• 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.

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
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.

Of course this legislation would be discussed, The tories were always going to implement this and worse once the opportunity arose, and now it has due to them having the majority.
The uk unions are actually very conservative in terms of strikes in reality, it just so happens that when they do strike everything gets blown out of all proportion in favour of the opposition.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,129
I was perfectly satisfied that every available option had been tried before a ballot was even thought of.
Wasn’t it about exploiting worthwhile technicalities of declaring an official dispute with EMT just prior to the change of operator, which Id be surprised if it wasn’t known about about all along
 
Last edited:

Tube driver

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
118
Who decides what a minimum service is?

you might say a skeleton service of about a third of a normal service but on the tube that would still close the line as it would be potentially dangerous to run so few trains during a peak service. If you advertise a service, the public will come in their droves and it will lead to such horrendous overcrowding at concourse/platform level never mind trains that lul would be forced to close multiple stations. Seen it before where they tried and it was quickly knocked on the head due to the above.

I fear we’d be forced to run a near normal service making strike action pointless unless the powers that be decide on a case by case basis or they treat the tube as a different entity.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Ah, it seems like only last week that people were arguing in favour of nationalisation because heavy rail is an essential public service and so needs close government supervision... but if it is such an essential public service then should it be brought into line with other industries where strikes aren't permitted?

No surprise that a majority Conservative government want to at least rein in the Unions - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - the Unions have been throwing their weight around so they can't be too surprised that now the politicians want to do likewise. Not saying I agree with it but I can understand *why*

Perhaps it’s claimed RMT ballot more frequently than many other unions (I don’t know the answer )

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.

Frustratingly the attitude in the railway seems to be to threaten strike action each year, as part of the annual salary negotiations - strikes don't always happen but people have to book days off work in anticipation or cancel advanced plans for travel - there's always mention of a potential strike - and the union seem very keen to flag up chances of disruption (whereas other industries cope with pay negotiations taking place behind closed doors without any petulant press releases).
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,420
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.

Any evidence for this statement?
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,370
Frustratingly the attitude in the railway seems to be to threaten strike action each year, as part of the annual salary negotiations - strikes don't always happen but people have to book days off work in anticipation or cancel advanced plans for travel - there's always mention of a potential strike.

I've been a train driver for coming up 17 years and been on strike twice. Neither of which was about a pay rise (both disputes about pensions, which was resolved sensibly eventually).

Public opinion, formed from politicians sounding off, and the wonderful newspaper media we have in this country, has been conditioned into thinking what you do - when it actually isn't the case.
 

14xxDave

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2011
Messages
179
Location
Gateshead
Any evidence that guards earn less than an average commuter?
Where can you earn the most money in the UK? Pay in London is ...https://www.cityam.com › where-can-you-earn-most-uk-pay-london-much-h...

top-10-by-median-annual-gross-wage-media-chartbuilder-57edace49d55c.png

That's London obviously and is the median. So 4.4 million people earn more and 4.4 earn less. (yes I know the maths)
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Any evidence that guards earn less than an average commuter?
Many commuters to London and other metro cities will likely earn more than a guard I would think. Their season tickets can be upwards of 6k in places so you'd assume they'd have to be on decent rates to make that, and the long hours of traveling, worthwhile. Also there often seems to be visibly less commuter traffic on Friday mornings into London, which might suggest some commuters work Monday to Thursday at their place of work? Wouldn't have thought as many were low wage factory workers etc, especially not from the home counties to London.

As far as don't like it get another job goes, that only works if there's a handful of disgruntled workers over a large workforce. If there was a situation where the majority had a grevience an issue, then it's unlikely this could just be ignored without having a detrimental effect on the way a company operates. Even if not unionised, a factory for example who treated all their staff badly could end up with high levels of sickness or stress, that kind of thing.

Inevitably if the majority of a workforce join a union, it is then recognised. And if issues are then raised where the majority of members have a grivience over an issue, how likely is it you could just come back with 'don't like it, get another job' to all your unionised workers? Is that likely to motivate a whole workforce? Especially one where you rely on overtime.
The search towards better pay and conditions for all is not one which should be frowned upon. I thought that's what we all wanted in society? We surely should do?

Another point worth noting is that not all staff or union members are older ones, some are fairly new to the industry. Yet in many cases they will also join the trade union and vote with them, which suggests that simply shipping out the current workforce and replacing them with a new ones will not take away the issues if they all want to join the applicable trade union.

Nor is union membership confined to one geographical area. Wherever you have majority of workers who decide to join the union, they are going to have to be recognised, and not instructed to get another job. And for whatever reason, rail workers, even new ones who may have been commuters before, tend to join the trade unions. The way we are raised in the UK teaches us to be aspirational, so recruits to the rail industry are likely to be interested in joining a trade union if they think it will help them aspire to better conditions in the future.

One final question. What would the rules be regarding crossing picket lines during a strike if this legislation passed? If members of the same Union in the same grade as those striking decided they didn't wish to cross a picket line, would they be forced to?
Also, what would be in place to prevent some workers who weren't allowed to strike from being sick on a strike day?
 
Last edited:

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,103
Location
Powys
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.

And yet all the information above seems to disprove your statement.
Perhaps you could provide your evidence?
 

SignallerJohn

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
160
I’m just seeing the usual stuff I see on these type of posts.

