• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
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!
...but after 8 years of Tory government Rail workers probably have the best pay they have ever had. I think it is better than under Labour??
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
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!


I suspect a few on here 'want it' and would happily 'send in the army' in order to 'get it'

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.


Exercising discernment in your choice of newspaper is not 'virtue signalling'

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


And if it does happen, whom will you blame everything on ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
...but after 8 years of Tory government Rail workers probably have the best pay they have ever had. I think it is better than under Labour??

Was it thanks to the government or despite of it? It's because of the collective bargaining power of the rail unions.

However, there have been cuts in the number of services that used to have a guard, on mass, after these 8 years you mention. And more planned.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
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.


Do you propose legislation banning TOCs who are unwilling or unable to provide the services they're meant to ?
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
And if it does happen, whom will you blame everything on ?

Not to mention, all these high paid bosses, directors and executives in private sector industries will still get their golden salaries, handshakes and pensions.

It's just that rail workers will be knocked down that bit more closer to the non unionised industries. Will that help the country sleep better at night once it's done? Or will they suddenly realise that the more of the working class that see their terms deteriorate the worse it is for the whole of the working class, and the better it is for the 5 percent at the top?

Taking rights away from unions is not going to help ANYONE who works in a regular full or part time job, unless they are owners directors or executives. It's going to lower standards on a widespread basis as currently the only working class industries who have kept any sort of decent standards are the unionised ones.
 

Panupreset

Member
Joined
8 May 2015
Messages
173
What the public and government do not realise is how much of the railway runs on overtime, goodwill and favours. That can all end without any form of industrial action.

Can you come off your rostered turn on Tuesday and do another job that's a longer diagram? Once a yes becomes a no.
Can you come off the job your doing this afternoon and work out of a different depot? Once a yes becomes a no.
We are really struggling Friday afternoon, can you work your rest day? Once a yes, now you don't cancel your plans for an curry night.
You've been delayed on the trip prior to your break. Can you accept short pnb so you can go right time for the peak? Once a yes becomes a no.
You have finished your turn but because of disruption there is no driver for the next round trip. Control ask if you can do another round. Once a yes becomes a no.
You used to pick up newspapers and coffee cups when you prepped a unit if it hadn't been cleaned. Now you don't bother.
You used to open the windows on a hot day as you prepped if the unit had been in the yard all day. Now you don't bother.
It's 34 degrees. Your on a 9hr45 turn. Your pnb point doesn't even have a window to open let alone air con. You should really go to the nearest suitable one but that would mean two trains cancelled. So you go and sit in your car. Once you did that to keep the service running, now you go elsewhere.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
This harks back to a general Tory policy suggesting the outlawing of all strikes affecting "essential public services". The big and extremely simplee question is; what constitutes an "essential public service"?
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
Was it thanks to the government or despite of it? It's because of the collective bargaining power of the rail unions.

However, there have been cuts in the number of services that used to have a guard, on mass, after these 8 years you mention. And more planned.
That is a good comment - I just think it is an interesting observation that most staff earn more in real terms under the Tories than under any Labour government. When it comes to cutting guards, I wholeheartedly disagree with this policy. However, did not a similar reduction in guards occur between 97 - 2010?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Not to mention, all these high paid bosses, directors and executives in private sector industries will still get their golden salaries, handshakes and pensions.

It's just that rail workers will be knocked down that bit more closer to the non unionised industries. Will that help the country sleep better at night once it's done? Or will they suddenly realise that the more of the working class that see their terms deteriorate the worse it is for the whole of the working class, and the better it is for the 5 percent at the top?

Taking rights away from unions is not going to help ANYONE who works in a regular full or part time job, unless they are owners directors or executives. It's going to lower standards on a widespread basis as currently the only working class industries who have kept any sort of decent standards are the unionised ones.


Quite, but don't expect that argument to win many plaudits from the brigades of I'm Alright Jacks on here
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
What the public and government do not realise is how much of the railway runs on overtime, goodwill and favours. That can all end without any form of industrial action.

Can you come off your rostered turn on Tuesday and do another job that's a longer diagram? Once a yes becomes a no.
Can you come off the job your doing this afternoon and work out of a different depot? Once a yes becomes a no.
We are really struggling Friday afternoon, can you work your rest day? Once a yes, now you don't cancel your plans for an curry night.
You've been delayed on the trip prior to your break. Can you accept short pnb so you can go right time for the peak? Once a yes becomes a no.
You have finished your turn but because of disruption there is no driver for the next round trip. Control ask if you can do another round. Once a yes becomes a no.
You used to pick up newspapers and coffee cups when you prepped a unit if it hadn't been cleaned. Now you don't bother.
You used to open the windows on a hot day as you prepped if the unit had been in the yard all day. Now you don't bother.
It's 34 degrees. Your on a 9hr45 turn. Your pnb point doesn't even have a window to open let alone air con. You should really go to the nearest suitable one but that would mean two trains cancelled. So you go and sit in your car. Once you did that to keep the service running, now you go elsewhere.


