West Coast Railway Company Windermere Services: Strike Breaking?

[Shaw S Hunter]

I assume many trains are being operated by volunteers from other sections of the company. They must have chosen to work these trains.

I take it you were being sarcastic with this comment because I can assure you that nearly all of the substitute guards have been given little option but to take on the role on strike days.

I accept it is a point of esoteric principle but principles are important. At least they are to me.

And it was the insistence by so many in the Labour Party that principles be adhered to that went a long way to ensuring this country had 18 years of Conservative rule after 1997. And the current lot look set to repeat the experience...

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' !!

Ho ho ho! I can assure you that rail staff are very much a minority on here. If this was not the case then it would be a very boring place!

 

[pt_mad]

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.

Well we have to question WHY the government are out to cut staff levels and remove guards? And why as you say they supposedly don't care about passenger inconvenience? The government say they want more people in good employment. Their whole economy is based on everyone being in work. They don't like nationalised industries, the tocs are privatised. And yet they want to cut guards jobs in those private companies? Bit theu want these people to have supposedly quality skilled jobs. But they aren't going to be provided by the TOC are they? Who will offer these quality jobs if everyone wants to get rid of people? It's all a bit bizarre.

The wider implications of the Northern situation, and Southern, and others, are very worrying. I spoke to a passenger yesterday who said re this situation that she didn't agree with having less guards, she always wanted a guard on every train she travels on, but that she didn't agree with strikes. And I get the feeling a lot of the public have this point of view. But the problem is without strikes or the chance of a strike you have no leverage or means as a workforce whatsoever to object or bargaining for anything. You would simply be railroaded, the way many non unionised workforces are. Try getting a pay rise even close to the rise in the cost of living where you have no collective bargaining and the company simply says what you can have, and if they say no rise for two or three years then what they say goes because they are king. And yet your bills still go up and you are expected to find the money from somewhere but not from your employer which is your only means of income.

I have worked for non unionised industries and unionised industries and I can honestly say the conditions have been far far better within the unionised workforce. To the point there has been a culture of bullying and fear at several firms I have worked for but none whatsoever within the unionised environments I have been involved with.

We cannot afford to lose the unions as a society otherwise we risk the employers landing up with every little bit of control over our fate and there will be no room for bargaining or compromises. What the employer says will go no matter how unreasonable. And this will spread to even more industries and it can only be a bad thing for all of us. Nobody would be totally immune if there were no protection for workers rights.

People will say well there's HR and employment tribunals. Don't forget HR work for the company not you. And due to laws passed since 2010 it's not possible to take an employer to a tribunal until you have been in permanent employment with then for over 2 years. So whenever you change job, if you choose to take the risk, you have no right of recourse for 2 years. And that will apply to well paid skilled persons and managers as well as manual labourers.

The constant downgrading of our terms and conditions won't be a good thing for anyone. And there's our kids futures to think about.

 

[Mojo]

This is a replacement train service being run instead of the franchised operator while employees of the franchised operator are on strike.

This is a replacement service that is being run instead of the franchised opeator because of operational difficulties encountered by said franchised operator. When the staff of the aforementioned Toc are not on strike then the WCR service still operates.

 

[CN75]

Well we have to question WHY the government are out to cut staff levels and remove guards? And why as you say they supposedly don't care about passenger inconvenience? The government say they want more people in good employment. Their whole economy is based on everyone being in work. They don't like nationalised industries, the tocs are privatised. And yet they want to cut guards jobs in those private companies? Bit theu want these people to have supposedly quality skilled jobs. But they aren't going to be provided by the TOC are they? Who will offer these quality jobs if everyone wants to get rid of people? It's all a bit bizarre.

The wider implications of the Northern situation, and Southern, and others, are very worrying. I spoke to a passenger yesterday who said re this situation that she didn't agree with having less guards, she always wanted a guard on every train she travels on, but that she didn't agree with strikes. And I get the feeling a lot of the public have this point of view. But the problem is without strikes or the chance of a strike you have no leverage or means as a workforce whatsoever to object or bargaining for anything. You would simply be railroaded, the way many non unionised workforces are. Try getting a pay rise even close to the rise in the cost of living where you have no collective bargaining and the company simply says what you can have, and if they say no rise for two or three years then what they say goes because they are king. And yet your bills still go up and you are expected to find the money from somewhere but not from your employer which is your only means of income.

