• 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 law will enshrine ‘right’ of commuters to minimum service during strikes, says Grant Shapps

Status
Not open for further replies.

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards.

As ever with industrial action, both sides have to find a balance between representing members and providing a service.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

setdown

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
254
Forgive me if I’m missing something here. But if the railway workers started a work-to-rule in protest, couldn’t the railway companies just say “right, from date X, your contract now says you work 45-hour week minimum” (for example). In response, a strike is called, but the minimum service level dictates that some trains still run, so the new contract comes into force eventually anyway?

Unless workers’ contracts have provisions in to stop the above happening, this new law could be very dangerous indeed.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
Mass work to rule will be the result of this.

And I'm sure somehow Boris, Grant, The Daily Mail and those particularly bitter commuters will be somehow outraged about staff working their booked contracted hours only

And they can go further than that; any minor fault on a train, and refuse to take it out.

Many signallers, who I note don't seem to be included in this legislation, have worked out that if we worked to the absolute letter of the Rule Book we could quite quickly bring the system to a grinding halt.
 

Raul_Duke

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
397
Forgive me if I’m missing something here. But if the railway workers started a work-to-rule in protest, couldn’t the railway companies just say “right, from date X, your contract now says you work 45-hour week minimum” (for example). In response, a strike is called, but the minimum service level dictates that some trains still run, so the new contract comes into force eventually anyway?

Unless workers’ contracts have provisions in to stop the above happening, this new law could be very dangerous indeed.

No, the same way your employer couldn’t turn round and go, “right, from next week your contract says you work for free.”

They could set new starters on on that contact (and I doubt they’d have difficulty)
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
Forgive me if I’m missing something here. But if the railway workers started a work-to-rule in protest, couldn’t the railway companies just say “right, from date X, your contract now says you work 45-hour week minimum” (for example). In response, a strike is called, but the minimum service level dictates that some trains still run, so the new contract comes into force eventually anyway?

Unless workers’ contracts have provisions in to stop the above happening, this new law could be very dangerous indeed.

Not if their current contract stipulates a 38/40 hour week, no.
And trying to impose those hours would potentially cause other problems, such as 12 hours between shifts.
 

45107

On Moderation
Joined
3 May 2014
Messages
311
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards.

Just the response the Torys want. The politics of envy and race to the bottom.
What do wages have to do with protecting your working terms & conditions ?
Are you saying that because they have a good wage that they should not challenge things ?
 

Scott1

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2015
Messages
377
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards.
But you have a god given right to force people to go to work? Worrying logic.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
RMT has only got it's self to blame rather than striking for real winnable issues it's harking back to the 70's
Isn’t it also DFT & TOC dithering, indecision & backtracking over DCO that’s gifted RMT significant leverage in persuading more of its moderate membership these issues are winnable, provided you demonstrate a willingness to strike for long enough .
 
Last edited:

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,303
Location
Birmingham
"Minimum service" requirements for public service strikes are widespread in much more union-friendly countries, like Spain and Portugal, as has already been mentioned. It's the UK that is the anomaly here. Trying to portray this as extreme Tory union bashing is disingenous in the extreme.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Just the response the Torys want. The politics of envy and race to the bottom.
What do wages have to do with protecting your working terms & conditions ?
Are you saying that because they have a good wage that they should not challenge things ?

What I'm saying is, there should always be a balance. We all know in this forum that the RMT protests against anything and everything, even if the same terms and conditions have been in place elsewhere without a problem.

Ordinary everyday workers who just want to earn a living shouldn't be held at a platform because the RMT demand yet more money, yet more concessions, yet more special treatment.

Drivers and guards do have a good wage, and here in the NW, they're already well served in terms of weekend/Sunday working. A lot of ordinary passengers would kill for the money, terms, and conditions of an RMT guard. Sometimes I think Unions should consider the plight of those who earn less than their members before going on strike.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards.

As ever with industrial action, both sides have to find a balance between representing members and providing a service.

What about the management that put in place timetables that fall apart straight away?
Or those that order trains that dont work?
Or those that cut infrastructure funding so it keeps falling apart & causing delays?
 

virgintrain1

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
207
What I'm saying is, there should always be a balance. We all know in this forum that the RMT protests against anything and everything, even if the same terms and conditions have been in place elsewhere without a problem.

Ordinary everyday workers who just want to earn a living shouldn't be held at a platform because the RMT demand yet more money, yet more concessions, yet more special treatment.

Drivers and guards do have a good wage, and here in the NW, they're already well served in terms of weekend/Sunday working. A lot of ordinary passengers would kill for the money, terms, and conditions of an RMT guard. Sometimes I think Unions should consider the plight of those who earn less than their members before going on strike.
Why don't they join us then? We also don't work Monday-Friday 9-5
 

theking

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2011
Messages
626
Isn’t it also the DFT & TOC dithering, indecision & backtracking over DCO that’s gifted the RMT significant leverage in persuading more of its moderate membership these issues are winnable.?, proved you show a willingness to strike for long enough .

