Breaking comment News

Breaking: Starmer refused to sign letter demanding end to ‘fire and rehire’ abuse of workers

Unite candidate Beckett waits until polls closed tonight before revealing shameful news

Unite’s Howard Beckett has revealed in the last few minutes that Keir Starmer has refused to sign a letter demanding an end to the appalling ‘fire and rehire’ tactic increasingly used by unscrupulous employers to drive down workers terms and pay and has seen thousands of workers either worse off or out of work.

Beckett tweeted the news just after ten pm, saying that he had waited until after polls had closed to reveal the shameful reality:

The news has already provoked a string of outraged responses, but one of the most pertinent was by a Twitter user who pointed out how the announcement fits with his reasons for backing Beckett to be the union’s next general secretary:

Others were no less disgusted:

As Ali Dogan observed, the unfolding events show exactly why the entire union and Labour movements need Beckett at the helm of the giant Unite union. Skwawkbox has endorsed Beckett’s bid on the same grounds.

Update: Beckett’s tweet rapidly went viral, clocking up more than 2,500 retweets and approaching 5,000 ‘likes’ in its first couple of hours.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to without hardship, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

32 comments

    1. It would be used against him like a sledgehammer in the Unite leadership race.

    2. I just this minute checked out Howard Beckett’s twitter page AND in the responses to what Beckett said in relation to Starmer, a couple of people have pointed out that Starmer HAS condemned the fire and rehire abuse of workers, and this is what he said to the TUC:

      And Congress, there’s something more the Government must do.

      Outlaw “fire and re-hire” tactics.

      We’ve seen this happening already….in the private and public sector. Where thousands of workers have been issued redundancy notices and offered new contracts on worse pay and conditions.

      In disputes such as with BA and British Gas…..we’ve seen the importance of strong trade unions in defending working people.

      “Fire and re-hire” tactics are wrong. They’re against British values. They should also be illegal.

      https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1386777301661143045

      He could hardly say that he’s in favour of fire and rehire of course, but I have no idea why he didn’t sign the letter.

      1. Allan – If we could read this letter then perhaps we would have a better idea why. Has anyone got a link to the full letter?

      2. Allan – Thanks.
        Having read the letter there is absolutely nothing in it that Keir Starmer hasn’t already said himself. It’s also worth noting that Keir has visited ‘fire & rehire picket lines.
        He obviously hasn’t prevented shadow cabinet ministers from signing it so I can only speculate why he has declined to sign it himself. Whatever the reason it is evident that Keir is strongly in favour of outlawing the practise of ‘fire & rehire’.

      3. He can SAY whatever he bastard well pleases.

        You know full well it means piss-all unless pen is out to paper.

        Arsehole.

  1. I no longer support this man! And I thought Corbyn was an ass for telling people who he voted for today.

    1. Corbyn could have faced expulsion had he not said that. I think we need to allow for his situation.

    2. Oh, is that right Andrew? So when exactly did you decide that you no longer support Starmer? Only NOW!!!

      Or perhaps it was just a way of leading in to what you REALLY wanted to say/do, eh – ie fraudulently try to discredit Jeremy?!

      1. I don’t know how you can watch it lundiel, it is so obviosly rigged in all ways.

  2. At some point, SteveH is going to pop in here to say “we need MORE information”. Then he’ll say this doesn’t matter because Keir wrote for a socialist magazine thirty-six years ago.

  3. Unfolding events also show how the entire Labour Movement need Sir Keir (and his ilk) to be nowhere near the leadership of said Movement’s parliamentary political party.

    Today (it’s still Thursday) is the first election day in my entire life when I voted for candidates who did not march under the Labour banner. I even voted Labour when Brown and Blair were at the helm, but Keir Rodney Starmer as leader of Labour is a different kettle of third-way fish and he also turns my socialist stomach and makes me feel dirty in a way even Blair did not after Iraq.

  4. and Jeremy didn’t sign any letter of Howard Beckett in his entire term, not one!

    1. pah – above ws meant to be a reply to kenburch’s funny post earlier on….

  5. The following article is pretty long, but essential reading. Please check it out and share it far and wide:

    ‘The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?’

    From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been……

    It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

    Even those who think lab origin unlikely agree that SARS2 genomes are remarkably uniform. Baric writes that “early strains identified in Wuhan, China, showed limited genetic diversity, which suggests that the virus may have been introduced from a single source.”