I have worked for non unionised industries and unionised industries and I can honestly say the conditions have been far far better within the unionised workforce. To the point there has been a culture of bullying and fear at several firms I have worked for but none whatsoever within the unionised environments I have been involved with.

We cannot afford to lose the unions as a society otherwise we risk the employers landing up with every little bit of control over our fate and there will be no room for bargaining or compromises. What the employer says will go no matter how unreasonable. And this will spread to even more industries and it can only be a bad thing for all of us. Nobody would be totally immune if there were no protection for workers rights.

People will say well there's HR and employment tribunals. Don't forget HR work for the company not you. And due to laws passed since 2010 it's not possible to take an employer to a tribunal until you have been in permanent employment with then for over 2 years. So whenever you change job, if you choose to take the risk, you have no right of recourse for 2 years. And that will apply to well paid skilled persons and managers as well as manual labourers.

The constant downgrading of our terms and conditions won't be a good thing for anyone. And there's our kids futures to think about.

The government is not picking a dispute in an attempt to destroy the RMT union. It is implementing recommendations on solving operational inefficiency and best practice in the rail industry from research it commissioned, which include introducing DOO to trains. The RMT union objects to that for exactly the reason you state - the leverage to secure favourable terms for guards is potentially weakened as a consequence. The RMT does not just represent guards and guards are not the only railway staff with popular terms and conditions.

None of the companies have said that they would end the employment of any guard (only Merseyrail said anything similar, and a long time ago). Guards just wouldn’t be doing exactly the same job in the future as they do now.

The RMT’s proposed resolution on Greater Anglia basically says drivers will control train doors at all times, showing the RMT has had to accept that the train doors ‘skill’ is becoming redundant too. The skills guards have that the government and train companies want to see put to better use are all the customer service type skills.

 

[Robertj21a]

And it was the insistence by so many in the Labour Party that principles be adhered to that went a long way to ensuring this country had 18 years of Conservative rule after 1997. And the current lot look set to repeat the experience...



Ho ho ho! I can assure you that rail staff are very much a minority on here. If this was not the case then it would be a very boring place!

Interesting. As a non-rail staff forum contributor I certainly get the impression that the vast majority on here are rail staff !

 

[Robertj21a]

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.

This is very true. Unions can be beneficial to their members and the wider community, and can contribute significantly to the smooth running of larger operations, particularly where staff work remotely for much of the time. If the RMT spent more of their time concentrating on these issues rather than fighting politicians, the media, FatCats, foreign investors etc etc then it might eventually gain a bit more respect than it does at present. As has been said on a number of occasions, it really does need to become more professional.

 

[The Ham]

There's been cases of people running their own services befit IIRC there was one organised by passengers during the Southern Strikes.

At the time there was no objections to that.

If running any service is strike breaking, then drivers unions and other gaurd unions would be telling their members not to go to work or not run parallel services when the RMT were on strike.

How far do you take that? Should SWR not be able to run any services between Reading and Waterloo if GWR had an RMT strike, even though most of the passengers on the train would be their existing passengers? How about XC and SWR allowing people to get from Reading to Basingstoke to get to Waterloo? How about Farnborough Main to Guildford via a change at Woking and the Ascot to Guildford services? All of which would allow passengers to get about on routes which would therefore benefit GWR passengers.

If Northern are striking should XC and TPE (along with any other TOC) cease all their services which may benefit Northern passengers?

The fact is that strikes only impact the TOC by then not being able to use the staff who are members of the striking union. They can't use certain people (i.e. if I understand it correctly: temporary staff who they haven't got an ongoing relationship with).

The problem is the longer that strikes go on for the easier it is for the TOC to run more services.

 

[TUC]

Any company or staff that carry on working during the strike are clearly very welcomed by passengers.

 

[TUC]

All this discussion has echos of debates about secondary action which I thought was a dead and buried issue from tne 1980s.and made illegal back then.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Well we have to question WHY the government are out to cut staff levels and remove guards? And why as you say they supposedly don't care about passenger inconvenience? The government say they want more people in good employment. Their whole economy is based on everyone being in work. They don't like nationalised industries, the tocs are privatised. And yet they want to cut guards jobs in those private companies? Bit theu want these people to have supposedly quality skilled jobs. But they aren't going to be provided by the TOC are they? Who will offer these quality jobs if everyone wants to get rid of people? It's all a bit bizarre.

