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.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
His new ticketing model also isn’t being well received as he would have liked eitherPlenty 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.
Again LNER are being used to run the trial as they are on the pedestal.His new ticketing model also isn’t being well received as he would have liked either
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)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.
Not RMT they haven't funded the Labour party for yearsThe unions are the funders of the Labour Party. Having strikes in the run up to an election might actually be what the Tories want.
Whichever one it is, ASLEF have reacted badly to minimum service levels and that just makes them look like sore losers.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
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.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 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.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.
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).So how do ASLEF have any legal basis to strike over this?
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.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).
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
In other words they’re using a completely different dispute to justify this strike action.
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.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’s the same disputeIn other words they’re using a completely different dispute to justify this strike action.
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.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.
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.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.
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 serviceI 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
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 countryIt’s the same dispute
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
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 RightsI'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'.
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
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)
So would you resign your job “to make a point”?Horne is being backed into a corner and should resign to make a point.
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)
It's a war against an unelected prime minister squatting in Downing Street stealing people's rights with no mandate for doing so.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