Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[Horizon22]

Well that has now changed. Quite how it will work I've no idea, but I imagine this might open the door for companies / organisations to take legal action against unions and possibly even it's members if sufficient numbers aren't working during dispute. Pandora's box has been opened...

How do you pick and choose? How is it fair and even across a single grade/job? Who works and who doesn’t? Who makes the choice? How is competency assured so there’s an even balance (I.e across depots). There’s so many practical and logical roadblocks.

 

[Bantamzen]

How do you pick and choose? How is it fair and even across a single grade/job? Who works and who doesn’t? Who makes the choice? How is competency assured so there’s an even balance (I.e across depots). There’s so many practical and logical roadblocks.

Roadblocks for the unions, not the employers or the government. All they have to say is you must provide xx% of employees otherwise we'll see you in court. This is why this legislation is so devastating for the TU movement, it could actually put unions in peril through being constantly sued.

 

[Economist]

I presume the unions will club together on this and will challenge it in the courts as they did with the law that allowed agency workers to cover struck work.

As soon as the Tories won in December 2019, it was obvious that they would try and attack the unions. At the time, the unions should have made it very clear that members needed to start saving money, ideally with the aim of having a few months' living expenses tucked away in an account. The pandemic should have made this easier for a lot of unions involved.

I think that if ASLEF, which represents me, had done this effectively, then rather than having eleven strike days scattered across several months, could have announced an indefinite walkout as SAG-AFTRA has done in the US. I reckon the government would have folded after a couple of weeks.

 

[baz962]

I presume the unions will club together on this and will challenge it in the courts as they did with the law that allowed agency workers to cover struck work.

As soon as the Tories won in December 2019, it was obvious that they would try and attack the unions. At the time, the unions should have made it very clear that members needed to start saving money, ideally with the aim of having a few months' living expenses tucked away in an account. The pandemic should have made this easier for a lot of unions involved.

I think that if ASLEF, which represents me, had done this effectively, then rather than having eleven strike days scattered across several months, could have announced an indefinite walkout as SAG-AFTRA has done in the US. I reckon the government would have folded after a couple of weeks.

I am wondering what the next step aslef might take. I'm guessing that although it is now law that there is an actual date it can start being implemented. Maybe aslef will go all out before it comes in .

 

[Facing Back]

Wasn't there a Lords amendment to protect the striker's legal protection from dismissal?

Or have I misunderstood?

AIUI You have misunderstood.

 

[Trothy]

Quite frankly if anyone is still using this odious name towards any of their colleagues they need to be totally ashamed of themselves. This is 2023 not 1983.

As for this law, well quite frankly the government have been spoiling for this kind of thing for a while. And sadly the actions of the unions across all sectors has helped this along, despite them all being very aware that this was a possibility. As a long standing union member I am deeply saddened by its implementation and angry at the union movement for having slept-walked into this.

And what should the unions have done?

Should the threat of further anti-union legislation meant that the unions cease industrial action and accept whatever they were given?

Oh, and as for the use of the term scab for strikebreaker? Still very much in use on the railway and if I'm honest I really don't see the problem with it. If you're morally bankrupt enough to undermine your colleagues, then I can't hardly imagine being called a name would really bother you much.

 

[miklcct]

I hope that the form it will work is to force rail replacement services on main lines whenever there is a strike.

 

[ar10642]

Have you met a working class train driver on middle class wages? Cos I'm one !!!!

I'm 100% working class thanks.

Working class means absolutely nothing these days

Oh, and as for the use of the term scab for strikebreaker? Still very much in use on the railway and if I'm honest I really don't see the problem with it. If you're morally bankrupt enough to undermine your colleagues, then I can't hardly imagine being called a name would really bother you much.

Also the rail industry: why can't we hire enough people?

 

[Bantamzen]

I presume the unions will club together on this and will challenge it in the courts as they did with the law that allowed agency workers to cover struck work.

As soon as the Tories won in December 2019, it was obvious that they would try and attack the unions. At the time, the unions should have made it very clear that members needed to start saving money, ideally with the aim of having a few months' living expenses tucked away in an account. The pandemic should have made this easier for a lot of unions involved.

I think that if ASLEF, which represents me, had done this effectively, then rather than having eleven strike days scattered across several months, could have announced an indefinite walkout as SAG-AFTRA has done in the US. I reckon the government would have folded after a couple of weeks.

I have a sneaking suspicion that an all out strike was never on the cards. As I understand it the RMT had some funds to be able to offer strike pay, but for an all out on I doubt that fund would have lasted long. And as ASLEF didn't have a strike fund available it seems, again an all out strike was probably never tangible for them either.

