LTU Folding

Following the loss of Alan Fry, the main driving force and inspiration for the LTU, it is with regret we have decided to fold our liberal and trade unionist organisation.

As well as the loss of Alan, interest in Liberal trade unionism has been poor. Following a discussion of founding members over the weekend at the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival and Rally in Dorset, the decision was made to fold the LTU.

For those that wish to continue promoting liberal trade unionism, our advice to one and all is to take what we stand for and be a voice within your own individual unions.

We thank those who have contributed and will re-reimburse those that have made a financial contribution, as no funds were spent.

Sincerest thanks to all.

Peter Graham

Probation staff vote to strike

UNISON’s probation members working for the National Probation Service and the 21 outsourced Community Rehabilitation Companies in England and Wales have voted yes to industrial action over the zero per cent pay offer for 2014.

The result of the ballot is at follows:

Are you prepared to take part in a strike?

Yes: 73 per cent
No: 27 per cent

Are you prepared to take part in action short of strike action?

Yes: 88 per cent
No: 12 per cent

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis said: “The employers have failed to offer a decent pay deal for staff for the last four years. The economy is recovering and this should be reflected in pay packets.

“The probation employers’ zero per cent pay offer is an insult to hard working probation staff who have been put through the misery of the government’s misguided probation reforms.

“There is still time for more negotiations and for the employers to come up with a real pay offer.”

UNISON balloted its members because of the employers’ failure to improve their zero per cent pay offer to probation staff for 2014.

Earlier this year, 96 per cent of UNISON members who took part in an internal consultation over the 2014 imposed pay freeze voted to reject it.

UNISON represents 4,300 probation workers in England and Wales.

Details of the 2014 probation staff pay offer:
Zero per cent pay increase
A one-off/non-pensionable cash payment for staff at the top of their pay scale, as follows:
Pay Band 1          £300
Pay Band 2          £300
Pay Band 3          £300
Pay Band 4          £330
Pay Band 5          £345
Pay Band 6          £385

All staff received their contractual entitlement to one increment on their salary scale.

About 20 per cent of the probation workforce are at the top of their pay scale.

The Liberal Trade Unionsists believe workers were faced with no other option than to vote for strike action. If they had accepted the zero % pay offer, this could have been the catalyst for further attacks on wages and even working conditions. There comes to a point when workers have to make a stand.

Support Parents & Carers Spotlight Day

Each year USDAW  holds a campaign day called Supporting Parents and Carers. Hundreds of reps and activists get involved by running campaigns at their workplaces.

This year’s campaign day is on Wednesday 24 June and the aim is to encourage members who are worried about changes to their jobs, hours of work or money to talk to Usdaw.

If you would like to get involved on Spotlight Day, you can do as much or as little as you like. Usdaw will send you everything you need to help you have a successful campaign.

You could:

•     Give out leaflets to members about how Usdaw can help.

•     Ask members and non-members to sign the pledge.

•     Put a poster on your workplace noticeboard.

•     Talk to members about the Union’s campaign.

You can also order your materials online to support your campaigning on the day. The Liberal Trade Unionists fully support USDAW in this campaign and urge our members to do whatever they can to get involved and to help their fellow workers.

Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

 Below is an interesting piece from Liron Shekel, a boipolar worker and member of the BECTU trade union


“Do you consider yourself to have a disability?”; even if you’re completely open about your mental health disorder, you can’t help but think about it for a moment when you see this question in your job application. “Should I say yes?”, “is it considered a disability?”, “what difference would it make?” and so on.
I moved to London in September and applied for a countless amount of jobs. My criteria were clear- I want to work in a theatre or a cinema and I want to work in customer service as I have done since I was 16.
I couldn’t find many opportunities. It took two months until I finally came across something that seemed perfect, at my favourite London theatre. Filling out that application was stressful, and I decided to tick that “disabled” box. Keeping my bipolar disorder quiet in the past always hurt me (literally, put me in a place where I hurt myself physically) and I vowed after my last pill overdose five years ago I would never hide it again.

