ASLEF announce five days of strike action on LNER due to potential implementation of Minimum Service Law

[Fermiboson]

What does the escalation endgame for this look like? The government, presuming they are not voted out, can throw endless legislation at them with the line of "minimising strike disruptions" (which, yknow, is the whole point of a strike, so I don't see how that statement would be different from "minimising strikes".) What is the nuclear option on the unions' side? Indefinite walkout?

 

[Evolution]

The record of Labour reversing Tory legislation is patchy to say the least, including the privatisation of the railways in the first place.
Labour "promises" are not worth the paper they are (probably not) written on until their manifesto is published, and even then it will depend on "priorities".
There will be many issues ahead of railway industrial problems to deal with - and they have to win an election first.

Much of the country would not call the MSL law "anti-union", and it works elsewhere in Europe, even in places with a hard-left tradition.

However, Labour won't want the strikes to carry on should they not be settled by the time they take power. Most trade unions have an affiliation with the Labour party, as a result, long running disputes are definitely less likely than a tory party that's a total spent force. Look at Wales as an example of how things probably would go under a normal goverment, sensible talks with realistic pay offers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

The MSL's won't be brought in at Northern and TPE, so it looks like it's just LNER at this point. The TOC that's essentially the Dft puppet.

Speaking to a few drivers who work at LNER, apparently the atmospheres toxic between staff and managers at most depots, not helped of course by DTM's who drive trains on strike days.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[northwichcat]

What is the nuclear option on the unions' side? Indefinite walkout?

Unite tried that with Arriva North West. While it got them a 11% pay rise eventually it did result in:

The driver told BBC North West Tonight...
"I'm having to dip into my overdraft, which I reached the limit on a week and a half ago," he said.
"Fortunately, I was able to lend some money off family, but it's very tough."

Arriva North West strike making life very tricky, bus driver says

A bus driver striking over pay says the indefinite action is driving union members into debt.

www.bbc.co.uk

And then

Arriva North West has confirmed it will close its Winsford and Macclesfield depots on 22 April, leading to the loss of around a dozen routes in Cheshire.
The operator announced plans to end services in the Winsford, Northwich, Crewe and Macclesfield areas on 27 February, due to both depots being loss-making since before the pandemic.

Arriva confirms Cheshire depot closures - routeone

Arriva North West has confirmed it will close its Winsford and Macclesfield depots on 22 April, leading to the loss of around a dozen routes in Cheshire.

www.route-one.net

And

A group of 21 bus drivers left with no job and no employment on Monday morning (April 21) are set for a lengthy legal battle. The drivers, all previously employed at Arriva North West's Winsford depot, say they were told their roles would transfer to the firm taking over their routes, D&G Bus, when the depot closed on Sunday night. Arriva believes the drivers should have had their employment transferred to D&G under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). D&G says it has supplied evidence to Unite the Union and Arriva that TUPE should not apply in this case, and called Arriva's calculations "mathematically incorrect."

Arriva and D&G Bus clash in legal battle with livelihoods of 21 drivers at stake

A number of bus drivers are left with no job and no redundancy as two bus firms disagree over their employment

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

Obviously train operators can't just close depots they don't want anymore, without moving the work to another depot they manage. However, I wonder with hindsight whether members would have accepted the original 8% with a guarantee that their role would be retained for at least 12 months.

 

[Snow1964]

Scrolled through the thread, but can't see answer to it.

Why has ASLEF thought that a picture of a (now withdrawn) Southern 455 is appropriate for the LNER strike. All they trying to demonstrate they are obsolete too.

Can anyone explain how they think, and why they think this picture is appropriate

CANCELLED: additional dates for industrial action on LNER | ASLEF

CANCELLED Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

aslef.org.uk

 

[Wolfie]

Scrolled through the thread, but can't see answer to it.

Why has ASLEF thought that a picture of a (now withdrawn) Southern 455 is appropriate for the LNER strike. All they trying to demonstrate they are obsolete too.