By removing the role of the Guard the TOCs can substitute Fare Collectors or Passenger Assistants with less training and with a slimmer union rule-book, if any. The jobs remain but they are deskilled. Employment remains at the same level, but costs are cut. We have a record level of employment currently, unfortunately, many of the jobs are now low wage, zero or limited hours contracts. Good for stats and profits, poor for the employee. Just look at what has happened to gateline staff - many now employed by agencies on reduced wages with no real training. The job is there but the service level (in many cases) is appalling.

 

[cuccir]

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)?

... No? I'm saying that I don't think it's strike breaking.

However, I do see the concern being raised: this service shows that one could in theory break a strike by simply paying another operating company, whether a TOC or a heritage operator, to provide what is effectively a charter service on strike days. Despite acknowledging that principle, I don't think - for the reasons that I outlined - that any TOC could ever engage in that sort of strike breaking on a meaningful scale.

 

[wildcard]

By removing the role of the Guard the TOCs can substitute Fare Collectors or Passenger Assistants with less training and with a slimmer union rule-book, if any. The jobs remain but they are deskilled. Employment remains at the same level, but costs are cut.

Exactly - and the method to achieve this is to allow more trains to run under exceptional circumstances without a 2nd staff member on board . This weakens a unions power of strike action , work to rule or unofficial absenteeism. If I were a guard I'd be with the RMT fighting this all the way . But I'm a passenger and would like lower fares and reduced taxes - so let the best man win . What annoys me is the endless guff you hear from both sides about safety and passenger assistance being their main concerns - rubbish. To paraphrase " Its the money - stupid ! " . I have to say I think the tide of automation puts unionised labour on the back foot . Swathes of skilled people are set to lose their jobs to technology as it begins to successfully mimic their expertise and knowledge.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

You're absolutely right there. I've been involved in negotiations with RMT members and their determination to find politically-motivated grievances is absolutely astonishing. The people I was dealing with made it patently clear they were going to have their strike, even though it achieved absolutely nothing and was over something the company had very little scope to change anyway. Their "negotiations" were an absolute joke. I've been a member of three unions in my time and have benefitted greatly from being so, but I've never been in the RMT. At least Bob Crow picked reasonably sensible battles, but Cash is just insane in what he's doing. He's losing his members a fortune, and DOO will end up getting imposed anyway.

 

[Journeyman]

Exactly - and the method to achieve this is to allow more trains to run under exceptional circumstances without a 2nd staff member on board . This weakens a unions power of strike action , work to rule or unofficial absenteeism. If I were a guard I'd be with the RMT fighting this all the way . But I'm a passenger and would like lower fares and reduced taxes - so let the best man win . What annoys me is the endless guff you hear from both sides about safety and passenger assistance being their main concerns - rubbish. To paraphrase " Its the money - stupid ! " . I have to say I think the tide of automation puts unionised labour on the back foot . Swathes of skilled people are set to lose their jobs to technology as it begins to successfully mimic their expertise and knowledge.

The thing is, there's still a long line of people applying for Southern OBS jobs. They're still seen as desirable and a valuable position to hold, even if the RMT doesn't agree.

 

[DarloRich]

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

I think this is a really positive news story for the local people. I have explained why i am not comfortable with these trains running on strike days. Most of you disagree and I accept that but my views wont change nor will I stop stating them. Many here are happy to justify this activity and I accept my views are considered old fashioned by many. However, the government will take note of this activity and use it to their benefit somewhere else soon. It might be something you DO worry about. I wonder if then if you or they will be celebrating quite so much.

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.

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.

I understand the point entirely. I am not a member of RMT. I often critcise them and I will point out I haven't mentioned them in any of my discussions on the principles involved in this matter. They, the TOC's and the government need to get round the table and sort out a deal on these long running problems. The problem is that all three actors have their own interests at heart and no one will make the first move to compromise. There needs to be mature, adult conversations and some tough deal making and most importantly compromise.

However, silly as they often are the RMT does get results for their members. They get them good pay settlements ( certainly better than mine to the extent that people on a lower grade with less responsibility can be paid more than me!) and look after the members in disputes. I would also point out the union is a democracy and if members are not happy they can vote out the leadership or change policy. Apathy may explain why they don't but in the absence of a membership revolt there must be support for the position taken by the leadership despite what us non members may think of that stance.

