West Coast Railway Company Windermere Services: Strike Breaking?

[AlterEgo]

I wonder how this thread would have run if London's service to Southend was cancelled?

If c2c were on strike and they organised bus replacements I’m sure the bus drivers would be blacklegs in the eyes of some people.

 

[Moonshot]

If c2c were on strike and they organised bus replacements I’m sure the bus drivers would be blacklegs in the eyes of some people.

Be quite ironic if striking guards used their own rail service to get to a picket line

 

[Maxfly]

Are the RMT the ones who are not supposed to be happy with this, as they have not long shared a BBC news article on these trains. I don't think they can be that displeased with it?

 

[Robertj21a]

Goodness me - of course it just is my opinion! Just as what follows is yours. I don't know what you think i am suggesting - Ii simply said that running the service today does not sit well with me. It is not for me to decide if that is right and wrong. I simply set out my views.



Perhaps people don't care but this approach will be used somewhere else in the future. They might care then.

I have set out my position above. I know the anti union majority here wont agree but I wont change my stance to appease them.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you change your stance. We all have our own personal views and shouldn't change them for anybody, unless fresh information is supplied which may change some facts.

I'm not sure how a rail forum, predominantly made up of rail staff belonging to a union, can become an 'anti union majority' !!

 

[Robertj21a]

If c2c were on strike and they organised bus replacements I’m sure the bus drivers would be blacklegs in the eyes of some people.

We've had rail strikes around London (Tube and DLR I think ?) in recent times. Extra buses were put on over a number of busy routes.

 

[notlob.divad]

This is a replacement train service being run instead of the franchised operator while employees of the franchised operator are on strike. That is the key point for me. They are running a duplicate service. The status of the Northern service doesn't matter. The principle is clear.

So in theory if on strike days they skipped Burnside (for arguements sake) it wouldn't be a duplicate service and thus you would be alright with it.

I agree with other posters, if it was a service brought in only for strike days, to cover what otherwise would have been a northern service, that would be strike braking. However, as Northern have abandoned their commitment to run the line, and another operator has been found, any dispute between northern and their staff is irrelevant.

Finally I would have thought, given the RMTs dispute is with the company and claim to be doing this for the benefit of passengers, they would be very happy to see the company loosing revenue, with passengers abandoning the Northern RRB and returning to the rails with another operator.

 

[Chester1]

Are the RMT the ones who are not supposed to be happy with this, as they have not long shared a BBC news article on these trains. I don't think they can be that displeased with it?

It highlights how much of a mess Northern has become and would be bad PR even by RMT standards to oppose it. Regardless of whether it is technically strike breaking or not they appear to have decided not to object.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When BA cabin staff went on strike last year, BA hired fully crewed planes from Qatar Airways (an IAG shareholder) to operate some services.
That is what today's customers expect transport operators to do to keep them moving during strikes.
I don't see how the Northern dispute is any different.
Not that Northern is doing the hiring in the WCRC case.

https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...ncellation-unite-union-heathrow-a7809561.html

During previous stoppages British Airways chartered in capacity from other airlines. BA has sought permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to bring in nine fully crewed aircraft from its part-owner, Qatar Airways. to cover for strike-hit services

 

[Malcolmffc]

It’s a absolutely fantastic that WCR have been able to step in here - hopefully a model for what can be done in similar situations in future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree with you and think you are wrong. This is my view and it wont change: This is a replacement train service being run instead of the franchised operator while employees of the franchised operator are on strike.

No, it isn't. It's not being run instead of the franchised operator, because the franchised operator can't be bothered to run it whether there was a strike on or not. The franchised service on the line is at present a replacement bus service, which is still operating in addition, and operates anyway because it does not use Northern guards. And because that would have operated whether there was a strike or not, that's not strike-breaking either.

What would be strike-breaking would be if Northern was operating the regular train service and contracted WCRC (or buses) to operate today as a substitute. But that (or more specifically the buses) is normal practice, no? And has been for years - when FNW had a series of weekend strikes years ago they contracted an extensive coach service over most of their network.

What you are saying is almost akin to saying that if VTWC staff went on strike passengers using their Any Permitted tickets on WMT would make WMT strike-breaking, which is patently untrue.

 

[Dai Corner]

It’s a absolutely fantastic that WCR have been able to step in here - hopefully a model for what can be done in similar situations in future.

The 125 Group's HST would have been welcome on the Paddington-Bristols yesterday!

 

[carriageline]

To be fair, I’m a union man and I’m not sure it’s a strike breaking.

Reason being, are northern making any money out of it? If no, then I don’t think it is. If they was offering it ok BEHALF of Northern, it’s strike breaking.

Is it profiting from a strike? Of course it is. The members are striking against Northern. They want to “hurt” the company. Is this helping? I think so

Does it hurt the government? Depends if they see any substantial money from WCRC tickets.

The union are not there to annoy or disadvantage passengers. This allows the passengers to travel, but hurts the company. Both financially and performance

 

[muz379]

Obviously you think the people of Cumbria haven't put up with enough recently and a militant trade union should be able to shut down their perfectly legal service, which isn't operated by or on behalf of Northern because you don't like it. I really think the local media should report what trade union members actually think and then they can see if the passengers actually support the strike. In a way I'm glad they don't because if the public become too anti-Trade Union due to the actions of the RMT they'll be widespread support for restricting what trade unions can and can't do and the proper professional trade unions will suffer because of the RMT's childish antics.

Hold the gun there a bit , I know you usually cannot wait to put the boot into the RMT . But I have seen nor heard nothing official from the RMT today which suggests any objection to this service running .

All that you have to publish is what one person on a forum thinks , that person not even being an RMT member . Not really a sound basis for a story to denigrate the RMT as a whole in my opinion .

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm late to this thread but I want to agree with a post on page 1. Northern were not running services on the Windermere line anyway: strike or not, no services. That does make the situation less black-or-white as it might first appear.

In an era of railways where TOCs have such a stranglehold on the network, this alternative solution to the inability of a franchise to satisfy its contract is surely something to consider a success, of sorts, than to label it "strike breaking".

 

[bnm]

in the future this will be tried again

Let's hope so. Anything that maintains a rail service while the RMT do their thing, or a TOC fails to run its franchise Service Level Commitment, is to be welcomed.

To say nothing of the opportunity to bag unusual traction.

 

[muz379]

I'm late to this thread but I want to agree with a post on page 1. Northern were not running services on the Windermere line anyway: strike or not, no services. That does make the situation less black-or-white as it might first appear.

I think this and the fact that the service is not just being scheduled to operate on strike days but on the whole 2 weeks when Northern have withdrawn their train service are both relevant distinctions that should be taken into account when forming an opinion .

 

[northwichcat]

Hold the gun there a bit , I know you usually cannot wait to put the boot into the RMT . But I have seen nor heard nothing official from the RMT today which suggests any objection to this service running .

All that you have to publish is what one person on a forum thinks , that person not even being an RMT member . Not really a sound basis for a story to denigrate the RMT as a whole in my opinion .

There's been a lack of professionalism in how the RMT have conducted themselves. For example, yesterday they complained about what will happen as a consequence of their strikes, when its been in the public domain for two years. There's also been plenty of actual RMT members who have said they would prefer it for no services to run at all on strike days. Even if I wasn't a rail user if I was asked to name an effective, professional trade union the RMT wouldn't be near the top of my list.

 

[philthetube]

From a legal prospective strike breaking only occurs when agency staff are used to directly take the place of staff going on strike. So if the likes of G4S, STM or Carlisle had staff trained as guards which TOCs could hire in, it would be illegal for them to take the place of Northern guards during a strike. If Northern borrowed ATW or even TPE guards it would not be illegal but the union might not agree with the approach. WCR running a service which isn't using Northern trains or running to Northern's usual timetable is effectively the equivalent of the army helping out when firefighters go on strike.

I suspect strike breaking is not illegal

 

[muz379]

There's been a lack of professionalism in how the RMT have conducted themselves. For example, yesterday they complained about what will happen as a consequence of their strikes, when its been in the public domain for two years. There's also been plenty of actual RMT members who have said they would prefer it for no services to run at all on strike days. Even if I wasn't a rail user if I was asked to name an effective, professional trade union the RMT wouldn't be near the top of my list.

An opinion you have made well known and are completely entitled to .

But as I said , the topic at discussion in this thread has had no input from the RMT . And there is nothing to suggest that RMT has as you suggested any intention to try and shut down or otherwise criticise the service on this line run by WCRC .

You comment of "Obviously you think the people of Cumbria haven't put up with enough recently and a militant trade union should be able to shut down their perfectly legal service" was not even to someone who is an RMT member .

 

[randyrippley]

So what if they are strike breaking? Maybe there should be more of it.
Seems to me that striking in the middle of the other problems Northern are undergoing is just sheer bloodymindedness

 

[Robertj21a]

So what if they are strike breaking? Maybe there should be more of it.
Seems to me that striking in the middle of the other problems Northern are undergoing is just sheer bloodymindedness

True. Of course, in any other 'normal' business a Union would realise that going on strike when there are other problems already runs a high risk of taking the company down altogether - with the loss of many/all jobs. The RMT is simply taking advantage of the fact that they can make matters that bit more difficult for the management and, in particular, the travelling public. Fortunately, people have long memories.

 

[Bevan Price]

True. Of course, in any other 'normal' business a Union would realise that going on strike when there are other problems already runs a high risk of taking the company down altogether - with the loss of many/all jobs. The RMT is simply taking advantage of the fact that they can make matters that bit more difficult for the management and, in particular, the travelling public. Fortunately, people have long memories.

Whilst I personally prefer to have guards on trains, my opinion is irrelevant. What the RMT members seemingly fail to realise is that the underlying problem is not Northern or other TOCs - it is the government (DfT, etc.), who are pushing TOCs to reduce staff levels, including getting rid of guards.