Can anyone explain how they think, and why they think this picture is appropriate

CANCELLED: additional dates for industrial action on LNER | ASLEF

CANCELLED Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

aslef.org.uk

The answer is likely that their press office are employed for their media handling skills not their encyclopedic knowledge of trains and just used a stock image. Outside of rail enthusiasts who would actually care?

 

[FGW_DID]

Should the MSL be activated and nobody turns in for work and the TOC can’t achieve the required 40% service, what or who gets sanctioned?
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark that those with their asses in the firing line will not be the TOC or union management!

 

[Evolution]

Scrolled through the thread, but can't see answer to it.

Why has ASLEF thought that a picture of a (now withdrawn) Southern 455 is appropriate for the LNER strike. All they trying to demonstrate they are obsolete too.

Can anyone explain how they think, and why they think this picture is appropriate

CANCELLED: additional dates for industrial action on LNER | ASLEF

CANCELLED Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

aslef.org.uk

You are thinking it through too much, no one cares (other than you, clearly) what class of train is on a press release. They've used that stock header image for all previous releases, so why would they put a class 800 on this one!?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

The answer is likely that their press office are employed for their media handling skills not their encyclopedic knowledge of trains and just used a stock image. Outside of rail enthusiasts who would actually care?

This.

 

[Starmill]

Scrolled through the thread, but can't see answer to it.

Why has ASLEF thought that a picture of a (now withdrawn) Southern 455 is appropriate for the LNER strike. All they trying to demonstrate they are obsolete too.

Can anyone explain how they think, and why they think this picture is appropriate

CANCELLED: additional dates for industrial action on LNER | ASLEF

CANCELLED Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

aslef.org.uk

Are you familiar with the concept of a library of stock images?

 

[Fermiboson]

Should the MSL be activated and nobody turns in for work and the TOC can’t achieve the required 40% service, what or who gets sanctioned?
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark that those with their asses in the firing line will not be the TOC or union management!

Relatedly, could the union call for a boycott of MSL work notices?

 

[DanNCL]

Aslef have had a ballot . A "proper" one.

They have a mandate from there members. It's very simple.

Oh FYI Aslef are due to reballot there membesrs again soon

Cos the Tory government required the mandate to be renewed every 6 months.

They had a ballot regarding pay and conditions. They haven’t had ballot regarding minimum service legislation.

If I were LNER management it is certainly something I would be testing with my lawyers - The code of practice for IA is clear that a ballot should pertain to the issue at hand - "include a summary of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates;"...Therefore if ASLEF are calling this strike due to an MSL rather than pay (and if there is evidence that LNER is the only one with the additional action and the only one supposedly planning to use the legislation then they may well have a strong case for that) it feels they might be on shaky ground but I assume all sides are spending bucket loads on lawyers for those discussions.

Indeed and we won’t know the outcome for at least a few days yet.

It’s both: it’s strike in relation to the ongoing dispute, based on the existing mandate, and a response to a change of tactics in that same dispute, by an employer who is now consulting on imposing MSLs. I’m honestly not sure what’s so difficult to accept about that.
In relation to the first statement, you’re suggesting ASLEF don’t have a legal basis for the action taken?! We will no doubt see an injunction sought in short order, then.

The second statement is straying into the realms of fantasy; ASLEF are required to reballot every six months and consistently get 90%+. Or are you suggesting that 90% of LNER drivers have been in favour of striking for the last two years, but suddenly won’t be in favour of changing tactics when MSLs are brought in!? If they aren’t, we will find out when they lose the mandate for action at the next ballot!

You’ve completely twisted what I said to interpet it as something it isn’t.

As for suggesting that it may not be legal, correct I am suggesting that. ASLEF have form for it, an injunction was made against them over Gatwick Express DOO, so we absolutely cannot put it past ASLEF to attempt to take action beyond their remit again.

I’m not suggesting that they’d suddenly no longer support striking in the pay dispute because of minimum service law, I’m saying that there’s no guarantee they’d support striking specifically over minimum service law, which we know what the extra five day strike is really about.

