Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    Aye. It is imperative that our national security is protected and that our digital defense systems remain online, regardless of internal disputes.
    Ok I’ll ask you, what evidence is there that national security would be affected?

    Forcing them to comply with all FOI requests then that would compromise national security
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It makes the Federation transparent. Can you prove how that wouldn't help with national security?...



    This isn't like the 1984-97 ban.
    Yes, having an organisation forced to reveal how many members it has, what roles its members have, or funding could compromise operations of security services. The principle of national security is assuming everything compromises safety if something proving the opposite cannot be found; your point is dumb.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    Might I ask what this will achieve? Why is the government prohibiting employees in government services from joining trade unions? Not a fan of them but surely any liberal member in government would see what problems this would cause.
    Nay, I cannot possibly support this bill
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It makes the Federation transparent. Can you prove how that wouldn't help with national security?...



    This isn't like the 1984-97 ban.
    It kinda is...you're banning trade union membership (which is prohibited under the aforementioned convention) and just like the 84-97 ban there has been no recent industrial action and there is no clear immediate need for industrial action, it's a ban for the sake of a ban contrary to international law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    Yes, having an organisation forced to reveal how many members it has, what roles its members have, or funding could compromise operations of security services. The principle of national security is assuming everything compromises safety if something proving the opposite cannot be found; your point is dumb.
    How is it dumb when the Police Federation cannot ignore requests under the Freedom of Information Act as well (iirc)?

    Please explain how it compromises that and I will consider changes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    How is it dumb when the Police Federation cannot ignore requests under the Freedom of Information Act as well (iirc)?

    Please explain how it compromises that and I will consider changes.
    The police forces of the country deal with issues of less severity than MI5, MI6, and GCHQ: secretive security agencies should remain secretive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Ok I’ll ask you, what evidence is there that national security would be affected?

    Forcing them to comply with all FOI requests then that would compromise national security
    This Bill does not force anyone to 'comply with all FOI requests' - rather the Federation must not 'ignore any FOI requests' - the Federation must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act, without fail. The Freedom of Information Act, itself, makes provisions for the rejection of certain requests that are deemed to be 'vexatious' among other things. Where a 'vexatious' request is sent to the Federation, under the premise of FOI, the Federation shall be obliged to not ignore it but send a fitting response. Where the sender of said 'vexatious' request wishes to appeal, he/she must follow the routes as detailed in the FOI Act, most notably, through the Information Commissioner.

    The inclusion of that clause is to reaffirm the transparency necessary in this establishment and operational aspects of the Federation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Why is it necessary to ban trade union membership for these employees? I don't see a reason which justifies the restriction on the freedom of association here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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?
    Are you trying to look silly? Saying 'your definition of voluntary association is a narrow one' is the equivalent to saying 'your definition of rights is a narrow one'. It is not difficult, if people are sacked for voluntarily joining with other people then international law has been violated and their freedom has been infringed upon.

    The sensible route is dealing with trade unions through democratisation; this means requiring supermajorities for strikes to be permitted and restricting voting to those who are directly affected. This is the sensible route because it protects the national interest and the businesses of employers without forbidding employees from voluntarily joining with other people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    This Bill does not force anyone to 'comply with all FOI requests' - rather the Federation must not 'ignore any FOI requests' - the Federation must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act, without fail. The Freedom of Information Act, itself, makes provisions for the rejection of certain requests that are deemed to be 'vexatious' among other things. Where a 'vexatious' request is sent to the Federation, under the premise of FOI, the Federation shall be obliged to not ignore it but send a fitting response. Where the sender of said 'vexatious' request wishes to appeal, he/she must follow the routes as detailed in the FOI Act, most notably, through the Information Commissioner.

