Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[irish_rail]

A nonsense statement as of course anyone trained in the relevant discipline would have the legal right to join the relevant union and also exercise their right to strike

Indeed. There is every chance that if a certain group where forced to come to work , they would simply refuse to cross the picket line and would be completely within their rights to do so. This bill is one of the daftest things to come out of this hapless desperate government.

 

[dk1]

I won't be coming in regardless of enforcement. Will be 101 reasons to get out of it

 

[Krokodil]

This bill is one of the daftest things to come out of this hapless desperate government.

A crowded field if ever there was one

 

[dk1]

A crowded field if ever there was one

So true. Been a tory voter most of my life but enough is enough.

 

[greatkingrat]

The actual select committee report can be found here

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-committee/publications/

 

[baz962]

I'm trying to work out what they mean by the statement. The greater responsibility placed on those required to work on those days must be reflected in pay and conditions. Does that mean you get extra money to be forced to work. I'm confused.

 

[irish_rail]

I'm trying to work out what they mean by the statement. The greater responsibility placed on those required to work on those days must be reflected in pay and conditions. Does that mean you get extra money to be forced to work. I'm confused.

That was my take. They are relying on the greed of staff to cross picket lines. Personally I think they'll be disappointed in 90 percent of cases.

 

[baz962]

That was my take. They are relying on the greed of staff to cross picket lines. Personally I think they'll be disappointed in 90 percent of cases.

Maybe in that case , aslef announces permanent strikes and we all go to work and receive higher pay and better conditions and we get our payrise and non erosion of conditions that way ( I'm joking)

 

[Krokodil]

Maybe in that case , aslef announces permanent strikes and we all go to work and receive higher pay and better conditions and we get our payrise and non erosion of conditions that way ( I'm joking)

On the basis that contingency staff are being paid twice what the usual staff are, you could have a permanent strike with staff being obliged to work every other day for no loss of income.

 

[whoosh]

The actual select committee report can be found here

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-committee/publications/

Paragraph 40 on page 16:
"A further case study of an ASLEF strike which took place on 1 February 2023 illustrates the impact of a different strike pattern. The Department notes that the timetable ran that day sought to “optimise the use of resources to offer as many services as possible, safely and reliably”. This resulted in a national average of around 40 per cent of services running, but again with significant variation: 12 per cent of Greater Anglia services and 88 per cent of South Western Railway services ran, but there were no services at all on CrossCountry."

With the 88% figure failing to take account of the fact that South Western Railway ASLEF members weren't on strike that day!!

Or the 40% figure taking into account Elizabeth Line, or London Overground, or Scotrail, or Transport for Wales, or Merseyrail, or Hull Trains, or Grand Central, or Lumo, all not being on strike.

Deliberate? When they are saying that the minimum service should be "at least as good as previous strike days"?

 

[Watershed]

would be completely within their rights to do so

I won't be coming in regardless of enforcement. Will be 101 reasons to get out of it

This has been discussed at length in previous threads about the MSL Bill (now Act).

Nobody is going to be physically dragged into work, but those who've been told to turn up - yet refuse or fail to do so - will be in the same legal position as if they were bunking off on any other day.

Obviously it's up to individual TOCs/employers as to whether they decide to apply the new legal position (i.e. beginning disciplinary proceedings for those who don't turn up). But it's wrong to suggest that the law is fundamentally ineffective; it works in other countries and there's no reason it can't work here.

 

[Krokodil]

Nobody is going to be physically dragged into work, but those who've been told to turn up - yet refuse or fail to do so - will be in the same legal position as if they were bunking off on any other day.

So if they had an otherwise clean sickness record, they could just say that they have D&V and stay off for 48 hrs?

 

[Watershed]

So if they had an otherwise clean sickness record, they could just say that they have D&V and stay off for 48 hrs?

One imagines that would be treated with the same suspicion as anyone reporting sick on a strike day under the existing arrangements.

