ASLEF strikes February 1st and 3rd

[LNW-GW Joint]

What's the latest day the RMT can call a strike for the weekend of the 4th Feb? I have a trip to Milton Keynes late on the Saturday.

If you believe the PR, the RMT and RDG are in detailed negotiations on a deal.
It would be inappropriate for RMT to call more strikes while negotiations are in progress.

 

[duncanp]

If the TOCs were left alone to manage their own affairs and take action to grow passenger numbers and revenue (as of course they are best placed to do) instead of being micro-managed by the Government then we would all be a lot better off.

This situation is entirely down to the Government who are fixated on cutting costs (at the expense of providing even a basic service in some cases) instead of growing revenue which is what we should be doing.

You can't "grow revenue" if there are constant strikes and general unreliability of the rail services.

 

[Bantamzen]

If the TOCs were left alone to manage their own affairs and take action to grow passenger numbers and revenue (as of course they are best placed to do) instead of being micro-managed by the Government then we would all be a lot better off.

This situation is entirely down to the Government who are fixated on cutting costs (at the expense of providing even a basic service in some cases) instead of growing revenue which is what we should be doing.

This however is what happens when a sector relies on, or become reliant on public sector funds. Budget limits are set, and sometimes caveats on how they can be spent. The only way this changes if the private sector takes an interest in full running of the railways, or a political party comes into power and changes how all public funding works.

 

[O L Leigh]

You can't "grow revenue" if there are constant strikes and general unreliability of the rail services.

Disruption due to strike action only affects days on which strikes are called. All the rest is due to issues such as the DfT failing to sign-off rest-day working agreements. We could happily run a full service on non-strike days if only we were permitted.

This however is what happens when a sector relies on, or become reliant on public sector funds. Budget limits are set, and sometimes caveats on how they can be spent. The only way this changes if the private sector takes an interest in full running of the railways, or a political party comes into power and changes how all public funding works.

… or go back to the pre-Covid model where the franchisees take the financial risk.

 

[CAF397]

I am not ignoring the billions of pounds spent on furlough (including paying rail workers 100% of their salary whilst few people were travelling and few trains were running) , test & trace... etc.

True. Still going to work though, paying for fuel, unable to travel by train due to the reduced services not being convenient for shift patterns.

Whilst everyone was being told to stay at home and avoid public transport, railway workers were coming in day after day, not knowing how dangerous it was.

In hindsight, I'd have happily taken furlough for 18 months and stayed at home. We were never given the choice.

 

[Taplowgreen]

Ah of course, that old chestnut.

Are you choosing to ignore the billions of pounds spent on furlough and dodgy PPE contracts, no doubt that doesn't count?

The railway is an essential part of the nation's transport network and infrastructure, and was doing very well until the Government's response to Covid (telling people not to travel, for example) resulted in the situation we find ourselves in now.

This has been discussed to death on the forum already.

PPE contracts, the last time I looked, had nothing to do with the railway so that appears to be deflection/whataboutery.

I think one of the facts "the railway" and those who work on it have to accept is that it's a lot less essential than it used to be, given the new world of hybrid/home working for many and far less business travel - this is one of the reasons why the Government are toughing this strike out, increasingly commuting is an option rather than a necessity - future growth for the railway, and to some extent the viability of many routes lies in leisure travel, which again is far more discretionary and for as long as these strikes, for whatever reason, make the service unreliable, that growth will be in jeopardy - one of the issues with leisure travel of course is the hopeless levels of reliability on Sundays in many areas which all sides have to accept and address.

The perception of many travellers at the moment is that the Unions attitude is "we want a large pay rise but we're not prepared to accept any changes" - it's not as straightforward as that I am sure, but the longer this goes on, the less of a future there may be.

 

[duncanp]

Disruption due to strike action only affects days on which strikes are called.

There is also disruption on the days before and after a strike (eg. Christmas Eve, with last long distance trains at around lunchtime) with services finishing earlier before the strike starts and starting later after it finishes.

As well as the strikes themselves, it is the threat of strikes that causes a lack of consumer confidence at the moment. People are not going to book journeys in advance if they are not confident that their train is going to run.

 

[CAF397]

If you believe the PR, the RMT and RDG are in detailed negotiations on a deal.
It would be inappropriate for RMT to call more strikes while negotiations are in progress.

This ASLEF deal being the one leaked to the media, so this is the response to the offer. Hopefully if the RMT negotiations improve, a similar offer can be made to ASLEF.

 

[johntea]

Is this likely to affect services the day before (30 Jan) too as in earlier finish of services / limited timetables (Northern and Grand Central, I need to get from Yorkshire to London and back!)

