Should the police have the right to strike?

[ymu]

Yes, yes they should. Apart from it being a fundamental right of every worker, they should be less likely to interfere in the right of others to strike. I welcome this.

 

[cesare]

The Army always was and always will be the 'back stop' for any government attempting to control an unruly population. But it's a massive statement for any govenrment (especially in a country like the UK) to bring in the Armed Forces to deal with its own population...

There were periods during the miner's strike where Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of calling in the troops to break up the pickets. If she had, it could'a been civil war. The myth of liberal government is that (generally speaking) it is maintained through consent. Letting on that, actually, consent is merely a comfortable delusion perpetuated by an 'apparent' (though ultimately meaningless) democracy and is used to hide the true basis of any State (an authorative monopoly over physical violence and the right to physcially compel people into action) is a massive blunder.

If the Police went on strike today, the establishment would still shit their pants like it was 1919 all over again, and none of us know how it'd turn out.

It'd be the same result whether it was lawful or unlawful strike action.

Why make it easy for them?

 

[brasicritique]

Yeh, absolutely, just because they're cunts doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same basic rights as others.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

i am not saying it does my pocket pixie

what i am saying is it would be very funny.The police would have to police there own demos and take photographs of themselves.A politicised police force would be good for loads of reasons they would no longer be able to hide behind being neutral , they would if going on strike need to build public trust haha and the direction of there politics might take them in would expose there power much more to a wider range of people then it does now. I think they would be the first police force in the world to be able to strike. If the army had the right to strike haha would they have voted to go to iraq

still i suppose not many of you enjoyed robocop 3

nor evidently have a sense of humour

 

[detective-boy]

Where do you stand on this? Right to strike? Y/N

No ... Bottom bit of post 52 ^^^

 

[detective-boy]

Apart from it being a fundamental right of every worker, they should be less likely to interfere in the right of others to strike.

Where have the police interfered in the right of others to strike? (as opposed to dealing with issues of order in public places, demonstrations, unlawful secondary picketing, protecting the rights of others to work if they choose, etc.)

 

[cesare]

No ... Bottom bit of post 52 ^^^

Ah, cheers. Sorry, I missed that.

 

[dennisr]

Where have the police interfered in the right of others to strike? (as opposed to dealing with issues of order in public places, demonstrations, unlawful secondary picketing, protecting the rights of others to work if they choose, etc.)

oh, that bit in quotes raised a chuckle

 

[bluestreak]

I think no ... but, as with any other group where a right available to others is removed in the public interest, there needs to be some alternative safeguard for their interests (e.g. independent binding arbitration on issues which would otherwise have gone to strike action).

I think in the case of the police and other essential services such as nursing etc this is probably the best case.

 

[frogwoman]

yes.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Of course they should have the right to strike.

That's what a right is, something everyone has, isn't it? The bigger question is why haven't they got it already?

Despite what I posted frivolously before, I have a lot of time for a lot of coppers. I think there are structural problems with the way policing is done in this country, and institutional problems with the police - cultural and organisational.



The question of the Army being used as a backstop is a bit of a red herring. There are about the same number of cops as squaddies - let's not pretend that the cops do their job entirely by intimidation base on numbers.

Posters here seem to think the Army could swamp the streets with thousands and thousands of tooled up Paras, menacing the passer-by into obedience.

Wrong. There's not the numbers, not the aptitude either in my opinion. Senior Army officers would be very very uncomfortable with the whole idea of anything other that strictly limited 'aid to the civil power' (ACP) duties.

Helping out the Plod with manpower (EG perimiter security at the Kegworth air crash which I was at) is one thing. Trying to be a police force quite another.

Also, a lot of the lads would not be at all keen. That's why the Army wasn't called in the General Strike, despite many a politician urging it - the powers that be (were?) were not sure that the machine guns would point the right way.

I got this from regimental folklore btw, not any offical stuff.

 

[weltweit]

I don't have very strong view on this, should they strike for their issues? perhaps .. would law and order fall to pieces if the police were on strike, I doubt it ..

When they were on strike would they arrest any illegal pickets themselves

 

[poster342002]

I'm sure the police do have the right to strike in one or two EU countries.

 

[Fictionist]

They should have the right to strike.

