BALPA against ID Cards - TUC Congress
Just a numbered other
GTF:
The only explanation is that, having won this round, they intend eventually to remove the process by which they can be kicked out of office! A certain A Hitler pulled that stunt about 72 years ago.
My MP's getting my protest on his desk Monday. He's known to support the fight against this dreadful attack on millenia of freedom in this country.
Surely the Labour Goverment must realise that they will not be in power indefinitely? This is why I can't understand their enthusiasm for state control today, because who knows who will have this control tomorrow?
My MP's getting my protest on his desk Monday. He's known to support the fight against this dreadful attack on millenia of freedom in this country.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleased to hear it, arkroyal. What this thread shows is that pilots are highly skilled at analysing the detail of a complex issue...but sometimes lamentably poor at doing anything about it! Lets not allow this to be such a case.
Perhaps we could take a leaf from Captain Pratt, BA who has suggested in the balpa mag, a boycott of the scheme. Hear hear! And I'd be delighted to hear some practical suggestions on how we could put this into effect.
Perhaps we could take a leaf from Captain Pratt, BA who has suggested in the balpa mag, a boycott of the scheme. Hear hear! And I'd be delighted to hear some practical suggestions on how we could put this into effect.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne
That is a fair observation, however there is a substantial issue in this in that while the scheme is being rolled out through two airports, and that it has been premised that while "No-one will be forced to hold and ID card" airport employees that have air side access in line with their employment, EG Pilots, will be required to have an ID card or be denied access to their jobs, it would come forward that this is an aviation related issue.
In that:
Air side staff will be required to have an ID card.
Air side staff will be subject to the risk of having their biometric data stored.
Air side staff will be at risk to have their data mined and nefariously duplicated
Air side staff will be required, against their wishes to be party to lack of security against their wishes.
Air side staff will have no control over the data, how it used and how it is promulgated in either their professional lives or personal lives.
Air side staff will be subjected to having their data stored, without having criminal conviction which is a violation of rights under EU law. Ref: S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom.
So this would in effect be challenged through the minister for aviation as this issue, toward us relates to an aviation based matter.
However, it is the home office that is mounting the attack on our civil liberties, and as such, while there are many areas that this issue would be challenged under, the challenge is divided.
Again, you have to look at the manner in which New Labour has changed the constitution of this country and how the failings of many public offices continue unabated.
New Labour has proliferated ministers under various subjects headings under the guise of serving the "population" there are many benefits to the government.
Lets take for example a recent government failing that has been in the news, where does the responsibility lie? there are so many crossovers between potential ministers responsibility that no-one takes responsibility and business carries on without repercussion.
Of course there are many areas of benefit to the government in such proliferation, however, lets keep this focused rather than go off on a political tangent.
Retuning to this issue, while the matter as above concerns aviation, we have to challenge this on an aviation issue. As such, other areas that are represented have to challenge this through their individual challenges.
It's the old rule of divide and conquer. The government has divided the potential challenges while the administrative sector that is responsible remains unchallenged.
So the way forward is to make a stand. As you pointed out, pilots are highly skilled at analyzing the detail of a complex issue. Capt.. Pratt has indeed suggested a boycott in the BALPA mag, however there are many other pilots who are not BALPA members. Indeed, many air side access employees are not pilots, and are also opposed to the scheme. We have seen in this thread that are union representatives who are opposed to this scheme.
So while we have been divided, we need to unite all the air side access people to a coordinated effort. To voice the concerns and to effectively boycott the scheme as it is un-viable, a security risk in itself and a waste of public money.
That is a fair observation, however there is a substantial issue in this in that while the scheme is being rolled out through two airports, and that it has been premised that while "No-one will be forced to hold and ID card" airport employees that have air side access in line with their employment, EG Pilots, will be required to have an ID card or be denied access to their jobs, it would come forward that this is an aviation related issue.
In that:
Air side staff will be required to have an ID card.
Air side staff will be subject to the risk of having their biometric data stored.
Air side staff will be at risk to have their data mined and nefariously duplicated
Air side staff will be required, against their wishes to be party to lack of security against their wishes.