Its the original mandate of the vote that is key. If the vote did not include mention of the law, and the union then uses the use of the law without a new vote it could cause issues.

Exactly.

With respect you've stated this a few times now, and you're not saying much that's new. Other views are rejecting your argument as weak, they're not failing to understand it. I'm not sure you've really presented any evidence that would be persuasive that there's a lawful basis for some of the industrial action but not other parts of it, as seems to me to be central to your argument?

Other voices are quite persuaded that the test for a lawful basis here is indeed met. Ultimately that's the only question that actually matters, so you will probably just have to make your peace with that until and unless the claim is tested by a judge.

With respect, whilst several have agreed with you, several have also agreed with me, so it isn’t as clear cut as you’re suggesting.
As for the answer to the question of the legality, indeed we will only find out if/when it ends up in front of a judge.

The minimum services legislation is a tactic by the employer in an existing dispute - that over pay and conditions - and not the subject of the dispute.

The minimum service legislation is primary legislation, the fact that following it is option is irrelevant, LNER can follow it and for ASLEF to strike over that they should ballot their members specifically in regards to minimum service legislation. It’s not the same as the pay dispute, it’s a separate dispute even if it has ultimately been triggered by the pay dispute.

Are you familiar with the concept of a library of stock images?

There’s plenty of stock images specifically in relation to LNER that they could have used, takes seconds to find. Really doesn’t take much effort and ASLEF should be able to get basic things like that right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

Relatedly, could the union call for a boycott of MSL work notices?

They’d lose their legal protection if they did that, putting their members at risk of dismissal.

 

[Starmill]

With respect, whilst several have agreed with you, several have also agreed with me, so it isn’t as clear cut as you’re suggesting.
As for the answer to the question of the legality, indeed we will only find out if/when it ends up in front of a judge.

I'm not really arguing that the strike is on a lawful basis though. That's for Aslef to demonstrate as necessary, not me. I'm simply pointing out that you're misunderstanding the statements in the press and elsewhere from Aslef about the law as having some special relevance to the test for whether industrial action is lawful. You've also not been as clear as perhaps you might that Aslef would be able to criticise the law in their media communications without that affecting their proper compliance with it.

If LNER have applied for relief, it might even be granted, but on some technicality which doesn't illuminate the principle you're trying to argue for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

What I want to know is - what is the point of passing a law meant to minimise the extent of ASLEF's action, if there is an enormous backlash when the law is then followed? Is it even legal to effectively punish a TOC for following the law? Is it legal to strike more intensively than MSLs set out? What are the repercussions?

Lots and lots of laws have unintended or perverse effects. Why might this one be free of those?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

They’d lose their legal protection if they did that, putting their members at risk of dismissal.

Presumably they will issue work notices for those that were already rostered and anyone who doesn't attend without a legitimate reason would be absence without leave but ordinarily that wouldn't be sufficient for dismissal although of course it would be strike 1. Of course if the same driver was rostered all week that would potentially be more problematic.

 

[ainsworth74]

Should the MSL be activated and nobody turns in for work and the TOC can’t achieve the required 40% service, what or who gets sanctioned?
I’m gonna take a stab in the dark that those with their asses in the firing line will not be the TOC or union management!

As long as the Union in question can demonstrate that they used "reasonable steps" to comply with the legal requirements then they would be protected from having legal action taken against them. "Reasonable steps" is undefined in legislation but a code of practice has been issued by the DfT with further guidance:

[...]

Step 1: identification of members​

16. A work notice given to the union by the employer will identify the workers, and the work required, to secure the minimum service level. The trade union should identify those workers who are its members in a work notice.

[...]

Step 2: encouraging individual members to comply with a work notice​

22. Once a union has identified its members, it should issue each of those members with an individual communication or notice to advise them not to strike during the periods in which they are required by the work notice to work, as well as to encourage them to comply with the work notice. We refer to this communication as a “compliance notice” within this Code.

[...]

Step 3: picketing​

[...]

33. As part of the reasonable steps, the union should instruct the picket supervisor (if present) or another union official or member to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that picketers avoid, so far as reasonably practicable, trying to persuade members who are identified on the work notice not to cross the picket line at times when they are required by the work notice to work. This could be achieved by explaining to members on a picket line that some union members have been identified in a work notice and are required to work notwithstanding the strike and that members who are picketing should not encourage these union members not to cross the picket line.

[...]

Step 4: assurance​

38. Once a work notice is received by the union, the union should ensure that they do not do other things which undermine the steps they take to meet the reasonable steps requirement.

[...]

Code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on reasonable steps to be taken by a trade union (minimum service levels)

www.gov.uk

The code of practice points out that not doing the above does not necessarily mean that a Union has failed to take "reasonable steps" but that these are the suggested steps to ensure it is legally compliant. It does also point out that the Union doesn't have to ensure that the specified service is delivered simply that it has taken the "reasonable steps" to comply:

[...]

11. The requirement for a union to take reasonable steps applies where one or more of that union’s members are identified in a work notice. The union does not therefore have to take reasonable steps in relation to workers identified in the work notice who are not members of that union. Nor is the union restricted from continuing to call upon its members who are not identified in the work notice to strike.

12. The requirement to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the work notice by a union’s members does not mean that the union is required to ensure a minimum service level is achieved or to take any steps which lie outside the union’s powers, such as forcing its members to work or supervising their work.

[...]

But, presuming that a Union does take reasonable steps, then if staff failed to turn up to work anyway then the Union would be safe from successful legal action as long as it could demonstrate to a court that it had taken "reasonable steps".

As for TOCs I can't see any particular mechanism by which action can be taken against a TOC which has issued Work Notices. Indeed this position is confirmed in the guidance to the regulations:

[...]

40. Do operators have to deliver exactly the 40% of timetabled services during the strike period

[...]

We understand there are operational issues that could arise after the work notice has been issued, including on the day of the strike, that could mean the operator is unable to deliver the 40% minimum service level despite the work notice seeking to secure this. Whilst the work notice (if issued) must include only those persons and work required by them that is reasonably necessary to secure the minimum service level, there are no consequences under the Act or the Regulations if the operator is unable to secure the 40% minimum service level on the day of the strike.

[...]

Minimum service levels for passenger railway services regulations

Information about applying the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023 in practice.

www.gov.uk

Fundamentally, if the Union has taken its "reasonable steps" then it would fall upon the shoulders of the individual members to face the consequences of failing to attend work when required to do so. Whatever the usual procedures that are in place for dealing with that at that specific employer would apply. To my understanding.

 

[eoff]

As a passenger, I have a question about this legislation...

If an employer can run 20% of its service by redeploying other staff in the event of a strike does invoking this legislation mean they could now run 60% of service if they wanted to?

 

[DanNCL]

I'm not really arguing that the strike is on a lawful basis though. That's for Aslef to demonstrate as necessary, not me. I'm simply pointing out that you're misunderstanding the statements in the press and elsewhere from Aslef about the law as having some special relevance to the test for whether industrial action is lawful. You've also not been as clear as perhaps you might that Aslef would be able to criticise the law in their media communications without that affecting their proper compliance with it.

If LNER have applied for relief, it might even be granted, but on some technicality which doesn't illuminate the principle you're trying to argue for.

Of course ASLEF can criticise the law in their media communications and indeed I seem to recall them doing exactly that when the law was announced. They’re as entitled to their opinion as everyone else.
Indeed when it comes to minimum service legislation I agree that it should never have become law.

What they can’t do is call action specifically in relation to that legislation being used without having a ballot on taking action in relation to that legislation being used.

ASLEF have publicly said the extra five days are in relation to pay. But several on these forums are saying it’s because of LNER’s use of the minimum service legislation. If it’s the latter as many here are suggesting, that’s not what the current strike mandate is for so ASLEF would need a new one.

Presumably they will issue work notices for those that were already rostered and anyone who doesn't attend without a legitimate reason would be absence without leave but ordinarily that wouldn't be sufficient for dismissal although of course it would be strike 1. Of course if the same driver was rostered all week that would potentially be more problematic.

Indeed they likely wouldn’t be sacked for not turning up on one day but as they’d not have the legal protection it’d be considered the same as not turning up without leave at any other time, do it enough times and expect dismissal. It’s a risky path for anyone to follow and if ASLEF were to recommend their members did that then they’d effectively be encouraging their members to do something that could get them sacked.

I presume they’ll have to do completely new rosters and ensure that the work notices are equally distributed across all striking staff.

 

[Fermiboson]

As long as the Union in question can demonstrate that they used "reasonable steps" to comply with the legal requirements then they would be protected from having legal action taken against them. "Reasonable steps" is undefined in legislation but a code of practice has been issued by the DfT with further guidance:

Code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on reasonable steps to be taken by a trade union (minimum service levels)

www.gov.uk

The code of practice points out that not doing the above does not necessarily mean that a Union has failed to take "reasonable steps" but that these are the suggested steps to ensure it is legally compliant. It does also point out that the Union doesn't have to ensure that the specified service is delivered simply that it has taken the "reasonable steps" to comply:



But, presuming that a Union does take reasonable steps, then if staff failed to turn up to work anyway then the Union would be safe from successful legal action as long as it could demonstrate to a court that it had taken "reasonable steps".

As for TOCs I can't see any particular mechanism by which action can be taken against a TOC which has issued Work Notices. Indeed this position is confirmed in the guidance to the regulations:

Minimum service levels for passenger railway services regulations

Information about applying the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023 in practice.

www.gov.uk

Fundamentally, if the Union has taken its "reasonable steps" then it would fall upon the shoulders of the individual members to face the consequences of failing to attend work when required to do so. Whatever the usual procedures that are in place for dealing with that at that specific employer would apply. To my understanding.

What does "not encourage[ing] these union members not to cross the line" mean? If I hold a big sign that says "support the strike", is that encouraging?

 

[12LDA28C]

Striking because they don't like the law is dangerous ground. Firstly, a strike has to be against the employer not the government, so it could lead to court action against ASLEF. Secondly, every trade union expects every employer to comply with the law when it comes to employment legislation. If they don't, then they aren't ensuring their members get their full employment rights.

A law that appears to have been brought in specifically to attempt to break the rail unions instead of actually attempting to resolve the dispute. And of course since it's the employer (LNER) which will be forcing staff to work under the MSL law, the action is being taken against the employer, not the Government.

 

[weeklycommuter]

You don't need to be good at maths to work out if call an extra (unlawful under MSL strike) then it is open invitation to a Company with excess headcount in a role to select a few that it can easily dispose of as they choose to breach contract without protection of strike law. eg if LNER were mulling cutting 5% of drivers then if any of their preferred choice to go refuse working to meet MSL, then legally become easy prey.

Speaking to a few drivers who work at LNER, apparently the atmospheres toxic between staff and managers at most depots, not helped of course by DTM's who drive trains on strike days. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Looking at the following thread it appears that far from having excess headcount LNER do not have enough drivers to deliver their timetable without overtime and rest day working. In the last few days I have seen posts from LNER on social media announcing that trains have been cancelled due to a shortage of available train crew. If the atmosphere at LNER is toxic this shortage could worsen and any attempt to use the Minimum Service legislation is also unlikely to help the retention of drivers. In the end nobody can be forced to do a job, people can just decide to end their employment contracts and to run the train services other people will then have to be recruited and trained.

LNER cancellations

My Aberdeen - London train has ben cancelled tomorrow, yet again, and as per usual with no ticket acceptance arranged. Despite their website saying they're running a good service there is a very long list of trains cancelled or only running part of their schedule, all due to a shortage of crew...

www.railforums.co.uk

The following guidance is clear that a work notice can only require staff to do work required under their contract of employment so being dependent on overtime and rest day working would clearly make it more difficult to deliver exactly 40% of the train services which is required if work notices are to be issued under the Minimum Service legislation.