 

[1E67]

I am not ignoring the billions of pounds (including paying rail workers 100% of their salary whilst few people were travelling and few trains were running…

Sounds like you’re suggesting that I shouldn’t have been paid for going to work every day as normal during Covid?

Or perhaps I should have sucked it up when some poor soul committed suicide in front of my train after lock down and demanded not to be paid for that day as the train was cancelled?

Or maybe I should have just phoned in and said ‘don’t worry about paying me, I’ll take the train full of ‘key workers’ to work for free and pay for the childcare with magic beans as my kids can’t go to school as they’re closed’?

Ends of bells on here, truly.

 

[Exscrew]

You’re not the only one that has noticed this

It's shocking, it's the equivalent of me going onto MUMSNET and commenting about how I find mums to be despicable

 

[Freightmaster]

Do you regard the millions of pounds that the government put in to the rail network to keep it going during the COVID pandemic, as well as before and after COVID, as "meddling"?

Ahh, this old chestnut. As opposed to the billions of pounds put into paying people to sit in their homes doing nothing you mean?

Two wrongs don't make a right!





MARK

 

[dosxuk]

Sounds like you’re suggesting that I shouldn’t have been paid for going to work every day as normal during Covid?

In the context of what they were being asked, it sounds more like their suggesting if the Government really didn't care about operating a rail service (as some posters are suggesting), then they could have just shut the network down during Covid and furloughed all the staff, rather than keeping services running and continuing to pay the staff. I see no suggestion that staff should work for free, however nice of a strawman that is.

 

[Exscrew]

You’re not the only one that has noticed this

You’re not the only one that has noticed this

I might just start joining there ranks as I won't be at risk of being banned.
"Yeah those bloody rail workers being greedy for not selling terms and conditions for a below inflation rise, hope they all get sacked and then we replace them with robots and replicants to run the network"

 

[TomG]

Stockport station should still be open even if only for TfW as they're not in the dispute (anymore).

TfW have never been in Dispute - although they have been affected by the strikes.

But the unions absolutely won't be organising action between them, it'll just be pure coincidence that any proposed strike days just overlap...

How could it be anything else?

 

[Crossover]

What's the latest day the RMT can call a strike for the weekend of the 4th Feb? I have a trip to Milton Keynes late on the Saturday.

To answer the question directly, I believe it would be the end of this week,to allow for the two week notice which they must now give (one "good" thing to come out of the last year that strikes can no longer be called at a moments notice)

 

[43096]

Until a sensible offer is put on the table that the Unions can accept. It's really quite straightforward, just requires the Government to stop meddling in an industry it knows little about and doesn't understand.

Given that the Government puts several billion £ into the railway then they have every right to “meddle”. The collapse in revenue means it is a failing business: failing businesses tend not to have funds to give significant pay rises, particularly to staff such as drivers who have had well above inflation rises for a decade or more and are now overpaid.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

So presumably this will not affect the non-DfT TOCs: TfW, Scotrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line and Merseyrail?
(Though they may have their own separate disputes).
How about Eurostar?

It won't affect SWR either.

 

[lfc84]

Presumably I will have trouble getting from Wimbledon or East Croydon to Gatwick on Friday 3rd Feb ?

 

[Bungle73]

Yeah give up on it, and go onto a online forum to vent your frustration at staff not wanting to except there terms and conditions to be ruined. I think we should give up on schools and the NHS too.

Yes you can console yourself with the knowing you were "right" as you queue up sign on..........

 

[Bantamzen]

… or go back to the pre-Covid model where the franchisees take the financial risk.

The problem would be convincing them to do so again. Only if the industry starts to recover revenue back to 2019 levels, and demonstrates that profits are possible will this happen again. That's why all three sides need to stop posturing and figure out how to climb out of the hole they've collectively dug.

 

[Thirteen]

RMT have been very open that whilst they've been talking to other unions about dates, ASLEF have refused to talk to them about it.

I think ASLEF probably don't to fall foul of getting sued by TOCs as coordinated action could be seen as sympathy striking hence why I'm not sure the rumour of the coordinated day of action by various unions is a good idea or will be effective. Give employers and the Government ammunition.

 

[Benjwri]

Quite a lot of argument about how justified the strikes are, but I'd say I have two fairly simple questions for those who are striking:

Do you expect passengers to return to the railways if these strikes continue for much longer. It doesn't matter how justified the strikes are, the one thing the railways are definitively proving is they are no to be relied on. Passengers are learning they can't trust that the railway will be able to get them from A to B without giving up on them at short notice. For many 14 days is too short notice to make alternative plans. I have 3 things I need to go to in the next month, a year ago I'd have taken the train to them all, but because of the chaos of the last year I decided only to take the train to one, and drive to the other two. Lo and behold this strike means that one I was taking the train for is now not going to be possible, and I'll have to drive that too. These strikes are teaching the public if you need to get somewhere, don't trust the rail network.

