|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2023 22:03:33 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 5, 2023 22:08:20 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to "maintain a basic function and deliver minimum safety levels" in the public sector during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. I am glad you posted this mate I have been reading about it also. Trouble is when I start another thread the usuals have to invade the thread with their trolling and attacking the source and not the content. In otherwords their usual childish MO.....Note how they ignore the inconveneint ones tho....LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2023 22:15:27 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to "maintain a basic function and deliver minimum safety levels" in the public sector during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. I am glad you posted this mate I have been reading about it also. Trouble is when I star another hread the usuals have to invade the thread with their trolling and attacking the source and not the content. In otherwords their usual childish MO. Jonksy, relax. Treat trolls as fun, not that I think we have trolls on this forum tbh. Ref the thread, I suspect the vast majority of the electorate will support the government on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2023 22:19:54 GMT
Imo the striking now was a gamble worthy of Arthur Scargill. Even if they gain something now it will be at the expense o& tomorrow and ultimately public sympathy. As I said somewhere else , this is a Putin style tactic ..hurt the public so much that they demand that the government gives in .
It doesn’t seem to be working .
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 5, 2023 23:44:31 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. There is no 'right to strike' without consequence anyway, it's a common misrepresentation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. An empoyer has always been able to sack striking workers and still is. It occasionally happens. The big problems with this proposal as phrased are threefold: 1: As a monopoly employer the government could try to define 'right to life and livelihoods.' as any of the duties of public employees so in effect denying them the 'right to strike' on penalty of legal action. That would be a breach of article 11 of the ECnHR which isn't going to be repealed anytime soon. 2: This will doing nothing about the real problem in the NHS staffing, the inability to recruit and retain 3: It's not in the 2019 manifesto so has no constitutional protection in the House of Lords that will likely throw it out because of (1). Summary: it's posturing for the 2024 General Election. Very shallow but such often works |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2023 0:03:16 GMT
I am glad you posted this mate I have been reading about it also. Trouble is when I star another hread the usuals have to invade the thread with their trolling and attacking the source and not the content. In otherwords their usual childish MO. Jonksy, relax. Treat trolls as fun, not that I think we have trolls on this forum tbh. Ref the thread, I suspect the vast majority of the electorate will support the government on this one.I don't know one single person down here that has time for these lefty arseholes on strike mate. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2023 0:06:23 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. There is no 'right to strike' without consequence anyway, it's a common misrepresentation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. An empoyer has always been able to sack striking workers and still is. It occasionally happens. The big problems with this proposal as phrased are threefold: 1: As a monopoly employer the government could try to define 'right to life and livelihoods.' as any of the duties of public employees so in effect denying them the 'right to strike' on penalty of legal action. That would be a breach of article 11 of the ECnHR which isn't going to be repealed anytime soon. 2: This will doing nothing about the real problem in the NHS staffing, the inability to recruit and retain 3: It's not in the 2019 manifesto so has no constitutional protection in the House of Lords that will likely throw it out because of (1). Summary: it's posturing for the 2024 General Election. Very shallow but such often works So what's kneel-a-lot doing then? That total prick doesn't even know what side it hangs and just jumps on what he thinks is the current pulse. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2023 0:15:24 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. There is no 'right to strike' without consequence anyway, it's a common misrepresentation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. An empoyer has always been able to sack striking workers and still is. It occasionally happens. The big problems with this proposal as phrased are threefold: 1: As a monopoly employer the government could try to define 'right to life and livelihoods.' as any of the duties of public employees so in effect denying them the 'right to strike' on penalty of legal action. That would be a breach of article 11 of the ECnHR which isn't going to be repealed anytime soon. 2: This will doing nothing about the real problem in the NHS staffing, the inability to recruit and retain 3: It's not in the 2019 manifesto so has no constitutional protection in the House of Lords that will likely throw it out because of (1). Summary: it's posturing for the 2024 General Election. Very shallow but such often works Steve, you can quote whatever you like. The fact remains that at the moment it is lawful for blue light services to strike. It's a ridiculous situation when emergency services can go on strike. The government are absolutely right to pursue legislation that ensures the public have at least minimum cover. In other civilised countries blue lights are rightly banned from strike action. Btw, in 1978 we stood in for striking firemen who were paid twice what we were being paid, and this was in your neck of the woods. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 6, 2023 1:41:46 GMT