 

[Sasaferrato]

No it wasn't. There has been no right to strike since the 1919 strike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7141970.stm

(The Police Act 1996 merely repeated the prohibition which had been in previous legislation since then)

I think no ... but, as with any other group where a right available to others is removed in the public interest, there needs to be some alternative safeguard for their interests (e.g. independent binding arbitration on issues which would otherwise have gone to strike action).

I stand corrected.

Is it prison officers then who have had their right to strike removed by the current government?

 

[audiotech]

There were periods during the miner's strike where Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of calling in the troops to break up the pickets. If she had, it could'a been civil war.

The tories used troops during the miners strike though. I think it was Douglas Hurd who admitted so.

I recall that there were quite a few police, with no numbers identifying them, monitoring a massive show of strength by the miners and supporters in Mansfield - heart of the Nottinghamshire coalfield - during the summer of 84.

 

[chainsaw cat]

The tories used troops during the miners strike though. I think it was Douglas Hurd who admitted so.

I recall that there were quite a few police, with no numbers identifying them, monitoring a massive show of strength by the miners and supporters in Mansfield - heart of the Nottinghamshire coalfield - during the summer of 84.

I don't mind being proven wrong but I seriously doubt that.

Don't forget that the troops are mostly working class lads themselves, and the instant obedience (massive generalisation here to condense the post) to orders largely died on the Western Front in WW1.

You'd have real trouble getting a formed unit of infantry to go out as strike breakers. Most of them would have brothers/dads involved in the strike ffs.

If it wasn't a formed unit, there'd be individuals from all over the Army involved, and it would be widely known within the Army....

Sounds very very unlikely to me.


More likely the un-numbered cops were in fact cops not wishing to be identified.

maybe they used the air force, they are a bunch of middle class tosspots

 

[ViolentPanda]

I stand corrected.

Is it prison officers then who have had their right to strike removed by the current government?

Nope, what the current government did was resile in bad faith from the negotiation of a "no-strike" agreement with the POA.

It was Major's govt back in 1992-93 that removed the right to strike of prison officers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Army always was and always will be the 'back stop' for any government attempting to control an unruly population. But it's a massive statement for any govenrment (especially in a country like the UK) to bring in the Armed Forces to deal with its own population...

Except, of course, that under normal conditions the police are constitutionally barred from using the military to control the civilian population (a state of emergency and all it entails needing to be declared, for the military to be used).

There were periods during the miner's strike where Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of calling in the troops to break up the pickets. If she had, it could'a been civil war.

There was also the issue that while her ministers at defence and the mandarins had given the green light, the brass hadn't, and would very likely (and I'm talking "almost certainly", here) have sealed the barracks. Military brass do not like politicians using them for purposes of social control on the home population, it's too much like totalitarianism.

The myth of liberal government is that (generally speaking) it is maintained through consent. Letting on that, actually, consent is merely a comfortable delusion perpetuated by an 'apparent' (though ultimately meaningless) democracy and is used to hide the true basis of any State (an authorative monopoly over physical violence and the right to physcially compel people into action) is a massive blunder.

If the Police went on strike today, the establishment would still shit their pants like it was 1919 all over again, and none of us know how it'd turn out.

We can make reasonable predictions based on current and extant legislation, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't mind being proven wrong but I seriously doubt that.

Don't forget that the troops are mostly working class lads themselves, and the instant obedience (massive generalisation here to condense the post) to orders largely died on the Western Front in WW1.

You'd have real trouble getting a formed unit of infantry to go out as strike breakers. Most of them would have brothers/dads involved in the strike ffs.

If it wasn't a formed unit, there'd be individuals from all over the Army involved, and it would be widely known within the Army....

Sounds very very unlikely to me.

Totally agree. You might get some TA formations doing so (what with the higher than average ratio of m/c management types some TA units have), but most regular units (and their brass, I might add) would resist this tooth and claw. Providing cover during fire-fighter strikes is one thing; fires spread if they're not extinguished. Providing civil policing cover isn't something they've ever historically been asked to do, unless and until a "state of emergency" is declared. Even when we had colonies, the police forces were separate bodies to the military.

More likely the un-numbered cops were in fact cops not wishing to be identified.

Old trick, that or gaffa-taping over their epaulettes.

maybe they used the air force, they are a bunch of middle class tosspots

Thinks of 2nd cousin who joined RAF, agrees.

