Angela Rayner’s monitors of workplace chit-chat have already been dubbed ‘banter police’ or ‘banter tsars’, but a different Russian word would be more accurate.
After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, military units had komissars who were enforcers for the regime.
Given their power to denounce soldiers to the Soviet authorities, it wasn’t long before they were heartily loathed.
These komissars kept an eye on the ranks. They noted which men had an independent streak and they made sure any scepticism about the new political order did not spread.
Light-hearted banter brightens most places of work. Life would become dull if we could not rib one another, devise nicknames and tease workmates when they goof.
But under Ms Rayner’s Bill, ‘third-party harassment’ will be reportable to and by diversity officers.
The unifying benefits of banter will be lost to suffocating fear of propriety. Morale will be dented.
Work will become more of a drudge. Is this really what Labour MPs want? Quite what constitutes ‘harassment’ will be for courts to decide.
Under Ms Rayner’s Bill, ‘third-party harassment’ will be reportable to and by diversity officers
The unifying benefits of banter will be lost to suffocating fear of propriety. Pictured: Stock image
The lawyers are going to be busy, as will Ms Rayner’s union allies.
This law will also give trade union reps leverage over free-spirited souls who crack jokes at work. If those people pay their union dues, their indiscretions will no doubt be overlooked.
But anyone who seems a bit too Right-wing or ‘Brexity’ will be fed into the procedural mangle.
As for bosses, if they refuse to meet unions’ pay demands, you can bet the banter komissars will find more incidents to report.
My wife often works on a building site. She removes paint from doors and windows. ‘Here’s our stripper,’ say her male workmates.
She thinks this is a hoot, but you can see how a grievance-surfing lawyer could turn that into a demand for thousands in compensation.
Construction sites are fruity places. She was once on all fours, helping a contractor fit some under-floor piping, and had to tell him, ‘give me another inch’. Cue much ribald laughter.
Under Ms Rayner’s proposals it might not even require a complaint by the alleged victim of banter.
As for bosses, if they refuse to meet unions’ pay demands, you can bet the banter komissars will find more incidents to report, writes Quentin Letts. Pictured: Stock image
Diversity officers could themselves decide to report any incidents, starting a legalistic process that will last months, ruin reputations and create untold stress.
More money will be spent on human resources and training. There will be more rules, more anxiety, more suspicion, less freedom.
I once worked at a warehouse where a forklift accidentally pronged a pallet of Brut 33 aerosols. What a stink.
The forklift driver was the target of plenty of banter. Richly deserved it, too. My son, new to a labouring job, was dangled over a sewage pit by his ankles.
A union rep might call that bullying but from that day my son felt part of the team.
I know of another young lad who was sent off by his foreman to buy ‘two tins of tartan paint, and holes for fence-posts’.
He was told ‘the holes aren’t heavy but there’s nothing to hold on to’. It was a while before he realised he was being asked to buy thin air. Likewise, he was told to ‘go to the van and bring back a new bubble for the spirit-level’.
The weird thing is that Ms Rayner is supposedly the one normal, working-class person in a Cabinet of wonks.
In pressing for this mad law she is showing herself to be as out of touch as the rest of them. All because she is ambitious for the top job and wants to suck up to her union paymasters. How pathetic.
