Government minimum levels of service laws

[dk1]

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

Or privatisation but then I get that was far far more difficult to achieve once everything had been broken up & contracts signed. Later in their reign however there still seemed little appetite to tackle this or take back any control apart from the Railtrack debacle.

 

[jfollows]

The laws won't work, politicians love enacting new laws which are either unnecessary or won't work, and this is both.
Labour will repeal any laws that make it anyway.
And the laws are wrong.
If people in industry are delivering a "vital" service then they need to be recognised appropriately for doing this. In other words, they need to be paid more than they are, because they're not going on strike out of bloody mindedness.
If they're not delivering a "vital" service, then it doesn't matter, does it?
I expect this has mainly been done to show that Conservatives are "doing something" and it will generate a lot of acrimony and hot air before coming to nothing.

 

[Rich1974]

Going by some comments on here we may aswell just give up now then, let's just do what the government tells us we have to. For years I've been disgusted with the ASLEF magazine that comes through my door saying that they want the railways to be taken back under public ownership and I've always said that would be a huge mistake and you can forget good pay rises if that happens, well it seems we're now finally getting a taste of what the Unions wanted.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Or privatisation but then I get that was far far more difficult to achieve once everything had been broken up & contracts signed. Later in their reign however there still seemed little appetite to tackle this or take back any control apart from the Railtrack debacle.

Labour did abolish the SRA and took direct control ("micromanagement") of the TOC contracts and NR.
Now we are trying to reinvent the SRA+NR as GBR, but the DfT/Treasury aren't keen to lose control.

The unions have had 25 years of easy and profitable negotiations with private TOC management, while opposing any private involvement in the railway.
Now the government is in full control of the railway, is it a surprise they are subject to public sector pay restraint?
The private TOCs are today only contractors delivering the government's demands.

 

[nr758123]

So, if I've understood this correctly...............
Transpennine Express, who consistently fail to provide a minimum level of service even on non-strike days, will be able to sue the unions for not providing on strike days a level of service that TPE can't manage the rest of the time. They are to be enabled to do this by a government which could and should but won't fine TPE for poor performance over a long period.

 

[LowLevel]

I suppose depriving people of their personal freedoms is quite measured compared to sending in the military to kill them as has happened in the past.

 

[dk1]

Labour did abolish the SRA and took direct control ("micromanagement") of the TOC contracts and NR.
Now we are trying to reinvent the SRA+NR as GBR, but the DfT/Treasury aren't keen to lose control.

The unions have had 25 years of easy and profitable negotiations with private TOC management, while opposing any private involvement in the railway.
Now the government is in full control of the railway, is it a surprise they are subject to public sector pay restraint?
The private TOCs are today only contractors delivering the government's demands.

Don’t we know it? I have always been a fan of privatisation unlike some of my colleagues who have hoped for nationalisation again. I know this isn’t quite that but be very careful what you wish for.

 

[bramling]

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.

And there’s the small issue of why should staff play ball when we have recently had a Prime Minister who broke the law.

 

[yorkie]

Minimum service requirements already exist in some other countries, so I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't happen here.

Employers could sue unions under planned anti-strike laws

Fire, ambulance and rail would have to provide minimum services in laws planned for later this year.

www.bbc.co.uk

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak condemned the proposed bill as "wrong, unworkable, and almost certainly illegal".
"This is an attack on the right to strike. It's an attack on working people, and it's an attack on one of our longstanding British liberties.

People like Paul Nowak are insane; it is people like him who attack ordinary people.

The more I read such nonsense the more I am turned against the Unions.

 

[whoosh]

The Government are planning all their moves around getting this legislation in. Saying that, "Pay is a matter between the unions and employer," and then telling the employer that it can't talk about pay until the Government Department (DfT in this case) gives authorisation.

Not giving that authorisation.

Going on about, "modernising working practices," without anybody having any talks because they haven't authorisation (whilst, by the way, having six weeks summer holiday themselves and then spending the first morning back having a pantomime with Black Rod and whether he can come in or not).

Claiming 'Union Barons' are to blame, when it's union member's last resort to democratically take industrial action.


ASLEF have had no offer whatsoever at any of the TOCs in dispute. Not all TOCs have the same pay anniversary month, but at least one is now a year overdue from the January 2022 pay anniversary. That's without ANY offer being made at all.
And when I say no offer, I don't mean there's been an offer of zero - I mean there has been no offer. No offer at all. No talks at all. No dialogue. Total silence.

The cost of living has gone up by a fifth in that time.

This is total manipulation by the government, instigate strikes, and then legislate against them so it can 'ride to the rescue' of "working families".

