[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. Striking
(1) Businesses will now be allowed to discipline those employees who choose to strike how they see fit

Notes

Whilst this government rekognises the benefits of collective bargaining we believe that with the enactment of B4**, employees 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.

[Mechie]

So employers can now sack employees for going on strike? Err no.

[Moleman1996]

Aye, too many unwarranted strikes have forced this, albeit mostly by the public sector.

[jesusandtequila]

B4**?

[internetguru]

I don't quite understand why a trade union would recruit children. What possible benefit would there be to them striking?

[TopHat]

Absolutely not.

[xXedixXx]

Every worker has the right to withdraw their labour. Nay.

[JPKC]

Aww hell no. Who wrote this?

[chrisawhitmore]

I would suggest that you amend it to state that the employer may not differentiate between strikers in terms of punishment. If you want to sack one person for striking, you must sack everyone who was on strike.

Also the requirement for at least 50% turnout in a vote on industrial action might be more effective at stopping unnecessary strikes.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by internetguru)
I don't quite understand why a trade union would recruit children. What possible benefit would there be to them striking?

Because unions collect membership fees, and union leaders like money.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Every worker has the right to withdraw their labour. Nay.

And every business has the right to withdraw paying people when they do. This bill doesn't stop the right you reference.

I wouldn't support this bill, as I don't like the mucky muddying of the legal waters. I think that Unions should, simply, have no legal basis whatsoever. That's not to say they're illegal - I think they should be completely legal (and, thus, be allowed to recruit children if they think that's a good use of their time). I just don't think that 'unions' as an entity should have any special protection beyond that which an individual worker receives. I don't think they should have to have x turnout to vote, or even that they should need to have a ballot on whether to strike. I don't think they should need to fulfil any criteria at all. But I also think that they should have no special protection when they strike, and that negotiations between them should be no different to negotiations between any employee and their employer.

[RoryS]

Never in a million years.

Workers need rights, especially with a Tory government which is out of touch with the general public.

Nay.

[CLS94]

Never. No. Nay. I shall not be voting for the Tory's wet dreams ta very much.

[Maddog Jones]

I can't wait for this to come to a vote. I'm going to make sure its voted down absolutely comprehensively.

[tufc]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
And every business has the right to withdraw paying people when they do. This bill doesn't stop the right you reference.

I wouldn't support this bill, as I don't like the mucky muddying of the legal waters. I think that Unions should, simply, have no legal basis whatsoever. That's not to say they're illegal - I think they should be completely legal (and, thus, be allowed to recruit children if they think that's a good use of their time). I just don't think that 'unions' as an entity should have any special protection beyond that which an individual worker receives. I don't think they should have to have x turnout to vote, or even that they should need to have a ballot on whether to strike. I don't think they should need to fulfil any criteria at all. But I also think that they should have no special protection when they strike, and that negotiations between them should be no different to negotiations between any employee and their employer.

I fully agree with this. Unions shouldn't be banned, but they shouldn't have legal status. If someone wants to withdraw their labour, fine; but their employer should be afforded the same freedom in how they deal with this.

But as long as unions are given legal status, regulation has to be strict. I will vote 'Aye' to this bill; though I would also support it being amended, as suggested above, to require a 50% turnout in strike votes for a strike to be legal.

[tufc]

(Original post by RoryS)
Never in a million years.

Workers need rights, especially with a Tory government which is out of touch with the general public.

Nay.

They have the right to withdraw their labour, no-one is taking that away. The point is that they shouldn't be able to do so with total impunity.

[tufc]

On a side note: No Libertarian MP can truly call themselves a libertarian if they don't vote 'Aye' to this.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by tufc)
On a side note: No Libertarian MP can truly call themselves a libertarian if they don't vote 'Aye' to this.

I just explained why I would vote no, and you said you fully agreed with it....

[JPKC]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
And every business has the right to withdraw paying people when they do. This bill doesn't stop the right you reference.

I wouldn't support this bill, as I don't like the mucky muddying of the legal waters. I think that Unions should, simply, have no legal basis whatsoever. That's not to say they're illegal - I think they should be completely legal (and, thus, be allowed to recruit children if they think that's a good use of their time). I just don't think that 'unions' as an entity should have any special protection beyond that which an individual worker receives. I don't think they should have to have x turnout to vote, or even that they should need to have a ballot on whether to strike. I don't think they should need to fulfil any criteria at all. But I also think that they should have no special protection when they strike, and that negotiations between them should be no different to negotiations between any employee and their employer.

This is actually very close to my own opinion on the matter. The Government should not tell trade unions how to organise themselves - they are voluntary groups, there's absolutely no mandate. Workers only need the state's protection when unions don't work, and unions only stop working when the state imposes punitive restrictions on them like the balloting rules and such like.

Funny how the two ends of the spectrum sometimes meet like this.

2. Striking
(1) Businesses will now be allowed to discipline those employees who choose to strike how they see fit

As for this, I think it'd be fine provided unions were allowed to insist that their members' employment contracts contained guarantees against punishments for striking. I'll oppose it until unions are in a position to do this.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by JPKC)
... and unions only stop working when the state imposes punitive restrictions on them...

Change the word 'union' to 'economy, and you have Libertarianism in a nutshell!