The Trade Union Bill urges more police involvement in pickets
Yesterday Dave Prentis, the general secretary of UNISON, wrote on these pages about government plans to further clamp down on workers’ rights when they introduce the Trade Union Bill. The latest proposals include requiring all striking picket workers to identify themselves to police and give 14-days’ notice of all picket and protest plans.
Prentis said these proposals were ‘all about making life tough for unions and the working people they represent just for the hell of it’. Today a YouGov poll shows that more than three-quarters of the public agree that these new measures are a waste of police time.
The survey, carried out for the TUC, shows that 77 per cent of people -including 69 per cent of Conservative voters – think making it compulsory for unions to give 14-days’ notice if they are planning to use a loudspeaker or carry a banner is ‘a bad use of police time’.
A similar number (72 per cent) think the same of forcing unions to submit what they are planning to post on social media and blogs during a strike two weeks ahead of time.
This specific proposal seems like a gross infringement on media freedom; if unions breach this rule or others they could be hit with financial penalties of up to £20,000.
The poll also showed public concern about the victimisation of union members. 60 per cent) of the public think making the lead person on a peaceful picket line give their name to their employer will have a negative effect on that person’s career.
The findings come as the government prepares to bring its Trade Union Bill before parliament for its second reading, which could take place as early as next week.
The Trade Union Bill was described this week as ‘a major attack on civil liberties in the UK’ by human rights groups including Amnesty International, Liberty and the British Institute of Human Rights:
“It is hard to see the aim of this bill as anything but seeking to undermine the rights of all working people.”
Ministers have also been criticised by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) – the government’s red tape watchdog – for trying to rush through the Bill without proper consultation.
The RPC described the government’s three impact assessments on its proposals as ‘red – not fit for purpose’ and said the government had not made the case for the changes.
The government has said it felt forced to make the changes after a number of strikes based on small turnouts.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward
Want to read more posts like this? Then *sign-up to Look Left* and make sure you have the facts to rebut right-wing spin
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
22 Responses to “Three-quarters of the public think government strike plans will be a waste of police time”
Mick
Hang on a minute here. This is the TUC, hardly the masters of unbiased surveillance. And contrary to the claims of the doom merchants, workers still have the right to strike. And they STILL don’t need a true majority vote of the workforce to get it. And with the runaway Tube strikes ravaging the lives of other workers, even though Tube drivers get double the pay and perks of other toilers, the Tories can say their plans have a certain merit.
Indeed, that silly guffer Serwotka, among others, called for a nationwide general strike, of sorts, because the Tories are such fascists. Now that blows a hole in left wing claims that trade union reforms are unnecessary, on the grounds that no union bosses would behave so stereotypically any more.
Causing trouble to prove that you won’t have to cause trouble any more, unless you say your pushed? Truly, truly loony left. They’ve not left us.
JAMES MCGIBBON
There could actually be good trade union discussions with the employer that are independently verified on media. No one can then dispute what was said and agreed too. The employer would never agree to this. And the public service agreements are surely open to public scrutiny as we pay them from our tax,
stevep
Everything you have today was fought for bitterly by your forebears though collectivity and sacrifice. Decent housing, A National Health Service, Free education for your kids, decent local services, paid holidays, sick pay etc.
I could go on, but suffice to say they weren’t bequeathed to us by beneficent Downton Abbey-style toffs or sympathetic company bosses. They had to be stood up for and fought for by Trades Unions representing us, often not seeing the benefit of it in their lifetime.
As for wildcat strikers and violet pickets, the company bosses and the establishment used far more violent hired thugs and police to break strikes. Two examples are the 1926 general strike and more recently, the 1984-5 miners strike. The media painted the picture they wanted the masses to see and believe, to cover it up. They did the same with Hillsborough a few years later.
Take a look back at the Peterloo massacre of 1819 to find out about how the Establishment crushes protest.
Unions have always been progressive, forward thinking organisations, dedicated to bringing about a fairer, decent, people-oriented society. The landed wealthy, the Corporations etc. want things to go backwards to a time before collectivity where the vast majority of people didn`t have what they enjoy today and prevent them from fighting for it again with restrictive and oppressive legislation.
So any talk of the left being “loony”, which is extremely insulting to the mentally disadvantaged, is total rubbish.
If the opposite is true and the far-right current political establishment is sane then greed, dishonesty, selfishness, inhumanity and corruption must therefore be virtues.
Mick
You actually underline one of my points for me. I’m one of the public who agrees that a moderate trade union presence has a definite place in any modern society valuing its freedom. Such history, where genuine exploitation was fought, is not to be forgotten.
But the Left still fight yesterday’s battles in a changed world. They literally tell us we still live under Victorian conditions under David Cameron, a man whose party returned to power helped by the votes of common people. Leftists fantasise about a Battle Of Cable Street re-run, quite oblivious that they stand beside Islamics who are just as bigoted as the tiny clique of NF who still exist and pose no danger.
One of the reasons Labour has such an identity crisis today is because the dinosaur militant socialism which brought down even HAROLD WILSON is no longer relevant or forward thinking. We have survived.
stevep
There seems to be a skewed form of thinking that if Labour move to the left they will be going backwards. Not true. It is the Tories and their far-right friends who have taken us backwards, to uncertain employment, more work for less pay, housing shortages, a failing health service etc. whilst the wealthy become even wealthier by the minute.
Is that really the sort of world we wish to live in?
Cameron considered himself very fortunate to win the recent election, he even rehearsed his leaving speech. It was more to do with Labour unable to present a coherent argument as to what or who they stood for, than massive popularity for the Tories.
There will no such issues when Jeremy Corbyn is leader, he will put in place a clear, forward-looking, progressive alternative to the current right-wing miasma that passes for political representation today.
As for “survived”, yes, we have thank goodness. We have survived 36 years of regressive and spiteful politics designed to enrich the wealthy and make the rest of us immeasurably poorer.
A better future is now a possibility – if we want it.