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

[Raul_Duke]

It's a shame that shop workers aren't able to join a union as railway employees are, an RMT type union would be able to tell them that they don't need to look happy at work

Or maybe they’d have more to be happy about.

No, that’s far too far fetched.

 

[PR1Berske]

It's a shame that shop workers aren't able to join a union as railway employees are, an RMT type union would be able to tell them that they don't need to look happy at work

They could join USDAW.

 

[Starmill]

They could join USDAW.

Lots of retail workers in this country are in trade unions. I assumed that the comment from ExRes was being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Scott1]

Or perhaps they're genuinely happy?

I can't speak for other but I worked for years in a supermarket. We were an Usdaw store and as a union they were not very effective. I wasn't especially happy and had poor conditions.

I wouldn't put much stock in the staff appearing happy, I won't say which of the big 4 I worked for but if we didn't smile we would be reprimanded.

 

[Robertj21a]

It serves the Prime Minister's interest for this to go ahead with lots of fuss. It means that the public who use the railway will turn their ire for it's shockingly poor performance more to the trade unions than to him and his government.

All I can say is, if you're unhappy about this, I hope to god that 100% of you who were eligible to cast a vote for an Opposition party (preferably one that had a good chance of winning).

Whether or not the measure has any impact on the jobs of the actual staff is totally irrelevant, the Prime Minister does not care about that at all. And far worse is to come.

Which opposition party had 'a good chance of winning' ?. It certainly wouldn't have been Labour or the LibDems so I'm puzzled as to which one you mean.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a shame that shop workers aren't able to join a union as railway employees are, an RMT type union would be able to tell them that they don't need to look happy at work

Anybody can join a Union.

 

[baz962]

They could join USDAW.

A big problem is though , that if shop or other similar worker's go on strike , it is a lot easier to get other staff . Eg agency in etc . Train driver's/guards etc can't easily be replaced . Even if they have a licence or are otherwise trained , you still need to be route and traction trained and that takes time , especially when the Di's etc that train them would also be on strike.

 

[6Gman]

Exactly this.

2 minutes to set up a cab each time. Taking your full walking time everywhere including to and from your PNB.

“Do you mind if we move your job tomorrow to avoid a cancellation?”

And that’s before you get into what happens during disruption and going over your hours.

I think people would be surprised how much effort most staff will put into making up delay time, until they stop doing it.

The entire Cambrian Coast timetable at one time depended on Pwllheli drivers accepting a practice which was almost certainly outside the manning agreement, and which wouldn't have had a cat in hell's chance of being accepted at 90% of traincrew depots.

 

[Mojo]

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.

I would say, in addition to this, that depending on the minimum service levels agreed, it may not even be possible to run a service safely because of the number of customers attempting to access the service.

Not really a problem on most Mainline rail services for instance where the public consult a timetable before travel; but on routes like Clapham Jct into the London terminal stations or services like the London Underground it wouldn’t be possible to open the service if it was running at say 25% it’s usual frequency as it wouldn’t be safe due to crowding; unless say we’re talking about only running part of the service at a reasonable frequency.

London Underground for instance has been able to cope with having a couple of lines shut on strike days, or sections of lines, but if they were to say run the entire network at very low frequencies then I would say that would require very careful management.

 

[ExRes]

Anybody can join a Union.

Indeed

 

[Starmill]

Which opposition party had 'a good chance of winning' ?. It certainly wouldn't have been Labour or the LibDems so I'm puzzled as to which one you mean.

Whomever was the most likely challenger, or the incumbent, in your constituency. For example Caroline Lucas in Brighton, Claire Wright in East Devon etc. In a small number of cases e.g. Wimbledon, there was a dispute over who the challenger was. The Liberal Democrats said it was themselves, and Labour said it was themselves also. The former turned out to be right. In Kensington there was the reverse. Incidentally both of these MPs, who won with less than 40% of votes, are now near certain to vote in support of this new legislation, while their counterparts who split one another's vote would not be but neither is in office.

 

[Starmill]

I would say, in addition to this, that depending on the minimum service levels agreed, it may not even be possible to run a service safely because of the number of customers attempting to access the service.

