Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[Goldfish62]

Assuming we will have a Labour government in the next 12 months maximum, these MSLs will be irrelevant anyway as Labour has promised to repeal the legislation

Yes indeed. It's the damage that will be done to industrial relations in the meantime though that will rumble on long after the legislation is binned.

 

[Thornaby 37]

Now for another potential can of worms
Supposing a driver mandated to work on a strike day is taken ill, but is put under pressure by management to continue working to fulfil the MSL, whose head would be on the block if there was an operating incident or an accident

 

[Stephen42]

Now for another potential can of worms
Supposing a driver mandated to work on a strike day is taken ill, but is put under pressure by management to continue working to fulfil the MSL, whose head would be on the block if there was an operating incident or an accident

There is no legal obligation for an operator to fulfil the MSL so they are unlikely to pressure anyone taken ill, it is aimed to secure a minimum level of service not guarantee it. Also people reasonably necessary would include the standard level of cover, possibly even higher levels of cover if past experience of higher levels of absence on dates where work notices are issued.

 

[Watershed]

Just a thought, if the staff that had work orders came in but then were too stressed by it all to carry out their duties, they’ve fulfilled the obligation to come in….

This suggestion has been made multiple times but somehow the same stress doesn't seem to cause problems in minimum service levels being provided in other countries.

I think people are imagining "quick and easy ways of circumventing the rules they don't want you to know about" as a way of making themselves believe this isn't happening - but it is.

 

[ainsworth74]

It would be a brave manager who accused someone of falsifying a mental health condition. I have all sorts of problems which in accordance with my responsibilities I as a safety critical employee disclose to my manager and occupational health. The Government has decided to steal my rights having suddenly decided they're necessary because people take a stand against them being nasty. Being ordered to work against my conscience to support that diktat could easily tip me over the edge and make me unfit for work.

Yep can't disagree with that to be clear! But as @Watershed alludes to I'd be very cautious of just assuming that the get out of jail free clause is to just say "I can't work today due to stress, sorry!" when that isn't because of actual stress but an attempt to not break the strike. Of course the stress may well be caused by the Government weakening the right to strike but it just feels unwise to me for everyone to just blithely assume that they can get out of it by faining illness.

 

[Thornaby 37]

This suggestion has been made multiple times but somehow the same stress doesn't seem to cause problems in minimum service levels being provided in other countries.

I think people are imagining "quick and easy ways of circumventing the rules they don't want you to know about" as a way of making themselves believe this isn't happening - but it is.

For avoidance of doubt I was specifically referring to situations where a driver becomes genuinely ill
So let's say for example a driver starts suffering a migraine either before or during a shift. If he is then put under pressure to complete his shift, who would be held liable if there was an incident or accident

 

[Starmill]

Yep can't disagree with that to be clear! But as @Watershed alludes to I'd be very cautious of just assuming that the get out of jail free clause is to just say "I can't work today due to stress, sorry!" when that isn't because of actual stress but an attempt to not break the strike. Of course the stress may well be caused by the Government weakening the right to strike but it just feels unwise to me for everyone to just blithely assume that they can get out of it by faining illness.

As ever with these things, it's dishonest to take sick leave when not justified under your company policy (or indeed the law as well may be) even once. However, we have to accept, as all employers economy-wide must, that people might sometimes get away with doing it... once.

Anyone who were to choose to be dishonest repeatedly would be likely to be found out eventually. I wouldn't suggest in any way that the scenario set out above by LowLevel is included within that though, and it's perfectly clear to me they personally wouldn't be dishonest, not even once.

For avoidance of doubt I was specifically referring to situations where a driver becomes genuinely ill
So let's say for example a driver starts suffering a migraine either before or during a shift. If he is then put under pressure to complete his shift, who would be held liable if there was an incident or accident

I think the point people are making is that in such genuine cases taking place immediately before the start of a shift, or during it, the minimum service level wouldn't be engaged. So any such pressure to work having been taken ill at the last minute should institutionally be no different during industrial action against any other day. If there were such pressure, it would definitely count as a 'protected disclosure' to call it out too, as it would clearly violate the safety case of the operator concerned. It would probably be unlawful too.

 

[island]

This suggestion has been made multiple times but somehow the same stress doesn't seem to cause problems in minimum service levels being provided in other countries.

I think people are imagining "quick and easy ways of circumventing the rules they don't want you to know about" as a way of making themselves believe this isn't happening - but it is.

Indeed.

And unions aren't going to try and coordinate this type of thing because it'll inevitably leak, and when it does the government (via the TOCs) will delight in taking chunky high court damages claims and injunctions against them.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed.

And unions aren't going to try and coordinate this type of thing because it'll inevitably leak, and when it does the government (via the TOCs) will delight in taking chunky high court damages claims and injunctions against them.

Precisely. No sensible trade union would ever try to persuade their members to be dishonest, for the good of the members themselves, and their subscriptions.

 

[ainsworth74]

I wouldn't suggest in any way that the scenario set out above by LowLevel is included within that though, and it's perfectly clear to me they personally wouldn't be dishonest, not even once.

