Labour pledge to stop foreign take-overs of 'strategic' British firms
A Labour government will prevent foreign takeovers of British companies if they are not in the national interest, it is believed.
The party's election manifesto will contain a pledge to stop companies that are designated 'strategic' or part of the national interest being bought by foreign firms, unless two-thirds of shareholders agree.
At the moment a simple majority of shareholders is required to approve a buy-out.
The proposal has been nicknamed the Cadbury law after the buying of the chocolate firm by US food giant Kraft.
At the time, the government said it was powerless to stop the sale of the company, which has since announced redundancies.
The manifesto is also believed to contain measures to prevent hedge funds buying up shares, to stop speculators making a quick profit on takeovers.
Many felt that Kraft should have paid more for Cadbury but the deal was hastened by short-term speculators.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
UNITE GENERAL ELECTION RALLY
UNITE GENERAL ELECTION RALLY on 14th APRIL at FRIENDS HOUSE at 7:00 pm, 173-177 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BJ.
The Rally will be addressed by DEREK SIMPSON, Joint General Secretary of Unite and STEVE HART, Regional Secretary, Unite London & Eastern Region.
Underground: Euston or Euston Square, BR: Euston. Bus: 10, 18, 30, 73, 205 and 390 plus 59, 68, 91, 168, and 253
The Rally will be addressed by DEREK SIMPSON, Joint General Secretary of Unite and STEVE HART, Regional Secretary, Unite London & Eastern Region.
Underground: Euston or Euston Square, BR: Euston. Bus: 10, 18, 30, 73, 205 and 390 plus 59, 68, 91, 168, and 253
Non Story Of The Year? Charlie Whelan's Commons Pass!
Daily Mail headlines:
General Election 2010: Charlie Whelan investigated over use of Commons pass
Union spin doctor Charlie Whelan has been investigated by Commons authorities into why he was allowed access to MPs using an official Parliamentary pass.
Story in the Mail:
Unite communications chief Charlie Whelan has been investigated by Commons authorities into why he was allowed access to the Commons.
Jill Pay, the Commons' Serjeant of Arms who polices the entry pass system, was asked to investigate by Speaker John Bercow yesterday.
The investigation was completed by last night. Miss Pay found that Mr Whelan was entitled to have a pass, which was issued for “political services to the Parliamentary Labour Party”.
General Election 2010: Charlie Whelan investigated over use of Commons pass
Union spin doctor Charlie Whelan has been investigated by Commons authorities into why he was allowed access to MPs using an official Parliamentary pass.
Story in the Mail:
Unite communications chief Charlie Whelan has been investigated by Commons authorities into why he was allowed access to the Commons.
Jill Pay, the Commons' Serjeant of Arms who polices the entry pass system, was asked to investigate by Speaker John Bercow yesterday.
The investigation was completed by last night. Miss Pay found that Mr Whelan was entitled to have a pass, which was issued for “political services to the Parliamentary Labour Party”.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Demo at Rio Tinto AGM, April 15th
British-owned mining giant Rio Tinto has locked out 570 miners in Boron, California, USA. The miners are members of the of the Internationall Longshore and Warehouse Union in California.
Rio Tinto wants to starve these families into submission, forcing them to accept a contract that will destroy decent, family-supporting jobs.
Locking parents out of work. Destroying hope. Hurting children and dashing their dreams for a better life. That’s what Rio Tinto is doing in Boron, California.
Supporters of the Boron families will rally and picket at the meeting at Rio Tinto’s Annual General Meeting:
Thursday, 15 April 10:00 – 11:00 AM
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
Broad Sanctuary
Westminster
London SW1P 3EE
In North America our brothers and sisters also will picket that week at the British Consulates in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and Vancouver.
Together we will send a message…
Rio Tinto: You can’t starve out the families in Boron.
End the lockout now!
Workers Uniting Group Suporters and Unite members are urged to support these comrades locked in struggle againt a giant multi-national coporation.
Rio Tinto wants to starve these families into submission, forcing them to accept a contract that will destroy decent, family-supporting jobs.
Locking parents out of work. Destroying hope. Hurting children and dashing their dreams for a better life. That’s what Rio Tinto is doing in Boron, California.
Supporters of the Boron families will rally and picket at the meeting at Rio Tinto’s Annual General Meeting:
Thursday, 15 April 10:00 – 11:00 AM
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
Broad Sanctuary
Westminster
London SW1P 3EE
In North America our brothers and sisters also will picket that week at the British Consulates in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and Vancouver.
