Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Almost nobody was actually calling for a second referendum on whether to begin the process of leaving the EU, though. What they were actually calling for was a referendum on whether or not to accept the withdrawal agreement which had ultimately been negotiated.
I still don't understand how this would have been undemocratic.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm don't even work in the rail industry!
But what is wrong with someone not wanting to stay in a union that they feel doesn't represent their views?
Apologies I mixed you up with @Editrain2 who did give that reasoning for leaving the union.
The reason it's bad form is because the Union has a political arm that you can agree to fund or not as a member. It's a couple of quid extra on top of your membership. If you don't want to affiliate with the views of the union you don't have to. There is, for everyone I imagine, somethings that the Union supports or gets involved with that they don't necessarily support or have any time for. However, I still recognise that it is essential to my work and the collective interests of the railway to be in it, to stay informed about what is going on and when I can to help steer the ship and support others.
Thank you and yes of course you are quite right. The ECHR would probably enter into a discussion if the UK passed a law banning forming or joining trades unions, although there are precedents.
However if a law was passed which restricted the right of certain professions to strike then this clause does not prohibit it, as shown by precedent in Hungary and Poland amongst others. Clause 1 "protection of his interests" does not mandate that the law respects the right to strike. People would still be in union. Similar arguments were used when secondary picketing was banned if my memory serves.
Clause 2 would be met. There would be no restrictions on these rights - anyone can join a union.
Interestingly, it might not be this clear. The Convention indeed contains no explicit protection of any specific right to strike, and the Court has not to date found that the taking of industrial action should be accorded the status of an essential element of the Article 11 guarantee, but it has repeatedly found that the concept of industrial action itself is protected by virtue of being part of a trade union activity. The test then becomes one of proportionality - so, for example, in the case of the Federation of Offshore Workers’ Trade Unions v. Norway (application no. 38190/97) the Court found that the Norwegian Government were within their rights to impose restrictions on the duration of strikes conducted by offshore oil workers, and to impose a requirement for compulsory arbitration, because the union members had been able to avail themselves of several means of protecting their occupational interests, and because the specific industrial action considered in the case could reasonably be considered to cause major disruption to Norway's domestic energy supply and also that of countries that relied on Norwegian oil and gas exports.
On the other hand, in the case of Ognevenko v. Russia (application no. 44873/09), the court found that an employee of RZD (Russian Railways) who had been dismissed as a result of taking strike action - which was forbidden to rail workers by Russian law - should be compensated for unfair dismissal on the grounds that a blanket prohibition of industrial action by rail workers was a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. However, the majority decision of the Court noted that the imposition of lesser restrictions* might well be considered proportionate and therefore not be a violation of the Convention.
Mind you, it might all be moot since Boris was saying just yesterday that the UK might withdraw from the Convention in order to be able to continue to transport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
* = the example given in the case was that of requiring minimum levels of service during strikes, but other such measures might be limiting the duration of strikes, or requiring a longer period of notice between calling a strike and conducting it.
NOBODY is forced to join a union. NOBODY is forced to go on strike. IF you want to join a union then you do so in the knowledge that you should abide by the result of a democrat ballot of the members.
If you don’t want to abide decisions you don’t agree with then don’t join the union, nobody’s going to make your life a misery for it.
unless things union wise have changed these past years, but i started as a apprentice at 15yrs old, i then went into the works to learn different parts of my trade, when i was 17yrs old my turn to learn machine shop working on lathes etc. i went onto a lathe job, the first question my new chargehand asked was "are you in the union" i said no i was only 17, so he said go sit over there, where i sat for 3hrs, he then came back just before home time and said "if you want to join see me in the morning". I was told he was the shops union rep, so better to join, which i did, and everything was ok after that... but it did turn me anti union ever since...
I would encourage you both to do so. I quit mine (non rail related) because I realised they were far more interested in political posturing than actually asking members for their views. The members they listen to tend to be the more militant types. I am very pleased I quit my union and my only regret is not doing so many years earlier.
