Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1115 - Employment Arbitration (Essential Services) Bill 2017 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Employment Arbitration (Essential Services) Bill 2017, TSR Government







    Employment Arbitration (Essential Services) Act 2017

    An Act to create a settlement process for industrial disputes in sectors which provide essential services

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—






    1: Definitions

    The following definitions are used in this Act:
    (1) An 'essential service employee' is one referred to in sections 273-287 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, or one listed in section 2 below.
    (2) An 'industrial dispute' is a dispute arising between one or more employer(s) and multiple employees thereof, consisting of one or more trade unions, about the employees' contracts of employment, conditions of work, or any other matter to do with the employment relationship.

    2: List of further essential service employees

    The following, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as essential service employees:
    (1) Employees engaged in transport by rail, underground, bus, or aeroplane.
    (2) Employees engaged in the provision of social and/or mental health care.
    (3) Any other class(es) of employee as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions may by order outline.

    3: Association rights for essential service employees

    (1) Essential service employees shall be permitted to form, and be members of, trade unions.
    (2) Trade unions consisting, in whole or in part, of essential service employees, shall not, insofar as they do consist of essential service employees, take industrial action.

    4: Essential Service Arbitration Tribunal

    (1) An Essential Service Arbitration Tribunal (ESAT) shall be established for the settlement of disputes between essential service employees and their employers.
    (2) The ESAT shall consist of two Employment Appeal Tribunal judge, and one lay expert in labour economics.
    (3) The ESAT shall have exclusive jurisdiction over industrial disputes.
    (4) In determining an industrial dispute, the ESAT should have regard, among other things, to the economic justifications of the arguments of either side.
    (5) The verdict which the ESAT is seeking to reach is that which the parties would have reached if they were individuals of equal bargaining power negotiating at arm's length, having particular regard to the goals of each party in entering negotiations, but taking into account the existing protections of the law as a starting point.
    (6) Verdicts reached by the ESAT will be binding on both parties for a period of two years, and shall be capable of having the effect of implying changes into contracts of employment.
    (7) Verdicts reached by the ESAT cannot cause deteriorations in employees' contracts of employment.
    (8) For the purposes of court fees, ESAT cases shall be considered as Type B employment disputes.

    5: Commencement, Short Title and Extent

    (1) This Bill may be cited as the Employment Act 2016;
    (2) This Bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
    (3) Shall come into force immediately.


    NotesThis is designed in response to the latest crisis. It aims to remove the damage caused by striking employees to essential services, without diminishing the protections afforded to employees via the equalisation in bargaining power created by the collective bargaining mechanism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Too bad irl labour and Comrade Jezza Corbyn would never do this. Completely owned by the trade unions. Step in the right direction, but really not enough.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Too bad irl labour and Comrade Jezza Corbyn would never do this. Completely owned by the trade unions. Step in the right direction, but really not enough.
    Agreed, a more positive response than outright nationalisation, but still pandering to the contemptuous trade unions.

    Abstain
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Good to see that these services would have their right to strike removed, however it does seem to in reality simply empower the unions by elevating their bargaining power from irrelevant to assumed equal
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, this should be RL law.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain, for the reasons Connor outlined.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I like this, and it's nice to see the Government respond to a Crisis with a well thought-out bill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain, the government doesn't get to dictate what is and isn't essential, and certainly doesn't get to allow public employees to join unions.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye - very well done TSR Gov, really like this bill.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There is little for me to add in the way of personal comments beyond the statement released to the press.

