What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?People are suggesting that under minimum service level that rail staff would just go sick there are probably far more insidious ways on the railway to make disasstifaction known
Toilet breaks being coordinated to maximise disruption, defects that would normally be worked around with through jerry rigging not getting fixed. A "not my job" attitude to problem solving staff stopping work at the nearest station as soon as their hours are over
Doesn't even have to even meet the threshold of work to rule in most places. Virtually every job that doesn't take place in an office is breaking some employment health and safety rule.
What trap have they walked into?
Isn't the whole point of a minimal service level that some service runs?What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?
Yes but if it doesn't I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it. They haven't flinched this week have they, when everyone's supposed to be going back after Christmas.Isn't the whole point of a minimal service level that some service runs?
.. 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..
People are suggesting that under minimum service level that rail staff would just go sick there are probably far more insidious ways on the railway to make disasstifaction known
Doesn't even have to even meet the threshold of work to rule in most places. Virtually every job that doesn't take place in an office is breaking some employment health and safety rule.
The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about dooYes but if it doesn't I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it. They haven't flinched this week have they, when everyone's supposed to be going back after Christmas.
Blair's labour weren't labour.
But it's not forcing anyone to the table because the government simply do not care if the service runs or not. It probably just gives the government ammunition for the inevitable cuts to come ("x% of services don't even run, so we don't need them, also revenue down, difficult decisions need to be made etc.)The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about doo
There needs to be various things met and risk assessed for DOO to take place, like station lighting levels (General levels as well as any dark spots dealt with), gaps between train and platform, signal sighting if the stopping point needs changing for the previously mentioned things for example.The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about doo
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.
This is actually worse, though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lose my job if I'd ignored Government Covid guidance (indeed, I'm sure about that, because I'm a public employee and *did* ignore it at some points where it made my job difficult).A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?
If you disagree with something I said, please quote what it is you are disagreeing with.A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?
Agreed. A bit like DOO, it's not really a tenable position to claim that it's fundamentally unacceptable, nor would it be appropriate to roll it out nationwide. There is a balance to be had, and that nuance seems to be lost on a lot of people.I believe in a reasonable balance between workers’ right to strike, and the need to run essential services (of which the railway is one), which are competing needs. With MSLs, unions will still be able to cause inconvenience and media attention to pressure the government and make their case, and many people will reschedule travel; but those who genuinely need to travel will be able to do so, likely on unpleasant and crowded services. I think that’s right.
I do agree there is a question of what MSL is reasonable, 90% is clearly not (and nor is nearly 0%, which is the current position) and I’d argue that is where the debate should be.
It's funny how some people's definition of freedom included being forced to stay at home, to be vaccinated etc. That's the exact opposite of what I'd have thought freedom means. It's also a freedom that affects everyone, not just a small minority of the population as is the case with workers subject to MSLs.A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?
If you disagree with something I said, please quote what it is you are disagreeing with.
You sound a bit confused; guidance does not remove freedoms. I am also curious to know what I said that you think constitutes "telling" people what to do.
I don't understand how whatever it is that I've said on another topic has anything to do with this topic, but perhaps you can enlighten me?
More on that can of course be read in the appropriate thread rather than cluttering up this one!Under the Online Safety Bill I suspect a lot of this forum's COVID subsection would have been at risk of classification as "legal but harmful" because it didn't correspond to the official line.
Nothing in this proposed legislation removes people's freedoms. You are always free to leave, if you don't like working for the railway. But what it does it to remove the protection afforded by a lawful strike for people who decide to breach a MSL.
That merely reverts the position to the default that would apply if you deliberately didn't turn up to work for any other reason - you can be fired and potentially sued for the losses you've caused. I don't see that being able to do so with impunity qualifies as any sort of freedom. It's a privilege that has long been subject to restrictions and limitations.
If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.The unions will be looking closely at it and seeing how best they can circumvent its requirements. How workers take industrial action will change.
How is that telling people what to do?Ah yes, we have a couple of classics from Yorkie here.
The member is well aware of what he has posted in the Covid subforum, strong statements along the lines of; and I will happily concede I am paraphrasing rather than directly quoting though regular readers of the forum will be familiar with "I won't visit Germany while they have these Draconian face mask laws". Italy also enforced similar laws during the dark days of Covid, and you were quite robust in speaking out against them.
I don't see how it is unreasonable to disagree with a particular policy or law in place in any given country while also agreeing with a different policy or law in place there?It's interesting that you now look to Italy for anti-strike laws, and seem in support of them,
I do not see how this is similar, no.do you not see that in removing peoples freedom similar to the many and varying Covid laws?
I am curious as to what it is you are disagreeing with me; you appear unhappy with my criticisms of the restrictions imposed on society during Covid, is that so?I'm genuinely curious as to were you stand on the political spectrum, I always had you down as someone relatively liberal, but since Covid you seem quite selective when it comes to freedom and consent of the governed.
I quit my union because I realised that the union was not really interested in what members such as myself wanted; they constantly went on about how we should not be going to work and other nonsense when that was inconsistent with what my colleagues were telling me they wanted.At some point you yourself belonged to a union as you've mentioned on the forum, I wonder what drove you to be so anti union? Is it the political side of things rather than working for the benefit of workers rights?
Blair's labour weren't labour.
Excellent!
You're very entitled to your opinion of course but I can assure you that corporate HR departments are very well versed in this kind of matter. Generally they phrase it slightly differently and all of the senior HR people I know and work with are very committed to the welfare and to a balanced treatment of employees, to the point where they go to battle with site managers who want to terminate staff prematurely. But I can also tell you they tend to have zero tolerance for people taking the piss, and they are pretty good at spotting it.Even a formal warning would be ridiculous.... "employee scum why did you report as sick yesterday"
"Because I was ill"
Job done
I do not see how this is similar, no.
Indeed on the contrary, without this law some people will have no means to get anywhere; that is more similar to being restricted by 'Covid laws' than the opposite to that.
I quit my union because I realised that the union was not really interested in what members such as myself wanted; they constantly went on about how we should not be going to work and other nonsense when that was inconsistent with what my colleagues were telling me they wanted.
My union was demanding restrictions on our freedoms and also seeking to deny people such as myself from doing the job that we signed up to do.
I tried having a conversation with my union about my concerns; they didn't want to know and refused to have anyone speak to me except for a junior admin person.
Unions can indeed appear to have political agendas and they can put their own agendas before the views of ordinary members.
What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?
If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.
I agree they will get away with one day.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.
If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.