Government minimum levels of service laws

[O L Leigh]

They are frequent enough to cause people to need a car nowadays. I used to be a huge advocate of trains but now I believe we need to put as much pressure as possible on the rail industry by using cars even when trains are running, so that we send a signal that we will not tolerate strikes any more. We need to kill the union argument that strikes don't matter because people will return to the trains anyway.

At the moment, perhaps. However, expect at least two weeks of whatever the Government allows us to run "normally", as I don't believe any further dates have been named and there has to be two weeks notice given of any strike action taking place, during which time you can blame the DfT for the parlous state of the service.

 

[ar10642]

Last time I checked, the strikes were not running 24/7/365. I'm fairly sure that I've been out driving trains virtually every day.

The combination of strikes, overtime bans and lack of RDW agreements has left rail virtually unusable in parts of the country. There are no trains at all for the most of this week from my closest station. You cannot rely on it at present without some sort of backup plan (e.g. a car).

 

[Egg Centric]

That doesn't sound terribly sensible either. Unions are far busier dealing with issues relating to job roles and other matters pertaining to our day-to-day work than they are with negotiating pay, and achieve an awful lot more than is visible from outside the industry.

But is it legitimately their business?

Without the unions we would undoubtedly be DOO almost everywhere, we'd have almost all ticket offices shut, etc. Those seem like legitimate business goals.

There's two ways this can be "fought":

1. Oppose DOO/ticket office closures on grounds of safety etc
2. Accept them as legitimate management decisions but work to ensure that no current guard / ticket seller is financially disadvantaged, has to work longer hours, etc

Both are currently fine but if we're going to have a more dynamic railway responsive to customer needs and less strikey then restricting to (2) seems reasonable to me.

That wouldn't preculde a union from making recommendations/advocating for its members/etc

 

[O L Leigh]

The combination of strikes, overtime bans and lack of RDW agreements has left rail virtually unusable in parts of the country. There are no trains at all for the most of this week from my closest station. You cannot rely on it at present without some sort of backup plan (e.g. a car).

A lot of my colleagues would happily work overtime if only we could get the necessary agreement. I'm not suggesting that you personally are doing this, but the current state of the railway cannot wholly be blamed on recalcitrant staff.

 

[johncrossley]

The combination of strikes, overtime bans and lack of RDW agreements has left rail virtually unusable in parts of the country. There are no trains at all for the most of this week from my closest station. You cannot rely on it at present without some sort of backup plan (e.g. a car).

Yes, and the most important rail route in the country has been closed for months!

 

[O L Leigh]

But is it legitimately their business?

Without the unions we would undoubtedly be DOO almost everywhere, we'd have almost all ticket offices shut, etc. Those seem like legitimate business goals.

There's two ways this can be "fought":

1. Oppose DOO/ticket office closures on grounds of safety etc
2. Accept them as legitimate management decisions but work to ensure that no current guard / ticket seller is financially disadvantaged, has to work longer hours, etc

Both are currently fine but if we're going to have a more dynamic railway responsive to customer needs and less strikey then restricting to (2) seems reasonable to me.

That wouldn't preculde a union from making recommendations/advocating for its members/etc

Yes of course it's their legitimate business. The unions are merely the staff, organised to represent their interests, and job security and terms of service are entirely matters of concern for them.

 

[Watershed]

It's interesting that you now look to Italy for anti-strike laws, and seem in support of them, do you not see that in removing peoples freedom similar to the many and varying Covid laws?

I suppose it's a matter of perspective as to what constitutes a freedom. If people were being literally forced to go to work then I would have said this would constitute a breach of fundamental freedoms.

But that's not the case; this legislation isn't proposing to remove the right for people to leave their employers without undue penalties or notice periods. In my view, that's as far as the human right to withdraw labour extends.

The right to continued employment despite striking is unusual in several respects, and is not a human right in my view. It is an interference with the employer's right to make or terminate contractual relationships, and that interference needs to be justified.

