Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    B1024 – Trade Union (Amendment) Bill 2016, TSR Labour Party

    Trade Union (Amendment) Bill 2016
    A bill to improve 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, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1: Definitions
    "trade union" is defined as in Part I, Chapter I, Section I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

    2: Timing and Duration of Industrial Action
    Section 8, and Section 9 of the Trade Union Act 2016 is hereby repealed.

    3: Ballot Turnout Requirements
    In section 2 of the Trade Union Act 2016, in subsection (1), for paragraph (ii) substitute—
    "Insert- (iia)in which at least 40% of those who were entitled to vote in the ballot did so, and”.

    4: Application of Funds for Political Objects
    Section 11 of the Trade Union Act 2016, is hereby repealed.

    5: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
    (1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
    (2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the 1st of September 2017.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Trade Union (Amendment) Act 2016.

    Notes:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Section 2: The 2016 act required trade unions to give a 14 days notice at the least in order to take industrial action. This section reduces that to 7 days.

    Reducing the time period in which trade union can call a strike, improves their bargaining power with an employer.

    Section 3: Reduces the ballot turnout requirements from 50% of those eligible to vote in the union, to 40%.

    With a lot of trade unions with a membership base reaching the thousands, and some reaching the millions. It's hard to expect half of the eligible electorate to turn up and vote. Though there's an issue with very low voter turnout. 40% is a good compromise.

    Section 4: The opt-in system for funding political objects is removed, resulting in the original opt out system being left.

    There has always been a connection with trade unions and certain political parties. Trade union should be able to support political entities that protect the rights of their members.

    Trade union membership is falling and the government is further weakening the powers of trade unions to protect big businesses. A government shouldn't just be protecting the rights of businesses, but individuals who make this country what it is today. This bill is the first step.

    The bills referred to:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Section 4 should be a forced question and not opt out.

    I'm not sure I like section 2 because I think 14 days give time for the employer to negotiate to stop it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Section 4 should be a forced question and not opt out.

    I'm not sure I like section 2 because I think 14 days give time for the employer to negotiate to stop it.
    This leaves the option for the trade union to delay a strike etc. The 14-day rule is designed solely to minimise the effectiveness of strikes.

    Aye.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Aye.

    I'd call on economic centrists who support collective bargaining to support this as should right-of-centre MPs who realise this is a compromise when instead we could move to scrap the whole damn Trade Union Act.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This leaves the option for the trade union to delay a strike etc. The 14-day rule is designed solely to minimise the effectiveness of strikes.

    Aye.
    How can the time delay reduce effectiveness, unless its something stupid like a month.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    How can the time delay reduce effectiveness, unless its something stupid like a month.
    It makes it easier to arrange scab labour.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Given that you're repealing stuff and claiming how thing were before would be the case without specifically enacting to do so, care to point us to the currently enacted law stating so because you seem to be forgetting the whole overwriting of law repeals the over written law.

    I'm also still very much against an opt out system unless the affiliation is made clear and ability to opt out made clear and simple and not hidden as it is in the vast majority of cases (I think it was something like only two unions made the affiliation clear when joining and neither gave the option to opt out immediately).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, trade unions need less powers, businesses need more time to reduce the impact of a strike when a strike is called, an trade union members should not be taken to support the Labour Party: an opt-in system is the better system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. A seven day notice period is only after a ballot result, and employers will have an idea of the likelihood of a strike most probably at the time the ballot is called, so in effect more than seven days warning. We did not have 40% of the electorate vote for Brexit but accept the result and its consequences, a far more reaching decision than a strike, so 40% seems reasonable for a minimum to vote in favour. Opting in or out of the political levy is not something I am especially fussed about given that it should be simple either way, but the change was done for pernicious reasons in my view and so am content for it to be repealed.

    A separate Bill I would like to see is to end the law that holds a ballot result only valid for 28 days, as i see this leading to strikes to keep a ballot mandate valid. Nothing wrong in my view in having a 90 day rule, which I think in some cases by allowing more time for discussion would avoid or reduce the number of strikes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    An opt out system is preferable to the system implemented in this act. Though I do admit, a more transparent system could've been added. But for now this bill is a good compromise, and prevents trade unions from losing all their bargaining power.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by McRite)
    Aye.

    An opt out system is preferable to the system implemented in this act. Though I do admit, a more transparent system could've been added. But for now this bill is a good compromise, and prevents trade unions from losing all their bargaining power.
    They gain bargaining power by funding a failing party?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They gain bargaining power by funding a failing party?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    More like supporting a political party which helps them protect workers rights. Whether this political party is 'failing' or not is down to ones opinion, and to whom they fund should be up to them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by McRite)
    More like supporting a political party which helps them protect workers rights. Whether this political party is 'failing' or not is down to ones opinion, and to whom they fund should be up to them.
    I would call a party that will have immense difficulty enacting its legislative agenda for the foreseeable future despite being the second party and having already been consigned to 10 years of failing to enact their agenda a failing party. As I would call a party engaged in civil war where nobody is willing to be brutal enough to win a failing party. And I would call a party failing when it faces the prospect of a split. We saw what the split did in the 80's, if they split now I wonder whether the Tories would be able to get over 50% of the vote if they could secure an election next year?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would call a party that will have immense difficulty enacting its legislative agenda for the foreseeable future despite being the second party and having already been consigned to 10 years of failing to enact their agenda a failing party. As I would call a party engaged in civil war where nobody is willing to be brutal enough to win a failing party. And I would call a party failing when it faces the prospect of a split. We saw what the split did in the 80's, if they split now I wonder whether the Tories would be able to get over 50% of the vote if they could secure an election next year?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    MHoC.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would call a party that will have immense difficulty enacting its legislative agenda for the foreseeable future despite being the second party and having already been consigned to 10 years of failing to enact their agenda a failing party. As I would call a party engaged in civil war where nobody is willing to be brutal enough to win a failing party. And I would call a party failing when it faces the prospect of a split. We saw what the split did in the 80's, if they split now I wonder whether the Tories would be able to get over 50% of the vote if they could secure an election next year?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, IRL that may be the case, however this isn't the case in the MHoC. As I stated before, trade unions aren't forced support the Labour party. Who they support is at their discretion.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given that you're repealing stuff and claiming how thing were before would be the case without specifically enacting to do so, care to point us to the currently enacted law stating so because you seem to be forgetting the whole overwriting of law repeals the over written law.
    The current laws referred to in the bill are linked in the notes.

    I haven't seen this over written law.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by McRite)
    Well, IRL that may be the case, however this isn't the case in the MHoC. As I stated before, trade unions aren't forced support the Labour party. Who they support is at their discretion.



    The current laws referred to in the bill are linked in the notes.

    I haven't seen this over written law.
    Read the red box on the 1992 Act, that will be due to the 2016 one. Regardless, if the 1992 act sets a 40% threshold and the 2016 one sets 50%, the 2016 one will by convention repeal the 40% bit of the 1992 act. What this means is repeal if 50% clause does not bring back the 40% clause as that is no longer on the statute book, it means that, theoretically, a single vote could be cast in an arbitrarily large union and the result would hold.

    It's the exact same reason going back to the old way if calling elections is not as simple as repealing the FTPA as doing so would make it IMPOSSIBLE for an election to be called without blatant use of the royal perogative, elections would be entirely at the behest of her majesty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill has been withdrawn.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 11, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.