DID ISRAEL BOMB BRITISH DOCTORS WITH UK-SUPPLIED WEAPONRY?

UK arms firms have supplied parts for Israel’s F-16 jets, which bombed a British medical charity in Gaza.

JOHN MCEVOY
7 FEBRUARY 2024

Children inspect their homes after Israel bombed Rafah, 18 January 2024. (Photo: Ahmad Hasaballah / Getty)

On 18 January, Israeli forces bombed a residential compound in Gaza housing the Emergency Medical Team of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), a British charity, as well as the US-based International Rescue Committee, which is run by former UK foreign secretary David Miliband.

The compound was in the so-called “safe zone” of Al-Mawasi, a narrow strip of land by the Mediterranean Sea, into which Israeli forces have been advising some two million Palestinian civilians to move.

Four British doctors were injured in the airstrike, alongside MAP staff members and a bodyguard. MAP described the attack as “near-fatal”, causing “significant damage to the building”, and requiring the “withdrawal of the six international members”.

Following the attack, Alicia Kearns, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, informed parliament that MAP “had their compound bombed by an airstrike from an F-16 jet”.

Melanie Ward, the CEO of MAP, also noted that the organisation’s facility was hit by an Israeli airstrike “with a missile fired from an F-16”.

F-16 jets

Israel’s F-16 jets, which have been used to bombard Gaza over the past two decades, use British-made equipment.

As Declassified recently reported, BAE Systems has provided “components for the aircraft’s head-up displays (HUD), which provide information to pilots as they fly”.

According to Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), UK-based firm GKN Aerospace Services Limited also supplies systems and components for the F-16s.

In December 2023, Amnesty noted how “ministers have refused to halt transfers of UK arms and associated military equipment to Israel, including those despatched to the US and used in F-16 fighter jets which are a key part of the Israeli military arsenal”.

‘Loophole’

Campaigners have criticised how the UK government exploits a “loophole” in arms export regulations, allowing Britain “to supply components for US-made F-16 and F-35 fighter aircraft despite these being used in Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

There is, in other words, a strong possibility that the Israeli forces used UK-supplied equipment to bomb British medical workers.

In 2009, the UK government acknowledged that UK-made components for F-16 jets were “almost certainly” used during Operation Cast Lead, when Israeli forces killed some 1,400 Palestinians.

Those components were used for “head-up displays, head-down displays and enhanced display units”.

Following Israel’s attack on the MAP facility, the UK Department of Business and Trade said it keeps arms export licences “under careful and continual review”, and can “amend, suspend, refuse or revoke licences”.

As Middle East Eye reported, the department “would not say whether the 18 January strike involving an F-16 had specifically impacted arms export licensing or how”.

UK

Top universities use ‘gig-economy’ employment practices for researchers – union

A number of Russell Group universities have a high proportion of research-only staff employed on fixed-term contracts, a report suggests.

LEADING UNIVERSITIES IN THE UK ARE USING ‘GIG-ECONOMY’ EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES FOR STAFF IN THEIR RESEARCH DEPARTMENTS, A UNION HAS WARNED (JANE BARLOW/PA)

PA WIRE

ELEANOR BUSBY31 JANUARY 2024

Leading universities in the UK are using “gig-economy” employment practices for staff in their research departments, a union has warned.

Two in three research-only staff in UK universities are employed on fixed-term contracts – a figure which has changed little in the last decade, a report by the University and College Union (UCU) has found.

The figure is even higher at some of the universities in the Russell Group, which includes some of the most prestigious and research-intensive UK institutions, data has suggested.

This report shines a light on an area that universities would rather keep shrouded in darkness

UCU GENERAL SECRETARY JO GRADY

The union’s analysis of Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) staff data for 2021/22 showed that 88% of research-only staff at the University of Oxford were employed on fixed-term contracts.

A number of Russell Group universities had a high proportion of research-only staff employed on fixed-term contracts – including King’s College London (96%), the London School of Economics (96%) and the University of Manchester (80%).

Jo Grady, general secretary of the UCU, said the report shines a light on the “widespread use of gig-economy style short-term contracts” for staff working in university research departments.

The UCU report warned that insecure employment can affect the mental health of staff and make long-term decision planning difficult.

It added that “endemic casualisation” can have a negative impact on research culture, affecting research activity, research integrity and academic freedom.

