When announced, this provoked a minor furore when Nadine Dorries attacked the TUC and instructed them “to get real, stop using overtly sexist tactics by discussing women’s stilettos in order to divert attention away from Labour chaos and debate something meaningful: like where has all the money gone?”
Reading this motion in the context of Dave’s post it is easy to ask; what is the point of Trade Unions? Like Paul Sagar I’m not a member of a Union, and as much as I joke about it loudly in front of my bosses, I have no intention of joining or forming one soon. I don’t consider my job permanent enough and I’m quite content at the moment blogging (although that’s another blog altogether).
This motion surely proves that the TUC has lost its way. Surely the TUC should be concentrating on things like this, not shoes.
Maybe, on this occasion *gag* Nadine Dorries is right.
Oh wait… Now there’s a surprise! Turns out Nadine Dorries is either intentionally misrepresenting the TUC or has the reading comprehension of a child.
Out of the 85 motions in this TUC document the motion discussing footwear is 81st. This has been explained here by Sunny and here by Nicola Smith, not to mention being plain as day on page 40 of the original proposition that no one is banning high heels. There Dorries, look! a third attempt to explain it to you.
I appreciate that Nadine Dorries is an MP and quite busy, but I do like it when my MPs have a slight inkling what they’re talking about, especially on issue where all the relevent information is 5 minutes of googling away.
In short, The Society of Chiropodists & Podiatrists has recommended that high heels should never be compulsory, as they exert unnatural and dangerous force on the legs and body (please click on insert picture for a more detailed version).
Moreover, compensation for damage done to the employee would not be easy to claim from employers, as it would be near impossible to prove causation for long term foot problems. Where gains are privatised and the losses socialised we should seek correct this imbalance.
In this context this motion is not a “waste of time” or “controversial,” it is dull, dull, dull, bread and butter trade unionism.
The TUC examined the evidence and put forward a modest proposal to stop employers forcing staff to do things which were unsafe. As with most the health and safety recommendation these are dull. It’s silly season, its been fisked (H/T ByrneTofferings) but it has poisoned the public view of unions.
Even lefties now see this basic, boring incremental increase in the well being of working people as the machinations of the loony left. It’s not important, it’s not major, but it will make some people’s lives better without any sacrifice from anyone else.
In a bizarre twist, today’s story in The Sun which Nadine Dorries claims to have written, may not even have been written by her.
Just to provide some context, I challenged Thomas Byrne to write about high heels last night as he was stuck on what to write about (it appears we’re in broad agreement here, yippee!). While I was having a quick look around I noticed that Nadine had a new post in which she writes [my emphasis]:
In the first attack, the article I wrote with Karen Brady in the Sun was referred to. I have been told that apparently, the motion mover said that Karen and I and the Sun newspaper in which we wrote, should be collectively ashamed.
If that wasn’t enough; the seconder (sic) linked me with the Daily Mail and said she doubted that I had ever worked a ten hour shift in heels. Wrong. I frequently work 16.
I applaud the society of Chiropodists for pointing out to me the dangers of this; however, having done so I now respectfully ask them to leave it me and every other high heel wearing woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels in the workplace.
Aside from the strange way in which she manages to agree with the TUC position at the end of her piece there is something else odd about this. Last night the article to which she links, and which she claims credit for, was credited to her and Karen Brady. This is how the byline looks now:
If anyone can help me get hold of a cached version of that page from last night or a scan of the original paper, it would be much appreciated. I would also quite enjoy some idle speculation as to why the authorship of this article was originally wrongly attributed, or altered after publishing.
Normally I would suggest the appalling writing style, but I’ve read Nadine Dorries’ blog, and this is Solzhenitsyn in comparison.