ASLEF strikes W/c 6th May

[Blindtraveler]

labour get in, RDG disbanded and aslef are able to negotiate on a TOC by TOC basis

Finally someone with a realistic expectation. Too many on here seem to believe that the government website will be redecorated in a very fetching shade of red and all of a sudden all union demands will be met regardless of the price tag. Not happening, just like a lot of other things probably won't be happening under a labor administration that has even in the year of an election been suitably vague about its policies priorities and where the money comes from, but disbanding the rail delivery group and allowing good old-fashioned operator by operating negotiations to take place is indeed common sense, no doubt someone will inevitably jump in and say that we need to go further and re-nationalize on about day two of the new government, this won't happen either. So it's nice to see that someone on here has some realistic expectations


As for the next round of strike action, this timing is interesting as it seems to acknowledge that commuting certainly during mid-week is very much back in fashion and there have been numerous reports on here and elsewhere that back this up

Striking during an election week would backfire very badly for the unions although I'm sure most polling stations are near enough to where people live so you don't have to use public transport to vote.

Would be more relevant for a strike by local bus drivers doing standard drt or stage carriage work as there are some people and I include myself here who's polling station requires a return bus journey to access it.

 

[railfan99]

...good old-fashioned operator by operating negotiations to take place is indeed common sense...

Based on experience in my distant nation I'd broadly agree: smaller is better for negotiations, provided there's a spirit of compromise and recognition that employers need diligent staff in a sector that isn't just 'open' from 0900 or 1000 to 1700 or 1800 Monday to Friday, but is (give or take a little) a 24/7 operation. This may not have included Sundays 50 years ago but times have long changed.

Given large wage/salary rises can fuel inflation - not in the national interest and harmful to many millions as the value of their savings (if any) are eroded and there's the danger of a wage-price spiral - and other changes may sap productivity (resulting in even more cost to your government, Tory or Labour), how does one get around these difficulties?

As a foreigner I won't claim to understand all the nuances but it says very little for militant union leaders that they're continuing to have pointless strikes. This doesn't endear them to the travelling public and unfortunately has a probable side effect of some commuters or leisure travellers switching temporarily or even permanently switch to other modes, principally cars.

 

[Teddyward]

I will give an anecdotal example of how this pay deal is not acceptable. If by some happenstance I was rostered every bank holiday and worked them I would get paid overtime. Under the proposed arrangements I would not. 4% uplift would be considerably less than what I had before. So in effect I would be accepting a pay cut. No thanks.

 

[RT4038]

I work at the elections and can only get to my polling station by train. The bus doesn't run early enough. Whilst some staff will be near their polling station it won't be all and people can't vote without us.


Are you including polling station staff in your calculation? A polling station can't open without us.

This scenario must be a very, very small number of people. Your employer can either get you a taxi, or replace you with somebody who can get to the polling station.

 

[baz962]

Based on experience in my distant nation I'd broadly agree: smaller is better for negotiations, provided there's a spirit of compromise and recognition that employers need diligent staff in a sector that isn't just 'open' from 0900 or 1000 to 1700 or 1800 Monday to Friday, but is (give or take a little) a 24/7 operation. This may not have included Sundays 50 years ago but times have long changed.

Given large wage/salary rises can fuel inflation - not in the national interest and harmful to many millions as the value of their savings (if any) are eroded and there's the danger of a wage-price spiral - and other changes may sap productivity (resulting in even more cost to your government, Tory or Labour), how does one get around these difficulties?

As a foreigner I won't claim to understand all the nuances but it says very little for militant union leaders that they're continuing to have pointless strikes. This doesn't endear them to the travelling public and unfortunately has a probable side effect of some commuters or leisure travellers switching temporarily or even permanently switch to other modes, principally cars.

