Comedian on construction industry "blacklist"

elmarko said:
I said they shouldn't be allowed, I also used the term organisation deliberately to indicate that it was general (as opposed to specifically just aimed at business) - which included unions within it, it was also under the impression they are not allowed to.

The latter half of the was speaking about the building industry (who are a business selling a service/product) - which is why it was referencing them.

Do you have any examples of public sector organisations which ban based on political ideology, or any trade unions which do this? (I'd be interested to read up further on the subject).

As (Blacklisting was made illegal under the Employment Act 2010.), which makes me somewhat surprised to hear the public sector are doing this via the proxy of political affiliation.
Click to expand...

The police, prison service both ban members of the bnp, as does Aslef, and all the bans have been upheld by the courts.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLEF_v._United_Kingdom
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-114240#{"itemid":["001-114240"]}

Are two links, the first relating to aslef, the second to a private bus company where discrimination was deemed ok.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...=NrjCApkMfazLRQm8Cvk5eA&bvm=bv.53899372,d.d2k

And that one is the police force document confirming the ban.
 
Mark thomas, whether you find him funny or not had his own style of investigative and campaigning comedy, without looking into it today he was probably blacklisted because of his campaign against balfour beatty for corporate killing and heath and safety breaches resulting in death, btw was in the news last week another balfour employee has died at work, haven't seen the follow up to this whether this was because of working with unsafe practices or not this time.
 
Bunka said:
Surely if he has a wife/gf/whatever he could have any construction work done in her name, unless it's based on address as well.
Click to expand...

The blacklist prevented people from working in the construction industry, not from having building work done for them. It was intended to prevent militant trade unionists and left-wing agitators from stirring up trouble on sites but was taken too far with people being added for being suspected militants or simply a shop steward or trade union member, or in some cases due to personal grudges.

Mark Thomas is a well known left wing activist, bur he doesn't work in the building trade so it's surpring that he's on the list. I believe Ricky Tomlinson is/was on the list as well as he was a flying picket and union activist.

Mark Thomas is actually a very clever and interesting guy. He has got a bit more anti-establishment since we've had a conservative government but a lot of his work highlights issues and brings people interest to them via comedy.
 
elmarko said:
Well, I mean fair in the loosest possible sense, in that you can't discriminate arbitrarily against individual customers (via blacklists, or I'd have thought proxies for them).
Click to expand...
That's how it works in the textbooks, in reality? Not so much.

Lets be fair, if you're running a building firm you aren't going to want to associate with someone who actively tries to stop your buildings from going up.
 
Dolph said:
The police, prison service both ban members of the bnp, as does Aslef, and all the bans have been upheld by the courts.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLEF_v._United_Kingdom
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-114240#{"itemid":["001-114240"]}

Are two links, the first relating to aslef, the second to a private bus company where discrimination was deemed ok.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...=NrjCApkMfazLRQm8Cvk5eA&bvm=bv.53899372,d.d2k

And that one is the police force document confirming the ban.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't think a left-wing comedian really is on par with a BNP member for justifiable exclusion from an organisation.

The police force already has a muddy past related to racism in the force & xenophobia - excluding groups which are associated with acts of violence against ethnic minorities & hate crimes is a reasonably justifiable reason (as voluntary membership to the group indicates support to it's practices)
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Yeah, but I don't think a left-wing comedian really is on par with a BNP member for justifiable exclusion from an organisation.

The police force already has a muddy past related to racism in the force & xenophobia - excluding groups which are associated with acts of violence against ethnic minorities & hate crimes is a reasonably justifiable reason (as voluntary membership to the group indicates support to it's practices)
Click to expand...

Ah, so after all your hyperbole, it boils down to excluding people is fine if it's other people...

Either it is indefensible in all circumstances, as you posted earlier, or it is acceptable to exclude people based on politics, which is what much of this blacklist amounts to.
 
I suppose my viewpoint might depend on why the person is blacklisted - if they've been struck off or otherwise found to be (criminally) negligent in their role then being effectively blacklisted from their particular trade might not be entirely unreasonable. If it's that they hold opinions which are unpopular within their organisations then they probably shouldn't be excluded except perhaps where those opinions are so opposed to the principles of their organisation that they cannot be reconciled.

As far as Mark Thomas goes - I'm mildly surprised he's on a formal list but given his previously stated views on the building industry I can't say it should come as a shock to him that he's not likely to pick up work at the construction industry annual awards. I rather suspect that the arms industry doesn't have him on their Christmas card list either...
 
Dolph said:
Ah, so after all your hyperbole, it boils down to excluding people is fine if it's other people...

Either it is indefensible in all circumstances, as you posted earlier, or it is acceptable to exclude people based on politics, which is what much of this blacklist amounts to.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I never said it was an all or nothing subject.

That's simply a false dichotomy you are presenting, clearly some exclusions are justified (reasoned with associated risks) others are not.

I don't equate supporting the BNP as a political view - simply a label for a collection of individuals who posses idiotic world views, which I'm obviously not alone in which is why the courts have upheld the bans in those cases but would not allow it for any other political groups (even political organisations who are not in line with the policy makers).

semi-pro waster said:
I suppose my viewpoint might depend on why the person is blacklisted - if they've been struck off or otherwise found to be (criminally) negligent in their role then being effectively blacklisted from their particular trade might not be entirely unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Indeed - a good example of a justifiable exclusion.

Another example could be a person with a criminal record for abusing vulnerable people not being given a job in a position of care.

The being in the police force gives the person in question 'power' over the average citizen - a similar logic applies (with BNP membership equating to supporting certain world views which would let open potentially vulnerable citizens to abuse, in this case minorities).
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Not at all, I never said it was an all or nothing subject.