Air side staff will have no control over the data, how it used and how it is promulgated in either their professional lives or personal lives.
Air side staff will be subjected to having their data stored, without having criminal conviction which is a violation of rights under EU law. Ref: S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom.
So this would in effect be challenged through the minister for aviation as this issue, toward us relates to an aviation based matter.
However, it is the home office that is mounting the attack on our civil liberties, and as such, while there are many areas that this issue would be challenged under, the challenge is divided.
Again, you have to look at the manner in which New Labour has changed the constitution of this country and how the failings of many public offices continue unabated.
New Labour has proliferated ministers under various subjects headings under the guise of serving the "population" there are many benefits to the government.
Lets take for example a recent government failing that has been in the news, where does the responsibility lie? there are so many crossovers between potential ministers responsibility that no-one takes responsibility and business carries on without repercussion.
Of course there are many areas of benefit to the government in such proliferation, however, lets keep this focused rather than go off on a political tangent.
Retuning to this issue, while the matter as above concerns aviation, we have to challenge this on an aviation issue. As such, other areas that are represented have to challenge this through their individual challenges.
It's the old rule of divide and conquer. The government has divided the potential challenges while the administrative sector that is responsible remains unchallenged.
So the way forward is to make a stand. As you pointed out, pilots are highly skilled at analyzing the detail of a complex issue. Capt.. Pratt has indeed suggested a boycott in the BALPA mag, however there are many other pilots who are not BALPA members. Indeed, many air side access employees are not pilots, and are also opposed to the scheme. We have seen in this thread that are union representatives who are opposed to this scheme.
So while we have been divided, we need to unite all the air side access people to a coordinated effort. To voice the concerns and to effectively boycott the scheme as it is un-viable, a security risk in itself and a waste of public money.
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 21st Dec 2008 at 08:08. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce Wayne
I'm afraid I can't find any PM in my inbox, It may have been inadvertently deleted? can you please re-send?
You are of course correct in that the most effective form of opposition to the scheme implementation in the aviation sector will come from a collective and unified voice. It does, as you point out affect a large number of employees working for a number of various companies, in different roles that all require an airside pass to work.
With the above in mind, the best way to oppose this should be through the Trade Union movement. It has the resource, power and leverage to make a difference, if of course it has the will. After all it is responsible for 90% of Labour party cash funding.
Unfortunately some National Officers are still living in the world of 1970s disputes and cannot see beyond Labour – good, Conservative – evil. The adage about dinosaurs springs to mind. It should be simple, if something is wrong, it is wrong and party politics should not come into it. I can assure you that if this was Tory legislation it would certainly be opposed by the movement.
Anyhow, how can anyone defend a Government that decides to use anti-terrorist legislation on targets such as the entire population of Iceland (banks), those who dissent at party conferences, peaceful protesters, and to arrest opposition MPs for doing their job?
Remember the BALPA motion that was carried overwhelmingly by TUC delegates? It pledged to resist this scheme with all means at its disposal, including consideration of legal action to uphold civil liberties.
BALPA to their credit led on this, but the other unions who are affiliated to Labour are doing very little to support their members veiws on the issue.
Without wishing to become too political I have to point out that in the UK we have the most restrictive laws on Trade Unions in the western world. Although these laws were bought in by the Conservative Government they have not been scrapped despite 11 years of Labour Government. Trade unions which seek to defend jobs, services or industries face massive penalties, including the freezing of union funds (sequestration) or even receivership - all designed to stop unions from functioning effectively on behalf of their members, or in support of members of other Trade Unions.
With regard to ID cards, there is little that the Trade Union movement can do to oppose a Government Act. Any action would be deemed a political dispute and would be unlawful. The only legal way to take action is by industrial dispute. To do this the dispute would have to be against the employer, not the Government. This is why those who are initially affected at MAN & LCY may need to consider this course of action.
