New Union Policies.... Hmmmm....

[vervetmonkey]

I got an email through this morning about voting for some Union policies, and a couple of things seemed off to me.

The first being the smoking ban in the union. I'm personally against this to start with, but then I saw this included in what the Union will resolve to do with this new policy:

"4.That cuts to Union services, as a result of this

Comments

[emrocksmore]

yeh, i was annoyed with the cuts they say they need to make if the union is to become non-smoking. To me, it seems as if they've put that in just to put us off supporting it.

[vervetmonkey]

Ha ha, good idea if that is the case. And now you've mentioned it, it does seem like that.

[frying_fish]

Yeah, isn't Kat Stark a smoker, so it would make sense they would try and not get this pushed through. Personally I am all for having the union non-smoking, I much prefer to be able to go out for a night, come home and not have to fumigate my clothing because they stink of smoke from other people smoking in the same venue.

[neojezebel]

I remember watching a SPUC video on abortions in secondary school. Instead of making me think "Abortions are evil" it made me more convinced that we should have a choice in the matter. Abortions aren't pleasant, but goddamn it am I glad that should the worse come to the worse, I have that choice.

[vervetmonkey]

I know - I can't stand it when people say "it's murder". Err, no-one knows when that little bundle of cells actually becomes an individual human, so whether it's murder or not is down to the individual person to decide.

Evil SPUC.

[privatioboni]

I was annoyed by that email too. The no smoking policy I'm not too bothered about either way - but I think they'll get more hassle than its worth if it *is* passed.

As for the 'No Stance' policy on abortion, I don't see what the problem is at the moment either. Surely by being Pro-Choice they are not forcing any opinion on anyone (even if they were Pro-Life, god dammit we're capable of forming our own opinions on things), merely showing that they are supportive and understanding of anyone who faces what is a hugely difficult decision. By employing a 'No Stance' policy they will be offering support to nobody and force people to look elsewhere, where they may be 'persuaded' into making a decision that they later regret. *sigh* I hope it doesn't get passed.

Sorry for the epic reply!

[vervetmonkey]

Amen!

And it's good to post an epic reply! I like hearing other people's views on this.

[pie_are_square]

check out the bandsoc forum for discussion on the smoking ban. it's in "seriously gay banter" so you have to sign up to the forum first, but the 3 page epic discussion makes it worth it.

i think it is partly scare tactics. if they threaten to end all (ents-organised) alterative events in the union (crash and live music) then people will vote against it. personally i think there should be a ban, but i don't want to lose crash. ho hum.

[frying_fish]

I think I heard somewhere that if you are to take the bibles stance on life, being something to do with flowing of blood then life doesn't begin until blood is flowing through the feutus, which isn't for quite a few weeks anyway.

I think that women should have the choice, what about rape victims, surely they shouldn't be forced to have a child that could have resulted from that.