Together we will send a message…
Rio Tinto: You can’t starve out the families in Boron.
End the lockout now!
Workers Uniting Group Suporters and Unite members are urged to support these comrades locked in struggle againt a giant multi-national coporation.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
EC Applies The Finishing Touches
Workers Uniting Group Supporters on the Unite EC have agreed to publish this statement on the Workers Uniting Group Website.
The proposal to be put to the Special Rules Conference in June - to follow the 2010 Policy Conference for the formation of the next EC has completed the outstanding decisions to be made to fully implement the Unite rulebook.
The Regional Committees, Equality Committees, Area Activist Committees and Regional and National Industrial Committees are all in place. The Political structures are already showing their worth in the run up to the General Election. Increasingly more and more activists are participating in our global union, Workers Uniting.
Thousands of activists are now taking part in the lay decision making processes of the union. All (or should be) qualified under Rule 6 as working representatives of members. The new expenses regime whereby activists neither gain nor lose through their activity is having an impact in cleaning up the committees and opening up opportunities for new reps to fill the places of the ‘committee-men/women.’
All the delegates to Policy and Rules Conference will be (or should be) Rule 6 compliant, properly expensed and will have the ultimate say on union policy and determine the make-up of their next Executive Council.
The EC proposal will be put to the Special Rules Conference for either endorsement or rejection.
There will be no amendments taken at the Conference. The reason is that the rulebook largely prescribes the make-up of the EC though not the numbers. There has to be a balance between sectors and regions and proportionality for both Women and BAEM seats and proportionality of membership representation from both the sectors and the regions.
In essence if you modify one part of the equation you have to make consequential amendments elsewhere.
This will give an EC of 64 members, still slightly high, but significantly down from the current 80. The dominance of the industrial sectors makes the future executive consistent with the rest of the structures of the union. This, along with Rule 6, will make for the most representative lay leadership of any trade union in the world.
Previous EC decisions to separate the delegates to conference, all from the RISC’s and the resolutions from all of the constitutional bodies, which includes 9000 branches, leaves a tricky situation as far as ownership of conference resolutions and compositing and speaking arrangements are concerned.
On this occasion tribalism defeated the normally sound rationale thrashed out from the former sections to defeat the proposal to ‘filter’ the resolutions through the national and regional constitutional committees, which would have established clear ownership and capped the number of resolutions.
The net effect of this was that the March EC had no alternative but to decide that on this occasion there could be no amendments to resolutions due to time constraints of recalling all the committees before the Conference.
Nevertheless the common sense of the lay delegates will overcome the shortcomings, though supporters of ‘super lay democracy’ will need to reflect on the follies of their idealism as the reality is that the most powerful body at this conference will be the Standing Orders Committee and those that run it!
Policy conference should establish Unite as the most progressive union in the UK and Ireland and should the Rules Conference accept the proposal for the next EC, Unite will establish itself as the most democratic, genuinely lay member led trade union in the world.
With sound, sensible and visionary leadership at the top, this union can go on to achieve all of the things that drove us forward in the merger talks. Despite harrowing moments on the way, those who fought, sometimes from a majority but more often a minority position, can be proud of what we are about to achieve.
A trade union that is capable of challenging the Global corporations that are currently running riot across the whole world and play a key role in politics in the UK and Ireland.
Having completed and determined the rulebook there is now no reason for this EC to continue. It has completed its historic task.
The proposal to be put to the Special Rules Conference in June - to follow the 2010 Policy Conference for the formation of the next EC has completed the outstanding decisions to be made to fully implement the Unite rulebook.
The Regional Committees, Equality Committees, Area Activist Committees and Regional and National Industrial Committees are all in place. The Political structures are already showing their worth in the run up to the General Election. Increasingly more and more activists are participating in our global union, Workers Uniting.
Thousands of activists are now taking part in the lay decision making processes of the union. All (or should be) qualified under Rule 6 as working representatives of members. The new expenses regime whereby activists neither gain nor lose through their activity is having an impact in cleaning up the committees and opening up opportunities for new reps to fill the places of the ‘committee-men/women.’
All the delegates to Policy and Rules Conference will be (or should be) Rule 6 compliant, properly expensed and will have the ultimate say on union policy and determine the make-up of their next Executive Council.
