• 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.

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
One thing that might happen would be unions putting their assets outside of the UK to prevent the UK courts from seizing them.

There are those on this website who would be the first to decry (fat cats/any other such term) who transferred their assets outside this country, so is it a different scenario in their minds when a trades union follows suit?
 
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
4,124
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 ?
A work to rule took place prior to DOOs introduction on C2C around 2002 although I can’t remember how long it lasted or if concessions were gained.
Presumably the 27 day SWR strike was about maximum impact when govt/DFT were vulnerable & tied up with an election/ Brexit & Merseyrail had just capitulated to avoid more strikes .
 
Last edited:

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
One thing that might happen would be unions putting their assets outside of the UK to prevent the UK courts from seizing them. Also I can see a significant increase in work to rule

Be quite easy to be 'asset-lite'. Most businesses don't own their premises.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
There are those on this website who would be the first to decry (fat cats/any other such term) who transferred their assets outside this country, so is it a different scenario in their minds when a trades union follows suit?

It may be considered differently as it's not their money but that of their members that they are protecting
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
It's been reported over some news channels today that nurses over in northern Ireland are on strike over pay inconsistencies with those in Britain. Guessing the future legislation is only aimed towards railway staff?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
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.
I think they almost certainly seriously believed Jeremy would come to their rescue on or shortly after Dec 13th...
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
3,281
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
Not sure about the laws , but I meant you can easily cover certain job's , maybe then with permanent staff from other roles or branches/stores etc. Anyway , maybe Boris will change try and get that law changed too.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
We seem to be back on topic but, as a reminder, this thread, as with many others, is not an excuse to go off and waste time and electrons on pointless DOO arguments. Any further posts around DOO will be deleted as being off-topic.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Not sure about the laws , but I meant you can easily cover certain job's , maybe then with permanent staff from other roles or branches/stores etc. Anyway , maybe Boris will change try and get that law changed too.
Yes, I see what you mean, ie there’s likley to be more part time / non union staff available to cover strike days in a supermarket environment than on the railway
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
3,281
Yes, I see what you mean, ie there’s likley to be more part time / non union staff available to cover strike days in a supermarket environment than on the railway
Yes , even already qualified driver's can't drive a route or traction type they don't sign , so a toc couldn't draft anyone in from say another depot etc .
 

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
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.

Striking workers lose out by striking as they don't get paid. However if they are doing it, it's for a good reason, regardless of whether someone else agrees or not, for which is ultimately irrelevant. If the workers feel it's a good reason then it is, after all it's their strike and they voted for it.
The fact striking isn't an option for some is not a reason for it not to be an option for others, if many don't feel disadvantaged by not having that option that's up to them but plenty are disadvantaged by not having that option.
Your employer finding a way to remove you from the business for striking is the one in the wrong, not the person striking, the fact they may be able to do it doesn't make it right, just or correct.
Not being able to strike is more likely to remove the need to compromise because the employer has no incentive to work with the staff to solve the issue, whereas the ability to strike still means the staff, unions and management actually do have to find a compromise so as a strike can be avoided and staff not having to lose pay and the company losing out.
If a change to a job description or a removal of a job effects the union's members, then the union is quite correct to get involved, that is their job, to protect their members as much as is possible.
The rail unions are not responsible for what happens in other jobs and the people who work in those jobs, they are responsible for rail workers, or in the case of the RMT, maritime workers and possibly others.
To replace unionised staff with non-unionised staff on the railway is very unlikely to be short term pain, but would be likely to be long term pain, probably many years of pain in reality. They have to be trained, You have to train new trainers to train the staff because you will have fired the old staff who had the experience. Because there are no unions conditions may go down and there is potentially a high turn over of staff + potential other issues that may arrise. But no doubt there would be people who would like such nonsense and a government who may even do it regardless of cost, issues and effects. The only way it could be short term pain is to barely do any training and operate on a whim and a prayer and hope for the best, which is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
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.
In response to this, could you therefore be suggesting that commuters who are inconvenienced by RMT strikes earn more than an average wage for a Northern guard?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
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.

I really, really don’t get this attitude. I really don’t.

I go to work on the railway to make the railway experience better for passengers. That’s the reason I joined and the reason I’m still there.

When my manager, or a colleague, or a member of my team asks me to do something, and if I can do it, I will. Helping passengers at stations at times of disruption, staying late to resolve an incident in control, working at weekends / bank holidays to help co-ordinate major works. None of which is in my job description or any contract. And none of which I get paid for.

So I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t do this, even if they were disgruntled with the company they work for. Or put another way, why would you do things that you know will make passengers’ experience of the railway worse?
 

Raul_Duke

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
397
I really, really don’t get this attitude. I really don’t.

I go to work on the railway to make the railway experience better for passengers. That’s the reason I joined and the reason I’m still there.

When my manager, or a colleague, or a member of my team asks me to do something, and if I can do it, I will. Helping passengers at stations at times of disruption, staying late to resolve an incident in control, working at weekends / bank holidays to help co-ordinate major works. None of which is in my job description or any contract. And none of which I get paid for.