I remember that 1978 strike and how bleeding unstable those Green Goddess engines looked if you saw one navigating country lanes. If you were in one then that took guts. I would support making it illegal for blue light services to have to be maintained IF there was a fair process for setting wages (there isn't) but this proposed legislation appears to go far further. Ref one of my points above, Shapps appears to be saying it's in the last manifesto (and so would be protected in the Lords) but he's wrong. www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019 This is all it said: ' We will require that a minimum service operates during transport strikes. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others.'So covers but a fraction of what he appears to be trying to push through |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2023 2:05:33 GMT
I remember that 1978 strike and how bleeding unstable those Green Goddess engines looked if you saw one navigating country lanes. If you were in one then that took guts. I would support making it illegal for blue light services to have to be maintained IF there was a fair process for setting wages (there isn't) but this proposed legislation appears to go far further. Ref one of my points above, Shapps appears to be saying it's in the last manifesto (and so would be protected in the Lords) but he's wrong. www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019 This is all it said: ' We will require that a minimum service operates during transport strikes. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others.'So covers but a fraction of what he appears to be trying to push through I never drove a Green Goddess, but we did have a 'whole days' training on them. I remember them being uncomfortable, slow and top heavy. Fortunately all our call outs were for minor things, never to a fire. People obviously decided not to risk that BBQ when we were on the job. I maintain, blue light services should be treated like the armed forces. They should not have trade unions and should not have the right to withdraw their labour. It's immoral. How any first responder can go on strike is something of a mystery to me. I always considered it a vocation, but clearly some people consider it no more than a job. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 6, 2023 6:45:08 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. I disagree. It would only be perfectly reasonable if the government had kept up their end of the bargain, which they haven't.
Time and again over the last decade the government have chosen to ignore independent pay & review bodies' recommendations. Recommendations that the government themselves had agreed to.
So, in effect, the government are in breach of contract and now wish to punish the workers for having the timerity to point that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 6, 2023 6:46:40 GMT
There is no 'right to strike' without consequence anyway, it's a common misrepresentation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. An empoyer has always been able to sack striking workers and still is. It occasionally happens. The big problems with this proposal as phrased are threefold: 1: As a monopoly employer the government could try to define 'right to life and livelihoods.' as any of the duties of public employees so in effect denying them the 'right to strike' on penalty of legal action. That would be a breach of article 11 of the ECnHR which isn't going to be repealed anytime soon. 2: This will doing nothing about the real problem in the NHS staffing, the inability to recruit and retain 3: It's not in the 2019 manifesto so has no constitutional protection in the House of Lords that will likely throw it out because of (1). Summary: it's posturing for the 2024 General Election. Very shallow but such often works. I completely agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2023 7:05:02 GMT
The government is bringing forward new strike laws to ensure a basic function to deliver minimum safety is maintained during industrial action, the business department has confirmed. In a statement, it said the government would "always protect the ability to strike", but added: "It must be balanced with the public's right to life and livelihoods." The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action. news.sky.com/story/new-strike-laws-to-guarantee-minimum-levels-of-safety-in-critical-sectors-confirmed-by-government-12780531#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20bringing%20forward,the%20business%20department%20has%20confirmed. Perfectly reasonable. The right to strike or withdraw labour, is not being taken away. But as far as life saving 'blue light' services are concerned, a minimum service must be maintained. Starmer says a future Labour government will repeal this legislation. Kinda suggests that a government who are in hock to the unions may not be such a good idea. I disagree. It would only be perfectly reasonable if the government had kept up their end of the bargain, which they haven't.
Time and again over the last decade the government have chosen to ignore independent pay & review bodies' recommendations. Recommendations that the government themselves had agreed to.
So, in effect, the government are in breach of contract and now wish to punish the workers for having the timerity to point that out.
Is it a legal requirement for a government to accept independent pay review body recommendations? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 6, 2023 7:18:41 GMT
I disagree. It would only be perfectly reasonable if the government had kept up their end of the bargain, which they haven't.
Time and again over the last decade the government have chosen to ignore independent pay & review bodies' recommendations. Recommendations that the government themselves had agreed to.
So, in effect, the government are in breach of contract and now wish to punish the workers for having the timerity to point that out.
Is it a legal requirement for a government to accept independent pay review body recommendations? Nope. But it is a sign of bad faith.
As is changing the law to further punish the workers for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2023 7:20:08 GMT
Is it a legal requirement for a government to accept independent pay review body recommendations? Nope. But it is a sign of bad faith.
As is changing the law to further punish the workers for it.
Good night  |
|