If your union is acting in a similar manner to mine, in terms of putting politics and their ideology over the views of ordinary members, then it's time to quit in my opinion. If anyone is in a union which listens to moderate views and doesn't act in an unreasonable manner, then that's a different story. It's up to each person to make their choice depending on their own circumstances. But I feel I am better off without them and everyone should respect peoples right, not only to join a union, but also to quit one that isn't acting in their interests.
As someone who decided to leave your union with no regrets and who encourages others to do the same if they disagree with their respective unions politics and ideology.
Do you think that employers, in this instance, railway companies should have separate bargaining arrangements? Ie, collective bargaining for employees represented by a trade union and individual appraisals for employees who decide against trade union representation.
This would allow employees to make their own, informed decisions on whether they wish to be constrained by trade union practices and ideologies or whether they are free to make their own decisions with regards to negotiation with the respective employer.
If I didn't reply to a post how do you know what I think of it? How do you know I read it? You claim to, but won't say how. So I've explained that you're wrong politely several times and can see nothing further for me to add.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's incorrect. However, as I've already explained, it's not actually a matter for me whether it's "acceptable" to call someone greedy. I disagree with the description but you've provided zero evidence that I think it's correct to label them as greedy. Unsurprisingly given I don't.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You say that 2 wrongs don’t make a right and that you don’t agree with the comment that railway staff are greedy, but only 1 one comment is worthy of your disdain. It’s transparent, we can see it.
Again you're wrong. I quoted a post which I thought was dishonourable, I explained why. You tried to defend the post despite your later having stated that you aren't in agreement with it. Therefore it's fairly clear that you only tried to defend it on partisan grounds because you made an inaccurate assumption about my views on the dispute. This is why I then went on to accuse you of making a partisan argument i.e. one based not on facts but on division between rival camps. I firmly reject this framing because I think it's unhelpful, although of course both Ministers and Union leaders engage in it.
That’s because those directors have don’t just to that and have other responsibilities too. As has been posted on here several times it’s not ideal for one set of railway staff to propose cuts to another part of the organisational structure without fully understanding their job roles.
Those are the statutory directors of a company who ultimately could end up being convicted of corporate manslaughter should one of the members of staff anywhere else in that business make a grave mistake and sadly cause a death to happen.
That is a huge responsibility many of us would not like to bear, that we could end up in jail for someone else’s error. That is why statutory directors are paid a handsome amount to offset that, else you would find nobody prepared to take on that role.
If I didn't reply to a post how do you know what I think of it? How do you know I read it? You claim to, but won't say how. So I've explained that you're wrong politely several times and can see nothing further for me to add.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The post you took umbrage with had the quoted post attached to it. I find I surprising that you either didn’t read it or are claiming not to have seen it.
We‘ll agree to disagree on this point as we appear to be going in circles.
Ive attached a screen shot of the post you replied to. I’ll assume this clears up any confusion as to why i think you’ve read it.
This doesn't do your cause any good and comes across as being bitter; are you really that unhappy in your job that you need to come out with stuff like this? I hope not!
If you disagree with a post, quote it, and post a constructive reply and let us know why you disagree.
I’m not sure what you think I’ve said comes across as bitter or where I’ve said I’m unhappy in my job?
I’m here for light entertainment/information purposes rather than to advance any particular grand and noble cause. I’d point out that it’s a pretty fraught and unpleasant time on the railway at the moment. With that backdrop it doesn’t do my or anyone else’s mental health any good to constantly engage in ultimately pointless arguments with people on here. It’s exhausting and emotionally draining.
Whenever anyone says something like "most" or "many" posts are not to their liking, it often seems to actually relate to only a small proportion of posts in reality. Earlier in the thread there was a reference made to "plenty" of posts stating rail workers were "greedy" but in reality it was found there was only one.
What I do find is that there’s a distinctly anti staff sentiment on threads like this. I’m not alone in perceiving that. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated to be incredibly obvious nonetheless. It is by no means a majority of posters, but the atmosphere can be poisoned by a vociferous minority who have little to no understanding of the industry we work in, zero respect for the jobs we do and who clearly view myself and my colleagues with scorn and contempt.