The next question was whether I require any adjustments for the interview. The only image that came to my mind then was of a physically disabled person who has problems with their mobility and would therefore need some sort of adjustment to accommodate them. So I wrote, “no, thank you” and moved on.
I got the job and no one ever stopped to ask, “what is the disability you mentioned in your application?”, in fact, legally they’re not allowed to, apparently. They’re not allowed to ask without my consent, and ticking a box isn’t enough for consent.

There were times I considered mentioning it to my managers, supervisors or colleagues, but then I didn’t want any special treatment. I wanted to be treated equally, and shouting it off the rooftops seemed odd and like it had nothing to do with anything.

However, my bipolar meant I took things a little differently. It meant being stressed, paranoid and anxious or getting depressed for no reason at times. It meant taking everything a little more personally and having moments in which all I wanted was to look myself in the staff toilets and cry nonstop. Unfortunately it also meant fighting with colleagues and those in charge because I have reached a point where I couldn’t take things anymore.

I was the one who vowed never to hide it, but because I didn’t come out with it straight away, it took me a couple of months until I gathered up the courage to apologize to everyone I felt I mistreated due to my symptoms and admitted “I will sometimes take things a little differently than I should, it’s because I’m bipolar. Please don’t misjudge me for it and if I act in a way that I shouldn’t, please talk to me about it”.
Most of my colleagues were very understanding and some adapted to this new “information”. Some had more problems dealing with it or were already too prejudiced against me to adapt. For example, some continued to misjudge and blame me for issues because of previous conflicts.

I don’t blame them, I don’t blame anyone. I still find it hard to understand or accept that I might, at times, think so differently and process things in a way that others don’t. People always tell us that we need to try and put ourselves in the other person’s shoes, but what if the shoes are so tight it hurts to walk in them?
It did however; bring me to the point where it became unhealthy for me. Where I had to seek support once again since those terrible, harmful thoughts I haven’t had in 5 years crossed my mind once again. I got so scared of working sometimes, scared of what might be said to me and even more terrified of messing up, anything (which, at times, was a self-fulfilling prophecy).

It also meant I worked harder though, to make a good impression. I handled some situations so well I got amazing feedback from customers.

When I got to the point where I felt I can no longer continue this way- lying awake all night worrying about what might happen, not being able to eat cos you’re so afraid you might get fired for no reason (which also scares you twice as much when you’re not a contracted employee), losing hair, being constantly anxious, locking yourself in your room — that was when I finally turned and asked for help.

Once I turned to our union representative and was ready to discuss my condition, I found a lot of support from HR and even found out we have a welfare consultant in the building. I turned back to therapy and medication. But mainly returned to my mantra that “we need to talk about it”.

If I discussed it from the start, it could have made a difference. I truly believe that. First impressions are at times hardest to change (especially when they’ve been forming for a couple of months). It’s best to be honest from that very first moment. I am disabled because it affects me in every aspect of my life, and if I was a wheelchair user I wouldn’t hide the fact I need a wheelchair, so if I think or feel differently because of a condition, I should discuss it with those around me.

The only thing I suggest for us is to talk about it. Don’t hide or be ashamed of our disorderly friend because it is there whether we like it or not. It doesn’t make us bad employees — if anything, I feel like it made me much better with customers.

And for those working with us, our colleagues and managers, I suggest — be open-minded. If you can get training regarding mental health, even better because it is really hard to understand — it happens to me too when I talk to people with other mental health disorders.

From my own personal experience, the worst thing you can do is judge us or talk about us behind our backs. Nothing made me feel worse than hearing people are bad mouthing me behind my back. It was my sign that my anxiety and paranoia were all correct and were there for a reason. Don’t feed our monsters: talk to us.
Nothing made me feel better than a sense of security and support and it can make our day to day lives so much easier — or at least more bearable.