 

[audiotech]

I don't mind being proven wrong but I seriously doubt that.

Don't forget that the troops are mostly working class lads themselves, and the instant obedience (massive generalisation here to condense the post) to orders largely died on the Western Front in WW1.

You'd have real trouble getting a formed unit of infantry to go out as strike breakers. Most of them would have brothers/dads involved in the strike ffs.

If it wasn't a formed unit, there'd be individuals from all over the Army involved, and it would be widely known within the Army....

Sounds very very unlikely to me.


More likely the un-numbered cops were in fact cops not wishing to be identified.

maybe they used the air force, they are a bunch of middle class tosspots

There's little hard evidence around, but there is some anecdotal evidence from some relatives of miners who were soldiers and from some soldiers themselves.

A piece on Wikipedia alludes to this, but no citation. We'll probably get to know the real truth in about fifty years when govt papers are released in the usual censored drip, drip fashion.

Former striking miners and others have alleged that soldiers of the British Army were dressed as policemen and used on the picket lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984-1985)

 

[poster342002]

During the 80s, many people seemed to know someone who knew someone who had a mate in the army that they'd bumped into during the Brixton riots - dressed in police uniform.

 

[detective-boy]

A piece on Wikipedia alludes to this, but no citation.

Urban myths, propogated by the terminally paranoid, for whom it fits in with their view of society and government (much of U75, in other words ... ).

There are so many reasons why it is not a good idea, and so many ways in which it would come to light, that it simply isn't done, at least not in any public contact role.

 

[Cressi]

Dont think the whole force would strike on 1 day....think they would do it in shifts........a force going slow here + there.........its the flying squad that would have to strike discreetly .........if at all. Think it would be a token go - slow, no over time, strike over form filling ...that sort of stuff rather than all out at once on one day. It would be nice if the coppers outside parliament + no 10 went on strike then we could all knock on the doors + moan freely.

 

[audiotech]

Urban myths, propogated by the terminally paranoid, for whom it fits in with their view of society and government (much of U75, in other words ... ).

There are so many reasons why it is not a good idea, and so many ways in which it would come to light, that it simply isn't done, at least not in any public contact role.

A few naive fools on Urban too.

Many miners swear to this day that there were soldiers in police uniforms. You delude yourself if you want to.

 

[detective-boy]

You delude yourself if you want to.

Nah, it's OK. There's enough deluded idiots here already.

 

[Random]

Yes, yes they should. Apart from it being a fundamental right of every worker, they should be less likely to interfere in the right of others to strike. I welcome this.

Yes, as well, for the same reasons as this post.

As for this:

I think in the case of the police and other essential services such as nursing etc this is probably the best case.

Are you out of your mind? Nurses should have the right to strike taken away from them in return for some paternalist 'deal' with the government? Without the option of strike action all we'd get would be some stich up between union leaders and the government, designed to deliver passivity.

It's worth noting that Saddam Hussein designated all state employees 'civil servants' and at a stroke took away the right to strike for millions, including oil workers. That's the thicker end of the 'essential services' wedge.

 

[shagnasty]

No matter what we think of the police many of who are scum ,there should be in place procedures that prevent the need to strike .these seem to have broken down hence the police calling for the right to strike and prison warders taking action which could be seen to be illegal.

 

[detective-boy]

No matter what we think of the police many of who are scum

I think the word you are looking for is "some" ...

 

[shagnasty]

I will give you that.but my point is, if they cannot strike there should have a mechanism in place for greviances which is clearly not happening .the government goes on about rights and responsibiltys but by not backdating their pay awards they showed no responsibility

 

[scifisam]

Yes, as well, for the same reasons as this post.

As for this: Are you out of your mind? Nurses should have the right to strike taken away from them in return for some paternalist 'deal' with the government? Without the option of strike action all we'd get would be some stich up between union leaders and the government, designed to deliver passivity.

It's worth noting that Saddam Hussein designated all state employees 'civil servants' and at a stroke took away the right to strike for millions, including oil workers. That's the thicker end of the 'essential services' wedge.

But nurses don't really have the right to strike now, do they? Oh, they have it legally, but it's not realistic to expect them to do it. So binding arbitration would be better than what they have now.