Government minimum levels of service laws

[Thedodger]

Going to be so many non-striking ‘minimum safety’ staff who suddenly feel unwell on the day

Gross misconduct?

 

[O L Leigh]

I think I'd like to see how this progresses before worrying too much about the details. What "minimum service/safety(?)" looks like and how this will be delivered along with what enforcement can be taken are all still to be thrashed out. For the meantime, the legislation has to be passed, and there's no guarantee that it will do so unchallenged or unchanged.

All that said, the cynical side of me sees this as treating the symptom rather than the cause. An honest and respectful dialogue, even if it didn't result in a brilliant outcome, would be better than simply pulling down the shutters. It's hardly surprising that they attack the strikes rather than attempt to address the underlying reasons for them.

 

[dk1]

Which would be fraudulent...

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[zwk500]

All that said, the cynical side of me sees this as treating the symptom rather than the cause. An honest and respectful dialogue, even if it didn't result in a brilliant outcome, would be better than simply pulling down the shutters. It's hardly surprising that they attack the strikes rather than attempt to address the underlying reasons for ththem.

Of course the government wouldn't fix the actual problem, they think the strikes suit them perfectly.

 

[dk1]

Gross misconduct?

How do you prove it? Happens all the time. I think gross misconduct is an overreaction.

 

[O L Leigh]

In careers such as law, software development, medicine, high finance etc (ie: those that earn a comparable amount to railway staff) the time to train and get to a level of skill where value can be added is measured in years. Whereas jobs on the railway can be trained up in weeks or months and most people would be capable of doing them.

Not with many safety-critical positions, such as drivers and signallers. In these instances you're talking the years that you outline as necessary for other career paths.

 

[johncrossley]

I think I'd like to see how this progresses before worrying too much about the details. What "minimum service/safety(?)" looks like and how this will be delivered along with what enforcement can be taken are all still to be thrashed out. For the meantime, the legislation has to be passed, and there's no guarantee that it will do so unchallenged or unchanged.

All that said, the cynical side of me sees this as treating the symptom rather than the cause. An honest and respectful dialogue, even if it didn't result in a brilliant outcome, would be better than simply pulling down the shutters. It's hardly surprising that they attack the strikes rather than attempt to address the underlying reasons for them.

Industrial action on the railways is inevitable. Not just in the UK but in most other European countries. It is just the nature of the beast. It can't be helped.

 

[O L Leigh]

Of course the government wouldn't fix the actual problem, they think the strikes suit them perfectly.

Yes, quite possibly. And yet we've been here before where industrial action by rail unions has prompted the Government of the day to propose legislation that limits either the ability of staff to take industrial action or to limit it's effects. I'm sure that we've previously debated minimum service level requirements during industrial action some years ago when it last got floated.

That's not to say that it won't happen this time, but just for now I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it. I'm more than happy to wait and see exactly what transpires from all of this.

Industrial action on the railways is inevitable. Not just in the UK but in most other European countries. It is just the nature of the beast. It can't be helped.

Perhaps. However, it need not be the case. As I mentioned, we could have an honest and respectful dialogue instead in which both parties work to reach a negotiated solution.

 

[Silver Cobra]

Industrial action on the railways is inevitable. Not just in the UK but in most other European countries. It is just the nature of the beast. It can't be helped.

I know it would never be possible, but I just wish there was a way for the unions to engage in a form of industrial action that only hurt the Government and not the general public at large. With how this feels like it's going to rattle on for a long time yet, possibly until the next General Election, the prospect of months or even years of disrupted rail, NHS and border services (and any other public services which may eventually join in) fills me deeply with dread.

 

[johncrossley]

Perhaps. However, it need not be the case. As I mentioned, we could have an honest and respectful dialogue instead in which both parties work to reach a negotiated solution.

So why doesn't it happen in other countries which generally don't have many strikes in other industries? The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy have all had strikes in recent years. Plus threats of strike action, causing disruption anyway. It must be something inherent regarding railways.

 

[O L Leigh]

So why doesn't it happen in other countries which generally don't have many strikes in other industries? The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy have all had strikes in recent years. Plus threats of strike action, causing disruption anyway. It must be something inherent regarding railways.

I'm not in a position to comment on what happens elsewhere.

