• 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.

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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.

Which is protection you voted to remove in voting to leave the EU. ;) I actually wonder if some of the unions were anti-EU because of the protection to worker's rights offered under EU legislation. Trade union membership has dropped a lot since the 1970s and having the EU guaranteeing holiday entitlement, maximum working hours, paternal leave, statutory sick pay etc. doesn't exactly incentivise people to join trade unions in the same way as they did in the 1970s. However, once we leave the EU the likes of Boris Johnson can remove that 'EU red tape.'
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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

That was probably down to Gordon Brown being a better Chancellor than George Osborne, whatever the Brown and New Labour critics say it is statistically accurate. In general since 2008 pay rises have been less frequent and lower across all industries with very few people having received an annual pay rise every year.
 
Joined
31 Jul 2010
Messages
359
I honestly do not think this is necessary and to me as someone suggested above seems to be more about the Conservatives declaring war on the railway staff for whatever reason they seem to have it in for them. It makes you wonder what they are planning next and they are trying to protect themselves and avoid a repeat of the Southern ASLEF strikes. I presume this will also apply to bus drivers and London Underground too. The railways is private when they want it to be and then all of a sudden it's under national control, I cannot think of any other private industry where the government forbids the staff from taking strike action.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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.

What about those who are Labour members and feel there should be a solution to allow rail workers to strike without causing a shutdown of the network (some of whom are members of unions)? Corbyn may vote against it but he knows he can't guarantee even if his own hand picked shadow cabinet will vote with him.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
That was probably down to Gordon Brown being a better Chancellor than George Osborne, whatever the Brown and New Labour critics say it is statistically accurate. In general since 2008 pay rises have been less frequent and lower across all industries with very few people having received an annual pay rise every year.
You mean the man who sold our gold and borrowed from our pensions. I use our as a collective for the country as a whole.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
You mean the man who sold our gold and borrowed from our pensions. I use our as a collective for the country as a whole.

Gold is something you cash in on when rates are good, not something you leave for a rainy day fund as you could make huge loses if you cash in gold at the wrong time and huge profits if you cash it in at the right time. Anyway all I said is Brown was a better chancellor than Osborne - don't forget Osborne sold our businesses and stakes in businesses to private companies for a fraction of their true value in an attempt to meet his targets for reducing the deficit, something he constantly failed on because he kept giving handouts to select groups.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
I honestly do not think this is necessary and to me as someone suggested above seems to be more about the Conservatives declaring war on the railway staff for whatever reason they seem to have it in for them. It makes you wonder what they are planning next and they are trying to protect themselves and avoid a repeat of the Southern ASLEF strikes. I presume this will also apply to bus drivers and London Underground too. The railways is private when they want it to be and then all of a sudden it's under national control, I cannot think of any other private industry where the government forbids the staff from taking strike action.

Despite May stating that 'workers rights would be maintained or enhanced after Brexit', I count those as weasel words as the Tories have voted AFAIK against pretty much every amendment that would have enshrined workers rights into UK law post Brexit (I'm happy to be corrected on that if people can provide evidence). So I really fear for workers rights post Brexit. I can foresee a large increase in the casualisation of work disguised as "flexibility" with the 'gig' economy expanding. I fear this is just the beginning.... When a senior MP from the party of Government makes such a brazen attack on one industry heaven knows what they are planning behind closed doors!
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Gold is something you cash in on when rates are good, not something you leave for a rainy day fund as you could make huge loses if you cash in gold at the wrong time and huge profits if you cash it in at the right time. Anyway all I said is Brown was a better chancellor than Osborne - don't forget Osborne sold our businesses and stakes in businesses to private companies for a fraction of their true value in an attempt to meet his targets for reducing the deficit, something he constantly failed on because he kept giving handouts to select groups.
You mean Vince Cable's stupid sale of Royal Mail?

Now the Conservatives want an open address register. How are they going to do that when postcodes, which like it or not are commonly used, are owned by a private company.

Of course who said we were bankrupt when the conservatives got into power.

