[tehFrance]

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

What? that is why you say no?

This country is down the ****ter because the workers have more rights than a business, have you tried to fire someone that deserves to be fired? the **** you have to go through in some cases

I say relax employment law to fire idiots quicker.

[StatusRed]

(Original post by tehFrance)
What? that is why you say no?

This country is down the ****ter because the workers have more rights than a business, have you tried to fire someone that deserves to be fired? the **** you have to go through in some cases

I say relax employment law to fire idiots quicker.

That's you out of a job then.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
That's you out of a job then.

Oh look who is trying to make a funny

[internetguru]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Because unions collect membership fees, and union leaders like money.

If a child pays to join a trade union they are quite obviously retarded.

[Birchington]

Union membership should be entirely voluntary, and I don't agree that children should be banned from joining a union if they have chosen to do so. As long as they are not forced to join by their parents, why shouldn't people have a free choice to join?

I do agree that strike action can be disruptive, but we need to look at why people go on strike. Perhaps if companies treated their employees better, or involved employees more in pension/salary negotiations, there would be less sentiment amongst workers to strike. It's too simplistic to legislate to restrict union activity and simultaneously ignore the reasons behind striking.

[tufc]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
I just explained why I would vote no, and you said you fully agreed with it....

Sorry, I meant that I agreed with the principle that unions shouldn't have legal status. The problem is that they do, so altering it won't make the waters any more muddy.

[tufc]

(Original post by JPKC)
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.



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.

So you think that unions should have legal recognition, and legally enshrined rights; but you think that they shouldn't be regulated at all?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by tufc)
Sorry, I meant that I agreed with the principle that unions shouldn't have legal status. The problem is that they do, so altering it won't make the waters any more muddy.

I think it will. The more regulations and rules that get applied to unions, the less effectively they can work. And whilst I often find myself at odds with the aims of unions, they shouldn't have anything but their own ability to limit their capability. Likewise, I disagree with the idea that they're not allowed to recruit children. Why not?

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by internetguru)
If a child pays to join a trade union they are quite obviously retarded.

That kind of helps with justification of that part of the bill. Not only are they taking advantage of Children, but apparently retarded children.

[tomcol23]

Aye

[MacDaddi]

Aye, with companies actually looking to offer good wages because of the Welfare Bill to hopefully tempt people and interest them in working.

However, if we did not have these in place, it would be a NAy.

Also, I believe some kind of restriction of the size of a union is also a good idea

[Rakas21]

The 50% ballot rule is a good idea, i shall add that.

The B4** was the welfare bill, will ammend that.

[JPKC]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Change the word 'union' to 'economy, and you have Libertarianism in a nutshell!

Eureka! Guess I'll change parties now. But, on a serious note, the state has tried to extinguish unions in the past three decades and doing so has simply added to the list of jobs the state sees itself as responsible for. I don't think any anti-discrimination laws or things like the NMW would have needed introducing had unions been capable of doing their jobs - they're a small-state socialist's answer to the state in many ways. The wealth of the richest 1% has grown by 275% since union-bashing governments came to power, compared to 18% for the lowest paid.

[jesusandtequila]

CyclopsRock and JPKC have hit the nail on the head. I suggest some heavy editing for the second reading.

[OSharp]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
That kind of helps with justification of that part of the bill. Not only are they taking advantage of Children, but apparently retarded children.

Yes just like the retarded children who pay to join the youth sections of political parties, including your's.

I fail to see why there should be any restriction on the rights of a union, if it where any other form of organisation be it political cultural or religious there would be no question.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by OSharp)
Yes just like the retarded children who pay to join the youth sections of political parties, including your's.

I fail to see why there should be any restriction on the rights of a union, if it where any other form of organisation be it political cultural or religious there would be no question.

3 points.

1. I never claimed anyone was retarded. Internetguru said that. I simply pointed out that if he thought that retarded children were being exploited, he should probably support the bill.

2. I am not a member of any RL political party, the TSR libertarian party doesn't (as far as I know) charge membership fees, and even the RL libertarian party, the party I would most likely join were I to decide to join a party, does not have a youth wing.

3. It's yours. A possessive apostrophe is unnecessary.


As to the prevention of trade unions from recruiting under-16s, I would point out that as under 16s have a very different set of laws governing employment trade unions will be unable to help in any industrial dispute (no union in the UK has conducted industrial action on behalf of members below the age of 16).

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Rakas21)
The 50% ballot rule is a good idea, i shall add that.

The B4** was the welfare bill, will ammend that.

Just a note, in order to do that, you would have to require unions to publish details of their membership (at least to publish the number of active members they have).

With the 50% rule it will definitely be an aye from me, though I would prefer a bill which simply removes any legal status from trade unions.

[Steevee]

Certainly!

Unions should have to take responsibility for irresponsible striking.

Though I'd prefer a legal requirment of a 70% voting turnout on any strike action, or something along those lines. We'll see less strikes and at the same time you wont rile the Left up quite so much. The right to strike is sacred, but when Unions lack all sense of common good, their rights must be mitigated for the greater good.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Steevee)
Certainly!

Unions should have to take responsibility for irresponsible striking.

Though I'd prefer a legal requirment of a 70% voting turnout on any strike action, or something along those lines. We'll see less strikes and at the same time you wont rile the Left up quite so much. The right to strike is sacred, but when Unions lack all sense of common good, their rights must be mitigated for the greater good.

The way I see it is that unions were initially founded to use the power of collective bargaining, and that the basis of a strike is that the members are assuming that the management can't sack all of them for what is essentially breach of contract, and so must make a deal. If the management decides that it can afford to sack all of the strikers, it should be allowed to do so, just as I would be sacked if I decided not to turn up to work for a week.

The Government should not grant any legal protection or status to trade unions, nor should it regulate them really.

[Steevee]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
The way I see it is that unions were initially founded to use the power of collective bargaining, and that the basis of a strike is that the members are assuming that the management can't sack all of them for what is essentially breach of contract, and so must make a deal. If the management decides that it can afford to sack all of the strikers, it should be allowed to do so, just as I would be sacked if I decided not to turn up to work for a week.

The Government should not grant any legal protection or status to trade unions, nor should it regulate them really.

I agree, but we must be pragmatic. A minimum turnout can not really be argued as a move against the right to strike, so long as the figure is reasonable. However, if you remove legal protection from industrial action, you can never hope to recieve support or indifference from anyone anywhere near the left of the spectrum. And bearing in mind the make up of this House, it'll be a very difficult Bill to pass.