Minimum service levels during strikes.
Discussion
The government is introducing a law to establish a minimum safe level of service during periods of industrial action. Workers will be compelled to work even if there is a mandate for strike action.
Is this likely to succeed? I can foresee quite a lot of sickness on strike days.
Also, who decides the minimum safe service level, and what happens if it is not met in normal times? Who is responsible then and what sanction should they face? For example, a hospital ward is deemed "minimally safe" with 5 staff per 30 patients. If only four are in work on a normal day due to vacancies etc what would be the consequences?
SD.
Is this likely to succeed? I can foresee quite a lot of sickness on strike days.
Also, who decides the minimum safe service level, and what happens if it is not met in normal times? Who is responsible then and what sanction should they face? For example, a hospital ward is deemed "minimally safe" with 5 staff per 30 patients. If only four are in work on a normal day due to vacancies etc what would be the consequences?
SD.
As others have intimated, what will the government actually do if, say, striking ambulance crews fall below the 'minimum standards' that some Whitehall bod has decreed? Sack all striking paramedics? Fine them? How would that solve the problem? Probably, it would simply generate more sympathy from the public.
I've voted Conservative in the last two GE's. Nonsense proposals such as this one make it even less likely that I'll be able to do so next time, and are a classic own goal from the current dismal government.
I've voted Conservative in the last two GE's. Nonsense proposals such as this one make it even less likely that I'll be able to do so next time, and are a classic own goal from the current dismal government.
MrBogSmith said:
Police and prisons can't strike.
Should at least have restrictions on essential public services.
And more patients requiring more and extensive treatmentsShould at least have restrictions on essential public services.
Super Sonic said:
Minimum safe level of service went out the window years ago because of conservative government cuts.
NHS has more staff than it's ever had. It’s a waste of time anyway.
They’ll probably get it through the Commons easily enough but the Lords may be trickier and then you have Labour vowing to reverse any legislation they manage to get through if (and let’s face it, when) they get elected in approx two years and then you’ll have all the legal challenges.
Waste. Of. Time.
They’ll probably get it through the Commons easily enough but the Lords may be trickier and then you have Labour vowing to reverse any legislation they manage to get through if (and let’s face it, when) they get elected in approx two years and then you’ll have all the legal challenges.
Waste. Of. Time.
There was a brilliant plan from the then government to establish minimum safe manning levels back in the late 1990s. The idea was that any over this level should be sent on 'mutual aid' to other forces if required. The level set for my force was ridiculously low, meaning that there was no way we could answer G1 and G2 calls within the time set by the same government.
Run forward 10 years and manning levels were then bouncing along around the level stipulated. Come Cameron and May, come the problem that mutual aid could be declined by any force apart from the MPD as they normally did not reach the level. I believe it is called joined-up government. Re: the response times: most forces went from five levels of grading to seven or more, meaning that they got somewhere near the response times for G1 and G2 calls, both of which were, more or less, the old style G1 calls.
Run forward 10 years and manning levels were then bouncing along around the level stipulated. Come Cameron and May, come the problem that mutual aid could be declined by any force apart from the MPD as they normally did not reach the level. I believe it is called joined-up government. Re: the response times: most forces went from five levels of grading to seven or more, meaning that they got somewhere near the response times for G1 and G2 calls, both of which were, more or less, the old style G1 calls.
Around the same period, the government had an independent enquiry into police pay and the award took into consideration the fact that the police were banned from joining a union (free association) and being able to strike. Pay to be established by a consortium of other similar jobs in the private and public sectors. It was heralded as the end of conflict. If memory serves, it operated for three/four years and was then abandoned by the government.
Tricks, and slight of hand like these minimum levels are imposed to limit the ability of various workers to have any leverage.
Tricks, and slight of hand like these minimum levels are imposed to limit the ability of various workers to have any leverage.
Unions will just move onto "work to rule" or "overtime ban" action and this will cause way more problems.
eg If nurses decided on an overtime and agency work ban for a 7 day period, the whole system would clog up to a halt even if only half of nurses complied with the action.
This move by the government just proves they have lost the salary argument and are changing the rules. This is the authoritarianism coming out again that has been their modus operandi over the last 3 years.
eg If nurses decided on an overtime and agency work ban for a 7 day period, the whole system would clog up to a halt even if only half of nurses complied with the action.
This move by the government just proves they have lost the salary argument and are changing the rules. This is the authoritarianism coming out again that has been their modus operandi over the last 3 years.
MrBogSmith said:
Police and prisons can't strike.
Should at least have restrictions on essential public services.
Why? I think everyone should have a right to strike. Had the police the right we might not be lumbered with the leviathan that is Police Scotland and we might have retained hundreds of decent, experienced officers. Should at least have restrictions on essential public services.
Super Sonic said:
Minimum safe level of service went out the window years ago because of conservative government cuts.
Doesn't the NHS has more staff than it's ever had? Edited by MrBogSmith on Tuesday 10th January 18:00
The government currently failing to fulfil minimum manning levels are threatening legal action against strikers if they don’t maintain minimum manning when in strike? The heads of this government are so far up their own backsides that the lump in their neck is their own bloody nose!
As someone pointed out agent staff keep the show running, nurses just turn down shifts don’t strike and get the same result. Beggars belief truly truly is
As someone pointed out agent staff keep the show running, nurses just turn down shifts don’t strike and get the same result. Beggars belief truly truly is
valiant said:
How many will they fire?
We’re desperately short of nurses and similar and yet the government is threatening to get rid of some?
Totally impractical, totally unworkable and a typical knee jerk reaction from a government that’s out of ideas.
Pitiful.
This... We’re desperately short of nurses and similar and yet the government is threatening to get rid of some?
Totally impractical, totally unworkable and a typical knee jerk reaction from a government that’s out of ideas.
Pitiful.
Well to maintain minimum service levels we're going to start laying off people in a time where we can't hire enough to begin with. The mind boggles, this kind of thing can only come from a party that has completely lost touch with reality.
valiant said:
It’s a waste of time anyway.
They’ll probably get it through the Commons easily enough but the Lords may be trickier and then you have Labour vowing to reverse any legislation they manage to get through if (and let’s face it, when) they get elected in approx two years and then you’ll have all the legal challenges.
Waste. Of. Time.
Does appeal to their voter base though. Red meat. Trying to appear tough. tThey’ll probably get it through the Commons easily enough but the Lords may be trickier and then you have Labour vowing to reverse any legislation they manage to get through if (and let’s face it, when) they get elected in approx two years and then you’ll have all the legal challenges.
Waste. Of. Time.
ts.MrBogSmith said:
voyds9 said:
MrBogSmith said:
Police and prisons can't strike.
Should at least have restrictions on essential public services.
And more patients requiring more and extensive treatmentsShould at least have restrictions on essential public services.
Super Sonic said:
Minimum safe level of service went out the window years ago because of conservative government cuts.
NHS has more staff than it's ever had. Super Sonic said:
It's not just hospitals tho, it's social services and the fact people can't be discharged.
Yep, too few police, too few prison places etc etc. Where does all the money come from?
0.5% annual levy on all net wealth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff