Please Sir can I have more!!

[HeliX]

2 hours ago, Asthehills said:

If they disclosed the full details of the package they are on now, I really doubt the public would push back against them being told not to strike.

If the public opinion was that they were still being paid as they were two years ago, you might have a point.

If the public doesn't resist legislation to prevent strikes then they're stupid.

[Banker]

40 minutes ago, HeliX said:

If the public doesn't resist legislation to prevent strikes then they're stupid.

Think we’re just talking greedy teachers 😂

[HeliX]

15 minutes ago, Banker said:

Think we’re just talking greedy teachers 😂

First they came...

[CallMeCurious]

7 minutes ago, HeliX said:

First they came...

So do non-striking teachers (who accepted and took the pay rise) who don't cross the picket line get paid?

[Asthehills]

4 hours ago, Newbie said:

Whether you agree with their strike action or not, surely everyone must be concerned about the possibility of legislation making it illegal to work to rule (as reported). In effect that means that employees have to do whatever their employers tell them to do even if what they are being asked to do isn't within their contract of employment - and all for no extra pay.

Don’t most contacts include something along the lines of “duties as required by the business” or a generic line basically saying that you will be expected to do what the business needs you to do as and when required anyway?

I am not checking mine at this time of night, but it has certainly been in some I have had in the past.  Same applies to hours.  Contracts always list core hours then state that you will be expected to work as and when required dont they?

I certainly can’t ever recall a situation where either I or any colleague over 39 years plus in various different businesses have ever refused to do anything, and I have mucked in and done plenty of things well outsode the scope of my day to day positions as and when required, including covering other people’s responsibilities for fairly extended periods of time while off long term sick.

[Newbie]

11 hours ago, finlo said:

Did he say legislation to work to rule or to stop strikes? Either way it didn't sound like he had much time for them on the moaning line on Friday!

I didn't hear what he actually said but the news report on MR says he is considering legislation to stop work to rule. I hope that is incorrect.

[manxman1980]

7 hours ago, Asthehills said:

Don’t most contacts include something along the lines of “duties as required by the business” or a generic line basically saying that you will be expected to do what the business needs you to do as and when required anyway?

I am not checking mine at this time of night, but it has certainly been in some I have had in the past.  Same applies to hours.  Contracts always list core hours then state that you will be expected to work as and when required dont they?

I certainly can’t ever recall a situation where either I or any colleague over 39 years plus in various different businesses have ever refused to do anything, and I have mucked in and done plenty of things well outsode the scope of my day to day positions as and when required, including covering other people’s responsibilities for fairly extended periods of time while off long term sick.

Not always in the contract but in the job description there is usually a reference to "an other reasonable duties".  

The key is "reasonable" and typically those duties should be in line with the position. 

Now you can go and argue what is reasonable for a teacher...

[Newbie]

7 hours ago, Asthehills said:

Don’t most contacts include something along the lines of “duties as required by the business” or a generic line basically saying that you will be expected to do what the business needs you to do as and when required anyway?

I am not checking mine at this time of night, but it has certainly been in some I have had in the past.  Same applies to hours.  Contracts always list core hours then state that you will be expected to work as and when required dont they?

I certainly can’t ever recall a situation where either I or any colleague over 39 years plus in various different businesses have ever refused to do anything, and I have mucked in and done plenty of things well outsode the scope of my day to day positions as and when required, including covering other people’s responsibilities for fairly extended periods of time while off long term sick.

As you say, doing things over and above your contract is quite common in both the public and private sectors. Teachers, for instance have always done that, which is what makes a work to rule effective in a pay dispute. If they weren't doing anything outside of their contract in the first place, working to rule would have absolutely no effect. However, it is one thing to be prepared to do things that are not in your contract, and that you are not paid to do, for the good of (in this instance) pupils. It is an entirely different thing for it to be a legal requirement for people to carry out unpaid work over and above their contract, and for it to be illegal to refuse even during a pay dispute.

[Albert Tatlock]

16 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/cannan-strike-action-is-completely-unreasonable/

It seems Alfy is now considering legislation to end the work to rule. This will be very interesting. How the hell do you legislate against working to rule?

I guess you simply write up some legislation 'such as the essential services act', specify minimum services, and get it voted through.

Sounds like Alf's only talking about sorting disruption in education here, and dealing with one specific union...

...but I could see why some might view it as the start of a slippery slope, given the alignment of his interests in terms of employers.

https://www.tynwald.org.im/memoff/interest/Pages/default.aspx

[BriT]

If some people in government vowed to only do what was prescribed in their contract they’d end up doing more work. 

[Whiskey]

33 minutes ago, BriT said:

If some people in government vowed to only do what was prescribed in their contract they’d end up doing more work. 

I’m fairly sure Alf hasn’t done much in his job description yet. 

[Newbie]

33 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

I guess you simply write up some legislation 'such as the essential services act', specify minimum services, and get it voted through.

Sounds like Alf's only talking about sorting disruption in education here, and dealing with one specific union...

...but I could see why some might view it as the start of a slippery slope, given the alignment of his interests in terms of employers.

https://www.tynwald.org.im/memoff/interest/Pages/default.aspx

Can the government really write legislation that makes it a legal requirement for certain workers to undertake work on a regular basis that they are neither contracted to do nor paid to do? If they are able to, and it survives the almost inevitable legal challenges, it would be very worrying.

[Asthehills]

58 minutes ago, Newbie said:

As you say, doing things over and above your contract is quite common in both the public and private sectors. Teachers, for instance have always done that, which is what makes a work to rule effective in a pay dispute. If they weren't doing anything outside of their contract in the first place, working to rule would have absolutely no effect. However, it is one thing to be prepared to do things that are not in your contract, and that you are not paid to do, for the good of (in this instance) pupils. It is an entirely different thing for it to be a legal requirement for people to carry out unpaid work over and above their contract, and for it to be illegal to refuse even during a pay dispute.

To be fair though, they have got away with it for ages and are only now, after significant pay increases, being told to cut it out.

My kids after school activities were impacted.  How on earth can a teacher say that they didn’t expect after school activities to be part of their job?  I don’t care if it’s in their contract or not, it’s a part of teaching that anyone who has been to school in the last 50 years or more will know is part of their job.

[Asthehills]

10 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

I’m fairly sure Alf hasn’t done much in his job description yet. 

Like what?

[manxman1980]

4 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Can the government really write legislation that makes it a legal requirement for certain workers to undertake work on a regular basis that they are neither contracted to do nor paid to do? If they are able to, and it survives the almost inevitable legal challenges, it would be very worrying.

Employment law is a civil matter so enforcement of it would be extremely difficult. 

Employers can take action now to discipline employees for failing to follow a reasonable management request.  

Also worth noting in this discussion bur the contractual relationship between employers and employees is based on a master and slave relationship.