Because it's not about Sundays , but good point bringing them up. Part of the problem is that there are different Sunday rules. 1 : some TOCs it's part of the working week . 2: some it's an extra day and overtime . 3: some you can opt out . So let's say ASLEF accepted the payrise which is a percentage , then some drivers get a bigger payrise but already do Sundays and others get a smaller payrise and a massive change to their terms and conditions. Imagine if it was my mum's 80th birthday or my wedding anniversary or something and I have planned something on a Sunday in six months time and suddenly I have to work that Sunday. Of course I accept I might have to start working Sundays but not when I have something planned before that came in. So this is where one problem lies and that is you have to do it toc by toc and not one size fits all .
That's why the government can never be right in this dispute and it's odd why people can't get that. If I wanted massive change to my terms and conditions I could go to a toc over the road and get it for ten grand a year more. But Sundays are just one thing they want , they also want us to have weeks where we don't know our days off until a few weeks/days before that week.

 

[Krokodil]

Staff at some operators sold their conditions long ago. They are being offered 4%. Staff who did not sell their conditions long ago are also being offered 4%. So Northern staff are being asked to accept the same conditions as Avanti staff have, but will still be paid less. If you're doing the same job for the same conditions you should be paid the same.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...they seem to be the same time every month.

It looks to be as if the approximately monthly pattern is designed to ensure each member of staff only has one strike day and one week of an overtime ban in each four weekly pay cycle?

 

[railfan99]

Imagine if it was my mum's 80th birthday or my wedding anniversary or something and I have planned something on a Sunday in six months time and suddenly I have to work that Sunday. Of course I accept I might have to start working Sundays but not when I have something planned before that came in. So this is where one problem lies and that is you have to do it toc by toc and not one size fits all .

Most of the time, wouldn't you be able to arrange a swap with another employee (assuming fatigue and maximum number of days able to be worked regulations were complied with?)

 

[skyhigh]

provided there's a spirit of compromise and recognition that employers need diligent staff in a sector that isn't just 'open' from 0900 or 1000 to 1700 or 1800 Monday to Friday, but is (give or take a little) a 24/7 operation. This may not have included Sundays 50 years ago but times have long changed.

Funny then that my shifts literally cover the entire 24hr period seven days a week with no bonus payments for working a certain time or day. Everyone is well aware that the Railway is a 24/7 operation, which is why it's ASLEF's position that Sunday be inside the working week, for example. (Notably DfT would rather have compulsory overtime as it wouldn't mean increasing the headcount).

Given large wage/salary rises can fuel inflation - not in the national interest and harmful to many millions as the value of their savings (if any) are eroded and there's the danger of a wage-price spiral - and other changes may sap productivity (resulting in even more cost to your government, Tory or Labour), how does one get around these difficulties?

Liz Truss did more for inflation in a two week period than a 4% pay rise ever will. Given that drivers haven't had a rise in 5 years now, I think it's a bit rich to suggest that a pay rise along the lines of what RMT has already agreed would be a "large wage rise", "not in the national interest" or "harmful to millions".

 

[bramling]

Whilst I very much agree with those who view this government with contempt, I also wonder whether the time has not come for ASLEF members to consider whether their long-term interests are best served by the strategy of its union leadership?

I'm not taking sides, I can see both sides of the argument. However, this government doesn't care less - it believes the railway has received considerable amounts of subsidy in recent years, that drivers are not poorly paid, and that the public are indifferent to all of this, and even if they weren't, it knows it isn't going to win the election anyway. Nothing is going to change that view - the only way I see this being resolved quickly is for all-out action. There is no guarantee that an incoming Labour government - which will want to be seen to be financially prudent in the face of other financial demands and a dire government balance sheet - will meet ASLEF demands, at least not in full.

This drip, drip effect is achieving nothing except antagonising passengers, and it comes with a greater risk of lasting damage to the passenger railway. Unless ASLEF change tactics there is an ever-increasing likelihood that, when this is all over, its members will look back and wonder whether they have actually gained more than they have lost.

I can see the argument, certainly in my view the unions could be making more of a thing about just how much of a mess this government has made of every single thing they have touched. Often the unions come across as being “we want more money” when in reality the situation is a *lot* more complicated than that.

What doesn’t help is that the root cause of all this is the government should never have allowed the Covid response to drag on for as long as it did. But of course no one wants to admit that because of the amount of money it cost.

This government has also started up needless political battles over all this, look at the TFL situation for a prime example of that.