It seems to me all parties seem to bad at some things and good at others.

As long as the Conservatives continue to be anti safety on trains, in my opinion, I won't be voting for them. This strike legislation idea is another that puts me off voting for them. I won't be voting for Labour either though.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
You mean Vince Cable's stupid sale of Royal Mail?

Which he did on behalf of his Conservative coalition partners to raise money for Osborne's department. I was thinking more of selling Northern Rock to Virgin Money (at least with Royal Mail the workers got shares in the business) but there's loads of examples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Perhaps a public service where the staff belong to unions that wield sufficient power to call strikes, so stopping workers getting to work ........???

:rolleyes:

So an essential public service is simply a public service with staff belonging to a powerful Union. In that case, which are the "powerful" Unions and which ones aren't, so that I can work it out from that?
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
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.
It won't be as simple as that. They can't just 'amend' the trade union bill because they feel like it. It may have to be a new bill I'm not sure. Either way it's have to go through the houses and I just don't think it'll be worth the government risking losing a vote on this. They said losing the vote on the Brexit white paper would be seen as a no confidence vote. This would probably risk the same. If labour didn't back it, and anyone in the government or DUP didn't vote it would be risky.

Make no mistake this is a caretaker government. They have no majority without another party and there is no coalition with the DUP, it's a supply and confidence arrangement on a per vote basis. They have a huge task with Brexit alone and they don't have much wiggle room to introduce any controversial bills or legislation as things are currently. They are also fearful of anything which could triggr a general election as they are frightened they will lose, which Mrs May according to the BBC told cabinet may happen if they lost the Brexit vote on the white paper last month.

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 ?

Thing is if the strike didn't cause disruption, there would be no point in there being a strike at all. If all services continued as normal, why would the TOC care about the strike. The idea is to show how valuable the staff involved are to the company and what a good job they do.

Look at the disruption the miners strike caused. Any industry can go on strike if it's a serious enough issue and they are in an organised union.

The difference is the public mostly backed the miners because the media didn't depict them in the way they sometimes depict rail staff, as have their cake and eat it types. Which they are not. They are striking to retain their type of job and to ensure these jobs continue. Which would have been the most basic of needs back in the 70s.
 
Last edited:

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
I honestly do not think this is necessary and to me as someone suggested above seems to be more about the Conservatives declaring war on the railway staff for whatever reason they seem to have it in for them. It makes you wonder what they are planning next and they are trying to protect themselves and avoid a repeat of the Southern ASLEF strikes. I presume this will also apply to bus drivers and London Underground too. The railways is private when they want it to be and then all of a sudden it's under national control, I cannot think of any other private industry where the government forbids the staff from taking strike action.

This is what I was hinting at - and I presume your (reasonable) presumption applies to all bus drivers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.......
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
It won't be as simple as that. They can't just 'amend' the trade union bill because they feel like it. It may have to be a new bill I'm not sure. Either way it's have to go through the houses and I just don't think it'll be worth the government risking losing a vote on this. They said losing the vote on the Brexit white paper would be seen as a no confidence vote. This would probably risk the same. If labour didn't back it, and anyone in the government or DUP didn't vote it would be risky.

[Edit]


Thing is if the strike didn't cause disruption, there would be no point in there being a strike at all. If all services continued as normal, why would the TOC care about the strike. The idea is to show how valuable the staff involved are to the company and what a good job they do.

Look at the disruption the miners strike caused. Any industry can go on strike if it's a serious enough issue and they are in an organised union.

The difference is the public mostly backed the miners because the media didn't depict them in the way they sometimes depict rail staff, as have their cake and eat it types. Which they are not. They are striking to retain their type of job and to ensure these jobs continue. Which would have been the most basic of needs back in the 70s.


