Allegations of "bullying,intimidation and harassment" at SWR depot

[Bromley boy]

Another school of thought is that the union provides a service, for a charge, in the form of membership fees. It doesn't mean it can/should coerce members into doing things they do not agree with, nor is it a "take it whole or leave it" arrangement. This is, after all, supposedly a democracy and free country. No man has any obligation to support the cause for anyone else.

Of course if in the long run it undermines the collective interests then it would adversely affect those who supposedly did the "undermining" in the first place too.

Not say I necessarily agree with it, just something I have read before, and I can see some merit in it.

I can see that viewpoint.

But, even as someone who has joined the union mainly as an insurance policy, I still wouldn't break a strike as this would actively undermine the union I am a part of. If I did so I would fully expect my actions to annoy and alienate my colleagues.

I also believe that, having joined the union, I should respect its democratic process and be willing to walk out if the democratic decision of the union is to strike, even if I disagree with the cause. If I don't wish to do that I should leave and join an alternative union that better reflects my views.

The whole ethos behind belonging to a union breaks down if people don't show solidarity.

Of course people should not be compelled to join a union and should not be treated less favourably by their colleagues for choosing not to do so. However, the overwhelming majority of the driver and guard grade belong to ASLEF or RMT, so this simply isn't something that comes up much in practice.

 

[High Dyke]

Actually, if you spoke to a lot of union members they would tell you the same as I will, that they view it as an insurance policy and that is all. Some people allow their union activities to seemingly consume them which I'd their choice, but don't push it onto others.

Well said. I know many who join a union for protection. That is the way i pitch membership of a trade union to people...instead of the "expensive diary" attitude that some people have.

Recently one of my colleagues, a non-union member, got into a bit of bother at work. He asked to join the trade union because he now needed help. The local staff rep was surpisingly sympathetic about the situation - probably because he worked adjacent to this person. Management went down the route of a full disciplinary, with a charge of gross misconduct. The assistance of the trade union he'd now joined meant the charge was reduced to serious misconduct and the person has retained a job. That to me shows the value of a trade union. However I do also respect the right for people to not join a union or work without fear of intimidation, bullying or harrassment - from what ever quarter.

Turning the debate round slightly a recent incident with a TOC trainee has seen the person doing the training intimidate a trainee because they have joined a trade union. Equally ask yourselves if trade union laws introduced by government are a form of bullying?

 

[Robertj21a]

I can see that viewpoint.

But, even as someone who has joined the union mainly as an insurance policy, I still wouldn't break a strike as this would actively undermine the union I am a part of. If I did so I would fully expect my actions to annoy and alienate my colleagues.

I also believe that, having joined the union, I should respect its democratic process and be willing to walk out if the democratic decision of the union is to strike, even if I disagree with the cause. If I don't wish to do that I should leave and join an alternative union that better reflects my views.

The whole ethos behind belonging to a union breaks down if people don't show solidarity.

Of course people should not be compelled to join a union and should not be treated less favourably by their colleagues for choosing not to do so. However, the overwhelming majority of the driver and guard grade belong to ASLEF or RMT, so this simply isn't something that comes up much in practice.

I can't help thinking that union membership on the railways will steadily reduce if the likes of the RMT can't become a more professional organisation. There's little point in being in the RMT if it can't/won't do what you believe in, or you have little respect for their (current) senior team. The end result could well be that more rail staff are in no union in future.

 

[DarloRich]

Well said. I know many who join a union for protection. That is the way i pitch membership of a trade union to people...instead of the "expensive diary" attitude that some people have.

Recently one of my colleagues, a non-union member, got into a bit of bother at work. He asked to join the trade union because he now needed help. The local staff rep was surpisingly sympathetic about the situation - probably because he worked adjacent to this person. Management went down the route of a full disciplinary, with a charge of gross misconduct. The assistance of the trade union he'd now joined meant the charge was reduced to serious misconduct and the person has retained a job. That to me shows the value of a trade union. However I do also respect the right for people to not join a union or work without fear of intimidation, bullying or harrassment - from what ever quarter.

Turning the debate round slightly a recent incident with a TOC trainee has seen the person doing the training intimidate a trainee because they have joined a trade union. Equally ask yourselves if trade union laws introduced by government are a form of bullying?

I agree - my response as a rep as to why you should join was that one day, when the merde interacts with the fan, (which it will, for all of us) you might want a stroppy, belligerent, pita like me fighting your corner to make sure you get fair and correct treatment as per company policy. And you get a nice diary and if you are a very good boy a nice pen

 

[Tetchytyke]

The people thought of as 'scabs' will be constantly slagged off, have other people in mess rooms finger wag and bang tables in unwarranted anger at them. They will have completely untrue rumours spread about them

And that's where the line isn't so much crossed as stampeded across.

