ASLEF Strike LNER & Northern 1st March

[Val3ntine]

That isn't true though is it? They have been asked to put it to the membership and they haven't. To that extent the ball is in their court.

And then when they’re asked to put + 0.2% on top to the members after it gets rejected they should do that too?

 

[43066]

But why should it go out to the membership? Because its created almost a year-long deadlock maybe?

No, the government have created the deadlock, as I (and others) have explained above. The government aren’t acting in good faith and, whilever they want the dispute to continue, they’d find another pretext to prevent agreement, or tweak the % by 0.1% and insist that is put to members. That’s not a tune ASLEF is prepared to dance to…

I've made my position quite clear. I blame all sides in this, and yes that includes ASLEF for refusing to put the deal to the members. This may surprise you but unions can get things wrong, and sometimes dig their heels in for the wrong reasons, and frankly they are right there doing just that in my opinion.

With respect, unless you’re an ASLEF member, your view of the union’s strategy isn’t particularly relevant. The membership evidently remains strongly supportive of the current approach, and that’s all the leadership need to concern themselves with!

Little point in discussing further!

 

[Bantamzen]

Little point in discussing further!

That seems to be the case.

 

[ainsworth74]

And then when they’re asked to put + 0.2% on top to the members after it gets rejected they should do that too?

I certainly think that suggestions that any offer must be put to the membership are a little barmy. Union members elect representative to, you know, represent them after all! Though I do have some sympathy with a view that the current offer must at least occasionally be put to the membership. Perhaps on the same frequency as a re-ballot is required? You could even do them together:

Ballot Paper One: Here is the current offer [insert details of offer] do you wish to accept this offer? Yes/No

Ballot Paper Two: If a majority your fellow members vote 'No' to ballot paper one then [insert usual wording for strike mandate ballot paper]

Or something along those lines anyway.

But certainly any suggestion that the Government/employer makes any change to the offer (as you say something pitiful like 0.2% increase) means a referendum is just crackers. We don't go and hold a vote every time Parliament proposes some new legislation because we elected a bunch of representatives to get into that for us and then every five years we get to vote on whether we want to keep those representatives or if we think they've done a rubbish job. Unions have the same mechanism. If the membership think their reps and national leadership are doing a rubbish job vote them out for new ones...

 

[Richardr]

That isn't true though is it? They have been asked to put it to the membership and they haven't. To that extent the ball is in their court.

They have balloted on a number of occasions, and received an overwhelming majority in favour of action. Do you think this would be the result if the members were happy with the offer?

 

[DJP78]

I certainly think that suggestions that any offer must be put to the membership are a little barmy. Union members elect representative to, you know, represent them after all! Though I do have some sympathy with a view that the current offer must at least occasionally be put to the membership. Perhaps on the same frequency as a re-ballot is required? You could even do them together:

Ballot Paper One: Here is the current offer [insert details of offer] do you wish to accept this offer? Yes/No

Ballot Paper Two: If a majority your fellow members vote 'No' to ballot paper one then [insert usual wording for strike mandate ballot paper]

Or something along those lines anyway.

But certainly any suggestion that the Government/employer makes any change to the offer (as you say something pitiful like 0.2% increase) means a referendum is just crackers. We don't go and hold a vote every time Parliament proposes some new legislation because we elected a bunch of representatives to get into that for us and then every five years we get to vote on whether we want to keep those representatives or if we think they've done a rubbish job. Unions have the same mechanism. If the membership think their reps and national leadership are doing a rubbish job vote them out for new ones...

And that’s precisely the point i made in one of my earlier posts

ASLEF operate on a democratic basis. Our senior negotiators are there to act on our behalf and thrash out the best deal they can

ASLEF are perfectly within their rights to reject an offer and request further negotiations. This is where we currently are.

ASLEF keep inviting the DFT & Gov for furher talks, and the Gov refuse

The Gov or the TOCs have no business insisting their offer be put to ASLEF members. As i said, we the members don’t need to see the offer. We’re paying our membership subs for our senior negotiators to thrash out a deal. When they feel there is a deal worthy of merit, then they’ll put it to us for balloting.

Any attempt to circumnavigate this process, deal directly with members is called ‘inducement’ and is illegal.

The collective bargaining methods are in full flow. ASLEF members continue to re-ballot for continued industrial action with huge turnouts and overwhelming mandates.

