Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[Krokodil]

"Granny was left waiting for an ambulance for 18 hours..." "The railway grinds to a halt..."

You don't need a strike for either of those things to happen.

 

[Thirteen]

Labour have always been in that tricky balance of being pro union but not giving them too much power because history has not been on their side when things go wrong.

I think instead of saying repealing the anti strike unions, perhaps Labour should be saying reforming the laws so that there is something that works for both sides.

 

[Facing Back]

Labour have always been in that tricky balance of being pro union but not giving them too much power because history has not been on their side when things go wrong.

I think instead of saying repealing the anti strike unions, perhaps Labour should be saying reforming the laws so that there is something that works for both sides.

I take your point - but what could possibly work for both sides? Especially in this dispute which is as polar as it gets and trust between both sides appears to be close to zero.

The public presentation of the negotiation is completely adversarial - I hope that reasonable conversations go on behind closed doors, but when both side have genuine and mutually exclusive red lines, compromise is hard to find and the muscularity tends to escalate until one side caves.

You have just presented a very confused opinion. On the one hand you want the trains to remain, but you are not prepared to support them and choose to use Uber instead. You hate buses and want trains to be busy but you would rather use private taxis. I bet you wish Uber did helicopters so you could follow Rishi Sunak even more closely.

Good on you.

For me, I really struggle to understand the policy and how ASLEF theoretically would have to implement it. At the moment they are receiving approx 90% support (of voter turnout) to have a mandate to call members out on strike ie lose pay. The way I understand it ASLEF are going to have to go to certain members and instruct them to ignore the strike they have balloted for and agreed to forego their salary, in order to go to work and earn money, whilst going against their own preference. Or actually, would Aslef try to get those 10%ers who didn't vote for the strikes, to go in and cover the work ?

Confusing

You are quite right. I am confused.

On the one hand I like the railways, like to travel by train, see their invaluable role in the cases I mentioned and wish that they were better.

On the other hand, if my travel is time sensitive, which lots of travel is, then if I can't rely on them then I wont. I can't book my work life around irregular trains. When I simply enjoying a journey when it doesn't matter a jot when I arrive then I'll take the train. If the service is regular and reliable then I will too for work - but when Avanti imploded then we arranged cars to take us to and from London (from Manchester). This turned out to be cheaper, more convenient and more reliable than the train - and point to point often faster. Traffic is obviously the caveat to the reliability but this was at the time when 2 trains in 3 were cancelled.

As I understand it, ASLEF are not particularly involved in how to implement it - that is kind of the point of the legislation. The employer taps the staff they want to work on the shoulder and that is it. The union's role is not to impede any selected staff getting to work - they are not involved in choosing them. The employer doesn't know or care whether a member of staff is a union member or not.

The anyone but current clowns is reason why many will vote for a change, and applies whenever there is a stale Government.

But I am tending to see current Labour as a centre party with a left fanatical fringe, consequently not convinced they would find space in political calendar to repeal this. If they do, it will be low priority and only because lefties keep nagging, even though providing good consistent public services means it should stay.

All those who think current Labour will pander to union bosses ahead of minimum public services are fairly delusional. Manifesto is much more likely to talk about providing public services than making strikes easier

This is exactly how I guess it will happen

If placed in the hands of the employer, on which staff are required to attend work to provide a minimum service level, you can guarantee that it will not be fair.

As I read it, the law places it firmly in the hands of the employers, just as the proposed changes the operating practices place shifts etc there too.

I would be expecting the unions to be working with the employers to agree principles within that law which mitigate the unfairness of more useful employees getting selected every time - perhaps by making more staff useful. This would presumably be part of the discussing around the introduction of the new terms and conditions if a deal is agreed (TOCs more than NR perhaps).

In the absence of a deal I would guess the employers would choose who they like.

Integrated ticketing has been explored in Glasgow as well as other places no doubt, but there’s too much self interest from within each transport sector to enable it to happen.

I can't argue with that. My hope was that GBR would simplify the structure and therefore allow governments/local authorities to be able to mandate some of these. I know it is very hard and we don't have the governance structures in place to make it happen - but I still think we need it.

I bet you wish Uber did helicopters so you could follow Rishi Sunak even more closely.