    Aye.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Abstain, the government doesn't get to dictate what is and isn't essential, and certainly doesn't get to allow public employees to join unions.
    They already do, so that prison officers, soldiers etc can't go on strike and create a massively dangerous situation. And it's not a matter of 'allowing' people to join a union - everyone is entitled to, public or private sector. If you want to ban unions/strikes feel free to present your own bill, but I'm sure you appreciate that the Government was always going to aim for a somewhat more pragmatic solution. This bill prevents the crippling economic damage caused by transport strikes, ends the likes of the RMT being able to demand extortionate salaries for their workers by shutting down the largest city in Europe unless they're all paid double the average wage for relatively menial work with extensive holidays and benefits, and ensures that all workers get a fair deal where the traditional approach of allowing strike action as the last resort in a dispute is inappropriate.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Good to see that these services would have their right to strike removed, however it does seem to in reality simply empower the unions by elevating their bargaining power from irrelevant to assumed equal
    Their bargaining power is far from irrelevant, particularly in London where the unions normally win, in the end, after causing untold amounts of damage. Right now, they have an advantage: to strike they lose a day's pay (affordable when the drivers are already on over fifty grand a year), whereas they cause immense economic damage and political pressure. This bill means that they would get a fair deal rather than those workers who happen to have the power to cause serious and immediate damage (tube drivers) ending up earning twice as much as those who are of crucial long-term importance but can be coped without for a day (teachers).

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Agreed, a more positive response than outright nationalisation, but still pandering to the contemptuous trade unions.

    Abstain
    This removes the role of unions from these industrial disputes entirely - it's hardly pandering to them. Should workers not be fairly compensated for their labour - particularly where they're employed by a public sector body who are not strictly tied to market forces?

    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Too bad irl labour and Comrade Jezza Corbyn would never do this. Completely owned by the trade unions. Step in the right direction, but really not enough.
    What would be enough, in your opinion? From what I can see this bill entirely removes the possibility of strikes taking out essential services - is that not the issue at hand?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. This solves the present problem while simultaneously going a long way to solve problems of damage to the economy and workers' own interests caused by strikes; as well as tackling an inequality of bargaining power created through the present controls imposed by the 1992 Act.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    They already do, so that prison officers, soldiers etc can't go on strike and create a massively dangerous situation. And it's not a matter of 'allowing' people to join a union - everyone is entitled to, public or private sector. If you want to ban unions/strikes feel free to present your own bill, but I'm sure you appreciate that the Government was always going to aim for a somewhat more pragmatic solution. This bill prevents the crippling economic damage caused by transport strikes, ends the likes of the RMT being able to demand extortionate salaries for their workers by shutting down the largest city in Europe unless they're all paid double the average wage for relatively menial work with extensive holidays and benefits, and ensures that all workers get a fair deal where the traditional approach of allowing strike action as the last resort in a dispute is inappropriate.



    Their bargaining power is far from irrelevant, particularly in London where the unions normally win, in the end, after causing untold amounts of damage. Right now, they have an advantage: to strike they lose a day's pay (affordable when the drivers are already on over fifty grand a year), whereas they cause immense economic damage and political pressure. This bill means that they would get a fair deal rather than those workers who happen to have the power to cause serious and immediate damage (tube drivers) ending up earning twice as much as those who are of crucial long-term importance but can be coped without for a day (teachers).



    This removes the role of unions from these industrial disputes entirely - it's hardly pandering to them. Should workers not be fairly compensated for their labour - particularly where they're employed by a public sector body who are not strictly tied to market forces?



    What would be enough, in your opinion? From what I can see this bill entirely removes the possibility of strikes taking out essential services - is that not the issue at hand?
    They lose in London because they have a spineless, sympathetic public sector to deal with, why don't you talk to those southern rail strikers about how powerful their unions are? How about the former coal miners? The teachers and BMA can tell you too. Even the powerful unions are only really winning when the other party lacks a spine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They lose in London because they have a spineless, sympathetic public sector to deal with, why don't you talk to those southern rail strikers about how powerful their unions are? How about the former coal miners? The teachers and BMA can tell you too. Even the powerful unions are only really winning when the other party lacks a spine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Southern Rail strikers were on the verge of seeing the line re-nationalised via devolution to London and in all likelihood their demands met - only foiled by a chance in transport secretary. The entire point is that rail unions are far more powerful than others, that this isn't right and that it results in a ridiculous lack of balance in pay scales across the public sector. We're not bringing in this new process for teachers or coal miners.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'll agree with the government on this one
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Finally. Essential transport service is what I have always wanted. It was also my first bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Agreed, a more positive response than outright nationalisation, but still pandering to the contemptuous trade unions.

    Abstain
    Abstain also, for reasons stated above.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 21, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.