I'm genuinely curious as to were you stand on the political spectrum, I always had you down as someone relatively liberal, but since Covid you seem quite selective when it comes to freedom and consent of the governed.

You can't simply divide the political spectrum by left or right. There is at least one other axis, namely authoritarian versus liberal. Most of the political disagreements in recent years have been along this axis.

In my view, restricting someone's right to leave their home or enter countries is a far more authoritarian restriction than limiting the circumstances in which strikes are afforded protection.

Sorry, but you don't revert to the default of being open to action as a consequence of being AWOL. Taking part in legal industrial action provides you with protection from dismissal. This is not something that is done "with impunity" but rather in a very narrow legally defined set of circumstances. Being fired because you fail to comply with an MSL invoked as a consequence of taking legal industrial action is an infringement of a person's rights.

Not that I think it will come to this. When (if) the legislation is passed, the unions will be looking closely at it and seeing how best they can circumvent it's requirements. How workers take industrial action will change.

But if you fall into those narrowly defined set of circumstances - which the more activist of the rail unions have little difficulty in achieving here - then it is done with impunity.

I don't see that there is a human right to continued employment notwithstanding the fact that you're deliberately harming your employer's business, but that is obviously a matter of perspective.

I think the unions would be very foolhardy to try and circumvent the legislation, much as they might threaten to do so. No doubt there might be individual examples where this happens, but the broad effect of the legislation will merely be to ensure that everywhere receives some service rather than the unequal mixed bag that's currently seen.

Perhaps you can then understand how the government imposing restrictions and legislation during Covid removing peoples freedom of movement, could be compared to the government passing legislation which removes the right of workers to peacefully withdraw there labor in protest?

I don't think these two things can be remotely compared. As I've said before, the government isn't removing the right to withdraw labour, it's restricting the circumstances in which that withdrawal is afforded protection from the consequences which would normally follow from doing so. I don't see that there is any inherent right to withdraw labour without consequences.

A number of European countries have a minimum service level requirement in place during industrial action. However none of them enforce it as it as proved unworkable in all formats. If they are basing this plan on that model, it will be unworkable in this country, especially with a much more fragmented railway.

I'm sure there may be individual examples of minimum service levels not being enforced, but in my experience they generally are. I have travelled around numerous other countries during strikes. In most cases there was a reasonable, albeit limited, strike timetable that could be relied upon - and even viewed in advance, to see if a train was guaranteed to run in the event of a strike.

 

[yorkie]

Without the unions we would undoubtedly be DOO almost everywhere, we'd have almost all ticket offices shut, etc. Those seem like legitimate business goals.

There's two ways this can be "fought":

1. Oppose DOO/ticket office closures on grounds of safety etc

This isn't really an argument for this thread, but the average passenger would probably feel safer on a Scotrail DOO train (with a highly visible staff presence, second to none anywhere I've experienced in the UK) than an evening TPE train or an SWR inner suburban etc etc with a Guard who isn't seen.

2. Accept them as legitimate management decisions but work to ensure that no current guard / ticket seller is financially disadvantaged, has to work longer hours, etc

I believe that the pay of Guards who got converted to OBS roles when many Southern routes went DOO was indeed protected. The RMT still objected, so your plan isn't workable on that basis.

 

[ComUtoR]

But is it legitimately their business?

Without the unions we would undoubtedly be DOO almost everywhere, we'd have almost all ticket offices shut, etc. Those seem like legitimate business goals.

There's two ways this can be "fought":

1. Oppose DOO/ticket office closures on grounds of safety etc

Or go for a compromise and agree to DCO as a minimum.

 

[O L Leigh]

But if you fall into those narrowly defined set of circumstances - which the more activist of the rail unions have little difficulty in achieving here - then it is done with impunity.

For clarity, I think you mean outside the defined circumstances.

Yes, obviously if you withdraw your labour under circumstances other than those of legal industrial action then your employer can deal with you as per their disciplinary processes. However, if you are taking part in legal industrial action you are protected by law from action being taken against you.