I’d stand by saying the best practical advice for people who don’t like trade unions and are dead against strike action is not to join a heavily unionised industry in the first place. The best advice for those already in really is *not* to actively strikebreak.
The simple fact of the matter is that people who break strikes in heavily unionised workplaces are viewed as damaging the long term interests of everyone else for their own short term benefit. Those who don’t join the union but still benefit from the Ts and Cs, pay rises etc. are viewed as untrustworthy hypocritical freeloaders. I can completely understand why people feel like on the railway given how key the unions are (to many areas not just IA) and how visceral and downright unpleasant things can get during industrial action.
Personally I would never dream of strike breaking because I happen to like my colleagues and wouldn’t wish to undermine their democratic decision. If I did so, as is my right, I would fully expect a significant number of them (for which read 90%+) to take a strong and permanent dislike to me, as is absolutely their right.
That doesn’t lead to “abuse” of the kind described upthread (which I don’t condone and rightly wouldn’t be tolerated these days) but if you act in a way that makes your colleagues utterly despise you, it won’t exactly make work very pleasant.
You and others on here are perfectly entitled to disagree with that, but that doesn’t change the validity of the advice. It’s not you these people will be wanting to swap shifts and holiday with for the next twenty or thirty years!
The post you took umbrage with had the quoted post attached to it. I find I surprising that you either didn’t read it or are claiming not to have seen it.
We‘ll agree to disagree on this point as we appear to be going in circles.
You've been asked at least three times to quote the post but have declined. In case you haven't noticed there are more than 600 posts in this thread. I've explained to you already that it's wrong to say I was "taking umbrage" with a post. I was simply criticising the way the ideas were expressed as dishonourable. Given you admitted you didn't agree with the ideas yourself, yet initially attempted to defend them, I think that is strong evidence that you're trying to divide people for the political purpose of your own side 'winning', rather than what I'm doing which is bringing a more dispassionate, neutral analysis of the incentives in the dispute.
You've been asked at least three times to quote the post but have declined. In case you haven't noticed there are more than 600 posts in this thread. I've explained to you already that it's wrong to say I was "taking umbrage" with a post. I was simply criticising the way the ideas were expressed as dishonourable. Given you admitted you didn't agree with the ideas yourself, yet initially attempted to defend them, I think that is strong evidence that you're trying to divide people for the political purpose of your own side 'winning', rather than what I'm doing which is bringing a more dispassionate, neutral analysis of the incentives in the dispute.
I haven't said I'm not going to join ASLEF, I likely will. It doesn't mean I need to back every decision they make.
My concern is, right now, that striking appears to be nonsensical and will not gain public sympathy needed for a prolonged strike which appears to the the aim.
I have to ask though, who exactly is going to take that action? I worked for two extremely large organisations, the Post Office and the Railway, I know of people in the PO who were being shunned 20 years after the strike of 1971, no action was taken by either employer or union at any time and when I joined 6 months after the strike ended I was given a run down of the 'scabs' I shouldn't talk to or be seen with, equally when I joined the railway I was supplied by the local union reps with all the names of the people to keep away from and a verbal list of their transgressions, you then have to choose whether to maintain that attitude or be added to 'the list' yourself
...Perhaps if every worker in this country actually had a better standard of financial helath, ie better salaries and pay, then they would have more disposable income to, one pay higher train fares, ...
Our Covid policy is the cause of the rapid inflation. There are 2 things that cause inflation. A rising money supply (insane QE thanks to Covid) and the velocity of money (economy was shut down to going back to fully open). The huge inflation has all resulted from lockdown....
I certainly don't disagree with this as a substantial cause, but there are other factors at play too, but it's best explored in a separate thread. Neither Brexit nor Covid are topics we want to get into in this thread; you are very welcome to link to any such thread from here though.