I don't think I've made any reference whatsoever to amending the Trade Union Bill. All I've suggested is that the term 'essential' could be redefined/reinterpreted by the government if it so wished. Stranger things have happened !
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Which he did on behalf of his Conservative coalition partners to raise money for Osborne's department. I was thinking more of selling Northern Rock to Virgin Money (at least with Royal Mail the workers got shares in the business) but there's loads of examples.
I don't dispute there are. The Coalion may have been more based towards the larger party but the Lib Dems did get some of their policies through and they were partners so it's not just a Conservative issue.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
I don't think I've made any reference whatsoever to amending the Trade Union Bill. All I've suggested is that the term 'essential' could be redefined/reinterpreted by the government if it so wished. Stranger things have happened !

It may be interpreted by the government, but it won't be by the unions. How are they going to persuade the unions that the rules on strikes have changed with no new laws, because the cabinet have decided that essential public services now include the railways?
And if labour don't agree and tell the rmt they still consider full strikes to be legal?
Don't forget, the junior doctors went on strike not so long ago. I think their service is a lot more essential than the railways and they still went on strike.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Hourly offpeak services? That could be an improvement on certain routes compared to the actual timetable <D

Indeed when the service was a basic all stations half hourly for the GN on the Hertford loop during any emergency timetable that was quite often a improvement on the standard timetable.
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
If this is the future of the UK with a right wing Government post Brexit I don't think civil unrest is unthinkable.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
If this is the future of the UK with a right wing Government post Brexit I don't think civil unrest is unthinkable.

Is there any reason to think it will be right wing? They have no majority. And their vote share went down last year compared to 2015. So the desire for hard Tory views vs the David Cameron George Osbourne era has reduced it seems. People feel harder hit due to the oesterity regime and are softening to more social views now imo. With the exception of wanting to leave Europe and reduce immigration.

She's worried about a potential labour government. Personally I think public attitudes lie somewhere in the centre ground with a lot of support for labours views on workers rights and corporate greed, but less so on their Brexit stance.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Hooray I do hope this does happen. I am sick of the power that the RMT have over passengers.

You do realise that in the former Network South East area which has a majority of Driver Only Operation it's not the RMT that has the power to disrupt services but more ASLEF who without their members no trains would run period!

Yes the RMT is powerful but not as strong as ASLEF after all the Southern strikes 2 years ago was not a RMT initiative but rather a ASLEF one as they started it in oppose to a a attack on their terms and conditions with the RMT joining in to defend passengers when the DfT insisted more trains ran without a second member of staff.

I'm glad this country still has the ability to strike to protect the workers terms and conditions or would you rather make it illegal to join a union, reduce hard won terms and conditions to dust and bring back workhouses for the poor?

That to me smacks of a dicatatorship and I hope it doesn't become law.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
If this is the future of the UK with a right wing Government post Brexit I don't think civil unrest is unthinkable.

Surely, civil unrest is far more likely if Corbyn was to ever get in power ?. In any event, we're now off-topic.
 

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
If its a war that is happening then its a war against passengers by the RMT.

It really isn't. complete hyperbole

How many strikes have we seen.

Not that many. the amount is hugely over-exaggerated.


Its like there is permanent industrial action on the rail and tube network.

How so. It can't be like there is permanent industrial action, there is either permanent industrial action or there isn't.

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

the members don't think it is pointless hence they voted for it, therefore it's not pointless.
 

Panupreset

Member
Joined
8 May 2015
Messages
173
The Tories have had a dreadfull month or so with all the Brexit fiasco, David Davies and Boris resigning, and the EU sticking two fingers up at whatever they propose. They have simply opted for the standard Tory response when things aren't looking good for them - do a bit of union bashing.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
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.

Which is protection you voted to remove in voting to leave the EU. ;) I actually wonder if some of the unions were anti-EU because of the protection to worker's rights offered under EU legislation. Trade union membership has dropped a lot since the 1970s and having the EU guaranteeing holiday entitlement, maximum working hours, paternal leave, statutory sick pay etc. doesn't exactly incentivise people to join trade unions in the same way as they did in the 1970s. However, once we leave the EU the likes of Boris Johnson can remove that 'EU red tape.'

