« Your Taxes go on Sex, Drugs, Vomiting and Fighting. The Rest is Wasted. | Main | US Presidential Election 2008 - The Music Videos! »

The Corrupt Labour Party Pays Back Unions By Screwing Businesses Hit By Strikes

Let's say you run a business, and that some of your employees decide to break their contractual commitments by going on strike, leaving your business and your customers in the lurch.

So, how would you respond?

You might think: "We'll hire temps to cover the work normally done by the strikers. This will ensure  our customers aren't affected and the damage to our business is minimised".

A sane answer. But unfortunately, the millions of pounds the unions have spent propping up the corrupt Labour party seem to have paid off:

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, Part I, 7 states:

"... an employment business shall not introduce or supply a work seeker to
a hirer to perform... the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike"

The next time Labour crows about being pro-business or pro-enterprise, remind them that their sleazy government deliberately changed the law to ensure businesses would be screwed by strikes, unable to replace work-shy workers with temps. You can almost hear the glee of Labour's paymasters as their rub employers noses in this unbelievable law.

June 18, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Corrupt Labour Party Pays Back Unions By Screwing Businesses Hit By Strikes:


I'm amazed not to have heard about this before. I did a few searches a little came back except the GMB salvating at using this against Asda shortly. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5092224.stm

As you say Labour have contributed to the Union modernisation fund - thanks to their running the Govt, the Unions contribute to Labour and get this ...

Posted by: Man in a Shed | 19 Jun 2006 18:11:07

Great site mate. I'm all for 1983 style dessimation of the Labour Party

Posted by: Jonathan | 8 Jan 2007 01:01:32

Post a comment