Indeed. The government should have stuck it out and taken the pain but the RMT have zero compromise because of their 1970's harping leader and their delusion that Corbyn would be PM and labour would renationalise.

Hopefully it goes that way and with SWR is when the trains arrive they will just move the guards onto the new contracts and thats the end of it.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
Deja vu anyone?

Boris 'promised' this when he was London Mayor. He would stop Underground staff striking.
He said it would happen in 2010 once Dave was in power.
10 years on he has full control of the levers of power, but he still has to negotiate to get it approved.
 

londonboi198o5

On Moderation
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
449
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards.

As ever with industrial action, both sides have to find a balance between representing members and providing a service.

And this is the issue. Trying to find that balance to avoid such strike.

people don’t strike for the fun of it they strike because they have no other option.
 
Last edited:

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,184
The RMT has no God-given right to hold everyday ordinary passengers to ransom, particularly when commuters earn so less than drivers and guards. As ever with industrial action, both sides have to find a balance between representing members and providing a service.

But you (to PR1Berske) have a god given right to force people to go to work? Worrying logic.

How will they ensure the service is provided? If that's by banning staff striking, how do you pick which staff can't strike? Mostly that sort of skeleton service is provided anyway. Publicity stunt I reckon.

It’s almost as though this isn’t really to do with providing a service for passengers and more to do with crushing the last remaining unions with any strength in a cynical attempt to erode terms and conditions for the benefit of wealthy Tories.

The RMT need to realise that its not 1979 or 1985 anymore. In my view it should be three strikes about the same issue before they (the RMT) are suspended from any strike action for up to six months. What I'm saying is, is that members of the RMT can still strike but it can't be about the same subject after three times in a row it would have to be about something else.

The problem with skeleton services is that not everywhere would be served so some routes are bound to be covered by rail replacement buses but I can see why the Conservatives are looking at introducing this new law. The RMT needs to think long and hard about the direction that they are going and do they want to become the Cortonwood of the railways. Whereby Cortonwood, the original pit where the miners strike started, is now a site of a retail park.

I'm also going to add that not all Conservatives are wealthy, most are working class and would rather live in a country of liberty, opportunity and inovation which explains why the late great Mrs Thatcher won three terms. Fair enough she did tear most unions a new one and Boris may well do the same with the RMT.
 

londonboi198o5

On Moderation
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
449
I think the argument is the RMT are too 'strike happy', and don't exhaust all other options before striking...

RMT are probably the least strike happy union. How many strikes have been called off compared to the strikes that take actual place. People are quick to remember the strikes but forget about the vast amount that get called off.
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,070
While it pains me to do so (as an RMT member) I can’t help but agree with the sentiments here. I was recently involved in a dispute where I believe a work to rule would have been far more effective than the strike action that was called and lead to members losing pay.
It does seem to have been fairly effective, although the 4th day wasn't really necessary. All I can see these Tory proposals achieving is far more working to rule when relations sour between employer and employee, and of course working to rule on an individual case doesn't require a ballot so can be far more unpredictable for company and passengers. At least with an all out strike everybody is able to plan somewhat for the day in question, work to rule can result in folk getting in to work, but there being no train home for hours in the evening.
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,070
I think the argument is the RMT are too 'strike happy', and don't exhaust all other options before striking...
Before the EMT strikes in the summer our reps, co-opted members and activists spent over 18 months digging through paperwork and having many meetings with management, seeking legal advice and so on. In this situation I was perfectly satisfied that every available option had been tried before a ballot was even thought of.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Schapps is barely more trustworthy than Johnson.

The major issue underlying most significant railway industrial action over the last few years has been the retention of guards on trains, which the public have supported strongly. The strikes have not been about greed or unreasonable demands, but about safety and, yes, job security (one of the fundamental reasons for Unions' existence). The strikes have not been all-out wild demands for, say, the re-introduction of wheel-tappers; they have been about a serious and pivotal issue - the adequate and safe staffing of trains. They have also thrown into sharp relief the reliance of the railway on non-core hours working and the lack of worthwhile/realistic staffing margins to cover absences.

The need for the TOCs to post their shareholders' profits means that they need to shed costs, and the Tories' dogged adherence to the failed privatisation model means they support the drive. During the interminable GTR industrial action of recent years, I and other users endured vast inconvenience, but I didn't see public support for the cause vanish.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
To be honest with you SWR need to back down a little to using DOO, GWR had the same problem and quickly sorted it, why is it other TOC's such as Northern, SWR etc seem to think they are in the right. At the same time the unions etc need to back down and find a compromise.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
What I'm saying is, there should always be a balance. We all know in this forum that the RMT protests against anything and everything, even if the same terms and conditions have been in place elsewhere without a problem.

