anything the tories do.
Completely disgusted,but not shocked.

I haven't had complete memory loss from the 80's...

I actually wonder if they are preparing for a general strike

I'm still not sure why the voting threshold is considered a disgrace by some though.

I take the point that if you can hire a temp etc, but although where I work (is this normal?) they are not allowed to ask you if you are going on strike, they obviously know when the strike date is and from that perspective, could just vaguely say "hiring extra help just in case". So that's why I was wondering how big a change that really is.

Random observation which may be of interest here. I have a friend who used to say, in his 20s, that unions should be banned. (collective eyeroll) Now he is 45, he's worked in enough places to realise that what he is saying is pants - previously he thought there was a magic decent employer you could go to instead! It did lead me to wonder if others are encountering people in that age bracket who are getting more left wing.

I am finding I get more left wing as I get older - not a huge fan of wing divisions but not sure how else to explain it. I think there may be a core of traditional Tory voters who think that this, and the "sick pay club" type stuff, is awful. I guess we won't find out for five years but I can imagine a lot of Tory voters saying in future "I didn't realise it would get this bad".

butterfly I think it's a disgrace because:
No other vote fptp or yes/no referendum usually has a minimum turnout.
The UK already has some of the most restrictive strike legislation in the EU
The right continually restricts the ability of unions to call strikes rather than doing what countries like Germany do and the acting the union as a tool to involve and consult the workforce to improve conditions and productivity. When all else fails workers have the right to withdraw their labour but those rights are being eroded.

It isn't all the fault of the right. Scargill did almost as much to harm the unions as Thatcher.

The new voting thresholds are ridiculous

Lots of people don't engage with their union, they don't answer ballots they don't do ball all except complain. Whether this is ignorance, laziness, from them being disheartened.. I don't know.

But it doesn't mean that the voices of those who do bother shouldn't be heard.

Now we would need 50% turnout to ballot?

That isn't good enough.

And IF we did manage to achieve the strike, they want to lift the ban of getting agency staff in to cover it. So what effect will the strike have? Sure it'll cost them more, but it won't be the massive disruption that makes movements.

They're preparing for a strike from the nurses, it's clear as day. They know when unsociable hours pay is cut, one of the biggest workforces in the UK is going to stand up.

But they also know the current levels of engagement between unions and it's people. And it's not brilliant. And I don't for one second think it's because people don't care. Just lots have very little understanding of the process.