Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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?

    But how is doing this arbitrarily justified but this is not?
    We are all ideologues (perhaps we could refer to conservatism as anti-ideology) but there should be a consensus in this House that we do not restrict people's freedom of association, for that is one of the most basic rights that protects our great democracy. I am not coming from this as a supporter of trade unions; hell, I'm about as opposed to trade unions as it gets. However, GCHQ workers joining trade unions does not hurt national security. A much better debate could be created if this bill looked at the right to strike rather than freedom of association.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    You don’t wish to do it but that’s exactly what you are doing.

    I’d say it could be done in minutes.

    When was the last time strike action was taken?

    Removing peoples rights is destroying the dynamic equilibrium of our state and doing their job for them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Reading the notes is useful you know...
    I did, but perhaps my emphasis on the word "necessary" didn't come across well in writing. I see how it could be desirable from a certain point of view to prevent GCHQ workers from striking, but I am asking why it is perceived to be necessary to impose such a restriction in order to achieve this end.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you inform the house when the last time industrial action was taken at GCHQ?
    As detailed in the notes, industrial action was considered in August 2013 - the entire premise of the bill is to avoid, where possible, an abatement in our national security.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    As detailed in the notes, industrial action was considered in August 2013 - the entire premise of the bill is to avoid, where possible, an abatement in our national security.
    So when was the last time action was taken? Why not answer the question asked rather than one that is completely different?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You don’t wish to do it but that’s exactly what you are doing.

    I’d say it could be done in minutes.

    When was the last time strike action was taken?

    Removing peoples rights is destroying the dynamic equilibrium of our state and doing their job for them.
    Employees will retain all rights - barring the right to partake in industrial action, which undermines our security, unequivocally.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So when was the last time action was taken? Why not answer the question asked rather than one that is completely different?
    Why does the government have to play with national security and wait for something to happen with unintended consequences of doing such a thing? You don’t need to wait, the fact it’s been considered is enough to recognise that the threat is still there and it needs to be addressed before they do take action.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    The House might also be interested to hear that, at least back in 2002/3, while industrial action at GCHQ is not a criminal offence there is a legal binding no-disruption agreement which somewhat negates the justification for the bill. This is a legally binding agreement and the Foreign Secretary has the final say on whether industrial action would be disruptive to the operation of GCHQ effectively giving them a veto on any industrial action.

    http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/5/2/p...n-Nov-2011.pdf
    See appendix B2
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Why does the government have to play with national security and wait for something to happen with unintended consequences of doing such a thing? You don’t need to wait, the fact it’s been considered is enough to recognise that the threat is still there and it needs to be addressed before they do take action.
    And look at that the government has already done just that without removing the rights of workers like you are trying to do
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    As detailed in the notes, industrial action was considered in August 2013 - the entire premise of the bill is to avoid, where possible, an abatement in our national security.
    No, that was staff at GCHQ, not GCHQ staff. If you looked a little closer you would find it was the G4S staff who are not covered by this bill anyway.

    Well done, you done goofed again.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    It is abundantly clear that once again the government has failed to do its research.

    This is a bill to stop something happening that already cannot happen and justified with something that would not be stopped by this bill.

    Dear Government: please try to stop embarrassing yourselves.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    The bill creates an adequate body to represent the security services and their employees interests.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    No. I see no good reason whatsoever to ban unionisation.

    If you want to avoid GCHQ strikes (which is understandable) then write a bill to make them an essential service, and we'll discuss the issue further. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Aye.

    The bill creates an adequate body to represent the security services and their employees interests.
    As jammy has pointed out “This is a bill to stop something happening that already cannot happen and justified with something that would not be stopped by this bill.”
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Aye. It is imperative that we protect our national security and we can't afford to have GCHQ officials missing from work because of an internal dispute.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
    Aye. It is imperative that we protect our national security and we can't afford to have GCHQ officials missing from work because of an internal dispute.
    Do you ever read the debate or do you just get told what to say and say it? This bill does not achieve what the authors claim for the simple reason that the goals are already the status quo, unless of course the true aim is to remove the unions one by one.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
    Aye. It is imperative that we protect our national security and we can't afford to have GCHQ officials missing from work because of an internal dispute.
    Have you been following the debate?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Aye.

    The bill creates an adequate body to represent the security services and their employees interests.
    In what way are the existing unions inadequate, pray tell?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    nay
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hang on a minute, doesn’t the wording of this bill defeat itself somewhat?

    By the definition given of “Trade unions”:

    “an organised association of workers in a trade, group of trades, or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.”

    Surely that means that the new federation is illegal under the terms of the act? It would need an exemption clause for the new federation to be a legal organisation...
 
 
 
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
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

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.