Article courtesy of Stronger Unions

Election puts us at the edge of the abyss

For many of us on the left, the result of last week’s General Election has taken a lot of sinking in. Generally most of us are in shock and horror. Have people really in their hearts voted for severe cuts? Were they really fearful of Labour in coalition with the SNP? And why in many constituencies did they punish the Liberal Democrats by voting for the party they went into coalition with?

In many ways the result was so strange it’s hard to put the finger on one particular reason for the result, unless people were too embarrassed to admit they were voting Tory.

As Trade Unionists we don’t for one minute swallow the line that people refused to vote Labour as they thought it was not a party of aspiration. Ed Miliband said on countless occasions he believed the country was doing well when the people were doing well. That meant all the people, including those running small businesses. With an unbiased media, this would have been the message largely received by the public. But as we know the media is not unbiased, with nearly all newspapers supportive of the Conservative Party. The Tories had their election broadcasts, leaflets through people’s doors and on top of this newspapers delivering the Conservative message.

As Liberal Trade Unionists, we are obviously not supportive of the centralised diktat socialism often delivers. But we do believe in fairness and the election campaign was probably the most unfair in living memory. The outcome is going to be an assault on the trade unions, on benefit claimants, the disabled and the poor.

But there is no point in dwelling on the past, when the future holds a huge struggle for people, for unions and those on the progressive left.  Clearly as trade unionists we must be at the heart of any fight against the Tories and their agenda. But politically we are fully supportive of groups such as Compass which wishes to bring together parties under the progressive umbrella. Compass states, ‘All progressive parties need to start to work to together. Clearly there is already a desire for this from progressive voters’. We urge all progressives to heed this message.

As the Conservatives are likely to use boundary changes to keep control, we need to think smart and put the tribalism of politics to one side. As trade unionists our key priority is to protect workers. Working with other progressives we believe is a key way forward in doing this by removing horrors of a Conservative government.

The impact of government policies on disabled workers

A report from the Public Interest Research Unit on behalf of Disabled People Against Cuts shows the cumulative impact of the Coalition government’s policies on disabled workers in employment. Although the report’s author, Rupert Harwood, acknowledges the self-selecting basis of his study of the experiences of 137 disabled workers, their stories confirm the evidence reported by many trade union members.
The overall (headline) figure for the employment of disabled people as a proportion of the total numbers employed has not got worse since 2010, and that itself is important because it is the first time in history that disabled people had not been worse affected by the unemployment and redundancies that accompany recession. Similarly with the headline figures for the creation of new jobs that the present government made great play of last month.

But headline figures are just that: they tell you nothing of the actual experience of disabled workers in the economy and, as a new, detailed TUC study of the employment picture that will be published shortly will show, the increase in disabled people’s employment levels is only the same as the overall increase, as an honest presentation would have confirmed.

But these numbers conceal more than they reveal. The real story revealed by this report is qualitative.
While some employers continue to operate good practice, many are going backwards. The individual accounts tell of worsening work experiences with the accumulating effects of reduced legal rights, reduced access to justice (tribunal fees for example), and massive pressure on employers to reduce costs have increased stress levels (as exposed by the presentations at the TUC’s mental health seminar earlier this year), reduced career opportunities, and increased job insecurity amid a greater use of zero-hours contracts and of insecure agency contracts.

Many disabled workers have found themselves forced into self-employment, not through choice but necessity and the threat of benefit sanctions, and struggle to earn enough to live on.
Many of the sample report increasing reluctance by managers to carry out the “reasonable adjustments” they are bound by law to make, even in the public sector which is additionally bound by the Equality Act Equality Duty.

Even worse, the “drip drip effect” of media vitriol against disabled benefit claimants (as one respondent said) makes fellow workers increasingly hostile to what they now see as “special treatment”, and (as another reported) makes the worker more reluctant to disclose an impairment, while others have been accused of “faking their disability”.