This second one may be a bit controversial, but where are you expecting this money to come from for pay rises? We can spend all day talking about past mismanagement of money by the government, but at the end of the day there is no magic money pot. Any pay rise has to come from somewhere, and that will be higher taxes, higher train fares or most likely both. Yes wages haven't gone up with inflation, but neither has any government profession, and the country simply does not have enough money to give ever profession a huge pay rise (Unless of course you want taxes to rise by the same amount, in which case no one wins). RMT is a bit different, but ASLEF, which is this strike, as far as I can find has an average salary of around £60,000, one of the highest of a government paid profession. Can anyone provide an actual justification of that compared to other professions?

 

[duncanp]

Do you expect passengers to return to the railways if these strikes continue for much longer. It doesn't matter how justified the strikes are, the one thing the railways are definitively proving is they are no to be relied on. Passengers are learning they can't trust that the railway will be able to get them from A to B without giving up on them at short notice.

This is the point which ALL sides in the current dispute need to take note of.

There was a strike on London Buses in the spring of 1958 which resulted in no buses at all for about seven weeks.

This coincided with a period of increasing prosperity and car ownership.

When services eventually resumed after the strike was resolved, it was estimated that there was a permanent loss of traffic in the order of 10%, which resulted in long term cuts to services in the next few years.

 

[TomG]

Quite a lot of argument about how justified the strikes are, but I'd say I have two fairly simple questions for those who are striking:

Do you expect passengers to return to the railways if these strikes continue for much longer. It doesn't matter how justified the strikes are, the one thing the railways are definitively proving is they are no to be relied on. Passengers are learning they can't trust that the railway will be able to get them from A to B without giving up on them at short notice. For many 14 days is too short notice to make alternative plans. I have 3 things I need to go to in the next month, a year ago I'd have taken the train to them all, but because of the chaos of the last year I decided only to take the train to one, and drive to the other two. Lo and behold this strike means that one I was taking the train for is now not going to be possible, and I'll have to drive that too. These strikes are teaching the public if you need to get somewhere, don't trust the rail network.

This second one may be a bit controversial, but where are you expecting this money to come from for pay rises? We can spend all day talking about past mismanagement of money by the government, but at the end of the day there is no magic money pot. Any pay rise has to come from somewhere, and that will be higher taxes, higher train fares or most likely both. Yes wages haven't gone up with inflation, but neither has any government profession, and the country simply does not have enough money to give ever profession a huge pay rise (Unless of course you want taxes to rise by the same amount, in which case no one wins). RMT is a bit different, but ASLEF, which is this strike, as far as I can find has an average salary of around £60,000, one of the highest of a government paid profession. Can anyone provide an actual justification of that compared to other professions?

Good points. I can't drive (plus I work in London) so, at times, getting the train is my only option. Luckily my line has had limited service on strike days...plus I can work from home if need be.
Also, if you gave all public sector workers (from Train Drivers to Ambulance Drivers) an Inflation busting pay rise inflation would increase more. Last time I checked our inflation was higher than Russia!
COVID and the war in Ukraine (which has contributed to inflation) were not the governments fault. And the furlough scheme kept many people in jobs and was able to save many businesses from going under.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be inappropriate for RMT to call more strikes while negotiations are in progress.

...but totally appropriate when those talks end without resolution (or sign of resolution).

This ASLEF deal being the one leaked to the media, so this is the response to the offer. Hopefully if the RMT negotiations improve, a similar offer can be made to ASLEF.

It still won't match the demands, even if the speculated RMT offer is made to ASLEF.

Is this likely to affect services the day before (30 Jan) too as in earlier finish of services / limited timetables (Northern and Grand Central, I need to get from Yorkshire to London and back!)

30 January is unaffected. Assuming the same pattern as before where staff take action on shifts starting at 0001 and later on the strike day, a full service will run on 31 January as well, through to end of service.

Presumably I will have trouble getting from Wimbledon or East Croydon to Gatwick on Friday 3rd Feb ?

Yes. Tram to East Croydon, then 405 / 100 bus if you need public transport (or Mitcham Junction to 127 to Purley to pick up the 405). No trains on GTR.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Until a sensible offer is put on the table that the Unions can accept. It's really quite straightforward, just requires the Government to stop meddling in an industry it knows little about and doesn't understand.

What !. In that case the government should butt out and stop distorting things by giving the railways money. That is what I dread - unless private enterprise want to take it all on.

Who cares about the taxpayers passengers?

They're the ones who have to pay for the railway.

Why should their opinions count?

Here here.