Absolutely and I hope LowLevel didn't think I was implying as such because I also have zero doubts as to their personal honesty.

 

[kw12]

The junior doctors strike on 20th will be the first strike for which the legislation will apply. It will be interesting to see whether work notices are issued for that strike and, if they are, what happens when the strike takes place.

 

[dk1]

Now for another potential can of worms
Supposing a driver mandated to work on a strike day is taken ill, but is put under pressure by management to continue working to fulfil the MSL, whose head would be on the block if there was an operating incident or an accident

We would never be put under pressure to continue. If we were we would just ignore it.

 

[Smidster]

The junior doctors strike on 20th will be the first strike for which the legislation will apply. It will be interesting to see whether work notices are issued for that strike and, if they are, what happens when the strike takes place.

That is incorrect

At the moment only ambulance services could be covered by an MSL.

There is a consultation at the moment for wider hospital ones but that won't be a factor for Juniors until Spring.

 

[Krokodil]

Yep can't disagree with that to be clear! But as @Watershed alludes to I'd be very cautious of just assuming that the get out of jail free clause is to just say "I can't work today due to stress, sorry!" when that isn't because of actual stress but an attempt to not break the strike. Of course the stress may well be caused by the Government weakening the right to strike but it just feels unwise to me for everyone to just blithely assume that they can get out of it by faining illness.

Obviously anyone who goes sick before the job will attract suspicion, but what about someone who has issues after booking on. Say they were walking to their train (rammed because with some trains still running everyone will try and wedge into them) and someone had a go at them. They would be justified in saying that they didn't feel able to concentrate.

 

[ainsworth74]

Obviously anyone who goes sick before the job will attract suspicion, but what about someone who has issues after booking on. Say they were walking to their train (rammed because with some trains still running everyone will try and wedge into them) and someone had a go at them. They would be justified in saying that they didn't feel able to concentrate.

Of course they would, and again, I would expect anyone who had an illness or was not otherwise fit for duty to be treated with compassion and care by their employer. My point remains, however, that just saying "Well I'll just say that I'm too stressed to work" and that being some magic get out might want to tread carefully. It'll certainly work the first time, might work the second time, but eyebrows would surely start to be raised if your periods of sickness just happened to magically line up with days when you had been given a work notice.

That's all I'm trying to suggest. I'm far from convinced that it will be a magic get out of jail free card, not that it means that it is impossible to be unwell on a strike day and that anyone who does go sick will be strung up from the depot roof.

 

[Starmill]

Obviously anyone who goes sick before the job will attract suspicion, but what about someone who has issues after booking on. Say they were walking to their train (rammed because with some trains still running everyone will try and wedge into them) and someone had a go at them. They would be justified in saying that they didn't feel able to concentrate.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with any of that. However the reality is that not everyone who was due for duty will be sick because that'd be so unlikely, and most employees won't be dishonest.

If some services are cancelled due to insufficient sickness cover, they're cancelled, same as would happen any other day. Work notices or no.

 

[al78]

For avoidance of doubt I was specifically referring to situations where a driver becomes genuinely ill
So let's say for example a driver starts suffering a migraine either before or during a shift. If he is then put under pressure to complete his shift, who would be held liable if there was an incident or accident

Superior orders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Krokodil]

I don't think anyone has disagreed with any of that. However the reality is that not everyone who was due for duty will be sick because that'd be so unlikely, and most employees won't be dishonest.

If some services are cancelled due to insufficient sickness cover, they're cancelled, same as would happen any other day. Work notices or no.

If "bitty" diagrams are planned (cough, TPE) then one person out of place will cause everything else to fall apart.

 

[Starmill]

If "bitty" diagrams are planned (cough, TPE) then one person out of place will cause everything else to fall apart.

Sure it will. Though the reality is that's also little different to any other day for several of TPE's depots chronic inability to cover the work. It still wouldn't be different because work notices were or weren't issued.

You'd also expect that if work notices are issued they'd bin everything anyway, and run a special service which is less efficient but easier to actually crew. Of course actually having the resources to plan that is another matter.

 

[Facing Back]

Looks to me the guidance is quite clear, they can designate 40% of the published timetable (not a slimmed down P-coded version), and issue work notice. The exact calling pattern doesn't have to be same as published timetable

Can add others to the work notice until 4 days before (if for instance somebody on work notice called in sick),

As for which services to choose, the guidance says to enable passengers to make important journeys, to access work, healthcare and education, and also to protect the wider economy eg retail and night time economy).

So that seems to me couldn't just work peak hours, instead of say, a school train, or one serving late night shopping under the guidance

I read into it much the same as you I think. I was more musing about the areas where there are likely to be challenges. It is only guidance and at a high enough level to be open to a raft of different interpretations on the priorities when implemented.

Are you talking about diagrams rather than rosters? Train planning cannot just change my roster as everything has to be agreed at local level with our ASLEF reps on that front. Train planning already produce some horrible diagrams so no they’ll be no change there. If they want to get revenge, which I highly doubt, then bring it on.