Uber do helicopters. As far as I know only in Dubai. Much better to get one to the rugby sevens rather than worrying about Mr Sunak's travel plans.

 

[Wyrleybart]

As I understand it, ASLEF are not particularly involved in how to implement it - that is kind of the point of the legislation. The employer taps the staff they want to work on the shoulder and that is it. The union's role is not to impede any selected staff getting to work - they are not involved in choosing them. The employer doesn't know or care whether a member of staff is a union member or not.

That is a problem though. The employers don't know who is in a trade union, nor which they are in. My job involves traincrew and I believe there are a handful at one particular depot who are RMT members rather than the expected ASLEF. I also think there are a handful of drivers who are not union members period. So I am not so sure the employer can tap anyone on the shoulder to be honest - certainly not in the current method of union interaction.

 

[Krokodil]

So if the company selected drivers at random to run the contingency service, it could have a bunch of ASLEF drivers press-ganged into working the contingency service while the depot's RMT/non-union drivers sit spare because they weren't picked, but aren't on strike.

This is going to be chaotic.

 

[Facing Back]

That is a problem though. The employers don't know who is in a trade union, nor which they are in. My job involves traincrew and I believe there are a handful at one particular depot who are RMT members rather than the expected ASLEF. I also think there are a handful of drivers who are not union members period. So I am not so sure the employer can tap anyone on the shoulder to be honest - certainly not in the current method of union interaction.

Hmmm, I'm not quite sure of your point - I'm clearly missing something.

AIUI, the company works out which staff it needs to run the minimum service. It chooses the staff without regard to whether they are in the striking union, an other union, or no union at all - it just chooses who it needs from all of the staff employed by it.

If some or all of those staff are not in the striking union, it doesn't matter to the company, they have their list of the people it wants to come into work. Thinking about it, the company not knowing who is in the union and who is not might help with any feelings of discrimination against union members, as technically there cannot be any.

I'd have to re-read the act to be more certain of what level of "union interaction" there needs to be, but my recollection is that the union involvement in the process is minimal or even non-existent.

Have I misunderstood?

So if the company selected drivers at random to run the contingency service, it could have a bunch of ASLEF drivers press-ganged into working the contingency service while the depot's RMT/non-union drivers sit spare because they weren't picked, but aren't on strike.

This is going to be chaotic.

I guess this might be exactly the case.

I'd hope the various parties could come up with something slightly better but the unions are certainly not incentivised to help out.

 

[mpthomson]

The NHS has had some sort of agreed minimum service for years. Therefore there are more staff in work on a strike day than any other because the service is so routinely understaffed.

This simply isn't true.

 

[Krokodil]

This simply isn't true.

Which bit? There certainly were agreements to provide sufficient emergency cover. Nurses in some locations have stated that the minimum level of emergency cover is greater than the actual amount of cover available on many occasions, such are the staff shortages.

 

[Basher]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

So you would be happy if the water workers went on strike, with the waterworks all shut down.

 

[Krokodil]

So you would be happy if the water workers went on strike, with the waterworks all shut down.

I would prefer it if their employer treated them well enough that they didn't feel the need to resort to drastic measures like withdrawing their labour.

 

[Facing Back]

So you would be happy if the water workers went on strike, with the waterworks all shut down.

Utilities are not covered by the act so so I guess any minimum service levels are contractual rather than statutory. Presumably if the water workers went on strike, the water companies would miss their contractual targets and the regulator would come down on the like an ounce of bricks.

 

[irish_rail]

Hmmm, I'm not quite sure of your point - I'm clearly missing something.

AIUI, the company works out which staff it needs to run the minimum service. It chooses the staff without regard to whether they are in the striking union, an other union, or no union at all - it just chooses who it needs from all of the staff employed by it.

If some or all of those staff are not in the striking union, it doesn't matter to the company, they have their list of the people it wants to come into work. Thinking about it, the company not knowing who is in the union and who is not might help with any feelings of discrimination against union members, as technically there cannot be any.

I'd have to re-read the act to be more certain of what level of "union interaction" there needs to be, but my recollection is that the union involvement in the process is minimal or even non-existent.

Have I misunderstood?


I guess this might be exactly the case.

