75
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
75 points (97.5% liked)
news
24141 readers
667 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It's very different.
One is protecting employees from dismissal and making employers offer working conditions that suit terminally ill employees. It does not force employees to stay at work and it does not cancel any benefits.
The other is cutting benefits to force disabled people into work they are not fit to do.
The 2 policies are part of the same machine. The whole point is to keep more workers in the economy to boost the profit rate.
This policy in particular reduces the "excuse" that some dying and/or disabled people might have that they cannot find work because their employer fired them. This policy makes the other policy more effective, and also acts as propaganda/social conditioning to make the other policy go down more easily.
It's not a government policy, it's a trade union initiative. UK government signed the charter as an employer of 2 mln civil servants. It's a good thing when large employers concede to trade unions and give their workers more rights. It's a small improvement but that's what trade unions do, they try to negotiate better working conditions and rights with employers, they don't cardinally change the system.
Fuck Starmers govt, but let's not piss on the work trade unions do and present fight against unfair dismissals as some nefarious plot to exploit the people.
It's not a policy and it absolutely does not do that. It has no effect on whether people qualify for benefits or not. All it does is that employers who sign up to this charter vouch to not fire their employees for getting ill, and to be supportive in finding suitable working arrangements. It doesn't prevent employees from leaving their jobs and it doesn't diminish their chances of getting benefits.
Yes, that is the policy I am talking about. The UK government wants this initiative to be expanded, so it signing onto this charter. It's a fairly standard thing for governments to trial potential policies by implementing them on their own employees. The government signing on also further normalises the initiative, giving it momentum that could be used to create a national law.
The move should be considered in a broader context. Suppose starmer's government manages to make this initiative into a national wide law. This would represent a victory for the trade unions? Certainly. Would it, in theory constitute an extra right? Yes. In a better context, would this be a nice law to have? Yeah.
However, in the context of starmer's broader eugenics agenda, it would be a win for the eugenicists. It would give them ammunition to point how the dying and disabled don't need government assistance because they can get a job and can't be fired for having a terminal illness. It plays right into that narrative in a time where the UK government knows that their disability benefit cuts are controversial.
If the government was increasing benefits, or expanding them, or making them easier to get or anything of that sort of nature, I would in fact be praising this very initiative/move.