It’s an utter farce. On the days when the railway isn’t on strike, services are more often than not disrupted. It took me 1hr 20 to go 10 miles with Southeastern today. In a private company, pay rises would only be awarded when affordable, and the business is performing well. I get that Drivers aren’t responsible for the constant signal failures in SE land but the average punter doesn’t care. To the average user, it appears that rail staff want above average pay rises when their industry is seriously underperforming</rant>

It is why I am not planning anything, its to risky. I might grab a few day trips when the bargain fares crop up - nothing I cannot afford to cancel. The rest is now car and very convenient it is.

Ah of course, that old chestnut.

Are you choosing to ignore the billions of pounds spent on furlough and dodgy PPE contracts, no doubt that doesn't count?

The railway is an essential part of the nation's transport network and infrastructure, and was doing very well until the Government's response to Covid (telling people not to travel, for example) resulted in the situation we find ourselves in now.

This has been discussed to death on the forum already.

I worked in an industry that had little or no furlough. Its not everyone who got bailouts. Staff who had desk jobs were working from home and still do as much as possible except for those who who got fed up with home working (usually not enough space). Previous places I worked have large numbers who have no need to regularly commute. So there is less need for commuter services.

There’s nothing new to discuss. This is just another rehash of all the previous threads on the topic which got locked, which is eventually what will happen to this one too.

Has to get nasty enough before it gets locked.

If the TOCs were left alone to manage their own affairs and take action to grow passenger numbers and revenue (as of course they are best placed to do) instead of being micro-managed by the Government then we would all be a lot better off.

This situation is entirely down to the Government who are fixated on cutting costs (at the expense of providing even a basic service in some cases) instead of growing revenue which is what we should be doing.

You need money to invest to stimulate growth. You also need to close the lines with no hope of breaking even. Instead the railways rely on handouts and that is always going to make things difficult.

You can't "grow revenue" if there are constant strikes and general unreliability of the rail services.

This is a secondary symptom BUT it is making recovery harder to achieve.

This however is what happens when a sector relies on, or become reliant on public sector funds. Budget limits are set, and sometimes caveats on how they can be spent. The only way this changes if the private sector takes an interest in full running of the railways, or a political party comes into power and changes how all public funding works.

The non interference of the government was the only advantage I could see of privatisation. But with hindsight it was never going to happen.

True. Still going to work though, paying for fuel, unable to travel by train due to the reduced services not being convenient for shift patterns.

Whilst everyone was being told to stay at home and avoid public transport, railway workers were coming in day after day, not knowing how dangerous it was.

In hindsight, I'd have happily taken furlough for 18 months and stayed at home. We were never given the choice.

Where I worked (making things to sell) most of us had to soldier on under increasing difficult circumstances. That has eased off a lot now.

PPE contracts, the last time I looked, had nothing to do with the railway so that appears to be deflection/whataboutery.

I think one of the facts "the railway" and those who work on it have to accept is that it's a lot less essential than it used to be, given the new world of hybrid/home working for many and far less business travel - this is one of the reasons why the Government are toughing this strike out, increasingly commuting is an option rather than a necessity - future growth for the railway, and to some extent the viability of many routes lies in leisure travel, which again is far more discretionary and for as long as these strikes, for whatever reason, make the service unreliable, that growth will be in jeopardy - one of the issues with leisure travel of course is the hopeless levels of reliability on Sundays in many areas which all sides have to accept and address.

The perception of many travellers at the moment is that the Unions attitude is "we want a large pay rise but we're not prepared to accept any changes" - it's not as straightforward as that I am sure, but the longer this goes on, the less of a future there may be.

The railways are significantly less essential for many which is a horrible economic reality. Home working is something I always yearned for and I note in various industries people are hanging on to home working as much as they can. I even know of someone who is interviewing on line and not expecting a face to face interview. It is now becoming more important to know if a potential employee can work on line (is their home internet fast enough) and do meetings online than it is to know how they behave in an office (they could be wheelchair bound and/or have BO !).

There is also disruption on the days before and after a strike (eg. Christmas Eve, with last long distance trains at around lunchtime) with services finishing earlier before the strike starts and starting later after it finishes.

As well as the strikes themselves, it is the threat of strikes that causes a lack of consumer confidence at the moment. People are not going to book journeys in advance if they are not confident that their train is going to run.

For one days strike many people will rule out three days. It is why the next strikes are not on consecutive days.

 

[Mike395]

I think this thread has run its course for now - please can everyone take a breather and remember we have a section in the Forum Rules entitled 'Respectful'. As a moderating team we do try and keep a neutral stance when taking decisions, so any comments that we're deliberately trying to side with one point of view are simply incorrect. (and if anyone did ever see a staff member do something they regard as being biased, the 'Report' tool or a PM to one of us is the best way forward, rather than any sort of on-forum complaint, please!)