Friday, January 06, 2023
Prime Minister flailing in face of crisis
It is beginning to look as if this Tory government will do anything to avoid negotiating properly with essential frontline workers like nurses, junior doctors and ambulance drivers. Instead they are relying on a forlorn hope that the public mood will turn against the strikers.
But what do they hope to achieve by introducing even more draconian anti-strike laws? Effectively decreeing that people cannot legally withdraw their labour is only going to garner more sympathy for those who wish to do so, especially when their cause is a just one, and is perceived as just by the public.
According to the Guardian, Rishi Sunak’s is now threatening new anti-strike legislation to enforce “minimum service levels” in key public sectors including the NHS and schools. Predictably these proposals have drawn a furious reaction from unions as the prime minister scrambles to get a grip on industrial disputes.
The paper says that the law, which the government plans to introduce in the coming weeks, will allow bosses in health, education, fire, ambulance, rail and nuclear commissioning to sue unions and sack employees if minimum levels are not met.
But what do they hope to achieve by introducing even more draconian anti-strike laws? Effectively decreeing that people cannot legally withdraw their labour is only going to garner more sympathy for those who wish to do so, especially when their cause is a just one, and is perceived as just by the public.
According to the Guardian, Rishi Sunak’s is now threatening new anti-strike legislation to enforce “minimum service levels” in key public sectors including the NHS and schools. Predictably these proposals have drawn a furious reaction from unions as the prime minister scrambles to get a grip on industrial disputes.
The paper says that the law, which the government plans to introduce in the coming weeks, will allow bosses in health, education, fire, ambulance, rail and nuclear commissioning to sue unions and sack employees if minimum levels are not met.
What is not mentioned is how ministers plan to replace the staff who are sacked when it can take years to train up medical professionals, many of whom can make more money working for an agency than for the NHS. None of the UK governments have a good track record on workforce planning:
Under the plans, first proposed by Liz Truss’s government, minimum service levels will be set for fire, ambulance and rail services, with the government consulting on the adequate level of coverage for these sectors, to address concerns that disruption to blue-light services puts lives at risk.
However, it will also reserve the power to impose minimum service levels in the other three public services – health, education, nuclear – although ministers expect to reach voluntary agreements in these areas and say they would only impose the anti-strike law if this were not possible.
Government sources confirmed that union members who were told by their employers to work under the minimum service requirement but refused to do so could lose their jobs. The new law will also back employers bringing an injunction to prevent strikes or seeking damages afterwards if they go ahead.
The Guardian has learned that even the government has admitted its approach of using minimum service levels to curb strikes could backfire. In an impact assessment published last year, the transport department said the move could push unions into striking more frequently as a way to put pressure on employers.
The same document also warned that it could lead to workers taking more non-strike industrial action, such as refusing to work overtime, which could still cripple certain industries.
Ministers claim the plans are about ensuring public safety, in the case of the health service, rather than attacking the unions.
However, nurses came to their own national agreement about providing a minimum level of service during recent strikes. The ambulance service did not, meaning some patients suffering a heart attack or a stroke did not know there was help on the way.
Guaranteeing safe staffing on every day of the year, not just strike days, and paying staff a decent wage would of course be welcome and would have huge public support, but this legislation is not about that. Instead the government is risking more confrontation in key services, while effectively legislating to undermine democratic rights. This government is becoming a dictatorship by statute.
Under the plans, first proposed by Liz Truss’s government, minimum service levels will be set for fire, ambulance and rail services, with the government consulting on the adequate level of coverage for these sectors, to address concerns that disruption to blue-light services puts lives at risk.
However, it will also reserve the power to impose minimum service levels in the other three public services – health, education, nuclear – although ministers expect to reach voluntary agreements in these areas and say they would only impose the anti-strike law if this were not possible.
Government sources confirmed that union members who were told by their employers to work under the minimum service requirement but refused to do so could lose their jobs. The new law will also back employers bringing an injunction to prevent strikes or seeking damages afterwards if they go ahead.
The Guardian has learned that even the government has admitted its approach of using minimum service levels to curb strikes could backfire. In an impact assessment published last year, the transport department said the move could push unions into striking more frequently as a way to put pressure on employers.
The same document also warned that it could lead to workers taking more non-strike industrial action, such as refusing to work overtime, which could still cripple certain industries.
Ministers claim the plans are about ensuring public safety, in the case of the health service, rather than attacking the unions.
However, nurses came to their own national agreement about providing a minimum level of service during recent strikes. The ambulance service did not, meaning some patients suffering a heart attack or a stroke did not know there was help on the way.
Guaranteeing safe staffing on every day of the year, not just strike days, and paying staff a decent wage would of course be welcome and would have huge public support, but this legislation is not about that. Instead the government is risking more confrontation in key services, while effectively legislating to undermine democratic rights. This government is becoming a dictatorship by statute.
Comments:
<< Home
The idea seems to be to replace sacked strikers with agency workers. However, "People Management" reports:
Arguments on human rights grounds have already been raised towards an earlier Government repeal of a law banning agency workers from covering strikes in July last year.
The High Court has since granted permission for 11 trade unions to launch a legal challenge against these regulations, which is expected to be heard in March this year.
Unions claimed the repeal was unlawful as the government failed to consult with them, breaching the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and a violation of the trade union rights – protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which protects the right to form and join a union.
Post a Comment
Arguments on human rights grounds have already been raised towards an earlier Government repeal of a law banning agency workers from covering strikes in July last year.
The High Court has since granted permission for 11 trade unions to launch a legal challenge against these regulations, which is expected to be heard in March this year.
Unions claimed the repeal was unlawful as the government failed to consult with them, breaching the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and a violation of the trade union rights – protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which protects the right to form and join a union.
<< Home