Exactly - and the method to achieve this is to allow more trains to run under exceptional circumstances without a 2nd staff member on board . This weakens a unions power of strike action , work to rule or unofficial absenteeism. If I were a guard I'd be with the RMT fighting this all the way . But I'm a passenger and would like lower fares and reduced taxes - so let the best man win . What annoys me is the endless guff you hear from both sides about safety and passenger assistance being their main concerns - rubbish. To paraphrase " Its the money - stupid ! " . I have to say I think the tide of automation puts unionised labour on the back foot . Swathes of skilled people are set to lose their jobs to technology as it begins to successfully mimic their expertise and knowledge.

Nice to see safety considered such "guff".

BTW you can sack every guard in the country and your fares and taxes will not fall by a penny.

if I was asked to name an effective, professional trade union the RMT wouldn't be near the top of my list.

Feel free to offer up such a list. I would be interested to see it.

This is very true. Unions can be beneficial to their members and the wider community, and can contribute significantly to the smooth running of larger operations, particularly where staff work remotely for much of the time. If the RMT spent more of their time concentrating on these issues rather than fighting politicians, the media, FatCats, foreign investors etc etc then it might eventually gain a bit more respect than it does at present. As has been said on a number of occasions, it really does need to become more professional.

From whom are the RMT to seek that respect? Their members or non members? I doubt they care what you or I on the outside looking in think. Why should they? We cant vote them out of their well recompensed offices!

 

[Dai Corner]

... No? I'm saying that I don't think it's strike breaking.

However, I do see the concern being raised: this service shows that one could in theory break a strike by simply paying another operating company, whether a TOC or a heritage operator, to provide what is effectively a charter service on strike days. Despite acknowledging that principle, I don't think - for the reasons that I outlined - that any TOC could ever engage in that sort of strike breaking on a meaningful scale.

Re-reading your post I realise my assumption was incorrect. Apologies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

... No? I'm saying that I don't think it's strike breaking.

However, I do see the concern being raised: this service shows that one could in theory break a strike by simply paying another operating company, whether a TOC or a heritage operator, to provide what is effectively a charter service on strike days. Despite acknowledging that principle, I don't think - for the reasons that I outlined - that any TOC could ever engage in that sort of strike breaking on a meaningful scale.

How does that substantially differ from providing a replacement bus service, which is common practice?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Nice to see safety considered such "guff".

For myself, safety itself isn't "guff". Of course it isn't. What is (to use the word) "guff" IMO is the assertion that the issue of Drivers operating doors on Northern negatively affects safety in any meaningful way. Where is the actual evidence? But then, we're away from the subject of this thread; the merits or otherwise of the strikes and the Union's stance and so on belong in another thread.

 

[ainsworth74]

Gentle reminder that this thread is not for discussing the wider issues around the current drive for DOO. It is purely about whether an operation like West Coast's is strike breaking. There are other threads for discussing the role of guards, the right/wrongs of DOO and the wider disputes across multiple TOCs.

 

[talltim]

They are operating a service that would not normally be operating due to a strike - how is that not strike breaking ? You might convince yourself with regard to certain 'technicalities' but you certainly won't convince any trade unionist nor I suspect most rail staff.

They aren't operating a service that would not normally be operating due to a strike. They are running their own service on a line where another operator's RMT members are on strike

 

[squizzler]

How does that substantially differ from providing a replacement bus service, which is common practice?

The replacement bus service a substitute provided by the rail operator. I would say the West Coast operation is more akin to a bunch of frustrated travellers deciding to blow out the rail service and hire a minicab. Only in this instance the rail service has ended up on the road and the minicab is on rails

 

[Camden]

It isn't strike breaking because it has nothing to do with the company. The company haven't asked for this to happen, and in fact it might be to their detriment if it should come to pass that they never get the line back

Rather than being anything to do with strikes, I think this should provide a template approach to managing TOCs going forward. Split each franchise into lines, and if the performance goes down on that line for whatever reason, make the paths on that line fair game for others to step in. Including taking an operator off the line entirely.