The EC proposal will be put to the Special Rules Conference for either endorsement or rejection.
There will be no amendments taken at the Conference. The reason is that the rulebook largely prescribes the make-up of the EC though not the numbers. There has to be a balance between sectors and regions and proportionality for both Women and BAEM seats and proportionality of membership representation from both the sectors and the regions.
In essence if you modify one part of the equation you have to make consequential amendments elsewhere.
This will give an EC of 64 members, still slightly high, but significantly down from the current 80. The dominance of the industrial sectors makes the future executive consistent with the rest of the structures of the union. This, along with Rule 6, will make for the most representative lay leadership of any trade union in the world.
Previous EC decisions to separate the delegates to conference, all from the RISC’s and the resolutions from all of the constitutional bodies, which includes 9000 branches, leaves a tricky situation as far as ownership of conference resolutions and compositing and speaking arrangements are concerned.
On this occasion tribalism defeated the normally sound rationale thrashed out from the former sections to defeat the proposal to ‘filter’ the resolutions through the national and regional constitutional committees, which would have established clear ownership and capped the number of resolutions.
The net effect of this was that the March EC had no alternative but to decide that on this occasion there could be no amendments to resolutions due to time constraints of recalling all the committees before the Conference.
Nevertheless the common sense of the lay delegates will overcome the shortcomings, though supporters of ‘super lay democracy’ will need to reflect on the follies of their idealism as the reality is that the most powerful body at this conference will be the Standing Orders Committee and those that run it!
Policy conference should establish Unite as the most progressive union in the UK and Ireland and should the Rules Conference accept the proposal for the next EC, Unite will establish itself as the most democratic, genuinely lay member led trade union in the world.
With sound, sensible and visionary leadership at the top, this union can go on to achieve all of the things that drove us forward in the merger talks. Despite harrowing moments on the way, those who fought, sometimes from a majority but more often a minority position, can be proud of what we are about to achieve.
A trade union that is capable of challenging the Global corporations that are currently running riot across the whole world and play a key role in politics in the UK and Ireland.
Having completed and determined the rulebook there is now no reason for this EC to continue. It has completed its historic task.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Five Steelworkers Killed In US Oil Refinery Blast
Five Steelworkers Killed in US Oil Refinery Blast on 2 April
5 April 2010
ICEM InBrief
Five members of the United Steelworkers (USW) were killed at a Tesoro Corp. oil refinery in Anacortes, US state of Washington, when an explosion occurred during a re-start of the refinery’s naphtha unit. Killed were three men at the scene, while two women died in the hours after the fiery explosion in a Seattle hospital.
Two other workers remain in critical condition.
The tragedy occurred in the early morning hours of 2 April. A Washington state labour investigator speculated that a fire and subsequent explosion occurred in a bank of boilers that heats fluids under high temperature and pressure in the production of naphtha, an extremely volatile hydrocarbon composite used as a feedstock in high-octane petrol.
The three process operators killed at the scene were Matthew Bowen, 31, Darrin Hoines, 43, and Daniel Aldridge, 50. The women, who died from severe burns and other injuries in the Seattle hospital, 110 kilometres from Anacortes, were operators Kathryn Powell, 29, and Donna Van Dreumel, 36. All were members of USW Local 12-591.
Severely injured were USW member Matt Gumbel, 34, and Lew Janz, 41, a supervisor who had been a long-time USW member.
USW Vice President Gary Beevers said it was vital that the cause of this blast is fully investigated so that “the rest of the oil industry (can) apply the lessons learned. There have been too many accidents and near-miss incidents in the oil refining industry. In honor of our brothers and sisters who were killed and seriously injured at the Tesoro refinery, we urge the industry to take steps to ensure an incident of this type never happens again.”
USW District 12 Director Robert LaVenture said, “While we mourn now, we will seek justice.”
US oil refineries are considered the least safe in the world due to age and poor safety processes. Last Friday’s Anacortes tragedy was the deadliest since the March 2005 explosion at BP/Amoco’s Texas City, Texas, refinery that killed 15 and injured 170. As a result of the BP explosion, the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and state inspection agencies began safety probes at all 150 US refineries.
From that, in April 2009, Tesoro’s Anacortes refinery was cited with 17 serious safety and health violations, defined as those with potential to cause death or serious injury. It fined the company US$85,700. Inspectors also found 150 instances of deficiencies and said Tesoro did not ensure safe work practices, and failed to update safety information when changes were made to equipment.
