I worked as a guard at Kings Cross until DOO was introduced and I can guarantee that there were a number of incidents which never made their way to the news because British Rail actively hushed them up. In the more extreme cases the staff would be offered the option to resign instead of being taken to court. These are probably rarer in these days of mass information. As a passenger (sorry customer) you only see the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what actually happens on the railways.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Government minimum levels of service laws
- Thread starter Snapper37
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How can a union be liable for the health of its members?
Re your last sentence it's rather harder if the trainers have themselves been fired....
Looking at all... this... I think I'm better off without it thanks.
Prove it!
weeklycommuter
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 226
The Government should abandon this very silly proposal and make a proper pay offer to train drivers to end their industrial action. If the railway industry is to recruit and retain staff the Government and the railway industry have to be realistic about pay.
If a huge number of people suddenly became ill on the day of a strike but were fine the day before / after, it would be absurd to suggest this was down to the "health" of the members!
We've been through this before; as a one-off, yes individual staff could get away with doing this on one day (even if it was obvious what was going on due to mass "sickness" levels on the strike day).
But if the actions occurred repeatedly...
There seems to be plenty of interest whenever the industry is recruiting for drivers; are you suggesting there is a shortage of applicants?
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,261
When I last looked today's ASLEF strike involved a majority of private sector employees.
Also on strike this week have been bus drivers at Abellio - a private sector company.
Workers at Rolls Royce have just settled after a lengthy period of industrial action. Rolls Royce is a private company.
Workers at Veolia are currently taking strike action. Veolia is a private company.
Then of course there's Royal Mail.
I could go on with a very long list, but hopefully you get the point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which GPs will refuse to do for a short-term absence without a fee being paid.... If the employer wants it they can pay!
O L Leigh
Established Member
Well, that's your choice. If you feel that you have no need of one, then that's great!! Clearly you have a very good relationship with your employer. Long may that continue.
I'm sure that case would be entertaining in Court.... Me learned friends would have a field day.....
Andrew1395
Member
The majority of rail staff are employed by private companies not public corporations. pay awards in the private sector have out striped public sector pay rises by a significant amount since 2010. So maybe in many private sector businesses, employees are not motivated to strike. Different of course for workers in the gig economy. Interesting though that Uber drivers in the UK and USA have used strike action to improve their pay and terms and conditions.
For this discussion, I am not sure how a minimum service obligation would be planned and delivered. The industry was unable to cope when strikes were called off with a weeks notice. Probably on off strikes would create as much chaos as a week long walk out.
For this discussion, I am not sure how a minimum service obligation would be planned and delivered. The industry was unable to cope when strikes were called off with a weeks notice. Probably on off strikes would create as much chaos as a week long walk out.
irish_rail
On Moderation
Very sensible post. If the government weren't being so pig headed this would have been sorted months ago. 4 years of zero payrise is completely unrealistic and any proper government would accept that and act.
How many others countries, even the US, allow employers to sue unions for going on strike? You only address part of the issue whereas Nowak is talking about the proposals in the round.....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.
The article says employers could sue if the minimum service level is not provided.
I do not know how this is enforced in other countries where minimum service level needs to be provided. Do you know of any examples of where the minimum service level was not provided and what happens in those countries in such situations?
It's still the case that the majority of workers are not members of any union and will never strike.
Well, that's your choice. If you feel that you have no need of one, then that's great!! Clearly you have a very good relationship with your employer. Long may that continue.
Well I haven't always but then I have left them to find some other mug to work for them, not drag their customers into my dispute.
O L Leigh
Established Member
It is also the case that many are content with their lot no matter how shoddily they are treated. It's because of this that we've seen the rise of the gig economy and erosion of pension rights in other industries. There is a prevailing view among a lot of workers that they simply have to accept whatever their employer does and that they don't have any right to negotiate.
Help me out here. Since British Rail ceased to exist 27 years ago and the train operating companies are largely owned by foreign private companies how does the government go about making a "proper pay offer" to the employees of those companies ? I really want to know.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Because they are currently the ones footing the bill, having taken on the financial risk of running the railways during the pandemic.
Lewisham2221
Established Member
I'd be interested to see stats to back that up...
Maybe some people quite enjoy the job they do, and rather than have the hassle of finding another job would rather a coordinated effort of telling their employer that their latest idea/pay offer/whatever is downright ridiculous/insulting and that they deserve better
Maybe so, but this legislation isn’t just relevant to this dispute, but rather all future disputes. (Which will also happen under any other government as unions rightly push for the most they can get for their members).