So I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t do this, even if they were disgruntled with the company they work for. Or put another way, why would you do things that you know will make passengers’ experience of the railway worse?

I think you’ve misunderstood.

I don’t do any of those things day to day. I will do my utmost to drive trains safely and to time. I’m not that bothered if they want to move my shift the night before, provided I can get childcare. I’ll help people with baggage, I’ll even attempt to help people at stations, despite often knowing less about tickets then they do...

I’ve been more than two hours late home twice this month.

What I’m saying is, if relations with your employer break down to the point where you would ordinarily be striking but are legally prevented from doing so, then that goodwill evaporates and can’t easily be legislated against.

It becomes the last resort in place or striking and can arguably be more disruptive.
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,506
I really, really don’t get this attitude. I really don’t.

I go to work on the railway to make the railway experience better for passengers. That’s the reason I joined and the reason I’m still there.

When my manager, or a colleague, or a member of my team asks me to do something, and if I can do it, I will. Helping passengers at stations at times of disruption, staying late to resolve an incident in control, working at weekends / bank holidays to help co-ordinate major works. None of which is in my job description or any contract. And none of which I get paid for.

So I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t do this, even if they were disgruntled with the company they work for. Or put another way, why would you do things that you know will make passengers’ experience of the railway worse?

Because then people would complain to the member of staffs employer which will eventually force the employer to the table.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Is it correct that the emergency services are restricted regarding strikes in a similar way? Now obviously strikes within those services could directly impact preservation of life, as in people could be ill, in danger, or worse, as a direct result of a days strike.

Isn't Police pay decided by an independent body rather than goverment because they can't strike? I seem to remember Thersea May caused herself all sorts of trouble when she overruled the independent body whilst she was Home Secretary.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
So drivers who basically never strike in past 20 years will now be punished by Boris. I predict wide spread work to rule amongst drivers which will cause absolute chaos at present , plus the likelihood of strikes in the meantime . Sundays where workjng is voluntary will also probably take a big hit .Any rail staff who voted Tory hang your heads in shame .....
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I'm far from convinced we need to rehash the same basic political arguments that so gripped the Forum of late on this thread when they've been more than adequately covered in dedicated threads in General Discussion.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,361
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.

You mean it's the line spun by the government and their friends in the media. An example was the dispute with RMT and TSSA on London Underground about the closure of ticket offices. Every newspaper article revelled in telling it's readers how much the ASLEF train drivers earned (often inflating it to the next £10-15k) - who weren't involved in the dispute at all.

A lot of drivers actually took home about double their wage before privatisation, without doing any overtime, due to extra allowances that are now part of the salary. There are a good many drivers who are now TWICE as productive as under BR. No one ever mentions that though do they? Including so called expert Wolmar.
Even moving five days work a week into four days is actually more productive (the unproductive booking on time and PNB of the fifth day being got rid of) and therefore beneficial to TOCs - again, you never hear that mentioned either.
Newspaper articles and politicians and magazine columnists/editors never place the context of productivity gains alongside any pay rises.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
When my manager, or a colleague, or a member of my team asks me to do something, and if I can do it, I will. Helping passengers at stations at times of disruption, staying late to resolve an incident in control, working at weekends / bank holidays to help co-ordinate major works. None of which is in my job description or any contract. And none of which I get paid for.

You are perfectly entitled to work late or at weekends etc without getting paid, although I really don't get why anyone would want to do so.

When working, I have done similiar unscheduled work, but I was paid accordingly for my time. If an employer had wanted me to work without payment then my answer would have been short and sweet - fortunately, none of them ever asked.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
You are perfectly entitled to work late or at weekends etc without getting paid, although I really don't get why anyone would want to do so.

Because it helps passengers when they need help the most.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
How will this draconian measure work?

How can you select a few drivers to drive trains if there aren't enough strike breakers or managers who can drive ? It's not a safe situation to force someone to drive against their wishes

With the RMT strikes all trains on Greater Anglia ran but they came to a sensible resolution. Most trains on SWR look unaffected so what difference will there be ? Drivers hardly ever strike . The last time was 2016 during the southern strikes and I don't think ASLEF are going down that route again

Of course this has to be presumably voted in first and minimum service defined
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I've worked without pay to help my department out. Sometimes it's just professional to deal with a backlog or an issue or to help others. I'm a lowly Band 2 office clerk, my take home pay is £16-17k. So yes, I know what it feels when better paid workers go on strike. According to Indeed, a Northern conductor (their term) can expect £23k.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
Because it helps passengers when they need help the most.
Co-ordination of major works at weekends/bank holidays should be an integral part of the plan for those works. I still don't get why you would want to do that work without being paid ..... but each to their own.
 

Cestrian

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2010
Messages
5
Location
Chester
It amazes me why the Unions don’t put a bid together to run a TOC for themselves?

Is there anything to prevent this?

Apologies if there is but being a long time lurker on the board, it would seem a better solution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top