And what should the unions have done?

Should the threat of further anti-union legislation meant that the unions cease industrial action and accept whatever they were given?

The legislation was drafted because of the threat of unlimited strike action following the cluster-you-know-what of a covid response.

Oh, and as for the use of the term scab for strikebreaker? Still very much in use on the railway and if I'm honest I really don't see the problem with it. If you're morally bankrupt enough to undermine your colleagues, then I can't hardly imagine being called a name would really bother you much.

I remember the days when being labelled a "scab" brought so much fear to people that they would practically starve not to be one. The mentality that you can demean & threaten someone simply because they didn't with a non-legally binding vote of a union is the real moral bankruptcy. Its a disgusting practice that deserves to be left in the past where it belongs. Thankfully my union does not tolerate such language, and actively works against it's use. If the term is still common on the railways, then frankly those attitudes need to be stopped. As I said, this is 2023 not 1983...

 

[baz962]

Working class means absolutely nothing these days



Also the rail industry: why can't we hire enough people?

Probably can't hire enough because of the attacks by the government

 

[ar10642]

Probably can't hire enough because of the attacks by the government

I won't work anywhere where this scab name calling happens. It's got nothing to to do with anyone else whether someone goes to work or not.

 

[Red Rover]

For me personally I can’t think of a worse name to be called.

 

[RHolmes]

Of course. You can't be forced to work as such. But it takes away the legal protection and a company will be able to dismiss you aiui.

The reality is in a skilled profession such as a train driver, the company cannot physically sack everyone who refuses to cross a picket line without completely destroying the train service.

Dismissing some colleagues but not others would surely lead to legal challenges of discrimination and unfair dismissals

Although this may work in other sectors and some roles, I genuinely cannot see this working completely at all for the Railway sector, so long as union members remain as collective as they currently are.

 

[Trothy]

I remember the days when being labelled a "scab" brought so much fear to people that they would practically starve not to be one. The mentality that you can demean & threaten someone simply because they didn't with a non-legally binding vote of a union is the real moral bankruptcy. Its a disgusting practice that deserves to be left in the past where it belongs. Thankfully my union does not tolerate such language, and actively works against it's use. If the term is still common on the railways, then frankly those attitudes need to be stopped. As I said, this is 2023 not 1983...

And these days it brings virtually no fear to people. As you say it's now 2023 and not 1983, the repercussions of being labelled a scab are very different.

No-one is being demeaned and threatened by it. It's a name.

I like that you seemed to think you have the moral high ground here by not wishing to call out strike breakers, but instead being part of a union and feeling it's okay to undermine the action of your colleagues, especially in workplaces that are highly unionized.

 

[SteveL9]

People blaming the unions, is this just the rail unions or the 14 health unions too? And all the teaching and university unions? And the fire service union? And the Civil service unions?

I don’t remember all of these unions feeling the need to strike under the last government. Maybe let’s lay the blame where it rightly sits.

 

[Economist]

I am wondering what the next step aslef might take. I'm guessing that although it is now law that there is an actual date it can start being implemented. Maybe aslef will go all out before it comes in .

The whole implementation seems fairly vague, I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious legal challenges.

I have a sneaking suspicion that an all out strike was never on the cards. As I understand it the RMT had some funds to be able to offer strike pay, but for an all out on I doubt that fund would have lasted long. And as ASLEF didn't have a strike fund available it seems, again an all out strike was probably never tangible for them either.

In my opinion ASLEF shouldn't really need a strike fund, though there is a worrying number of train drivers who are hopeless at managing money. Far too many people who rely on overtime to make ends meet yet drive an expensive car, go on expensive holidays, go to expensive restaurants etc. in the name of keeping up with the Jones' on social media. There are those who have unplanned situations such as a divorce or a partner losing their job who I have genuine sympathy, otherwise it's pathetic.

 

[r1_biker]

The whole implementation seems fairly vague, I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious legal challenges.



In my opinion ASLEF shouldn't really need a strike fund, though there is a worrying number of train drivers who are hopeless at managing money. Far too many people who rely on overtime to make ends meet yet drive an expensive car, go on expensive holidays, go to expensive restaurants etc. in the name of keeping up with the Jones' on social media. There are those who have unplanned situations such as a divorce or a partner losing their job who I have genuine sympathy, otherwise it's pathetic.

I have the utmost gratitude to the last few years which has seen me grasp my money firmly. Gone was my most expensive hobby with the huge dose of FOMO.