The statistics show that employment levels for disabled people have not got worse (though nor have they improved). But if, as this report suggests, there is a general worsening of the conditions for many disabled workers and an end to the progress previously being made in popular acceptance of disabled people’s right to work, and right to adjustments where they are needed, then whoever is in government on 8 May will face a big challenge to reverse this toxic trend which appears to contradict the commitments made by the UK government when it endorsed the United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Report courtesy of  Touchstone Blog by Peter Purton, Equal Rights Policy Officer at the TUC  

International May Day distress call from the Trade Union movement

The Liberal Trade Unionists are naturally concerned about the further shackling and introduction of anti-Trade Union laws here in Britain. This is one reason why we campaign for a review of the anti-Trade Union legislation introduced by Margaret Thatcher and continued under New Labour and the Tory-Liberal Democrat Coalition. With Trade Unions very much under the government cosh in this country, its all too easy to take your eye of the ball internationally. As committed internationalists we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our union brothers and sisters across the world.

Owen Tudor, head of the TUC's European Union and International Relations Department writes in the following report of how other governments are cracking down on union activity.

'It seems that Governments around the world are cracking down on trade union activities on international workers’ day more than usual. From Bahrain to Swaziland and from Iran to Somalia and Turkey, trade unions are reporting interference from their Government. These attacks on the rights to freedom of assembly and expression suggest that Governments are more worried than ever about the threat to dictatorships that trade unionism represents. But these attacks aren’t just about whether people can protest in the streets – what motivates trade unionists to protest under the shadow of beatings and imprisonment are much bigger issues.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have protested about the Government of Bahrain‘s decision to prohibit the May Day rally organised by the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions, one of the few free trade unions in the region.

In Iran, where the Government has a record of stopping May Day rallies, and plenty of brave trade unionists are languishing in the regime’s jails, global manufacturing union federation IndustriALL has written to the Government demanding that it let trade unionists protest on May Day.

The Somalian trade union movement FESTU was told that it could not hold its own May Day event, but its affiliates would be ‘allowed’ to pay towards the Government’s ‘celebrations’. The TUC was one of the organisations which protested to the Somalian Government, and FESTU held an event in the capital Mogadishu on Thursday evening. The organisation’s rally will be in Garowe, Puntland on May Day itself.
In Swaziland, the International Trade Union Confederation has protested that the dictator King Mswati has threatened police violence against trade unionists taking part in a planned rally in the major commercial city of Manzini. Police have announced that only ‘recognised unions’ will be allowed to celebrate May Day and said that they will enforce ‘law and order’ at any rally. The authorities have refused to recognise the legitimate trade union centre TUCOSWA as part of a blanket repression of free speech and freedom of association. Five years ago, union activist Sipho Jele was arrested at the May Day rally in Swaziland and later found dead in his cell, and opposition leader Mario Masuku was arrested – and remains behind bars – after shouting political slogans at last year’s union rally.

And we’ve heard today that Turkish unions have continued their calls to meet in Istanbul’s Taksim Square for May Day celebrations, but the Istanbul Police Department has begun taking excessive security measures to prevent unions from gathering at the square after the governor’s office prohibited rallies in the square. The May Day Organizing Committee, consisting of the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DISK), the Confederation of Public Sector Trade Unions (KESK), the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) and the Turkish Medical Association (TTB), have called union members and members of the public to meet in Istanbul’s city center but in a different way this year'.

Report courtesy of  Stronger Unions blog

Clegg's statement shows Lib Dems are now more power hungry than progressive

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, has stated "I totally rule out any arrangements with the SNP in the same way I rule out any arrangements with Ukip - because there is no meeting point for me with one party that basically wants to pull our country to bits and another party that wants us to pull of of the EU."