A strike dispute with a company would still be ongoing, it just would only be affecting the company rather than passengers. Arguably what would be happening in this case if the stand in was able to run a full timetable. Perhaps this might also engender fair compromise rather than endless demands? Strikes that see the company go out of business result in job losses elsewhere, but that angle seems to be missing here.

 

[TUC]

It isn't strike breaking because it has nothing to do with the company. The company haven't asked for this to happen, and in fact it might be to their detriment if it should come to pass that they never get the line back

Rather than being anything to do with strikes, I think this should provide a template approach to managing TOCs going forward. Split each franchise into lines, and if the performance goes down on that line for whatever reason, make the paths on that line fair game for others to step in. Including taking an operator off the line entirely.

Very much agree with this.

 

[Moonshot]

It isn't strike breaking because it has nothing to do with the company. The company haven't asked for this to happen, and in fact it might be to their detriment if it should come to pass that they never get the line back

Rather than being anything to do with strikes, I think this should provide a template approach to managing TOCs going forward. Split each franchise into lines, and if the performance goes down on that line for whatever reason, make the paths on that line fair game for others to step in. Including taking an operator off the line entirely.

A strike dispute with a company would still be ongoing, it just would only be affecting the company rather than passengers. Arguably what would be happening in this case if the stand in was able to run a full timetable. Perhaps this might also engender fair compromise rather than endless demands? Strikes that see the company go out of business result in job losses elsewhere, but that angle seems to be missing here.

Wow......some time ago i was actually advocating this approach and got grief on here about it. The idea of " bidding for paths " is one that came up in the Rail 2020 enquiry some time ago. It works very well in the airline industry, though I accept there are some significant differences between rail and air travel. Nonetheless , it does give an opportunity for the smaller business to have a go. WCR taking over the service ( albeit on a temp basis) may prove to be a blessing in disguise longer term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow......some time ago i was actually advocating this approach and got grief on here about it. The idea of " bidding for paths " is one that came up in the Rail 2020 enquiry some time ago. It works very well in the airline industry, though I accept there are some significant differences between rail and air travel. Nonetheless , it does give an opportunity for the smaller business to have a go. WCR taking over the service ( albeit on a temp basis) may prove to be a blessing in disguise longer term.

Replied on the general thread as it's OT here.

 

[pemma]

I suspect strike breaking is not illegal

Bringing in agency staff to only cover shifts of striking workers is illegal, unless the law has recently changed.

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 .

I clarified in a post at 17:02 yesterday (before your original reply to one of my posts) that as far as I can see Mick Cash's statement on the Northern strike yesterday makes no reference to services on the Windermere branch, which is where I also suggested @DarloRich of having a more hard line approach that the RMT. His previous posts have made it sound like he's actively involved in a union and not just by being a member but I don't think he's ever clarified which union he belongs to.

 

[pemma]

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.

Agreed. One of the contributors to this thread called me a hypocritic in another thread for using what a leader of a trade union said as evidence for a point I made, despite the fact I had never criticised the actions of that particular trade union.

Regardless of your view on whether railways should be private or public sector, I don't see why nationalisation is seen as the solution to problems with the private sector. I see no reason why Merseyrail or London Overground can't be managed locally even if they become public sector operators. In the case of Windermere I'm not sure a locally operated shuttle is the answer especially if tourists make up a large number of people using the line. Oxenholme offers connections to long distance services, Oxenholme doesn't offer as many connections as Preston, Wigan or Manchester.

 

[cuccir]

How does that substantially differ from providing a replacement bus service, which is common practice?

From an organisational perspective perhaps not too much, but with regards to impact of a strike, passengers see RRBs as a nuisance and disruption, whereas frankly many would barely notice if their train were operated by a different company for a day. Again, though, I don't see this as a likely outcome of WCR operating the line on strike days!

 

[Camden]

Replied on the general thread as it's OT here.

I can't see that it is off topic. What's being discussed is rejecting the premise of the thread question to the point of advocating normalising the arrangement. It's integral.

 

[Camden]

From an organisational perspective perhaps not too much, but with regards to impact of a strike, passengers see RRBs as a nuisance and disruption, whereas frankly many would barely notice if their train were operated by a different company for a day. Again, though, I don't see this as a likely outcome of WCR operating the line on strike days!

Why should passengers have to notice if there is a dispute? They are the entirely innocent party in all this. They deserve to be insulated from an argument in which they have no say or control over, and this approach could do that.