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

[Jonny]

ASLEF's timing just makes it look like they are throwing their toys out of the pram. That is how it looks.

 

[IrishDave]

Would be the first time during the whole dispute that Thameslink have run trains on ASLEF strike days. Don’t think Southern have run anything either though

It's not the first - last ASLEF strike (in December) GTR ran a half-hourly shuttle between Victoria and Gatwick. Can't remember whether it was GX or SN branded though. It might have called at Clapham Junction and East Croydon but I can't quite remember.

I suspect that a Victoria-Gatwick shuttle might be all that GTR will run this time too.

EDIT: Ah, I see they're planning St Pancras-Luton and Kings Cross-Cambridge shuttles too. Interesting!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Plenty of people have put LNER on a pedestal saying how great they are and have freedom to do what they want and held them up as the way the industry should be run - as we can see that comes with a price. Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.

 

[RHolmes]

Plenty of people have put LNER on a pedestal saying how great they are and have freedom to do what they want and held them up as the way the industry should be run - as we can see that comes with a price. Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.

His new ticketing model also isn’t being well received as he would have liked either

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

His new ticketing model also isn’t being well received as he would have liked either

Again LNER are being used to run the trial as they are on the pedestal.

 

[Sleepy]

Plenty of people have put LNER on a pedestal saying how great they are and have freedom to do what they want and held them up as the way the industry should be run - as we can see that comes with a price. Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.

Dft see Greater Anglia as a model TOC so will be interesting to see if they attempt to use MSL there too. (Probably unwise to try here as drivers are very unhappy already being at the lower end of TOC's salary for drivers)

 

[Train_manager]

The unions are the funders of the Labour Party. Having strikes in the run up to an election might actually be what the Tories want.

Not RMT they haven't funded the Labour party for years

I wish Aslef would do the same.

 

[Jonny]

Is this a speculative thread about if LNER potentially implement MSL or have they actually decided to do it.

I am trying to understand if ASLEF have jumped the gun and are striking against a theoretical, but unconfirmed implementation

Whichever one it is, ASLEF have reacted badly to minimum service levels and that just makes them look like sore losers.

 

[Economist]

The first ASLEF EC strategy in a long time I strongly approve of. Avoid MSLs and we'll only disrupt a single day, play daft and try and implement them and you'll get a week of your services at 40%. Your choice, pick wisely.

That said, ASLEF should have emphasised the importance of every train driver working to save as much money as possible as possible during the pandemic, it would've opened the door to the EC saying to the TOCs/DfT "see you in 12 weeks guys" long before now and finished the dispute with fewer strike days.

 

[Starmill]

That said, ASLEF should have emphasised the importance of every train driver working to save as much money as possible as possible during the pandemic, it would've opened the door to the EC saying to the TOCs/DfT "see you in 12 weeks guys" long before now and finished the dispute with fewer strike days.

It's very difficult for them to do this as it would mean asking for members to support one another not only financially, but also at the expense of their own social and family time.

For a few people that won't be a problem, but for many people, time with family and friends will always have greater value than financial resources.

 

[Economist]

It's very difficult for them to do this as it would mean asking for members to support one another not only financially, but also at the expense of their own social and family time. For a few people that won't be a problem but for many people time with family and friends will always have greater value than financial resources.

It never ceases to amaze me how many colleagues are a couple of weeks from falling behind on bills despite the driving salary, I can understanding expensive divorces and emergencies but the idea of regularly living for years without any substansive savings is bonkers. Three months living expenses should be the absolute minimum in the bank, a year is ideal.

 

[DanNCL]

I'm not seeking to defend the minimum service law but considering that it is now law, LNER are legally within their rights to implement it whether ASLEF likes it or not. So how do ASLEF have any legal basis to strike over this? Their issue, as morally legitimate is the issue is, from a legal viewpoint is basically 'union unhappy that employer is following the law'.

Between this and the 'trial' removal of off peak fares on a few flows both being announced in the space of a few days, LNER have been in the public eye and in widespread discussion among ordinary people across the country for all the wrong reasons. Twice in the past week LNER has been the top trending topic on Twitter for the entire country, I don't even think TPE or Avanti ever had that much social media attention on them when they were in the headlines for the wrong reasons. The LNER brand is now tarnished and it'll take a lot of work to rebuild it, if it's even recoverable at all without a rebrand.

 

[ModernRailways]

So how do ASLEF have any legal basis to strike over this?

The 5 day strike is about terms and pay, which members have already been balloted over, as per previous strikes (as well as the upcoming strikes by Aslef across most TOCs).

 

[DanNCL]

The 5 day strike is about terms and pay, which members have already been balloted over, as per previous strikes (as well as the upcoming strikes by Aslef across most TOCs).

In other words they’re using a completely different dispute to justify this strike action. They had previously announced 1 day during this period for strike action on LNER in the pay dispute, the rest of it was announced after it emerged that LNER were planning to take advantage of the minimum service legislation and there’s no way that was coincidental.

If the DFT really felt like angering the unions even further they’d challenge it in court and if they did they’d have a decent change of winning, as it’s pretty clear that ASLEF are prolonging this on LNER and LNER only because of their unhappiness with the minimum service legislation.

This isn’t me siding with LNER and the DFT, far from it. Simply me questioning the legitimacy of this strike and expressing my opinion that ASLEF aren’t doing themselves any favours.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Absolutely nothing illegitimate about this escalation. Not that it’s likely to achieve anything either.

It never ceases to amaze me how many colleagues are a couple of weeks from falling behind on bills despite the driving salary, I can understanding expensive divorces and emergencies but the idea of regularly living for years without any substansive savings is bonkers. Three months living expenses should be the absolute minimum in the bank, a year is ideal.

A couple of weeks?! That would be a luxury.
Imagine being rich enough to have three month’s expenses in the bank. I reckon I could rustle up three hours at a stretch.

 

[43066]

The unions are the funders of the Labour Party. Having strikes in the run up to an election might actually be what the Tories want.

What, to remind everyone how we’ve had way more industrial unrest under the Conservatives, just in that last couple of years, than we had under the entire last Labour government!? All the LNER announcement has done is secure a front page headline in The Times, reminding people that the dispute is still rumbling on…

The electorate aren’t completely stupid, even if the government is, and will by now have concluded this government is about as good at stopping the strikes as they are at stopping the boats.

So if 40% of services requires 80% of drivers to be calked to work , over 5 days , most likely a driver will loose 1 day pay but company ( government ) will loose revenue from 60% of trains that do not run during that time .

I know it is a simplification but , we can see who probably looses the most .

Expect lots of no shows/drivers who find excuses not to drive/late arrivals/higher sickness levels etc. in and around the actual strike days, so it might be that the 40% isn’t actually achievable despite the work notices. The union cannot advise people to do this, of course, but when individuals feel their rights are being eroded…

We were discussing this earlier at my TOC, and were of the opinion that MSLs wont get implemented due to the sheer complexity of designing a one day timetable.

Multiple days of strikes is clearly a novel tactic on LNER. What would happen if ASLEF called half day strikes, over 10 days? You’d presumably have a reduced timetable for the entire day, but only half the amount of pay lost. There seem to be endless ways this could result in more disruption, over a much longer period, for a given loss of pay.

Good to see this legislation has hit all the right nerves. Minimum service levels are standard fare in most of Europe so the UK is just catching up with our continental friends.

On the contrary, if you actually read the articles quoted, it seems nobody really wants to use it, and that it’s considered by many in the industry to be unworkable! LNER are being leaned on by the OLR.

(The comparison to elsewhere in Europe is false as it ignores the fact it generally isn’t implemented/those countries have much less draconian anti union legislation in other respects - the UK MSLs are simply the Tories trying to attack the UK unions for ideological reasons; probably off topic for the thread, though!)

Plenty of people have put LNER on a pedestal saying how great they are and have freedom to do what they want and held them up as the way the industry should be run - as we can see that comes with a price. Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.

That’s a good point. Sadly TOC MDs as employees are less likely to be willing to do this than politicians, for example.

In other words they’re using a completely different dispute to justify this strike action.

The strike action on LNER is being “justified” entirely by the mandate given by the union’s membership. There’s no requirement to do everything the same way at every TOC, and if the government escalates by changing the rules (with LNER management acting as their proxy), ASLEF have every right to respond by changing their tactics…

Of course it would be better all round (and especially for LNER’s passengers) if the dispute could simply be settled, rather than yet more game playing, but that would require a change of approach of behalf of the government…

 

[TUC]

I hope that ASLEF get the message across to the media loud and clear that the additional 5 dates of action is a direct response to LNER invoking MSL and let it be a warning to other TOCs too

It does feel deeply unhealthy to democracy to 'warn' any person or organisation against exercising rights which a government has legally decided they should have.

 

[Smidster]

A plague on all their houses.

All actors are behaving badly and as usual it is the poor ordinary member of the public, who relies on a service, who gets screwed.

Anyone who thinks this improves after the election is deluded...even if, and it is a big if, there is a change of Government there is still no money and once a power (MSL) is taken it is rarely taken back.(and certainly in places like hospitals they are needed to reduce patient harm)

 

[RHolmes]

In other words they’re using a completely different dispute to justify this strike action.

It’s the same dispute

They had previously announced 1 day during this period for strike action on LNER in the pay dispute, the rest of it was announced after it emerged that LNER were planning to take advantage of the minimum service legislation and there’s no way that was coincidental.

It is completely planned. ASLEF and other unions including the TUC had previously warned the government and DfT that implementation of minimum strike levels would lead to worse staff relations and an increase in the number of strike days as a result of the up to 40% service.

The government chose to ignore this advice when seeking to implement the changes in law, not only for the rail industry but also for the likes of the junior doctors strike and other industries within the sphere of MSL.

LNER have decided to implement it and be the only operator to do so, so has seen an increase in the number of strike days reflecting the fact that staff will be commandeered to work during a period industrial action.

If the DFT really felt like angering the unions even further they’d challenge it in court and if they did they’d have a decent change of winning, as it’s pretty clear that ASLEF are prolonging this on LNER and LNER only because of their unhappiness with the minimum service legislation.

There’s nothing illegal about it, ASLEF can legally do what they’re doing with LNER as all operators have been balloted individually. It isn’t one single rail strike, it’s multiple separate strikes (for each TOC) taking place at the exactly the same time.

 

[Snow1964]

I hope that ASLEF get the message across to the media loud and clear that the additional 5 dates of action is a direct response to LNER invoking MSL and let it be a warning to other TOCs too

I am not convinced MSL has been invoked otherwise public (their customers) would have seen notice for the previously announced one strike day changed from there is a strike, unlikely to be any trains, to we will be operating the 40% MSL service

MSL is now the law introduced by a democratically elected Government. You don't use union members as some political plaything whilst they don't get paid.

As for warning others, they will either learn that they can fire selected staff for breach of contract, or learn to laugh at the union who says go out on unlawful strike and potentially lose members jobs.

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.

It might not be deemed civilised or acceptable action (not debating that on a forum), but the law is now the law, whether like it or not.

It’s the same dispute

No it's not, one is about pay and conditions (what was on vote mandate), the new one is about not liking a new law that applies to everyone in the country

 

[Bald Rick]

I am not convinced MSL has been invoked otherwise public (their customers) would have seen notice on one strike day changed from there is a strike, unlikely to be any trains, to we will be operating the 40% MSL service

It is worth reading the regulations, in detail. In short, TOCs must issue work notices a minimum of 7 days before the day of the strike. For LNER that’s a week today. Before that there must be a consultation with the union. My guess is that the ASLEF escalation is in reaction to that consultation. There are other ways to escalate (indefinite Rest Day ban, for example), but as LNER drivers are on that already that option is not open to them.

Given the timescales of the strike action, we will find out soon enough which TOCs are consulting on work notices.

I think it is unlikely that TOC comms will be confirming service levels until they are sure what is happening, and I guess that won’t be until 7 days out.

 

[thomalex]

And less people use the railways. I really don’t know what anyone thinks this is achieving.

 

[TUC]

It is worth reading the regulations, in detail. In short, TOCs must issue work notices a minimum of 7 days before the day of the strike. For LNER that’s a week today. Before that there must be a consultation with the union. My guess is that the ASLEF escalation is in reaction to that consultation. There are other ways to escalate (indefinite Rest Day ban, for example), but as LNER drivers are on that already that option is not open to them.

Given the timescales of the strike action, we will find out soon enough which TOCs are consulting on work notices.

I think it is unlikely that TOC comms will be confirming service levels until they are sure what is happening, and I guess that won’t be until 7 days out.

Surrly escalation should be a possible response if one is unhappy with the decision taken after the end of a consultation, not a response to a consultation being launched?

 

[Iskra]

I'm not seeking to defend the minimum service law but considering that it is now law, LNER are legally within their rights to implement it whether ASLEF likes it or not. So how do ASLEF have any legal basis to strike over this? Their issue, as morally legitimate is the issue is, from a legal viewpoint is basically 'union unhappy that employer is following the law'.

