“Bringing in less-qualified agency staff to deliver important services risks endangering public safety, worsening disputes and poisoning industrial relations.”
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
At this point I think you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Wow, I think the same thing about you!
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.