    A single source would of course be compatible with lab escape, less so with the massive variation and selection which is evolution’s hallmark way of doing business.

    The uniform structure of SARS2 genomes gives no hint of any passage through an intermediate animal host, and no such host has been identified in nature.

    Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence.

    It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute.

    https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

    1. I know nothing but I found it pretty big conclusive that the sheer number of DNA pieces contained within the virus rule out lab production. A scientist claimed that at current technological ability they would have had to started constructing the virus about 20 years ago, long before they had the knowledge or technology to do the gene spicing required.

      1. And just out of curiousity, who was the scientist you referred to lundiel. Would be grateful if you could post a link to his claim.

        Cheers

    2. Well there’s a lot of people posting on the site who appear to know quite a lot – as opposed to nothing like yourself – and just about ALL of them agree with the author of the piece that all the available evidence points to a so-called lab escape. Why don’t you post what you said on the site lundiel.

      1. PS I leave it for an hour or so, and if you haven’t posted by then, I’ll post for you citing your reason for your rebuttal of the lab escape scenario.

      2. I’ll……leave it for an hour….

        It’s those gremlins again!

  6. Well! No Tories would! We would not expect Thatcher’s Neoliberal Conservative Tory Party to sign it, why would we expect Strotter’s Thatcherite Neoliberal Neolabour Party Tories to sign it?

    ONLY ONE WAY!
    The Hard Way!

    Vote them OUT at GE2024 Every last one of the Parasite Filth, Vote them OUT!

    If it is Thatcher’s Neoliberal Neolabour Party Tory MP/Candidate VOTE IT OUT!

    If they’re a Democratic Socialist UK Labour Party MP/Candidate VOTE THEM IN!

    A small but Parasite free Party with a Massive Membership, CLP Councillors/Candidates and Parasite Free Unions will be far more effective For The PEOPLE than a 95% Neolabour Tory Occupied, Corrupt, Conniving Party for Themselves and The Establishment NOT The PEOPLE!

  7. Starmerfuhrer has done what he set out to do from day one as leader…to push Labour into the gutter and side with the Conservative & Fascist Party. 10/10 for back-stabbing and 0/10 as the leader of a socialist political party. No doubt Jeremy Corbyn is to be the fall-guy…again.

  8. Allan,

    The problem with this piece, which I read earlier in the week, is twofold:

    Firstly, it is very obvious the author has a not so subtle agenda. One which is not so much nudging as pushing the reader to the conclusion of a particular narrative clearly favoured by the author as the origin of the virus into the human population originating from a man made virus escaping from a specific facility in China in the final few months of 2019.

    Secondly, that the whole premise of the pre-determined conclusion (because the author has already pre-assumed what he aims to deduce) falls apart completely as a result of already published studies from human waste water treatment plants in South America and Europe which found evidence of the virus within the human population months earlier than the outbreak in China.

    I’m afraid this is yet another example of a wider Western narrative which, as with the OPCW organisational capture, seeks to co-opt respected sources for specific agendas. At the present rate of knots on this current trajectory I fully expect before the end of the year to find claims in respectable journals that the Zinoviev Letter was genuine to be echoed and linked as credible both Above and Below the line in “left/progressive” media.

    1. And why on earth would the author ‘favour’ a particular narrative David?

      Doesn’t make sense of course! But why don’t you post your ‘observations’ on the site I linked to.

      Sounds more to me like yur the one with the agenda!

  9. Allan,

    It’s obvious from reading the article that this is the narrative and pre arrived at conclusion not very subtly being pushed by the author.

    The number of BTL comments agreeing/disagreeing are irrelevant as this is a matter of objective science rather than subjective politically charged narratives.

    It would be most useful if instead of playing the man rather than the ball you could perhaps deal with the actual reality that the hypothesis of this shoddy and sub-standard poor quality article falls flat on its arse as a result of existing published studies having already found traces of covid-19 virus in human waste water treatment plants in geographical locations thousands of miles away from China months before the outbreak in China.

    Alternatively, you could always continue to hang your hat on and die in a ditch to support a very obvious imperial based right wing geo-political narrative and it’s agenda.

    It’s a matter of complete indifference to me what position you choose to adopt as it’s down to you, not me to deal with the actual evidence which exists and which contradicts the poorly arrived at and pre-assumed assumptions and conclusions of this article.

    1. So if the virus didn’t originate in Wuhan (one way or the other) why would the WHO send an investigation team there?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: