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

[footprints]

It's quite an achievement for ASLEF. They keep highlighting in their press releases how they've failed to secure a pay rise for some of their members for five years. Now they're losing their ability to bring the rail network to a standstill too. The five-day tantrum on LNER in February doesn't mask that, if anything their defiance merely demonstrates how irrelevant they're becoming.

 

[OneOfThe48]

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

This is starting to stray off topic, but as minimum service levels were in their election manifesto in 2019 they do indeed have mandate for introducing them.

Whether you like minimum service levels or whether you think they are helpful (or just make industrial relations worse) is entirely separate.

 

[duffield]

It's not clear cut that a government's "mandate" is legitimate if it involves removing fundamental rights. Clearly it would be difficult to argue that a government elected (by - say - around 40% of the electorate) on a manifesto commitment to remove the voting rights of the other 60% of the electorate would have a *legitimate* mandate; that would be absurd; but it does illustrate that there are limits to the legitimacy of any "mandate". Or let's take a more realistic example. Would a government, elected on 40% of the votes, have legitimate mandate to completely abolish the right to strike if that was in their manifesto? A question to ponder.

 

[Goldfish62]

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.

But as has been pointed out many times on these forums strike ballots and minimum notice periods for strikes aren't generally the case across the channel.

I was recently caught up in one of the latest DB drivers' strikes. No prior ballot and less than two day's notice. Some staff at other operators also came out in sympathy.

So if you're going to cite such an example as minimum service levels you need to consider it in the context of all the rules regarding strike action.

 

[Melancholia]

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.

In what part of the currently democratically elected government's manifesto did it say the Minimum Service Level law will be implemented?

 

[Class 800]

I don’t work in the industry - just a passenger / enthusiast who is relatively new here, so I know a lot less than you. If I sound somewhat ignorant or ill-informed, then I apologise.

Take Avanti West Coast. I’ll give it to you that they are abysmal as a TOC right now. Last time I travelled with them (not often) I spoke to the lady in the Shop.
I joked, are we allowed to say Virgin Trains anymore? Did you work for them?
She just said, “they treated us better.” And I could tell she meant it.

As for LNER, they are constantly rated as one of the better TOCs out there, and were one of the first few to make significant profits and see significant footfall post-Covid.
But the new ticketing structure is highly disappointing to see - off-peak tickets were the best middle ground between value and flexibility, perfect for leisure journeys that were not planned in advance or needed the flexibility / possible refund.

Surely if the dispute is with TOCs then there is a way to do this without hurting passengers unduly? For example striking on Avanti and LNWR on different days so the operator’s revenue suffers but a service is still there for those who cannot avoid travel?

 

[Thirteen]

Will be interesting to see what happens to strike laws if or when Labour gets back into power because I suspect the unions will be in for a surprise if they think the days of wildcat strikes and no notice will happen again.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not clear cut that a government's "mandate" is legitimate if it involves removing fundamental rights. Clearly it would be difficult to argue that a government elected (by - say - around 40% of the electorate) on a manifesto commitment to remove the voting rights of the other 60% of the electorate would have a *legitimate* mandate; that would be absurd; but it does illustrate that there are limits to the legitimacy of any "mandate". Or let's take a more realistic example. Would a government, elected on 40% of the votes, have legitimate mandate to completely abolish the right to strike if that was in their manifesto? A question to ponder.

Its probably a matter for another thread, but the percentage who voted for the government does not impact laws being passed. That's why bills go through the Houses, through a series of votes and due process.

 

[class ep-09]

It's quite an achievement for ASLEF. They keep highlighting in their press releases how they've failed to secure a pay rise for some of their members for five years. Now they're losing their ability to bring the rail network to a standstill too. The five-day tantrum on LNER in February doesn't mask that, if anything their defiance merely demonstrates how irrelevant they're becoming.

Yet 95%+ of drivers support ASLEF direction.
ASLEF may be irrelevant to you but not the people who it represents .

 

[DJP78]

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)

Patients are being continually harmed by waiting lists, sitting in ambulances for hours, lack of nurses, lack of doctors, dentists. Tory austerity has crippled public services.

The whole point of industrial action is to force better standards from those in charge. Tories are entirely responsible for the mess across public services

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

I think you fail to understand the principles and objectives of industrial action, and how successful unionisation has been for so many professions.

Best employers and governments work constructively with ASLEF and the members to navigate a way through the dispute, as opposed to the current status quo of ignoring them. ASLEF are willing to negotiate, just not with the appalling terms offered thus far

MSL's won't prove effective. It will worsen industrial relations and cause a far greater negative impact of services and staffing levels. It's a typical power grabbing reaction from a dangerously authoritarian Tory party that think they can simply re-legislate their way around problems, rather than negotiate and behave in a civilised manner.

I don’t work in the industry - just a passenger / enthusiast who is relatively new here, so I know a lot less than you. If I sound somewhat ignorant or ill-informed, then I apologise.

Take Avanti West Coast. I’ll give it to you that they are abysmal as a TOC right now. Last time I travelled with them (not often) I spoke to the lady in the Shop.
I joked, are we allowed to say Virgin Trains anymore? Did you work for them?
She just said, “they treated us better.” And I could tell she meant it.

As for LNER, they are constantly rated as one of the better TOCs out there, and were one of the first few to make significant profits and see significant footfall post-Covid.
But the new ticketing structure is highly disappointing to see - off-peak tickets were the best middle ground between value and flexibility, perfect for leisure journeys that were not planned in advance or needed the flexibility / possible refund.

Surely if the dispute is with TOCs then there is a way to do this without hurting passengers unduly? For example striking on Avanti and LNWR on different days so the operator’s revenue suffers but a service is still there for those who cannot avoid travel?

Disruption for passengers is extremely regrettable and no one participates in losing pay and impacting passengers with enthusiasm. RMT & ASLEF were trying to negotiate for well over 12 months preceding commencement of industrial action and got nowhere. Gov, DFT & RDG had numerous chances to compromise. The current action is a last resort. Guards (train managers) & ticket offices would have been dispensed with had it not been for the unions, their members & the public pushing back.

Better to not allow the situation to get this far in the first place. Look to Sweden and its near 90% population union membership rate and history of employer union collaboration as a shining example of what can be achieved, provided politicians and employers buy-in to the principle of collective bargaining.

 

[OneOfThe48]

In what part of the currently democratically elected government's manifesto did it say the Minimum Service Level law will be implemented?

Excerpt from the Conservative Manifesto in 2019, page 27

We will require that a minimum service operates during transport strikes. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others

 

[RHolmes]

Excerpt from the Conservative Manifesto in 2019, page 27

We will require that a minimum service operates during transport strikes. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others

Still waiting for that fair deal

 

[ainsworth74]

I would suggest that we're rapidly getting away from the issues around LNER and into wider issues of the Government itself and its legitimacy which is a subject more suited to General Discussion and the long running thread there. As such I would ask that members confine themselves on this thread to matters directly related to the subject at hand. Otherwise it may be time to bring this thread to a close if no-one has further on-topic discussion points to raise.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Going back to the initial announcement in post 1, I'd like to ask a question about this part:
"Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

The drivers will also refuse to work any non-contractual overtime from Wednesday 7 until Saturday 10 February"

Why is there an overlap with strike dates and the overtime ban?

 

[baz962]

Going back to the initial announcement in post 1, I'd like to ask a question about this part:
"Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

The drivers will also refuse to work any non-contractual overtime from Wednesday 7 until Saturday 10 February"

Why is there an overlap with strike dates and the overtime ban?

Probably just because the overtime ban was already announced. Also the overtime ban is over many ( possibly all ) the companies

 

[Evolution]

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)

Guessing you haven't seen the latest polls then? It's not a matter of "if" it's when, there is no way this shower will get back in. I know plenty of torie voters (even some previous members) who won't vote for them after the debacle they've presided over the last 13 years. Under 50s will vote with their feet as you will see when they get wiped out worse than 97.

Labour have already commited to reversing the MSL law within 100 days of taking office. Look back in history- there has never been this level of industrial action under a previous Labour government. Whilst I don't think they will come in and cure everything, you only have to look at the devolved administration’s to get an idea how this may have unfolded under a different government.

Everyone knows this dispute is political and has been since the beginning, they've wasted billions by dragging it out and it just shows quite how backward they really are. I've never seen as many weapons grade f-whits as the bunch that entered power in 2019.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Probably just because the overtime ban was already announced. Also the overtime ban is over many ( possibly all ) the companies

I understand this was the original announcement:
LNER
Strike day: Friday 2 February 00:01 - 23:59.
No non-compulsory overtime from 00:01 Monday 29 January until 23:59 Tuesday 6February.

So the new announcement extends the overtime ban by four days, three of which are strike days, so no-one will be doing overtime anyway. Interesting.

 

[baz962]

I understand this was the original announcement:
LNER
Strike day: Friday 2 February 00:01 - 23:59.
No non-compulsory overtime from 00:01 Monday 29 January until 23:59 Tuesday 6February.

So the new announcement extends the overtime ban by four days, three of which are strike days, so no-one will be doing overtime anyway. Interesting.

Just stepping everything up I guess

 

[Bald Rick]

Going back to the initial announcement in post 1, I'd like to ask a question about this part:
"Train drivers who are members of ASLEF Union will walk out on LNER for five days from Monday 5 until Friday 9 February.

The drivers will also refuse to work any non-contractual overtime from Wednesday 7 until Saturday 10 February"

Why is there an overlap with strike dates and the overtime ban?

Standard procedure so they can suspend the strike but not the overtime ban.

 

[IanXC]

I understand this was the original announcement:
LNER
Strike day: Friday 2 February 00:01 - 23:59.
No non-compulsory overtime from 00:01 Monday 29 January until 23:59 Tuesday 6February.

So the new announcement extends the overtime ban by four days, three of which are strike days, so no-one will be doing overtime anyway. Interesting.

Not entirely true - if you are a driver served by a Work Notice, then in the absence of an overtime ban then you could end up working overtime on an otherwise strike day. Having an overtime ban on a strike day where MSL has been invoked does have an impact.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Thanks for all replies. Has anyone been served with a minimum service level work notice yet? Either in the rail industry or elsewhere?

 

[43066]

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

Which presumably means none of them other than LNER as, with only a week to go, we would surely have heard about it by now.

I can see why TOCs don’t want to go down this road. It’s a seriously bad idea if they want the kind of co-operation which most drivers willingly provide outside of strike days, and which we all know the service depends on to hang together. People will simply adopt a stance of total awkwardness over everything, and will actively look for reasons to refuse requests they would previously have helped out with.

Not entirely true - if you are a driver served by a Work Notice, then in the absence of an overtime ban then you could end up working overtime on an otherwise strike day. Having an overtime ban on a strike day where MSL has been invoked does have an impact.

Only if you’d made yourself for overtime on a strike day, though.

 

[IanXC]

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

LNER haven't issued notice that there is "unlikely to be any trains" because even before MSL that wasn't true for LNER, every previous strike they have used Driver Managers etc to run something around a 1/3 timetable. Thus there is no public message yet available.

What we're seeing this time is the parties revealing their hands - future strikes this will already be clearer in the first place. ASLEF called a one day strike, LNER replied that they'd use MSL, ASLEF state that their strike will then be 5 days. For a future occasion I would think ASLEF will go straight to 5 days for the operators who use or have used MSL in the past.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Our "continental friends" don't have thirty years worth of Tory anti-union legislation. MSLs will turn out to be the equivalent of putting a 12 bore shotgun to your foot. Watch EVERY affected TU use ASLEF-style tactics.

Oh, and, as my own TU is, consider litigation.

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

Make no mistake no TU will accept MSLs. Yet another ineffective gesture from a dead parrot Government.

 

[Snow1964]

Not entirely true - if you are a driver served by a Work Notice, then in the absence of an overtime ban then you could end up working overtime on an otherwise strike day. Having an overtime ban on a strike day where MSL has been invoked does have an impact.

I don't work for LNER so don't know what their specific employment contract says. But most standard employment contracts specifies your hours and where required work outside these hours, and entitlements to time in lieu if extra non core required.

So could be Work notice is not creating overtime, but directed hours for which receive time in lieu is the contractual method of reimbursement

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Re your first para ASLEF are perfectly entitled, within the relevant legislation, to schedule whatever strike action that they wish. The Tories were warned.....

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).

Absolutely.

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.

Frankly, after over 10 years of handling litigation against HMG, I have to say that your post is ridiculous. Since when does the primary legislation over industrial action restrict ASLEF to one day strikes or not permit different tactics against different employers?

DfT, who might not even have legal standing to bring any such action given that they are not a party to the dispute, would merely spunk away a shedload of taxpayers money if they were permitted to do so.

Perhaps, to make you happy, ASLEF should schedule one day strikes every second day for 10 days on LNER.

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.

What, like the right to strike you mean?

 

[IanXC]

I don't work for LNER so don't know what their specific employment contract says. But most standard employment contracts specifies your hours and where required work outside these hours, and entitlements to time in lieu if extra non core required.

So could be Work notice is not creating overtime, but directed hours for which receive time in lieu is the contractual method of reimbursement

Typically for traincrew there are the following types of overtime:

A: Rest Day working
B: Overtime arranged in advance (you're spare on X day, theres a turn to cover that ends 20 minutes later than your shift, you agree in advance to work it, this is usually subject to parameters but if industrial relations are good this may be flexed by individual drivers)
C: Overtime arranged on the day (being asked on the day, when you finish will you do an extra shunt etc)
D: Overtime as a result of disruption (you simply arrive back to your depot late due to late running)

On an MSL strike day, a driver with a Work Notice could work B or more likely C in the absence of a overtime ban.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Labour have already commited to reversing the MSL law within 100 days of taking office. Look back in history- there has never been this level of industrial action under a previous labour government. Whilst I don't think they will come in and cure everything, you only have to look at the devolved administration’s to get an idea how this may have unfolded under a different goverment.

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.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which presumably means none of them other than LNER as, with only a week to go, we would surely have heard about it by now.

It’s 9 days to the first strike, 15 till the last (excluding the LNER extra time). Work Notices need to be published 7 days out. The consultation needs to happen before that. There‘s time yet.

 

[DanNCL]

It seems some here chose to ignore that I specifically said I didn’t support the DFT or LNER in this…

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…

The one day as originally announced was. LNER going down the minimum service legislation route, which hasn’t even been confirmed yet, suddenly prompted ASLEF to announce another 4 days of strike supposedly about pay. We’re not daft, it’s pretty obvious that the one day originally announced is about pay and the other four are about minimum service legislation. If they want to strike over minimum service legislation they should go through the correct process for it rather than conveniently pretending the extra strike days are about a different pre-existing dispute.

It’s the same dispute


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.

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.

The fact that no other TOC is doing the same is irrelevant, ASLEF members at LNER aren’t employed by the other TOCs. ASLEF announced a one day strike in the pay dispute. Then all of a sudden that changes to five days. They’re claiming the extra four days are part of the pay dispute but you’ve just admitted yourself that it’s because of the legislation. If they want to strike over the fact that the law applies to them, have a ballot and follow the correct procedure rather than hiding behind another 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

Or more specifically the new one is objecting to the fact that the law applies to them!

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.

It won’t last, people are already saying they’ll give up on the train and BA have already lowered many of their domestic air fares in reaction this week as well as allocating larger aircraft (A321s on flights that were booked A319s or A320s). No doubt EasyJet and Ryanair will be doing similar. National Express, Flixbus and Megabus will also be doing well out of this.
LNER will find passenger numbers considerably down in three months time, and in all likelihood many of those who gave up on LNER won’t return without a major incentive to do so after the issues are resolved.

Frankly, after over 10 years of handling litigation against HMG, I have to say that your post is ridiculous. Since when does the primary legislation over industrial action restrict ASLEF to one day strikes or not permit different tactics against different employers?

DfT, who might not even have legal standing to bring any such action given that they are not a party to the dispute, would merely spunk away a shedload of taxpayers money if they were permitted to do so.

Perhaps, to make you happy, ASLEF should schedule one day strikes every second day for 10 days on LNER.

I didn’t say that it didn’t permit different tactics against different employers.
Primary legislation takes precedence over anything else and ultimately LNER can choose to make their staff comply with that legislation whether ASLEF like it or not.

The DFT might not be directly able to do it but they can through LNER which we all know is effectively controlled by the DFT.
As for spunking away taxpayers money, if you’ve handled litigation against HMG for 10 years then you should be aware that the current government has a track record of it in all sectors, not just transport but also on immigration (Rwanda policy) and the pandemic (PPE scandal) and no doubt many other things that aren’t instantly coming to mind.

If this does end up in court which DFT/LNER could do, ASLEF are going to have a difficult time convincing a judge that the extra four days are legitimately about the pay dispute rather than opposition to the fact that primary legislation applies to and is being used against them.