I am saving like a lunatic and paying down the mortgage as quick as possible. I wasnt installed with a good finance system and it's taken many many years to learn. Credit today, pay off one day and not care about interest was my default and work any overtime going

 

[northwichcat]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

I don't see how it's an attack on the working class. The working class are the least likely to be able to use alternative modes of transport during rail or bus strikes. They are also the ones who can't afford to take additional unpaid level, either due to public transport strikes or needing to look after children due to schools being closed. To be clear, I'm not saying the Tories are on the side of working class people but train drivers, guards and teachers who think they're working class are using an outdated definition of the term.

If this gets in then would the workers forced to run these minimum services still be described as “scabs” ?

How do you pick and choose? How is it fair and even across a single grade/job? Who works and who doesn’t? Who makes the choice? How is competency assured so there’s an even balance (I.e across depots). There’s so many practical and logical roadblocks.

The unions just have to adapt to changes. They've adapted to the increase notice for strikes, it hasn't prevented workers going on strike. I don't see where it states that certain people will be blocked from striking. They just can't all go on strike at the same time. Instead of the RMT calling a strike on Thursday, followed by one on Saturday they'll probably call a strike starting on Thursday and ending on Saturday with 33% of workers on strike at any time. To me, it doesn't sound like there's any attack on an individual's right to strike, it'll just create significantly more admin work for unions calling lengthy strike action.

 

[irish_rail]

All this will lead to is more "work to rule". This will prove devastating to the industry in the long run and will cost a fortune with driver shortages. It'll be TPE on steroids . Because that's the way this will go if its implemented and unions are unable to use striking as an option.
But as I mentioned up thread, there is still a right for union members not to cross picket lines and the fact that upwards of 90 percent of drivers continue to vote for strike action , suggests at best you would get maybe 10 percent of the workforce prepared to cross the picket line. Although at my depot, I can only think of perhaps one driver who would cross said picket and I believe that would be similar across the country (with possible exceptions in the south east at certain depots).

 

[ar10642]

All this will lead to is more "work to rule". This will prove devastating to the industry in the long run and will cost a fortune with driver shortages. It'll be TPE on steroids . Because that's the way this will go if its implemented and unions are unable to use striking as an option.
But as I mentioned up thread, there is still a right for union members not to cross picket lines and the fact that upwards of 90 percent of drivers continue to vote for strike action , suggests at best you would get maybe 10 percent of the workforce prepared to cross the picket line. Although at my depot, I can only think of perhaps one driver who would cross said picket and I believe that would be similar across the country (with possible exceptions in the south east at certain depots).

I don't think the government cares if the trains run or not to be honest. It doesn't affect them or 90% of people. If they cared about whether trains run there wouldn't still be strikes a year later would there?

 

[ComUtoR]

Roadblocks for the unions, not the employers or the government. All they have to say is you must provide xx% of employees otherwise we'll see you in court.

Does this law specifically state that it is the Unions responsibility to provide staff or is the TOC liable for the minimum service level ?

My only understanding of this is that the Union issues a strike notice, there has to be consultation regarding the service level and employees required, and then the TOC issues a work notice.

What happened next ? Who decides who does and doesn't work; especially those who may be non Union members ?

 

[northwichcat]

It doesn't affect them or 90% of people.

The strikes negatively affect a lot more people than those who use the train themselves. If you have a 20 year old son or daughter who can't get to work because of the strikes and you have to be their personal taxi then the strike does affect you. While, if your colleague can't get into work on a particular day then you might find your holiday request rejected as your employer would be short staffed without you.

 

[irish_rail]

I don't think the government cares if the trains run or not to be honest. It doesn't affect them or 90% of people. If they cared about whether trains run there wouldn't still be strikes a year later would there?

If government don't care about railways why did they rescue TPE? Its just they are more bothered about appearing strong against the unions. But that isn't really playing well out in the real world, you only need to look at Thursdays by election results to see their policy of industrial unrest isn't popular amongst voters.

 

[Bantamzen]

And these days it brings virtually no fear to people. As you say it's now 2023 and not 1983, the repercussions of being labelled a scab are very different.

No-one is being demeaned and threatened by it. It's a name.

I like that you seemed to think you have the moral high ground here by not wishing to call out strike breakers, but instead being part of a union and feeling it's okay to undermine the action of your colleagues, especially in workplaces that are highly unionized.

No, the use of the word is inexcusable and frankly I would have no sympathy for someone getting into serious trouble for using it towards their colleagues. Despite your believing its just a word it most certainly isn't, and I suspect you know why.

The whole implementation seems fairly vague, I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious legal challenges.

I don't doubt for a minute there will be legal challenges. Whether they will be successful is another, very expensive thing.

In my opinion ASLEF shouldn't really need a strike fund, though there is a worrying number of train drivers who are hopeless at managing money. Far too many people who rely on overtime to make ends meet yet drive an expensive car, go on expensive holidays, go to expensive restaurants etc. in the name of keeping up with the Jones' on social media. There are those who have unplanned situations such as a divorce or a partner losing their job who I have genuine sympathy, otherwise it's pathetic.

I agree that people who live way beyond their means probably shouldn't have any sympathy. But as you rightly point out there will be people in situations beyond their control who simply cannot afford to strike. And sometimes those reasons may not even be obvious, for example someone suffering from severe depression may be spending more and building up debts.

That's why unions need to have a level of tolerance to members breaking strikes, and not resort to childish, stupid and even damaging insults. And they need to make sure that this is enshrined in their rules. Even back in the 90s when I was a rep the phrase "scab" was an absolute no-no even on a picket line, and any rep using it would find their position up for election very quickly.

 

[northwichcat]

Who decides who does and doesn't work; especially those who may be non Union members ?

The law prevents discrimination by employers due to union membership status. That works both ways. They can't treat non-union members unfairly in arranging rosters because a union they aren't in calls a strike.

That's why unions need to have a level of tolerance to members breaking strikes, and not resort to childish, stupid and even damaging insults. And they need to make sure that this is enshrined in their rules. Even back in the 90s when I was a rep the phrase "scab" was an absolute no-no even on a picket line, and any rep using it would find their position up for election very quickly.

There were reports of that term being used fairly recently by striking bus drivers in Manchester. Not at depots, but at busy bus stations when their colleagues boarded or alighted vehicles on strike days. While you took a 1990s approach in the 1990s, some still resort to a 1970s approach in the 2020s.

 

[Dave91131]

In my opinion ASLEF shouldn't really need a strike fund, though there is a worrying number of train drivers who are hopeless at managing money. Far too many people who rely on overtime to make ends meet yet drive an expensive car, go on expensive holidays, go to expensive restaurants etc. in the name of keeping up with the Jones' on social media. There are those who have unplanned situations such as a divorce or a partner losing their job who I have genuine sympathy, otherwise it's pathetic.

The above is true of so many apparently responsible and intelligent adults in today's society unfortunately.

I lost track of the amount of local and national news features I saw during both the Covid lockdowns and the past winter where people were pleading poverty, yet in the next clip you'd see a sub 3-year old car on the drive, or a child / multiple children each sitting on the sofa playing on a tablet or fancy phone, or a TV more akin to a cinema screen size wise.

Sure there are the genuine cases, but there are also the ones where I frankly thought "tough s**t mate / love*.

 

[Bantamzen]

Does this law specifically state that it is the Unions responsibility to provide staff or is the TOC liable for the minimum service level ?

My only understanding of this is that the Union issues a strike notice, there has to be consultation regarding the service level and employees required, and then the TOC issues a work notice.

What happened next ? Who decides who does and doesn't work; especially those who may be non Union members ?

Looking at the article posted by the OP I've seen this paragraph:

"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."

So it does look like it will be the responsibility of the unions and not the employer to provide the minimum amount of required staff.

 

[northwichcat]

The above is true of so many apparently responsible and intelligent adults in today's society unfortunately.

I lost track of the amount of local and national news features I saw during both the Covid lockdowns and the past winter where people were pleading poverty, yet in the next clip you'd see a sub 3-year old car on the drive, or a child / multiple children each sitting on the sofa playing on a tablet or fancy phone, or a TV more akin to a cinema screen size wise.

Sure there are the genuine cases, but there are also the ones where I frankly thought "tough s**t mate / love*.

Whether you're unemployed applying for benefits, employed and in a union or want a charitable organisation to support you, there's one underlying problem. If you own a car worth £15,000 that you're not really using, no one's going to force you to sell it or even ask about it. You might even get a chairty giving you £400 for a new washing machine, if yours breaks and you have no savings to buy a new one. On the other hand, if you have no car, live in an area with poor public transport links and have £1500 in savings you're then expected to use that £1500 for food, utility bills etc. and if you instead use it to buy a second hand car, you probably have any applications for help refused.

 

[Trothy]

No, the use of the word is inexcusable and frankly I would have no sympathy for someone getting into serious trouble for using it towards their colleagues. Despite your believing its just a word it most certainly isn't, and I suspect you know why.

We are not talking about something someone has no control over here. It's not like racial slurs or comments about some other protected characteristic.


Breaking a strike is a choice and choices have consequences, if you choose to break a strike be prepared for people to call you a scab.

 

[vikingdriver]

So is there a link to this bill so we can see it in its finished guise?