Minimum service agreements setting strike limits

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Birmingham Live

A new law is planned to reduce disruption to passengers caused by rail strikes, with the threat of injunctions against unions.

Under the legislation, so-called minimum service agreements will set out minimum services to be provided during walkouts by railway workers.

Any strike will be unlawful unless a minimum service agreement is in place, and if it is not honoured, a strike shall be unlawful and injunctions or damages may be sought against unions.

The Government said the aim of the legislation was to reduce disruption caused to passengers during rail strikes, while preserving workers' right to take industrial action.

The move would also allow railway companies to plan services more effectively, well in advance of any action, said the Government.

Outlining the measures in the Queen's Speech, the Government said: "We will consult on how best to implement this in a proportionate way, including ensuring that sanctions are not directed at individual workers, and how this would interact with the wider industrial relations framework."

The move was announced as members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)) on South Western Railway (SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)) took their 17th day of strike action since the start of the month in the bitter row over the role of guards on trains.

[grahame]

From ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about)

ASLEF utterly condemns the Grant Shapps plan - revealed in the Queen's speech at the state opening of Parliament this morning - to curtail the right of train drivers, and other railway workers, to take industrial action.
 
Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, the train drivers' union, said: "The right to strike is a fundamental human right, recognized in every democracy in the free world. To try and curtail our right to take industrial action, as outlined today, is not just an abuse of our rights as citizens of a free and democratic country, it is something I know the employers in our industry don't want, either.
 
"Because this law, if it is passed, will only worsen, and not improve, industrial relations in our industry. That is why, privately, employers say it is a stupid idea by a new government that has no idea of how to run a railway."

[TaplowGreen]

From ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about)

ASLEF utterly condemns the Grant Shapps plan - revealed in the Queen's speech at the state opening of Parliament this morning - to curtail the right of train drivers, and other railway workers, to take industrial action.
 
Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, the train drivers' union, said: "The right to strike is a fundamental human right, recognized in every democracy in the free world. To try and curtail our right to take industrial action, as outlined today, is not just an abuse of our rights as citizens of a free and democratic country, it is something I know the employers in our industry don't want, either.
 
"Because this law, if it is passed, will only worsen, and not improve, industrial relations in our industry. That is why, privately, employers say it is a stupid idea by a new government that has no idea of how to run a railway."

Brass neck.

[GBM]

So the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s could take guards/TM^▸ (Train Manager, or possibly Ticket Machine, depending on context) off all services completely, and make all services DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).
Outsource everything except (or including) drivers.
Really?

Yes, I've been a union member for all my working life, and encourage every new person entering whatever profession I've been in to join that union.
There are many things I disagree with in unions, but I would never be without them.

[CyclingSid]

After the end of January not something that can be tested against European Human Rights?

[Oxonhutch]

After the end of January not something that can be tested against European Human Rights?

European Court of Human Rights is a product of the Council of Europe and was set up after World War II with a significant amount of input by British jurists. It predates the EU^» (European Union - about), and it predecessors, and its area of jurisdiction will be just the same in February as it is now.

[mjones]

European Court of Human Rights is a product of the Council of Europe and was set up after World War II with a significant amount of input by British jurists. It predates the EU^» (European Union - about), and it predecessors, and its area of jurisdiction will be just the same in February as it is now.

Which will come as a shock to a lot of Leave supporters...

[plymothian]

After the end of January not something that can be tested against European Human Rights?

European Court of Human Rights is a product of the Council of Europe and was set up after World War II with a significant amount of input by British jurists. It predates the EU^» (European Union - about), and it predecessors, and its area of jurisdiction will be just the same in February as it is now.

Not necessarily.  The Conservatives have already threatended to withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act but backed down.  However, now Johnson has a stonking mandate to do what he wants.

[ellendune]

After the end of January not something that can be tested against European Human Rights?

European Court of Human Rights is a product of the Council of Europe and was set up after World War II with a significant amount of input by British jurists. It predates the EU^» (European Union - about), and it predecessors, and its area of jurisdiction will be just the same in February as it is now.

Not necessarily.  The Conservatives have already threatended to withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act but backed down.  However, now Johnson has a stonking mandate to do what he wants.

Think what a coup that would give to Russia (a member of the Council of Europe) if we were to join Belarus as the only European Country who wasn't a member. 

[plymothian]

After the end of January not something that can be tested against European Human Rights?

European Court of Human Rights is a product of the Council of Europe and was set up after World War II with a significant amount of input by British jurists. It predates the EU^» (European Union - about), and it predecessors, and its area of jurisdiction will be just the same in February as it is now.

Not necessarily.  The Conservatives have already threatended to withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act but backed down.  However, now Johnson has a stonking mandate to do what he wants.

Think what a coup that would give to Russia (a member of the Council of Europe) if we were to join Belarus as the only European Country who wasn't a member. 

It's what the will of the people voted for.  And it's already started.