The government have set an exact stipulation for the offer and any future negotiations. ASLEF have a rule that they cannot take an executive decision back to the members. Neither side will budge, both are as bad as each other quite frankly.
But this is isn't about blaming anyone, well at least not from my point of view. Its about trying to find a way through it. ASLEF could, as I described above, at least shift the process on a bit. But they won't, and members on here seem to think this is the right way to go. Yet it is literally a free roll of the dice, your situation won't be any worse for taking the ballot, making that counter offer and seeing what they come back with. Seriously, what about that is so worrying that everyone pushes back against it?
The Government have moved the RMT grades to a fixed no strings offer for year one (2022), and year two (2023) will be negotiated on TOC by TOC basis for changes to T&Cs, rather than 'one size fits all'.
They chose to change the second year to a more reasonable offer to halt RMT action and chose NOT to do the same with ASLEF to leave the 'greedy train drivers' out on a limb to then enact the Minimum Service Levels.
That's what this is all about. The entire rail industry was provoked into strike action, it was really inconvenient, a solution (that was in their Manifesto!) was pushed through (with less opposition than if their had been no dispute), and now they just have to enact it with the 'greedy drivers' who are the only ones who haven't settled yet (because unlike the RMT, they still have a 'one size fits all' offer).
If ASLEF were to spend money putting an unacceptable deal to a vote, then the government would conjour up something else to stall things.
Just cast your mind back to 2022 - for the
ENTIRE YEAR ASLEF were asking for meetings about pay, and being ignored; Cast your mind back to January 2023 - the first offer (5% year one, 4% year two with loads of strings) unnegotiated before any meetings and sent to the media first (who of course pitched it as 9%, playing down it was over two years, and didn't mention the strings).
Then meetings, things looking up, then a
worse offer. 4% year one (A reduction. Remember, there's no strings in year one in either the first or second offer, so there's no need for a reduction in year one - other than to provoke), 4% year two with loads of strings still.
Then the settlement with RMT last December, which everyone from the layman bystander to industry expert says would settle the ASLEF dispute as well.
But no.
The government wants to ride to the rescue and enforce Minimum Service Levels, and having invested so much into this now (including suppressing growth in the industry and the general economy by doing so) are reluctant to back down. They will conjour up another stumbling block as they dont want to just back down and settle. They want MSLs.
But having been warned that their introduction will only cause prolonged disruption, and the TOCs don't want them because of this, it might well just drag on until the election, with government blaming the TOCs for not using the law it has provided.
If MSLs do happen, it's going to be interesting as Network Rail and whoever are Fleet Maintainers are going to be shelling out a pretty penny on every delay caused by every little niggling fault on one of those days.
Perhaps another reason why they haven't been implemented?
We need a change of Government to get through this impasse, because, in short, you can't negotiate with someone who won't talk and who makes a worse offer on the rare occasion you do, and who makes out that you are awkward because you are the only one who hasn't settled yet, but refuses to even consider making you the same as what it took the others to settle.
This Government do not want this settled.
. How many ASLEF members do you actually know? This dispute isn’t about “giving the government a bloody nose”; that’s something you have just made up. In fact the above post is just regurgitating the standard right wing tropes of evil union leaders leading their hapless members over a cliff, and pretending that the will of the union is somehow separate and distinct from that of its members.