The UCU sent freedom of information (FoI) requests to 103 UK higher education institutions that employ at least 20 research-only staff and/or where research staff made up at least 5% of the academic staff.

The FoI, sent in May, asked questions about the employment of research-only staff – including whether researchers are successfully redeployed at the end of their contract, and whether enhanced redundancy pay is offered to staff who are dismissed at the end of their fixed-term contract.

The UCU report used the FOI responses and HESA data on research staff terms of employment to score institutions out of 100 on their level of support for researchers to tackle insecure employment.

In the league table produced by the union only eight universities were given a score above 50, whereas 39 universities received a score of less than 30.

Dr Grady said: “This report shines a light on an area that universities would rather keep shrouded in darkness. Namely the widespread use of gig-economy style short-term contracts for the staff who prop up university research departments.

“The poor scores across the board on areas like fixed-term contracts, proper redeployment processes and decent redundancy provision speaks of a sector that urgently needs to update its attitudes to employment practices.

“Critically, the worst practices are not confined, as one might expect, to the least financially secure institutions. Far from it: five of the 24 Russell Group universities are in the bottom half of the table. At Oxford, for example, a staggering 88% of research staff are employed on a fixed-term contract.

We are working closely with the union on their proposals to reduce any unnecessary use of fixed term and hourly paid roles, and to improve the experience of staff who are in such roles

LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

She added: “Universities need to work with UCU towards a more sustainable model for the employment of research staff. They need to commit to reducing the use of fixed term contracts and move their research staff to genuinely secure contracts.

“And they need to put systems in place that support continuity of employment and minimise the risk of redundancy at the end of funded research projects.”

Raj Jethwa, chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA), said: “HESA’s staff record is always a valuable resource for monitoring developments in the sector workforce. It provides coverage of academic staff across all providers and thus provides definitive information about the sector as a whole.

“The latest data regarding contract types shows that, across the sector as a whole, 70% of academic staff are on permanent contracts, up from 67% in 2021-22.

“HE institutions use small numbers of flexible contracts for research staff which are usually linked to external funding awards. The employment arrangements within autonomous universities are for institutional-level discussions.”

A spokesperson for London School of Economics (LSE) said: “We are working closely with the union on their proposals to reduce any unnecessary use of fixed term and hourly paid roles, and to improve the experience of staff who are in such roles.

“We do not, however, agree with the picture this report paints, which covers significantly varied roles across research and teaching.”

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford said: “We are aware of staff concerns about the use of fixed-term contracts in some areas, particularly those supported by short-term sources of external funding.

“Our current university-wide pay and conditions review is exploring these arrangements and considering approaches that might be taken to reduce the percentage of staff on fixed-term contracts.”

UK
Dental recovery plan ‘not worth the title,’ and ‘too little too late’




THE Dental Recovery Plan comes “too little, too late,” campaigners have warned as dentists are being offered up to £50 to take on new patients.

Under government plans to boost dentistry across England, launched today after being leaked on Tuesday, dental professionals will also be given £20,000 “golden hellos” to work in communities with a lack of NHS treatments available.

Dentists will also be paid more for their NHS work, and other initiatives will include “dental vans” rolled out in rural areas and the use of the NHS app to see which practices are accepting new patients.

The government said around a million people who have not seen a dentist for two or more years are expected to benefit.

British Dental Association’s general dental practice committee chairman Shawn Charlwood said: “This recovery plan is not worthy of the title.

“It won’t halt the exodus from the workforce or offer hope to millions struggling to access care.”

And Toothless in England said in a statement: “It has been a long time coming, but for millions of patients and thousands of dentists [the plan] comes too little, too late.

“The news is still filled with horrifying tales of do-it-yourself dental work and small children being taken to the hospital due to excruciating tooth pain.

“Many thousands of dentists have resigned from their beloved profession, primarily due to the NHS dental contract being deemed ‘not fit for purpose.’

“They won’t care about this announcement because their lives and livelihoods have been drastically, negatively, and permanently impacted by what they’ve gone through.

“Regretfully, those who are currently in needless pain and suffering cannot expect their hope of receiving NHS dentistry anytime soon to improve.”

The group said the government’s failure to reform dentistry standard contracts means that its current plan is “destined to fail.”

Labour shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said: “The Conservatives are only promising to do something about it now there’s an election coming.