I'd hope the various parties could come up with something slightly better but the unions are certainly not incentivised to help out.

And herein lies one of the (many) problems. They will "choose" the same staff everytime. The mugs like me that sign all routes and all traction. Meanwhile colleagues with limited route knowledge will be left alone. Now depending on your view that may workout, but it is unfair on me for being forced to cross picket line, and similarly it is unfair on my colleague who loses more pay than I do (it isn't there fault they have less RK). Companies cannot just "choose" as you put it. A fair method would be needed.

 

[Facing Back]

And herein lies one of the (many) problems. They will "choose" the same staff everytime. The mugs like me that sign all routes and all traction. Meanwhile colleagues with limited route knowledge will be left alone. Now depending on your view that may workout, but it is unfair on me for being forced to cross picket line, and similarly it is unfair on my colleague who loses more pay than I do (it isn't there fault they have less RK). Companies cannot just "choose" as you put it. A fair method would be needed.

I beg to differ on one point. Companies can just choose - the act is quite specific. The company has to consult with the union on the numbers required and must "have regard to any views expressed by the union in response" - which mandates the company to think but not necessarily to act on the union response. Whether they should just choose or not is a different matter.

I agree with the general principle of fairness you have outlined, I'm merely commenting on the law. Whilst the union cannot raise a grievance against the law, they could raise one if they thought that the company was implementing it unfairly when choosing the staff and then try to negotiate a policy where there is union input (perhaps difficult and the law affects all staff, not just the ones in a particular union) or a process where staff are rotated, or further trained so that they are more useful? (I'm guessing here).

As there is currently an ongoing process which has both sides occasionally talking to each, perhaps this would be an opportunity to put this into the mix?

 

[LYuen]

I can't argue with that. My hope was that GBR would simplify the structure and therefore allow governments/local authorities to be able to mandate some of these. I know it is very hard and we don't have the governance structures in place to make it happen - but I still think we need it.

I'm afraid it will do the exact opposite.
In the privatisation era train companies are responsible for providing good service as they will take a direct financial hit.
In pure nationalisation or the OLR model, DfT is the only accountable entity.
With GBR, the railway is managed by both ToCs and DfT. In the worse case, none of them will solve any problem proactively (like right now)

 

[muz379]

There are already a number of countries in Europe where this legislation already exists and has done for years, it's not a new thing and it should work just as it does there.

Hearing from people in transport unions in other countries with minimum service level laws, it doesn't particularly always work in those countries , and I have heard anecdotally in Italy for example that actually on one operation the minimum service levels are just ignored and nobody comes to work anyway . But then my understanding is their legislation doesn't have the same level of attack on the rights to employment protection for the individual during industrial action that our legislation has .

Anyway , i thought we voted to leave Europe and not be governed by european laws

As I understand it, ASLEF are not particularly involved in how to implement it - that is kind of the point of the legislation. The employer taps the staff they want to work on the shoulder and that is it. The union's role is not to impede any selected staff getting to work - they are not involved in choosing them. The employer doesn't know or care whether a member of staff is a union member or not.

I agree with the general principle of fairness you have outlined, I'm merely commenting on the law. Whilst the union cannot raise a grievance against the law, they could raise one if they thought that the company was implementing it unfairly when choosing the staff and then try to negotiate a policy where there is union input (perhaps difficult and the law affects all staff, not just the ones in a particular union) or a process where staff are rotated, or further trained so that they are more useful? (I'm guessing here).

As there is currently an ongoing process which has both sides occasionally talking to each, perhaps this would be an opportunity to put this into the mix?

I think you are underestimating how complicated rostering and diagraming on the railway can be .

Lets say you have a company where the secretary of state has decided its minimum service level should be 80% . And it has a traincrew depot with 50 driver diagrams a day . In some instances the diagrams are that intertwined that they couldnt just name 40 drivers for 80% of the diagrams . To actually run a minimum service they would need to put together contingency diagrams and negotiate or consult them in line with the normal STP arrangements . Not all TOC's would be able to do this because some if not all will have some stupulations around STP diagramming and the reasons why they can be implemented .