Minimum Service Levels: issuing work notices, a guide for employers, trade unions and workers

www.gov.uk

The work notice cannot override an employment contract or other contract with a worker. For example, if an individual cannot be required under the contract to work on a Sunday, the work notice cannot override that agreement.

 

[ainsworth74]

As a passenger, I have a question about this legislation...

If an employer can run 20% of its service by redeploying other staff in the event of a strike does invoking this legislation mean they could now run 60% of service if they wanted to?

No the guidance that I linked above states that:

[...]

40. Do operators have to deliver exactly the 40% of timetabled services during the strike period?

[...]

Work notices can only include staff reasonably necessary to secure the 40% minimum service level, and as such if work notices are issued the operator should not plan to deliver a service level above 40% during the strike period.

[...]

So you can't issue Work Notices and then try and run 60% of the service by relying on deploying staff to cover 20% whilst those being subject to Work Notices provide 40%.

What does "not encourage[ing] these union members not to cross the line" mean? If I hold a big sign that says "support the strike", is that encouraging?

I took it to mean that if you're a picketer and you see Bob, who you know is a member of the Union, going to into work you shouldn't start shouting at Bob telling him not to cross the picket because he's now breaking the strike. But certainly that seems like a complete minefield.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course ASLEF can criticise the law in their media communications and indeed I seem to recall them doing exactly that when the law was announced. They’re as entitled to their opinion as everyone else.
Indeed when it comes to minimum service legislation I agree that it should never have become law.

What they can’t do is call action specifically in relation to that legislation being used without having a ballot on taking action in relation to that legislation being used.

ASLEF have publicly said the extra five days are in relation to pay. But several on these forums are saying it’s because of LNER’s use of the minimum service legislation. If it’s the latter as many here are suggesting, that’s not what the current strike mandate is for so ASLEF would need a new one.


Indeed they likely wouldn’t be sacked for not turning up on one day but as they’d not have the legal protection it’d be considered the same as not turning up without leave at any other time, do it enough times and expect dismissal. It’s a risky path for anyone to follow and if ASLEF were to recommend their members did that then they’d effectively be encouraging their members to do something that could get them sacked.

I presume they’ll have to do completely new rosters and ensure that the work notices are equally distributed across all striking staff.

People on forums can say what they like. What's to say they have anything to do with the Union ?

 

[Failed Unit]

As a passenger, I have a question about this legislation...

If an employer can run 20% of its service by redeploying other staff in the event of a strike does invoking this legislation mean they could now run 60% of service if they wanted to?

That is an interesting question, as I understand (maybe incorrectly) that if LNER were planning to run 20% of there service that is just 20 / 100. Clearly they will need more staff if those trains are London - Edinburgh, the London - Leeds. One thing that is certain is that Lincoln won’t be seeing any trains from LNER.

 

[12LDA28C]

Looking at the following thread it appears that far from having excess headcount LNER do not have enough drivers to deliver their timetable without overtime and rest day working. In the last few days I have seen posts from LNER on social media announcing that trains have been cancelled due to a shortage of available train crew. If the atmosphere at LNER is toxic this shortage could worsen and any attempt to use the Minimum Service legislation is also unlikely to help the retention of drivers. In the end nobody can be forced to do a job, people can just decide to end their employment contracts and to run the train services other people will then have to be recruited and trained.

This shortage of drivers is by no means confined to LNER and indeed is endemic across the rail industry. TOCs should really think twice if they're going to use MSL legislation to sack staff as they'll soon find themselves unable to run 40% of services permanently, let along just during strike action.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

This shortage of drivers is by no means confined to LNER and indeed is endemic across the rail industry. TOCs should really think twice if they're going to use MSL legislation to sack staff as they'll soon find themselves unable to run 40% of services permanently, let along just during strike action.

Surely not many will be sacked, as you'd think if drivers knew they'd be sacked for not coming in then they'd turn up rather than let themselves get dismissed? Would be a case of cutting off the nose quite brutally to spite the face?