The Gov need to respect the collective bargaining laws and get back around the table

 

[irish_rail]

The by election results yesterday rather confirm the current policy of playing hardball with the unions (with the resultant negative impact on both the health service and transport services) isn't working. The government really need to get round the table now and give Aslef a fair offer to get all this sorted if they want any hope (however small) of remaining in power after the next election. The current tactic is not working to the vast majority of the electorate, and I suspect the group who most support a hardline against the union are more likely to vote Reform anyway.

 

[Dogbox]

Why is it so hard for people to understand that when the drivers vote overwhelmingly for further strike action, its the same thing as rejecting what is on the table

 

[Bantamzen]

I certainly think that suggestions that any offer must be put to the membership are a little barmy. Union members elect representative to, you know, represent them after all! Though I do have some sympathy with a view that the current offer must at least occasionally be put to the membership. Perhaps on the same frequency as a re-ballot is required? You could even do them together:

Ballot Paper One: Here is the current offer [insert details of offer] do you wish to accept this offer? Yes/No

Ballot Paper Two: If a majority your fellow members vote 'No' to ballot paper one then [insert usual wording for strike mandate ballot paper]

Or something along those lines anyway.

But certainly any suggestion that the Government/employer makes any change to the offer (as you say something pitiful like 0.2% increase) means a referendum is just crackers. We don't go and hold a vote every time Parliament proposes some new legislation because we elected a bunch of representatives to get into that for us and then every five years we get to vote on whether we want to keep those representatives or if we think they've done a rubbish job. Unions have the same mechanism. If the membership think their reps and national leadership are doing a rubbish job vote them out for new ones...

Even when not having that vote on the revised offer becomes a blocker to further negotiations? Because, and let's be really clear here, it is ASLEF members that are spending longer and longer without any rise, whilst the DfT sits on the money. Who do you will think will blink first? Its clear the government couldn't give a stuff, the media are becoming bored with the action, and Joe Public is just finding ways around it all. After a year its clear, the standoff isn't working for ASLEF. All they've got left is to hope Starmer gives a stuff. Personally, I wouldn't count on it....

They have balloted on a number of occasions, and received an overwhelming majority in favour of action. Do you think this would be the result if the members were happy with the offer?

I'd be certain the offer would be turned down. But at least that would be officially on record, and the ball returned to RDG / DfT.

The by election results yesterday rather confirm the current policy of playing hardball with the unions (with the resultant negative impact on both the health service and transport services) isn't working. The government really need to get round the table now and give Aslef a fair offer to get all this sorted if they want any hope (however small) of remaining in power after the next election. The current tactic is not working to the vast majority of the electorate, and I suspect the group who most support a hardline against the union are more likely to vote Reform anyway.

Do you really think the shifting political landscape is anything to do with the rail strikes? Most people, and I do mean most, couldn't give a stuff.

 

[DJP78]

That isn't true though is it? They have been asked to put it to the membership and they haven't. To that extent the ball is in their court.

Wrong. ASLEF are abiding by the law and collective bargaining arrangements

Balls actually firmly in the Gov court

 

[ainsworth74]

Even when not having that vote on the revised offer becomes a blocker to further negotiations? Because, and let's be really clear here, it is ASLEF members that are spending longer and longer without any rise, whilst the DfT sits on the money. Who do you will think will blink first? Its clear the government couldn't give a stuff, the media are becoming bored with the action, and Joe Public is just finding ways around it all. After a year its clear, the standoff isn't working for ASLEF. All they've got left is to hope Starmer gives a stuff. Personally, I wouldn't count on it....

In which case, if the members are unhappy with how the dispute is being conducted, they can vote out their representatives and national leadership at the next opportunity to do so. I'm not sure that a requirement to hold a referendum every time an offer is made would do anything other than generate a lot of extra admin. Having to put the current offer to the membership from time to time might be a reasonable idea but time to time would have to be quite an appreciable period (hence my thought that having to do it at the same time as re-ballot might not be a bad idea).

But fundamentally I'm not sure that it is necessary either to insist on having offers put to members until the Union negotiators are happy. Unions are democratic organisations, as I'm sure you know, so if the members are unhappy with how disputes are conducted on their behalf they have ways and means of removing them and putting people in place who will do a better job.

 

[Bantamzen]

Wrong. ASLEF are abiding by the law and collective bargaining arrangements

Balls actually firmly in the Gov court

Sorry, it really isn't.

In which case, if the members are unhappy with how the dispute is being conducted, they can vote out their representatives and national leadership at the next opportunity to do so. I'm not sure that a requirement to hold a referendum every time an offer is made would do anything other than generate a lot of extra admin. Having to put the current offer to the membership from time to time might be a reasonable idea but time to time would have to be quite an appreciable period (hence my thought that having to do it at the same time as re-ballot might not be a bad idea).

