Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

[fowler9]

Unions have fallen out of favour with people because people are in general lazy and believe everything they read in the press. I am a union member even though my company is not unionised. I had a spot of bother once and had cause to tell them I was bringing a Union rep in, they bricked it and backed down. ACAS are also very handy. More and more employers are scr*wing their employees these days and the employees just assume that the employer couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong, especially in disciplinary situations.

 

[Busaholic]

It's not only some small firms which don't recognise trade unions. Iceland Food Stores don't do so, for instance.

 

[DarloRich]

I hesitate to comment on these kind of threads as they are simply a sounding board for all kinds of prejudice and ill conceived silliness based on outdated preconceptions.

I will simply say people tend to understand the benefit of some union support when they are being kicked in the balls. it might not have happened to you yet but it will. No matter how great many of you think you are, no matter how great many of you think you are at your jobs or how good your relationship with your managers is the simple fact of life is that someone will, at some point, try to screw you.

When that happens it is amazing the number of people who want union help. Some of the most vociferous in demanding help are those who were the most vociferous in opposition. Odd that.

People above have indicated that employment rights are enshrined in law. They are. But try to enforce your rights against an employer on your own. Try bringing a claim at the ET out of your own pocket within 3 months of the employment issue arising, try getting your paternity leave or your flexible working or your reasonable adjustments then when they are refused try the same question again with support.

But yeah unions are bar stewards sorting out all those HR issues and problems.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

It's not only some small firms which don't recognise trade unions. Iceland Food Stores don't do so, for instance.

Union Recognition by an employer is not the be all and end all that some make it out to be.

what it means is that the the organisation doesn't immediately look to the recognised unions with regard to pay rounds or variations to TaCoS and doesn't engage thje unions in collective bargaining ( it may well instead use it's own staff side structures and 'staff council' etc )

It means that 'facility time' is much reduced if at all for reps

Unions can still actively recruit ( although they probably won't get timetabled time in induction / training and facility time for the rep to do that presentation ) and cannot be prevented from so,

Unions can still represent members in discips and grievences and cannot be prevented from doing so


there are only two places in the UK where Unions are prohibited from operating

1. with regard to Holders of the Office of Constable of whatever rank ( as it's only the fed/ supers assn / replacement for acpo that are allowed) - police staff including comms staff, PCSOs and DDOs are allowed to members of unions.
2. Military personnel on regular / mobilised terms of engagement

the ban on unions in GCHQ was overturned in the mid 1980s at a time when the folklore of the left will tell you the UK was at it's most anti union.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unions have fallen out of favour with people because people are in general lazy and believe everything they read in the press. I am a union member even though my company is not unionised. I had a spot of bother once and had cause to tell them I was bringing a Union rep in, they bricked it and backed down. ACAS are also very handy. More and more employers are scr*wing their employees these days and the employees just assume that the employer couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong, especially in disciplinary situations.

exactly

having a proper trained and accredited Union Rep or FTO at a hearing means the company has to get it's case right and the t's dotted and i's crossed if it stands any chance of making it stick...

It also means that the 'prosecution' will have their case properly examined and tested by the rep ( whether the rep acts as advocate or in a mckenzie friend type role )

 

[Phil.]

You keep saying this.

The RMT made many suggestions, including adopting the Ticket Examiner position as used in Scotland. GTR rejected it, and responded by taking the car park passes off anyone who disagreed with them.

Guards can be "done without", which isn't the same thing as should be done without. Most jobs- including yours, I would wager- are not as indispensable as the holder would want.

Well I'm retired now but the last job that I did has now been changed so much that it has virtually disappeared with the major part taken over by lower paid staff. I left at 61 jumping before I was pushed.

What is "progressive change"?

So far as I can tell, it is only ever used as a euphemism for either reducing the workforce or reducing what they are paid.

Where there is change that is beneficial to staff- more flexible working, say- change is not opposed. However it is very rare that any change that is described as "progressive" is anything of the sort. It means downsizing or it means getting paid less money for doing more work.

I'm not aware of any "computer programmers" who demand we all go back to the days of the ZX Spectrum and webpage loading speeds you can use to time boiling an egg. But if they're employed as website engineers, for instance, they would quite like to keep working on websites rather than being moved to the call centre down the road for "better customer service".