If the railway's political masters did not revel in their own ignorance, they would know this from the Northern fiasco
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
This harks back to a general Tory policy suggesting the outlawing of all strikes affecting "essential public services". The big and extremely simplee question is; what constitutes an "essential public service"?

Perhaps a public service where the staff belong to unions that wield sufficient power to call strikes, so stopping workers getting to work ........???

:rolleyes:
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
If this proposed bill IS aimed exclusively at the rail industry, it seems it could be another attempt by the government to get the railways under control, in a society where nearly everyone with a steady job is a little worried they could lose it or not get a pay rise or lose their security.

The current laws and unionised state of the industry has made it awkward for the government to implement the changes they wanted to, such as a more widespread DCO rollout without resistance.

As other posters mentioned, they havnt yet grasped that the railway runs on overtime. So they either bite the bullet and demand tocs hire a third more staff so there are spares, or they'd face potential action short of a strike in disputes leading to disruption.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Good luck having this law declared compatible with art 11 of the ECHR

Where would it conflict? Article 11 only says people have the right to form a union and attend union meetings and no restrictions should be placed on that right other than prescribed through law for public safety, national security, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, or for the protection of right and freedoms of others, and that the armed forces, police and administration of the state are exempt from this protection where reasonably justified.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Perhaps a public service where the staff belong to unions that wield sufficient power to call strikes, so stopping workers getting to work ........???

:rolleyes:

Is work absolutely essential on individual strike days though? Not in the way that doctors are essential to hospitals to treat people. It's essential for the economy but its not essential as in life and death like most essential public services.

In the snow, buses get cancelled sometimes for days, but it's not life or death otherwise theyd run, like hospitals (would stay open no matter what).
 
Last edited:

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
...but after 8 years of Tory government Rail workers probably have the best pay they have ever had. I think it is better than under Labour??

Bollocks, I'm not a Labour supporter by any stretch of the imagination but when the last labour government was still in power I remember getting 5% rises for three consecutive years. Since 2010 it's not nearly been that high, though I suspect the government has little or no effect on my pay. Yeah I'm probably better off than many poor souls out there, but those who think rail workers are 'enjoying the life of riley' is way off base.

Perhaps a public service where the staff belong to unions that wield sufficient power to call strikes, so stopping workers getting to work ........???

:rolleyes:

Stopping people from getting to work hardly counts as a reason to make it illegal for rail workers to strike especially when public services such as the NHS and the Fire Service can strike. You just come across as increasingly embittered towards rail staff and union members who are doing what they think is best to protect their way of life.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Good luck having this law declared compatible with art 11 of the ECHR

If its allowed in Italy then I doubt Article 11 of the ECHR would come into it otherwise it would have already been challenged.
 

Surreytraveller

On Moderation
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
2,810
What the public and government do not realise is how much of the railway runs on overtime, goodwill and favours.
What railway staff do not realise is that the government and public do not care. They think railway staff are vastly overpaid, and should just get on and do what they are paid for (not my opinion I hasten to add, but that is the general public opinion
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
Bollocks, I'm not a Labour supporter by any stretch of the imagination but when the last labour government was still in power I remember getting 5% rises for three consecutive years. Since 2010 it's not nearly been that high, though I suspect the government has little or no effect on my pay. Yeah I'm probably better off than many poor souls out there, but those who think rail workers are 'enjoying the life of riley' is way off base.
Bit strong, but I am happy to stand corrected. I just thought that pay was higher now but you have more expertise than me.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Where would it conflict? Article 11 only says people have the right to form a union and attend union meetings and no restrictions should be placed on that right other than prescribed through law for public safety, national security, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, or for the protection of right and freedoms of others, and that the armed forces, police and administration of the state are exempt from this protection where reasonably justified.


It's a while since I studied it, but I seem to remember that it has been interpreted as permitting a right to strike
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
It's a while since I studied it, but I seem to remember that it has been interpreted as permitting a right to strike

Article 28 of the EU charter of fundamentals rights explicity includes the right to strike, although what has been proposed may not fall foul of this. In any case we will have left the EU by 2020.

Hopefully this will not get through Parliament. It seems a step too far considering the changes to bsllotting rules and the fact the U.K. legal system is already decidedly anti trade union.

If the government wants fewer strikes on the railway perhaps the DfT should stop picking pointless, politically motivated battles with the rail unions.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
What railway staff do not realise is that the government and public do not care. They think railway staff are vastly overpaid, and should just get on and do what they are paid for (not my opinion I hasten to add, but that is the general public opinion

I’m not sure that’s true.

The comments from ignorant half-wits under daily mail articles aren’t an accurate barometer. Most people are more measured in my experience.

Sadly there is a significant minority in this country (and on this board :D) who appear to revel in seeing others being made worse off, perhaps due to jealousy, social inadequacy, or bitterness/frustration with their own lot in life.
 

CeeJ

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
157
The comments from ignorant half-wits under daily mail articles aren’t an accurate barometer. Most people are more measured in my experience.

Perhaps so - though anti-strike sentiment (particularly for Tube strikes) always appears very apparent on Facebook.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
You just come across as increasingly embittered towards rail staff and union members who are doing what they think is best to protect their way of life.

