Not a Bill that has probably caught any one's attention one suspects. This Bill is being proposed by John McDonnell and aims to shift the burden of proof in applications by an employer to restrain strike action by injunction. The employer will have to show that the union has failed to achieve ―substantial compliance with the ballot and notice requirements.
As Jennifer Dunn of the Taxpayers Alliance says:
"As the coalition Government embarks on a programme of essential public sector cuts their greatest opponents remain the trade unions. Trade unions are threatening strikes and, if successful, they pose the greatest threat to frontline services, not spending cuts.
It is absurd that a Bill in the Commons tomorrow proposes reducing regulations on trade union balloting and notice requirements so that is it easier for trade unions to strike. If the bill is successful employers will now have to prove that the unions have “substantially” failed to comply with ballot and notice requirements for the strike to be illegal and “accidental” failures to comply will not be deemed unlawful."
John McDonnell is the Labour Member of Parliament for Hayes & Harlington, so it is understandable that as a Socialist he would move such a Bill as this, which tomorrow receives its Second Reading.
There is a link in the TPA post to enable you to email your MP with a view to urging him/her to vote against this Bill. As an aside, my MP is David Cameron which means that I am, in effect, denied the opportunity of lobbying my MP on this - or any matter come to that. Continuing the 'aside', I recently had cause to visit David Cameron at one of his surgeries. I initially asked to whom I was speaking: my constituency MP or my PM, to which the answer was both and that where the subject matter of my 'complaint' clashed with national policy, then national policy would 'reign supreme'. This means that where any constituent has a Prime Minister as their constituency MP that constituent is disenfranchised - so much for 'democracy'!
John McDonnell is therefore presumably in favour of a situation whereby if only 1% union members of those eligible to vote then 'carry the day' he would also be agreeable if 1% of his constituency voted in a general election and the majority chose another MP?