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't help thinking that union membership on the railways will steadily reduce if the likes of the RMT can't become a more professional organisation. There's little point in being in the RMT if it can't/won't do what you believe in, or you have little respect for their (current) senior team. The end result could well be that more rail staff are in no union in future.

Possibly, although there’s a massive divide between the leadership and what happens at a local level.

The union, as most members see it, does a great deal including scrutinising rosters, providing access to various pastoral services, providing representation in the event of an incident etc. It’s also a means by which concerns can be fed back to the company on an anonymous basis.

These benefits, particularly the assistance of you have an incident, would make it quite an odd decision not to belong to one of the main rail unions. The political side, and the actions of the senior team, are of little interest to most members.

 

[Clip]

No one's replied to that other point I made though. You refuse to take part in strike action, but take the benefits that other striking workers have fought for. Is that fair?

People pay into a union for protection and collective bargaining which the union wants - they don't join one just so they can go on strike.

As ive said before - would you be happy for people not in the union to negotiate their own pay rises which could mean they get a better one than you?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Calling someone a scab is bullying. Some of you guys are really quite unbelievably unpleasant.

No, it really isn't bullying.

Screaming it at them standing an inch from their face is bullying. But labelling them a scab really isn't. It isn't even anywhere near the nastiest common term for a strikebreaker.

Would calling them "The Strikebreaker" instead of "The Scab" be ok?

 

[DarloRich]

And that's where the line isn't so much crossed as stampeded across.

Are all but the last not part of an emotional response to an emotional issue? Lying about such people should not be required. The truth is hurtful enough. Would a similar response not be generated by the appearance a former lover who betrayed you?

Possibly, although there’s a massive divide between the leadership and what happens at a local level.

The union, as most members see it, does a great deal including scrutinising rosters, providing access to various pastoral services, providing representation in the event of an incident etc. It’s also a means by which concerns can be fed back to the company on an anonymous basis.

These benefits, particularly the assistance of you have an incident, would make it quite an odd decision not to belong to one of the main rail unions. The political side, and the actions of the senior team, are of little interest to most members.

Indeed - but there is a big disconnect between the members and the top/the union "professionals". The top/head office is very politically focused. The members/local reps are very role/management focused.

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed - but there is a big disconnect between the members and the top/the union "professionals". The top/head office is very politically focused. The members/local reps are very role/management focused.

Yes - that’s what I’m saying.

 

[Tetchytyke]

nor is it a "take it whole or leave it" arrangement. This is, after all, supposedly a democracy and free country.

I understand the viewpoint, but I don't really agree. Democracy involves having to do things you don't want to do if you're outvoted. Brexit, for instance. One cannot pick and choose which bits you agree with.

For me in my industry, I shrug if people don't want to be in the union. It's a shame they get the pay rises we fight for, but on the other hand those laws also stop union members being paid less or treated less favourably. But those who DO join the union and then do the dirty and cosy up to management whenever it suits them? Personally, I'd expel them from the union.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are all but the last not part of an emotional response to an emotional issue? Lying about such people should not be required. The truth is hurtful enough.

It's the difference between calling them a scab and screaming it at them an inch from their face. Or, with a jilted lover, the difference between moaning about the ex to your mates and putting dig poo through their letterbox.

There's no need to scream and shout and abuse strikebreakers. It just plays into management hands if they can hand down a few disciplinaries. As you say, their willingness to break a strike speaks plenty enough about their character.

 

[Carlisle]

.. Any short term inconvenience ..

In all fairness there’s nothing that seems particularly short term about these current DOO disputes is there? With the original Southern campaign ongoing for over a year and a half now.
Whilst I appreciate you may be totally committed to industrial action for that length of time or even much longer, I can also fully understand the fair number that aren’t, for various reasons, especially if their Pay and/or T&Cs have been more or less guaranteed for the future

 

[AlterEgo]

No, it really isn't bullying.

Screaming it at them standing an inch from their face is bullying. But labelling them a scab really isn't. It isn't even anywhere near the nastiest common term for a strikebreaker.

Would calling them "The Strikebreaker" instead of "The Scab" be ok?

Name calling is bullying.

 

[theblackwatch]

I understand the viewpoint, but I don't really agree. Democracy involves having to do things you don't want to do if you're outvoted. Brexit, for instance. One cannot pick and choose which bits you agree with.

