Ok but in any event. clearly coal is no longer dominant, and in fact there have been days recently when not a single piece of coal has been used to create electrical power. Freight trains carrying coal are increasingly rare nowadays, and in my neck of the woods there is a freight flow carrying Biomass pellets from Liverpool to Drax power station which is seemingly getting bigger
-
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!
Guards during strikes
- Thread starter stuartbaggs
- Start date
- Status
Ok but in any event. clearly coal is no longer dominant, and in fact there have been days recently when not a single piece of coal has been used to create electrical power. Freight trains carrying coal are increasingly rare nowadays, and in my neck of the woods there is a freight flow carrying Biomass pellets from Liverpool to Drax power station which is seemingly getting bigger
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
Well, I read through all of your post and just thought the use of 'scab' was a rather amusing, historic, term to use in 2017. To me, it simply recalled the bad old Union days involving miners, Scargill etc. However, if you're concerned that some others might not go on to read what else you write then the answer is in your own control - just don't use a word which you think is unnecessarily emotive (unless you're trying to deliberately create conflict).
DarloRich
Veteran Member
what word would be more acceptable?
I agree entirely - however the I'm all right Jack mentality is what carries weight these days. You see it here all the time.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
Any one(s) he feels most appropriate !
It was his suggestion that the word might have caused some others to not read any further. I'm sure most people are capable of rephrasing something if they have concerns.
Matt Taylor
Established Member
I haven't crossed any picket lines but there needs to be a change of strategy compared to what happened at Southern, I and others I've spoken to cannot simply throw good money after bad and keep striking with no apparent effect, in a years time I could find myself at least £4000 worse off with no discernible change to my future prospects. That's an untenable situation.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am very happy to post criticism of the RMT approach to disputes. They are often cack handed and lose the PR battle. However they aren't going to simply roll over like good little boys and accept things that are detrimental to their members as many posters here seem to expect. They DO need to get smarter. The problem is they have very little to fight with beyond industrial action. What do you suggest?
Sadly old fashioned ideas like collectivism and standing together have little weight in society these days. Some may see that as a good thing, others may not.
Last edited:
IMO, if you're on strike, you get yourself onto a picket line for the length of your shift as well. Staying home shouldn't be an option. Therefore before voting in favour of a strike, you have to ask yourself if you're willing to stand outside your place of work, with a placard, and explain to anyone who passes why you're in dispute.
SWT_USER
Member
16:50 Waterloo to Reading made an unscheduled, unannounced stop at Vauxhall today - doors released. Stayed on the platform for some time after the doors were locked.
Given SWR almost never arrange extra stops on the Windsor side I'm guessing this wasn't intentional. Look forward to the RMT highlighting it..
Given SWR almost never arrange extra stops on the Windsor side I'm guessing this wasn't intentional. Look forward to the RMT highlighting it..
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,482
As the poster who called out the term 'scab' in 313103's post, I feel the need to clarify my feelings about it and militant unionism in general.
I am a member of a union myself (not RMT) but I've always had great difficulty with the moral question about striking. To date, I have not needed to make this choice which I am grateful for. Unless a dispute became extremely long and drawn out, I don't think the financial loss would be the major factor in my decision to strike or not. I work in the rail industry because I want to help provide this public service and to my mind, the passenger's journey always comes first. Now with the RMT / DOO dispute, I'm not qualified to say whether the proposed DOO operations are as safe as 2-person operation or not, but as the primary safety body of the industry has judged any increase in risk to be acceptable (the term ALARP comes to mind), then I am prepared to accept that fact. My common sense tells me that you do not need guards for suburban metro operations. Whether the longer distance GTR operations are the same, is another matter. But to my mind, the RMT has been dishonest and manipulative in its attempts to subjugate the real dispute about job protection under the pseudo safety message. A union that takes that approach, that calls strikes continuously and bears little regard for the passenger on a day to day basis (whatever the long-term view - when people are losing their jobs and homes because of the impact of strikes, it's time to rethink the moral question!) - I would have great difficulty in 'standing firm' and striking on such shaky moral grounds.
And use of terms such as 'scabs' and 'scab armies' is disrespectful to anyone who has these moral dilemmas, characterising them as stereotypical greedy chancers. This is nothing more than childish name calling and contributes nothing to the wider debate.
I am a member of a union myself (not RMT) but I've always had great difficulty with the moral question about striking. To date, I have not needed to make this choice which I am grateful for. Unless a dispute became extremely long and drawn out, I don't think the financial loss would be the major factor in my decision to strike or not. I work in the rail industry because I want to help provide this public service and to my mind, the passenger's journey always comes first. Now with the RMT / DOO dispute, I'm not qualified to say whether the proposed DOO operations are as safe as 2-person operation or not, but as the primary safety body of the industry has judged any increase in risk to be acceptable (the term ALARP comes to mind), then I am prepared to accept that fact. My common sense tells me that you do not need guards for suburban metro operations. Whether the longer distance GTR operations are the same, is another matter. But to my mind, the RMT has been dishonest and manipulative in its attempts to subjugate the real dispute about job protection under the pseudo safety message. A union that takes that approach, that calls strikes continuously and bears little regard for the passenger on a day to day basis (whatever the long-term view - when people are losing their jobs and homes because of the impact of strikes, it's time to rethink the moral question!) - I would have great difficulty in 'standing firm' and striking on such shaky moral grounds.
And use of terms such as 'scabs' and 'scab armies' is disrespectful to anyone who has these moral dilemmas, characterising them as stereotypical greedy chancers. This is nothing more than childish name calling and contributes nothing to the wider debate.
I get the impression that Matt works as a commercial guard, not on any services likely to go over to the new trains, so he (and other commercial guards) doesn't really need to worry about job security in this franchise. All of the guards going on strike is a bit pointless as only a fraction of them are likely to be affected by DOO operation on the new trains - so I would have suggested only striking with the non-commercial guards. Commercial guards wouldn't have been able to fully cover for non-commercials as I don't think they'd have the necessary route or traction knowledge (at first)
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am not having a go - I genuinely don't know what the union can do now they have reached this point. It SHOULD have been dealt with sooner by that horizon scanning referred to above. I am also not sure the legislation allows for "sectional" voting meaning that all members in the impacted electorate must be balloted even if they are not directly impacted by the decision to strike.
Whilst acknowledging and accepting the rest of your post I doubt it feels quite so childish when people happily stroll past a picket line, happy to take the security the union offers them while doing nothing to support it. However, while I may find that distasteful many do not. That is their choice.
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,482
I doubt many people 'happily stroll past a picket line' - it sounds like something of an ordeal, particularly if it's full of your colleagues and there is potentially abuse being hurled. Someone who does that out of a moral conviction that they disagree with the majority viewpoint deserves respect at the very least, even if the strikers don't share their opinion. Mutual respect on all sides would go a long way towards resolving many of the industrial disputes our railway seems to be plagued with right now.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
I appreciate that I'm in rather sensitive territory here amongst some, understandable, views that are of importance to the individuals affected............ BUT
Whether railway staff like it or not, issues such as picket lines, scabs, even the very idea of a Trade Union itself, are often viewed by 'outsiders' nowadays as mildly amusing eccentricities - more appropriate to those times when Scargill and the miners were taking on Thatcher [hence why it's referred to so often].
I know that is NOT the view of many/most on this forum - but then I guess the majority on the forum are themselves railway staff who might fall in to one of the categories I mentioned. I can easily see where DarloRich is coming from, and I'm sure he speaks for many others, but I'm not at all convinced that the old ways of doing things are still the best, or only, ways of resolving disputes etc.
I really don't see that the RMT has been very effective in recent times - seemingly ever since they lost Bob Crow. I doubt that's just a coincidence. The present leaders seem very poor by comparison, their rhetoric seems even more 'dated' and irrelevant than whatever Bob Crow used to say, and their appalling media releases have often been utterly embarrassing. It seems that the RMT is still more concerned with foreign ownership, shareholders, FatCat managers etc etc rather than clearly explaining what the issues are concerning their staff, safety, security etc.
It's very difficult to see how the RMT can hope to resolve disputes for their members if the Union itself can't raise its own game to become a far more professional, and respected, organisation.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
So what other, modern, ways are available? Both sides have to come to negotiations with clean hands.
I agree.
Last edited:
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
I don't know ! - and before you say what a fat lot of use that was(n't).........
To my mind, the very first issue that the RMT has to sort out, as a matter of priority, is the RMT itself - the whole organisation, their aims for 2018 (not the 1970s), the poor leadership, possibly the structure [?-I don't know?], obtaining the (honest) views of the members, their overall presentation, relationship with the media......etc etc
I really don't see much point in the RMT attempting to pursue much more in the way of battles with various organisations or management teams all the time that the union itself is in such obvious need of a drastic overhaul. The RMT will either sink without trace, by pursuing outdated practices from an outdated organisation, - or it can thrive, as a result of reform, from within.
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
So give up anything in dispute. Go away. Completely reform. Come back when they're an organisation that doesn't interfere in railway affairs or get noticed by anybody. What are they coming back as, the TSSA...?
How very convenient.
Overspeed110
Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 117
But your anti strike attitude is rather let down by the Tory anti strike anti union law of limiting the amount of pickets on a picket line and also where you can actually have a picket line?
Who says anyone sits at home on strike when not on a picket line? I haven't.
Finally, I don't have to explain myself to ANYONE why I'm in dispute or on strike.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
that is the issue isnt it? We might agree change is needed but we don't know what change looks like! Ideally I would want my union people look ahead and trying to head off issues early by doing a deal. The problem in this instance is the government is driving the TOC's to bin as many guards as possible ( and at the same time do great damage to the union making their next changes easier to implement) and insulating them from the costs of any disputes. It doesn't look like a deal would be possible. The argument could be that the union should accept that and try to mitigate the damage and protect as many as possible. They have clearly decided that isnt for them.