Then why is it everytime I mention I'm a train driver to someone I don't know the first thing they ask about is the industrial action? Despite what some on here think, this particular industrial action is very much in the public conciseness and if nothing else presents a feeling of the country being in chaos. This is why I can't really understand the Tory tactic of prolonging this as all its doing is harming the image of Britain, and causing upset for British citizens.

The reason is because the current government simply doesn’t give a stuff about British citizens. Any attempt to do that, or even appear to do so, disappeared long ago. In fact, I’d go further, and suggest the current government actually seems to be taking delight in screwing over as many people as possible.

 

[Snow1964]

The latter. The government wants it to be compulsory overtime.

Another concept that is virtually unique to the railway.

I can't think of any other industry where overtime is not optional, or simply not offered.

Everyone I know (outside railway) has a contract that basically says X days of Y hours per year, or variation of Z hours per year with shifts upto x hours etc.

The private sector doesn't do automatic annual pay rises, they can be few years apart when times are good.

 

[father_jack]

The latter. The government wants it to be compulsory overtime.

It's not the working on the Sunday that's the issue it's that the RDG "deal" offered to RMT for stations and onboard meant if you worked a Sunday by their way of operating you had only one day off every third week.

 

[Halwynd]

The fact that the ex colleague wasn't stuck during a strike but an overtime ban says it all. Even if we weren't striking she would have been inconvenienced. But I guess people think we aren't allowed days off and we should work them too . It's overtime and sometimes we would rather be with friends and family.

I'm not against you or your colleagues - I just believe the tactics are now wrong.

 

[baz962]

Most of the time, wouldn't you be able to arrange a swap with another employee (assuming fatigue and maximum number of days able to be worked regulations were complied with?)

Yes but not guaranteed

 

[Horizon22]

It’s not really, though, is it. It is on this forum, and in some other places, but I have lost count of the number of people both outside and inside the industry who have asked me if there are still strikes on. Outside of the industry, I think very few people know that it is drivers that are striking, nor what for.



It really, really doesn’t, in my opinion. Government is managing to do that itself on all sorts of fronts, of which this dispute barely registers.

I really don‘t see what ASLEF are trying to do here, other than somehow appear to be relevant (which they are not doing, IMHO), and lose their members money to convince them that they are owed something back.

Indeed, people often ask who is on strike and when and whether its ongoing. Many are confused but ultimately, unaffected - although it normally then turns into a conversation about how the government is leading to the country being "in chaos" across the board!

Indeed they have......so bearing in mind that some of those are Labour controlled authorities, you would think that an incoming Labour government would actually be party to settling this dispute

Any comptent government would want to settle the dispute, from all parties.

It of course requires compromise and negotiation, from both sides to actually do so. I'm not inclined to believe this will happen before a General Election, not that it will necessarily be that high on the incoming (likely Labour) government's agenda, but it will certainly be there.

 

[21C101]

On Thamesljnk its sometimes difficult to work out whether its a strike/overtime ban or just the usual collapse for a variety of reasons

 

[infobleep]

I'm not really sure how drivers can be much more productive. Modernisation and reform is a total misnomer. When I drive a busy Plymouth to London train, my "fee" is say 150 quid. On that train is 20k worth of revenue. Yes, modernisation and reform is needed, but not from the driving (or other staff) grades.


There is a massive perception that if you book a weekend break to xyz that you may end up being caught out. On this occasion it is workers being targeted, but next time it may be a bank holiday or weekend. It's all about perception. As long as it is perceived there is a chance strikes may disrupt your plans, people are less likely to make those plans in the first place.

I must admit, for booking tickets to the theatre in London, some months in advance, at times I have booked on Sundays as almost zero chance of to a strike that day.

Sometimes that isn't possible and a chance is taken. I missed a theatre show in Janaury and lost £13. It was a preview show.

I accept that loss because I support the strikes.

 

[father_jack]

On Thamesljnk its sometimes difficult to work out whether its a strike/overtime ban or just the usual collapse for a variety of reasons

Or Avanti or Northern or SWR or GWR................

 

[infobleep]

This scenario must be a very, very small number of people. Your employer can either get you a taxi, or replace you with somebody who can get to the polling station.