“By adopting Labour’s proposals for recruitment and supervised toothbrushing, they are finally admitting that they are out of ideas of their own.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “Backed by £200 million, this new recovery plan will deliver millions more NHS dental appointments and provide easier and faster access to care for people right across the country.”

MORNINGSTAR

UK
Barnet council strikers are determined to keep fighting

Strikers say bosses’ pay offer is a ‘slap in the face’

Fighting for fair pay on the Barnet council strikers’ picket line

By Isabel Ringrose
SOCIALIST WORKER

Thursday 08 February 2024

Adult mental health social workers in Barnet will have completed 27 days of strikes by the end of this week in their battle for a recruitment and retention bonus.

The Unison union members are reballoting to continue their fight against the Labour-led council in north London. They have three demands—a safe service, lower waiting lists and fair pay.

Katie, a rep and newly qualified social worker, told Socialist Worker, “We’ve been offered just 2.6 percent when children’s services get up to 25 percent. That was a slap in the face. Our role is difficult and stressful and there’s been a lot of restructuring in our department.

“As a student, I was really thrown into the deep end. We’ve lost so much experienced staff. It means there’s no one to go to when you have a particularly difficult case, and you take longer to deal with something.”

Katie added, “At points morale has dipped, and our work is there waiting for us. But we’re not backing down—we’re not going away quietly.

“In this job you can feel on your own with individual problems. But being on strike we’ve been able to share our experience and support each other. Since the strike started in September, we feel more like a team, and less alone.”

On the pickets the strikers chant, play music and leaflet other council workers.

Bethan is an assistant enablement officer (AEO) who started working for the council in September and joined the strike in December. The council said AEOs couldn’t join the strike because they’re not social workers, but Bethan refused to cross the picket line.

“I completely agree with the strike. Our wait list is currently 17 months, which is appalling,” Bethan said. “We can only deal with urgent cases. In that waiting time people go into deeper crisis.

“Eventually they just don’t trust our services. We need more staff to be able to handle that demand.” Bethan says the council “isn’t listening or taking it seriously” and has not sat down with the strikers or their Unison union to discuss pay.

“A lot of my colleagues are stressed because of their caseloads. When they come back from annual leave there’s such a high volume of emails, in the hundreds, and it causes real anxiety.”

To win, Bethan says the strikers “need to be consistent on the pickets”. “We also need to get residents’ stories out there,” she said.

“We don’t want to be out here in the cold or away from our clients, but we’ve been pushed to it.

“We’ve had a lot of people supporting us on the picket line who say they understand why we’re striking and people making donations. Everyone deserves support—whether it’s urgent care or not.”

Striker Anita added that there isn’t enough funding for pay, psychiatric wards or residential care. She had to work two jobs to be able to rent a new flat. “The local authority says it has no money. This is a national issue for social services after 13 years of the government ignoring local needs,” she explained.

“It’s £1,000 a month to rent a room. We have a lot of newly qualified social workers whose salary goes almost all on rent. On top of the crisis work we do, we can’t have added stress like this.”

Anite said the strikers are “passionate” about the work they do. “People we work with are suicidal, caught in domestic violence, self-harming and harming others or living in squalor or with safeguarding issues,” she said.

“But once qualified social workers feel the pressure, stress and accountability for their pay, they realise it isn’t worth it. They can go to work for an agency, the NHS or in children’s services for more.

“Those that remain inherit their cases—some of the residents have three or more social workers within months.”

Anita added that it’s not easy being on strike, “but we’re not going away”. “I wouldn’t be out if it wasn’t serious,” she said. “But after 22 years of watching my colleague leave and working in what can be emotionally draining, it’s the right thing to do.”

Jaihanne has worked at the council since July. “As a social worker, I’m not able to practice safely or give clients what they need,” she told Socialist Worker. “There’s so much intervention rather than preventative work. There’s no time to think about how to stop a clients’ situation from escalating further.”

After the reballot, the strikers will look to strike for two weeks, then three or four at a time. “If there’s no response we’ll have to, that’s the only way to get them to listen,” said Jaihanne.

“No one from the council leadership is talking about our strike or visited our picket. They get five figure salaries and it doesn’t filter down.”

“We feel invisible and like the work we do and our clients aren’t even considered,” she added. “Seeing strikes in other sectors like the NHS has inspired us.

The strikers need a big result in their reballot, and to plan their next round of escalated action as soon as possible to make Barnet council listen.