 

[northwichcat]

A law that appears to have been brought in specifically to attempt to break the rail unions instead of actually attempting to resolve the dispute.

Similar laws have existed in other countries for years. Rail strikes still happen but they don't shut down the entire network. The public aren't supposed to be the ones the unions end up punishing for disputes with employers. Tbh the law should have been brought in at least 30 years ago to keep some level of public transport running during BR strikes.

TOCs should really think twice if they're going to use MSL legislation to sack staff as they'll soon find themselves unable to run 40% of services permanently, let along just during strike action.

I can't see around half of drivers leaving the industry. If they are sacked by one TOC they'll probably join another TOC, unless they are due to retire soon. Alternative work could easily see them having to manage on a 50% pay cut, unless there's a huge demand for airline pilots, investment bankers or CEOs for big corporations.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Here is the solution to the problem. It is this government that needs to negotiate with Aslef and stop putting their heads into the sand. Mark Harper is a useless Transport secretary.

 

[bwlv9]

Do you need to use so many exclamation and question marks? It’s people losing their temper unnecessarily or wording things rudely that will get the thread shut and again we’ll be left without the ability to discuss the issue, which is unfortunate as I for one have plenty of questions

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==


What I want to know is - what is the point of passing a law meant to minimise the extent of ASLEF's action, if there is an enormous backlash when the law is then followed? Is it even legal to effectively punish a TOC for following the law? Is it legal to strike more intensively than MSLs set out? What are the repercussions?

Do you 'need' to shoot down people fighting their cause? Or indirectly criticise aslef's strategy which is the same thing.

From checking out your online profile I can with 99% surety say you've applied to be a driver and failed.

Keep the faith, one day you may be amongst us.

 

[yorksrob]

Here is the solution to the problem. It is this government that needs to negotiate with Aslef and stop putting their heads into the sand. Mark Harper is a useless Transport secretary.

Very true. Government likes to hold back but it needs get negotiating in good faith.

McLaughlin was the last transport minister with any knowledge of the railway.

 

[Starmill]

Of course ASLEF can criticise the law in their media communications and indeed I seem to recall them doing exactly that when the law was announced. They’re as entitled to their opinion as everyone else.
Indeed when it comes to minimum service legislation I agree that it should never have become law.

What they can’t do is call action specifically in relation to that legislation being used without having a ballot on taking action in relation to that legislation being used.

ASLEF have publicly said the extra five days are in relation to pay. But several on these forums are saying it’s because of LNER’s use of the minimum service legislation. If it’s the latter as many here are suggesting, that’s not what the current strike mandate is for so ASLEF would need a new one.

Glad to hear that you agree with me on the principle. Unfortunately it sounds like the only thing you've got outside that is "several on these forums say". You won't be surprised if I don't find that persuasive.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's certainly lawful. There may be a strong argument that the lawful basis for the action is not established. But if there is, I haven't seen it.

 

[12LDA28C]

Similar laws have existed in other countries for years. Rail strikes still happen but they don't shut down the entire network. The public aren't supposed to be the ones the unions end up punishing for disputes with employers. Tbh the law should have been brought in at least 30 years ago to keep some level of public transport running during BR strikes.

So people keep saying but several on this forum have stated that in Europe those laws are rarely used and strikes do indeed regularly shut down entire networks. You're aware of course that the employers (ie TOCs) aren't allowed to negotiate their own pay settlements with their own employees any more, which is the whole crux of these disputes? And who is responsible for this state of affairs?

 

[Kite159]

Scrolled through the thread, but can't see answer to it.

Why has ASLEF thought that a picture of a (now withdrawn) Southern 455 is appropriate for the LNER strike. All they trying to demonstrate they are obsolete too.

Can anyone explain how they think, and why they think this picture is appropriate

CANCELLED: additional dates for industrial action on LNER | ASLEF

CANCELLED Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

aslef.org.uk

At least it isn't a Steam train like their logo

-----

It will be interesting if LNER announce they are dropping plans to use MSL if the Union reacts by dropping some of the extra strike days hence proving the extra days were for the MSL law being involved.