New strike regulation possible

[WatcherZero]

According to the Daily Mail Governments about to introduce a bill which from 2020 would set out certain rail services that it would be illegal to strike on to guarantee a minimum service level for passengers. This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate. Government did previously look at introducing a blanket ban on rail strikes in Dec 2016 after the disruption they caused to Southern passengers but ultimately went for setting minimum strike ballot requirements instead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ery-bringing-minimum-service-requirement.html

Last night a Government source said the Department for Transport is due to propose legislation for a ‘minimum service requirement’.
This means that during strikes some services would have to run by law, avoiding the possibility of action bringing the network to its knees. Such services would include rush-hour trains and airport links.

However, a Bill to enact this will have to get through Parliament, meaning possible changes are unlikely to come into force until early 2020.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

According to the Daily Mail Governments about to introduce a bill which from 2020 would set out certain rail services that it would be illegal to strike on to guarantee a minimum service level for passengers. This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate. Government did previously look at introducing a blanket ban on rail strikes in Dec 2016 after the disruption they caused to Southern passengers but ultimately went for setting minimum strike ballot requirements instead.

Given the Tory hatred of trade unions this doesn't come as a great surprise. But equally how would such a law be enforced. There are plenty of crew diagrams which spend part of their time on "designated services" and part on something else. The responsiblity for rostering lies with the TOCs, not the unions. It will be interesting to see the detail, if this turns out to be a serious proposal.

 

[sw1ller]

According to the Daily Mail Governments about to introduce a bill which from 2020 would set out certain rail services that it would be illegal to strike on to guarantee a minimum service level for passengers. This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate. Government did previously look at introducing a blanket ban on rail strikes in Dec 2016 after the disruption they caused to Southern passengers but ultimately went for setting minimum strike ballot requirements instead.

I stopped reading after that.....

 

[AlterEgo]

I stopped reading after that.....

Why, is it not true?

Or is this just more anti-Daily Mail virtue signalling?

It’s a bad paper with bad intentions but...is the story incorrect? That’s the important thing.

 

[bahnause]

This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate.

Hourly offpeak services? That could be an improvement on certain routes compared to the actual timetable

 

[Robertj21a]

According to the Daily Mail Governments about to introduce a bill which from 2020 would set out certain rail services that it would be illegal to strike on to guarantee a minimum service level for passengers. This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate. Government did previously look at introducing a blanket ban on rail strikes in Dec 2016 after the disruption they caused to Southern passengers but ultimately went for setting minimum strike ballot requirements instead.

As a big improvement for the long-suffering rail passengers, I think that sounds like a pretty good idea !

 

[XCTurbostar]

If that happens then I would prepare for a general rail strike..

 

[farleigh]

If that happens then I would prepare for a general rail strike..

Would people notice?

 

[DarloRich]

Same old Tories.............

 

[XCTurbostar]

Would people notice?

Yeah.. not every TOC has strike action you know..

 

[Bantamzen]

The interesting thing about the current administration is that they are keen to reduce the possibility of workers having effect on services, but don't necessarily practice what they preach. A good example is my union recently had a vote for industrial action over pay. And although the result was largely in favour of action, because the turnout was less than 50% of the membership under the new laws regulating union activity, it requires a basic majority to turnout otherwise action is illegal. Meanwhile in various other public votes, elections etc this is not a requirement. So its kind of Democracy Minus, the lower down the food chain you are, the more the government legislates against you.

Meanwhile in Parliament, it is perfectly acceptable for Members to boycott, not turn up for important legislation debates & votes, even talk them out of Parliament by simply forcing the debate beyond the allocated timescales (Philip Davies, MP for Shipley I'm looking at you). So those people who think its a good thing to legislate against union action beware. Once the unions are all but toothless (and many already are), they will start to erode into your say too (for what it is these days). Its a slippery slope none of us really want!

 

[sw1ller]

Why, is it not true?

Or is this just more anti-Daily Mail virtue signalling?

It’s a bad paper with bad intentions but...is the story incorrect? That’s the important thing.

Couldn’t tell ya pal, I didn’t read it

 

[TPO]

(1) Wouldn't make that much difference in real terms as with TOCs keeping staff numbers so lean, action short of a strike (or even just non-coordinated stuff like loss of goodwill, not doing non-compulsory overtime, not making that it extra effort and "working to rule") will still have a major impact. Nor could that be so easily legislated for, as loss of good will could of course just be non-organised natural response to a poor employer...... and
(2) Is the DfT/govt really stupid enough* to do something which would further expose their own incompetence? The standard excuse for a lot of issues is "strike action" even when it isn't.... I caught a TOC telling blatent lies about that once...... If staff cannot strike, then public would need to look elsewhere to cast blame!

*to be fair, with this lot they probably are that stupid.

TPO

 

[Robertj21a]

If that happens then I would prepare for a general rail strike..

What, to rather prove to many people that the Tories might be right ?. Seems an odd way to avoid further strike legislation !

 

[AlterEgo]

Couldn’t tell ya pal, I didn’t read it

So just virtue signalling then.

 

[sw1ller]

I thought that was obvious.

 

[XCTurbostar]

What, to rather prove to many people that the Tories might be right ?. Seems an odd way to avoid further strike legislation !

So if you were the unions, how would you retaliate when the government intends to remove their strike potential? I hardly think the unions will just sit back.

 

[DarloRich]

it is ok - Comrade Corbyn will be in charge by then.......................

 

[6Gman]

Can somebody explain how this proposal would actually work ?

