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

B1115 - Employment Arbitration (Essential Services) Bill 2017 Watch

    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Abstain, I have no time RN
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, I will not support a bill that allows a biased panel to legally order a business what salaries should be, and what wider working conditions should be like. The part of the bill preventing workers in essential individuals from striking I agree with, however, giving a union legal powers to force what they want is unacceptable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    aye
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Absolutely not. Of course industrial action disputes need to be resolved, but quite frankly, as I've said before, if the workers don't like what they're being to do, which is safe and legal, then they should quit, and allow those who do want the job and won't cause massive disruption to the economy, to do it.

    This is still pandering to trade unions, and quite frankly, we should just get rid of them!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Absolutely not. Of course industrial action disputes need to be resolved, but quite frankly, as I've said before, if the workers don't like what they're being to do, which is safe and legal, then they should quit, and allow those who do want the job and won't cause massive disruption to the economy, to do it.

    This is still pandering to trade unions, and quite frankly, we should just get rid of them!
    I don't consider that response fair, especially considering the lack of competition within the public sector. In the private sector, as a general rule if a company is failing to pay a fair wage they will find themselves with lower-quality staff who end up leaving to look for opportunities elsewhere, so the workers are in a more decent position to negotiate a fair deal. That generally isn't the case in the public sector: you can't just choose to work for a different policing or firefighting company. People who have a passion for their work which happens to come under the public sector shouldn't suffer for it financially and told to quit, to change careers, if they don't like it. They should be supported and encouraged as much as possible, not just because it's the right thing to do but because we need passionate and talented people in these roles. That can only happen if they're given a fair deal for their work and talent, and that's what we're aiming to achieve here without costly and dangerous strikes. It's not about pandering to trade unions who quite frankly I can't imagine are overly pleased with us right now anyway: it's about doing the right thing for the country.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't consider that response fair, especially considering the lack of competition within the public sector. In the private sector, as a general rule if a company is failing to pay a fair wage they will find themselves with lower-quality staff who end up leaving to look for opportunities elsewhere, so the workers are in a more decent position to negotiate a fair deal. That generally isn't the case in the public sector: you can't just choose to work for a different policing or firefighting company. People who have a passion for their work which happens to come under the public sector shouldn't suffer for it financially and told to quit, to change careers, if they don't like it. They should be supported and encouraged as much as possible, not just because it's the right thing to do but because we need passionate and talented people in these roles. That can only happen if they're given a fair deal for their work and talent, and that's what we're aiming to achieve here without costly and dangerous strikes. It's not about pandering to trade unions who quite frankly I can't imagine are overly pleased with us right now anyway: it's about doing the right thing for the country.
    Ok, I kind of see where you're coming from for certain public services, but for the rail companies for example, which this Bill was in response to, there are many different rail companies, and the vast majority don't have issues with their workers.

    Thameslink run a DOO service on almost the same route as Southern, and their drivers and (not that they have many) on board staff don't constantly complain - I think it's clear that the Southern OBSs are trying to be difficult and have absolutely no regard for the disruption they're causing - or if they do have regard for it, they're all sitting on their asses enjoying it and laughing at us. They are refusing to listen to the advice regarding DOOs, yet still want to cause disruption far far greater than what they're hoping to achieve. It's in that case that the trade union should be stopped by the Government in my opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Ok, I kind of see where you're coming from for certain public services, but for the rail companies for example, which this Bill was in response to, there are many different rail companies, and the vast majority don't have issues with their workers.