Good grief. The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, indeed it pre-dates it. Compliance with the ECHR arises from membership of the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949 and whose membership includes many countries ouside of the EU and who are unlikely ever to join the EU. Its main aims are to do with upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. As such it is a very much less political organisation than the EU and there has never been any suggestion that Brexit would lead to this country also leaving the CE. It's just very unfortunate that the organisation has both its main offices and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, a city that also hosts the EU's court, the European Courts of Justice. While this may cause confusion to some I would hope that people here would get their facts straight before making sweeping statements.

The EU legislation which most affects workers' rights is the Working Time Directive which covers a completely different set of principles.

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 ?

Strikes are not exactly called by a union in that they can only occur following a ballot carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation. When strikes are "called" by union officials they are actually acting in accordance with the wishes of union members as expressed by said ballots. The days of union barons using their members as cannon fodder in a political war are long since over. Do keep up!
 

MAV39

Member
Joined
10 May 2017
Messages
47
Gold is something you cash in on when rates are good, not something you leave for a rainy day fund as you could make huge loses if you cash in gold at the wrong time and huge profits if you cash it in at the right time. Anyway all I said is Gordon Brown was a better chancellor...

What planet are you on?

From the Daily Telegraph in 2009 (source doesn't change the facts of selling at a record low price):

"Gordon Brown's decision to sell off part of the country's gold reserves 10 years ago cost the public purse nearly £5billion, official figures show."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...f-the-UKs-gold-reserves-cost-UK-5billion.html


or from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

"The sale of UK gold reserves was a policy pursued by HM Treasury over the period between 1999 and 2002, when gold prices were at their lowest in 20 years, following an extended bear market. The period itself has been dubbed by some commentators as the Brown Bottom or Brown's Bottom.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

The period takes its name from Gordon Brown, the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (who later became Prime Minister), who decided to sell approximately half of the UK's gold reserves in a series of auctions. At the time, the UK's gold reserves were worth about US$6.5 billion, accounting for about half of the UK's US$13 billion foreign currency net reserves."
 
Last edited:

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Which is protection you voted to remove in voting to leave the EU. ;)

I don't think so. The great repeal bill (name has changed now, think it's called the European Withdrawal Bill now), enshrines all EU law into UK law to be debated and amended as we see fit in due course.

I don't think the labour lords are likely to drop laws which currently protect workers rights.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
What planet are you on?

From the Daily Telegraph in 2009 (source doesn't change the facts of selling at a record low price):

"Gordon Brown's decision to sell off part of the country's gold reserves 10 years ago cost the public purse nearly £5billion, official figures show."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...f-the-UKs-gold-reserves-cost-UK-5billion.html


or from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999–2002

"The sale of UK gold reserves was a policy pursued by HM Treasury over the period between 1999 and 2002, when gold prices were at their lowest in 20 years, following an extended bear market. The period itself has been dubbed by some commentators as the Brown Bottom or Brown's Bottom.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

The period takes its name from Gordon Brown, the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (who later became Prime Minister), who decided to sell approximately half of the UK's gold reserves in a series of auctions. At the time, the UK's gold reserves were worth about US$6.5 billion, accounting for about half of the UK's US$13 billion foreign currency net reserves."

£5 billion. Hardly, HS2 budget is it? - even allowing for inflation.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Strikes are not exactly called by a union in that they can only occur following a ballot carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation. When strikes are "called" by union officials they are actually acting in accordance with the wishes of union members as expressed by said ballots. The days of union barons using their members as cannon fodder in a political war are long since over. Do keep up!

Which, as far as I can see, is what I wrote !!
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Which, as far as I can see, is what I wrote !!

I was merely seeking to clarify that the power to make the decision to strike lies with the members of a union and not the officials. So when strikes are "called" by officials the reality is that members are "calling" themselves out on strike. It is disingenious to seek to make a disconnect between a union and its members. My suspicion is that some resent the fact that rail staff are almost 100% union members meaning that the abolition of the closed shop has failed to undermine unions in this particular sector.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top