    The inclusion of that clause is to reaffirm the transparency necessary in this establishment and operational aspects of the Federation.
    And what about the first part of what I said?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The military and police aren't allowed to strike although personnel are allowed to join a trade union with heany restrictions on their involvement. Why should members of GCHQ who aid the police and military in ensuring and protecting our national security be barred from joining a trade union? Why not adopt the same regulations around trade unions as the police and military?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    And what about the first part of what I said?
    We are under constant bombardment by enemy states and are living in a society where a terrorist attack could be reasonably planned and executed within hours - it is imperative that we do not allow enemy states and terrorists to exploit strike action - and the reduced monitoring, the stretched staff, the decreased morale among other staff associated with it - to further their own causes and ultimately destroy the dynamic equilibrium of our state - notably, the Russian threats against the National Grid.

    We do not wish to 'oppress' or 'surpass' the civil liberties of workers in GCHQ - they are prized and vital to our national security. Crucially, we acknowledge that there may exist internal disputes that must be resolved through one mechanism or another - said mechanism, however, cannot threaten the safety and security of our great nation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    The military and police aren't allowed to strike although personnel are allowed to join a trade union with heany restrictions on their involvement. Why should members of GCHQ who aid the police and military in ensuring and protecting our national security be barred from joining a trade union? Why not adopt the same regulations around trade unions as the police and military?
    This model adopts that of the IRL Police Federation artion...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    The military and police aren't allowed to strike although personnel are allowed to join a trade union with heany restrictions on their involvement. Why should members of GCHQ who aid the police and military in ensuring and protecting our national security be barred from joining a trade union? Why not adopt the same regulations around trade unions as the police and military?
    Because GCHQ employees are civil servants, not members of the armed forces or police, and as such are subject to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) which sets out an explicit exception in article 9 for the armed forces and police.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    We are under constant bombardment by enemy states and are living in a society where a terrorist attack could be reasonably planned and executed within hours - it is imperative that we do not allow enemy states and terrorists to exploit strike action - and the reduced monitoring, the stretched staff, the decreased morale among other staff associated with it - to further their own causes and ultimately destroy the dynamic equilibrium of our state - notably, the Russian threats against the National Grid.

    We do not wish to 'oppress' or 'surpass' the civil liberties of workers in GCHQ - they are prized and vital to our national security. Crucially, we acknowledge that there may exist internal disputes that must be resolved through one mechanism or another - said mechanism, however, cannot threaten the safety and security of our great nation.
    Can you inform the house when the last time industrial action was taken at GCHQ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Are you trying to look silly? Saying 'your definition of voluntary association is a narrow one' is the equivalent to saying 'your definition of rights is a narrow one'. It is not difficult, if people are sacked for voluntarily joining with other people then international law has been violated and their freedom has been infringed upon.
    No it’s really not equivalent to that. If the sacking is a problem and you’re so blinded by your ideology on “freedom” even when national security is in question, would you change your mind if they weren’t sacked for remaining in a trade union?

    The sensible route is dealing with trade unions through democratisation; this means requiring supermajorities for strikes to be permitted and restricting voting to those who are directly affected. This is the sensible route because it protects the national interest and the businesses of employers without forbidding employees from voluntarily joining with other people.
    But how is doing this arbitrarily justified but this is not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Might I ask what this will achieve? Why is the government prohibiting employees in government services from joining trade unions? Not a fan of them but surely any liberal member in government would see what problems this would cause.
    Nay, I cannot possibly support this bill
    (Original post by CatusStarbright)
    Why is it necessary to ban trade union membership for these employees? I don't see a reason which justifies the restriction on the freedom of association here.
    Reading the notes is useful you know...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Reading the notes is useful you know...
    It can be but not when you only assert stuff without evidence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It kinda is...you're banning trade union membership (which is prohibited under the aforementioned convention) and just like the 84-97 ban there has been no recent industrial action and there is no clear immediate need for industrial action, it's a ban for the sake of a ban contrary to international law.
    It’s not like the 1984-97 ban. They had no way to settle disputes but with this bill they do through a federation.

    Direct me to the part that mentions that in international law please.

    Edit: Nvm
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Reading the notes is useful you know...
    I don’t think the notes justify the bill. Yes there may be security concerns but I fail to see ( at least from the notes) why this step is needed
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: February 15, 2018
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.