-
imagine the difficulty that would arise if everyone decided that contracts don't really mean anything.
But that’s exactly what the right to strike protects - the right not to comply with an employment contract as part of a collective negotiation without facing termination / disciplinary action for the breach.
There’s a reason legislation is required to stop employers breaking strikes. It’s the erosion of this that has allowed some of the more egregious recent cases (BA, P&O etc)
NickCJ-
There’s a reason legislation is required to stop employers breaking strikes. It’s the erosion of this that has allowed some of the more egregious recent cases (BA, P&O etc)
Yes, I see what you mean.
It's an interesting area of conflicting rights and responsibilities.
For example, Mick Lynch's response to a journalist who asked him about how he could justify the comparatively higher pay of RMT members compared to other lower paid public sector workers. He pointed out that this had come about through successful organisation and negotiation by the union and its members over a long period of time, and discredited the idea that pay and conditions should be a race to the bottom.
ChasnotRobert
um... not really.
see @itsbruce point about having an employment contract.
imagine the difficulty that would arise if everyone decided that contracts don't really mean anything.
even setting aside the issue of contracts, it's wholly impractical to, for example, fire 30,000 skilled and competent railway workers and start from scratch.