On Thursday, the Minimum Service Levels Bill received Royal Assent:
It won't have an immediate impact, as a public consultation will be launched before minimum service levels are agreed with - or, in some cases, imposed by - the relevant employers.
ASLEF has sent out a press release stating that the Act is "doomed":
The RMT and other unions have not have responded yet.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act has today [Thursday 20 July] received Royal Assent in Parliament, ensuring workers maintain the ability to strike whilst giving the public access to the essential services they need.
- Minimum Service Levels balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights of the public, who expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them.
- Government will now launch a public consultation on the reasonable steps unions should take to ensure their members comply with a work notice given by an employer.
Government will now proceed with plans to implement minimum service levels for passenger rail services, ambulance services and fire and rescue services.
Minimum service levels will ensure a minimum service operates in specified services during periods of strike action.
This will help protect the safety of the general public and ensure essential services are there when they need them – whether getting the train to work or being able to call an ambulance in times of emergency.
This will follow public consultations on the most appropriate approach for delivering Minimum Service Levels in passenger rail and blue light services. The Government is currently analysing responses and will respond in due course.
A public consultation will also be launched this Summer on the reasonable steps unions must take to comply with a work notice issued by employers under minimum service levels legislation.
This Government firmly believes that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, rightly protected by law, and understands that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. But the public expects government to act when their essential services are put at risk.
It won't have an immediate impact, as a public consultation will be launched before minimum service levels are agreed with - or, in some cases, imposed by - the relevant employers.
ASLEF has sent out a press release stating that the Act is "doomed":
Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has spoken out after the Minimum Service Levels Bill received Royal Assent and became law yesterday [Thursday 20 July].
‘We are disappointed, naturally, that the Tories, with their large majority in the House of Commons, have forced this Bill through despite the concerns of MPs and peers and in the face of reason. But this Act poses more questions than answers. As Lord John Hendy QC said in the House of Lords, “How is it actually going to work? What will they do about unusual levels of sickness? It’s impractical. And probably unworkable”.’
The success of ASLEF’s strikes over the last twelve months – bringing services to a standstill – led the Tory government to bring in this law requiring a minimum service level in some sectors – including the railways – in an effort to neutralise trade unions and the bargaining power of workers in our fight for fair pay. But Mick says the idea is ‘pie in the sky’:
‘A minimum service level on Britain’s railways will result in a dangerous level of overcrowding because, when passengers know trains are running, they will try to get on them. Many commuter services run, during peak times, with 1,300 passengers on a 12 car train. If all, or most, of those passengers try to get on MSL services then the overcrowding will put lives at risk. Not just on the train, but on platforms, because there will be fewer services to clear the stations. That’s why the rail industry doesn’t want MSLs and why the Railway Safety & Standards Board has warned against their implementation.
‘The government has not thought through the practicalities. To run, say, 20% of trains will require 40% of the drivers. You can’t just reduce the number of drivers to 20%. There are issues around route and traction knowledge. And having 40% of drivers being paid while delivering only 20% of the services will mean we can extend the disruption caused by industrial action over a much longer period at less cost, in lost pay, to our members. So we will be able to have a week’s worth of action for the cost to members of one or two days’ pay.
‘And unless the government bans picketing – and even this government has not, yet, suggested this – then many drivers will simply not cross an ASLEF picket line.’
The government has claimed that an MSL on the railway could be ‘managed by agreement between the employer and the trade union’.
‘But, if we are in dispute, the relationship is hardly likely to be cordial and collegiate and such an agreement is highly unlikely! MSLs will not make a resolution to any dispute any easier – it will merely prolong an industrial dispute.’
The RMT and other unions have not have responded yet.