It might work with a grade like sation staff, signalling or control where you might decide that a core service is 7-7 so you can just staff stations/control rooms/signalboxes/workstations for one shift on the stations/lines you want open

I don't think its correct to say that that is will be the extent of the unions role ,under the draft code of practice it is proposed that they are also required to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to identify their members , encourage compliance with the work notice and ensure that people with a work notice are not encouraged to strike by pickets .

 

[Facing Back]

I think you are underestimating how complicated rostering and diagraming on the railway can be .

Lets say you have a company where the secretary of state has decided its minimum service level should be 80% . And it has a traincrew depot with 50 driver diagrams a day . In some instances the diagrams are that intertwined that they couldnt just name 40 drivers for 80% of the diagrams . To actually run a minimum service they would need to put together contingency diagrams and negotiate or consult them in line with the normal STP arrangements . Not all TOC's would be able to do this because some if not all will have some stupulations around STP diagramming and the reasons why they can be implemented .

It might work with a grade like sation staff, signalling or control where you might decide that a core service is 7-7 so you can just staff stations/control rooms/signalboxes/workstations for one shift on the stations/lines you want open

I think you missed a "not" out in the first sentence but you are correct in that I have no idea of how complex rostering and diagramming are - other than I assume it is "very". I'm not commenting on the workability of the act, more commenting on what it says. I can quite easily see that in a complex infrastructure, you example of running 80% of services could require 100% of staff.

As we don't (or at least I don't) know what the minimum service requirements will be (is it 80% of services on mainlines? All lines? Enough capacity to move the rush hour peak volumes? Times of day?) it's all speculation I guess. I assume that there will be a lot of head-scratching do work out how it will work. Aren't the details of the minimum service subject to a consultation or am I getting mixed up with ticket office closures?

My only real point was that the act says the the company, not the unions, are responsible for creating this plan and selecting the staff they require. I would sincerely hope that they involve the unions in that process.

I don't think its correct to say that that is will be the extent of the unions role ,under the draft code of practice it is proposed that they are also required to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to identify their members , encourage compliance with the work notice and ensure that people with a work notice are not encouraged to strike by pickets .

True enough. Again, I was merely referring to the union's role is selecting the staff members required to work - which could theoretically (if perhaps not practically) be as little as "none". Of course there are many other roles that they need to fulfil.

 

[Krokodil]

In some instances the diagrams are that intertwined that...

I wonder who was responsible for encouraging "optimised diagramming"

 

[Annetts key]

It’s a shame we can’t use this act of parliament to get politicians to turn up to parliament for 51 weeks a year…

 

[Facing Back]

It’s a shame we can’t use this act of parliament to get politicians to turn up to parliament for 51 weeks a year…

You'd have to admit that they are essential employees!

 

[Annetts key]

You'd have to admit that they are essential employees!

Yes, that’s a downside…

 

[Krokodil]

It’s a shame we can’t use this act of parliament to get politicians to turn up to parliament for 51 weeks a year…

In my view the less time they spend in Parliament, the less damage they can wreak.

 

[Annetts key]

In my view the less time they spend in Parliament, the less damage they can wreak.

Yeah, but I never said anything about the civil service that actually does the real work.

 

[dk1]

So if the company selected drivers at random to run the contingency service, it could have a bunch of ASLEF drivers press-ganged into working the contingency service while the depot's RMT/non-union drivers sit spare because they weren't picked, but aren't on strike.

This is going to be chaotic.

Bring on the popcorn. This is going to be entertainment at its best.

 

[mpthomson]

Which bit? There certainly were agreements to provide sufficient emergency cover. Nurses in some locations have stated that the minimum level of emergency cover is greater than the actual amount of cover available on many occasions, such are the staff shortages.

There are roughly 100000 appts and operations cancelled for every day of the strike. From someone who works in healthcare there are emphatically not more staff in on strike days.

 

[Krokodil]

There are roughly 100000 appts and operations cancelled for every day of the strike. From someone who works in healthcare there are emphatically not more staff in on strike days.

Can you speak for every department? Are you saying that there is no unit in the country so routinely understaffed that the normal staffing is below the agreed minimum for 'critical' cover.

Yes, appointments and operations get cancelled. It's the emergency stuff that gets prioritised.

 

[EZJ]

Can you speak for every department? Are you saying that there is no unit in the country so routinely understaffed that the normal staffing is below the agreed minimum for 'critical' cover.