Tesoro appealed the fine and through a settlement negotiation process, in November 2009 the number of serious violations was reduced to three and the fine reduced to US$12,250.
The US Chemical Safety board, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry, and USW’s Emergency Response Team and Safety and Health Department are all investigating the deadly 2 April explosion.
Tesoro, an independent, downstream refiner and retail marketer of petroleum products based in San Antonio, Texas, operates seven refineries in the US states of Alaska, California, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Washington. The Anacortes, Washington, refinery has a production capacity of 130,000 barrels per day, and produces gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel from crude oil brought in from Alaska.
5 April 2010
ICEM InBrief
Five members of the United Steelworkers (USW) were killed at a Tesoro Corp. oil refinery in Anacortes, US state of Washington, when an explosion occurred during a re-start of the refinery’s naphtha unit. Killed were three men at the scene, while two women died in the hours after the fiery explosion in a Seattle hospital.
Two other workers remain in critical condition.
The tragedy occurred in the early morning hours of 2 April. A Washington state labour investigator speculated that a fire and subsequent explosion occurred in a bank of boilers that heats fluids under high temperature and pressure in the production of naphtha, an extremely volatile hydrocarbon composite used as a feedstock in high-octane petrol.
The three process operators killed at the scene were Matthew Bowen, 31, Darrin Hoines, 43, and Daniel Aldridge, 50. The women, who died from severe burns and other injuries in the Seattle hospital, 110 kilometres from Anacortes, were operators Kathryn Powell, 29, and Donna Van Dreumel, 36. All were members of USW Local 12-591.
Severely injured were USW member Matt Gumbel, 34, and Lew Janz, 41, a supervisor who had been a long-time USW member.
USW Vice President Gary Beevers said it was vital that the cause of this blast is fully investigated so that “the rest of the oil industry (can) apply the lessons learned. There have been too many accidents and near-miss incidents in the oil refining industry. In honor of our brothers and sisters who were killed and seriously injured at the Tesoro refinery, we urge the industry to take steps to ensure an incident of this type never happens again.”
USW District 12 Director Robert LaVenture said, “While we mourn now, we will seek justice.”
US oil refineries are considered the least safe in the world due to age and poor safety processes. Last Friday’s Anacortes tragedy was the deadliest since the March 2005 explosion at BP/Amoco’s Texas City, Texas, refinery that killed 15 and injured 170. As a result of the BP explosion, the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and state inspection agencies began safety probes at all 150 US refineries.
From that, in April 2009, Tesoro’s Anacortes refinery was cited with 17 serious safety and health violations, defined as those with potential to cause death or serious injury. It fined the company US$85,700. Inspectors also found 150 instances of deficiencies and said Tesoro did not ensure safe work practices, and failed to update safety information when changes were made to equipment.
Tesoro appealed the fine and through a settlement negotiation process, in November 2009 the number of serious violations was reduced to three and the fine reduced to US$12,250.
The US Chemical Safety board, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry, and USW’s Emergency Response Team and Safety and Health Department are all investigating the deadly 2 April explosion.
Tesoro, an independent, downstream refiner and retail marketer of petroleum products based in San Antonio, Texas, operates seven refineries in the US states of Alaska, California, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Washington. The Anacortes, Washington, refinery has a production capacity of 130,000 barrels per day, and produces gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel from crude oil brought in from Alaska.
Monday, April 5, 2010
MPs attack Kraft as irresponsible and cynical over Cadbury takeover
MPs will publish a fiercely critical report on Kraft, accusing the American food company of acting "irresponsibly and unwisely" during its £11.6bn takeover of Cadbury.
The report, from a cross-party business select committee, concludes that promises during the takeover by Kraft that it would safeguard the future of a factory in Somerdale, near Bristol, only to announce its closure after the deal was done, had left the company open to charges of either "incompetence" or a "cynical ploy" to win support. Kraft, it says, has damaged its reputation in Britain and will need to work hard to repair it.
The strongly worded report is especially scathing about Kraft chief executive Irene Rosenfeld, who declined to show up for a hearing before the committee in March, saying it "strongly believes" she should have personally given evidence.
The MPs express disappointment that senior management at Kraft has failed to properly engage with the Cadbury union Unite and call on the company to open discussions "as a matter of urgency". It welcomes pledges from Kraft that it will make no further manufacturing job cuts for the next two years, but suggests the commitment should be longer. Unite has been seeking a commitment to last at least five years with no redundancies.