UK

David Miller verdict is a victory for anti-Zionists

It’s time to go on the offensive for Palestine.

Bristol university students protesting for Palestine last October


By Charlie Kimber
Wednesday 07 February 2024

SOCIALIST WQORKER Issue 2891

Anti-Zionist academic David Miller’s landmark victory at an employment tribunal against the University of Bristol should be warmly welcomed.

It strengthens pro-Palestine people at work against bullying bosses and intimidating managers.

The tribunal said Miller was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. He successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial.

This judgment establishes for the first time that legally anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.

Miller was a professor of political sociology until he was dismissed in October 2021. This followed an avalanche of complaints from a small section of students, MPs, the Labour mayor of the city, the All Party Group on Antisemitism. They decided to attack him because he had spoken out strongly against Zionism.

His solicitors, Rahman Lowe said, “The case has drawn attention to the challenges faced by academics and individuals advocating for justice, fairness, and equality in Palestine. It also underscores the issue of weaponising antisemitism to stifle discussions on Zionism.”

You don’t have to agree with everything that Miller says—and Socialist Worker has not always done so—in order to celebrate this judgment.

Pro-Palestine workers can already point to the recent International Court of Justice decision that there is a plausible case that Israel is carrying out genocide.

Now the employment tribunal has defended anti-Zionists. It’s also true that the verdict was unlikely to have happened without the eight national demonstrations in London and all the other mobilisations for Palestine.

A statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine campaigning group said, “Why did Bristol take its disastrous decision to fire David Miller? The self-evident answer is that it crumpled in the face of an extraordinary pile-on by more than the usual suspects.

“Bristol is the extreme case of ethical collapse. But where were the supposed official guardians of academic freedom and of free speech when Bristol was trashing them both? The answer is that virtually the whole official structure of UK academia bent before the gale-force gusts of official and unofficial demands for the censure of those who speak up for Palestine.

“Sadly the UCU union, which should be the voice of support for academic freedoms, has also failed to step up to the plate. UCU members need and deserve a union that will stand up for the principle and practice of academic freedom.”

The employment tribunal did not order David Miller’s reinstatement to his post, and he is left with heavy legal expenses. He should be offered his job back.

But those shortcomings should not detract from what has been gained. It’s time to keep organising pro-Palestine walkouts and protests, and challenge the suffocating hold of pro-Israel views in so much of education.

With the reality of Zionism on display, there is also an opportunity to challenge those institutions that adopted the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism. This has been used to prevent free speech on Israel.

It’s time to go on the offensive for Palestine.

UK
Rwanda deal: why the media should focus more on the policy and less on the politics of immigration

THE CONVERSATION
Published: February 7, 2024

Heading into an election year, the government’s handling of migration continues to dominate headlines. Much of the coverage has been about the plan to send those who enter the UK without legal paperwork to Rwanda.

This plan was enshrined in law in July 2023 through the Illegal Migration Act. However, after the UK Supreme Court deemed the plan unlawful, its future remains uncertain.

Despite this law’s significant effects on the lives of thousands of people – and wider UK society – the media coverage of its passage appeared to focus primarily on the politics of the issue and consequences for the government. As we found while analysing television news reports from when the bill was being debated in parliament, less focus was given to the substance of the policy and its implications for asylum seekers and human rights.

We argue that the media ought to take note of this issue as it continues to cover the government’s Rwanda policy.

News audiences have come to expect horse race coverage of politics ahead of elections. But this should not come at the expense of in-depth scrutiny of policy. When it does, it can have detrimental effects on the public’s understanding of important issues, leading to political polarisation and more partisan views.

The human and legal consequences of immigration rules are too important to be distilled to political infighting. To fulfil their obligations as public service broadcasters, the UK’s TV media outlets in particular should focus more on the policy, not the politics.
Party politics over scrutiny

Working with research assistant Ellie Baskerville at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University, we examined 1,250 news items from the UK’s flagship evening television news bulletins (BBC News at Ten, ITV News at Ten, Channel 4 News, 5 News at 5 and Sky News at Ten) between March and July 2023. We looked specifically at weeks when the bill was being discussed in parliament.

The vast majority – 72% of stories – discussed the bill in relation to Westminster party politics. Specifically, how it would affect politicians’ reputations and prospects in the next election. Coverage was often more concerned with how the bill would fulfil Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats”, than whether it would actually work or be implemented.