They can indeed get me a taxi but at a cost. I'm not sure who pays for such costs. Central government or the local authority. Some costs such as hall hire are paid by the local authority but wages are paid by central government. I once had to get a taxi due to torrential rain.

Replacing me might be slightly harder as I am a presiding officer and there isn't a large pool of people hanging around just in case we can't come in. A number of people would drive of course, just that I don't.

Or Avanti or Northern or SWR or GWR................

I don't consider GWR to be that bad, except at weekends where they have a habit on Sundays of not running trains to Gatick Airport and terminating them at Redhill for logistical reasons. Of course I'm only using thr North Downs Line.

Again I haven't had so many issues with South Western Railway but it may be worse elsewhere.

GTR definitely has had issues with staff shortages.

 

[dk1]

I don't GWR to be that bad, except at weekends where they have a habit on Sundays of not running trains to Gatick Airport and terminating them at Redhill for logistical reasons. Of course I'm only using thr North Downs Line.

Again I haven't had so many issues with South Western Railway but it may be worse elsewhere.

GTR definitely has had issues with staff shortages.

To be fair I too have had few problems when travelling weekends with GWR or SWR.

 

[infobleep]

Another concept that is virtually unique to the railway.

I can't think of any other industry where overtime is not optional, or simply not offered.

Everyone I know (outside railway) has a contract that basically says X days of Y hours per year, or variation of Z hours per year with shifts upto x hours etc.

The private sector doesn't do automatic annual pay rises, they can be few years apart when times are good.

Do you work in a sector where they can decide your shifts 7 days in advance and this can be any hour of the day or night?

In fact what sectors out there offer thus kind of working?

 

[Carlisle]

Indeed, people often ask who is on strike and when and whether it’s ongoing. Many are confused

A sizeable proportion must be wondering why government introduced a minimum service law they’re essentially unable to implement.
Ultimately it’ll only reflect badly on government If strikes continue without a settlement or minimum service.

 

[dk1]

A sizeable proportion must be wondering why government introduced a minimum service law they’re essentially unable to implement.
Ultimately it’ll only reflect badly on the government If strikes continue without a settlement or minimum service.

Just about sums this governmental joke up really.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes I agree

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just trying hard to play devil's advocate. I think you know as well as I do that the strikes are having an impact on growth and the economy, even if it doesn't directly affect every single citizen.

Right on two counts, 1) yes i am playing Devil’s advocate, and 2) you were right with the doubt.

From the numbers I have seen (and linked to upthread) the strikes are not having a material impact on growth or the economy on a national or regional level.

For the avoidance of doubt I am vehemently not anti union or anti drivers. I want that to be clear.

However it is simply not the case that the strikes are in any material way damaging the economy. As the document i linked to shows, theleisure and hospitality industry is actually doing rather well.

The strikes are, however, damaging the rail industry, and in a small way damaging the Government (in the same way as someone smashing a porthole damaged the Titanic), but they are not affecting the economy. Obviously ASLEF will want you to think it is, and want to spread that message. But that doesn‘t make it true.

When ASLEF have these rolling strikes, it doesn’t affect the nearly half of all passengers who don’t use the affected TOCs. Of the other slightly more than half of passengers that are affected (for one day):

1) Some will reschedule their travel to another day
2) Some will use a different train operator that is not on strike
3) Some will use the reduced services of the operators that are on strike
4) Some will use a different mode to get to where they planned to get
5) Some will do what they were planning to do somewhere else (work from home, or go out locally rather than travel, for example)
6) Some will not travel at all, and not reschedule / reorient their plans.

It is only those in (6) that cause a loss to the economy. And it is a very small proportion of the total.

 

[Goldfish62]

Again I haven't had so many issues with South Western Railway but it may be worse elsewhere.

Last time round on overtime ban days SWR was only running a 50% service level outside the peaks, with last trains being an hour or so earlier.

I find it hard to believe that SWR have this much reliance on overtime.

 

[dk1]

Last time round on overtime ban days SWR was only running a 50% service level outside the peaks, with last trains being an hour or so earlier.

I find it hard to believe that SWR have this much reliance on overtime.

I suppose it depends on good will and off roster too. There will be absolutely no assisting in helping out from any driver even if it means moving as little as 1 minute.