Trying to legislate against Ambulance workers taking strike action - I actually thought, "Are we going to notice any difference?" when they announced their strikes, such is the shocking state of the health service and ambulance waiting times (in double figures amount of hours) on a normal day.

A credible opposition would be going to town over all this.

 

[Exscrew]

Gross misconduct for going sick one day, that will be great for a tribunal. Easy win. Get a grip people

 

[dk1]

Gross misconduct for going sick one day, that will be great for a tribunal. Easy win. Get a grip people

I’m still finding it rather amusing. Some on this forum certainly know how to sensationalise.

 

[Facing Back]

Gross misconduct for going sick one day, that will be great for a tribunal. Easy win. Get a grip people

Only likely if your mate posts video of you playing golf on the day in question. A formal warning however...

 

[Exscrew]

Only likely if your mate posts video of you playing golf on the day in question. A formal warning however...

Even a formal warning would be ridiculous.... "employee scum why did you report as sick yesterday"
"Because I was ill"
Job done

 

[jfollows]

I think it's highly unlikely that any legislation in this area is going to get through Parliament and be enacted before the next general election, so I really do think it's a lot of hot air at the moment. If by some miracle the Conservatives win the next election then it may come to something, but the House of Lords and various legal challenges, amendments and so on are going to mean that it's not going to happen quickly. It'll feature on the Conservative's next manifesto along the lines of "if we had this legislation in place the disruption wouldn't have happened in 2022-23", which will be a re-writing of history I expect.

 

[yorkie]

People who falsely claim to be ill for one day are going to get away with it (assuming they stay at home) for sure, however if they did it repeatedly they may find they can no longer get away with it.

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

 

[Watershed]

So, if I've understood this correctly...............
Transpennine Express, who consistently fail to provide a minimum level of service even on non-strike days, will be able to sue the unions for not providing on strike days a level of service that TPE can't manage the rest of the time. They are to be enabled to do this by a government which could and should but won't fine TPE for poor performance over a long period.

No, they would be able to sue the union (or obtain an injunction) if they didn't tell members to comply with the agreed "work notice" which says which workers are required to deliver the "minimum service agreement".

The current protection from dismissal and civil liability for striking (or liability for inducing a breach of contract, on the part of the union) is an exception to the rule. This proposed legislation merely alters the circumstances in which that exception applies; the principles otherwise remain unchanged.

I really don't understand why people are getting so wound up about it or suggest it's unworkable. It's completely workable, as is demonstrated by the fact that other countries have had such minimum service levels for decades.

Minimum service levels are also unlikely to fundamentally undermine a dispute. They are intended to avoid the perverse current impact of strikes, whereby some lines go completely unserved. I cannot see a minimum service level being mandated at much more than the frequencies that already operate on strike days; it will just be that most lines will have a service. I cannot see how anyone can say this is an unreasonable limitation to impose on strikes.

As for the suggestion that it is in breach of the Human Rights Act, this is complete nonsense. Similar legislation from other countries has been up before the European Court of Human Rights previously and was found to be lawful provided that it doesn't completely eliminate the right to strike, and is proportionate. Based on the Minimum Service Bill that was laid before Parliament in October, I see no reason why that wouldn't be held to be the case here too.

 

[LowLevel]

People who falsely claim to be ill for one day are going to get away with it (assuming they stay at home) for sure, however if they did it repeatedly they may find they can no longer get away with it.

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

I wouldn't say it would be common in the workplace.

However if the Government is legislating against your personal freedom and taking away rights that you currently have, given it's frowned upon (understatement intentional ) to attempt to fight them physically, surely some passive resistance by whichever means possible without directly harming someone should be expected, and if not encouraged, at least understood?

"The Tories don't want my withdrawing my Labour to make an impact so it's for the greater good I accept they're taking my existing rights away by legislating" is hardly likely to be accepted without question or pushing back against it.

 

[Goldfish62]

I know this isn’t quite that but be very careful what you wish for.

This is exactly what one of my railway friends says and has been saying for years. And he's a committed RMT activist.

 

[Exscrew]

People who falsely claim to be ill for one day are going to get away with it (assuming they stay at home) for sure, however if they did it repeatedly they may find they can no longer get away with it.

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

Jeez, I've worked for a major brewery when the same old faces went sick every Monday and previously worked in public sector where I never met certain employees as they were constantly sick. I don't agree with it but it's certainly common

 

[yorkie]

Jeez, I've worked for a major brewery when the same old faces went sick every Monday and previously worked in public sector where I never met certain employees as they were constantly sick. I don't agree with it but it's certainly common

I don't think anyone like that would last at any of the organisations I've worked for. And I wouldn't want to work at a place where people behaved like that anyway!