So give up anything in dispute. Go away. Completely reform. Come back when they're an organisation that doesn't interfere in railway affairs or get noticed by anybody. What are they coming back as, the TSSA...?
How very convenient.
That is completely unfair. The TSSA hasn't completely reorganized.
They are very good at the pastoral side of things in representing members with employment issues within the work place. The members are less keen on direct action. Could that be the reason pay awards have been much lower than those represented by the RMT?
So give up anything in dispute. Go away. Completely reform. Come back when they're an organisation that doesn't interfere in railway affairs or get noticed by anybody. What are they coming back as, the TSSA...?
How very convenient.
That's not what he meant, and well you know it. From an complete outsider's point of view (and union member myself, though not in the rail industry) the RMT come across as trying to fight not even the last war, but more like four wars before. It's ineffective, results in very little sympathy from the travelling public, even if they support the general stated aim and just makes the RMT look like they're stuck in the 1970s. This applies particularly to the tone of their press releases, which would be funny if the lack of self-awareness didn't materially affect the lives of its members.
Other rail unions have understood the need for change in approach and evolved, the RMT has taken a step backwards without Bob Crow.
Last edited:
And you would hope a reasonable union, would asked the employer to restart hearings, etc. following the procedure rather than what is perceived as unions getting people off on 'technicalities'
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
So give up anything in dispute. Go away. Completely reform. Come back when they're an organisation that doesn't interfere in railway affairs or get noticed by anybody. What are they coming back as, the TSSA...?
How very convenient.
What the RMT need to do is simply become less abrasive and more credible in the media. With the DOO dispute, they should have been collaborating with consumer groups, disability groups, and supportive centrist MPs (by that I mean not Corbyn or his ilk). They should have formed a united front. The strikes and their bull**** Marxist rhetoric were disruptive and achieved pip all except make their members poorer. Militancy is not au courant any more, particularly in the south of England where your London commuting passengers are more likely to be middle class Conservatives.
They should have been able to better counter the amateur antics of GTR and the DfT (the government is very weak and has been for the length of the dispute). They wouldn’t have been able to keep the guards safety critical but they might well have achieved more than the loss of many days’ pay.
“Look at the purity of our struggle”. Yes indeed, look at it in all it’s glory, and look at how little you’ve achieved.
I’m not anti strike or anti union but I feel better able to read the lie of the land than some on here. It’s madness that a minority on here still think the RMT don’t need to change tack even after chalking up defeat after defeat for some time now.
How is this an anti strike attitude? I've been on strike in my industry. I stood in the pissing rain on a picket line. I think I owe it to my colleagues to do so. Why should you be able to vote for a strike, then sit at home in the warmth when others are out defending our position at the workplace gates? I can't find any official rules limiting the number of pickets- it only says that the police have the power to disperse a picket line if a breach of the peace is being committed.
https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing
And I think if you're striking in a public service, the public have a right to know why they're not getting that service. Heck, you might even educate some of them- you're not going to get much sympathy if you tell them to eff off.
Last edited:
Sadly we’re getting away from the original post now, although I will ask this... what does a ‘deal’ look like in the SWR dispute?
Let’s assume everyone is telling the truth...
SWR want the ability to run their new trains without a 2nd member of staff but are suggesting the 2nd member will keep all current training competences.
RMT want a 2nd member of crew on every train, full stop.
What is the middle ground, there doesn’t appear to be much room for compromise in those two points above.
We all have our preferences as to what we want to happen, but the way I see it someone will leave the table with their demands being met and someone won’t... there is no deal to be had because a deal meals both parties lose ground but both benefit.
Let’s assume everyone is telling the truth...
SWR want the ability to run their new trains without a 2nd member of staff but are suggesting the 2nd member will keep all current training competences.
RMT want a 2nd member of crew on every train, full stop.
What is the middle ground, there doesn’t appear to be much room for compromise in those two points above.
We all have our preferences as to what we want to happen, but the way I see it someone will leave the table with their demands being met and someone won’t... there is no deal to be had because a deal meals both parties lose ground but both benefit.
theironroad
Established Member
It'll probably end up in something similar to the messy mish mash on southern, but may depend on how swr/aslef get on. While I take the aslef claim that the southern deal is very TOC specific with a large dose of salt, the major difference is NO swr or swt train has ever run DOO(P, leaving aside a couple of very isolated incidents years back when the train and driver have managed to leave the guard on the platform.
An excellent post - exactly what will happen in my view.
I'm not sure how the train can be blamed. Unless the buzzer buzzed itself...
tsr
Established Member
It’s happened, as have weirder things...
If someone has abuse hurled at them by anyone doing a picket they should report it to the police - it's against the Code of Practice, and more importantly also against the law:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-picketing
Strikebreaking staff tend to get the " Sausage Chips and Beans " treatment in mess rooms. Rightly or wrongly, that is the actual reality.
- Status