![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaThese days, if you mention the words "identity cards" and "human rights' violation" in the same sentence you can be reasonably sure that a good chunk of the UK will froth righteously along with you.
Yesterday, the BBC ran a story on the threat of strike action from Tube workers over plans to introduce workers' identity cards.
Now, I'm coming to the conclusion that the RMT will strike over practically anything at the moment, so it didn't particularly surprise me.
However, I was surprised by this:
The union fears the card would include fingerprint recognition and could be used to discipline staff in disputes about clocking on and clocking off times.
"It is a gross infringement of human rights to use such a card to clock on and we will resist it," he said.
I don't understand. As far as I can tell, that's a perfectly normal clocking on/off system, such as has been in use in thousands of workplaces for decades. Obviously workers will resist - who'd want to hand their boss a foolproof method of demonstrating how often they're ten minutes late for work ? But the RMT's justification for their stance eludes me.
Now, I'm aware that something having been considered "normal" for years doesn't actually mean that it isn't a violation of human rights. But really - can anyone explain to me how such a card scheme would constitute such a violation ? Does wanting to check that your employees are who they say they are, or that they're working the right hours, actually risk infringing their rights ?
Is the RMT just hoping that they can file this issue under the general ID Cards debate, and praying that enough woolly-minded liberal types will back them out of solidarity ?
On a completely irrelevant note, the mother (who is always better informed than I) tells me that a Goth Eucharist is scheduled to take place at Whitby on Sunday. She didn't mention which church, but I assume it'd be St Mary's (ie the one at the top of the steps near the Abbey).
Can anyone tell me what on earth a Goth Eucharist is ? Aside from quick jokes about the transubstantiation of cider and black, what is the difference ? Presumably the implication is that no one will bat an eyelid if you go for communion in a corset, but apart from that... is it anything other than a name to let visitors know they'd be welcome ?
I've been to "folk services" there during Whitby folk week, which usually just means that the music is more folk-orientated than normal. The prospect of a goth service on the same lines makes me quail. Can anyone shed any light ?
Yesterday, the BBC ran a story on the threat of strike action from Tube workers over plans to introduce workers' identity cards.
Now, I'm coming to the conclusion that the RMT will strike over practically anything at the moment, so it didn't particularly surprise me.
However, I was surprised by this:
The union fears the card would include fingerprint recognition and could be used to discipline staff in disputes about clocking on and clocking off times.
"It is a gross infringement of human rights to use such a card to clock on and we will resist it," he said.
I don't understand. As far as I can tell, that's a perfectly normal clocking on/off system, such as has been in use in thousands of workplaces for decades. Obviously workers will resist - who'd want to hand their boss a foolproof method of demonstrating how often they're ten minutes late for work ? But the RMT's justification for their stance eludes me.
Now, I'm aware that something having been considered "normal" for years doesn't actually mean that it isn't a violation of human rights. But really - can anyone explain to me how such a card scheme would constitute such a violation ? Does wanting to check that your employees are who they say they are, or that they're working the right hours, actually risk infringing their rights ?
Is the RMT just hoping that they can file this issue under the general ID Cards debate, and praying that enough woolly-minded liberal types will back them out of solidarity ?
On a completely irrelevant note, the mother (who is always better informed than I) tells me that a Goth Eucharist is scheduled to take place at Whitby on Sunday. She didn't mention which church, but I assume it'd be St Mary's (ie the one at the top of the steps near the Abbey).
Can anyone tell me what on earth a Goth Eucharist is ? Aside from quick jokes about the transubstantiation of cider and black, what is the difference ? Presumably the implication is that no one will bat an eyelid if you go for communion in a corset, but apart from that... is it anything other than a name to let visitors know they'd be welcome ?
I've been to "folk services" there during Whitby folk week, which usually just means that the music is more folk-orientated than normal. The prospect of a goth service on the same lines makes me quail. Can anyone shed any light ?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-19 07:13 pm (UTC)I assume the infringement they are referring to is the fingerprint taking rather than the cards themselves. Brief, boring law bit.
Article 8(1) European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private and family life. Technically, taking 'biological' data on an employee is a breach of the right to a private and family life, as I have just had to research in relation to taking blood samples from employees to test for drugs. However it's a right that can be breached under Article 8(2) where there is jutification for the policy on grounds of national security, public health and safety, protecting the rights of others.
I found that drug testing employees was justified in every case I found (and if you find any against this conclusion please don't tell me) as protection of the public.
I could see the same situation applying to these ID cards and fingerprints. I can see public safety being a similar justification for using ID cards for tube staff, it's a relatively small infrigement which is potentially useful in protecting the public; knowing who your staff are, checking there's noone dodgy pretending to be staff etc.
Also, fuck off and don't keep being late for work. I think the 'checking we're not late for work' argument that the union is raising is just a bit bollocks, employers could very easily do this in a number of ways. In my mind, checking employees are not constantly late for work is also not unreasonable for an employer to do.
So yes, perhaps it is something of an infringement to make them have ID cards. But it's a crap argument they are trying to raise, it would be unlikely to stand up in court, and (as you said) both clocking in/out and staff ID are standard policies for a lot of employers.
The problem is, that every man and his dog claims that all number of things are a 'violation of human rights' and the more the phrase gets used, the less value it has (see also 'weapons of mass destruction'). Something pissing you off a bit doesn't mean it violates your human rights. Or even if it does, it doesn't mean it's not a perfectly reasonable policy.
Perhaps more humerously, the bf is watching the Arsenal game on TV (playing at Highbury) and a squirral has invaded the pitch. The ref looked a bit pissed off. (Oh no, breach of his human rights!)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-19 10:49 pm (UTC)Ahem.
Thanks for the law bits - I am not very aware of these things, and feel I should give at least a little consideration to the law and its application as opposed to my own knee-jerk reactions.
The problem is, that every man and his dog claims that all number of things are a 'violation of human rights' and the more the phrase gets used, the less value it has.
Yes. That was rather my thought too - when people are continuously bleating about human rights it does make some of the rather more shocking rights abuses lose impact.