Panupreset
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2015
- Messages
- 173
Since coming to office this government has passed more anti trade union legislation than anti terror legislation.
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.
How ?
If I am required to work on Saturday but wish to strike; if my service is required to run. Who drives the train ?
I'd suggest that the railways provide nothing more than a political service, certainly not a public service.
Two different options:
1. You drive 50% of your services but join the picket line instead of driving the other 50%
2. The union calls 2 days of strike action instead of 1 day of strike action, you work one day and strike another. The TOC will have to sort out rosters to allow that.
1. If I'm working I'm not on strike
2. On the strike day who drives the trains ?
To strike is to remove labour. If you are working to cover the minimal service requirement then you are not on strike.
When it comes to rosters etc then you have a huge issue. Rosters tend to be very very fixed with minimal flexibility. You cannot suddenly magic up Drivers to work or get them to work rest days during a strike. I have no idea how it works abroad but if anyone knows the mechanics of it then I'd love to know. If at any point I am required to work then my right to strike has been infringed.
1. If I'm working I'm not on strike
2. On the strike day who drives the trains ?
To strike is to remove labour. If you are working to cover the minimal service requirement then you are not on strike.
When it comes to rosters etc then you have a huge issue. Rosters tend to be very very fixed with minimal flexibility. You cannot suddenly magic up Drivers to work or get them to work rest days during a strike. I have no idea how it works abroad but if anyone knows the mechanics of it then I'd love to know. If at any point I am required to work then my right to strike has been infringed.
Given the Tory hatred of trade unions this doesn't come as a great surprise.
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.
The Italian setup (at least on Trenord) seems to focus around rush hour travel (0600-0900 and 1800-2100) rather than providing an all-day service. I'm sure that the Malpensa Express is also guaranteed, whether that be bus replacement or train.
Maybe a peak hours only agreement would be a suitable compromise in this instance too, at least as a starting point, rather than attempting to force what in some instances will be most of the day's full service.
The UK equivalent would be ASLEF striking but RMT drivers being used to run the "protected" service, or vice-versa.
My reaction to that is why has this Government allowed rubbish pay and conditions become the norm? Why are they attacking the workforce of an industry that still has decent pay and conditions? Why are they not using at as an example for other industries to follow?
It's amazing that we are all on strike all of the time. I've never been on strike working for the railways.
Now when I was a civil servant - THEN we were on strike all the time
It's worth remembering the more people are paid, the more things cost. A balance needs to be achieved, otherwise they'll be people on £30,000 a year doing low skilled jobs who can't make ends meet instead of people in low skilled jobs on £14,000 a year struggling.
The things you don't seem to be getting
1. Having a right to strike is not the same as having a right to remain on strike for 24 hours or more - allowing drivers to walk out for at least 4 hours of their booked shift is allowing them to withdraw labour and strike.
2. Not having 100% of drivers on strike simultaneously isn't automatically preventing labour isn't being withdrawn or preventing drivers from going on strike.
3. Providing a limited essential service at peak times does not require 100% of the drivers booked to work that day to turn up for work. Every operator that's been subjected to RMT guard strikes has come up with revised timetables, which quite often involve services truncated or running at different times to normal.
If this is true, would the bill even make it through the house of commons? I would suggest it could be doubtful. The Tories only have a slight majority with the DUP involved. Presumably labour might vote against, so you wouldn't need much rebellion to block it. And if the government thought they might lose the vote they may drop the bill.
Its not saying it would make it through the lord's either. If labour choose not to back it it may not be worth the government persueing such a thing.
Oh I get it.
It is a limitation and an infringement on my right to strike. I would not be allowed to choose the time I wished to strike. I would be forced to work and be prevented from striking when I wanted. It's also super easy to work around and get 100% of labour from your workforce. Anyone who works in rosters will see a very simple loophole.
I am aware of what is being proposed. I understand that if there was a strike it would drastically reduce the number of services they could provide ergo it would still be an impact to the company, passengers, bottom line etc. However, it still changes how we strike. There is a huge tendency to forget the impact on the employee.
If every Driver booked to work decided to strike, there would be zero trains running. limited services can run because there are people who are not striking or services that strikes do not affect. If Guards at my TOC went out on strike to 100% then we could still run a full metro timetable IF I'm honest, we could still run a full timetable without them.
This legislation might force the unions into different types of action, working strictly to rule might prove more disruptive than strike action,
Unless you choose your working hours you don't choose the times you can strike. Those are set by your employer - if you are down to work 6am to 3pm then you can only be on strike after 6am and before 3pm. If you want to be on a picket line at 5pm you can be but technically you're picketing in your free time.
I'm totally against this (as a UNITE member in local government) as it further erodes workers rights, thus allowing management to trample over the current ways of working, causing liability for more incidents to happen over potential future unsafe working practices.
First it'll be the railways, next the Civil Service, and then Local Government. All three of them the public have a insane hatred of.
Roll on the next general election as I will be switching from Tory to Labour, as this government is attacking the rights of workers.
I don't know but the centre-left part of Labour would probably agree to it if any amendments they could think of were implemented as the underlying principle protects the general public from being the main victim of strikes, opposed to preventing strikes. Maybe even the left wing part of Labour would support it in the interests of passengers and in doing so also secretly future proof ahead of possible nationalisation. A national 24 hour rail strike would make Corbyn a laughing stock but it's possible as things stand if he renationalises the railways.