"The report is very critical and is profoundly sceptical," said one Westminster source. "It expresses concerns about the extent to which we can trust the assurances of Kraft."
He cited weekend reports that Kraft bosses had issued Cadbury staff with an ultimatum, of either opting out of the company's final salary pension scheme or a pay freeze for the next three years. "There is a sense that Kraft has got off lightly and that the hearing focused too much on what had already happened. The failure of engagement with the Cadbury unions is extraordinary behaviour."
The MPs also say they are "deeply concerned" that takeovers are being determined by investors such as hedge funds seeking short-term profits, but the report stops short of any hard recommendations about changes to the takeover rules. There has been anger that the future of one of Britain's oldest and best known companies should have been decided by speculators buying shares when the Kraft bid was first mooted, in the hope of turning a quick profit.
It does however welcome an ongoing review of the takeover rules, launched in February, and is supportive of measures being pressed by business secretary Lord Mandelson to benefit company workforces rather than short-term City investors. It says a public interest test should be considered as a part of that review. It also suggests that the 2006 Companies Act needs revision. The Westminster source said that the Cadbury takeover should be important in determining future policy. "I hope there will be long term lessons learned."
Kraft prompted a furore after it announced that it would close the Somerdale plant, with the loss of 400 jobs. Cadbury had planned to close the plant and shift production to Poland, but during the takeover battle, Kraft promised it would keep the factory open. Just a week after the deal was agreed however, Kraft reneged on its pledge, claiming that the move to Poland was too advanced to reverse.
The tone of the report reflects the fury on display during the March hearing in front of the business select committee, chaired by the Conservative MP Peter Luff. During the hearing, the Labour MP for Chorley, Lindsay Hoyle made reference to Kraft's takeover of another British confectionery firm, Terry's, where the American firm made similar promises, before shifting
production to Poland. "They pillaged and asset-stripped that company," he said.
MPs complained that Rosenfeld had snubbed them by not attending in person. She instead sent Kraft's executive vice-president, Marc Firestone, who said the company was "terribly sorry" that hopes had been raised and then dashed over Somerdale. He said the original pledge had been in "good faith".
At the time, Kraft also reassured MPs that it would continue Cadbury's traditions of philanthropy and ethical sourcing. "In acquiring a British icon, we have a responsibility to preserve its heritage," Firestone told the committee.
The report, from a cross-party business select committee, concludes that promises during the takeover by Kraft that it would safeguard the future of a factory in Somerdale, near Bristol, only to announce its closure after the deal was done, had left the company open to charges of either "incompetence" or a "cynical ploy" to win support. Kraft, it says, has damaged its reputation in Britain and will need to work hard to repair it.
The strongly worded report is especially scathing about Kraft chief executive Irene Rosenfeld, who declined to show up for a hearing before the committee in March, saying it "strongly believes" she should have personally given evidence.
The MPs express disappointment that senior management at Kraft has failed to properly engage with the Cadbury union Unite and call on the company to open discussions "as a matter of urgency". It welcomes pledges from Kraft that it will make no further manufacturing job cuts for the next two years, but suggests the commitment should be longer. Unite has been seeking a commitment to last at least five years with no redundancies.
"The report is very critical and is profoundly sceptical," said one Westminster source. "It expresses concerns about the extent to which we can trust the assurances of Kraft."
He cited weekend reports that Kraft bosses had issued Cadbury staff with an ultimatum, of either opting out of the company's final salary pension scheme or a pay freeze for the next three years. "There is a sense that Kraft has got off lightly and that the hearing focused too much on what had already happened. The failure of engagement with the Cadbury unions is extraordinary behaviour."
The MPs also say they are "deeply concerned" that takeovers are being determined by investors such as hedge funds seeking short-term profits, but the report stops short of any hard recommendations about changes to the takeover rules. There has been anger that the future of one of Britain's oldest and best known companies should have been decided by speculators buying shares when the Kraft bid was first mooted, in the hope of turning a quick profit.
It does however welcome an ongoing review of the takeover rules, launched in February, and is supportive of measures being pressed by business secretary Lord Mandelson to benefit company workforces rather than short-term City investors. It says a public interest test should be considered as a part of that review. It also suggests that the 2006 Companies Act needs revision. The Westminster source said that the Cadbury takeover should be important in determining future policy. "I hope there will be long term lessons learned."