Yes, appointments and operations get cancelled. It's the emergency stuff that gets prioritised.

My wife works as a nurse, her team as a minimum is supposed to have 15 nurses working daily, currently they have 4, on strike days for whatever reason (I should add the nurses on her team didn't walk out) an extra agency nurse was bought in. So yes it does happen.

 

[Economist]

As a driver, there needs to be a clear, coherent strategy from the ASLEF leadership regarding work notices which appears lacking at the moment.

One option is simply to stick to overtime bans once the regulations are produced and wait till the next GE.

Another is to explain to the rank and file membership that someone who has been given a work notice is not considered to have broken a strike and should not be treated as such.

More inventive methods could include calling a strike then cancelling it at the last moment, causing timetable disruption, or negotiating at a local level with individual TOCs to prevent members from being dismissed for not working after being given a work notice.

Whichever outcome is decided, there needs to be clear direction from ASLEF Towers whereas I fear they'll call a strike, people will end up sacked and ASLEF will "move on" at the right moment. The Tories would love nothing more than the PR coup of sacking a few striking train drivers before they themselves are sacked.

 

[muz379]

As a driver, there needs to be a clear, coherent strategy from the ASLEF leadership regarding work notices which appears lacking at the moment.

One option is simply to stick to overtime bans once the regulations are produced and wait till the next GE.

Another is to explain to the rank and file membership that someone who has been given a work notice is not considered to have broken a strike and should not be treated as such.

More inventive methods could include calling a strike then cancelling it at the last moment, causing timetable disruption, or negotiating at a local level with individual TOCs to prevent members from being dismissed for not working after being given a work notice.

Whichever outcome is decided, there needs to be clear direction from ASLEF Towers whereas I fear they'll call a strike, people will end up sacked and ASLEF will "move on" at the right moment. The Tories would love nothing more than the PR coup of sacking a few striking train drivers before they themselves are sacked.

To be fair , at the minute the consultation is still open on the draft code of practice for what the "reasonable steps" are for a trade union to show compliance with the law . I suspect ASLEF and other affected trade unions will be responding as part of that consultation . Until that code of practice is actually confirmed the unions cannot really confirm to the membership what their response will be . No doubt the unions will also be seeking their own independent legal advice once the code of practice is confirmed .

The current proposal from the draft however is that one of the steps is that the unions will have to do as you have suggested which is write to their membership involved in the dispute confirming that some staff members in the workplace have been given work notices and so are expected to go to work . Of course what nobody can predict or legsilate for is how the wider membership in a workplace will respond to that .

 

[irish_rail]

As a driver, there needs to be a clear, coherent strategy from the ASLEF leadership regarding work notices which appears lacking at the moment.

One option is simply to stick to overtime bans once the regulations are produced and wait till the next GE.

Another is to explain to the rank and file membership that someone who has been given a work notice is not considered to have broken a strike and should not be treated as such.

More inventive methods could include calling a strike then cancelling it at the last moment, causing timetable disruption, or negotiating at a local level with individual TOCs to prevent members from being dismissed for not working after being given a work notice.

Whichever outcome is decided, there needs to be clear direction from ASLEF Towers whereas I fear they'll call a strike, people will end up sacked and ASLEF will "move on" at the right moment. The Tories would love nothing more than the PR coup of sacking a few striking train drivers before they themselves are sacked.

The TOCs simply cannot afford to sack a single driver at the moment. There is a well publicised shortage. You only need to look at today and some of the busiest trains cancelled (1203 London to Penzance) due to no driver. For a TOC to go and actively sack a number of drivers would be utter suicide and I like to think the directors would have a quiet word with the Dft if it ever came to this.

 

[D Williams]

The TOCs simply cannot afford to sack a single driver at the moment. There is a well publicised shortage. You only need to look at today and some of the busiest trains cancelled (1203 London to Penzance) due to no driver. For a TOC to go and actively sack a number of drivers would be utter suicide and I like to think the directors would have a quiet word with the Dft if it ever came to this.

Sometimes it has to be accepted that there will be temporary disruption for the long term good. Go back into history and see how Ronald Reagan dealt with the 1980 air traffic controllers strike .