    Thameslink run a DOO service on almost the same route as Southern, and their drivers and (not that they have many) on board staff don't constantly complain - I think it's clear that the Southern OBSs are trying to be difficult and have absolutely no regard for the disruption they're causing - or if they do have regard for it, they're all sitting on their asses enjoying it and laughing at us. They are refusing to listen to the advice regarding DOOs, yet still want to cause disruption far far greater than what they're hoping to achieve. It's in that case that the trade union should be stopped by the Government in my opinion.
    Of course, but this bill does have a significantly wider scope than just railway workers. I agree with you regarding the Southern dispute and I would be very surprised if a tribunal didn't rule in favour of allowing driver-only operation given it as you say has a proven track record elsewhere. The matter at hand would more likely be ensuring that it was phased in in a way that didn't have an unduly adverse impact on those whose jobs are at risk - for example, by not replacing them as they naturally left the business, offering fair redundancy packages or offering alternative roles within the company. On the whole, these sorts of measures would not be expensive and would certainly be far preferable to the deadlock we've seen with months of industrial action from a union which appears to see no way towards a fair compromise without causing mass disruption. At the end of the day, it's the way you'd want loyal workers facing the loss of their livelihoods through no fault of their own to be treated regardless of the stance of the unions - and although I do find the way they've handled the dispute to be at best naive and at worst blindly vindictive, it's our responsibility in government to be the bigger men as it were, to treat them with respect despite any disagreements we may have and to recognise that the right solution for the whole country going forwards is far, far more important than some moral victory in this one isolated dispute.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Of course, but this bill does have a significantly wider scope than just railway workers. I agree with you regarding the Southern dispute and I would be very surprised if a tribunal didn't rule in favour of allowing driver-only operation given it as you say has a proven track record elsewhere. The matter at hand would more likely be ensuring that it was phased in in a way that didn't have an unduly adverse impact on those whose jobs are at risk - for example, by not replacing them as they naturally left the business, offering fair redundancy packages or offering alternative roles within the company. On the whole, these sorts of measures would not be expensive and would certainly be far preferable to the deadlock we've seen with months of industrial action from a union which appears to see no way towards a fair compromise without causing mass disruption. At the end of the day, it's the way you'd want loyal workers facing the loss of their livelihoods through no fault of their own to be treated regardless of the stance of the unions - and although I do find the way they've handled the dispute to be at best naive and at worst blindly vindictive, it's our responsibility in government to be the bigger men as it were, to treat them with respect despite any disagreements we may have and to recognise that the right solution for the whole country going forwards is far, far more important than some moral victory in this one isolated dispute.
    Yep, understand about the Bill being a wider scope, but this Bill has clearly stated that rail workers are included in it, and so for that alone I absolutely can't support it.

    Yeh, in the Southern case, they have agreed I believe, or at least in an offer, said that they would not make any of the OBS redundant, and in fact if anything, since they've said that they will keep the OBSs, may want to hire a few more to help cover where they've openly said that sometimes they have to dispatch trains without one because of delays elsewhere or illness... Who knows how sincere that is though of course...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    mobbsy91, this gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to reach conclusions based on the economic situation assuming equal bargaining power. This does not help the unions **** over employers; rather, it creates a more efficient market. Voting against this is voting to damage the economy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't consider that response fair, especially considering the lack of competition within the public sector. In the private sector, as a general rule if a company is failing to pay a fair wage they will find themselves with lower-quality staff who end up leaving to look for opportunities elsewhere, so the workers are in a more decent position to negotiate a fair deal. That generally isn't the case in the public sector: you can't just choose to work for a different policing or firefighting company. People who have a passion for their work which happens to come under the public sector shouldn't suffer for it financially and told to quit, to change careers, if they don't like it. They should be supported and encouraged as much as possible, not just because it's the right thing to do but because we need passionate and talented people in these roles. That can only happen if they're given a fair deal for their work and talent, and that's what we're aiming to achieve here without costly and dangerous strikes. It's not about pandering to trade unions who quite frankly I can't imagine are overly pleased with us right now anyway: it's about doing the right thing for the country.
    Do you know what the solution to a lack of competition in the public sector is called, it starts with "private" and ends with "isation"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Abstain.

    Overall i like the bill. As somebody that values individual liberty it is my belief that individuals should be free to choose to collectively bargain (join a union) but not extort their employer (strike).

    Unfortunately for the government despite the above (and i especially like the expansion permitted through 2.3) i find 4.5 a lot to swallow in that by treating them as equals it will act as an incentive for unions to escalate every small thing (such as sacking a drunk driver) safe in the knowledge that some kind of compramise will be reached. In a way, this bill will create peace through a process of continued retreat from the status-quo.

    Well done though. This should be your contender for bill of the term.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    mobbsy91, this gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to reach conclusions based on the economic situation assuming equal bargaining power. This does not help the unions **** over employers; rather, it creates a more efficient market. Voting against this is voting to damage the economy.
    Which is a lie because any tribunal is going to be biased, leaning in favour of the union, or the business, and when a random expert in labour economics is going to have a 50% say in the decision, the panel will be forced to make controversial decisions. As an example, we do not know if this panel should base a settlement on the current financials of a company; on the future financial predictions of the company if the company is investing heavily in expansion, or is about to take a big hit with product recall; if the company being bought out by a competitor has an impact on the order made by the tribunal; the grounds for appeal if the tribunal used data which was proven to be wrong; who provides the data for the tribunal to use; what would happen if the company made all workers in the dispute redundant during the tribunal process; and what would happen if the company had an unexpected disaster after the ruling had been made, making it impossible for the company to meet the ruling's requirements. You may like the idea, but you need to admit this bill lacks a lot of detail for what would be the biggest fundamental change in employer-employee relations since the formation of trade unions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This bill has entered cessation!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This bill has been withdrawn!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.