Kraft prompted a furore after it announced that it would close the Somerdale plant, with the loss of 400 jobs. Cadbury had planned to close the plant and shift production to Poland, but during the takeover battle, Kraft promised it would keep the factory open. Just a week after the deal was agreed however, Kraft reneged on its pledge, claiming that the move to Poland was too advanced to reverse.
The tone of the report reflects the fury on display during the March hearing in front of the business select committee, chaired by the Conservative MP Peter Luff. During the hearing, the Labour MP for Chorley, Lindsay Hoyle made reference to Kraft's takeover of another British confectionery firm, Terry's, where the American firm made similar promises, before shifting
production to Poland. "They pillaged and asset-stripped that company," he said.
MPs complained that Rosenfeld had snubbed them by not attending in person. She instead sent Kraft's executive vice-president, Marc Firestone, who said the company was "terribly sorry" that hopes had been raised and then dashed over Somerdale. He said the original pledge had been in "good faith".
At the time, Kraft also reassured MPs that it would continue Cadbury's traditions of philanthropy and ethical sourcing. "In acquiring a British icon, we have a responsibility to preserve its heritage," Firestone told the committee.
Sack Grayling Petition!
News broke late on Saturday that Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling had said people who run bed & breakfasts should be allowed to refuse business to gay and lesbian couples.
David Cameron has said nothing.
But time is up, and the Tories must either stand by or condemn this intolerance.
Moreover, Cameron needs to make a clear statement of policy.
Will Cameron sit by and silently accept this sort of bigotry, or will he reassure the people of Britain that he means what he says that his party has changed?
Allowing certain business-owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to discrimination based on race, religion, country of origin, and anything else -- and to the sort of inequality that we thought we'd said goodbye to forever in this country.
Sign this urgent petition to David Cameron, telling him to sack Chris Grayling and clearly state his party's stance on discrimination:
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/grayling
Grayling's comments aren't just at odds with the law he hopes to protect as home secretary -- they call into question the sincerity of the Tory Party's entire election platform.
To be clear, this was no verbal slip-up -- the setting was a closed-door meeting of influential Conservatives who thought the cameras and tape-recorders weren't running.
When they know they're on tape, the Tories sing a very different tune. In fact, in 2006, the Conservatives blocked a candidate in Northern Ireland who said much the same thing as Grayling. Associating themselves with this sort of bigotry undermines their claim that this is a different Conservative Party than the one we were used to -- and they know it.
The Tories think slick marketing and a fresh face will make people forget the undercurrent of intolerance that drives their political strategy -- and that we'll ignore the vast inconsistencies between what they say in public, and where they privately intend to lead this nation.
We can't let this one go. Tell David Cameron to sack Grayling and forcefully condemn the remarks:
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/grayling
David Cameron has said nothing.
But time is up, and the Tories must either stand by or condemn this intolerance.
Moreover, Cameron needs to make a clear statement of policy.
Will Cameron sit by and silently accept this sort of bigotry, or will he reassure the people of Britain that he means what he says that his party has changed?
Allowing certain business-owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation opens the door to discrimination based on race, religion, country of origin, and anything else -- and to the sort of inequality that we thought we'd said goodbye to forever in this country.
Sign this urgent petition to David Cameron, telling him to sack Chris Grayling and clearly state his party's stance on discrimination:
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/grayling
Grayling's comments aren't just at odds with the law he hopes to protect as home secretary -- they call into question the sincerity of the Tory Party's entire election platform.
To be clear, this was no verbal slip-up -- the setting was a closed-door meeting of influential Conservatives who thought the cameras and tape-recorders weren't running.
When they know they're on tape, the Tories sing a very different tune. In fact, in 2006, the Conservatives blocked a candidate in Northern Ireland who said much the same thing as Grayling. Associating themselves with this sort of bigotry undermines their claim that this is a different Conservative Party than the one we were used to -- and they know it.
The Tories think slick marketing and a fresh face will make people forget the undercurrent of intolerance that drives their political strategy -- and that we'll ignore the vast inconsistencies between what they say in public, and where they privately intend to lead this nation.
We can't let this one go. Tell David Cameron to sack Grayling and forcefully condemn the remarks:
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/grayling
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Industrial action 'real risk' under Tories - Brendan Barber
Brendan Barber says Conservatives are in 'wrong place on the economy'
Britain faces "very real risks" of widespread industrial action later this year, especially if the Conservatives win the general election and start making big public spending cuts, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber has warned.