For me in my industry, I shrug if people don't want to be in the union. It's a shame they get the pay rises we fight for, but on the other hand those laws also stop union members being paid less or treated less favourably. But those who DO join the union and then do the dirty and cosy up to management whenever it suits them? Personally, I'd expel them from the union.

So: Less union members means less bargaining power in the workplace (are they going to listen to the union as much if it only caters for X% of the employees rather than y%?), and less subscriptions coming in. Sounds like you've got it well planned!

 

[Nean]

I suggest everyone in this thread regardless of side has a cup of tea and reads this and the documents on this page: https://www.gov.uk/workplace-bullying-and-harassment

I have a feeling that it may clear up some inaccuracies in both sides' arguments...

 

[Bromley boy]

I suggest everyone in this thread regardless of side has a cup of tea and reads this and the documents on this page: https://www.gov.uk/workplace-bullying-and-harassment

I have a feeling that it may clear up some inaccuracies in both sides' arguments...

I think it simply boils down to employees in any organisation having the right to be treated civilly and professionally by their colleagues.

But if you behave in a manner which causes your colleagues to mistrust or dislike you, and strike breaking as a union member would be guaranteed to achieve that, you can’t expect anyone to invite you to the pub, make small talk with you in the messroom, or do you any favours.

 

[sheff1]

Name calling is bullying.

So if someone shouts from the stand that Cristiano Ronaldo is an "overpaid prima donna" they are bullying him. To borrow a phrase from another sportsman - you cannot be serious.

 

[shredder1]

Seems that we are heading back to the 1970s.

Would that not be a bad thing

 

[Robertj21a]

Possibly, although there’s a massive divide between the leadership and what happens at a local level.

The union, as most members see it, does a great deal including scrutinising rosters, providing access to various pastoral services, providing representation in the event of an incident etc. It’s also a means by which concerns can be fed back to the company on an anonymous basis.

These benefits, particularly the assistance of you have an incident, would make it quite an odd decision not to belong to one of the main rail unions. The political side, and the actions of the senior team, are of little interest to most members.

Not disagreeing with you but isn't this part of the overall problem ? The members [quite understandably] only really want to be involved with the more immediately relevant issues - as you say, rosters, pastoral, support after incidents etc. However, the senior team *appear* to spend much of their time arguing politics, issuing terrible press releases, ranting about foreign owners, FatCats etc - the problem with that is that it's their policies that are aired in the public forum on your behalf (whether you agree with those policies or not). As an outsider it comes over as there being a massive gap between what the leaders say and do - and what the members actually want.
I appreciate that the leaders are elected by the members but it looks like more members need to get more heavily involved in standing for election.

 

[AlterEgo]

So if someone shouts from the stand that Cristiano Ronaldo is an "overpaid prima donna" they are bullying him. To borrow a phrase from another sportsman - you cannot be serious.

No, surely you are not serious; I expect you are being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps I need to be explicitly clear, that I’m referring to one colleague calling another a nasty name. That’s a completely different dynamic to a fan calling a millionaire footballer a name. I feel sad I have to explain that.

 

[BestWestern]

Not disagreeing with you but isn't this part of the overall problem ? The members [quite understandably] only really want to be involved with the more immediately relevant issues - as you say, rosters, pastoral, support after incidents etc. However, the senior team *appear* to spend much of their time arguing politics, issuing terrible press releases, ranting about foreign owners, FatCats etc - the problem with that is that it's their policies that are aired in the public forum on your behalf (whether you agree with those policies or not). As an outsider it comes over as there being a massive gap between what the leaders say and do - and what the members actually want.
I appreciate that the leaders are elected by the members but it looks like more members need to get more heavily involved in standing for election.

I agree entirely.

 

[mrcheek]

I was also brought up to believe that you do not insult someone who is striking by crossing their picket line.

)

does that mean we have to blame your parents for your idiocy?

 

[jon0844]

A mature way of dealing with others is to appreciate their point of view; your use of the word "scab" is just childish and shows you are not able, or perhaps willing, to accept there may be another way of viewing a particular situation. As others have said, one thing a union will do is to support diversity in the workplace; use of words like "scab" is, however, very clear evidence of the hypocrisy of some elements of the union movement, with certain forms of diversity, i.e. disagreeing with the motivation for a strike, being treated with aggression.

I am not sure people know how to accept other, differing, points of view these days. Look at Brexit for examples. Look at the USA under Trump. And, yes, you could say the same about many Corbyn fans (equally those who support Farage or groups like Britain First).

Now you have people left, right (and centre?) with strong views that would almost kill those with differing views if they could. Universities talk of safe spaces so as not to accidentally hear anything that might shatter their own opinions.