What I do find is that there’s a distinctly anti staff sentiment on threads like this. I’m not alone in perceiving that. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated to be incredibly obvious nonetheless. It is by no means a majority of posters, but the atmosphere can be poisoned by a vociferous minority who have little to no understanding of the industry we work in, zero respect for the jobs we do and who clearly view myself and my colleagues with scorn and contempt.
As I said before, if someone is saying something you disagree with (but within the rules), why not quote the relevant post(s) and state why you disagree with them, in a constructive manner? This is all part of having a constructive debate.
I’d stand by saying the best practical advice for people who don’t like trade unions and are dead against strike action is not to join a heavily unionised industry in the first place. The best advice for those already in really is *not* to actively strikebreak.
The simple fact of the matter is that people who break strikes in heavily unionised workplaces are viewed as damaging the long term interests of everyone else for their own short term benefit.
Personally I would never dream of strike breaking because I happen to like my colleagues and wouldn’t wish to undermine their democratic decision. If I did so, as is my right, I would fully expect a significant number of them (for which read 90%+) to take a strong and permanent dislike to me, as is absolutely their right.
Those people have no place on the railway and right minded people need to stand up to them. Attitudes are changing and we are no longer in the dark days of the 1970s but the railway is, clearly, still a bit behind the times in this regard with some dionsoar attitudes remaining. That needs to be broken.
That doesn’t lead to “abuse” of the kind described upthread (which I don’t condone and rightly wouldn’t be tolerated these days) but if you act in a way that makes your colleagues utterly despise you, it won’t exactly make work very pleasant.
You and others on here are perfectly entitled to disagree with that, but that doesn’t change the validity of the advice. It’s not you these people will be wanting to swap shifts and holiday with for the next twenty or thirty years!
Unfortunately it doesn't clear up my confusion as to why you think it is I agreed with it? Nor why you initially tried to defend it but then had to go back on yourself when you were caught out by your incorrect application of party lines?
I think it'd be best if you just accept that you made a mistake and move on now unfortunately. There's no shame in that.
Except that it was government policy that caused the passengers to not be on the trains! Why would you blame the railway for government policy? You have put the cart before the horse.
If government can bail out the banks when they wreck the economy, the least the government can do is bail out the railways when the government wrecks the railways economy in the first place.
Unfortunately it doesn't clear up my confusion as to why you think it is I agreed with it? Nor why you initially tried to defend it but then had to go back on yourself when you were caught out by your incorrect application of party lines?
I think it'd be best if you just accept that you made a mistake and move on now unfortunately. There's no shame in that.
Using "we" without specifying who is a great way to pull the wool over people's eyes in order to avoid admission that you've made a mistake. You personally don't like what I said. You are now unable to back down, perhaps because you're embarrassed about being wrong? My advice for the future is that it's generally less embarrassing to admit freely to minor errors because everyone moves on quickly if you do, without them causing much harm. It's fine for you to disagree obviously but let's not try to pretend there's anything more to this.
Railway workers were not entitled to be furloughed.
There are many more people working in the railway sector than the guards and drivers this board focuses on
Many of the people outside of these roles didn't work fewer hours, they worked more and at much higher levels of stress and personal health damage than previously but yeah, all skivers.
It appears to be a very unusual proposal; if you would like anyone to debate your proposal further I would suggest you elaborate on exactly how it would work. It's probably best posted as a new thread though, as it's not likely to happen and is highly speculative.
I don't understand what is meant by "this board focuses on"; it makes no sense to me. I don't think anyone is denying there are many people working in the railway sector; if you can find a post which suggests someone is saying this, feel free to quote it, and state why you disagree. I may even join you!
Many of the people outside of these roles didn't work fewer hours, they worked more and at much higher levels of stress and personal health damage than previously but yeah, all skivers.
You mean its not constructive because you don't agree with it? Nothing at all wrong with the way DarloRich put their point across so I don't know what point you are trying to make.
It appears to be a very unusual proposal; if you would like anyone to debate your proposal further I would suggest you elaborate on exactly how it would work. It's probably best posted as a new thread though, as it's not likely to happen and is highly speculative.