As a progressives organisation, The Liberal Trade Unionists condemn his statement as both shortsighted and foolish. To associate the SNP with what is a very right wing, Thatcherite and on occasions xenophobic party such as UKIP is also insulting, not only to members of the Scottish party but to the intelligence of the electorate.

We believe Clegg's statement clearly demonstrates how the Lib Dems are now more power hungry for a place alongside the failed Labour and Tory parties than progressive. This is yet another very good reason for disgruntled Lib Dems, as well as progressives dissatisfied within other political parties, to join the ongoing and progressive Liberal Party.

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

Fast Food Rights

Recently fast food workers in Britain joined a one day international protest for better pay. In London there was demonstrations at Mc.Donalds in Marble Arch where protestors successfully occupied the restaurant.  Thirty other protests took place across the country. This follows similar campaigns in the U.S.

The actions were supported by the Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union (BFAWU), War on want as well as other organisations and political parties. Ian Hodson, National President of the BFAWU, who joined protestors at Marble Arch said, 'We managed to get inside and block off the place for up to 15 minutes. The management then agreed to let their workers talk to unions in return for the protestors leaving'.

Although the Liberal Trade Unionists will not always agree in breaking the law, we fully endorse the protestors call for a £10 per hour living wage and an end to zero hours contracts. We believe these calls are fully justified with the enormous profits being made by fast food companies such as Mc.Donalds. Whilst we recognise Mc Donalds do offer their workers some concessions, these do nothing to offset the cost of living for the workforce or the immoral and unnecessary use of zero hours contracts.  

You can show your support for the campaign by  following the link below and completing the online endorsement.

http://fastfoodright-bakersunion.nationbuilder.com/

Supporting sacked stewards at Smurfit Kappa

The Liberal Trade Unionists would like to send wishes of support to Unite members taking industrial action at Smurfit Kappa in Northampton. The dispute surrounds the sacking of two senior stewards, who stood up to the company over 'race to the bottom' contracts and alleged incorrect bonus payments.

In addition to its present overtime ban and work to rule, Unite has announced plans for a four-day strike, to run from 17-21 April.  This follows an earlier 48 hour-walkout on 1st and 2nd April which failed to get the two staff reinstated. Unite the Union said it is still hopeful the company will agree to meet with them and enter into positive discussions under the auspices of ACAS , but, at present the management is maintaining its hard line..
The sacked stewards were instrumental in bringing a claim against the company for the incorrect payment of a bonus, going back a number of years.  In addition to this they were also instrumental in resisting second-generation contracts being introduced into the workplace in 2014, which would have meant new starters getting paid less than existing workers for the same job.

If it was discovered the company had paid incorrect tax, obviously there would be action taken to reclaim that money. All the stewards were doing was claiming money for their members which they should have been paid.

As Liberal Trade Unionists our aim is always to get to the root of problems. We strongly believe in a situation where union activists are sacked for simply representing their workers, a strong anti-union sentiments exist within the management at Smurfit Kappa.

In addition to standing in solidarity with workers and the sacked stewards, we fully support the unions call on Smurfit Kappa to reinstate the two stewards immediately.

Social housing sales are of no benefit to workers

It was almost a fanfare announcement,  the Tories manifesto pledge to increase the sale of 'social housing'. It has always been a Tory plan to divide the people and create 'them and us' situations even within the working class. The sale of council houses under Margaret Thatcher did exactly this. But what the so called Iron Lady failed to do was re-invest money from the sales into building more social housing, choosing instead to use it to help fund tax cuts for the rich.

With the loss of council housing, entrepreneurial minded people foresee a shortage of properties in the rental sector and started to buy houses to let to those on the housing waiting list. Eventually this has led to some landlords owning large property portfolios, and some thinking solely of maximising profit, forcing tenants to live in poor conditions. Large numbers of private rented property also artificially inflates house prices beyond the wages of those on lower incomes, forcing them into the hands of private landlords, having to pay high rents and the likelihood of a significant number having to claim benefits to help pay the rent.

