The Public Sector Strike Curtailment Act (Voting on Amendment)

[Cassius]

First of all, I would say that this bill does not aim to completely ban public employees from striking (except in the case of the exceptions mentioned in 1d, but, if I recall correctly, that is simply reiterating the current legal situation there); instead, its more of an attempt to make it harder for them to do so. I think, personally, that the conditions laid out in 1a, b and c are perfectly reasonable; if we are going to have public sector strikes, then it should be made sure that there undertaken in an orderly fashion so as minimise the potential disruption caused (see 1c) and to protect the right not to strike by public employees (see 1b).

Secondly of course, this bill will put in place a system of penalties and rewards (the former to be imposed in cases where employees are found to have violated strike law and the latter for employees who choose not to go on a legal strike). I think that its in the interest of the public to have public services that run efficiently and effectively, and I do believe that this can best be achieved in an atmosphere where public sector strikes are relatively rare. Thus, I think that this rewards and penalties system will help to reduce the risk of strike action, and encourage the use of calmer methods to resolve any disputes that arise.

I need to read more on this - but I believe every employee should have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike in certain circumstances. In relation to public sector workers, many deal with issues of life and death and it would be ridiculous to ignore that reality.

I will formulate a more concrete position soon.

I'll just reiterate the point that this bill does not ban collective bargaining, nor does it even ban strike action. The purpose of this bill is simply to reduce the likelihood of strike action, which can be very disruptive (and often rather useless).

[Cassius]

As to the amendment: Nay

I don't know if what's being proposed is legal, but even if it is, I don't like it. To call striking useless is also a bit of silliness. Employees shouldn't be punished for striking. See, I've always found this position so inconsistent. Conservatives say on one hand that a person's wages is between them and their employer. Ok, fair enough, but considering that one worker alone really has no bargaining power, they go and decide to form a union. Then, when the unions negotiate and possibly strike, they want to punish them for it with a bill like this. Help me understand this position. Just admit the bias towards the employer and move on or really examine your position for consistency, because I really don't understand it.

How does it abridge the right? Well, it undermines their ability to get a wage increase because a scab can come in and do the job for a cheaper price and let the striker out on their ear. Many people don't consider things like seniority. A guy's been on the job for 20 years, say. He goes on strike with his union. The company hires a scab to fill his job who is a young guy and will work for less. Well, that leaves that person out on their ear because they struck to bargain for a better wage. It's an awful practice that does nothing but benefit the employer and it leaves the worker with absolutely no ability to bargain at all.

I'm not sure as to whether your responding to JCL's amendment or the bill as a whole, because, again, the bill in question does not bar public sector workers from striking.

As to 1c Bore, why, in particular, do you think its stupid? The idea is to prevent strike ballots being called, won, and followed swiftly by strike action, as this, doubtless, would be more disruptive than if a two week interval was put in place, which would give more time for those affected by strike action to put in place contingency plans for any disruption.

As for the bill in general, I strongly dislike public-sector strikes as I view their participants as taking advantage of the fact that they're generally employed by government monopolies to extort taxpayers who are forced to rely on said monopolies for vital services. That said, I'm not sure what this bill is meant to accomplish. What's the point in reducing the pay of striking workers? Surely if the strike is successful, it will end with a net increase in pay? Also, increasing the pay of non-strikers strikes me (no pun intended) as somewhat self-defeating. Public-sector strikes aren't bad because they're strikes, they're bad because they involve the monopolistic extortion of taxpayers for the benefit of the strikers. My point is, it makes little sense to increase the pay of public-sector workers in an attempt to curtail strikes when the purpose behind the curtailment of said strikes would be to prevent public-sector workers from imposing excessive costs upon taxpayers.

The purpose of this bill, first and foremost, is to try and make disruptive strikes less common; because, after all, strikes can and do cause heavy disruption; those affected by them will have to make new arrangements, often at a very short notice (for example, the parents of kids affected by a teaching strike may, depending on the age of the child, either have to take a day off work or find someone to look after them for a day). The proposal to reward those who don't go on strike with a bonus to their wage (a temporary one, mind you) is in the bill so as to make it less attractive to strike. Don't forget also that a temporary pay increase on the part of some workers will add up to less than permanent wage increases for all workers.

[Cassius]

By the way, I'm planning (once this amendment has been voted upon) to introduce an amendment of my own to the present bill, to address some of the concerns raised here, so don't table it just yet.

[Cassius]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cassius]

With regards to the 20% rule, I think in hindsight its a good idea to be more specific as to which services would be covered by this rule. You're quite right Bore about the pointlessness of such a rule in the education sector for example. Polnut, given that you first raised the idea outlined in 1d, do you have any thoughts on that particular passage? Also, Windjammer and Cranberry, such a bill wouldn't destroy the public sector unions (after all, if 80% of the workforce is on strike, then that's still plenty of incentive to get management to come to the table), but I think, as I've said before, we have to balance the interests of public employees with those of the population at large who often depend upon these services, and I don't think that its unfair or bad policy to try and maintain some level of service, even during strikes.

Cynic, Section 1 outlines how a legal and an illegal strike is constituted, thus that which constitutes illegality is that which directly violates the provisions of a, b, c, d and e.

[Cassius]

Aye

[Cassius]

I'd rather not have an absolute number and just have a prohibition in certain essential areas (police, fire service, a and e, etc)

So, perhaps chop out 1d and add those to 1e?

[Cassius]

Amendment is friendly. However (and I should really have thought of this sooner), I'd like to clarify that I intended for ABAC to work on a purely public-sector basis. Not that the option of extending it throughout the economy should not be considered, but I think that the public sector provides an adequate testing ground for such a proposal.

[Cassius]

Aye

[Cassius]

Cassius, your take on the proposed amendment?

The amendment's friendly.

[Cassius]

Aye

[Cassius]

Shall we proceed to a final vote?

[Cassius]

Amendment is obviously unfriendly.

[Cassius]

Nay

[Cassius]

Of course, I'd very much like to see this brought to a final vote.

[Cassius]

Seconding the motion for cloture.

[Cassius]

Aye

[Cassius]

I call for a final vote.

[Cassius]

Aye