Im not surprised you’ve avoided answering that particular question.
I‘ll take your advice though and start a thread on it later, i’ve got a train to drive in the meantime, hopefully you’ll then enlighten us on your thoughts as to why it’s unusual and unlikely to happen at that point.
I have to correct the assertion by some that Brexit has not caused inflation and contributed to the cost of living crisis.Duties and shipping costs have risen on both imports and exports because of Brexit related changes.
My company estimates it's added about 4% to our cost base and higher fuel prices another 5% or so. We have had no choice but to pass on in higher prices to customers.
Higher prices cause inflation and most of these have been driven by higher materials cost including fuel also driven by the war in urkaine.
Raising wages to fast will only contribute to price rises continuing an inflationary spriral. I don't know what the answer is but in the 70's wages rising inline with inflation killed the economy.
Would have been a disaster to furlough train staff for two to three months. Think of all that route and traction refreshing that may have been needed in some cases. Even a small amount of unproductive staff is a disaster as we are finding out. I'm sure this was taken into account.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Im not surprised you’ve avoided answering that particular question.
I‘ll take your advice though and start a thread on it later, i’ve got a train to drive in the meantime, hopefully you’ll then enlighten us on your thoughts as to why it’s unusual and unlikely to happen at that point.
I can only apologise for not reading through this entire thread, so I hope this hasn't already been addressed.
I understand that in Japan (and possibly elsewhere), bus drivers go on 'strike' by working as normal but allowing free travel for all.
What is stopping rail workers in the UK publically announcing that rail travel across a given part of the network will have not have any kind of revenue enforcement, then running the service as normal but with all barriers open and no ticket checks? This would surely be a good way to get the public on the side of rail workers, whilst still putting pressure on TOCs and the government.
At a guess, this would be difficult because it requires full coordination between all station and on board staff, but that doesn't seem insurmountable in a scenario like the current one where so many grades are on strike anyway. Possibly monthly season ticket holders would be unhappy, but they're surely even less happy if there is no service at all.
I can only apologise for not reading through this entire thread, so I hope this hasn't already been addressed.
I understand that in Japan (and possibly elsewhere), bus drivers go on 'strike' by working as normal but allowing free travel for all.
What is stopping rail workers in the UK publically announcing that rail travel across a given part of the network will have not have any kind of revenue enforcement, then running the service as normal but with all barriers open and no ticket checks? This would surely be a good way to get the public on the side of rail workers, whilst still putting pressure on TOCs and the government.
At a guess, this would be difficult because it requires full coordination between all station and on board staff, but that doesn't seem insurmountable in a scenario like the current one where so many grades are on strike anyway. Possibly monthly season ticket holders would be unhappy, but they're surely even less happy if there is no service at all.
This action took place in the Northern pay strikes back in 2002. It actually had minimal effect. I think today it would have even less effect. It also raises the question of 'Breach of contract' Not sure how the law today would interpret this. Maybe somebody could enlighten us.
Besides. Some Leeds based crew working the Leeds North West Triangle appear to have been doing this form of action for years.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'then', to my certain knowledge this type of behaviour was certainly still prevalent at the end of the 2010s and continued by individuals whose parents may not have even been born in the 70s let alone them, hopefully things have changed and, of course, I fully share your opinion that they are unacceptable
I can only apologise for not reading through this entire thread, so I hope this hasn't already been addressed.
I understand that in Japan (and possibly elsewhere), bus drivers go on 'strike' by working as normal but allowing free travel for all.
What is stopping rail workers in the UK publically announcing that rail travel across a given part of the network will have not have any kind of revenue enforcement, then running the service as normal but with all barriers open and no ticket checks? This would surely be a good way to get the public on the side of rail workers, whilst still putting pressure on TOCs and the government.
At a guess, this would be difficult because it requires full coordination between all station and on board staff, but that doesn't seem insurmountable in a scenario like the current one where so many grades are on strike anyway. Possibly monthly season ticket holders would be unhappy, but they're surely even less happy if there is no service at all.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