I don't see that there is a human right to continued employment notwithstanding the fact that you're deliberately harming your employer's business, but that is obviously a matter of perspective.

I didn't say "human right", I simply said "right", by which I mean something that is set down in law.

 

[choochoochoo]

So how will MSL deal with depot specific work and route and traction knowledge limitations.

If it's up to the union which of their members comes into work MSL, could they just select all members who drive limited specific routes or traction ? As I understand it, it's the TOCs responsibility to ensure their staff are adequately trained to do the job not the union's.

 

[Egg Centric]

Yes of course it's their legitimate business. The unions are merely the staff, organised to represent their interests, and job security and terms of service are entirely matters of concern for them.

I have sympathy. That describes the current situation because there is an absolute right to strike for any reason at all, really. And look where we are - an untenable situation. Something has to give.

If we continue on the current path then we're just going to end up with Serpell.

If we go down Sunak's plan, we end up with indentured servitude.

If you accept the above (and you may not) then my plan is a better compromise more in touch with reality and how the rest of the world works, imo. It gets rid of 90% of the "nuisance" factor of unions (getting in the way of employers) while retaining 90% of their utility (standing up against incompetent/sometimes malicious management).

It recognises that it is up to management to determine the strategic direction of the business.

It recognises that the future tends towards automation and less staff.

It recognises that rail staff are human beings, often well paid and unable to find better jobs elsewhere and who had legitimate expectations of "jobs for life".

It recognises that collective bargaining for pay and conditions can be the best way forward in "standardised" jobs

 

[the sniper]

So how will MSL deal with depot specific work and route and traction knowledge limitations.

If it's up to the union which of their members comes into work MSL, could they just select all members who drive limited specific routes or traction ? As I understand it, it's the TOCs responsibility to ensure their staff are adequately trained to do the job not the union's.

Do you think they've given it that much thought? Did they figure out what GBR is yet?

 

[irish_rail]

In my opinion there is zero chance of this law actually jumping all the necessary hurdles to become actual law and so I'd be shocked if the Tories get this through the Lords etc before the next General election. Thankfully, there are plenty who are a little more open minded and tolerant than the Tory party who stand in the way of this disgraceful idea. Id be absolutely shocked if it ever sees the light of day and is being done to attempt to appease the Tories "Gammon" Mail reading supporters and desperately try and claw back some lost ground. My advice to Sunak, give up, the game is up. Give us an election and let the country decide what and who it wants ( it probably won't be him either ).

 

[yorkie]

In my opinion there is zero chance of this law actually jumping all the necessary hurdles to become actual law and so I'd be shocked if the Tories get this through the Lords etc before the next General election. Thankfully, there are plenty who are a little more open minded and tolerant than the Tory party who stand in the way of this disgraceful idea. Id be absolutely shocked if it ever sees the light of day and is being done to attempt to appease the Tories "Gammon" Mail reading supporters and desperately try and claw back some lost ground. My advice to Sunak, give up, the game is up. Give us an election and let the country decide what and who it wants ( it probably won't be him either ).

How is having a law that is in place, and works, in various other countries (such as Italy) a "disgraceful idea"?

 

[Watershed]

For clarity, I think you mean outside the defined circumstances.

No, I do mean within those circumstances.

Yes, obviously if you withdraw your labour under circumstances other than those of legal industrial action then your employer can deal with you as per their disciplinary processes. However, if you are taking part in legal industrial action you are protected by law from action being taken against you

I don't think there's any disagreement on this. What I'm saying is that, as much as the circumstances of a lawful strike might be argued to be narrow, when those circumstances apply, it's something done with impunity.

That is quite exceptional and it is therefore only reasonable that this impunity is subject to limitations. I don't see that the limitations proposed by this legislation are inherently unreasonable; they provide for a dispassionate third party to ultimately decide any dispute as to what the minimum service level should be.