Not really a problem on most Mainline rail services for instance where the public consult a timetable before travel; but on routes like Clapham Jct into the London terminal stations or services like the London Underground it wouldn’t be possible to open the service if it was running at say 25% it’s usual frequency as it wouldn’t be safe due to crowding; unless say we’re talking about only running part of the service at a reasonable frequency.

London Underground for instance has been able to cope with having a couple of lines shut on strike days, or sections of lines, but if they were to say run the entire network at very low frequencies then I would say that would require very careful management.

I suppose the companies could put into place more queuing systems. Of course, this costs a lot of money and needs lots of short term staff to be brought in. Some queues are self-regulating in that once the queue looks too long people give up and don't join them any more. It could still be quite problematic though because there's often no space outside stations for people to queue.

It seems unlikely that LU could use any more queuing I agree. Of course, when these sorts of strikes are on in London there are often very long queues to board buses also.

 

[Skymonster]

I must admit I don’t have much sympathy for the striking staff or the union. The rest of us have to get to work and we lose out if we can’t. Striking is never an option for many - and most of those do not feel disadvantaged by that. I know if I went on strike in my job, my employer would find a way to remove me from the business, and that’s the same for millions of workers. Striking diminishes the need to compromise.

What’s particularly galling is in this case the union is meddling in issues it should stay out of. These disputes are about DOO. While one survey suggests that passengers believe a second safety-critical staff member should be on trains, I’m willing to bet that if a slightly different question was asked the result would be somewhat different. “Would you be prepared to pay higher fares and more for season tickets for a second member of staff to be on the train?” would deliver a different message, because the harsh reality is most people want more right up until it costs them more. Then they go for the cheaper option. If I had a choice of two TOCs, and one was cheaper because they used DOO and the other was more expensive because it had more staff on board, I know what I’d do - take the cheaper option.

Other than the issues of ongoing employment for the second-staff involved (and even that is tenuous IMO - see later), DOO should not be a union matter. DOO has been accepted by the ORR and that should be an end to it - the union should not be trying to exert its will and opinion to override the decision of the ORR, which has an objective to ensure passenger safety and only allow operations that are, in the opinion of the experts, safe.

Reality is the union is only in this to protect jobs, and to try to preserve pay for workers based on them being regarded as performing a safety critical rather than revenue-related job. Even protecting jobs is a tenuous issue as far as I am concerned. Millions of workers in thousands of roles have either lost their jobs or had their work deskilled (and lost pay as a result) due to the ongoing onslaught of technology and changes (improvements) to processes. Where was the rail union when thousands of IT works jobs were outsourced to India - where was the rail union when the third crew member was removed from the cockpit of airliners - where was the rail union when workers in bars, restaurants and shops saw their terms and conditions eroded and contracts moved to part time or zero hours? Even on the railways many catering jobs were outsourced and staff in those roles are now lower paid and have to accept sales targets. But the union was smug in the knowledge it wasn’t happening to train drivers and guards that paid well in terms of subs and let the rest of us suffer.

There are thousands more examples of situations where workers have had to accept change, and in almost all cases it happened without strikes. But now its happening on the railway. Adapt, change and accept the new ways of working should be the message to the union and those contemplating or already striking. And don’t continue to insist on archaic ways of working, refuse to accept efficiency improvements, and sulk by striking and messing up the working lives of millions of innocent bystanders (customers) in the process when they don’t get their way.

Anyone remember PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organisation) in the USA? In 1981 Ronald Reagan sacked more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers. Air travel was crippled or severely disrupted for a while, but a new cadre of non-union air traffic controllers was recruited and trained and things eventually returned to normal. If railway staff and their unions can’t recognise that they are providing a vital service that customers across the nation depend on and have a right to expect will run, perhaps we should take some short-term pain, remove them and replace them with non-union staff who are prepared to work, accept that change happens over time, and adapt.

Reality is there is a role for unions and strikes, and they should not all be outlawed. But this is the wrong fight at the wrong time. The union and the workers it represents needs to have a little more humility and accept that no one will be immune from the changing world.