Their way of life, trying up uphold the terms and conditions of the whole working class and the trade unions in general, and taking action against the potential gradual de-staffing and de-skilling of the railways.

What railway staff do not realise is that the government and public do not care. They think railway staff are vastly overpaid, and should just get on and do what they are paid for (not my opinion I hasten to add, but that is the general public opinion
I'm not sure the public do think that. Some evidence suggests the public have been onside with the Northern action based on they realise the action is against half the service potentially running without any guard.

I've had conversations with old ladies who've started off saying 'They keep going on strike and cancelling the trains and I don't think its right, why do they keep doing it?' and by the time I've explained that the train operator wants to run many services without the conductor and the guards don't agree with it and want to keep their safety training, you often get a 'oh, I didn't realise that, oh well thats understandable I wouldn't want to travel on my own without a guard. Why do they have to keep trying to change things?'

Would the customers of the railway really want to travel back from any big city later than 9pm with no member of staff on the train other than the driver? Big tough looking people maybe, but the vulnerable, or those without much confidence, heck no. Some people may tolerate it on existing DOO services because they have no choice, but I'm pretty sure they'd prefer a visible member of staff rather than just the driver at night. Theres no way I'd want my family travelling on any train service after the evening peak which didn't have a guard. The strike action is the best chance they have of keeping these staff on board.
 
Last edited:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Perhaps so - though anti-strike sentiment (particularly for Tube strikes) always appears very apparent on Facebook.

I think it’s a combination of the RMT not being the best at PR and, let’s face it, perhaps being too militant on the tube in the past + a general anti union sentiment in the U.K.

Even before I joined the railway, I never thought of ASLEF, or mainline railways in general, as hotbeds of militancy. The recent DOO disputes have all been triggered by the DfT.

These disputes have decimated the reliability of previously high performing TOCs, caused years of misery for commuters, wasted millions of pounds of public money, and are now being resolved largely in accordance with the RMT’s demands (good for them).

Anyone who is remotely pragmatic should ask: since nothing, least of all cost savings, have been achieved, what was the point of embarking on these disputes in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
[Edited]

Stopping people from getting to work hardly counts as a reason to make it illegal for rail workers to strike especially when public services such as the NHS and the Fire Service can strike. You just come across as increasingly embittered towards rail staff and union members who are doing what they think is best to protect their way of life.

Calm down, you don't know me at all and your interpretation is wildly inaccurate.

I was responding to the question 'what constitutes an essential public service'. In reality, it doesn't matter whether any of us consider the railways to be an 'essential' service or not. If the government wanted to tighten up the legislation then they only have to amend, or redefine, what they view as 'essential'..........there, job done.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Do you propose legislation banning TOCs who are unwilling or unable to provide the services they're meant to ?
I don't propose anything. But it stands to reason that TOCs who are unwilling or unable to provide a defined minimum service would have to be subjected to fairly stiff penalties.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I assume that most of the readers of this forum are of the view that a Union calling members out on strike (after the necessary ballot) can do so regardless of the severe impact on the travelling public ?
So, if they wished, ASLEF or RMT could, in theory at least, call out members over some perceived general issue at every TOC ? - possibly for many weeks ?
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,557
Can somebody explain how this proposal would actually work ?

Good luck to a Roster Clerk trying to sort it all out ...
Thats for the rostering clerk of each TOC to sort out and not the government / Department for Transport. They are private companies after all, so it's not the governments job to tell them what to do! [Well it is when it suits them but conveniently this time it doesn't suit them].

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!
Perhaps this minimum level would only apply during strikes. That way it deals with strikes but not TOCs. After all it's probably about helping passengers during strikes, not about helping passengers during disruption (whatever that cause maybe).

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!
But this is from 2020 so maybe they are looking to implement this after the current government are in power and hoping they had a larger majority.

There is nothing to say the DUP won't support the legislation. If some Liberal MPs don't turn up to vote, Vince Cable for example, it might be a close thing. I don't actually know which why the few liberal MPs would vote.

They already provide this anyway using management
That wasn't the case last Saturday on South Western Railway. This suggests a lot of the contingency staff were on leave or didn't wish to work on their day off. Maybe the law would require contingency staff to come in on their day off! [joke]

Perhaps if this law comes in they could also bring one in that compels different parts of the Department for Transport to talk to one another and if they are found not to have done so, the DfT get fined. The money could go local authorities or other public bodies to improve their transport. Basically anywhere related to transport that isn't the DfT using the money themselves.

After all the DfT seem to be playing with people's lives. Of course they wouldn't do that as it's not about passengers being disrupted but people striking. End of cynicism
 
Last edited by a moderator:

R Trevithick

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2015
Messages
75
I have written to my MP asking for clarification that there will be legislation brought forward requiring a minimum attendance at debates in parliament.

Both in terms of actual numbers per debate and in numbers of debates attended per MP.

I’m not expecting a reply
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
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.
True, I seem to recall the recent lengthy Birmingham bin collection strikes involved a number of half day stoppages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top