|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 6, 2023 7:21:47 GMT
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. Ah, it's a "Vocation" - the standard excuse for underpaying essential workers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 6, 2023 7:22:36 GMT
Nope. But it is a sign of bad faith.
As is changing the law to further punish the workers for it.
Good night  That's right, you go and sleep it off and give your head a wobble when you're sober. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 11:05:11 GMT
This Government goes from ridiculous to insanity without blinking an eye.
They want to introduce laws to provide minimum safety levels during strikes but are responsible for ambulances queuing outside hospitals with the dangers to the public that presents.
😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 11:20:44 GMT
This Government goes from ridiculous to insanity without blinking an eye.They want to introduce laws to provide minimum safety levels during strikes but are responsible for ambulances queuing outside hospitals with the dangers to the public that presents. 😊 Some may say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over whilst expecting a different result. Basically, it was the same under Labour, and will be the same again when the next government arrives. What we're seeing is too much demand on public resources, where the short term solutions in the past resulted in adding more strain and demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 6, 2023 11:21:54 GMT
Any one employed via the Civil Service or public sector should have new contracts with a clause forbidding them to strike as part of their contracts.
They are employed on behalf of the tax payers, in other words they are answerable to us (the tax payers).
Why should we pay them when they aren't providing us with a service.?
It's the tax payers being held to ransom and blackmailed NOT the government.
Mick Lynch and his cronies can kiss my arse, if they don't want to work fuck them, fire them.
Why should they get special treatment over other workers who are on a lot less pay than them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 11:27:36 GMT
Any one employed via the Civil Service or public sector should have new contracts with a clause forbidding them to strike as part of their contracts. They are employed on behalf of the tax payers, in other words they are answerable to us (the tax payers). Why should we pay them when they aren't providing us with a service.? It's the tax payers being held to ransom and blackmailed NOT the government. Mick Lynch and his cronies can kiss my arse, if they don't want to work fuck them, fire them. Why should they get special treatment over other workers who are on a lot less pay than them. The fact that people are dying unnecessarily is wrong and clearly goes way beyond mere inconvenience. No strike should decide that people must die. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Jan 6, 2023 11:44:25 GMT
Im not awear that anyone has died during strikes.what I am awearoff people have died during waiting for a ambulance od in A&E the government needs to get a grip of the situation in the NHS
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 6, 2023 11:54:08 GMT
Im not awear that anyone has died during strikes.what I am awearoff people have died during waiting for a ambulance od in A&E the government needs to get a grip of the situation in the NHS So the solution is to strike and make the matter even worse with more deaths.
Yeah that makes sense NOT.
The NHS UNISON needs to get a grip of the situation, and stop blackmailing innocent victims of circumstance, why should we be pawns in their skulduggery.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Jan 6, 2023 12:00:35 GMT
The government should meet with the unions and try and work out a solution to the problem its the government fault not the unions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 12:08:20 GMT
The government ... might ... bring forward new laws to limit strike action, if there s enough support to get such legislation through Parliament, including the House Of Lords.
Many "Red Wall" tory MPs who are allready fearfull of losing their seats at the next election, will need to think very carefully about supporting such legislation, knowing that many of the people who voted for them are working class people who just for once voted Tory, because they couldn't stomach either Corbyn or "Remain".
Then theres basic human rights, European law and International law, a person does have the right to withdraw their labour in a protest.
The only areas which should be / must be protected are threat to life and safety, such as ambulance workers and A&E departments etc.
The idea that public transport, education, council workers, postal workers etc are vital to life and public safety is a nonsense, and I will be joinning the millions opposing such laws, which belong better in North Korea, Russia or China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 6, 2023 12:18:59 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 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. There is one Blue Light Service that cannot strike and that is the Police, back in 1912 due to appalling pay and conditions a Union was formed many of the Police Officers did go on strike. Rioting and mass looting broke out in London and especially in Liverpool fires broke out etc, so much so a Royal Naval Destroyer was sent up the Mersey just in case, I believe the Army was sent in to help the Police who had not gone out on strike to restore order. After the rioting had stopped every single Police Officer that had gone on strike was sacked the Union they had formed was banned, since then no Police Officer can join a Union or go on strike, today what the Police have to look after their interest pay and conditions since then is the Police Federation. I am not certain but I believe more recently Prison Officers cannot go on strike. Sunak IMO will struggle to out this proposed legislation in place quickly if at all , I agree the new proposal the right to strike is not being taken away, and yes Blue Light Services if it come about will have to provide some cover, including essential services such as Railways, Buses, in order that people can get to work, hospital and go about their daily lives as much as possible. Of course the Labour Party will oppose it strenuously as possible as the Unions finance them , if it was the other way round and the Tories were in opposition and opposed the new legislation they would be they are being backed by the rich business owners  At the end of the day it the taxpayers and non Union members that gets the bill as usual |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 12:45:13 GMT
This Government goes from ridiculous to insanity without blinking an eye.They want to introduce laws to provide minimum safety levels during strikes but are responsible for ambulances queuing outside hospitals with the dangers to the public that presents. 😊 Some may say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over whilst expecting a different result. Basically, it was the same under Labour, and will be the same again when the next government arrives. What we're seeing is too much demand on public resources, where the short term solutions in the past resulted in adding more strain and demand.
Lets share the blame for 13 years of Tory managed decline. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 12:46:34 GMT
Any one employed via the Civil Service or public sector should have new contracts with a clause forbidding them to strike as part of their contracts. They are employed on behalf of the tax payers, in other words they are answerable to us (the tax payers). Why should we pay them when they aren't providing us with a service.? It's the tax payers being held to ransom and blackmailed NOT the government. Mick Lynch and his cronies can kiss my arse, if they don't want to work fuck them, fire them. Why should they get special treatment over other workers who are on a lot less pay than them. The fact that people are dying unnecessarily is wrong and clearly goes way beyond mere inconvenience. No strike should decide that people must die. Tell that to people waiting in ambulances and corridors and subsequently dying without the correct care in our hospitals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 12:48:46 GMT
The government ... might ... bring forward new laws to limit strike action, if there s enough support to get such legislation through Parliament, including the House Of Lords. Many "Red Wall" tory MPs who are allready fearfull of losing their seats at the next election, will need to think very carefully about supporting such legislation, knowing that many of the people who voted for them are working class people who just for once voted Tory, because they couldn't stomach either Corbyn or "Remain". Then theres basic human rights, European law and International law, a person does have the right to withdraw their labour in a protest. The only areas which should be / must be protected are threat to life and safety, such as ambulance workers and A&E departments etc. The idea that public transport, education, council workers, postal workers etc are vital to life and public safety is a nonsense, and I will be joinning the millions opposing such laws, which belong better in North Korea, Russia or China. Have you been to an A&E department lately? Minimum safety levels my arse. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 6, 2023 13:15:12 GMT
Im not awear that anyone has died during strikes.what I am awearoff people have died during waiting for a ambulance od in A&E the government needs to get a grip of the situation in the NHS what is the difference between not getting an ambulance because of the Government and not getting an ambulance because they are on strike? |
|