As I said in response to Phil, just because something can be done doesn't mean something should be done.

But if "they" can "they" will.

 

[notadriver]

The most recent analysis of trade union membership comes from 2015. People in trade unions earn more money than people who are not in trade unions. The longer you have been in service, and the older you are, the most likely you are to be in a trade union. People in the public sector are much more likely to be in a trade union, and people in the north are more likely to be in a union than people in the south east and in London. Very low earners and very high earners are much less likely to be in a union. Temporary staff are half as likely to be in a union. Women and disabled people are more likely to be in a union.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...on_Membership_2015_-_Statistical_Bulletin.pdf

It's interesting seeing which sectors see high union membership and which sectors see low membership. Accommodation and food service sees membership at about 2%. This is probably the most volatile of all the sectors, with the use of zero hours contracts, repeated outsourcing and subcontracting, and immigrant labour the highest.

People in volatile and short-term employment won't be in a union, because they can't afford to be and because their employers won't recognise them even if they are.

People in high value employment won't be in a union because they won't need to be, or because they're in senior management positions where it would be much more difficult to be unionised.

Younger people won't be in a union because they take the rules for granted, and are less likely to be treated badly in employment.

That's a very interesting post. Can high value employment be defined in this instance please ?

Thinking about unionization and jobs - Coach drivers are generally not in unions. The pay is poor, work isn't guaranteed and often flat daily rates of pay and the boss can seemingly hire and fire at will. Of course this is no different from many other zero hour employment sectors but is coach driving seen as low value employment ?

Then you have middle management jobs - I'm going to use the example of transport manager of a medium sized company. Definitely not unionized. Why is this ? Because it's a high valued job ? How about train drivers ? They earn more than even a typical road transport manager. Is that only because they are unionized ?

And then there's my friend who is a senior sales consultant / technical expert at a software company. His salary is north of 70k but definitely not unionized.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't know perhaps it's Nurses and Paramedics being able to directly admit patients , or Pharmacists and Nurses being able to write / modify prescriptions if they have demonstrated competence to do so ...

I'm not aware of these types of changes in the healthcare profession being objected to, which is basically my point. Where changes are for the benefit of the organisation and the benefit of the workforce, they will be agreed to. Where they are not, where they are for the benefit of the management, they will not be agreed to.

Flexible working in the NHS is largely agreed with. The only time objections get raised is when the motivation is about de-skilling a particular role, or where the changes (e.g. the junior doctors' contracts) is about shafting a segment of the workforce for political gain.

You won't see many doctors and nurses railing against nurse practitioners, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a very interesting post. Can high value employment be defined in this instance please ?

In this case, it is defined on salary bands. Value as in income, not value as in worthiness.

People earning less than £250 a week and more than £1000 a week are much less likely to be in a trade union. The logical interpretation from this is that low earners can't afford it and high earners are in roles which don't have it.

I would hypothesise that many coach drivers are not in unions because the work is often piecemeal and most coach companies are small operators. I'd be interested whether the workforce at bigger coach companies are more likely to be unionised, because I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[northwichcat]

9 - depends on the circumstances and also if a Equality Act 'safe' job evaluation scheme is in place - when you weill be part of a wider pool of people in your grade / pay band / work level

10 - an insurance payout isn't continued employment after redeployment though is it ...

Smaller companies generally don't have pay bands/grades. The biggest problem I've found with small companies is they ensure new roles are advertised at an attractive rate to ensure they get someone good in but the existing employees don't always get pay rises to ensure their pay remains attractive. I admit I don't know the terms of all unions but I have looked at what Prospect (who would be the most relevant union for myself to join) would do in such circumstances and the short answer is they can't do much.

You don't need to be a union member to get TUPEd across to a new role/company and most of the time companies do use TUPE as they don't want to have to make a redundancy payment when they aren't getting rid of you.

The insurance option can be a better option if you're worried about something like your home getting repossessed as the insurance payouts can continue for a few months after you've been made redundant. If your employer is getting rid of your department or if work in your department has evaporated and there are no vacancies in other departments then you're going to get made redundant whether you're in a union or not, the union can help you with the redundancy process but can't prevent it happening.