 

[TAS]

The big question for me is how on earth do you enforce it. Sacking every striking worker would not be a sensible option when you require substantial time to train new ones.

This risk was identified in the impact assessment for the earlier bill, in addition to the risks of more action short of a strike and of more strikes as a result:

99. In the event that staff do lose their jobs as a result of failing to report for work when rostered to cover for MSLs, an unintended consequence could be that if a material number of workers have their employment terminated then employers may find that they are low on staff to run normal services if the situation becomes extreme. This situation becomes worse if certain staff classes such as drivers and signallers are impacted in this way. This may restrict the scope for employers to take action against employees who do not comply with the minimum service level.
100. In addition to the potential increase in strike action prior to MSLs being introduced, a further significant unintended consequence of this policy could be the increase in staff taking action short of striking. Where services are reliant on staff working additional hours, this could have a significant negative impact on the level of services provided and it is important to note that such action could continue even when MSLs are in place, (so it could be that instead of taking strike action, action short of strike becomes a more prevalent form of lawful protest). This could further disrupt the interests of the workers and businesses the legislation seeks to protect.
101. A similar risk is an increased frequency of strikes following a Minimum Service Level being agreed. This would reduce the overall impact of the policy as although service levels would likely be higher than the baseline, it could mean that an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term.

I think the Government's answer would be that the employer would be able to take action against the union, even if it felt unable to take disciplinary action against staff members. To quote the announcement:

Trade unions will be bound to follow this legislation and will risk the employer bringing an injunction to prevent the strike from taking place or seeking damages afterwards if they do not comply with their obligations.

The problem for the Government is that the earlier bill only required unions to take "reasonable steps" to ensure workers complied, so if rostered staff decided to act unilaterally and the union had fulfilled its legal obligations, that penalty falls away. I guess the Government might try to find a way of tightening these obligations further in the new bill. Even if this threshold was met, it sounds like taking action could be a fairly uncertain, drawn-out process, in which there would need to be an appetite on the behalf of the employer to fight any legal challenges the union might pose, and in which a lot might also depend on the level of damages versus the union's finances.

I haven't looked if the UK legislation would apply in Scotland and Wales, or to devolved bodies (but they might want to put up their own version of "essential").

It would:

This will apply to Great Britain. We are engaging with devolved administrations throughout this process.

 

[johncrossley]

I'm not in a position to comment on what happens elsewhere.

It's a shame but it looks like, as a country, we need to wean ourselves off railways. There was a great boom for 20 years until Covid when UK rail usage grew to be on a par with most of Europe. But we now have to go back to the days of car dependence and trying to live without trains. Unless we can get minimum levels of service to work.

 

[Goldfish62]

Going to be so many non-striking ‘minimum safety’ staff who suddenly feel unwell on the day

And then said staff spending several days trying to get hold of their GP to persuade them to issue them with a sick note, which would undoubtedly be the stipulation of the employer. Who would want to do that?

 

[greyman42]

I know it would never be possible, but I just wish there was a way for the unions to engage in a form of industrial action that only hurt the Government and not the general public at large.

The rail unions could not care less about the general public.

 

[dk1]

And then said staff spending several days trying to get hold of their GP to persuade them to issue them with a sick note, which would undoubtedly be the stipulation of the employer. Who would want to do that?

The first 5 days is currently covered with self certification.

 

[Goldfish62]

The first 5 days is currently covered with self certification.

Not on strikes days it's not. That's normal practice everywhere and also as confirmed by friends of mine who are currently on strike.

 

[dk1]

Not on strikes days it's not. That's normal practice everywhere and also as confirmed by friends of mine who are currently on strike.

I was referring to those who are made to work on minimum safety level days. They would not be officially on strike.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's a shame but it looks like, as a country, we need to wean ourselves off railways. There was a great boom for 20 years until Covid when UK rail usage grew to be on a par with most of Europe. But we now have to go back to the days of car dependence and trying to live without trains. Unless we can get minimum levels of service to work.

At the risk of driving off-piste, I disagree. The will and desire among staff to work the time needed to make the railways attractive is currently going untapped by those at the very top. Instead, they're too busy playing politics rather than running our public services with the consequent impact on industrial relations.