 

[sprunt]

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.

I agree with this - the problem seems to be one of communications. Whenever there's any kind of strike on the railways, the reaction in my office is overwhelmingly along the lines of "Don't train drivers already earn loads?" I try and point out that it's not drivers striking and it's not about pay, but it seems hard to get that through. The situation isn't helped by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the media has a reflex anti-union reaction.

 

[sprunt]

1. Where are you getting the statistics they are lesser paid?

His own head. It's how he operates - invent something, assert it and then when asked for evidence insist that it's for others to disprove. See any HS2 thread.

 

[GB]

<Cut>

Sorry but that is a typical "we don't have it as good, why should you" type attitude.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Where was the rail union when thousands of IT works jobs were outsourced to India - where was the rail union when the third crew member was removed from the cockpit of airliners - where was the rail union when workers in bars, restaurants and shops saw their terms and conditions eroded and contracts moved to part time or zero hours?

Firstly, I’m sorry you’re apparently so expendable to your employer.

Secondly, what the hell does any of that have to do with a rail union?

You may as well ask where the teaching unions are in regards to DOO.

Unions are specific to professions, as I’m sure you know.

 

[Wombat]

While one survey suggests that passengers believe a second safety-critical staff member should be on trains, I’m willing to bet that if a slightly different question was asked the result would be somewhat different. “Would you be prepared to pay higher fares and more for season tickets for a second member of staff to be on the train?” would deliver a different message, because the harsh reality is most people want more right up until it costs them more. Then they go for the cheaper option.

I think there's a more compelling question: "In the event that a guard is not available, would you prefer the train to run without a guard, or be cancelled?" I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an overwhelming preference for the first option.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think there's a more compelling question: "In the event that a guard is not available, would you prefer the train to run without a guard, or be cancelled?" I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an overwhelming preference for the first option.

I'm not so sure. You seem to assume that most people know that there's a guard on board anyway. That may be reasonable if you travel on a 156/158 etc but there's no guards on most of the trains I use - and nobody ever seems bothered by it.

 

[mrcheek]

I'm not so sure. You seem to assume that most people know that there's a guard on board anyway. That may be reasonable if you travel on a 156/158 etc but there's no guards on most of the trains I use - and nobody ever seems bothered by it.

I can imagine the conversation with the pollster

"Do you believe that all trains should have a guard on board?"
"To check tickets you mean?"
"erm...."

 

[Horizon22]

I can imagine the conversation with the pollster

"Do you believe that all trains should have a guard on board?"
"To check tickets you mean?"
"erm...."

Most people want a 2nd member of staff on-board yes. But as you say, it would be interesting to note how many already think their services don't have a guard. I would suggest it's very regional.

Ultimately a 2nd member of staff on board has benefits and should absolutely be retained, especially for longer distances. But the role needs to adapt and a Southern-style OBS works can work well; it improved scores for "on-board availability of staff" hugely in the NRPS for them and revenue figures shot up. There are lots of jobs that exist that are not absolutely vital (the "safety-critical" argument) to the running of a service in all industries, but many positions have remained for decades for a whole host of reasons. On-board staff could be more free to do revenue jobs, deliver customer service and make trains a more 'welcoming' place to be. Unions definitely have a part to play in shaping whole that role works in the future and protecting those jobs, but adaption is part of all our working lives and is not just because of 'evil profiteering management'. Customers are very confused about why this is dispute is still rumbling on around the country for 3+ years

 

[Mag_seven]

I would say, in addition to this, that depending on the minimum service levels agreed, it may not even be possible to run a service safely because of the number of customers attempting to access the service.

Not really a problem on most Mainline rail services for instance where the public consult a timetable before travel; but on routes like Clapham Jct into the London terminal stations or services like the London Underground it wouldn’t be possible to open the service if it was running at say 25% it’s usual frequency as it wouldn’t be safe due to crowding; unless say we’re talking about only running part of the service at a reasonable frequency.

Very valid point - perhaps the minimum service level could apply to a time period e.g. a full service must be run between 07.00 and 10.00 and between 16.00 and 19.00? Outside those times there would be no minimum service guarantee.