Like I said, if its proving to be a blocker not have a ballot, then it shouldn't just be dismissed. And let's face it, we are talking almost a year ago now that the offer was made, and as far as I understand it still stands. so its not like there's been ballot after ballot on it recently.

But fundamentally I'm not sure that it is necessary either to insist on having offers put to members until the Union negotiators are happy. Unions are democratic organisations, as I'm sure you know, so if the members are unhappy with how disputes are conducted on their behalf they have ways and means of removing them and putting people in place who will do a better job.

Ultimately its not for the negotiators to be happy, there will always be occasions that an employer will not offer them anything near where their lines are. That's when the final decision should go to the membership, and that's where this dispute seems to be. If the membership then return a vote against the offer, the employer can either negotiate further, or say that's the final one, take it or leave it. And then the membership will decide if they want to continue the dispute or not.

 

[43066]

I'm not sure that a requirement to hold a referendum every time an offer is made would do anything other than generate a lot of extra admin. Having to put the current offer to the membership from time to time might be a reasonable idea but time to time would have to be quite an appreciable period (hence my thought that having to do it at the same time as re-ballot might not be a bad idea).

I suppose one downside of this would be that it would potentially drag negotiations out? Of course when a vote should be put to members is ultimately a matter of ASLEF’s own constitutional arrangements which, if they were unpopular (and I’ve seen no evidence they they are), could also be changed by due democratic process.

Certainly the current dispute isn’t reflective of how a proper negotiation would generally take place, which would be the two sides thrashing out a deal which the leadership would be able to put to the members over a much shorter timeframe.

f the membership then return a vote against the offer, the employer can either negotiate further, or say that's the final one, take it or leave it. And then the membership will decide if they want to continue the dispute or not.

That might be your opinion of what ASLEF should do, but it’s clearly not how ASLEF, nor its membership, wish to conduct things. So the union is, unsurprisingly, following the wishes of its membership, rather than your personal view of the matter…

 

[Bantamzen]

That might be your opinion of what ASLEF should do, but it’s clearly not how ASLEF, nor its membership, wish to conduct things. So the union is, unsurprisingly, following the wishes of its membership, rather than your personal view of the matter…

Not just my opinion, the RMT seem to have had a similar conclusion hence their moves.

 

[43066]

Not just my opinion, the RMT seem to have had a similar conclusion hence their moves.

The government changed its approach on the RMT side which enabled some movement, as pointed out to you many times, and we’re talking about the ASLEF disputes on this thread, so the only relevant opinions (on either union constitutional matters, or the conduct of the disputes) are those of ASLEF members.

You do indeed now appear to be arguing that ASLEF should disregard its own constitution, and the wishes of its members, and handle this dispute according to your personal views. A bizarre position to say the least - and it won’t be happening, I’m afraid!

 

[DJP78]

Sorry, it really isn't.

You’re now tipping the debate into to the surreal and farcical. Almost conspiracy type nonsense

You’re suggestion that ASLEF are acting outside its own constitutions and the LAW is ridiculous.

Perhaps you’d like to point out which specific ASLEF constitutional agreements have been broken? Which law they are breaking? And why the Gov haven’t commenced litigation proceedings, if as you say, ASLEF aren’t acting accordingly

I think we’ll see you won’t be able to substantiate any of your ridiculous claims, since ASLEF are acting in a perfectly lawful manner in accordance with collective bargaining protocols

 

[Confused52]

There is a major difference between ASLEF and the other unions. Only for ASLEF did Mick Whelan say "There is not one line in that deal, from the opening comments to the final full stop, that I could recommend.". He said that on the record , transcript and video available, on Wednesday 11 January 2023 to the Transport Select Committee. From there tweaking the offer by scheduling or anything else is not possible unless there is a willingness to move by ASLEF. I am unaware of any such move. To claim from that position that it is up to the Government alone to make a move when most of the points were agreed to be discussed, as admitted by Whelan (in the same session) in the earlier framework talks is pretty staggering arrogance.

The idea that ASLEF are blameless in this dispute and that only the views of ASLEF members are of any consequence is also common and wrong.

Equally the idea that any normal company would negotiate freely so why can't the TOCs is also just misdirection. The TOCs controlled by ERMA and NRCs are nationalised rail operations, effectively in the public sector. Public sector organisations cannot negotiate like independent TOCs, their budgets are set by the treasury. The privatisation of nationalised industries happened because of the state of the the Telephone Network, where the capital needed for replacing the Telephone Exchanges could never be found because the NHS was always a better place to spend money politically. The same problem affected the railways. When Labour come to power it will still be the same, the NHS and Education will continue to be the public's priority. ASLEF wanted a publicly owned railway it needs to change to accommodate the consequences of getting what it wanted.