For example, when describing the legislative process, a Channel 4 reporter said that the government wanted to get the bill “done and dusted” before the election. While this is important context for understanding why the government was so focused on the policy, this overshadows reporting on the practicalities of the legislation.

Throughout the legislative process, critics of the bill (including MPs, legal experts and international organisations) raised concerns about how it could violate the UK’s legal obligations. But while most of the news items we examined referenced these obligations, they did not include a robust scrutiny of the legislation. In 30% of news items, journalists did not question whether the bill was legal.

Political sources accounted for 54% of the voices speaking in the news items reporting on the bill. Legal experts made up only 6%.

Channel 4 News stood out for including sources expressing open criticism of the legislation most often. This included, in March 2023, an asylum law expert who dismissed the bill as “a really impractical idea” emphasising the “completely unworkable” logistics associated with mass detention of asylum seekers pending removal.

The majority of criticism was not of the bill’s supposed human rights shortcomings, but of the legislation’s electoral implications. For example, on ITV News on July 3: “The prime minister wanted immigration to be an election battleground. What he’s got is a battle in his own party too.”

Personality over policy

The bill faced many challenges from peers in the House of Lords. These were largely to do with humanitarian concerns about treatment of child migrants and modern slavery victims.

But instead of detailing the substance of the amendments (or indeed the constitutional value of the legislative process), news coverage in our sample framed this as a power play between the two houses. Broadcasters focused on how the Conservatives were determined to vote against these recommendations to “send a message” to the Lords.

More time was given to stories with high entertainment value, such as a summit between Rishi Sunak and French president Emmanuel Macron that was described by all broadcasters as a “bromance”. This approach was more common than giving an informed analysis of the Franco-UK deal worth over €500 million to stop Channel crossings.




About 23% of the bulletins included asylum seekers’ perspectives about the impact that the legislation would have on their life prospects. Limited airtime, however, was given to humanitarian organisations.

Groups like the UN Refugee Agency or the Refugee Council accounted for only 9% of the total sources in our sample. We also found that most of the bulletins lacked wider context about Channel crossings, including the root causes of migration more broadly.
What is the media’s responsibility?

Research shows that news coverage of elections tends to focus on political personalities and horse race reporting about who is pulling ahead in the polls. Our analysis suggests that broadcasters used this same logic when reporting on regular government activity outside of an election cycle.

UK public service broadcasters have a responsibility to provide the public with accurate, impartial and informative reporting. This should mean in-depth scrutiny of policy and holding the government accountable for any breach in law, domestic or international.

Authors

Marina Morani
Lecturer, School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University

Lizzy Willmington
Lecturer in Law, Cardiff University

With airstrikes on Houthi rebels, are the US and UK playing fast and loose with international law?

THE CONVERSATION
Published: February 7, 2024 

The US and UK have over the past few weeks carried out a number of joint military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The strikes have been in response to attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels on both commercial and state vessels in the Red Sea since conflict broke out in Gaza on October 7 2023.

The US and UK have justified their strikes by invoking the right of self-defence, as enshrined in article 51 of the United Nations’ charter. The same right is also found within customary international law.

Together, the two sources provide that the right exists “if an armed attack occurs” against a state and that any action taken should be both “necessary” and “proportionate”

On the face of it, this justification might seem relatively straightforward. But the reality is that the justification advanced by these states is far from clear and the applicable law not settled.

Get your news from people who know what they’re talking about.Sign up for newsletter

The Houthis are in control of much of Yemen. But they don’t (yet, at least) represent the legally recognised government. While there is today much support for the argument that armed attacks that permit a state to act in self-defence can be perpetrated by non-state groups such as the Houthis, this is not a settled position.

Many states, commentators and even the International Court of Justice still require that such attacks be perpetrated by states or at least be attributable to a state through its effective control over attacks by non-state armed groups.

Whether Iran had this level of control over these particular attacks is not clear. But in any case, the US and UK response took place on the territory of Yemen, not Iran.

Read more: Iran: with a tanking economy and an election in weeks, the Islamic Republic tries to rally support by acting tough

The US and UK both invoked Houthi attacks on their naval warships to justify self-defence. And, in principle, attacks on these types of targets can give rise to this right. Yet the number of attacks on naval vessels were relatively small in relation to the overall number of attacks launched by the Houthi rebels.