 

[baz962]

One imagines that would be treated with the same suspicion as anyone reporting sick on a strike day under the existing arrangements.

You would not a sick/fit note. Easily done

 

[irish_rail]

This has been discussed at length in previous threads about the MSL Bill (now Act).

Nobody is going to be physically dragged into work, but those who've been told to turn up - yet refuse or fail to do so - will be in the same legal position as if they were bunking off on any other day.

Obviously it's up to individual TOCs/employers as to whether they decide to apply the new legal position (i.e. beginning disciplinary proceedings for those who don't turn up). But it's wrong to suggest that the law is fundamentally ineffective; it works in other countries and there's no reason it can't work here.

But at present, unless they change it, there is no compulsion to have to cross a picket line. They cannot discipline you for refusing to cross one. As far as I can see this waste of time bill doesn't address that fundamental factor, making it about as useful as a chocolate teapot ! But with this current Gov is anyone surprised??!!!

 

[Watershed]

But at present, unless they change it, there is no compulsion to have to cross a picket line. They cannot discipline you for refusing to cross one. As far as I can see this waste of time bill doesn't address that fundamental factor, making it about as useful as a chocolate teapot ! But with this current Gov is anyone surprised??!!!

This is quite simply a myth. Refusing to cross a picket line constitutes strike action in just the same way as those who are "officially" on strike.

There is already no legal protection against refusing to cross a picket line - unless the underlying requirements for going on strike are already met - so this Bill doesn't need to change anything to be effective.

It would do the unions a world of good if they dispelled some of these myths amongst their members. Perhaps they would then be able to challenge this legislation more effectively.

 

[greatkingrat]

At the moment you are only protected from dismissal due to industrial action for 12 weeks. The current disputes have gone on for much longer than that and therefore anyone striking can already be dismissed in theory. So the new legislation doesn't actually change anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if they had an otherwise clean sickness record, they could just say that they have D&V and stay off for 48 hrs?

Were that to be found out (and I don't doubt that in a strike situation it would be investigated for possible patterns) then it would mean the sack, and quite rightly so. "Pulling a sickie" is unacceptable. This is a very high risk strategy.

 

[185]

protected from dismissal due to industrial action for 12 weeks

Is that for a permanent, all-out walkout for 12 weeks, or the occasional strike day on one or two occasions within those 12 weeks?

 

[dk1]

This has been discussed at length in previous threads about the MSL Bill (now Act).

Nobody is going to be physically dragged into work, but those who've been told to turn up - yet refuse or fail to do so - will be in the same legal position as if they were bunking off on any other day.

Obviously it's up to individual TOCs/employers as to whether they decide to apply the new legal position (i.e. beginning disciplinary proceedings for those who don't turn up). But it's wrong to suggest that the law is fundamentally ineffective; it works in other countries and there's no reason it can't work here.

Yes, this one will go round and round in circles until we are all dizzy

 

[Thirteen]

I know Labour has promised to scrap recent anti union laws but I can't help but think that some of the more reasonable changes like the notice period being two weeks will be kept. Things like solidarity strikes being illegal I suspect won't be repealed.

 

[Train_manager]

You would not a sick/fit note. Easily done

Self-certification for 7 days. Simple

This is quite simply a myth. Refusing to cross a picket line constitutes strike action in just the same way as those who are "officially" on strike.

There is already no legal protection against refusing to cross a picket line - unless the underlying requirements for going on strike are already met - so this Bill doesn't need to change anything to be effective.

It would do the unions a world of good if they dispelled some of these myths amongst their members. Perhaps they would then be able to challenge this legislation more effectively.

Not 100% correct regarding the current strike laws.

A quote from the Tory website.

Industrial action by non-union members​

Non-union members who take part in legal, official industrial action have the same rights as union members not to be dismissed as a result of taking action.

Were that to be found out (and I don't doubt that in a strike situation it would be investigated for possible patterns) then it would mean the sack, and quite rightly so. "Pulling a sickie" is unacceptable. This is a very high risk strategy.