Unfortunately, one issue that can come up is some employers don't properly pay employees for occasional small amounts of overtime. However, the amount of overtime pay due can finish up being less than what the union membership would cost so people don't see it as value for money even though a union can do something about it.

 

[DarloRich]

Smaller companies generally don't have pay bands/grades. The biggest problem I've found with small companies is they ensure new roles are advertised at an attractive rate to ensure they get someone good in but the existing employees don't always get pay rises to ensure their pay remains attractive. I admit I don't know the terms of all unions but I have looked at what Prospect (who would be the most relevant union for myself to join) would do in such circumstances and the short answer is they can't do much.

That happens in every business! New people get a better rate than time servers even with year on year compounding. The union can try and get fair pay windows/levels/bands agreed & made transparent

You don't need to be a union member to get TUPEd across to a new role/company and most of the time companies do use TUPE as they don't want to have to make a redundancy payment when they aren't getting rid of you.

Correct - however your union might help you get better long term treatment such as protecting your TUPED T&C r

The insurance option can be a better option if you're worried about something like your home getting repossessed as the insurance payouts can continue for a few months after you've been made redundant. If your employer is getting rid of your department or if work in your department has evaporated and there are no vacancies in other departments then you're going to get made redundant whether you're in a union or not, the union can help you with the redundancy process but can't prevent it happening.

The problem with any insurance is they often wont pay out. Your union often can negotiate enhanced redundancy payments to help those who want to leave get out of a business rather than forcing those who want to stay out.

Correct - they cant stop you being made redundant. They can help make it less painful and help to reduce the chance as much as possible. Your union can often negotiate fairer treatment for those facing redundancy such as immediate selection for internal vacancies, closed lists for displaced people, training for new skills etc

Unfortunately, one issue that can come up is some employers don't properly pay employees for occasional small amounts of overtime. However, the amount of overtime pay due can finish up being less than what the union membership would cost so people don't see it as value for money even though a union can do something about it.

They will when they get screwed over and they want support in presenting their case to managers or support to approach the industrial tribunal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would hypothesise that many coach drivers are not in unions because the work is often piecemeal and most coach companies are small operators. I'd be interested whether the workforce at bigger coach companies are more likely to be unionised, because I don't know the answer to that one.

I would say yes due to hold over agreements from times past.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hesitate to comment on these kind of threads as they are simply a sounding board for all kinds of prejudice and ill conceived silliness based on outdated preconceptions.

Well then, the trades unions have only themselves to blame for their image that remains ingrained in the minds of those who were adults in the 1970s, which was a period when it seemed to many that the unions wanted to run the country. "As you sow, so shall you reap"

The RMT, the union that decided that the Labour Party was too moderate and the union that encouraged a "Brexit" view, with their now-famous press releases seem to look to a return to that period and other unions who have a 21st century view of life must be in utter despair at being "tarred with the same brush" as the RMT.

 

[DarloRich]

Well then, the trades unions have only themselves to blame for their image that remains ingrained in the minds of those who were adults in the 1970s, which was a period when it seemed to many that the unions wanted to run the country. "As you sow, so shall you reap"

The RMT, the union that decided that the Labour Party was too moderate and the union that encouraged a "Brexit" view, with their now-famous press releases seem to look to a return to that period and other unions who have a 21st century view of life must be in utter despair at being "tarred with the same brush" as the RMT.

Paul - if I may you are an exemplar of the problem. Your views are based on what may have been true on 1976 not 2016. You aren't prepared to reconsider them in light of actual evidence and nor are you comfortable having those views questioned or challenged.

You views would be the same as me, having been treated badly by a couple of senior managers over the years, deciding all senior mangers are lying, slimy, duplicitous scum bags out to screw over people below them in order feather their nest, feed their naked ambition and most importantly maintain their position at your expense.

Whilst that may be true of some of the people I have personally encountered (and I have been treated very badly by some managers!) it is preposterous to suggest that definition applies to everyone in those positions when it manifestly does not. It is silly to tar all with the same brush.

The point is entrenched views and closed minds are difficult to change on all sides!

