DA to submit strike violence bill

[LazyLion]

A private member's bill seeking to prevent strike-related violence will be submitted to Parliament soon, the DA said on Monday.

"The Democratic Alliance respects workers' constitutionally guaranteed right to engage in lawful protest action. However, a balance must be struck between workers' rights and the rule of law," DA MP Ian Ollis said in a statement.

The DA would submit a private member's bill, or a draft law introduced by an MP, seeking to introduce legislation that would force unions to take practical steps to prevent strike-related violence.

This would include educating workers about the law, forcing unions to provide marshals to help with crowd control, and the extension of crowd control training available to more police.

Ollis also proposed empowering courts to force employers and unions into arbitration where strikes were excessively violent, or declare such a strike unprotected.

In cases where unions had not taken certain measures to prevent violence and damage to property, courts should also have the power to award damages against that union.

"Violent strike action not only immediately threatens public well-being and property, but it also threatens confidence in South Africa's economy," he said.


Source : Sapa /mjs/jk/ar
Date : 07 Jul 2014 14:25

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Good shot.

If it can be passed...

...but should be interesting to see the chaos that will result in Parliament...

 

[Sinbad]

But violence and intimidation is already illegal - and yet it goes on. This is just another law that won't be enforced, if it's passed.

 

[karnuffel]

I like this, but I dont think the likes of COSATU, AMCU, etc will.

Also, what criteria will be used to determine whether a strike is violent. Unions always blame "rogue elements".

 

[Sinbad]

I like this, but I dont think the likes of COSATU, AMCU, etc will.

Also, what criteria will be used to determine whether a strike is violent. Unions always blame "rogue elements".

Holding the unions accountable for anything that happens during their strike is a good way for them to keep those "rogue elements" under control, though.

 

[ToxicBunny]

This is a good step, but like Sinbad said, its already illegal and nothing happens so this won't change a thing.

 

[Mila]

BAng Bang
He shot me down
Bang bang

I foresee big guns being used by the ANC.

 

[karnuffel]

BAng Bang
He shot me down
Bang bang

I foresee big guns being used by the ANC.

Lets guess the reply from cANCer or EFF:
"They want to use apartheid style tactics to prevent the people from exercising their constitutional right to strike"

 

[TJ99]

Like Sinbad said, violence is already illegal and the unions are already supposed to be liable for damages during a strike.

But the ruling party is too ****-scared of another Marikana-style incident where a few trigger-happy cops end up in deaths. The ANC gives no ****s about corruption, suffering, crime, the economy, doing their jobs or pretty much anything else but the one thing that does make them sit up and take notice is when they lose votes. And they lost votes to Malenema's gang of communist thugs in large part due to Marikana. So they'd rather go waaaaaay over to the other side, turning a blind eye.

 

[Albereth]

Business should grow balls too and sue.

 

[GoneWithTheWindows]

Business should grow balls too and sue.

They should also employ armed guards and shoot the trespassers.

 

[atomcrusher]

In cases where unions had not taken certain measures to prevent violence and damage to property, courts should also have the power to award damages against that union.

.. and in other news, pigs have learned to fly

 

[atomcrusher]

They should also employ armed guards and shoot the trespassers.

Now THIS I like ^

 

[rza]

As a Shop steward, I can't agree to the bill. It's a known fact that strikes can be hijacked by criminal elements, so how is it that unions should be blamed for such violence.

 

[Sinbad]

As a Shop steward, I can't agree to the bill. It's a known fact that strikes can be hijacked by criminal elements, so how is it that unions should be blamed for such violence.

Because the criminal elements are running the unions?

But seriously, the union members have the numbers and presence to control the "criminal elements" surely?

 

[rza]

Because the criminal elements are running the unions?

But seriously, the union members have the numbers and presence to control the "criminal elements" surely?

We have the numbers and presence to control our members, but it's the police's job to deal with criminal elements. You can't shift the responsibilty of the police to the union because we are not equipped to deal with such nor are we legally allowed to. Due to the increased unemployment numbers, it's a given that the unemployed youths will join strikes and might engage in criminal behaviour. It's one thing to pass the bill, but it will be another to implement it succesfully. How would you know if criminal elements are members of the union, for instance? And what criminal behaviour will make the union liable and how would we determine that?

 

[ToxicBunny]

As a Shop steward, I can't agree to the bill. It's a known fact that strikes can be hijacked by criminal elements, so how is it that unions should be blamed for such violence.

I thought you were a lawyer?

 

[HideInLight]

We have the numbers and presence to control our members, but it's the police's job to deal with criminal elements. You can't shift the responsibilty of the police to the union because we are not equipped to deal with such nor are we legally allowed to. Due to the increased unemployment numbers, it's a given that the unemployed youths will join strikes and might engage in criminal behaviour. It's one thing to pass the bill, but it will be another to implement it succesfully. How would you know if criminal elements are members of the union, for instance? And what criminal behaviour will make the union liable and how would we determine that?

Police are distancing themselves from the strikes, if a random person gets caught on camera nothing happens to them however if a union is held fully responsible you can go after them. Maybe then they will at least get rid of the weapons, and isolate the movement of the strikes for more control.

These are more like mob gatherings than strikes.

 

[ShaunSA]

As a Shop steward, I can't agree to the bill. It's a known fact that strikes can be hijacked by criminal elements, so how is it that unions should be blamed for such violence.

Criminal elements? Yeah right. It's the bloody union members!

 

[porchrat]

We have the numbers and presence to control our members, but it's the police's job to deal with criminal elements. You can't shift the responsibilty of the police to the union because we are not equipped to deal with such nor are we legally allowed to. Due to the increased unemployment numbers, it's a given that the unemployed youths will join strikes and might engage in criminal behaviour. It's one thing to pass the bill, but it will be another to implement it succesfully. How would you know if criminal elements are members of the union, for instance? And what criminal behaviour will make the union liable and how would we determine that?

It really doesn't matter if the element is part of the union or not. When a group organises a big public event it is up to that group to organise security to ensure the event is peaceful and runs smoothly. When was the last time you went to a big concert without security being present for example?

Like it or not the union definitely shares responsibility here.

Fact is that if security were adequate these examples of vandalism would not occur.