• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Political Compass

The Saturday Boy said:
The working time regulations are individual rights therefore only the individual employee can make a claim for any breach of WTD. The WTD gives the individual the right to opt out, there is no mechanism for collective opt out negotiated by the unions.

You clearly have a warped view of what unions can do. Unions do not fund the NHS, do not employ nurses or doctors, do not run hospitals or make decisions about staffing. The unions, via the TUC, have a long standing policy of campaigning to remove the opt out which but as it is legislation it requires those responsible for the legislation to change it to remove the opt out.

So the unions didn't set the opt out, they don't agree with the opt out, don't fund the NHS, don't make decisions on staffing levels, can't prevent individuals from opting out and can't change the law...but they should be ashamed? Sounds like a poor attempt at deflecting the blame for the opportunity to do a little bit of union bashing.
Click to expand...

Individuals backed by their union.

I BTW am pro union. I chaired an organisations police federation liaison in a previous role. If one of my officers was being REQUIRED to opt out and forced to work over 48 hours a week over a rolling 17 weeks I would have been all over it like a bad rash. And I would have been looking for other individual examples. Then I would have put the collective abuses to management . Then higher if not resolved. But in no way woulkd thery have been allowed to continue.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
Individuals backed by their union.

I BTW am pro union. I chaired an organisations police federation liaison in a previous role. If one of my officers was being REQUIRED to opt out and forced to work over 48 hours a week over a rolling 17 weeks I would have been all over it like a bad rash. And I would have been looking for other individual examples. Then I would have put the collective abuses to management . Then higher if not resolved. But in no way woulkd thery have been allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

No individual can be required to opt out.

You are suggesting unions are complicit in something that they have actively and publically campaigned against and over which they have no managerial control. You have taken a very small sample of evidence, which you have disagreed with over a number of posts, and concluded it is the unions fault for not dealing with it.

Forgive me if I felt that came across as being anti-union. Spoke as I saw.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
No individual can be required to opt out.

You are suggesting unions are complicit in something that they have actively and publically campaigned against and over which they have no managerial control. You have taken a very small sample of evidence, which you have disagreed with over a number of posts, and concluded it is the unions fault for not dealing with it.

Forgive me if I felt that came across as being anti-union. Spoke as I saw.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting it. Squeeze posted it. I commented on it. I commented on an individual case. As an individual case if I had been presented with the same circumstances I would have acted as per post 6317. If a union knew about pressure to opt out and members exceeding the wtd and did not act then why pay their fees?
 
Cyber-_-man said:
I wasn't suggesting it. Squeeze posted it. I commented on it. I commented on an individual case. As an individual case if I had been presented with the same circumstances I would have acted as per post 6317. If a union knew about pressure to opt out and members exceeding the wtd and did not act then why pay their fees?
Click to expand...

Yet you ignored the context which was the whole point of the post. It was presented in a context if the threat of closing departments making the alternative worse.

You, on the other hand it seems, would act without regard to context or consequences. That doesn't sound like the actions of a police officer, I would hope that context and consequences play into decisions rather than ignoring all the shades of grey in between black and white.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
No individual can be required to opt out.

You are suggesting unions are complicit in something that they have actively and publically campaigned against and over which they have no managerial control. You have taken a very small sample of evidence, which you have disagreed with over a number of posts, and concluded it is the unions fault for not dealing with it.

Forgive me if I felt that came across as being anti-union. Spoke as I saw.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that individuals could opt out if it was agreed with the management. My apologies if I am incorrect, but I am sure some-one did that at my workplace a while back.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
Yet you ignored the context which was the whole point of the post. It was presented in a context if the threat of closing departments making the alternative worse.

You, on the other hand it seems, would act without regard to context or consequences. That doesn't sound like the actions of a police officer, I would hope that context and consequences play into decisions rather than ignoring all the shades of grey in between black and white.
Click to expand...

Context retired lol!

However calling me black and white is fair.

The law is often just that no grey
My actions were always to PLAN
Proportionate
Legal or Legitimate
Accountable
Necessary.

Taking emotion and feeling out helped hence black and white.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
Yes you did


And this "Plus, on checking with my wife who was a casualty nurse for many years, all casualty staff were encouraged to opt out "or the SERVICE will suffer".
Click to expand...

I was talking about the lawyering point
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I was under the impression that individuals could opt out if it was agreed with the management. My apologies if I am incorrect, but I am sure some-one did that at my workplace a while back.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other workplaces but you are correct in the ones I've worked in.
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I was under the impression that individuals could opt out if it was agreed with the management. My apologies if I am incorrect, but I am sure some-one did that at my workplace a while back.
Click to expand...

You are correct and they must do it in writing. My question was why bother for anything other than money. That led to the debate above
 
Cyber-_-man said:
Individuals backed by their union.

I BTW am pro union. I chaired an organisations police federation liaison in a previous role. If one of my officers was being REQUIRED to opt out and forced to work over 48 hours a week over a rolling 17 weeks I would have been all over it like a bad rash. And I would have been looking for other individual examples. Then I would have put the collective abuses to management . Then higher if not resolved. But in no way woulkd thery have been allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

Lol, as mentioned earlier, police are not covered by the WTD.
 
Penk Wolf said:
Lol, as mentioned earlier, police are not covered by the WTD.
Click to expand...

Yes they are lol- certain exclusions in certain circumstance is very different to not covered. The 48 hour 17 week one very definitely is applied with rigour as its a duty of care issue.
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media/190269/police-law-working-time-regulations-1.pdf

Some police forces have a force wide work force agreement in place to work outside the working time directive but the clauses can be even more stringent than the wtd. The police like to cherry pick what suits best and sometimes the wtd is better and sometimes police regs are better. This awful document is from Nottinghamshire but is an example https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/.../Working_Time_Directive.doc

One of the issues with the wtd is the 11 hours between shifts. Several shift patterns include a quick changeover that means you dont work into your rest day after nights so you would work 10-6 nights for 6 days then on the 7th work 2-10 then get three or four days off. Another issue was nights being only 8 hours. Some shift patterns have them at 10 hours. The biggy that was always highlighted to me though is the 48 hour week averaged over 17 weeks as I say as that is the duty of care

However having retired in 2014 I may be wrong if something has happened or changed since then .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you not just say, as a union rep, you'd be all over it like a rash? I'm confused.
 
Penk Wolf said:
Did you not just say, as a union rep, you'd be all over it like a rash? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Yes if one of my officers was being forced to work over 48 hours over 17 weeks I would have when in post. Its potentially dangerous to the health of the member and therefore could be dangerous to the public

The variants that forces agree are usually to the benefit of the officer overall such as less than 11 hours between shifts on occasions but it means the member doesn't work into their day off as per my earlier example. The other longer nights meant more days off so again beneficial for the membership.

I was trying to highlight why you may have thought police were exempt full stop. They are not. But they also can't just down tools in the middle of an incident. I tried to show where there can be flexibility and why and where the service applies higher rigour. Sorry to confuse. Its late.... Or early!
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I was under the impression that individuals could opt out if it was agreed with the management. My apologies if I am incorrect, but I am sure some-one did that at my workplace a while back.
Click to expand...

No individual can be "required" to opt out. It is voluntary.
 
GBeebies.

I did like Andrew Neil on This Week and when he did the General Election interviews but politically he's always been iffy.
 
The only story over here about GB News is that they are being trolled by callers with names like Mike Hunt and Mike Oxlong.

I'm sure there is a UK market for a baby fox channel - i.e. talk radio with pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top