Good luck to a Roster Clerk trying to sort it all out ...

 

[eastwestdivide]

There's a setup along these lines in Italy. I've seen timetable posters with notes indicating which services will definitely run on strike days.

Some information in English here: https://www.italiarail.com/strike-information
and more in Italian here: http://www.trenitalia.com/tcom/Informazioni/Treni-garantiti-in-caso-di-sciopero
which indicates that the law governing this dates from 1990, and includes information on which services are guaranteed.
"Servizi minimi garantiti in caso di sciopero" = "guaranteed minimum services in case of strike"

 

[woodmally]

According to the Daily Mail Governments about to introduce a bill which from 2020 would set out certain rail services that it would be illegal to strike on to guarantee a minimum service level for passengers. This is going to be Airport services, Peak services and a minimum hourly offpeak service rate. Government did previously look at introducing a blanket ban on rail strikes in Dec 2016 after the disruption they caused to Southern passengers but ultimately went for setting minimum strike ballot requirements instead.

Hooray I do hope this does happen. I am sick of the power that the RMT have over passengers.

 

[Dave1987]

As a big improvement for the long-suffering rail passengers, I think that sounds like a pretty good idea !

A right winger doesn’t like the fact that people fight to protect their decent pay/ terms and conditions. Well there is a surprise.... not. I’m sure the right wing of the Tory would rather we were all on minimum wage working 60hrs a week, in fact why not bring back the work houses eh? It’s certainly not the British way for people to work for decent pay and have a decent standard of living. Well not under the right wing Government it isn’t!

 

[Dave1987]

Hooray I do hope this does happen. I am sick of the power that the RMT have over passengers.

This Government is as strong as a 6 week old lettuce leaf. Good look getting anything like this through Parliament. I’m emailing my Tory MP to confirm that the Tory party is declaring war on train drivers and the railway workforce in general. Because that is what it sounds like at the moment!

 

[RLBH]

A right winger doesn’t like the fact that people fight to protect their decent pay/ terms and conditions.

People tend not to like it when their lives are seriously disrupted. I think that that's understandable, and dismissing their concerns is not going to win the rail unions any support.

If you take the view that the railways provide a public service, then it's reasonable to take the view that yes, there should be some minimum level of service that has to be maintained, except for exceptional events like the line falling into the sea (i.e. Dawlish), in much the way as other public services such as water boards and emergency services. And that means that the permissible strike action should be reigned in. It also means that TOCs would have to put effort in to protect the minimum service obligation, which wouldn't necessarily be easy even without industrial action.

If, on the other hand, you want to take the view that there should not be a protected minimum level of service, then it isn't reasonable to claim that the railways provide a public service. That puts the future of passenger rail in the UK on a very shaky footing; I don't think the consequences of deciding that the railways aren't a public service are something we want to deal with.

 

[WelshBluebird]

People tend not to like it when their lives are seriously disrupted. I think that that's understandable, and dismissing their concerns is not going to win the rail unions any support.

If you take the view that the railways provide a public service, then it's reasonable to take the view that yes, there should be some minimum level of service that has to be maintained, except for exceptional events like the line falling into the sea (i.e. Dawlish), in much the way as other public services such as water boards and emergency services. And that means that the permissible strike action should be reigned in. It also means that TOCs would have to put effort in to protect the minimum service obligation, which wouldn't necessarily be easy even without industrial action.

If, on the other hand, you want to take the view that there should not be a protected minimum level of service, then it isn't reasonable to claim that the railways provide a public service. That puts the future of passenger rail in the UK on a very shaky footing; I don't think the consequences of deciding that the railways aren't a public service are something we want to deal with.

Maybe, if there was a minimum level of service needed regardless of strike action, then maybe ToC's would be less willing to take the mick when it comes to their staff!

 

[RLBH]

Maybe, if there was a minimum level of service needed regardless of strike action, then maybe ToC's would be less willing to take the mick when it comes to their staff!

That would certainly be an option!

It would probably also mean 7-day rostering, so that essential services on Sundays weren't dependent on voluntary overtime.

 

[pemma]

Like I've said on numerous times other European countries have this as law already (most notably Italy), it doesn't prevent rail staff from going on strike but does prevent a complete shut down on certain routes. So it's a way of ensuring passenger's rights are protected without removing rail staff's right to strike.

While there's a lot of things I don't like the Tories for I think they are doing what 99% of the population actually wants this time. This hasn't been brought on by an anti-union government but by one particular rail union calling strikes at the first opportunity they can, instead of as a last resort. Even Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram have criticised the RMT for their approach. It's fortunate the government are looking at the Italian style system in response to that opposed to making it harder for everyone in every industry to strike, which would be punishing everyone for the RMT's mistakes.

 

[pemma]

So if you were the unions, how would you retaliate when the government intends to remove their strike potential? I hardly think the unions will just sit back.

Remember the unions can strike against their employer but not the government (unless the government is their employer.) If they want to organise marches and protests they can but they can't strike over the plans.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[woodmally]

This Government is as strong as a 6 week old lettuce leaf. Good look getting anything like this through Parliament. I’m emailing my Tory MP to confirm that the Tory party is declaring war on train drivers and the railway workforce in general. Because that is what it sounds like at the moment!

If its a war that is happening then its a war against passengers by the RMT. How many strikes have we seen. Its like there is permanent industrial action on the rail and tube network. And if you want to know about pointless strikes look no further than this. I dont even know why they were threatening to walk out. RMT wernt exactly clear https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43559271