I don’t agree that having any number of days of zero service (as part of typical negotiations between employees and employers) is any way to run a railway, which is an essential service.
In many ways it would be better to implement this policy when there wasn’t an ongoing industrial dispute it could be connected to; however during calmer times the threat of their introduction would likely cause strike action. Whereas now, the government has little to lose.
The most recent statistical bulletin intimates that 23.1% of UK employees are members of a union.
UK trade union density 2022 | Statista
The share of employees that were members of a trade union in the United Kingdom in 2022 was 22.3 percent, a decline when compared with the previous year when around 23.1 percent of employees were trade union members.
www.statista.com
I mean, do you think that is what is actually being achieved here? Seems like everyone involved is just losing time and money to me.
BrummieBobby
Member
Cannot comment on drivers, as I have only ever been a signaller, but I sign 3 boxes as a signaller. It took me around 9 months to become competent to work these boxes alone, following Initial Signaller Training (c3 months) followed by location specific training at the 3 locations.
Some will take longer than that; a shortage of trainers delays the process still further. This is assuming that the applicant is suitable for the position, doesn't fail the initial training (Best case scenario they get another go, worst case they are released and the recruitment process starts again from square 1) can hack the job in the real world (very different from the class room) and don't want to leave after a year (Which I have seen several times for a variety of reasons)
The government can have as many applicants for drivers, bobbies, guards etc. as they like; they take time to train to become anything close to productive.
My TOC plans 2yrs for a new Driver.
Failure rates are notoriously high for the psychometrics alone.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
That bill is being withdrawn to be replaced by a new bill so they are back to square one needing to get govt time to process the bill. If the Lords don't like it (even the Torys ones are half sensible) this would drag on for sometime so highly probable they won't get it through this session.
Let’s get one thing straight here: in the UK there is no positive ‘right to strike’.
The starting point is that if an employee takes industrial action by withdrawing his labour then he will generally be in breach of contract at common law.
If that breach of contract was procured by a trade union then, again at common law, that union can be pursued by the employer in tort/delict for the damage caused.
The strike laws do no more than provide limited statutory defences to an action brought by the employer (whether for breach of contract or in tort/delict) if the various statutory conditions are satisfied (balloting, notice and so forth).
In essence, this ‘minimum service level’ proposal would amend the conditions of the statutory defences i.e. if they are not complied with then the bar on the employer seeking to recover damages or some other remedy falls away.
Lewisham2221
Established Member
Thanks, I was just curious as to the actual figures. Worth noting that 23%, whilst clearly not a majority, also isn't an insignificant number, either.UK trade union density 2022 | Statista
The share of employees that were members of a trade union in the United Kingdom in 2022 was 22.3 percent, a decline when compared with the previous year when around 23.1 percent of employees were trade union members.
Maybe they are. In any dispute that is primarily related to pay, there will naturally come a point where striking workers stand to lose more than they could ever hope to gain, financially at least.
However, looking at the wider picture and going back to an earlier point, are you suggesting that, say, all of the ambulance staff who are striking over pay should simply quit and go an find other jobs? And all of the nurses? And what about all of the junior doctors who were striking a few years back?
bramling
Veteran Member
I suspect things will go one of two ways.
Either, at some point, this government are going to have to face the reality that in just over a year’s time that are going to have to go begging to the people for votes. Even if they write-off winning the next election they would, presumably, still want to maximise the number of seats held. A drubbing in local elections is pretty much guaranteed in the meantime as well, which may well further serve to focus minds.
The other scenario of course is that Sunak is *so* lacking self-awareness, and the party as a whole has so far slipped into the arrogant Johnson “I am immortal, people should worship me” mentality that they *actually* think they have a chance of winning the next election with all this nonsense.
Perhaps the second of those really is true, especially with the writing already being on the wall with the various recent by-election results, but *surely* the men in grey suits are still there to enforce sense? Then again perhaps not.
One thing which I think is often underestimated is just how much people are furious with this government, not just over the immediate issue of the strikes, but really their whole conduct through the whole Covid response, especially those who didn’t benefit from stuff like furlough. The whole partygate affair is simply the cherry on a very big cake. There’s plenty of people I know who will quite happily go on strike simply to stick a finger up at this government, regardless of how pragmatic that might be.
If I had a pound for every person I’ve heard recently who is normally a fairly rock-solid Conservative voter who is now actively looking forward to having the opportunity to vote Labour.
The pandemic is over. Are you saying the government are actually paying wages to the drivers who work for private companies ? That's a new one to me.
- Status