Red_Scare [he/him]

Those “principles” are more fascist than what the current wave of far right Western parties are proposing. I used to think CPRF is controlled opposition, now I think they are “national socialist”, thank you for educating me.

I read the posts you linked and they literally propagate the replacement theory, e.g. this critique of the govt migration policy:

Let’s take, for example, the demographic strategy. The situation is catastrophic: there is a brazen replacement of the Russian and other indigenous peoples of our country. Yet even in the long term, the document does not set the goal of achieving even a simple restoration of the native population. How can something like this be written?

Or take the term “the supporting role of migration.” In developing the new concept, the authorities speak of restrictions, so that migrants come without their families. It seems, on the face of it, correct.

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.

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.

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.

It’s no different than what labour are doing with the disabled, acting like it’s a favour to disabled people to force them back into work because it’s what’s best for them

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.

Pasting my comment from Lemmygrad:

Much as it would be totally in character for Starmers Labour, that is not what’s happening here.

Dying To Work charter aims to protect terminally ill people from dismissal and give them flexible work conditions. Civil Services signing up to it, boosting the total number of protected employees from 1.5 mln to 3.5 mln, is a very good thing.

Here’s how it started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEf21fpcDjI

The example charter: https://www.dyingtowork.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Example-Charter.pdf

This is a classic example of labour struggle, fighting for the working rights of vulnerable people. It’s a Trade Union Congress initiative, all the UK unions support it and you should too.