The Liberal Trade Unionists fear for workers faced with a lack of affordable properties to buy or rent. The Tories manifesto pledge can only be regarded as blatant bribery and one which will divide communities. Society is still suffering the effects from the days Margaret Thatcher sold off council housing stock. As Liberals we do not object to people owning their own homes. But what we do object to is the present stock of social housing being sold. We believe there should be greater freedoms for tenants of social housing to improve their properties, possibly with the housing association or council contributing towards the cost (as it is still their property). We also believe there should be more affordable homes for people that wish to get a foot on the property ladder.

Selling off social housing stock offers no benefit to the workers of this country. Allowing more freedom to improve properties for tenants of social housing, and constructing more affordable housing does. We call upon workers not to fall into the trap of Tory bribery and reject this proposal and another 5 years of the Tories as tenants of 'Number 10'.

Steering Committee discussing policies

The founding Steering Committee of the Liberal Trade Unionists will be establishing a set of policies over the next week. These will be built around the Liberal Party's own policies on Trade Union and employee rights. They will also emphasise the modern radical Liberalism which we feel is a remedy for the troubles of society today.


Liberalism does have a place in the heart of the Trade Union movement, and Liberals should be proud of the fact that their radical forefathers actually helped found the movement and influenced it for many years. We are also confident, many people who believe they are natural socialists, may actually be Liberals at heart. Therefore we need a revived Liberal voice within the unions.


Liberalism values the individual, this is why we want your voice to influence our policies. If there is something you would like to see included, please get in touch with us at liberaltradeunionists@gmail.com.


Liberal Party Trade Union and Employee Rights Policy

The Trades Union movement has a key role in the development of workplace democracy. Worker representatives, shop stewards and trades union officials must be fully trained to adapt industrial democracy to their workplace. Liberals call for the introduction of a “Worker’s Charter”, clearly defining and safeguarding workers' and trades union rights. Such a charter would include the right of every worker to join or not to join a union, and democratic procedures for the conduct of ballots.

Liberals believe that, whilst employers have a right to protect genuine commercial interests, employees have a right to speak publicly on issues of public interest relating to their employer’s business. Liberals therefore call for the outlawing of comprehensive gagging clauses in contracts of employment or in terms of conditions of work.

To enable individuals to find opportunities for personal development, Liberals believe that people of all ages and in all occupations should be encouraged to take sabbatical periods at various stages of their working lives.

International Trade Union organisation supports world day in support of Venezuela

The World Federation of Trade Unions -WFTU-, international organization representing 90 million unionized workers in 126 countries worldwide and represented to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations (UN), UNESCO and FAO, closely committed to the advancement of the peoplses in search of the society they deserve, since the very beginning has been in solidarity with the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against imperialist interference.

Throughout the 70 years of its existence, the WFTU has expressed solidarity with the struggles of the Venezuelan people and the peoples of Latin America against political and military interference of imperialism. We repeat our rejection to the Executive Order issued by the President of the United States against the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in which aggressive and absurd way, this country qualifies as a “threat to US national security.”

Today, we reaffirm our solidarity and support for the Venezuelan people and their democratically elected government. The WFTU supports the initiative of Venezuelan and international mass organizations for an International Day of World Solidarity with Venezuela on 19 April 2015. The international solidarity will launch a clear, forceful and immediate message that Venezuela is not alone in defending its sovereignty, peace and democratic gains, but is accompanied by all the class oriented , anti-imperialist, democratic, popular and revolutionary forces of the world.

In the context of practical solidarity with the people of Venezuela and the world’s peoples against imperialist manoeuvers, the FSM has already called International Trade Union Conference in Brussels – Belgium this June 1-2, 2015, themed “The embargoes, blockades and sanctions of the US, NATO and the EU are a blow to the rights of workers” who will discuss the response of the workers of the world to the maneuvers of imperialism.

The FSM, consistent with one of its principles; full respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of all peoples to decide for themselves about their present and future demands to end now the imperialist interference against Venezuela.

Government failing in Health & Safety

The Government has published a “report book” on its reform of health and safety legislation over the past five years. It proudly boasts that it has reduced the number of regulations by 50%, and claims that:

    “Business response to these reforms has been strongly positive and they have been achieved without reducing health and safety protection for workers.” Not once of course does it say what they have done to actually reduce the number of injuries and illnesses (both of which are increasing).

In fact the previous Labour Government claimed to have reduced health and safety regulation by over 70%. They started the process, which this government has continued, of looking at old out of date regulations and repealing them. Nothing wrong with that, but if you remove laws that no longer applied, you are not exactly reducing any “burdens” on business, it is simply good housekeeping. Generally unions have had no problems when 80 year old regulations on celluloid etc., were repealed. It makes it easier for everyone.

However this Government has gone a lot further than this. They have also got rid of, or changed, a number of useful ones. Most recently we had the fiasco over the self-employed, where they tried to exempt almost all self-employed and, after a backlash, finally ended up with something completely different that virtually no-one understands. We also saw changes to the reporting requirements. Previously employers had to record certain injuries which led to someone being unable to do their full job if it lasted more than three days. They then have to report it to the HSE. Now, they still have to record it after three days, but only report it after seven days have passed, meaning that they have to keep two lots of records. This is meant to help employers how? And of course there was the removal of the Code of Practice on the Management regulations. These are one of the most important of all the health and safety regulations as they deal with risk assessment. The Code of Practice was widely used, and although employers, unions and safety professionals all wanted to keep a code, it was abolished. There are lots of other examples of really bad decisions that have been made by this government, but you can read about them all here.

What really annoys me however is the claim that the changes “have been achieved without reducing health and safety protection for workers.” On what do they base that? How can they make that claim when no-one has actually looked at whether this is the case. The Government report gives no evidence to back it up, and it is clearly nonsense. Removing self-employed people from the coverage from the protection of the Health and Safety at Work Act in relation to their own safety is clearly a reduction in protection, as is the huge cut in inspection activity (over 95% in the local authority-enforced sector). At no time has the Government asked anyone to assess the effect of the changes on workers. Instead they crow about the benefit to business. Well health and safety laws are not there to protect business, they are there to protect workers. While businesses that embrace good health and safety can see big benefits, that is not the purpose of regulation.

We have a government that is all too obsessed with the idea that regulation to protect people is somehow inherently bad. Well, you can’t use moral concepts like good and bad to describe regulation. Either a regulation works or it doesn’t. The TUC has no problem with getting rid of regulations that are of no use, but at no time in the past five years has that been the criteria the Government has used. The principle they have followed is whether they can reduce burdens on business and, to do that, how much regulation can they repeal, and damn the consequences.

In the 1970s there was a pretty dire TV programme called “Never mind the quality – feel the width”, and that really sums up the Government’s approach to health and safety regulation. It is about cutting the number, regardless of whether it is doing anything to improve the position in the workplace. What we need instead is a regulatory agenda based on evidence of whether it is going to reduce the number of people killed, injured or made ill as a result of their work.

Report courtesy of Hugh Robertson, TUC Senior Policy Officer for Health & Safety

Climate Change, Work Labour and Trade Unions

Friday 24 April 2015, 10.30am – 13.00pm, (followed by buffet lunch)
University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS
(opposite Madame Tussauds and nearly opposite Baker Street tube)
Room M205 (lunch M206)

Climate Change, Work, Labour and Trade Unions, with Professor Fred Steward (Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster) on Labour and the Green Economy and Dr Paul Hampton (Fire Brigades Union) on Trade unions and climate change in the UK: prisoners of neoliberalism or swords of climate justice?