That's simply a false dichotomy you are presenting, clearly some exclusions are justified (reasoned with associated risks) others are not.

I don't equate supporting the BNP as a political view - simply a label for a collection of individuals who posses idiotic world views, which I'm obviously not alone in which is why the courts have upheld the bans in those cases but would not allow it for any other political groups (even political organisations who are not in line with the policy makers).

Indeed - a good example of a justifiable exclusion.

Another example could be a person with a criminal record for abusing vulnerable people not being given a job in a position of care.

The being in the police force gives the person in question 'power' over the average citizen - a similar logic applies (with BNP membership equating to supporting certain world views which would let open potentially vulnerable citizens to abuse, in this case minorities).
Click to expand...

What about people who agitate the other employees to strike action? Or who slow down the job with repeated spurious health and safety claims? These to me would be equally justifiable reasons to those given above, and certainly more relevant than political party membership thay you support.

Would you support it if a company decided to prohibit union members from working for them even if they never brought it into the office?
 
Dolph said:
What about people who agitate the other employees to strike action? Or who slow down the job with repeated spurious health and safety claims?
Click to expand...
These are things which you would find out upon employing them & could dismiss them if they are breaking the rules.

A corporation isn't the same as a vulnerable individual member of society & doesn't require quite the same kind of protection from the actions of people who may have ulterior motives (at the same level a child needs to be protected from abusers & people with bigoted views need to be kept away from having power over citizens).

Dolph said:
These to me would be equally justifiable reasons to those given above, and certainly more relevant than political party membership thay you support.
Click to expand...
Well, to you (which means we may have to agree to disagree).

It's subjective, being left wing doesn't indicate the person is likely to cause trouble in the same as actually possessing racist views, or in the above example having a criminal record of having doing it in the past.

Dolph said:
Would you support it if a company decided to prohibit union members from working for them even if they never brought it into the office?
Click to expand...
Who is really put at risk by this?.

I don't put union members risk as being comparable to the risk presented to vulnerable members of society by people with criminal records or ethnic minorities to bigots with power.

Striking is a legal form of protest, being racist or abusing the vulnerable are not legal & directly involve abusing other humans.

The two concepts are not even close.

As denying one person the right to a job based on the fear they may do something you don't like, isn't the same as denying another a position for the fear they hold views or have a pattern of behaviour which may result in them breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
These are things which you would find out upon employing them & could dismiss them if they are breaking the rules.

A corporation isn't the same as a vulnerable individual member of society & doesn't require quite the same kind of protection from the actions of people who may have ulterior motives (at the same level a child needs to be protected from abusers & people with bigoted views need to be kept away from having power over citizens).

Well, to you (which means we may have to agree to disagree).

It's subjective, being left wing doesn't indicate the person is likely to cause trouble in the same as actually possessing racist views, or in the above example having a criminal record of having doing it in the past.

Who is really put at risk by this?.

I don't put union members risk as being comparable to the risk presented to vulnerable members of society by people with criminal records or ethnic minorities to bigots with power.

Striking is a legal form of protest, being racist or abusing the vulnerable are not legal & directly involve abusing other humans.

The two concepts are not even close.

As denying one person the right to a job based on the fear they may do something you don't like, isn't the same as denying another a position for the fear they hold views or have a pattern of behaviour which may result in them breaking the law.
Click to expand...

This entire post just smacks of special pleading and inconsistent approach based on your preferred ideology, given that membership of both a trade union and the bnp is a legal activity, and that there is nothing illegal about racism (illegal activities come from racism in specific situations, not racism in general).
 
Dolph said:
This entire post just smacks of special pleading and inconsistent approach based on your preferred ideology, given that membership of both a trade union and the bnp is a legal activity, and that there is nothing illegal about racism (illegal activities come from racism in specific situations, not racism in general).
Click to expand...

Do you think exceptions should be made?

Otherwise, where is this going? What is your point? We don't live in an absolute world, you should know this by now.
 
Wow dolph for blacklisting :rolleyes: basically this was blacklisting people who mostly raised H&S issues or who were unionised, absolutely unacceptable
 
Dolph said:
This entire post just smacks of special pleading and inconsistent approach based on your preferred ideology, given that membership of both a trade union and the bnp is a legal activity, and that there is nothing illegal about racism (illegal activities come from racism in specific situations, not racism in general).
Click to expand...
Can't you see the difference between fear that person A will do something legal, protesting/strike action (but not liked by the group in question) & fear that person B will do something illegal, abusing a position of power via racism or working with vulnerable people (also not liked by the group in question) are very different stances?.

The fact you seen to think union membership (potential to do something legal) is in some way comparable to BNP membership or high risk individuals (potential to do something illegal) high-lights a degree of bias of your own.
 
Biohazard said:
Do you think exceptions should be made?

Otherwise, where is this going? What is your point? We don't live in an absolute world, you should know this by now.
Click to expand...

If blacklisting is acceptable due to political belief or on the job behaviour, then that should apply to all. Elmarko originally held the position that blacklisting was always unacceptable, then shifted to support some state enforced blacklisting and blacklisting by trade unions of certain groups.
 
Dolph said:
If blacklisting is acceptable due to political belief or on the job behaviour, then that should apply to all. Elmarko originally held the position that blacklisting was always unacceptable, then shifted to support some state enforced blacklisting and blacklisting by trade unions of certain groups.
Click to expand...

Can't you accept that the state, representing the diverse culture it does with the responsibility that entails, cannot employ those with what amount to little more than public declarations of bigotry?

Yet private firms, ignoring that caveat, are allowed to discriminate on political beliefs that are not malicious or bigoted and much more benign in intent such as trade unionism?

Blacklists are unfair, due to the secrecy in part. That is something that cannot be said for the state where such conditions (rightfully) apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom