Although a lot has been done in the past to restrict abuses of union power (eg, employment act 1980, Employment Act 1982, Trade Union Act 1984) is there still a case for further trade union legislation?

Personally, I think there could be. I think in particular that a law allowing members of the public effected by strike action to sue a union for damages could be a good thing. This would help to redress the balance between unions and the wider community.

I'd be more interested in seeing further legislation to punish companies in cases of corporate manslaughter such as Failtrack or Union Carbide but maybe I've been hugging too many trees :)

I may be wrong but I thought that mrs Thatchar brought something in along the lines of giving the public the right to seek redress from the unions in the case of a strike.
Seems to me that in the event of a industrial dispute then mediation shoul'd be forced on the parties concerned.
Dont know why the present strike can't go to acass, I wonder if anyone knows why this is so?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Although a lot has been done in the past to restrict abuses of union power (eg, employment act 1980, Employment Act 1982, Trade Union Act 1984) is there still a case for further trade union legislation?

Personally, I think there could be. I think in particular that a law allowing members of the public effected by strike action to sue a union for damages could be a good thing. This would help to redress the balance between unions and the wider community.


Not sure what you're aiming for,- but surely you can already sue for damages if you can prove a strike was illegal ?

Or are you perhaps suggesting that all strikes should be illegal ??

If so, then welcome to 1984.....err 2004 :rolleyes:

Hey! Why not just make trade unions illegal?. . . . .

. . . . . take away a union's only real strong bargaining tool and they may as well not exist because they cease to function effectively. Also there are constitutional issues regarding right to protest, freedom of speech etc. although it seems the Home Secretary is slowly bringing these laws in through the back door anyway, and this from a Labour cabinet member! But that's another issue altogether!!!

Blunkett

I saw in one of the papers today that Blunkett and the Home Office are up to their necks in crap again, this time for using a cartoon of the average bearded muslim with his little hat as the archetypal terrorist. :loopy:

The man is becoming dangerous, - about time somebody slapped an ASBO on him :D

Yes, lots of very hot air appears to emanate from the Home Office these days.

The end Result been costly court cases in most instances.

As I understand it at present only an employer can sue a union and only then if the strike is illegal, eg secondary action, no ballot. There is no law which allows action against unions in the case of 'legal' strike which still cause disruption to the public. Also, there is no way the public can sue a union.

It has been sugested in the past that a member of the public could sue a union if it could be proved that he/she has been negatively effected by a strike irrespective of ballots etc. However, at present no such law exists.

The percieved benefit of such a law would be to redress the balance between workers and customers in the customers favour.