He said the Tories were "in the wrong place on the economy and on employment" but poured scorn on any idea of a politically-motivated "spring of discontent" following on from the current air and rail disputes.
Barber insisted there was link between the present strikes and threats of strikes and run-up to the election but told the Times that labour relations could worsen if the public sector bore the brunt of cuts.
Barber said: "If there are serious cuts in public spending and in vital public services, then there are very real risks of some very difficult disputes. Whoever wins the next general election will have to think very carefully before they reach for the axe and what that will mean not only for pay and living standards but for the quality of services that the public sector delivers."
Barber did not think either of the present transport disputes were politically-motivated: "This 'spring of discontent' label is simply a lazy cliché," he said. "This is not comparable to 1979. Nothing like it. The number of days lost in 2009 to industrial action is nowhere near."
He said that 455,000 working days were lost to industrial action last year, compared with the 27m lost during the 1984 miners' strikes and the 29m lost during the 1979 Winter of Discontent.
"It is an accident that the disputes that we have are happening now at the same time", Barber told the newspaper. "The BA issue has come to a head now only because of the legal action [the injunction BA won at Christmas that prevented industrial action then] and the failure to resolve the issue in the three or four months since.
"There is no linkage between the disputes and the pre-election period. There is no great political significance here." But Barber also said: "For me, the Conservative party is in the wrong place on the economy and on employment. There are huge worries about the policy stances of a potential Conservative government. A sustainable recovery is at risk if there was a Conservative government committed to deep cuts. That is potentially a big threat.
"There is a worry if a Tory government takes an antagonistic line to the trade union movement that would increase the risks of real clashes."
Britain faces "very real risks" of widespread industrial action later this year, especially if the Conservatives win the general election and start making big public spending cuts, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber has warned.
He said the Tories were "in the wrong place on the economy and on employment" but poured scorn on any idea of a politically-motivated "spring of discontent" following on from the current air and rail disputes.
Barber insisted there was link between the present strikes and threats of strikes and run-up to the election but told the Times that labour relations could worsen if the public sector bore the brunt of cuts.
Barber said: "If there are serious cuts in public spending and in vital public services, then there are very real risks of some very difficult disputes. Whoever wins the next general election will have to think very carefully before they reach for the axe and what that will mean not only for pay and living standards but for the quality of services that the public sector delivers."
Barber did not think either of the present transport disputes were politically-motivated: "This 'spring of discontent' label is simply a lazy cliché," he said. "This is not comparable to 1979. Nothing like it. The number of days lost in 2009 to industrial action is nowhere near."
He said that 455,000 working days were lost to industrial action last year, compared with the 27m lost during the 1984 miners' strikes and the 29m lost during the 1979 Winter of Discontent.
"It is an accident that the disputes that we have are happening now at the same time", Barber told the newspaper. "The BA issue has come to a head now only because of the legal action [the injunction BA won at Christmas that prevented industrial action then] and the failure to resolve the issue in the three or four months since.
"There is no linkage between the disputes and the pre-election period. There is no great political significance here." But Barber also said: "For me, the Conservative party is in the wrong place on the economy and on employment. There are huge worries about the policy stances of a potential Conservative government. A sustainable recovery is at risk if there was a Conservative government committed to deep cuts. That is potentially a big threat.
"There is a worry if a Tory government takes an antagonistic line to the trade union movement that would increase the risks of real clashes."
BA Dispute - Support Unite BA Hardship Fund
Unite has now set up a hardship fund to help and asssist our members in dispute with BA.
Show your solidarity!
We urge all Workers Uniting Group supporters to make donations to the hardship fund by sending a cheque payable to Unite the Union.
Please ensure you add a covering letter stating that the money is for British Airways Dispute Hardship Fund and send to The Joint General Secretaries, British Airways Dispute Hardship Fund, Unite the Union, Unite House, 128 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8T
Show your solidarity!
We urge all Workers Uniting Group supporters to make donations to the hardship fund by sending a cheque payable to Unite the Union.
Please ensure you add a covering letter stating that the money is for British Airways Dispute Hardship Fund and send to The Joint General Secretaries, British Airways Dispute Hardship Fund, Unite the Union, Unite House, 128 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