We tend to have plenty of spare on ASOS days as the train planners appear to be terrified of biting off more than they can chew.

 

[irish_rail]

Right on two counts, 1) yes i am playing Devil’s advocate, and 2) you were right with the doubt.

From the numbers I have seen (and linked to upthread) the strikes are not having a material impact on growth or the economy on a national or regional level.

For the avoidance of doubt I am vehemently not anti union or anti drivers. I want that to be clear.

However it is simply not the case that the strikes are in any material way damaging the economy. As the document i linked to shows, theleisure and hospitality industry is actually doing rather well.

The strikes are, however, damaging the rail industry, and in a small way damaging the Government (in the same way as someone smashing a porthole damaged the Titanic), but they are not affecting the economy. Obviously ASLEF will want you to think it is, and want to spread that message. But that doesn‘t make it true.

When ASLEF have these rolling strikes, it doesn’t affect the nearly half of all passengers who don’t use the affected TOCs. Of the other slightly more than half of passengers that are affected (for one day):

1) Some will reschedule their travel to another day
2) Some will use a different train operator that is not on strike
3) Some will use the reduced services of the operators that are on strike
4) Some will use a different mode to get to where they planned to get
5) Some will do what they were planning to do somewhere else (work from home, or go out locally rather than travel, for example)
6) Some will not travel at all, and not reschedule / reorient their plans.

It is only those in (6) that cause a loss to the economy. And it is a very small proportion of the total.

But what you are ignoring is where we would be where the strikes not to be happening. Leisure, travel, hospitality would all be doing even better. Maybe we wouldn't have just been in a recession. Just because Leisure is keeping its head above the water and doing OK, it would probably be doing much better if the strikes where officially ended tomorrow.

 

[ComUtoR]

Rail strikes cost UK £1bn and settling would have been cheaper, minister admits

Huw Merriman insists the need for reform to working practices made the standoff necessary

www.theguardian.com

Rail strikes cost UK £1bn and settling would have been cheaper, minister admits​

Merriman said strikes cost the UK rail industry £25m on a weekday and £15m a day at the weekend, and cited a study saying that the cost of strikes to the wider economy from June to December was £700m.

The committee member and Labour MP Ben Bradshaw asked whether the cost “of over a billion so far … would easily be enough money to have solved this dispute months ago, wouldn’t it?”

Merriman replied: “If you look at it in that particular lens, then absolutely, it’s actually ended up costing more than would have been the case if it was just settled.”

Industrial action on railways cost sector £620 million in past year – figures

The Rail Delivery Group said the strikes threatened the industry’s ‘long-term sustainability’.

www.independent.co.uk

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) said that since the first RMT strike in June 2022, industrial action had cost the sector around £620 million.

A statement said: “This has stalled its post-pandemic recovery and threatens its long-term sustainability, pushing the industry in to a spiral decline and risking consequences like cuts to services to make up the shortfall. Revenue levels are still 30% below pre-pandemic levels.

“The strikes have hit the wider economy – particularly sectors still recovering from the impact of the pandemic which employ hundreds of thousands of people.

“Analysis by Hospitality UK shows that with the upcoming rail strikes set to cost hospitality £132 million in sales, the cumulative impact of the rail strikes is £3.25 billion.

I would be interested to see more up to date figures but to say that this isn't hurting the economy is pretty disingenuous.

 

[Goldfish62]

I suppose it depends on good will and off roster too. There will be absolutely no assisting in helping out from any driver even if it means moving as little as 1 minute.

We tend to have plenty of spare on ASOS days as the train planners appear to be terrified of biting off more than they can chew.

Thanks - that makes sense.

Rail strikes cost UK £1bn and settling would have been cheaper, minister admits

Huw Merriman insists the need for reform to working practices made the standoff necessary

www.theguardian.com

Industrial action on railways cost sector £620 million in past year – figures

The Rail Delivery Group said the strikes threatened the industry’s ‘long-term sustainability’.

www.independent.co.uk

I would be interested to see more up to date figures but to say that this isn't hurting the economy is pretty disingenuous.

But I suppose the longer it goes on the government's thinking is that as people adapt and move to other modes the impact reduces.