I didn't say "human right", I simply said "right", by which I mean something that is set down in law.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Either way my point remains unchanged; nobody is owed or guaranteed continued employment without preconditions when they try to ruin their employer's business.

So how will MSL deal with depot specific work and route and traction knowledge limitations.

If it's up to the union which of their members comes into work MSL, could they just select all members who drive limited specific routes or traction ? As I understand it, it's the TOCs responsibility to ensure their staff are adequately trained to do the job not the union's.

It will be up to employers to tell unions which staff will be required to fulfil the minimum service level.

Bear in mind that just because a minimum level of service is being provided, doesn't necessarily been that few people will be needed. For instance, every signal box (that can't be switched out) will need to be staffed if every route is to have services. I could certainly imagine a situation where the minimum service effectively means that some people will be called in just to work one train for the morning or evening peak.

In some ways this is arguably of benefit for members, because many of them will be paid in full to do less than a normal day's work, with the minimum service level still causing considerable inconvenience to the public and thus being effective.

 

[TAS]

So how will MSL deal with depot specific work and route and traction knowledge limitations.

If it's up to the union which of their members comes into work MSL, could they just select all members who drive limited specific routes or traction ? As I understand it, it's the TOCs responsibility to ensure their staff are adequately trained to do the job not the union's.

Assuming the process is the same as in the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, it will be for the employer to issue a work notice identifying the persons required.

 

[Guard86]

This isn't really an argument for this thread, but the average passenger would probably feel safer on a Scotrail DOO train (with a highly visible staff presence, second to none anywhere I've experienced in the UK) than an evening TPE train or an SWR inner suburban etc etc with a Guard who isn't seen.


I believe that the pay of Guards who got converted to OBS roles when many Southern routes went DOO was indeed protected. The RMT still objected, so your plan isn't workable on that basis.

You've been lucky to have a SR DOO service that has had a "high visible staff presence". As to feeling safer.. ASB reports suggest otherwise. DOO trains still run about without that "guaranteed" second member of staff.

 

[Goldfish62]

Minimum service requirements already exist in some other countries, so I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't happen here.

But in those other countries, France for example, there is not the swathe of other anti-strike legislation in place. No ballots, no thresholds, no formal notice period.

The right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right in a democracy. You don't have to agree with any particular strike action to recognise that it's a fundamental right.

Trying to shut down that right, which is effectively what is being done by making it progressively harder and harder to strike, is profoundly undemocratic.

 

[yorkie]

You've been lucky to have a SR DOO service that has had a "high visible staff presence". As to feeling safer.. ASB reports suggest otherwise. DOO trains still run about without that "guaranteed" second member of staff.

My experiences are clearly very different to yours; I have been on plenty of other trains with no visible staff presence but on Scotrail Strathclyde electrics the staff presence has consistently been second-to-none but this has been debated in other threads and clearly you are going to take a different view, so will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

But in those other countries, France for example, there is not the swathe of other anti-strike legislation in place. No ballots, no thresholds, no formal notice period.

That doesn't mean we can't have a sensible set of legislation here.

The right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right in a democracy. You don't have to agree with any particular strike action to recognise that it's a fundamental right.

Trying to shut down that right, which is effectively what is being done by making it progressively harder and harder to strike, is profoundly undemocratic.

Countries like Italy are not democracies?

 

[irish_rail]

How is having a law that is in place, and works, in various other countries (such as Italy) a "disgraceful idea"?

If you look at some of the laws and setups in Italy you'd see it isn't exactly a shining example of a way to run a country (beautiful and cultured though it is).

 

[Pinza-C55]

Which was happening many years before the pandemic. Fridays especially.

A very large number of people work in jobs which are incapable of being "done from home".

 

[yorkie]

If you look at some of the laws and setups in Italy you'd see it isn't exactly a shining example of a way to run a country (beautiful and cultured though it is).

