Poll: Does proposed legislation on strikes go too far?
Campaigners have condemned strike reforms as a "major attack on civil liberties" after the Government raised the prospect of forcing all picketing workers to give their names to police. What do you think?
Proposed new laws have gone out to consultation that mean trade unions would have to appoint a picket supervisor and issue them with a l etter of authorisation as well as take " reasonable steps" to inform police of their name, contact details and where picketing would take place. The supervisor would also have to wear an armband or badge identifying them.
But the consultation on the Trade Union Bill also raises the possibility of a "requirement for all pickets to be properly identifiable in the same way as the supervisor".
Sara Ogilvie, a policy officer at Liberty, warned that the move would deter workers from picketing and claimed the Government was "playing fast and loose" with its o bligations under International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards.
She told The Independent: "With a history of blacklisting, it's entirely understandable why trade union members don't want to identify themselves to the police."
Under the Bill, a turnout of at least 50% of members will be needed to authorise action. In key public services - such as health, education, fire, transport, border security and energy - there will be an additional hurdle that a strike must be endorsed by 40% of those entitled to vote.
The package would also ensure that union members had to actively ''opt in'' to political levies - the proceeds of which are overwhelmingly paid into Labour coffers - and reduce restrictions on firms' use of agency staff.
In the consultation, the Government says it wants to introduce new measures to make picket lines more transparent to stop intimidation of workers.
