ExRes
Established Member
Why the industry? the RMT are only one part of the industry
-
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!
Have the working from home arrangements put in for Covid rendered rail strikes ineffective?
- Thread starter Bertie the bus
- Start date
- Status
Why the industry? the RMT are only one part of the industry
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I love how the emphasis and vitriol is aimed at the RMT . But ASLEF , Unite and even reportedly TSSSA are either balloting or moving towards balloting their members over the lack of payrise as well .
At the end of the day the current situation of no payrise breaks decades of above inflation payrises in the industry . The unions aren't going to take that lying down.
Leisure travellers aren't just travelling on trains for the sake of it , they contribute to the economy in the places they travel to as well .
At the end of the day the current situation of no payrise breaks decades of above inflation payrises in the industry . The unions aren't going to take that lying down.
I think you are wrongly ignoring the economic damage that could be caused by strikes hitting leisure travel .
Leisure travellers aren't just travelling on trains for the sake of it , they contribute to the economy in the places they travel to as well .
Last edited:
The slightly unfortunate thing about the decreased effectiveness of strikes is that it they will continue to impact the lowest paid workers (who can’t work from home), as well as needing to be longer in order to compensate for their lower effectiveness. If it’s impossible to get in, eg due to a very wide ranging strike, many such workers will not be compensated. The optics of strikes harming the very poorest will not look good.
As for leisure travel, again due to WFH and the requirement to give notice, people can plan their travel around strikes. People will just stay longer where they’re visiting and return the day after, having worked a day.
As for leisure travel, again due to WFH and the requirement to give notice, people can plan their travel around strikes. People will just stay longer where they’re visiting and return the day after, having worked a day.
bramling
Veteran Member
What we needed was a concerted “back to 2019” push from the government. It’s for the same reason we now have this pseudo-normality where many shop windows still have Covid signage - Johnson let things drift last year, when we should have had a “keep calm and carry on” moment in July at the latest. Indeed things were compounded by the gross over-reaction over Omicron. All these issues trace back to Covid.
Falcon1200
Established Member
The element I chose has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with defending rail staff and improving their pay and conditions, it is a purely political viewpoint which I cannot believe is seriously held by many of the RMT's members, however that is the leadership the members (those who bother to vote) have elected. More importantly, it demonstrates beyond any doubt the RMT's attitude to the privatised rail companies, and perhaps provides an explanation for their actions.
Bishopstone
Established Member
I am already looking forward to re-booking virtually lots of far-flung meetings in my diary.
Good job not too many folk invested in annual season tickets earlier this year. We could mostly see this coming.
Good job not too many folk invested in annual season tickets earlier this year. We could mostly see this coming.
If it is then they are doing a great job.I thought it was to collect subs, pay officials and pick fights with the Tories?
They could not care less.
They can't legally call a strike over the Jubilee weekend, as the ballot result isn't until Tuesday, and they have to give 14 days notice.
I bet someone at RMT headquarters is kicking themself that they didn't start the ballot a week or two earlier
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,657
In terms of revenue, the strikes might well be more effective as I'm sure there are much fewer people now on annual season tickets, and they now tend to commute on day returns or weekly tickets. So the 'banked' ticket sales probably will be hit, plus the leisure travel.
But in terms of public support, the RMT will probably completely tank that if they go ahead with this now.
But in terms of public support, the RMT will probably completely tank that if they go ahead with this now.
I don't think that the RMT has ever had the general publics support.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,298
And nor should it. The RMT is only interested in its members (which to be fair is why it exists), so there's no reason why those affected by their actions should have anything but disdain.
But going back to the original question, the fact that so many could WFH during the pandemic does rather negate the strike action. As someone who was affected by the SWR strikes pre-Covid if strikes happen again I will take a very different approach and WFH, just as I have during the pandemic.
Sounds like Kevin Bridges! Self esteem Friday.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
Ultimately the Government will want to break the unions in preparation for massive staff cuts and universal DOO.
If the Unions want a fight, they will have one, and they will lose.
If the Unions want a fight, they will have one, and they will lose.
Wasn't it back in 1994 that the Signalmen had the broad support of the public ? we also have to bear in mind this is the first 'strike' since 1994 with such a big turn out and yes vote, so there has to have been something that lit the fuse !
IF the RMT wish disruption, then an overtime ban will be far more disruptive than a strike will ever be !
Not that i'm aware of.
Well it was not the support of the public.
What gives the RMT the right to order an overtime ban?
Last edited:
Flexible season tickets have probably contributed to that as well. After all if you can move you can change your days in the office, without getting a refund or reducing the number of journeys you make. Then a 48 strike on Tuesday and Wednesday might deliver more profitable services on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
Passenger numbers were lower then and freight movements were fewer. A national strike under British Rail at that time wasn't going to disrupt a large proportion of the population in one way or another. This time there's concern over the supply of food and other essentials.
A vote for action short of a strike?
I notice from the RMT's release they do have a vote for strike action at every balloted train operator (GTR staff voted against one), while they do have support for action short of a strike at every balloted train operator plus Network Rail.
