B1334 - (GCHQ) Trade Union Bill 2018

Watch
This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


B1334 - (GCHQ) Trade Union Bill 2018, TSR Government




A

BILL

TO

prohibit GCHQ employees from joining trade unions and create a representative institution where GCHQ employees can settle disputes through arbitration, without unrest.




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 - Definitions
(1) Employee: a person employed for wages or salary.
(2) Trade union: an organised association of workers in a trade, group of trades, or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.
(3) Federation: a group of organisations that have joined to form a larger organisation.
(4) Arbitration: the use of an independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute.
(5) Employer: a person or organisation that employs people.
(6) Industrial action: action taken by employees as a protest, especially striking or working to rule.

2 - GCHQ Employees Trade Union Membership
(1) By 31st March 2018, all GCHQ employees are prohibited from joining a trade union.
(2) By 31st March 2018, all current GCHQ employees currently a member of a trade union must leave or face dismissal.

3 - GCHQ Representative Institutions
(1) By 31st March 2018, the Intelligence and Security Federation will form.
(2) All current GCHQ employees that are not members of a trade union are members of the Intelligence and Security Federation by default.
(3) Any new GCHQ employees can opt-in to membership of the Intelligence and Security Federation.
(4) The Intelligence and Security Federation’s purpose is to represent GCHQ employees and settle disputes through arbitration as long as the employer bargains in good faith.
(5) The Intelligence and Security Federation must not:
(a) take industrial action,
(b) ballot for industrial action and,
(c) ignore requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(6) The Intelligence and Security Federation must set up a constitution which must contain the following:
(a) the various roles needed in order to allow the federation to function,
(b) rules for members and,
(c) benefits of being a member of the federation.
(7) Membership fees are decided by the Intelligence and Security Federation. Membership fees must be reviewed every year by the Intelligence and Security Federation.
(8) Members of the Intelligence and Security Federation may choose to opt-out of paying membership fees. If they do this, they will not receive the following:
(a) legal representation,
(b) have the right to vote in a ballot,
(c) any other benefits paying members receive.
(6) Independent reviews can be carried out at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
(7) Ballots will only be valid if:
(a) the turnout is more than 50% and,
(b) if two-thirds vote in favour.

4 - Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Trade Union Act 2018.
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
(3) This Act is to come into effect on the 30th March 2018.

Notes:
Spoiler:
Show




GCHQ is one of the most important intelligence and security organisation in the country. It provides the government and the armed forces with necessary information and provides signals intelligence. The fact that employees are allowed to strike could pose a national security risk and possible unrest. To prevent this from occurring, this bill prohibits employees from joining trade unions but they automatically become members of a federation which will allow them to express their concerns through arbitration. In this federation, they will not be able to strike or ballot to strike, nor will they be able to ignore any requests to see information from the press, which means that this federation will also be transparent.

To be explicit, this federation will not be publicly funded. Any funding will come from the money the federation raises through membership fees.

In more recent times, we have been close to seeing strike action from GCHQ employees. Evidence of that is here.


0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
DayneD89 the title should be (GCHQ) Trade Union Bill 2018.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
DayneD89 the title should be (GCHQ) Trade Union Bill 2018.
Np, I'll edit that. I thought that bit was for internal use
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
National security is of utmost importance. Aye.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
No. Trade unions need further democratisation and strong restrictions to their power, but no employee should be forbidden by law from voluntarily associating with other people.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Saunders16)
No. Trade unions need further democratisation and strong restrictions to their power, but no employee should be forbidden by law from voluntarily associating with other people.
This bill does not forbid people from voluntarily associating with others, just not in a trade union but in a federation to ensure disputes are settled through arbitration.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
National security is of utmost importance. Aye.
And what evidence can you provide to show that it’s compromised with trade union membership for these people? Actual evidence rather than just an assertion.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by joecphillips)
And what evidence can you provide to show that it’s compromised with trade union membership for these people? Actual evidence rather than just an assertion.
Reading something called the notes might help before assuming assertion.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
This bill does not forbid people from voluntarily associating with others, just not in a trade union
That is an oxymoron.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Reading something called the notes might help before assuming assertion.
Your evidence doesn’t say that national security would be affected, so yes it is an assertion.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Saunders16)
That is an oxymoron.
The Federation works similarly to the Police Federation IRL so that must be an oxymoron to then...

(Original post by joecphillips)
Your evidence doesn’t say that national security would be affected, so yes it is an assertion.
Inference.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
The Federation works similarly to the Police Federation IRL so that must be an oxymoron to then...



Inference.
Except your article doesn’t say that national security would be affected, so what evidence do you have that it would?
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
I do not see how forcing organisations linked to security services to provide information to all Freedom of Information requests strengthens national security.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
It has been justified about as well as the bill introducing indoctrination into most schools. It is also worth noting that the 1984-97 ban was found to be in contravention of International Labour Law which we are party to as only the police and armed forces are exempt from the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jacob E)
I do not see how forcing organisations linked to security services to provide information to all Freedom of Information requests strengthens national security.
It makes the Federation transparent. Can you prove how that wouldn't help with national security?...

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It has been justified about as well as the bill introducing indoctrination into most schools. It is also worth noting that the 1984-97 ban was found to be in contravention of International Labour Law which we are party to as only the police and armed forces are exempt from the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
This isn't like the 1984-97 ban.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
The Federation works similarly to the Police Federation IRL so that must be an oxymoron to then...
If workers at GCHQ cannot join a trade union, they are forbidding from joining a voluntary association. It is an oxymoron to say that they are free to join in association with other people; your point is nonsensical. I cannot support people being forbidden from associating with other people. If this government wishes to properly tackle trade unions, it should take the sensible route and restrict their power rather then just looking at one area and taking away people's freedom.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
This will be a good test of how liberal the “Liberals” are the last time a Tory Government with the liberals tried to push out something similar actual liberal MPs opposed it, are there any of these left in the party?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
Mr Speaker,

With respect, I strongly disagree with this bill and will be voting against it, and I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues that respect this country’s liberal, freedom-centric traditions to do likewise.

The right to freedom of association, mostly commonly expressed by workers in the form of joining a trade union, should be an accessible option for all people, this bill limits that right, which should be cherished.

I also share Jammy’s concerns regarding international law.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Aye. It is imperative that our national security is protected and that our digital defense systems remain online, regardless of internal disputes.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Saunders16)
If workers at GCHQ cannot join a trade union, they are forbidding from joining a voluntary association. It is an oxymoron to say that they are free to join in association with other people; your point is nonsensical. I cannot support people being forbidden from associating with other people. If this government wishes to properly tackle trade unions, it should take the sensible route and restrict their power rather then just looking at one area and taking away people's freedom.
A voluntary association does not have to be a trade union. So it's not an oxymoron and my point is not nonsensical, your definition of voluntary association is a narrow one.

Restrict their power sounds quite vague, do you mind elaborating this "sensible" route? And why do this arbitrarily on all trade unions?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (22)
18.64%
I'm not sure (2)
1.69%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (35)
29.66%
I have already dropped out (3)
2.54%
I'm not a current university student (56)
47.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise