142
Using agency workers to cover strikes found to be unlawful
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
142 points (98.6% liked)
United Kingdom
4083 readers
48 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ok I'm in favor of unions but how is this the case? Businesses can hire whoever they want.
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.
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)
It's not the reason for anything that was done. The Union can want it to be a reason, the can want to make that argument, but currently it's not a factor for anything that was decided.
And you have things mixed up. The reason why they can't use agency workers is because unions weren't consulted before a new law was passed that allowed agency workers.
The previous law (which is not even being discussed, because we are discussing reasons for overturning the new law) that forbid using agency workers was based iirc on something about not undermining unions.
What the Union leader said has absolutely zero bearing on anything that was actually done.
Its another reason one would support the action of removing / opposing the law. Another reason (and the more legally important one as I accounted for before) would be the fact that the unions would not be consulted.
You are confusing ~~reasons~~ ideas in general and reasons relevant to this decision.
A general idea that's out there in the world is not the reasoning behind this legal case.
There can be ideas A, B, C, and D out there in the world. If the judge says "I'm making this ruling because of D", then D is the reason for that ruling and decision. A, B, and C are not reasons for that decision. They remain ideas, concepts, whatever. They are not reasons.
A reason to support something can also be a reason it is passed. The main reason this happened was what the judge said. Another reason this happened is because people believe there are inherent issues with hiring agency workers to break strikes. All ideas in general have an effect on legislation.
You are being hyper-literal.
Not part of the judges reasoning means it was not a reason. This is how the law works. This isn't hyper literal, this is basic logic.
Legislation is not the same as judicial rulings. Judicial rulings need to be based on specific reasons. If they were not used, they are not reasons behind that ruling.
Yeah, but the judicial ruling did something. Its one of the reasons why you would want them to do that. Some people have that viewpoint towards the law, therefore it is a reason to repeal it. Like I've said three times now, the other reason is the more legally important one.
This is not basic logic, you are being hyper-literal.
Wants are not reasons behind the decision. You can have wants A through Z. It is decided because of Z, then Z is the reason. A through Y are not the reason behind the decision.
This is basic logic.
I'll leave you to your feelings.
Y is a reason to make that decision. One is more applicable legally. They are both reasons behind the decision.
I'll leave you to your feelings.
I think this is easily solved. I think both of you are right/wrong in your logic.
Judge A has an undisclosed reason X for a decision
Union Head B presents reason Y for a decision
X could equal Y. But we have no evidence either way. So X and Y could be entirely different or they could be the same
At this point I think you're being intentionally obtuse.
Wow, I think the same thing about you!
@someguy3 @Oneeightnine
There may be local variations?