PS RMT =:roll: They just do not understand the PR game

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well then, the trades unions have only themselves to blame for their image that remains ingrained in the minds of those who were adults in the 1970s

The 1970s were long before most people of working age were born, never mind fully grown adults working in the 1970s. Most trade union leaders were not adults in the 1970s- Mick Cash, leader of the RMT, only turned 18 during the Winter of Discontent- and had nothing to do with what happened then.

My parents- both of whom have just retired- were newlyweds at the time. The late 70s encouraged them to emigrate to Australia- much to my benefit- but even I am five years younger than the Winter of Discontent.

It is ancient history you got to live through, but it is ancient history.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Paul - if I may you are an exemplar of the problem. Your views are based on what may have been true on 1976 not 2016. You aren't prepared to reconsider them in light of actual evidence and nor are you comfortable having those views questioned or challenged.

Y

Except of course the rhetoric from Unison, Unite, RMT , FBU and from Momentum is exactly the kind of stuff that was said in the 1970s same as the same tired tropes about thatcher and/or the third reich ( which given the statist and authoritarian views of tradional Labour, Blairite new Labour and the trades unions ... is somewhat ironic)

 

[DarloRich]

except of course the rhetoric from Unison. Unite, RMT , FBU and from Momentum is exactly the kind of stuff that was said in the 1970s same as the same tired tropes aobut thatcher and/or the third reich ( which given the statist and authoritarian views of tradional Labour, Blairtie new Labour and the trades unions ... is somewhat ironic)

I am not sure what you are trying to say as much of the post borders on incoherence! I should also point out that Momentum is not a Trades Union.

What is often missed by people like you is the disconnect between the work of the local reps in dealing with member issues on the ground and the political activities/stance of the union leaders.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I am not sure what you are trying to say as much of the post borders on incoherence! I should also point out that Momentum is not a Trades Union.

What is often missed by people like you is the disconnect between the work of the local reps in dealing with member issues on the ground and the political activities/stance of the union leaders.

do you suffer from SPLD ? as you seem to attack individuals or the exact way they writee something rather than addressing the issues.


I know full well that Momentum is not a Trades Union but it attracts the same kind of delusionals that the 'radical left' trades unions do in terms of Entryism and time, money and effort spent on issues that are arguably outwith the remit of Trades Unions.

the disconnect between casework being done by reps and FTOs at branch and region and the effluence spewing forth from the mouths of the leadership when their snouts are momentarily removed from the trough is the one of the reasons why the Trades Unions need to reign their power grabs in as the effluence emitted by the failed politicians in National posts is in danger of drowning the reps and FTOs at branch/ region.

Trades unions and professional representative Associations are by their nature Political , however they should not be Party Political and should respect the democratic will of the people ...

 

[DarloRich]

do you suffer from SPLD ? as you seem to attack individuals or the exact way they writee something rather than addressing the issues.

If you were able to address your points in a clear and logical fashion it might be easier to follow them! I still have no idea what you are on about.

I know full well that Momentum is not a Trades Union but it attracts the same kind of delusionals that the 'radical left' trades unions do in terms of Entryism and time, money and effort spent on issues that are arguably outwith the remit of Trades Unions.

So now anyone involved in a trades union is some kind of radical left nut job? Also if you know it isn't a trades union why bring it up? Is it your view that trade unions have been taken over by some kind of subversive radical leftists hell bent on fostering anarchy in the Uk?

the disconnect between casework being done by reps and FTOs at branch and region and the effluence spewing forth from the mouths of the leadership when their snouts are momentarily removed from the trough is the one of the reasons why the Trades Unions need to reign their power grabs in as the effluence emitted by the failed politicians in National posts is in danger of drowning the reps and FTOs at branch/ region.

I can almost see the foaming at the mouth! So your general point is that the union should know their place and not dare to venture an opinion on anything, especially not anything favoured by the Conservative Party? That seems democratic.

Trades unions and professional representative Associations are by their nature Political , however they should not be Party Political and should respect the democratic will of the people ...

Odd that because I don't ever recall being asked to subvert the democratic process during my time as a union member. If anything my union is more democratic than the wider world seeing as we get a vote on everything!