I am a member of two unions but have so far never been asked to strike, but I'd like to think I'd respect those who have their own views, and make their own decisions for their own reasons. If a union is going to be undermined because of a lack of support, their case may either be a bit weak OR they failed to argue their case very well to those that mattered.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not disagreeing with you but isn't this part of the overall problem ? The members [quite understandably] only really want to be involved with the more immediately relevant issues - as you say, rosters, pastoral, support after incidents etc. However, the senior team *appear* to spend much of their time arguing politics, issuing terrible press releases, ranting about foreign owners, FatCats etc - the problem with that is that it's their policies that are aired in the public forum on your behalf (whether you agree with those policies or not). As an outsider it comes over as there being a massive gap between what the leaders say and do - and what the members actually want.
I appreciate that the leaders are elected by the members but it looks like more members need to get more heavily involved in standing for election.

Yes I think that's a very good point.

I doubt you'll find many RMT members who believe their union did a good job managing the PR aspects of the GTR dispute, for example. Sadly the press releases and political statements do, all to often, conform to the 1970s out-of-touch-dinosaur stereotype and I would have agreed with that viewpoint up until a couple of years ago. It's only having joined the industry and seen how the unions operate at the grass roots level that I've seen what a force for good they can be - it's not all about striking and pay increases!

I think a lot of the problem is that the local union work by all accounts is a lot of aggro for very little reward. It's impossible to please all the people all the time and local reps are inevitably required to get involved in some quite unpleasant matters (and both management and some of the more "old school" drivers can be quite difficult characters to deal with, to put it mildly).

My observation is that a lot of people who get involved in union matters quickly realise it's a hell of a lot more stress than it's worth and only do it for a short while, so the kind of people who persevere and end up in the senior union positions are probably the type to be politically ambitious. I like to think things will get better as a new generation comes through the ranks.

 

[Sunset route]

My observation is that a lot of people who get involved in union matters quickly realise it's a hell of a lot more stress than it's worth and only do it for a short while, so the kind of people who persevere and end up in the senior union positions are probably the type to be politically ambitious. I like to think things will get better as a new generation comes through the ranks.

I can concur with you sentiments, after nearly 10 years of being a local LDC rep (until I resigned), you have the Union hierarchy that seem to away with the fairies. Then most of the local members you represent only dip in and out of the union only when they personally have issues, but very rarely will anyone or a group put their heads above the parapet for the greater good, or go to branch meetings or grade conference's to submit any resolutions to put changes forward, but bitching and sniping from the side is allowed. When I became a rep I was warned that a target was placed on my back, now I was naive enough (at the time) to believe that was beacuse of the management that I was dealing with, when in fact it’s your own colleagues that do the stabbing. Dealing with the local managers is hard work but at least you know where they are coming from so you know how to deal with them, but there’s very little unity in the union members unless something big is taking place.

 

[the sniper]

In all fairness there’s nothing that seems particularly short term about these current DOO disputes is there? With the original Southern campaign ongoing for over a year and a half now.

True, in most peoples definition this won't be a short dispute.

Whilst I appreciate you may be totally committed to industrial action for that length of time or even much longer, I can also fully understand the fair number that aren’t, for various reasons, especially if their Pay and/or T&Cs have been more or less guaranteed for the future

I agree, in fact I've already said to some people in our place that, while I can't see me giving up, I can fully respect that as time goes on increasing numbers of my colleagues with children and mortgages, not planned with this dispute in mind, will be hard pushed to be able to commit to the losses incurred by the dispute. Peter Wilkinson and the DfT have worked on that basis from the very beginning, they fully intend to "push [us] into that place". Christ, that was Wilkinson's public deceleration of intent on how he was going to break us! Personally I'll respect those for whom the hardship has become too much and appreciate the efforts they've made to support whatever course of action the membership vote to take, I encouraged others to be prepared to do so too.

That's quite different from not befriending someone who ignores the result of any vote, actively works against your interests from the beginning and gains career advantages that will not be available to those who are trying to fight in the best interests of their colleagues and grade. Particularly not if this is the kind of person willing to actively assist in empowering a mainstream media campaign against their colleagues to the delight of the TOC/DfT!

My observation is that a lot of people who get involved in union matters quickly realise it's a hell of a lot more stress than it's worth and only do it for a short while, so the kind of people who persevere and end up in the senior union positions are probably the type to be politically ambitious. I like to think things will get better as a new generation comes through the ranks.