At my place of work no-one is working overtime; not due to industrial action but because the DfT failed to sign-off on our rest-day working agreement. The impact of this decision, now over a year ago, is still being felt across our network. However, we could run those trains if only we could get an agreement for working the overtime necessary. In this instance, it is not the workers that are undermining the network but rather those charged with running it.

 

[Goldfish62]

I was referring to those who are made to work on minimum safety level days. They would not be officially on strike.

Ah yes, that's a good point. However, I would be surprised if the employers didn't stipulate the requirement on those days, just as they currently refuse leave requests on pre-announced strike days even if the leave request is for legitimate reasons other than trying to get paid when actually on strike.

I'm completely against the proposed legislation, by the way.

 

[johncrossley]

At the risk of driving off-piste, I disagree. The will and desire among staff to work the time needed to make the railways attractive is currently going untapped by those at the very top. Instead, they're too busy playing politics rather than running our public services with the consequent impact on industrial relations.

At my place of work no-one is working overtime; not due to industrial action but because the DfT failed to sign-off on our rest-day working agreement. The impact of this decision, now over a year ago, is still being felt across our network. However, we could run those trains if only we could get an agreement for working the overtime necessary. In this instance, it is not the workers that are undermining the network but rather those charged with running it.

But if you resolve that issue there will simply be another issue. There always is.

 

[dk1]

Ah yes, that's a good point. However, I would be surprised if the employers didn't stipulate the requirement on those days, just as they currently refuse leave requests on pre-announced strike days even if the leave request is for legitimate reasons other than trying to get paid when actually on strike.

I'm completely against the proposed legislation, by the way.

I have been lucky on two occasions where I had already applied for leave prior to the strikes being announced. Therefore it has to be honoured. Some naive colleagues have tried to get their names in the book after but photos at cut off has already been done & circulated to other managers & the rostering department lol.

 

[Facing Back]

Maybe, maybe not.

Fabricating an illness to avoid work is a breach of trust and fraudulent. If it is a one-off, proving that it is fabricated is another matter although many HR departments have well established procedures to detect patterns of illness and take action.

Fraudulent action can be treated with dismissal for gross misconduct but most cases I am aware of, there is a series of warnings first. Plus possibly help if there is an underlying cause such as family issues or alcohol dependency.

Actually being ill on a minimum service day is not fraudulent of course, although there might be some scrutiny.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What will be the point, the only losers will be those staff going on strike.

The general public will simply go "oh another strike day, I will work from home instead of going into the office" or "oh another strike day, my car was the best investment I made rather than using the railways".

The unions have walked straight into the trap and it's become to sprung

What trap have they walked into?

 

[O L Leigh]

But if you resolve that issue there will simply be another issue. There always is.

I think you may be missing my point, but never mind. I've no appetite to argue over it.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Hopefully it’ll come in just in time for Labour to throw it out. I’m going to watch this one with interest but struggle to see how it’ll work with railways.

I don't think Labour 1997-2010 "threw out" any of Thatcher's anti union laws so it's possibly naive to think the current Labour will.

 

[RPI]

I don't think Labour 1997-2010 "threw out" any of Thatcher's anti union laws so it's possibly naive to think the current Labour will.

Likewise did they reverse any Beeching closures (quite the opposite, they implemented even more of it) from 1964.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I don't think Labour 1997-2010 "threw out" any of Thatcher's anti union laws so it's possibly naive to think the current Labour will.

If they go ahead with this legislation then workers pay needs to be automatically inflated by some linkage to average earnings and thats what opposition parties should push for

 

[johncrossley]

I don't think Labour 1997-2010 "threw out" any of Thatcher's anti union laws so it's possibly naive to think the current Labour will.

The current laws must still be working well for the unions given how they still have immense power. The unions have got their way almost every time. They don't even have to strike most of the time. They just have to threaten to strike, and the management just caves in.

 

[bengley]

I don't think Labour 1997-2010 "threw out" any of Thatcher's anti union laws so it's possibly naive to think the current Labour will.

Blair's labour weren't labour.

The current laws must still be working well for the unions given how they still have immense power. The unions have got their way almost every time. They don't even have to strike most of the time. They just have to threaten to strike, and the management just caves in.

Excellent!