I have been asked to support all kinds of causes from injured veterans & homeless in the UK via starving children in Africa to destitute transport people in Bolivia but sadly no one has asked me to support armed revolution to overthrow the elected government. Yet.

I assume, therefore, that anyone daring to critisie government policy is not respecting the democratic will of the people. That sounds very similar to what I think you accuse the unions of doing! Should Labour come to power I hope you will be silent about things you don't like. You wouldn't want to undermine the democratic will of the people now would you

 

[CarlSilva]

Unions are sometimes in direct opposition to the political party in power. Thsi depends on what party it is, but it's fashionable for goverment to demonise the unions, take thatcher as an example. You could say unions are this week's pit bulls. Next week, next month, it'll be single mothers again, foreigners, or Jimmy savile. Propaganda takes no account of who's right or wrong.

 

[Johnuk123]

Should Labour come to power I hope you will be silent about things you don't like. You wouldn't want to undermine the democratic will of the people now would you

Even the schoolchildren on here will probably have departed this world by then.

 

[DarloRich]

Even the schoolchildren on here will probably have departed this world by then.

sadly you may be right. Don't worry though the unions will have destroyed the democratic process by then!

 

[AnonymousUser1]

If you were able to address your points in a clear and logical fashion it might be easier to follow them! I still have no idea what you are on about.

Your self -admitted ignorance while espousing an 'expert' opinion on the subject is not not my concern, however your admission provides suitable warnign for other readers of the thread

So now anyone involved in a trades union is some kind of radical left nut job? Also if you know it isn't a trades union why bring it up? Is it your view that trade unions have been taken over by some kind of subversive radical leftists hell bent on fostering anarchy in the Uk?

some stunning jumps of logic here , hence my previous question aobut SPLD.

however what momentum and some of the Unions share is an entryist attitude towards to Labour party

the radical left is a problem in many affiliated Trades Unions , however not all trade unionists are radical left and certainly not all members of Unions are radical left ... rather than broad left or afraid to express their party politics for fear of being labelled 'fair game' by the C Org ...

I can almost see the foaming at the mouth! So your general point is that the union should know their place and not dare to venture an opinion on anything, especially not anything favoured by the Conservative Party? That seems democratic.

you are not helping your position here

Odd that because I don't ever recall being asked to subvert the democratic process during my time as a union member. If anything my union is more democratic than the wider world seeing as we get a vote on everything!

the vast majority of strikes being threatened by Unions especially in the public secotr are drawn on party political lines , although carefully hidden by an illusion public safety by the deployment of the Formation Shroud waving teams ... ( interestingly the formation shroud wavign teams from Unison may in fact be creating a potential Fitness to Practice referral - when arguing against Service reconfiguration given the evidence base supproting Major Trauma centres , Primary PCI and hyperacute stroke units ...

<snip>

I assume, therefore, that anyone daring to critisie government policy is not respecting the democratic will of the people. That sounds very similar to what I think you accuse the unions of doing! Should Labour come to power I hope you will be silent about things you don't like. You wouldn't want to undermine the democratic will of the people now would you

wah wah wah i'm going to disrupt services for thousands to millions of people becasue i don't like my employer changign who pushes a button / is taking our beds away / wants to change working practices which are 40 + years out of date ...

 

[DarloRich]

EDIT - it isn't worth it You go a long way to prove the position set out in my initial posting.

Also please consider a spelling and grammar advisor on your computer. They are really helpful! I know they are to me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unions are sometimes in direct opposition to the political party in power. Thsi depends on what party it is, but it's fashionable for goverment to demonise the unions, take thatcher as an example. You could say unions are this week's pit bulls. Next week, next month, it'll be single mothers again, foreigners, or Jimmy savile. Propaganda takes no account of who's right or wrong.

It is the electorate whose votes decide which political party will be in power. The electorate have no say whatsoever in deciding the power structure of the trades unions. So when the trades unions decide to take on the elected government, rather than the companies that employ the staff that they represent, are they not acting as an unelected form of political opposition?

Governments seem hidebound in their attempts to deal with such unelected opposition these days. Oliver Cromwell had no such qualms in dealing with the dissenting Levellers.

