Friday, 13 August 2004

Make them sign up

I must say that I agree with Alex Salmond over this.

The MP wants all staff at SNP headquarters to be paid-up party members. What's wrong with that? It's perfectly natural for managers to want employees to support an organisation's product, especially when that "product" is ideological.

Of course, the Scotsman correspondent who writes that Mr Salmond and his supporters have:

so little regard for employment law that they believed they could force workers into changes to their terms and conditions without consultation or negotiation
is probably correct.

Nevertheless, employers should have the right to lay down whatever conditions of employment that they see fit. Equally of course potential employees can go elsewhere if they don't like the proposed rules. Let the market sort out terms of employment.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Stuart Dickson
Although my first statement is blindingly obvious, it requires constant restating because the advocates of the Union imply that Scotland's marriage to England was destined by the gods and not for mere mortals to question. An analogy would be the UK's marriage to the EU. 
In reply to your 2nd point I refer you to the Economist article "No democracy please, we're shareholders": 
Scottish democracy is far more representative than corporate "democracy". 
Your 3rd point: although nothing is inevitable, I would suggest that the steady rise of the pro-independence vote over the last 20 years does represent a trend. Trends are often indicative of future behaviour.

18 August 2004, 16:53:14 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David Malloch
"Squander Two has his facts wrong. The proposal is not for "civil servants", but for party political assistants." 
Who are paid for out of the public purse I might add.

18 August 2004, 16:23:05 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Alastair Ross
Mr Dickson`s first assertion qualifies as a blinding flash of the obvious. His second may be open to doubt, given that the Scottish electoral turnout in 2003 was at a level insufficient to pass an EGM proposal at a public listed company. The third is a quintessential non - sequitur.

18 August 2004, 16:05:06 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Stuart Dickson
It is the Scottish electorate who will determine our political destination. 
In 2003 40% of them voted for pro-independence candidates. Up from 12% in 1983. 
That destination is approaching faster than you think.

18 August 2004, 14:50:54 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Alastair Ross
Who would have thought that Bernard Ingham ,an ex-Guardian journalist from Yorkshire ,would have provided the PR ammunition necessary to Margaret Thatcher`s 1984 battle with the miners? Scottish Nationalism is a heartfelt movement, but in the present form it hardly qualifies as a political destination.

18 August 2004, 14:16:33 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Squander Two
I was responding to the letter David links to by Thomas Docherty, who refers to "all their MSPs’ parliamentary staff" (many of whom are civil servants) and "money provided by the taxpayer". You can see why I might have got the wrong end of the stick. 
I still think it's a dreadful idea, but, if what you say is true, Stuart, then it's not necessarilly going to lead to corruption.

18 August 2004, 11:58:02 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Stuart Dickson
Squander Two has his facts wrong. The proposal is not for "civil servants", but for party political assistants.

16 August 2004, 17:16:08 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Squander Two
I have explained just how startlingly wrong David is on my sparkly new blog. 

16 August 2004, 12:44:53 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David Malloch
I am in two minds about this. I certainly take Mr Farrer's point about the SNP having the right to lay down whatever terms of employment they see fit (though this might not be entirely to their good, but that would be their own lack of judgement). 
However merely being someone’s employer does not give them a right to dictate their employees political membership/and or views. Provided the person (employee) does the job to the best of their ability, their private views are no business of their employer.

14 August 2004, 18:00:55 GMT+01:00