There are also question marks over whether the Houthi attacks were of sufficient gravity to justify an argument of self-defence. Indeed, the reported damage was relatively small and no deaths have been reported.

While the International Court of Justice has held that self-defence is reserved for responses to attacks which are of a particular “scale and effects”, some scholars and states – including the US – do not believe that such a threshold exists, or should exist. But there is a theory that even if a single attack does not reach the required gravity threshold for an armed attack, several smaller attacks might be taken together in gauging whether that threshold has been met.

Anger: protests against US-led strikes in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, on February 2. 

EPA-EFE/Yahya Arhab

Yet this so-called “accumulation of events theory” is something that has only been given tentative support by the International Court of Justice and is rarely expressly invoked by states. It arguably remains – at present at least – just a theory.

Threat to global trade

The majority of the Houthi attacks have occurred against commercial or merchant vessels. The right of self defence would arguably be available to a state to protect those vessels sailing under its flag. But even then, the majority of commercial vessels struck by the Houthis have not been sailing under the flag of either the US and UK.

Whether these states have the right to act in “collective self-defence” of the states whose flagged vessels have been struck is not entirely clear. But in any case, a request for such assistance would need to have been made by these states. And there’s no evidence that such a request was formally made.

A significant and problematic aspect to the justification advanced by the US and UK was that they were acting to protect the “free flow of commerce”. National governments don’t have the unilateral right to resort to military force in self-defence to protect commercial interests – either their own or more generally – or simply to enforce international law.

Confusing the issue here is that the day before the first wave of military action by the US and UK on January 11 2024, the UN security council seemingly provided its blessing to this aspect of the justification in resolution 2722 (2024). Among other things, this noted the rights of states to defend their vessels from attacks that undermine navigational freedoms.

Adding to the muddle here is the question of why the security council appeared to provide such a vague and open endorsement of the right of self-defence in this context – rather than authorising the states concerned to take military action, which the council is entitled to do to under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Of course, we are not privy to any behind-the-scenes discussions between members of the security council. Yet, while the acting states will no doubt prefer the greater flexibility that operating under the right of self-defence appears to provide, it arguably would have been in the interests of other member states to have instead authorised the action within a more regulated mandate.

There is already a great deal of concern regarding the use and abuse of the right of self-defence by the United States and its vague limitations. So for the security council to seemingly give the nod to an invocation of the right in this way to protect broader interests could set a precedent that may have unforeseen circumstances.

The simple fact that the US and UK felt the need to legally justify their actions has to be welcomed. But picking the justifications apart reveals their somewhat muddled nature – and that the acting states were testing the limits of this branch of international law.

Author

Christian Henderson
Professor of International Law, University of Sussex

UK

Asda Gosport strike: GMB union workers strike for 48 hours

7 hours ago
By Curtis Lancaster

BBC News

The walk-out, originally planned for January, was suspended but GMB said "no improved offer materialised" from Asda

Workers at an Asda superstore have begun two days of strike action.

GMB union said members at Gosport in Hampshire were in dispute with bosses over a "toxic" work culture, wage errors and health and safety concerns.

The walk-out, originally planned for January, was suspended but GMB said "no improved offer materialised" from Asda.

Asda said it was "disappointed" over the decision and added it had "taken reasonable and practical action to address the GMB's concerns".

Workers initially voted to take action in December.

They rejected Asda's recent offer and voted a second time to take strike action, according to GMB.

Nicola Nixon, GMB regional organiser said: "Counter proposals have been made to the company to settle the dispute but Asda has failed to come back with any improvements.

"We originally gave Asda until Tuesday as a show of goodwill but no improved offer materialised and so our strike will now go ahead.

"Our members are determined to stand up to Asda and their management, and say enough is enough.

"They should be able to come to work without threat of bullying or putting their health, safety and well-being at risk."
'Open as usual'

An Asda spokesperson said: "We are disappointed the GMB have taken this course of action and can reassure our customers that the Gosport store will open as usual this weekend.

"The majority of colleagues in store are not affiliated with the GMB and will continue to work as normal during this period.

"Over the course of several weeks, we have taken reasonable and practical action to address the GMB's concerns.

"This includes undertaking a full health and safety review at the store, and providing additional training for colleagues where required.


"We have also asked the GMB on multiple occasions to share details of the alleged bullying in store so these claims can be investigated. The GMB have not yet provided this information."