Well, after pondering last week as to why the BNP wanted to set up their own union, it’s become clear in a very welcome way. They aren’t going to be getting into any others anytime soon.
The European Court of Human Rights has just ruled today that unions can legitimately expel BNP members, thanks to a case brought by ASLEF. You can see (download, print, frame…) the ruling here.
They found that whilst BNP members did have a right to freedom of association, this worked in reverse too, and didn’t need to compromise the rights of those who wanted the freedom not to have to associate with people whose aims were directly opposed to the aims of their union.
Plus ASLEF get €53,900 compensation from the UK Government, which goes some way to redress after the UK tribunal made them take back their expelled BNP member, or face a fine of up to nearly twice that sum.
Result! I for one will be raising a glass of something suitably European this evening.
ah yes, confirmation of the case of (Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom ECHR 1981)
As the European Union is even now only an association* of sovereign nation states and is not in itself a State, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. Under international law, it is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. The notion of dual citizenship, implied under the new constitution and Article 17 (8) ECT is nonsense and the imposition of EU citizenship upon me is therefore in breach of article 11 Human Rights Act 1998 as defined by (Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom ECHR 1981) and it is a clear breach of Article 20 (2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 20. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
I am in two minds about this judgement. I don’t approve of political vetting and I think that Trade Unions should concentrate on their main function which is to represent all in the workplace. That is the policy of our Union Solidarity which is open to people of all persuasions. On the other hand associations should, I feel personally, have the right to limit and restrict their membership. Our law forbids this on certain grounds (such as Race and Sex) for reasons of public policy. Not all Unions have followed this policy of course, note Equity and their response to calls to expel or persecute Simone Clarke.
The judgement may also undermine any opposition to our new Trade Union – after all people have the right to belong to a Union under many international treaties and if they are excluded from others our case is made stronger.
The message that this judgement sends is that if you are a political dissident there is little point in paying Union dues to many of the established Unions. They will take your money every month and then may expel you or refuse you representation on political grounds.
I don’t think this one quite sends the signal you suggest Patrick. Certainly it does suggest that if your political endeavours are directed fundamentally against the platform of the union then it’s not worth you joining. This doesn’t necessarily cover all types of ‘political dissident’.
Most Unions elect delegates to Conference via Branches. Many Union Branch meetings are attended by only a fraction of the membership. There is often a high proportion of political activists who do attend. This all feeds into policy and leads to a situation where many policy statements made are either out-of-snych with the views of members generally or of little direct interest to them.
Therefore, people should not only consider whether it is worth joining the established Unions and existing members need to decide whether to continue paying them membership subscriptions! If they don’t support the policy platforms why be in them indeed?
.
Hmmm… well that’s representative democracy – and surely the same system operated by your union? (I take it you’d not override a decision of the membership you didn’t like). Getting broad agreement on a topic in a democratic organisation means making as choice between two or more options.
I do sometimes often disagree with policies that have gone through my union. I argue with them at branch, vote against them when I get the chance, and am aware that others are doing the same thing with policies I support.
Some of the wackier decisions are the result of political activists as you say. They have a higher boredom threshold for meetings, and so can exercise disproportionate influence if no-one else gets involved. I think the answer though is more to make sure more people engage than, rather than to split our unions into niche organisations of members all with the same narrow political views – we are immesurably stronger together after all.
Also I’m less down on our trotty friends than you are – I may disagree with them on a number of things, but I know they do a lot of unpaid work (that I generally don’t want to do) for the union in between banging on about their quirkier interests, and have as much right to express an opinion as I do (just so long as they don’t mind an argument).