Followed by round table discussion on what trade unions can do with Sarah Pearce (Unison), Graham Petersen (UCU), Igor Diaz and Jairo Quiroz from the Columbian coal miners’ union SINTRACARBON, and Christine Haigh from Global Justice



This event is likely to be of interest to Liberal Trade Unionists
For further details and to reserve a place, please contact Linda Clarke (clarkel@wmin.ac.uk)

What did the televised debates offer workers?

The televised leadership debates offered little hope for workers, apart from the chance to hear from parties representing our Celtic neighbours and the Green Party. Having viewed opinion polls the result of the contest was that most people want the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon to be Prime Minister nevermind First Minister for Scotland.

But what can we as Liberal Trade Unionists draw from the debate? What was on offer from the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, was not liberalism, it was small c conservatism. It can be clearly seen why the Lib Dems are now regarded by progressives as the ‘Yellow Tories’.

The Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP did offer alternatives, but as the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and although we consider all these parties to be progressive leaning, all have broken their promises on becoming elected, offering ‘austerity light’ measured cutbacks. 

Liberal Trade Unionists do not believe in the austerity message where there are other ways to balance the books. We agree with Labour to an extent that putting people back in employment is the way forward for our country to work and pay its way. But where is Labour or any of the others commitment to full employment? It certainly was not mentioned.

The Liberal Party is committed to full employment. It’s policy states

‘The Liberal Party believes that the quest for full employment cannot be abandoned. It is a paradox of our economic system that while there is a shortage of jobs there is no shortage of work to be done. We do not believe that the solution lies in the creation of a low waged economy nor in “workfare” schemes which force people to work for rates of pay barely above the level of benefits.
However, we do believe that there are options available to the Government which would reduce unemployment significantly. Tackling unemployment must be restored as the top priority of economic management. Investment in training, more flexible working patterns and schemes to bring the long term unemployed back into the mainstream of economic activity are all urgently needed.’

In addition to this the Liberal Party’s General Election manifesto states

‘Liberals call for the introduction of a ‘Workers’ Charter’, clearly defining and safeguarding workers’ and trades union rights. Such a charter would include the right of every worker to join or not to join a union, and democratic procedures for the conduct of ballots. Legislation should be introduced to

make sure employees are involved in fundamental decisions affecting the business they work for, such as mergers and take-overs. There should also be opportunity for employee and community involvement in the running of state owned enterprises’.

As can be seen, what the political leaders put forward in the televised debate was far from the Liberal vision of the Liberal Party and supported by the Liberal Trade Unionists. What was refreshing was the voice given to the Celtic parties and the Greens. We would like to see this voice extended to other smaller parties such as the Liberal Party.

Formation of the Liberal Trade Unionists

Following several email and social media conversations between likeminded individuals, it became clear there was no group which really represented radical Liberal or Liberal Socialist values within the Trade Union movement. Admittedly the Liberal Democrats have the Association of Liberal Democrat Trade Unionists (ALDTU), but the actions of the Lib Dems as part of the ruthless ConDem coalition throws serious questions on whether any ounce of liberal values exists within the leadership of the party. The fact they have not ruled out a second term in coalition with the Tories is further evidence of this.

The Liberal Trade Unionists are supportive, though not officially part of, the continuing Liberal Party (not the Lib Dems), where the true values of radical liberalism are well and truly still alive.

Liberals are actually the forefathers of the Trade Union movement. Only when the red flag of socialism offered a more revolutionary vision did the orange banner of liberty and liberalism flounder. Today with the Labour Party no longer regarded as the true party of the working classes, and with the Trotskyite and Marxist-Leninist left scrapping for the right to become 'the' so called vanguard party, large numbers of Trade Unionists are deserting socialism and rediscovering radical liberal values. Some are even finding out deep down they probably always have been  liberals!

For this very reason, the Liberal Trade Unionists have been formed to promote Liberal Trade Unionism and radical liberalism within today's trade union movement.