I wouldn't say it would be common in the workplace.

However if the Government is legislating against your personal freedom and taking away rights that you currently have, given it's frowned upon (understatement intentional ) to attempt to fight them physically, surely some passive resistance by whichever means possible without directly harming someone should be expected, and if not encouraged, at least understood?

"The Tories don't want my withdrawing my Labour to make an impact so it's for the greater good I accept they're taking my existing rights away by legislating" is hardly likely to be accepted without question or pushing back against it.

OK so you expect some people to behave dishonorably if we simply have a similar law to what already exists in countries like Italy? Interesting.

Anyway as a one off, for one day, sure they would get away with it. But I don't think they could get away with doing it repeatedly.

 

[Exscrew]

I don't think anyone like that would last at any of the organisations I've worked for. And I wouldn't want to work at a place where people behaved like that anyway!


OK so you expect some people to behave dishonorably if we simply have a similar law to what already exists in countries like Italy. Interesting.

Unfortunately it's difficult to prove if someone is taking the micky.
We nicknamed the one bloke "the myth" as nobody knew if he was real.
And remember most people don't abuse it.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately it's difficult to prove if someone is taking the micky.
We nicknamed the one bloke "the myth" as nobody knew if he was real.
And remember most people don't abuse it.

On a one off basis, yes absolutely. But if someone did it repeatedly, it would be a different matter.

 

[the sniper]

Strikes are the least of their problems, it'll just be time to pull the operators trousers down. The trap they're walking into is quite amusing, if you can overlook what a tragic mess it'll be for the railway.

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

Has the state ever implemented a law very specifically targeted to withdraw a legal right from you and your colleagues, largely on completely avoidable, petty grounds? It's enough to make anyone sick.

 

[LowLevel]

I don't think anyone like that would last at any of the organisations I've worked for. And I wouldn't want to work at a place where people behaved like that anyway!


OK so you expect some people to behave dishonorably if we simply have a similar law to what already exists in countries like Italy? Interesting.

Anyway as a one off, for one day, sure they would get away with it. But I don't think they could get away with doing it repeatedly.

Italians are absolutely notorious for ignoring laws and anything else they don't like so they're hardly a great starting point. Same applies re: The French, who certainly don't have to give 14 days notice of a strike as we do here.

I expect some people to behave dishonorably in most circumstances, that's what humanity does. The Government is setting a fine example at present They are determined to have their games and machinations to attempt to work situations to their advantage and I'd be stunned if literally none of those being targeted by them respond in an underhand manner too.

 

[Bluejays]

I agree with minimum service levels. As long as they are decided in good faith (I have serious doubts as to this).

It still allows us to strike, while hopefully limiting some of the disruption to people going to work/school/college.


Honestly not sure what this current shower have in mind though. I'd imagine Michael green is thinking of 90% plus as a way to end essentially end strikes.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

How does it work in Portugal or France? They both have minimum service levels in the event of a strike (one is currently ongoing in Portugal!)

 

[Watershed]

Italians are absolutely notorious for ignoring laws and anything else they don't like so they're hardly a great starting point.

I think that's an unfair and inaccurate stereotype. Minimum service levels generally are observed in Italy.

Same applies re: The French, who certainly don't have to give 14 days notice of a strike as we do here.

No, but strikes are quite different there. They are commonly about issues that cannot be solved by the organisation they work for - for instance, the general strike over pension reform. They do now have to give 48 hours' notice of a strike, can't strike for just part of a shift, and minimum service legislation exists and is similarly observed.

I expect some people to behave dishonorably in most circumstances, that's what humanity does. The Government is setting a fine example at present They are determined to have their games and machinations to attempt to work situations to their advantage and I'd be stunned if literally none of those being targeted by them respond in an underhand manner too.

Indeed, but I think it's rather telling that the first instinct of certain posters is to threaten to defraud their employers (or threaten that others might do so).

 

[fishwomp]

Who will be the one that decides which members have work, surely we can refuse, I'm buggered if I'm paying union fees and then get told I have to come in.

.. I believe the union provides a list, presumably members will put their name down for it, or do a random ballot.

For everyone like you who would be "buggered" to pay fees and not go on strike, there will be many more who think hmm, I can be part of the strike but actually work and get paid - without being seen as a (apologies) scab..

For starters, anyone who voted no to a strike, anyone hard up, etc - previously some did not vote for a strike but would take part out of loyalty - or fear.

There'll be plenty takers..

 

[bramling]

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

Already common at my workplace.

Attendance management can fall down in two ways. Firstly if sufficient people are playing the system then it becomes very hard to manage. Secondly if the local management aren't interested in dealing with issues (for whatever reason, and there are a number of potential such reasons).