 

[Goldfish62]

Lots of retail workers in this country are in trade unions. I assumed that the comment from ExRes was being deliberately obtuse.

In any case anyone can join any union they like. Nothing's stopping them. I'm retired, but I'm still in a union.

 

[Carlisle]

A big problem is though , that if shop or other similar worker's go on strike , it is a lot easier to get other staff . Eg agency in etc ..

As far as I’m aware that’s incorrect & there’s still a UK law stipulating employers can’t hire agency staff to cover those on strike

 

[falcon]

This has been coming for a long time.

The government now have a big majority and can get laws brought in without much oposition at all.

The situation with train staff in particular Train Drivers demanding what ever they want in the way of pay and terms has been noted by the government.

Since privatisation the cost of wages for Train Drivers have gone through the roof.

The reason is that ASLEF(Train Drivers Union) can and do call the shots completely.

It's as simple as this "if you don't pay us the Train Drivers what we want we will bust this company".

The people of London who have suffered at the hands of ASLEF and the RMT now have an alie in Boris Johnson who will at the first chance make it illegal for Drivers and Guards to strike. Whithout doubt.

How? Sequestration of the unions funds.

Sir Peter Parker had to threaten to close the entire railway down in 1982 due to Train Drivers striking. The conservatives will not forget that.

What next!

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm still amazed that the RMT called a 27-day strike at SWR for most of December when there was a General Election planned. Did they seriously believe the strikes would help their cause ? - more like they handed Boris the very excuse he needed.

 

[Dave1987]

This has been coming for a long time.

The government now have a big majority and can get laws brought in without much oposition at all.

The situation with train staff in particular Train Drivers demanding what ever they want in the way of pay and terms has been noted by the government.

Since privatisation the cost of wages for Train Drivers have gone through the roof.

The reason is that ASLEF(Train Drivers Union) can and do call the shots completely.

It's as simple as this "if you don't pay us the Train Drivers what we want we will bust this company".

The people of London who have suffered at the hands of ASLEF and the RMT now have an alie in Boris Johnson who will at the first chance make it illegal for Drivers and Guards to strike. Whithout doubt.

How? Sequestration of the unions funds.

Sir Peter Parker had to threaten to close the entire railway down in 1982 due to Train Drivers striking. The conservatives will not forget that.

What next!

Government cannot stop a work to rule. If drivers decide that a mass work to rule is necessary to prove to Mr Shapps he needs the staff on his side then there is nothing he can do to stop it. When was the last drivers strike?

 

[Raul_Duke]

This has been coming for a long time.

The government now have a big majority and can get laws brought in without much oposition at all.

The situation with train staff in particular Train Drivers demanding what ever they want in the way of pay and terms has been noted by the government.

Since privatisation the cost of wages for Train Drivers have gone through the roof.

The reason is that ASLEF(Train Drivers Union) can and do call the shots completely.

It's as simple as this "if you don't pay us the Train Drivers what we want we will bust this company".

The people of London who have suffered at the hands of ASLEF and the RMT now have an alie in Boris Johnson who will at the first chance make it illegal for Drivers and Guards to strike. Whithout doubt.

How? Sequestration of the unions funds.

Sir Peter Parker had to threaten to close the entire railway down in 1982 due to Train Drivers striking. The conservatives will not forget that.

What next!

Could you enlighten me as to the last drivers strike for pay please?

 

[Robertj21a]

Government cannot stop a work to rule. If drivers decide that a mass work to rule is necessary to prove to Mr Shapps he needs the staff on his side then there is nothing he can do to stop it. When was the last drivers strike?

I have often thought that a Work to Rule would be far more effective than just the routine threat of more strikes. Can anyone explain why the unions (RMT anyway) rarely seem to take this approach ?

 

[option]

I have often thought that a Work to Rule would be far more effective than just the routine threat of more strikes. Can anyone explain why the unions (RMT anyway) rarely seem to take this approach ?

Not being anti-union here at all, but certain unions don't have people with brains running them...

The education unions do Work to Rule, & that is effective.