Rosters either being produced or approved by union reps is something that I have only come across in the rail industry. I'd be interested in examples of it happening elsewhere. It seems to be one of the changes that are included in (at least the RMT) offer in that it becomes solely the responsibility of management. In effect the union - or anyone - can always challenge if it contravenes T&Cs.

Why would planning want to get revenge on train staff?

Just a thought, if the staff that had work orders came in but then were too stressed by it all to carry out their duties, they’ve fulfilled the obligation to come in….

Standard HR stuff. There would be no protection because its a strike and the law is legal so HR would presumably handle it in the same way that they would for any medical absence - although I suspect that there would be a high degree of scepticism.

Don't know about the rail industry but where I've worked a fit note from Day 1 was required from anyone who went sick during a period of industrial action.

I've seen places which often had their own doctor talk to people who were off during difficult periods. There is quite a lot of challenge about that but it seems to be not uncommon.

 

[dk1]

Why would planning want to get revenge on train staff?

Absolutely no idea. That’s what I thought too.

 

[Facing Back]

Absolutely no idea. That’s what I thought too.

Did you cheat outrageously in the annual drivers vs planners netball match? If so you deserve all you get...

 

[dk1]

Did you cheat outrageously in the annual drivers vs planners netball match? If so you deserve all you get...

Haha you’ve found me out

Some of my longest work friendships are with some of our train planners.

 

[Facing Back]

Haha you’ve found me out

Some of my longest work friendships are with some of our train planners.

Fair enough - and before I get told off for being too off topic it was actually a serious question - I've seen pretty serious and long term bitterness between groups of people in a few companies

 

[Krokodil]

Unfortunately not enough is done to encourage mixing between different departments. I've never met our planners, in person or online. I have at least met our performance team and had some fruitful discussions with them. Arriva used to do a "walk in my shoes" programme where you could shadow someone for a day, traincrew could sit in Control while the directors could assist a Conductor for a day etc.

 

[dk1]

Fair enough - and before I get told off for being too off topic it was actually a serious question - I've seen pretty serious and long term bitterness between groups of people in a few companies

Certainly not where I’m concerned or what I see and hear. Yes traincrew are always going to feel hard done by if their job has a mod on it that makes it longer or has more content but you hear nothing when it’s the other way around.

 

[Facing Back]

Unfortunately not enough is done to encourage mixing between different departments. I've never met our planners, in person or online. I have at least met our performance team and had some fruitful discussions with them. Arriva used to do a "walk in my shoes" programme where you could shadow someone for a day, traincrew could sit in Control while the directors could assist a Conductor for a day etc.

Sounds like a really worthwhile investment. I think quite a lot of that kind of thing fell by the wayside during covid and hasn't always come back. A significant rise in WFH in many companies hasn't helped (although I accept that for most drivers WFH isn't the problem).

 

[Chester1]

Assuming we will have a Labour government in the next 12 months maximum, these MSLs will be irrelevant anyway as Labour has promised to repeal the legislation

The last date of the next general election can be held is 28th January 2025. That gives the legislation some time to bed in. Calling the election in October would make some sense for the Tories due to the age of their core vote. Sunak would be mad to call an election before then. I wouldn’t bet on Labour repealing the legislation quickly, if it all. Labour have much bigger priorities for legislative time. Transport is a big deal for rail staff and enthusiasts but its not for the average person. TSSA will be in a decent position to lobby Labour as an affiliated union. I doubt Starmer is enthusiastic about the RMT and its leaderships politics! Repealing the anti strike legislation would be the sort of thing they will do around the 2-4 year point in a 5 year parliament. The big changes for first two years and electorally popular stuff in final year. The duller stuff goes in the middle.

 

[Goldfish62]

The last date of the next general election can be held is 28th January 2025. That gives the legislation some time to bed in. Calling the election in October would make some sense for the Tories due to the age of their core vote. Sunak would be mad to call an election before then. I wouldn’t bet on Labour repealing the legislation quickly, if it all. Labour have much bigger priorities for legislative time. Transport is a big deal for rail staff and enthusiasts but its not for the average person. TSSA will be in a decent position to lobby Labour as an affiliated union. I doubt Starmer is enthusiastic about the RMT and its leaderships politics! Repealing the anti strike legislation would be the sort of thing they will do around the 2-4 year point in a 5 year parliament. The big changes for first two years and electorally popular stuff in final year. The duller stuff goes in the middle.

While the RMT isn't affiliated to Labour ASLEF is, as are most of the much larger unions.

I saw an interview on Sky News earlier with Sharon Graham of Unite, following an emergency TUC meeting. She said that unions would be likely to resort to breaking the law to resist the legislation. She also didn't trust Labour to repeal the legislation respite Angela Rayner already stating that it would.

 

[Mag_seven]

She also didn't trust Labour to repeal the legislation respite Angela Rayner already stating that it would.

There seems to be a misconception that an incoming Labour government will give the rail unions (and indeed other unions) everything they want. The repealing of this legislation I'm sure will be way down Labour's priority list.