Envy that the railway has a fantastic set of benefits, and many are happy to protect them and fight for the benefits we have
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Obviously many would describe the passenger railway as an essential public service. But surely this could be extended to many things, such as a supermarket which might be the only one in a small town. Could they be banned from striking so as not to affect anyone negatively? That sort of thing across all industries could start to sound quite dangerous as far as rights go, and perhaps a backwards move.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
, and many are happy to protect them and fight for the benefits we have
Not to mention new recruits who also join the trade union, who previously worked in other industies.
They don't refuse to join a union because they think the whole principal is wrong, they are pleased to have made it into an industry which still has some employment protection, and decide they'd like to join together to try and keep those protections as much as possible. Speaking generally as obviously that wouldn't apply to absolutely everyone, but recognised union membership would suggest most.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,172
Really? Funny but in the 10 years I was working for Network Rail I don't think we ever came out on strike.

Only because of the RMTs ineptitude in running the ballot for the national strike in 2010. Coincidentally that was just before a general election.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I've been a train driver for coming up 17 years and been on strike twice. Neither of which was about a pay rise (both disputes about pensions, which was resolved sensibly eventually).

Public opinion, formed from politicians sounding off, and the wonderful newspaper media we have in this country, has been conditioned into thinking what you do - when it actually isn't the case.

This is my point though - rail staff may not be on strike a huge amount (when compared to other industries) but the Union seem keen to at least threaten strikes on a regular basis (and balloting for strike action seems to be a fairly standard tactic rather than a tool that it only used occasionally).

So people may look at the number of days lost to strike action, but there can be a lot of disruption caused by threats of strikes - if I have to book three months in advance to get a decent price on a long distance ticket then I'm going to be put off by any talk of future strikes - the Union may back down and cancel the strikes before they actually happen, but the disruption is still caused even if all trains do run.

I don't know why the rail industry seems to have this problem but we seem to have some fairly outspoken Union representatives who are keen to bring up the prospect of strikes - even if the majority of time it's just a bargaining tool to try to force a deal with the TOC.

But just looking at the number of days lost to strike action only shows part of the tale - I can see why politicians may look at the bigger picture (especially if getting letters from constituents who have booked time off work in anticipation of strikes that were cancelled at the last minute, but by then it's too late to adjust holiday rotas or childcare).

Obviously many would describe the passenger railway as an essential public service. But surely this could be extended to many things, such as a supermarket which might be the only one in a small town. Could they be banned from striking so as not to affect anyone negatively? That sort of thing across all industries could start to sound quite dangerous as far as rights go, and perhaps a backwards move.

By the same token, do the people who think that heavy rail is such an important public service that it needs to be nationalised think the same of local supermarkets?
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,129
Not to mention new recruits who also join the trade union, who previously worked in other industies.
.
Yes, possibly because for many railway jobs the RMT is the only realistic choice for those wishing to be represented

In grades that offer a choice of unions I’ve come across those who actively choose an alternative they consider to be a less militant & more professional outfit, but I’m not sure how widespread these views are throughout the industry.
 
Last edited:

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,575
So ordinary "working class" people, many of whom were persuaded to vote Conservative for the first time, are rewarded by an attack on a trade union that exists to protect the working conditions of .......ordinary working class people.

Not a good start by Boris Johnson.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I’m just seeing the usual stuff I see on these type of posts.

Envy that the railway has a fantastic set of benefits, and many are happy to protect them and fight for the benefits we have

But to the detriment of ordinary, everyday, lesser paid workers trying to get to the office?
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,370
This is my point though - rail staff may not be on strike a huge amount (when compared to other industries) but the Union seem keen to at least threaten strikes on a regular basis (and balloting for strike action seems to be a fairly standard tactic rather than a tool that it only used occasionally).

I can only remember ONE other ballot for strike action - and an agreement was reached without any strike dates being announced. Again that wasn't over pay either.
 

33017

Member
Joined
9 Sep 2017
Messages
273
Only because of the RMTs ineptitude in running the ballot for the national strike in 2010. Coincidentally that was just before a general election.
I’ve been in the RMT 17 years and never on strike. More ineptitude, presumably?
 

SignallerJohn

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
160
But to the detriment of ordinary, everyday, lesser paid workers trying to get to the office?
  1. Where are you getting the statistics they are lesser paid?
  2. Do you think people want to go on strike and lose money?
  3. How many strikes have been put into place over money, and not say, guards?
So the railway should accept that we shouldn’t have benefits or our unions because other people aren’t treated as well?
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
So the railway should accept that we shouldn’t have benefits or our unions because other people aren’t treated as well?
Railway should consider that constant strikes cause a detriment to workers who are less well off.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
966
It does look like grandstanding, typical Boris, almost impossible to enforce. But it will no doubt be popular with commuters. The RMT's tactics over DOO (regardless of the merits of the case) have perhaps not been calculated to maximise public support.

Rubbish, it already exists in many other European countries. How would it be impossible to enforce?
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
966
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?

Whataboutery and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,103
Location
Powys
Only because of the RMTs ineptitude in running the ballot for the national strike in 2010. Coincidentally that was just before a general election.

So once in nearly TEN years!
Think that proves they aren't very common.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
966
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.

The dogged adherence of the party that commissioned the Williams report that will almost certainly see the end of the current franchising system?
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,103
Location
Powys
But to the detriment of ordinary, everyday, lesser paid workers trying to get to the office?

Are you implying that EVERY person getting onto a train is less well paid than the train staff?
Somehow I doubt that very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top