No it isn't, but it's not unique to Italy and it works; I know because I've been there and seen it. I am not in any way suggesting that all laws in Italy are perfect. It's perfectly possible to point out that a particular policy or law works in one country without having to agree with every other law or policy in that country!

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think there's any disagreement on this. What I'm saying is that, as much as the circumstances of a lawful strike might be argued to be narrow, when those circumstances apply, it's something done with impunity.

That is quite exceptional and it is therefore only reasonable that this impunity is subject to limitations. I don't see that the limitations proposed by this legislation are inherently unreasonable; they provide for a dispassionate third party to ultimately decide any dispute as to what the minimum service level should be.

Right, I'm on the same page now. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes the "impunity" is subject to limitations, which are defined in law. Where things become unreasonable is where staff who have legally withdrawn their labour as a consequence of taking legal industrial action are required instead to work in order to protect their employer's interests under threat of penalties. This is contrary to the point of industrial action, which is to encourage the employer to come to a negotiated settlement. Although it is still unclear precisely how this will work, deciding how the MSL is to be met and who is to provide the staffing is unfair, because there will be those who are made to work against their wishes and receive pay for it while others are striking and making sacrifices.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Either way my point remains unchanged; nobody is owed or guaranteed continued employment without preconditions when they try to ruin their employer's business.

You keep mentioning "human rights", which are not the same thing as rights under law. While behaviour prejudicial to your employer's interests would indeed not be tolerated under normal circumstances, there are situations where they are permitted and, indeed, protected by the law. Lawful industrial action is just one situation.

 

[ar10642]

But in those other countries, France for example, there is not the swathe of other anti-strike legislation in place. No ballots, no thresholds, no formal notice period.

The right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right in a democracy. You don't have to agree with any particular strike action to recognise that it's a fundamental right.

Trying to shut down that right, which is effectively what is being done by making it progressively harder and harder to strike, is profoundly undemocratic.

Railway staff like to talk about this fundamental right to strike, but literally none of the jobs I have ever worked in have been unionised and striking was never an option. I'd guess this is the case for a majority of workers outside the public sector now.

 

[class68fan]

Minimum service requirements already exist in some other countries, so I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't happen here.

Employers could sue unions under planned anti-strike laws

Fire, ambulance and rail would have to provide minimum services in laws planned for later this year.

www.bbc.co.uk

People like Paul Nowak are insane; it is people like him who attack ordinary people.

The more I read such nonsense the more I am turned against the Unions.

Not insane. Do you want to live in a dicktatorship.

 

[yorkie]

Not insane. Do you want to live in a dictatorship.

Countries like Italy are dictatorships?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Railway staff like to talk about this fundamental right to strike, but literally none of the jobs I have ever worked in have been unionised and striking was never an option. I'd guess this is the case for a majority of workers outside the public sector now.

Just because nobody has bothered to set the ball rolling with regards joining a union/getting union recognition, doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental right. It just means it's a fundamental right which you have not exercised.

 

[Wolfie]

When you think about the rural areas, they will probably need 100% staff (when you talk about signallers) to provide any service. If you have 3 boxes on the line, you need 3 members of staff simple. But then what is a minimum service level? 1 train per day? 1 train per hour?

This legislation will go nowhere. I know the government has a large enough majority to bully it through. But I think the prospect of it getting passed before the next GE are slim.

I don't think the majority of the public are in favour of the legislation. Perhaps the legislation should also make mediation in such disputes mandatory rather then take Mr Shapps view of "I won't talk / listen to them, they can strike all they like).

I'm sure that the Lords, particularly the law lords, will have a view let alone the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that legislative delays and litigation will delay implementation sufficiently that Labour will be able to repeal it before it ever takes effect.

 

[O L Leigh]

Railway staff like to talk about this fundamental right to strike, but literally none of the jobs I have ever worked in have been unionised and striking was never an option. I'd guess this is the case for a majority of workers outside the public sector now.

That may indeed be the case. However, that does not mean that union representation is not available to you also.