Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B468 - Restrictions of Trade Unions Activity Act 2012 (Second Reading)

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 39 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Whatever you might think about strike action, when unions fail is when the state imposes all these restrictions on them, and because they fail, we give them other rights that they shouldn't have. You can't just remove one side of this.
    Why would they fail, there are no measures which have a massive impact on their membership. The only difference is that rather than holding their employers to ransom they have more of an incentive to come to a successful compromise.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm against this for all the reasons articulated by J&T. Nay!
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Unions were created to represent the labour force via collective bargaining and this is a fine pursuit which i have not sought to discourage in the slightest however over the years the unions have strayed from their original purpose and now see striking as the answer to everything. Rather than repeatedly going back to the negotiating table and eventually making a compromise they seek to disrupt industry.
    Unions don't seek to "disrupt industry" as you put it. They seek to have fair conditions for employees. The last thing employees want to do is go one strike: it results in them losing money, so going on strike already a last resort measure. People don't enjoy going on strike, which does disrupt their employer, yes, but it is already done as a last resort, not just for the sake of it as you seem to suggest.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Whatever you might think about strike action, when unions fail is when the state imposes all these restrictions on them, and because they fail, we give them other rights that they shouldn't have. You can't just remove one side of this.
    If this does not pass, would a bill removing all legal status from trade unions, but requiring equal treatment for all participants in a given strike be a possibility?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Unions don't seek to "disrupt industry" as you put it. They seek to have fair conditions for employees. The last thing employees want to do is go one strike: it results in them losing money, so going on strike already a last resort measure. People don't enjoy going on strike, which does disrupt their employer, yes, but it is already done as a last resort, not just for the sake of it as you seem to suggest.
    So the Unite union's decision to strike during the olympics unless members got a bigger bonus than they'd been offered was a last resort was it?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    So the Unite union's decision to strike during the olympics unless members got a bigger bonus than they'd been offered was a last resort was it?
    I don't know. I can't say unless I actually know the details of what happened.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. I don't agree with section 2, apart from (2), and in 4 (1) 'royal accent' must be changed to 'royal assent'.

    Who wrote this bill? :fuhrer:
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    So the Unite union's decision to strike during the olympics unless members got a bigger bonus than they'd been offered was a last resort was it?
    A few things. This was not Unite's decision, this was the choice made by London bus drivers. A union is only an organisation through which the will of employees is facilitated. The drivers are being expected to work longer in more strenuous conditioners during the Olympics; the executives running the show secure large bonuses and it's only consistent that this remuneration policy is extended to the working man.

    There will be a large increase in transit revenue during the Games. Without a union the people earning this excess would not see any of it - the reasonable demand is that half of the profit gets distributed between the drivers for their extra work.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    A few things. This was not Unite's decision, this was the choice made by London bus drivers. A union is only an organisation through which the will of employees is facilitated. The drivers are being expected to work longer in more strenuous conditioners during the Olympics; the executives running the show secure large bonuses and it's only consistent that this remuneration policy is extended to the working man.

    There will be a large increase in transit revenue during the Games. Without a union the people earning this excess would not see any of it - the reasonable demand is that half of the profit gets distributed between the drivers for their extra work.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    2 asides and a debating point (hopefully)

    Could make a hair joke, but you were on an iphone an the autocorrect pisses me off too.

    I'll continue to refer to the collective members of the union by the name of said union, in the same way you'd say 'parliament voted the act through' not 'mps in the parliament voted it, the institution of parliament facilitated it' collectively, the workers are the union, and it is easier to just give the name of that union.

    Surely, following the logic that extra business means the employees deserve more pay, then bus drivers on routes with few passengers should have their pay docked, as they aren't bringing in as much money as the average driver and thus don't deserve their cut as you put it.

    TfL is not owned by its employees, and thus extra profits should be passed, first and foremost, on to the people of London, in the form of extra investments in infrastructure. Then, if there is spare money, bonuses should be awarded at the discretion of the management. Quite simply, the Unite members are making a cash grab because they know that TfL can't refuse at this time, not because their working conditions are unfair or their pay is too low, but because they can see a chance to grab a bit more taxpayers money.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    I don't know. I can't say unless I actually know the details of what happened.
    Well, London bus drivers decided to strike during the olympics because they felt that they deserved a larger bonus than the one initially offered for continuing to do their jobs as normal during the Olympics.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    At this point you might as well just repeal all special laws about strikes and have it be treated as a regular breach of contract dispute, as it was in the early 1900s before union privilege took off. The effect is basically the same, but it's much neater.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting bill (in the words of TopHat). Will be voting no.

    Workers have to have someone to represent them and advocate their points of view & rights in the workplace.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    If this does not pass, would a bill removing all legal status from trade unions, but requiring equal treatment for all participants in a given strike be a possibility?
    PMs.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Well, London bus drivers decided to strike during the olympics because they felt that they deserved a larger bonus than the one initially offered for continuing to do their jobs as normal during the Olympics.
    I'd need to see an unbiased source before passing any judgement :lol:
    • 39 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazzini)
    No. I don't agree with section 2, apart from (2), and in 4 (1) 'royal accent' must be changed to 'royal assent'.

    Who wrote this bill? :fuhrer:
    I wrote this bill along with government consultation.

    (Original post by RoryS)
    Disgusting bill (in the words of TopHat). Will be voting no.

    Workers have to have someone to represent them and advocate their points of view & rights in the workplace.
    This bill in no way prevents workers from engaging in collective bargaining via a union, this bill does however seek to discourage protected 'collective blackmail'.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I wrote this bill along with government consultation.
    And no one picked up on the typo? :fuhrer: :hmmm:
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazzini)
    And no one picked up on the typo? :fuhrer: :hmmm:
    Just you and me it seems.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Just you and me it seems.
    Yeah I saw this, I meant in the Gov't subforum.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
Updated: July 17, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.