What is an “effective ban”? Do you mean something that no one chooses?

“Individually, workers are powerless compared to the overbearing might of their employers”

What ‘might’?

“a worker can leave their job and work else where but again in reality they can’t”

Of course we can. Perhaps we think no one would offer us as lucrative and attractive a deal as our current employer. But what does that say about how awful the deal is?

“However, if such a law existed, as it used to, then it would again become a common occurrence”

Are you serious? You really do hate people, don’t you? You really do think they are idiots who can’t look after themselves (or don’t deserve the freedom to do so?).

Freedom of Association
Freedom to establish and join organisations of their own choosing
The right of unions to elect their representatives in full freedom
The right to strike
The right to collectively bargain

Surely even a right wing knuckle dragger would admit there is a direct correlation between the assault (both legal and political) on trade unions and the increase in inequality and pay (not that is necessarily a bad thing for a Tory) and the decline of social capital in working class communities? Can anyone explain how can the right abhor trade unions and concepts such as working class solidarity and talk endless this shite about the big society?

This is nonsense. These laws were intended to reduce the power of trades unions. The notion that they were intended to protect union members’ rights was just the fig leaf.

Oh, you actually believe this shit! Okay, well I think I follow what your saying although there are so many short sentences, I’m finding it hard. Firstly, you want employers to be able to sack workers for striking; this, imho, will obviously lead to an effective banning on all strike action. If you can’t see that then your deluded or have been toking too hard on the Neo-Liberal crack pipe.

Secondly, I didn’t touch on employer-employee beating because it was a piss take – you understood that, right? However, if such a law existed, as it used to, then it would again become a common occurrence for the average McJob/wage slave worker.

“Yet, as you imply, most would insist on no-strike contracts. Why? Because the cost of strikes is huge and not very valuable to the employee. The gain to the employer of a no strike contract is bigger than the loss to the employee. A net gain. So these would be common.”

Needless to say I don’t agree with that.

“The Working Time Directive is obscene. Where the fuck do a bunch of asshole politicians get off thinking they can tell me I can’t work longer than 48 hours in a week? Seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to think it’s your place to decide the maximum amount someone else can work? And then they’ve got the cheek to tell me this restriction on my freedom is my “right” as though that makes it better!”

Oh, you were holding it together up until now, well just about. But then the madness breaks through, do you actually work more than 48hrs a week pushing pens currently? Individually, workers are powerless compared to the overbearing might of their employers; isn’t that illiberal? Of course you will say noooooo, a worker can leave their job and work else where but again in reality they can’t especially now with 2.5 million jobseekers and 0.5 million vacancies.

I agree with you that if we were to have freedom on this issue, contracts permitting strikes would probably be very rare. It is curious that you didn’t speculate as to the likelihood of employee-beating clauses if we allowed them. They would also be very rare. Both would be very rare because both are damaging. Such a clause would be in the interest of employers (to minimise their liability in the event of a manager being abusive) and yet I hope you would agree employees would tell an employer to piss off if he wanted a beating clause. They wouldn’t insist on them. They would know that they’re not very valuable to them. Yet, as you imply, most would insist on no-strike contracts. Why? Because the cost of strikes is huge and not very valuable to the employee. The gain to the employer of a no strike contract is bigger than the loss to the employee. A net gain. So these would be common. A beating clause is the opposite. Very little gain to the employer, very big loss to the employee. Net loss. So these would be very rare.

The Working Time Directive is obscene. Where the fuck do a bunch of asshole politicians get off thinking they can tell me I can’t work longer than 48 hours in a week? Seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to think it’s your place to decide the maximum amount someone else can work? And then they’ve got the cheek to tell me this restriction on my freedom is my “right” as though that makes it better!