What? Sack the whole workforce?

 

[Carlisle]

Things like solidarity strikes being illegal I suspect won't be repealed.

Solidarity strikes were outlawed by Thatcher in the mid 80s weren’t they?
If so we’ve already had 13 years of New Labour to reverse that one if they’d wanted .

 

[riceuten]

If this doesn't work, the government will legislate to ban strikes in certain sectors, I'm convinced. This is the sort of policy that plays well with a certain type of voter - the same type of voter who says "sack them all", given that we have thousands of unemployed train and bus drivers sitting around just itching to get to work on much worse terms and conditions


Oh.

 

[Krokodil]

Were that to be found out (and I don't doubt that in a strike situation it would be investigated for possible patterns) then it would mean the sack, and quite rightly so. "Pulling a sickie" is unacceptable. This is a very high risk strategy.

While the timing would be suspicious, surely it's no more unacceptable than pulling a sickie on any other day of the year. It's prevalent in many parts of the public sector (local authorities often have very weak management for example). D&V is short enough to self-certify and I included reference to an otherwise clean AMS record for a reason.

During the Network Rail strikes there were a couple of signal boxes that closed the day before due to "staff sickness". Some boxes were known to be short of staff anyway but it does make you wonder whether by going sick before the strike (but not returning to work until after) they avoided the same scrutiny.

It's not something I'd ever do (in five years I've only used one sick day, and that was because my first covid jab knocked me for six) but I could see it happening.

 

[irish_rail]

While the timing would be suspicious, surely it's no more unacceptable than pulling a sickie on any other day of the year. It's prevalent in many parts of the public sector (local authorities often have very weak management for example). D&V is short enough to self-certify and I included reference to an otherwise clean AMS record for a reason.

During the Network Rail strikes there were a couple of signal boxes that closed the day before due to "staff sickness". Some boxes were known to be short of staff anyway but it does make you wonder whether by going sick before the strike (but not returning to work until after) they avoided the same scrutiny.

It's not something I'd ever do (in five years I've only used one sick day, and that was because my first covid jab knocked me for six) but I could see it happening.

Thats a good point. Members won't risk going sick on strike day, they will do it a day or two before in order to avoid suspicion I suspect. So expect then a disrupted service due to train crew shortages for a couple of days either side of strike day!! Doh! Tories really haven't thought this through have they.

 

[Thirteen]

Solidarity strikes were outlawed by Thatcher in the mid 80s weren’t they?
If so we’ve already had 13 years of New Labour to reverse that one if they’d wanted .

Solidarity Strikes are illegal in a lot of countries or at least severely restricted IIRC Anyone hoping that Labour would repeal all trade union or strike laws once elected are naive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While the timing would be suspicious, surely it's no more unacceptable than pulling a sickie on any other day of the year.

I think wilfully taking a sickie as unofficial industrial action is without doubt worse than the more traditional version, i.e. having an unplanned heavy night and realising you'd not be fit to perform a safety critical role. The former is downright fraudulent (particularly as it'd be paid), the latter is a much less serious mistruth being told because you've made a silly decision and want it not to cost you your job.

Neither is good, of course.

 

[ComUtoR]

Just get signed off with stress. Being 'forced' to work and the pressure of crossing the picket and indeed feeling the need to strike would be a legitimate reason for stress

 

[Annetts key]

Ultimately, if it is skilled workers that are not easy to replace that are taking industrial action, the law becomes almost irrelevant. If the company dismisses employees, they will be short staffed and will further anger those that remain. Thus there is likely to be more industrial action. And it will be increasingly difficult for the company to run a normal service on non-strike days, let alone run any kind of sensible service on strike days.

Further, if the staff levels fall, then unofficial action could be taken. No law can protect against a sudden unofficial walkout.

Remember, in our past, taking any industrial action was illegal.