I also note a 'national strike' would automatically exclude Merseyrail, Hull Trains, London Overground, Lumo, Grand Central, Transport for Wales, Caledonian Sleeper, Scotrail and possibly more.
Last edited:
Overground I believe are being balloted by ASLEF.
It is normally on the ballot form: Strike or action short of a strike, which is no rest day working and no extra Sundays worked
indeed , anecdotally I am currently noticing a split on wednesday with Mon-Wed being busiest with commuters and people assumadly opting to WFH Thursday and Friday .
There is also a decent volume of people (at my place at least) who do something along the lines of Thu & Fri and then the following Tue & Wed (or Wed / Thu / Mon / Tue), so they can use a weekly travelcard to cover two weeks of commuting. Works for 99% of the stakeholders involved, and halves peoples' financial outgoings. Flexible season tickets are crap value for money by way of comparison (whilst appreciating that they have to be priced the way they are to not undercut other ticketing schemes).
Looking at the original post, I'd say yes. Traditional strikes in many sectors are now less powerful than they once were.
This is drawing from my experience this year. I work in a university that has been participating in industrial action since January. This involved a number of days strike action between February - April and a marking boycott, which started on Monday. Today, I and other union members will be hearing the details of an offer our employer made to the union yesterday. Emails from both our Vice-Chancellor (head of university) and union officers yesterday spoke of common ground, positives and progress. This has happened within a week of the marking boycott starting, and is in stark contrast to the lack of movement during the initial industrial action.
My conclusion then is that yes, the mitigations and adaptations we put in place during covid-19 have weakened the power of traditional strike action. Our students are not phased to the same extent as they once were by late cancellations of lectures, by things that were once in-person becoming self-led readings, of in-person lectures being replaced by videoes, etc etc. Sure, there would become a point when that would be an issue, but that would involve a strike lasting for a number of days that would be difficult for most members to afford.
I'm pretty confident that the same will be true of many who travel by rail. Many will feel that homeworking is not as good as in-person working, but I think it's now universally accepted that it is "good enough" for short periods such as during a rail strike. People are coming out of 2 years of having to adapt to late changes and cancellations, of both work and leisure activities. Again, a long strike would be troubling, but how many union members will be able to afford the several weeks or months that this would entail? Unless the RMT has excellent strike pay, I doubt many.
By contrast when we moved to a different form of disruption - the marking boycott - settlements have started coming in from a number of employers (eg Durham and Loughborough unviersities both reached settlements last week). I don't know if ours will resolve in the next few days, but it has certainly come much closer than any time in the current dispute up till now. My conclusion would be that the RMT needs to find forms of industrial action that are not based on shutting the service down, but on forms of disruption which are difficult and irritating for the employer and ideally which impact on the employer before the customer.
This is drawing from my experience this year. I work in a university that has been participating in industrial action since January. This involved a number of days strike action between February - April and a marking boycott, which started on Monday. Today, I and other union members will be hearing the details of an offer our employer made to the union yesterday. Emails from both our Vice-Chancellor (head of university) and union officers yesterday spoke of common ground, positives and progress. This has happened within a week of the marking boycott starting, and is in stark contrast to the lack of movement during the initial industrial action.
My conclusion then is that yes, the mitigations and adaptations we put in place during covid-19 have weakened the power of traditional strike action. Our students are not phased to the same extent as they once were by late cancellations of lectures, by things that were once in-person becoming self-led readings, of in-person lectures being replaced by videoes, etc etc. Sure, there would become a point when that would be an issue, but that would involve a strike lasting for a number of days that would be difficult for most members to afford.
I'm pretty confident that the same will be true of many who travel by rail. Many will feel that homeworking is not as good as in-person working, but I think it's now universally accepted that it is "good enough" for short periods such as during a rail strike. People are coming out of 2 years of having to adapt to late changes and cancellations, of both work and leisure activities. Again, a long strike would be troubling, but how many union members will be able to afford the several weeks or months that this would entail? Unless the RMT has excellent strike pay, I doubt many.
By contrast when we moved to a different form of disruption - the marking boycott - settlements have started coming in from a number of employers (eg Durham and Loughborough unviersities both reached settlements last week). I don't know if ours will resolve in the next few days, but it has certainly come much closer than any time in the current dispute up till now. My conclusion would be that the RMT needs to find forms of industrial action that are not based on shutting the service down, but on forms of disruption which are difficult and irritating for the employer and ideally which impact on the employer before the customer.
If you understand that’s what its purpose is and why it exists, why on Earth should it be regarded with disdain? Why should the disdain not be directed at those supposed to represent the passengers - ie the employers (and behind them the government) - whose actions have prompted the union’s members to take action that will cost them all a lot of money.
I think you’re also assuming everyone else has the same almighty chip on their shoulders about railway workers that you do. I can remember you openly stating on here that you wanted to see them furloughed, wanted to see their Ts and Cs smashed over the pandemic. What a lovely attitude.
One can only question what is driving that level of dislike. It can’t be healthy…
Last edited:
Pre-COVID I always found Friday trains busiest in the evening, as people started to used trains to go out for the evening before regular commuters had got home.
Why would it be unhealthy then?
- Status