Between this and the 'trial' removal of off peak fares on a few flows both being announced in the space of a few days, LNER have been in the public eye and in widespread discussion among ordinary people across the country for all the wrong reasons. Twice in the past week LNER has been the top trending topic on Twitter for the entire country, I don't even think TPE or Avanti ever had that much social media attention on them when they were in the headlines for the wrong reasons. The LNER brand is now tarnished and it'll take a lot of work to rebuild it, if it's even recoverable at all without a rebrand.

LNER have been rogue for quite some time due to their untouchable status due to strong ridership and recovery. They were by far one of the most onerous TOC’s during Covid, and continued to implement disruptive policies well longer than needed, including continuously attacking the principle of the walk-up railway, which we now see happening again. Hopefully this week of negative exposure, at an otherwise quiet time of year for news, leads to some accountability at the top and a change in direction.

 

[Starmill]

It never ceases to amaze me how many colleagues are a couple of weeks from falling behind on bills despite the driving salary, I can understanding expensive divorces and emergencies but the idea of regularly living for years without any substansive savings is bonkers. Three months living expenses should be the absolute minimum in the bank, a year is ideal.

I don't disagree with any of that of course, but some people would say those savings are for genuine emergencies such as the ones you're thinking of. The industrial dispute is still serious obviously, but it's a bit different from a genuine personal emergency for which you drop everything.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I'm not seeking to defend the minimum service law but considering that it is now law, LNER are legally within their rights to implement it whether ASLEF likes it or not. So how do ASLEF have any legal basis to strike over this? Their issue, as morally legitimate is the issue is, from a legal viewpoint is basically 'union unhappy that employer is following the law'.

Not sure as this Government previously introduced a charge for taking a case to an employment tribunal and allowed employers to use agency workers during a strike and they had to withdraw both. The following document references articles 6, 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0222/ECHRMemoStrikes(MinimumServiceLevels)Bill2023.pdf

The following article also mentions article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and raises the issue that even though the Minimum Services Act was passed by the UK Parliament there are important differences with the way minimum service levels are implemented in other European countries so the Minimum Services Act may cause problems with the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Minimum service levels legislation: in conflict with strikers and with Europe? - UK in a changing Europe

Tonia Novitz examines the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill which would allow ministers to set minimum service levels during strikes.

ukandeu.ac.uk

 

[yorksrob]

Anyone who thinks this improves after the election is deluded...even if, and it is a big if, there is a change of Government there is still no money and once a power (MSL) is taken it is rarely taken back.(and certainly in places like hospitals they are needed to reduce patient harm)

I'd still rather take that chance, thank you.

 

[43096]

Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.

So would you resign your job “to make a point”?

I don’t see why David Horne should. The railway is short enough of good managers without the few good ones leaving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who thinks this improves after the election is deluded...even if, and it is a big if, there is a change of Government there is still no money and once a power (MSL) is taken it is rarely taken back.(and certainly in places like hospitals they are needed to reduce patient harm)

There's not no money, demonstrated by (in London) Khan freezing fares, and (nationally) the likelihood of tax cuts before the election.

A 5-6%ish no-strings-attached settlement would likely end all this, as it has at the non DfT TOCs, and it is affordable.

In the private sector I've just had a rise of this sort of figure after none for a fair while due to COVID etc. It's not inflation, but I recognise that it's a sensible sum in the context of the economic position at the moment, and it seems most people see it that way, with it being a number that's coming up rather a lot across industry.

 

[LowLevel]

I am not convinced MSL has been invoked otherwise public (their customers) would have seen notice for the previously announced one strike day changed from there is a strike, unlikely to be any trains, to we will be operating the 40% MSL service

MSL is now the law introduced by a democratically elected Government. You don't use union members as some political plaything whilst they don't get paid.

As for warning others, they will either learn that they can fire selected staff for breach of contract, or learn to laugh at the union who says go out on unlawful strike and potentially lose members jobs.

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.

It might not be deemed civilised or acceptable action (not debating that on a forum), but the law is now the law, whether like it or not.


No it's not, one is about pay and conditions (what was on vote mandate), the new one is about not liking a new law that applies to everyone in the country

It's a war against an unelected prime minister squatting in Downing Street stealing people's rights with no mandate for doing so.

Expect there to be responses, and given as Mick Lynch pointed out when they were trying to press him into declaring that picket lines would be battle grounds turning up tooled up for a fight against a load of police officers is rightly seen as unacceptable these days, it'll have to be in the form of escalation and more polite ways of causing issues - as has always been the British way when protesting against the Government.