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.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New strike regulation possible
- Thread starter WatcherZero
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How ?
If I am required to work on Saturday but wish to strike; if my service is required to run. Who drives the train ?
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.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
A very succinct analysis and something I've thought for a while.
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.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
This is a reminder to please refrain from attacking other forum members and stick to the core topic only.
Challenge their views freely, not the person.
Challenge their views freely, not the person.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
Surely, your 'right to strike' wouldn't apply if legislation determined that the role is more akin to an 'essential service' ?
atraindriver
Member
<deleted>
Last edited:
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
They already provide this anyway using management
Jonfun
Established Member
I would imagine we'd see a situation where the unions and management sit down and agree on a contingency service pattern which can be run on a strike day primarily by training up more TOC management staff to work trains with a union agreement for strike cover from a small number of its members if required.
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.
It appears in 1997 the Italian government identified a problem with people not being able to get around due to the number of strikes called by transport unions, which was the reason for the protected transport services. The PM in 1997 was centre-left Romano Prodi, not right wing Berlusconi. Although for the anti-EU unions he became president of the European Commission.
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.
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.
Since the Tory Government has been under May it has slowly edged towards the right. The Daily Mail articles are sensationalist, deliberately worded to spark hatred. Many many comments have been about 'why have drivers got decent pay and conditions' etc. 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? That is why the cliche of "race to the bottom" has come about. Why has this Government allowed it to get to a stage where people are worse off that they were a decade ago? The pure fact poor pay and conditions are systematic of the British economy right now shows what a rubbish state this country is in and the Tory Government is wholeheartedly responsible for that. I used to support the Tories under Cameron because I honestly thought he stood for the working man and thought the centre right was a bit better than the centre left. Now the Tories have gone full bore hard right then even though Labour are full bore hard left it's a far better option for the working classes than a hard right Tory Government. I have never been on strike, never voted for strike and hope to never have to vote to strike. The Tories seem to have forgotten the virtue of staff moral and goodwill. If staff are happy they will never vote for strike action in the first place. This legislation (if it ever comes to pass) will hopefully never affect me as I do not want to strike if I do not have to. But it sends clear signals as to where the Tories thinking is with unions. Unions represent ordinary working people..... so go figure.
Yes the Italian setup is for commuter services and airport services. Currently (here in the UK) train operators have a legal requirement to provide alternatives if they can't run services but there's an exception for industrial action so passengers are completely unprotected if they have to travel somewhere on a day when a union calls a strike.
There would almost be no services running if the TOCs depended on RMT drivers if ASLEF drivers were on strike!
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.
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
That could be used as an argument against rail renationalisation.
So when the Government goes around shouting about the number of jobs in the economy it should be highlighted that all they have done is force people into low skill, low paid jobs. The way to boost an economy is to boost those at the bottom. Maybe they should be focusing on getting people into high paid work rather than attack rail unions?
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.
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.
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.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
This legislation might force the unions into different types of action, working strictly to rule might prove more disruptive than strike action, examples being,
That train I was supposed to be passenger on departed 15 seconds early so my 7 mins walking time was not enough to get there, or,
we are running ten mins late and I, (the driver) am tired so for safety reasons I need someone in the cab with me and am going to run empty.
There are loads of ways to skin a cat, the government need to be very careful.
That train I was supposed to be passenger on departed 15 seconds early so my 7 mins walking time was not enough to get there, or,
we are running ten mins late and I, (the driver) am tired so for safety reasons I need someone in the cab with me and am going to run empty.
There are loads of ways to skin a cat, the government need to be very careful.
bussnapperwm
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Good point. Overtime ban and dropping Sundays over the long term could mean more disruption than a few days strike.
If I am booked to work 0600-1500 and the services that are required to run are 0600-1000 then I do not get a choice to strike at that time. You are preventing my right to strike between those hours because I must drive those services that are required. You stated that I could still strike for 4hrs of my duty but those 4hrs will be dictated by my employer. Not me.
Thing is, the Tories by themselves don't seem to have a strong enough majority or or popular support to be able to do anything at the moment.
Bearing in mind she told the cabinet if you don't back me on the Brexit white paper you can prepare for a Jeremy Corbyn government.
What does that say for their confidence? It says they have doubt that they have the support of the country at the present moment and what she said suggests they feel it's only lack of an election that is keeping them in power.
To get something as drastic as this through the houses would be quite a task imo given the current climate.
The Labour party would have to be very careful before backing a bill like this. Although RMT isn't directly affiliated with labour, they support them and are associated with them in various ways.
If labour rejected the union movement in favour of the Tory cabinet/party for this bill I don't think the union movement as a whole would be impressed, particularly those who are official supporters and affiliates of labour. That could seriously rock the boat and could be seen by the collective unions as a betrayal of workers rights.
They may decide it's best to just not go there.
Particularly on a personal note for Mr Corbyn. He's a die hard beliver of workers rights first. I dont think he could bring himself to vote for this or to endorse it.
Last edited:
- Status