 

[northwichcat]

It is the electorate whose votes decide which political party will be in power. The electorate have no say whatsoever in deciding the power structure of the trades unions. So when the trades unions decide to take on the elected government, rather than the companies that employ the staff that they represent, are they not acting as an unelected form of political opposition?

Governments seem hidebound in their attempts to deal with such unelected opposition these days. Oliver Cromwell had no such qualms in dealing with the dissenting Levellers.

2015 - 63.1% of voters did not vote for a Conservative government and some of those that did want a new election now the party has a different leader and a different policy on Europe.
2010 - A Conservative + Lib Dem coalition wasn't an option on the ballot paper even if 56.1% of voters voted for one of those two parties.
2005 - 64.8% of voters did not vote for a Labour government and again some of those that did wanted a new election when the party leader changed.

The Conservatives blocked an attempt by the Lib Dems for the House of Lords to be reformed but were angry when the unelected House of Lords blocked a controversial policy which George Osborne wanted to implement. They also found an unelected role for Esther McVey when the voters decided not to re-elect her.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

2015 - 63.1% of voters did not vote for a Conservative government and some of those that did want a new election now the party has a different leader and a different policy on Europe.
2010 - A Conservative + Lib Dem coalition wasn't an option on the ballot paper even if 56.1% of voters voted for one of those two parties.
2005 - 64.8% of voters did not vote for a Labour government and again some of those that did wanted a new election when the party leader changed.

The Conservatives blocked an attempt by the Lib Dems for the House of Lords to be reformed but were angry when the unelected House of Lords blocked a controversial policy which George Osborne wanted to implement. They also found an unelected role for Esther McVey when the voters decided not to re-elect her.

Whether you like it or not, it was the number of seats gained, not the percentage of votes cast, that returned a Conservative government to power.

 

[JamesTT]

My OP was based on something I read about minimum wage. Sorry I don't have a link to the source. It said something along the lines of there is no minimum wage in some scandavian countries because of the trade union movement over there. Maybe I am totally wrong but I have extrapolated from this that. The union movement has greater support in these countries. Does anyone know if this is true and how does it compare to the support of unions in the UK in 2016

 

[northwichcat]

Whether you like it or not, it was the number of seats gained, not the percentage of votes cast, that returned a Conservative government to power.

You don't seem keen on discussing the point that the Conservatives were against reforming the unelected House of Lords until they blocked one of George Osborne's key policies.

Are you as in favour of reducing the influence of the House of Lords as much as unions?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Whether you like it or not, it was the number of seats gained, not the percentage of votes cast, that returned a Conservative government to power.

And whether you like or not, the fact that the Conservatives have absolute power despite nearly 2/3 of those who voted at the last election choosing not to vote for them, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, remotely democratic.

It is the electorate whose votes decide which political party will be in power. The electorate have no say whatsoever in deciding the power structure of the trades unions. So when the trades unions decide to take on the elected government, rather than the companies that employ the staff that they represent, are they not acting as an unelected form of political opposition?

What do you mean by 'take on'? We are presumably talking about 2016 here, not 1974, when arguably many trades unions were engaged in questionable political activities - but I would hope your views are based on the UK today, not the UK 40 years ago.

In recent years, as far as I'm aware, the only political activity the trades unions have been involved in to any significant extent has involved campaigning publically (and presumably some private lobbying) against aspects of Government policy in the hope of changing the Governments' mind, and donating money to other political groups. That's no different in principle from what thousands of charities, pressure groups, commercial organizations, and ordinary invididuals do every day, and it's surely a vital part of our democracy that organizations and individuals with concerns can campaign and lobby on those concerns.

Do you regard it as undemocratic for anyone to campaign against the Government, or only when the organization doing so happens to be a trades union?

 

[fowler9]

This all seems to have gone haywire. Is there anyone here who doesn't think that independent representation for a worker may be a good thing?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Whether you like it or not, it was the number of seats gained, not the percentage of votes cast, that returned a Conservative government to power.

exactly

and Her Majesty's loyal opposition have gained their seats by public vote as well ...

vs the Unions manufacturering reasons to take industrial action for party politicla reaons ...

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree strongly with some recent actions of some unions. However I do think the democratic mandate they are forced by legislation to obtain for strike ballots is far more robust than that of the governments that created that legislation.