Labour rejects union rights
Scores of Labour MPs who are funded by trade unions voted against legislation aimed at easing the Tory anti-union laws last week.
The New Labour government went back on its promise, made in 2005 as part of the Warwick Agreement, to support the changes.
The TUC and all the major unions backed a series of amendments to the Employment Bill.
One would have banned employers from being able to hire agency workers to do the jobs of striking staff, and force them to inform employment agencies that there was a dispute to avoid an excuse of ignorance.
Another would have forced employers to provide contact details for workers to a union seeking an industrial action ballot.
This would have reduced the administrative burden on unions.
Just 44 Labour MPs could bring themselves to vote in line with policies the unions support.
Just 15 Labour MPs supported the unions having the right to expel without penalty British National Party members and other fascists.
This amendment was not even put to the vote because of the lack of support.
Union members should demand that all union support is withdrawn from those Labour MPs who voted against these measures.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16441
NWN:
The unions don't support democracy, free speech, or self determination, then?
Oh no, we never knew that.............................
You can discuss this, and many other topics at
http://www.nwn-forum.co.uk/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Someone has just tried to post the link to this website on here, we have deleted it. WARNING 2008 list online WTF is going on at the BNP ? ...
7 comments:
Scores of Labour MPs who are funded by trade unions voted against legislation aimed at easing the Tory anti-union laws last week.
The New Labour government went back on its promise, made in 2005 as part of the Warwick Agreement, to support the changes.
Are they fucking stupid? Labour, Tory, there's no difference, never has been, the whole thing is run by JEWS
This is a massive defeat for Crudas and his chums lol
It couldn't have happened to nastier people.
The Labour Party does not and never did give a toss about working people. I paste below an article from the Daily Telegraph in which the former Left wing Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett floats the idea of abolishing retirement and making people sell their homes to pay for care in old age.
A few points to note from Blunkett's speach.
1) people must stop assuming that the government has prime responsibility for supporting them through their retirement.
2)People must finance their own care needs by selling their homes.
3)People must carry on in work. This is part of the social care agenda. (he says)
Basically they have taken your taxes, taken your national insurance contributions but don't think you are going to get anything back.The government has broken it's contract with the people.(Not that it ever intended to keep it)
Labour is total C**P and so are the other two.
The link to the article is :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2684774/David-Blunkett-says-people-should-work-until-they-are-incapacitated.html
-----------------------------------
David Blunkett says people should work until they are 'incapacitated'
Britain's workforce should keep working until they are no longer physically able to do so, according to former cabinet minister David Blunkett.
By Lucy Cockcroft
David Blunkett has said people should stop assuming that the Government had 'prime responsibility' for supporting them through their retirement.
In a speech to the Counsel and Care charity in London, he said people should stop assuming that the Government had "prime responsibility" for supporting them through "the ever increasing years of retirement".
The former Work and Pensions Secretary said people should be prepared to use equity release schemes to pay for their care in retirement, rather than protecting the value of their inheritances to their families.
Mr Blunkett said that he believed that carrying on in "work activity", whether full-time or part-time, for as long as possible should form part of the "social care agenda" for the future.
He said: "My presumption is this. That all of us, every one of us who is capable of doing so, should aspire to continue with some meaningful activity to the point of our incapacity overtaking us.
"Preferably work, of course, increasingly part-time, flexible and in many cases, very different to the work undertaken in our earlier lives. Perhaps, increasingly, volunteering - within our own family and immediate circle as well as outside. Offering what we can and receiving from others what we cannot."
Mr Blunkett also warned that with a doubling of the population over the age of 80, new ways would have to be found to fund the care of the elderly.
With £700 billion tied up in home ownership by the retired, he said that equity release schemes could alleviate the need for people to sell up or enter residential care by providing the cash to pay for care in their homes.
He said: "In our endeavour to protect people's inheritance, have we not made enough of, and are we not clear enough about, the release of equity from the enormous home ownership that exists in Britain and the divide of those with and without assets which this trend has accelerated?"
"In my view, and I am open to persuasion, we should be looking to reinforce the responsibility and capability of the family and the immediate community to continue helping themselves."
----------------------------------
When will people wake up and ask three very important questions.
1) Why should we go to work?
2) Why do we need money?
3) Why do we buy houses? This land is ours, we can build wherever we want, and live wherever we want
When we stop complying with the society they have created for us, we will start living. Why does society follow all their rules? We don't need them.
The queer Jew Mandy Mandelson while an Labour party appointed EU Commissioner (Commissar)always bloked any rights for British workers while he was in Brussels, now that the faggot is the Trade & Industry secretary he is doing the same thing in parliament, in the hope of pleasing big business bosses. When will the stupid out of touch Marxist union leaders realise this? But as we know these union bastards are self serving and only interested in themselves and couldn't really care a shit for the white workers! All they ever campaign on are idiotic, self destructive 'anti-racist' matters!
It is useful for Union bosses to have something to campign about, ie rights for workers. All the time they have no rights, the union bosses have a job to do.
Neither the unions nor the Labour party have ever represented the interests of their members, the working class or the general population.
For example, unions opposed modernisation because that would reduce the number of workers, and thereby potential union members, in a given industry.
If unions were not organised for specific industrial groups, such as miners, or steel workers, but for all workers, then union bosses would have no interest in opposing modernisation. The reduction of workers in the mines, would be offset by the increase in workers elsewhere.
The Labour party has, during each of its four governments since 1945,
increased tax rates and seen the inevitable decline in tax takes, leading to cuts.
Four times in a row....and still they don't get it?
But actually they do. Promising to soak the rich is a good way for the malevolent and resentful to get votes, not a good way to run the country.
Solving poverty would be the death knell of this type of politics, hence the Labour Party's addiction to policies that appeal to voters, but still keep them poor.
Bill Jax
When has Blunkett ever been involved in 'meaningful activity' tosser
Post a Comment