The Fresco finger will be pointing soon...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fresco finger will be pointing soon...
...it could be you!!
For a messed up summer, and possibly autumn!
Why on earth does the government not obtain an injunction against strike action? Probably because it will terminally p!$$ off the few remaining beer-and-sandwiches trade unionists whose block votes Labour needs to support the Great Helmsman at the party conference!
For a messed up summer, and possibly autumn!
Why on earth does the government not obtain an injunction against strike action? Probably because it will terminally p!$$ off the few remaining beer-and-sandwiches trade unionists whose block votes Labour needs to support the Great Helmsman at the party conference!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fire Services Bill
Bill 81 of 2002/03
This Bill would allow the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to impose conditions of service on
fire brigade members and give general directions to fire
authorities. Thus, it would allow an imposed solution
to the continuing fire dispute. The Bill would apply
only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Not sure if it would definitely allow the passing of an Order prohibiting strike action, but the powers could be extended.
Try the Civil Contingencies Bill - plenty of MAFL section 69 type catch-alls - what is an emergency?
38. Subsection (1) enables Her Majesty to make emergency regulations by Order in Council if satisfied that the conditions set out in clause 20 are satisfied. In exercising this power, Her Majesty would act on the advice of her Ministers, principally the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the member of the Cabinet with responsibility for domestic security and resilience.
39. Subsection (2) enables a senior Minister of the Crown to make emergency regulations if it would not be possible without serious delay to arrange for an Order in Council under subsection (1).
41. Clause 20 sets out the conditions which Her Majesty (or a senior Minister of the Crown) must be satisfied have been met before making emergency regulations.
42. The three conditions are that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur (subsection (2)); it is necessary to make provision for the purpose of dealing with the emergency (subsection (3)); and the need for the provision is urgent (subsection (4)).
Or, a High Court injunction on the grounds of danger to life or something along those lines. Any lawyers reading this??
Bill 81 of 2002/03
This Bill would allow the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to impose conditions of service on
fire brigade members and give general directions to fire
authorities. Thus, it would allow an imposed solution
to the continuing fire dispute. The Bill would apply
only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Not sure if it would definitely allow the passing of an Order prohibiting strike action, but the powers could be extended.
Try the Civil Contingencies Bill - plenty of MAFL section 69 type catch-alls - what is an emergency?
38. Subsection (1) enables Her Majesty to make emergency regulations by Order in Council if satisfied that the conditions set out in clause 20 are satisfied. In exercising this power, Her Majesty would act on the advice of her Ministers, principally the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the member of the Cabinet with responsibility for domestic security and resilience.
39. Subsection (2) enables a senior Minister of the Crown to make emergency regulations if it would not be possible without serious delay to arrange for an Order in Council under subsection (1).
41. Clause 20 sets out the conditions which Her Majesty (or a senior Minister of the Crown) must be satisfied have been met before making emergency regulations.
42. The three conditions are that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur (subsection (2)); it is necessary to make provision for the purpose of dealing with the emergency (subsection (3)); and the need for the provision is urgent (subsection (4)).
Or, a High Court injunction on the grounds of danger to life or something along those lines. Any lawyers reading this??
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fresco's got to happen now - the signs have been on TV. What more proof could you want than Carol Vorderman pulling out (in the correct order) F, R, E, S, C, O on the Letters round of Countdown last week? We didn't know whether to laugh or cry in the crewroom. Not that we watch TV at work, obviously..... erm.... taxi
Jessthedog,
"Any lawyers reading this?"
Yes, and you have NO chance! A decent lawyer would have a field day with anyone who tried such a move.
Even if it could be made to work, which it can't, there is no legal way of enforcing it upon individuals, such as the FBU members, who all have rights.
"Any lawyers reading this?"
Yes, and you have NO chance! A decent lawyer would have a field day with anyone who tried such a move.
Even if it could be made to work, which it can't, there is no legal way of enforcing it upon individuals, such as the FBU members, who all have rights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but surely the same "rights" apply to all, including the police and armed forces? You can't make exceptions for some occupations and draw a line thereafter - the public safety and security arguments can be applied equally to the fire service, who have a key anti-terrorist role.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: North of the border
Age: 71
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government have already got the weapon that they require. The New Fire Services Act gains royal assent next month funnily enough around the same time that the government said it requires to train the forces.
For the government, a 'Yes' vote in the ballot is a double gift. First prize is that Prescott could use his retained powers under section 28 of the act to impose a settlement and 'control' the union. Equally valuable is that he could then say - "The NJC can't negotiate, we'll impose a pay board (like teachers) telling you what any pay increases will be, and it's obvious the fire authorities can't manage the service either, so we'll regionalise everything" At one stroke, he gets rid of several knotty problems in good time before the election.
.