The Government will do whatever it needs to coerce us onto their databases. None of us should underestimate the difficulty we will have in opposing the Governments will.
golftangofox,
call100,
yarpy,
litebulbs,
42psi
I have PM'ed you, (Yarpy it is rejected as you dont accept PM's).
call100,
yarpy,
litebulbs,
42psi
I have PM'ed you, (Yarpy it is rejected as you dont accept PM's).
We have seen in this thread that are union representatives who are opposed to this scheme.
So while we have been divided, we need to unite all the air side access people to a coordinated effort. To voice the concerns and to effectively boycott the scheme as it is un-viable, a security risk in itself and a waste of public money.
So while we have been divided, we need to unite all the air side access people to a coordinated effort. To voice the concerns and to effectively boycott the scheme as it is un-viable, a security risk in itself and a waste of public money.
With the above in mind, the best way to oppose this should be through the Trade Union movement. It has the resource, power and leverage to make a difference, if of course it has the will. After all it is responsible for 90% of Labour party cash funding.
Unfortunately some National Officers are still living in the world of 1970s disputes and cannot see beyond Labour – good, Conservative – evil. The adage about dinosaurs springs to mind. It should be simple, if something is wrong, it is wrong and party politics should not come into it. I can assure you that if this was Tory legislation it would certainly be opposed by the movement.
Anyhow, how can anyone defend a Government that decides to use anti-terrorist legislation on targets such as the entire population of Iceland (banks), those who dissent at party conferences, peaceful protesters, and to arrest opposition MPs for doing their job?
Remember the BALPA motion that was carried overwhelmingly by TUC delegates? It pledged to resist this scheme with all means at its disposal, including consideration of legal action to uphold civil liberties.
BALPA to their credit led on this, but the other unions who are affiliated to Labour are doing very little to support their members veiws on the issue.
Without wishing to become too political I have to point out that in the UK we have the most restrictive laws on Trade Unions in the western world. Although these laws were bought in by the Conservative Government they have not been scrapped despite 11 years of Labour Government. Trade unions which seek to defend jobs, services or industries face massive penalties, including the freezing of union funds (sequestration) or even receivership - all designed to stop unions from functioning effectively on behalf of their members, or in support of members of other Trade Unions.
With regard to ID cards, there is little that the Trade Union movement can do to oppose a Government Act. Any action would be deemed a political dispute and would be unlawful. The only legal way to take action is by industrial dispute. To do this the dispute would have to be against the employer, not the Government. This is why those who are initially affected at MAN & LCY may need to consider this course of action.
The Government will do whatever it needs to coerce us onto their databases. None of us should underestimate the difficulty we will have in opposing the Governments will.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it seems that we have the collective intellect, interest and capacity to mount a formative opposition to this scheme, I have PM'ed all of you interested.
I agree that the best way to oppose this would be through a trade union movement, however, as you have pointed out, the political affiliation between unions and the labour party are a problem. There is no doubt that those higher up the union chain will not change their political affiliations, nor put aside the ghosts of their past either. Nor are they likely to jeopardize their positions which afford financial and power security.
Furthermore, your point in that a trade union action would be deemed a political dispute, therefore illegal, is both apt and relevant.
I have been mulling this over for a few days in addition to the PM's i have recieved from you, Yarpy, 42psi, desperate, call100, litebulbs, spannersatKL and have PMed you all back the same message.
I think i see a potential way forward for us all to act in a combined manner, and soon as i have heard from you all back on that mail then perhaps we can initiate a collective opposition.
I agree that the best way to oppose this would be through a trade union movement, however, as you have pointed out, the political affiliation between unions and the labour party are a problem. There is no doubt that those higher up the union chain will not change their political affiliations, nor put aside the ghosts of their past either. Nor are they likely to jeopardize their positions which afford financial and power security.
Furthermore, your point in that a trade union action would be deemed a political dispute, therefore illegal, is both apt and relevant.
I have been mulling this over for a few days in addition to the PM's i have recieved from you, Yarpy, 42psi, desperate, call100, litebulbs, spannersatKL and have PMed you all back the same message.
I think i see a potential way forward for us all to act in a combined manner, and soon as i have heard from you all back on that mail then perhaps we can initiate a collective opposition.