The RMT strikes are probably futile - guards are losing lots of money pusuing action that will almost certainly fail. The DfT cares s*d all about inconvenience to passengers - otherwise it would have pressurised TOCs to "settle the dispute" and agree to retain all guards many montha ago. Many passengers are getting totally p*ssed off with the train services - there are already signs that some are deserting rail for road transport. If that trend continues, the end result is likely to be reductions in train services -- and consequential reductions in all rail staff jobs.

Most tory governmentv view unions almost as "the enemy", and are unlikely to do anything that the pro-tory media would view as giving way to union demands. I suggest that all rail staff consider carefully the reality of their situation, and also heed the mistakes of Mr Scargill & NUM, or you may find that Mr Cash & RMT leaders have helped to destroy many of your jobs.

 

[randyrippley]

True. Of course, in any other 'normal' business a Union would realise that going on strike when there are other problems already runs a high risk of taking the company down altogether - with the loss of many/all jobs. The RMT is simply taking advantage of the fact that they can make matters that bit more difficult for the management and, in particular, the travelling public. Fortunately, people have long memories.

Of course the union - in this case - is safe in the knowledge that if the company does collapse, then the replacement franchisee will have to employ their members. I can't think of any other industry like that.

 

[Dai Corner]

Of course the union - in this case - is safe in the knowledge that if the company does collapse, then the replacement franchisee will have to employ their members. I can't think of any other industry like that.

Or, even better from their point of view, nobody thinks it's worthwhile bidding for a replacement franchise and they end up working for the Government via DOR. Then move on to the next vulnerable franchise. Repeat as necessary.

 

[cuccir]

I can see and appreciate DarloRich's concern what's to stop the DfT or a TOC paying another TOC to run a service along their route on strike days, in order to disrupt the effect of a strike?

FWIW I don't think it stands up too much as an idea - presumably the cost would be huge to do this across a network. Also, if the service were specifically engaged for this reason, the operating company could face their own industrial relation issues.

I agree broadly with the stance that as Northern are not getting cash from this, it is akin to a line where multiple TOCs operats: the normal services provided by third party TOCs is not strike braking.

 

[Dai Corner]

I can see and appreciate DarloRich's concern what's to stop the DfT or a TOC paying another TOC to run a service along their route on strike days, in order to disrupt the effect of a strike?

FWIW I don't think it stands up too much as an idea - presumably the cost would be huge to do this across a network. Also, if the service were specifically engaged for this reason, the operating company could face their own industrial relation issues.

I agree broadly with the stance that as Northern are not getting cash from this, it is akin to a line where multiple TOCs operats: the normal services provided by third party TOCs is not strike braking.

Are you saying it's OK for WCRC to run the service on non-strike days but not on strike days (even though Northern wouldn't have anyway)?

 

[yorkie]

I agree entirely. However, as I have said, running today sticks in the craw a little.

I am glad to see it running on every day that it runs.

You are correct. I stand by my position. Sorry if that view isn't welcome with the anti union majority here.

Except many of us (myself included) are actually in a union!

Applying common sense and reasonableness does not make a union member "anti union"

I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a union that used a ridiculous amount of hyperbole though.

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.

 

[Domh245]

Also, if the service were specifically engaged for this reason, the operating company could face their own industrial relation issues.

There is also the fact that if this were deliberate strike breaking, there are far more effective places for this train to be deployed rather than the Windermere shuttle, indeed it is clear that Northern have the branch as something of a low priority given the cancellation of all services during the emergency timetable.

 

[geoffk]

There's been a lack of professionalism in how the RMT have conducted themselves. For example, yesterday they complained about what will happen as a consequence of their strikes, when its been in the public domain for two years. There's also been plenty of actual RMT members who have said they would prefer it for no services to run at all on strike days. Even if I wasn't a rail user if I was asked to name an effective, professional trade union the RMT wouldn't be near the top of my list.

There is a suggestion from certain individuals who have an axe to grind that WCRC is strike breaking by running the service on a Northern strike day. No-one I have spoken to agrees with that. The RMT supports Brexit, a dream of the far right, which will benefit only a super-rich minority of non-doms and tax-avoiders. What more can I say except that they are backing the wrong horse. I'm a retired former Unison member, by the way.

 

[bnm]

Except many of us (myself included) are actually in a union!

This.

It's such a common misplaced attack from RMT supporters on this forum to label those disagreeing with the RMTs stance and methods as 'anti-union'.

I've had to explain numerous times that I'm anti-RMT, and have been a union member in the past. And would be again should I feel I needed the benefits and support a union can give. Unions can be, and in the main generally are, a force for good. As long as they aren't wedded to outdated ideologies and methods. I am favourably disposed to one aim of the RMT - renationalisation - but not to their methods of trying to achieve it.

Being anti-RMT but favourable to unionism in general is a concept some find difficult to understand. I don't like Coronation Street. That doesn't make me anti-ITV.