Completely agree. While often not appreciated here, I think it's rather obvious why people at the top are the way they are. It takes a certain type of motivated person to spend many years, decades even, working your way to the top of a union as large as the RMT. Politically indifferent characters will probably never have the drive to put in all that time and jump through all the hoops to get to the top of the union.

 

[Robertj21a]

I can concur with you sentiments, after nearly 10 years of being a local LDC rep (until I resigned), you have the Union hierarchy that seem to away with the fairies. Then most of the local members you represent only dip in and out of the union only when they personally have issues, but very rarely will anyone or a group put their heads above the parapet for the greater good, or go to branch meetings or grade conference's to submit any resolutions to put changes forward, but bitching and sniping from the side is allowed. When I became a rep I was warned that a target was placed on my back, now I was naive enough (at the time) to believe that was beacuse of the management that I was dealing with, when in fact it’s your own colleagues that do the stabbing. Dealing with the local managers is hard work but at least you know where they are coming from so you know how to deal with them, but there’s very little unity in the union members unless something big is taking place.

Thank you, always good to see someone make comments based on their own experiences. To me (as an outsider) you've confirmed what I had assumed, though the same gulf can exist in many other organisations too - it just seems even more obvious in the rail unions. Union members at grass roots level could do much to steer their union in what they believe to be the correct direction, but that's never going to happen all the time that they won't stand for election to be a Rep.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Just so we're all singing off the same hymn sheet... 'Speaking anonymously, a SWR staff member based in Bournemouth told the BBC some guards who worked during the action had been "threatened, bullied and ignored" by those who protested.'
That's a direct quote from the article. The allegation is that the complainants have been threatened and bullied. As I have said before, I know exactly how vile a lot of union members are towards ones how have worked during a strike (as they yearn to be part of a pack so achieve this by joining in with the bullying) and if the case in this news story is as bad as what I have personally witnessed, I hope the perpetrators are dealt with severely

 

[DarloRich]

Not disagreeing with you but isn't this part of the overall problem ? The members [quite understandably] only really want to be involved with the more immediately relevant issues - as you say, rosters, pastoral, support after incidents etc. However, the senior team *appear* to spend much of their time arguing politics, issuing terrible press releases, ranting about foreign owners, FatCats etc - the problem with that is that it's their policies that are aired in the public forum on your behalf (whether you agree with those policies or not). As an outsider it comes over as there being a massive gap between what the leaders say and do - and what the members actually want.
I appreciate that the leaders are elected by the members but it looks like more members need to get more heavily involved in standing for election.

Yes I think that's a very good point.

I doubt you'll find many RMT members who believe their union did a good job managing the PR aspects of the GTR dispute, for example. Sadly the press releases and political statements do, all to often, conform to the 1970s out-of-touch-dinosaur stereotype and I would have agreed with that viewpoint up until a couple of years ago. It's only having joined the industry and seen how the unions operate at the grass roots level that I've seen what a force for good they can be - it's not all about striking and pay increases!

I think a lot of the problem is that the local union work by all accounts is a lot of aggro for very little reward. It's impossible to please all the people all the time and local reps are inevitably required to get involved in some quite unpleasant matters (and both management and some of the more "old school" drivers can be quite difficult characters to deal with, to put it mildly).

My observation is that a lot of people who get involved in union matters quickly realise it's a hell of a lot more stress than it's worth and only do it for a short while, so the kind of people who persevere and end up in the senior union positions are probably the type to be politically ambitious. I like to think things will get better as a new generation comes through the ranks.

I can concur with you sentiments, after nearly 10 years of being a local LDC rep (until I resigned), you have the Union hierarchy that seem to away with the fairies. Then most of the local members you represent only dip in and out of the union only when they personally have issues, but very rarely will anyone or a group put their heads above the parapet for the greater good, or go to branch meetings or grade conference's to submit any resolutions to put changes forward, but bitching and sniping from the side is allowed. When I became a rep I was warned that a target was placed on my back, now I was naive enough (at the time) to believe that was beacuse of the management that I was dealing with, when in fact it’s your own colleagues that do the stabbing. Dealing with the local managers is hard work but at least you know where they are coming from so you know how to deal with them, but there’s very little unity in the union members unless something big is taking place.

Three very good posts that I agree with completely. Being a local rep is a tough job with no direct reward. I got quite a lot from it people management wise and it put me in rooms with very senior people who I would never had met and allowed me to build relationships with them. It is those relationships you need to do an effective job.

I don't, really, mind there being a political aspect to Trades Union. They are, after all, political in nature. However I would like them to think about what the members are telling them and alter the tone and style of their communication.

(BTW - i would have a read some of the Private Eye reports on various union leadership contents - they allege some terrible behaviour at times!)