Big win for the Unions, and for our collective rights to organise here.
You must log in or register to comment.
These workers are highly experienced professionals in critical industries and have been chronically underpaid for over a decade(s). Many have risked their lives and health and that of their families during the pandemic. Bringing in agency staff will not solve the labour issue in these areas but make it much worse. Already we have lost so many dedicated professionals in these areas the services are on their knees. As a society we need these services to keep us healthy, safe and educate our next generation. As one of the richest countries in the world we can afford it if we want to and we will be much poorer in all ways if we don’t.
My understanding is the way they introduced the law was illegal, i.e. doing so without proper consultation, and therefore it’s invalid. But I thought the court didn’t rule on whether the law itself breached the right to strike.
Ok I’m in favor of unions but how is this the case? Businesses can hire whoever they want.
But the unions, which represent around three million workers, argued that the government had breached their rights by failing to consult them on the changes.
Is that it?
“Bringing in less-qualified agency staff to deliver important services risks endangering public safety, worsening disputes and poisoning industrial relations.”
Said by the union head (probably what they want to say in consultation), not by the judge.
Your initial comment referenced what the unions said, so it follows that @amanneedsamaid may reasonably assume that’s what you were asking about (initially anyway). Not the ruling by the judge itself.
Either way it didn’t need to become an argument. Can we try and be better than Reddit?
My comment is what the judge said as the reason.
But the unions, which represent around three million workers, argued that the government had breached their rights by failing to consult them on the changes.
On Thursday, Judge Thomas Linden upheld their challenge in a written ruling, quashing the regulations.
He said Mr Kwarteng had made his decision to change the rules based on “precious little information”, relying instead on a 2015 consultation which predated Covid and the cost-of-living crisis.
That was the reason behind the ruling. Not what the Union guy talks seemingly afterwards outside the court.
Yup.
So not part of the ruling.
Nope, just the reasoning behind it from the article.
That’s not the reasoning the judge used, so not the reasoning behind the ruling.
Correct, not the reasoning the judge used. The reasoning behind not allowing employers to break strikes with agency workers. (Outside of the fact they didn’t consult the unions when deciding before)
deleted by creator
Wow, I think the same thing about you!
@someguy3 @Oneeightnine
There may be local variations?