Ordinary everyday workers who just want to earn a living shouldn't be held at a platform because the RMT demand yet more money, yet more concessions, yet more special treatment.

Drivers and guards do have a good wage, and here in the NW, they're already well served in terms of weekend/Sunday working. A lot of ordinary passengers would kill for the money, terms, and conditions of an RMT guard. Sometimes I think Unions should consider the plight of those who earn less than their members before going on strike.

Maybe those "ordinary passengers" would relish the training required (to be a proper guard, not a train captain/train manager/customer service advisor, etc.), the frequent abuse/threats from the public, the working in all weathers and hours, and the responsibility and accountability for hundreds of passengers' safety each day.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
"Minimum service" requirements for public service strikes are widespread in much more union-friendly countries, like Spain and Portugal, as has already been mentioned. It's the UK that is the anomaly here. Trying to portray this as extreme Tory union bashing is disingenous in the extreme.
That may be so, but I suspect our version will be politically motivated and trumpeted by the government as an early attack on the forces of socialism.

RMT are probably the least strike happy union. How many strikes have been called off compared to the strikes that take actual place. People are quick to remember the strikes but forget about the vast amount that get called off.
But the public perception is that the RMT have called numerous strikes over the years, and the fact there is a 27-day strike currently in progress just reinforces that. Remember, like most doings of the Johnson government, this is about playing to their audience. Not helped by the involvement of Cash, and Crow before him, in political causes having little relevance to the interests of the membership - and of course the Tory press seizes on such things and keeps them in the public eye.
 

virgintrain1

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
207
Schapps is barely more trustworthy than Johnson.

The major issue underlying most significant railway industrial action over the last few years has been the retention of guards on trains, which the public have supported strongly. The strikes have not been about greed or unreasonable demands, but about safety and, yes, job security (one of the fundamental reasons for Unions' existence). The strikes have not been all-out wild demands for, say, the re-introduction of wheel-tappers; they have been about a serious and pivotal issue - the adequate and safe staffing of trains. They have also thrown into sharp relief the reliance of the railway on non-core hours working and the lack of worthwhile/realistic staffing margins to cover absences.

The need for the TOCs to post their shareholders' profits means that they need to shed costs, and the Tories' dogged adherence to the failed privatisation model means they support the drive. During the interminable GTR industrial action of recent years, I and other users endured vast inconvenience, but I didn't see public support for the cause vanish.
Here here!
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Strikes by Sector 2018 ONS figures:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...orkingconditions/articles/labourdisputes/2018
(Figure is days lost per 1000 employees in 2018, i.e. length/size of strike) then Number of Strikes

Agriculture forestry and fishing 0 0
Mining, quarrying and Electricity, gas, air conditioning 1 1
Manufacturing 1 5
Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities and Water Supply 21 4
Construction 0.8 3
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, and Accommodation and Food Services 0.3 6
Transport and storage
30 25
Information and Communication 8 2
Financial and Insurance, Real estate, Professional, Scientific, Technical and Admin Activities 1 5
Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
12 4
Education
67 17
Health and Social Work 1 6
Other 1 3

The industries highlighted have consistently been the big three for over a decade.

chartimage
 
Last edited:

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
If the RMT used strike action as a last resort and there was a strike very rarely, this legislation wouldn’t even be being discussed.

As it is, the RMT seem to use strike action as a first resort, there is never a week goes by where they aren’t either having a strike, ballotting for a strike, or threatening strike action in a press release.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
I agree wholeheartedly, especially after the fiasco regarding DOO on Northern that caused all the Saturday strikes last year and the ongoing DOO issues with other TOCs. The problem with the RMT unfortunately is they see calling a strike as their first action in any dispute rather than as last resort once all other options have been exhausted. I wonder if Mick Cash realises just what a parody of a 1980s far-left throwback he sounds like with his ever more ludicrous press releases??

I don’t disagree about the 1980s jibe, as a younger union member I cringe at some of the wording and phrases used. It is about time they got up to the times.

But I disagree completely with a strike being the first action. Can you provide any evidence of this, as I’ve never seen it! I see months upon months of continual communication backwards and forwards, ballots on whether XYZ is acceptable, email and letters, ACAS intervention. Then when there is nothing left, they ballot for strike. What you have to remember is the members choose to go on strike, and ultimately lose money. If they believed the cause was not being handled well, or wasn’t worth striking for, they wouldn’t vote for it!



I think the argument is the RMT are too 'strike happy', and don't exhaust all other options before striking...

As above, can you provide anything to back that up? As I’ve never seen anything like that, but perhaps it’s different for different grades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top