 

[trainophile]

So today is 14 days before 1st March and there’s nothing on the BBC News page about this proposed strike. Does that mean it’s still not definite?

What is the official means by which they have to publicise strikes 14 days beforehand?

I’ve already bought a replacement ticket for 29th and an extra hotel night, so if it’s going ahead I would like to reclaim for my original ticket, and if it isn’t I’m £30 out of pocket plus the extra hotel night.

 

[DJP78]

Ultimately its not for the negotiators to be happy

I’m afraid it is, despite what you might like to imagine, those are the powers bestowed upon senior union negotiators democratically elected by the ASLEF members

 

[ainsworth74]

So today is 14 days before 1st March and there’s nothing on the BBC News page about this proposed strike. Does that mean it’s still not definite?

What is the official means by which they have to publicise strikes 14 days beforehand?

I’ve already bought a replacement ticket for 29th and an extra hotel night, so if it’s going ahead I would like to reclaim for my original ticket, and if it isn’t I’m £30 out of pocket plus the extra hotel night.

The strike is going ahead. They have to inform the employer, which they have done, there is no requirement for the Union to publicise it beyond that. If you review the Northern and LNER strike pages on their websites you will see confirmation of the strike action there. It also widely covered in other media outlets.

 

[skyhigh]

So today is 14 days before 1st March and there’s nothing on the BBC News page about this proposed strike. Does that mean it’s still not definite?

What is the official means by which they have to publicise strikes 14 days beforehand?

The Union has to inform the Company. They have done so. The Company is then free to inform it's passengers but there's no requirement for the Union to do so.

The strike may be called off (as is always the case) but I would be surprised if it was.

 

[trainophile]

O

The strike is going ahead. They have to inform the employer, which they have done, there is no requirement for the Union to publicise it beyond that.

Oh! I always thought they had to let the travelling public know. I guess they only find out by chance then?

 

[skyhigh]

O

Oh! I always thought they had to let the travelling public know. I guess they only find out by chance then?

Normally the train operator will publicise it, the Union may release a media statement but there is no requirement for that to happen.

 

[DJP78]

Not just my opinion, the RMT seem to have had a similar conclusion hence their moves.

The Gov via DFT proactively approached the RMT, offered them a 4% no-strings-attached deal and for negotiations to re-start

ASLEF haven’t been approached, despite them actively inviting the Gov to do so.

That’s the only difference

If ASLEF are offered a condition-less 4% deal, 6 months of further talks, I’m pretty certain ASLEF members will agree, as did RMT

 

[43066]

O

Oh! I always thought they had to let the travelling public know. I guess they only find out by chance then?

The company providing the service needs to let the public know if it’s unable to do so due to industrial action, just as it would if the service was withdrawn or disrupted for any other reason.

 

[ainsworth74]

O

Oh! I always thought they had to let the travelling public know. I guess they only find out by chance then?

Nope there's no requirement on the Union to do that. It's up to the company to inform their customers of potential disruption that may effect their journey.

 

[trainophile]

Trainsplit are still selling tickets for Southport to Bolton and Carlisle to Newcastle for 1st March.

 

[800001]

O

Oh! I always thought they had to let the travelling public know. I guess they only find out by chance then?

LNER have it on there webpage and on twitter, can’t see anything on Northern’s website.

 

[ainsworth74]

Trainsplit are still selling tickets for Southport to Bolton and Carlisle to Newcastle for 1st March.

So is everyone else but it's highly unlikely those services will run. At some point they'll be removed from the data feed that powers journey planners.

 

[Moonshot]

The Gov via DFT proactively approached the RMT, offered them a 4% no-strings-attached deal and for negotiations to re-start

ASLEF haven’t been approached, despite them actively inviting the Gov to do so.

That’s the only difference

If ASLEF are offered a condition-less 4% deal, 6 months of further talks, I’m pretty certain ASLEF members will agree, as did RMT

Indeed we will.....it gets discussed a lot in the messrooms. 2 years backdated no strings would bring an end to this.

Not just my opinion, the RMT seem to have had a similar conclusion hence their moves.

You seem to be struggling with the basic facts......a strike has been called by ASLEF leadership. This means that no Northern trains ( or LNER ) will actually run on the strike day. Passengers will have to make alternative arrangements if they have to travel on that day. It doesn't get much simpler than that.