[Metrobeans]

B468 - Restrictions of Trade Unions Activity Bill 2012, TSR Government

Restrictions of Trade Unions Activity Act 2012

An Act limiting the rights of trade unions.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Member Restriction
(1) It will no longer be legal for trade unions to recruit members under the age of 16
(2) All members must opt-in to union membership
(3) All members must opt-in to political party affiliation via union membership fees

2. Striking
(1) Businesses will now be allowed to discipline those employees who choose to strike for breach of contract with any appropriate measure
(2) Employers may not discriminate between strikers in terms of disciplinary action
(3) Strike ballots must achieve a minimum turnout of 50% of members along with a majority vote in favor of strike action (50%)
(4) Notification of strike action must be given a minimum of 90 days in advance

3. Disclosure
(1) All unions must publish the number of registered members
(2) All unions affiliated with political parties must publish the number of members who have opted-in to affiliated membership

4. Statutory trade union immunity
(1) All statutory immunities from legal proceedings relating to interim injunctions and damages relating to breach of legal duty from tort of inducement, simple conspiracy and intimidation are hereby repealed

5. Exception
(1) If the 'right to strike' is inserted in the employment contract then Sections 2(1), 2(2) and 4(1) do not apply

6. For the purposes of this act...
(1) Section 219 of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidations) Act 1992 is hereby repealed.

7. Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This act will come into force immediately following royal assent
(2) This act will extend to all of the United Kingdom
(3) This act will be referred to as the 'Restrictions of Trade Unions Activity Act 2012'

Notes

Whilst this government recognizes the benefits of collective bargaining we believe that with the enactment of B438, both employees and trade unions should no longer be protected by the law when taking strike action.

This government also feels that trade unions should no longer be legally able to recruit members under the age of 16.

This government also seeks to create an environment of greater transparency regarding political party and strike affiliation.

By including section 4 this Act removes statutory immunity from trade unions so that they are both treated equally by law. Trade Unions are still able to launch strike action, but in doing so must be aware of the consequences of their actions.

Section 5 provides freedom from some measures upon agreement of employment contract clauses.

Trade Unions and labour relations (consolidations) act 1992 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents
B438 - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1994338

Changes For Third Reading

(1) Amendment to Section 2(1) and (3)
(2) Addition of sections 4, 5 and 6

[Left Hand Drive]

NO

[LETSJaM]

Aye.

<3 x

[Hippysnake]

Even though I no longer give a crap about what goes on in here, I feel compelled to say

**** OFF.

[MacDaddi]

Fare enough, Aye

[CLS94]

Still a no. Losing the day's pay is more than enough incentive against striking, these measure facilitate the bullying of workers and prevent them from taking on expoitive bosses in a fair and democratic manner. If people don't vote in a ballot, then they are not opposing the strike and therefore should not prevent it from occuring.

[chrisawhitmore]

I would like to thank the authors for taking the comments on previous readings into account, and this will be getting an aye from me.

[Jarred]

Aye of course. Seeing as trade unions can negotiate strike-allowance agreements to be put into contracts from employers with this bill, I see little reason to object to it.
Being able to strike is an important right and this bill doesn't remove it. All it does is grant businesses a right which is also important; the right to be able to withdraw the labour of one of your workers who is not performing as well as others could.

[Ysolt]

I think this bill goes a bit far. Employees do need some protection even if we have to make sure unions dont hold public services hostage for ransom. This is not a moderate solution in my eyes.

[Moleman1996]

Aye

[Lipvig]

Aye, particularly about the under 16 part.

[Rakas21]

A definite Aye from me.

[Mazzini]

You've got an abstain from me right now. Still don't agree with most of Section 2, though.

[mevidek]

No...

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Ysolt)
I think this bill goes a bit far. Employees do need some protection even if we have to make sure unions dont hold public services hostage for ransom. This is not a moderate solution in my eyes.

I would like to point out that this bill only inpinges upon striking, collective bargaining is not touched by this bill.

To be fair, i could have gone a lot further.

[RoryS]

Still a no. However many readings you put this through, I think the socialist members of the house will simply post no.

[JPKC]

"No." Unions are an essential public utility and should not be incrementally tampered with each time some right-winger wants to satisfy their fetish for Victorian era enterprise. There is no legitimate reason for the state to further strip working people of what little economic power they have afforded to them by virtue of the collectivism they voluntarily engage in.

(Original post by RoryS)
Still a no. However many readings you put this through, I think the socialist members of the house will simply post no.

(Out of interest, would you consider yourself a socialist?)

[Left Hand Drive]

(Original post by Lipvig)
Aye, particularly about the under 16 part.

Why?

[Rakas21]

Rory - To be honest the best i was hoping for from Labour was one or two abstainers anyway, the reason for the multiple readings is to create a better bill and also attempt to get Liberal Democrats and Libertarians on side whilst still achieving my goals.

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
Why?

My issue is simple. If under 16's must remain in compulsory education, cannot get married, cannot gamble, are under the age of consent and don't even have a national insurance card (unless they're 15, although that's only because they have to get it before they're 16), then why should they be seen as old enough to join a trade union?