For the government, a 'Yes' vote in the ballot is a double gift. First prize is that Prescott could use his retained powers under section 28 of the act to impose a settlement and 'control' the union. Equally valuable is that he could then say - "The NJC can't negotiate, we'll impose a pay board (like teachers) telling you what any pay increases will be, and it's obvious the fire authorities can't manage the service either, so we'll regionalise everything" At one stroke, he gets rid of several knotty problems in good time before the election.
.
JessTheDog,
Theoretically you are right, however there are two major "get out's" and I'm afraid that they are self inflicted!
First, your Lords and Masters have voluntarily waived your rights for you, secondly, have a good read of your commissioning scroll and see just what you signed up to!
The New Fire Services Act and it's ilk are likely to keep a good few colleagues of mine in Ferrari's for a good year or two. The European Court of Human Right's is going to be a right royal battle ground over the next few decades.
Theoretically you are right, however there are two major "get out's" and I'm afraid that they are self inflicted!
First, your Lords and Masters have voluntarily waived your rights for you, secondly, have a good read of your commissioning scroll and see just what you signed up to!
The New Fire Services Act and it's ilk are likely to keep a good few colleagues of mine in Ferrari's for a good year or two. The European Court of Human Right's is going to be a right royal battle ground over the next few decades.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Act is due for royal assent next month, why don't the FBU vote for a 1 hour strike on the day before the act goes through.
A 1 hour strike provides minimum risk for the general publics safety but maximum inconvenience for the govt. A short strike should lessen the impact required on the armed forces to save the country once again. But then again Mr Hoon has said on many occasion that the armed forces are not "overstretched" and so should be able to cope emergencies - Yeah dream on Hoon, what's the colour of the sky in your world!
A 1 hour strike provides minimum risk for the general publics safety but maximum inconvenience for the govt. A short strike should lessen the impact required on the armed forces to save the country once again. But then again Mr Hoon has said on many occasion that the armed forces are not "overstretched" and so should be able to cope emergencies - Yeah dream on Hoon, what's the colour of the sky in your world!
ga99js,
Well yes, but it was an awfully long time ago, I was also taught service writing but that has also long gone!
I was in a hurry....................................................... .
Well yes, but it was an awfully long time ago, I was also taught service writing but that has also long gone!
I was in a hurry....................................................... .
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we wasting time with another thread which is aready going on further down.
We are now even into "I heard that we might be using red engines this time!". That was already done over and over and over agin.
Keep on the original thread please.
We are now even into "I heard that we might be using red engines this time!". That was already done over and over and over agin.
Keep on the original thread please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretically you are right, however there are two major "get out's" and I'm afraid that they are self inflicted! First, your Lords and Masters have voluntarily waived your rights for you, secondly, have a good read of your commissioning scroll and see just what you signed up to!
MoD does not have a good record of trying to waive the rights of its personnel! True, they win the odd case now and again but endemic attempts at penny pinching and personnel management measures that still hark back to the 1950s cost MoD dear on a monthly (perhaps weekly) basis!
Sadly my commissioning scroll is anachronistic - doesn't mention Blair or Hoon anywhere!
JessTheDog,
MoD has an excellent record in waiving the rights of its staff, where it has a rather lamentable record is the subsequent defence in court when these waivers are challenged.
This all started with the pregnancy issue and has snowballed from there.
I couldn’t agree with you more when you say;
“penny pinching and personnel management measures that still hark back to the 1950s “
This is primarily what drove me to leave when I did.
MoD has an excellent record in waiving the rights of its staff, where it has a rather lamentable record is the subsequent defence in court when these waivers are challenged.
This all started with the pregnancy issue and has snowballed from there.
I couldn’t agree with you more when you say;
“penny pinching and personnel management measures that still hark back to the 1950s “
This is primarily what drove me to leave when I did.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the talk of Waiving Rights at the beginning of this.
No-one can have their basic human rights waived for them or on behalf of them by anybody - read the appropriate legislation. This is of course why all the claims succeed against the military who think they can just order people not to get pregnant or be homosexual. They think they and try to bluff the servicemen but they can't. Even if some believes they can say to their employer that they are willing to forgo certain rights then the legislation is quite specific in that they can't. Simple as that.
No-one can have their basic human rights waived for them or on behalf of them by anybody - read the appropriate legislation. This is of course why all the claims succeed against the military who think they can just order people not to get pregnant or be homosexual. They think they and try to bluff the servicemen but they can't. Even if some believes they can say to their employer that they are willing to forgo certain rights then the legislation is quite specific in that they can't. Simple as that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD has an excellent record in waiving the rights of its staff, where it has a rather lamentable record is the subsequent defence in court when these waivers are challenged.
Most changes in terms and conditions are sadly driven by litigation rather than a desire to improve them or to reflect changes in contemporary society.
