Having sat on both sides of the table, I endorse this view!What on earth is wrong with the management at LNER? Both sides stick fully to agreements equals one happy ship. No need for this.
Just plain common sense.
Having sat on both sides of the table, I endorse this view!What on earth is wrong with the management at LNER? Both sides stick fully to agreements equals one happy ship. No need for this.
I suspect it is the ones which give the union final say on the acceptability of rosters; thereby giving the union effective control of running the railway. No doubt the DfT want to stir up that little hornet's nest.F
With which existing agreements have LNER and Northern failed to adhere?
On the Northern ballot paper “failure to adhere to existing agreements” did appear alongside the pay dispute
However the press release from ASLEF specifically states that this is a separate dispute. So surely it’s irrelevant if it was included on the pay ballot, with ASLEF themselves saying it’s a separate dispute it should therefore have its own ballot.It was on the ballot paper. So all legit
Having sat on both sides of the table, I endorse this view!
Just plain common sense.
Don’t worry about it pretty sure ASLEF will have made sure this is ok by running it by our solicitors.However the press release from ASLEF specifically states that this is a separate dispute. So surely it’s irrelevant if it was included on the pay ballot, with ASLEF themselves saying it’s a separate dispute it should therefore have its own ballot.
Noting what you’ve mentioned about the pay ballot papers, if ASLEF had said it was part of the pay dispute then it would have been unquestionably legitimate. But by saying its a separate dispute they’ve easily opened the door to LNER and/or Northern applying for an injunction.
and continued failure to adhere to the agreed bargaining machinery
It means exactly what it says - the machinery for bargaining.What does that actually mean in plain English ?
Sort of feels ASLEF are doing mumbo jumbo speak, rather than clear definitive english.
Anyone know what bargaining machinery actually is,
A dispute can be about a valid matter and still be illegal. It doesn’t matter how valid a matter is, there’s still a process to follow and for as long as ASLEF are claiming this is separate from the pay dispute there’s no ballot to show a mandate.As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.
This isn’t about the pay dispute as mentioned in the replies above, this is a separate disputeSo what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?
See post#26So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?
Believe it was also part of LNER ballot returned end of NovemberA dispute can be about a valid matter and still be illegal. It doesn’t matter how valid a matter is, there’s still a process to follow and for as long as ASLEF are claiming this is separate from the pay dispute there’s no ballot to show a mandate.
If ASLEF had made this part of the pay dispute, that ballot paper did cover non-adherence to agreements and therefore in that case there wouldn’t be any uncertainty over the legality.
I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?Believe it was also part of LNER ballot returned end of November
It's not, it's a separate issue as stated in ASLEFs press releaseI too can't see how it can be held under pay dispute mandate, if they are separate.
There would of been another ballot and given 2 plus weeks notice it's all done by the book.So unless there was another ballot, then presumably will be illegal action, so employees are at risk of employer sanctions and negative contributions to their employment record.
There is no uncertainty anyway. The ballot paper mentioned agreements which were no doubt about Terms and Conditions. The action proposed is about non-adherence to those agreements which form part of the T&Cs but it isn't about pay per se. It was clearly properly balloted and legal. Your concerns don't seem to hold water as far as I can see.I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?
As I said earlier ASLEF have potentially dug themselves a hole as if they’d instead said it was part of the pay dispute there’d be no uncertainty over the legality as it was on the pay dispute ballot.
As far as I'm aware you can't add other disputes to an ongoing dispute given they are separate issues.I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?
As I said earlier ASLEF have potentially dug themselves a hole as if they’d instead said it was part of the pay dispute there’d be no uncertainty over the legality as it was on the pay dispute ballot.
Seems to me the tories are hell bent on pushing through reforms steam rolling not only the company but the employees also. Dragging industries down for there so called better good to say well when we were in power we achieved this, this and this.Strangely, I would say that this dispute, aimed only at OLR TOCs, is pushing toward the more serious question of whether the TOCs or the Unions control the railway and whether the present arrangements represent an existential threat.
Plain EnglishWhat does that actually mean in plain English ?
Sort of feels ASLEF are doing mumbo jumbo speak, rather than clear definitive english.
Anyone know what bargaining machinery actually is, it sounds like automated AI tool, but is probably just some old manual process.
By definition, can't do bargaining without a two way communication, and not clear if ASLEF stuck 100% to agreed method either. They chose not to say if they had also broken the agreement.
"I have precisely zero involvement in this, however I haven't been sent specific details of this internal matter so it *must* therefore be illegal".As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.
The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate. It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.
I suspect it is the ones which give the union final say on the acceptability of rosters; thereby giving the union effective control of running the railway. No doubt the DfT want to stir up that little hornet's nest.
The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate. It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.
So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?
Missing, of course, the fact that these TOCs are both effectively nationalised. If even the Operator of Last Resort won't use the MSL then that speaks volumes. Not even sure what "power of attorney" is meant to mean but if the DfT isn't happy with the Operator of Last Resort, what are they going to do? Change to the Operator of Very Last Resort?Minimum 40% on these days or take the companies to power of attorney!
Quite. This talk of the action being potentially illegal is very strange. Northern and LNER will no doubt consider any issues but seeing as ASLEF have already been burned once recently I'd be stunned if they'd not made sure to get it right.If Northern feel the action/ballot is illegal I'm sure they will follow through as they have done previously.
I agree, I can imagine both sides will have some very strong legal eyes looking over every single detailQuite. This talk of the action being potentially illegal is very strange. Northern and LNER will no doubt consider any issues but seeing as ASLEF have already been burned once recently I'd be stunned if they'd not made sure to get it right.
The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate.
It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.
It's mainly aimed at Northern as Northern have currently a RDW Agreement up until April 2024.What is the point of announcing a three day overtime / rest day ban at LNER, whne they have been on an overtime / rest day ban since 2022?
It's mainly aimed at Northern as Northern have currently a RDW Agreement up until April 2024.
As for LNER although there is no official RDW Agreement some are still working RDs against the union and working over contractual hours. The aim I'd assume is to reiterate the point
Quite frankly I think what most of the travelling public want is for all sides to stop this contest, and for them to be locked in a room until a solution is found.The general public might also take the view that a competently managed organisation providing an essential transport service should negotiate sensibly with its workforce to resolve disputes, thereby preventing strike action from arising in the first place. They might also ask why the current government is hellbent on preventing that negotiation process from taking place.