New law, minimum service level must run on strike days

[D365]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

You might as well be saying that we (the electorate) be facing the consequence of voting Tory year-on-year.

 

[Sm5]

And if they are happy with the role but the employer acts unfairly?

Prove it and the employer pays.. naturally. This tends to be how it is today anyway, regardless who's fault it is.

i just think insurance companies should be able to pursue individuals, and their insurance when it comes to lack of due care and attention, very soon they will become uninsurable and encouraged to work they are more suited to.,

Disgusting and unworkable attack on the right to strike. Who do you choose to force to work to make the minimum service? How do you force them?

Even the railways being entirely shut down for one day is not a matter of life or death, its damned inconvenient for a lot of people but no more.

I say this and I am not a railway employee.

I’m not a railway employee.
I dont have a right to strike.
If I dont like what I do, I change jobs.
I find unionised jobs pay less.

Right to strike ? What year is it again ?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And if they are happy with the role but the employer acts unfairly?

Does not giving employees more money count as acting unfairly, or would most people not just leave a job if they thought they were better than the pay on offer and apply for one with a higher salary?

If I dont like what I do, I change jobs.

Like most people in most industries.

 

[ComUtoR]

Does that seem fair?

Depends on which side of the fence you are sitting.

We live in a country where there isn't a balance between who pays in and who takes out. Is it fair that someone without children still has to pay towards education ? Is it fair that many of those who pay in to the NHS, rarely take anything out ? Is it fair that my taxes go to those who don't work ?

It is always going to depend on which side you are sitting.

 

[Trainbike46]

She was right in one respect though in my opinion, its time Britain increased productivity, increased exports and reduced reliance on imports so we can afford better school, hospitals and effective defence which I guess we all want.

I fully agree that productivity needs to increase; I completely disagree that Lizz Truss' plan would have helped us get there.

In the rail industry, productivity increases would in most cases require changes in working practices (or just pushing more passengers on each train), which can only realistically be achieved through negotiations with unions. Therefore, the government needs to allow these negotiations to happen

For businesses, higher tax coupled with tax rebates for investment could be a way to drive an increase in productivity.

 

[Annetts key]

This is all veering way off topic..

There is no doubt the Truss screwed up royally by failing to get independent forecasts on what the effect of her changes would be and reflecting on them. IE it seemed to bond market as if it was back of a fag packet stuff and results highly unpredictable.... They didn't like that.
Whilst the cut in higher rate tax touched a raw nerve with virtually everyone (including me), previous cuts have actually increased the tax take as its no longer worth the very rich paying expensive accountants for little benefit. Dont forget also that some train drivers, all doctors, senior teachers etc pay higher rate tax, so it's not just for the super rich. Nonetheless, Truss screwed up in not realising that the general public saw it as rewarding the rich whilst hurting the poor.
She was right in one respect though in my opinion, its time Britain increased productivity, increased exports and reduced reliance on imports so we can afford better school, hospitals and effective defence which I guess we all want.

Keep in mind some facts: the government allows the railways to increase regulated fares in line with RPI each year.

The U.K. is in the top ten of the richest countries as a percentage of GDP. Depending on the statistics, in some lists we are fifth or sixth.

It’s primarily the confidence of the markets that set the exchange rates and the interest rates on government bonds.

Government debt is normally a choice made by politicians, it does directly not reflect the wealth (or lack of) the rest of the country.

Primarily, printing money (quantitative easing) which has been occurring recently, will eventually affect both the currency exchange rate and the interest rates on government bonds.

No amount of productivity of U.K. workers can result in us undercutting cheap imports from a certain Far East county.

Not all, but most productivity improvements are the result of technology, supply chain or organisation changes, not getting more “flexibility” from the employees or trashing their terms and conditions.

Increasing form filling, other paperwork or the electronic/computer/app equivalents, or any other bureaucracy significantly affects the productivity. And ever since BR was dispensed with, I’ve seen ever increasing amounts of new procedures, more forms, more paperwork/electronic/computer/app equivalents, more difficultly getting quick and sensible decisions, the list goes on. All the time that staff are dealing with the bureaucracy, we aren’t doing work that benefits passengers.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not a railway employee.
I dont have a right to strike.
If I dont like what I do, I change jobs.
I find unionised jobs pay less.

Right to strike ? What year is it again ?

The - albeit qualified - right to go on strike is a pretty fundamental cornerstone of a western democracy.

In the grand scheme of things legalisation and protection of striking is a recent development, so I’m not sure what the last sentence is supposed to illustrate.

 

[najaB]

Does not giving employees more money count as acting unfairly, or would most people not just leave a job if they thought they were better than the pay on offer and apply for one with a higher salary?

Most strikes are due to conditions or unfair practices (with pay often a secondary matter) rather than just over pay.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Most strikes are due to conditions or unfair practices (with pay often a secondary matter) rather than just over pay.

Naturally. The recent ones have been predominatly over pay though.

Perhaps this law should only apply when strikes occur due to these sort of reasons, rather than, for example, the strikes that were allegedly about safety a few years ago.

 

[matacaster]

Unhappily,

You might as well be saying that we (the electorate) be facing the consequence of voting Tory year-on-year.

Spending beyond our means has been going on for decades. Both parties and MPs have colluded to avoid the consequences until now. Uplifting pensions age was ignored for ages when it should have been tackled decades ago too.

I fully agree that productivity needs to increase; I completely disagree that Lizz Truss' plan would have helped us get there.

In the rail industry, productivity increases would in most cases require changes in working practices (or just pushing more passengers on each train), which can only realistically be achieved through negotiations with unions. Therefore, the government needs to allow these negotiations to happen

For businesses, higher tax coupled with tax rebates for investment could be a way to drive an increase in productivity.

I do agree with you that Truss's plan would likely not have had the effect of expanding the economy.
In respect of investment, take farming. Farmers used to use cheap foreign labour with crap conditions because it was more than they got at home. If tax beaks etc allowed farmers to invest inexpensive automated machinery for crop picking, then industry would create the necessary machines. Its not that industry can't produce automated picking machines, rather that they know farmers wouldnt buy them and would continue tobleat about lack of cheap foreign workers unless they were given incentives.

 

[D6130]

Or not, given that other countries such as France and Spain already, apparently, have such a law?

This has also applied in Italy for a number of years. Trains which are guaranteed to run on strike days - mainly regional services operating at times suitable for school and college students - are denoted by a letter G at the top of the timetable column. I'm not certain how it is decided who will crew them, but I'm told that they ask for volunteers.

This law, if it comes in is MORE likely to result in more strikes. NOT less.

Why? Because eventually the workers will get even more upset at the cause of the problem (poor industrial relations, primarily this is a failure of company management) and then won’t care about what the law says.

Just like you occasionally still get unofficial walk outs that completely stuff the affected company because there is absolutely no warning that an unofficial strike is about to happen…

This has been the experience in Italy....where, incidentally, strikes are normally organised on a regional basis.

 

[D365]

Naturally. The recent ones have been predominatly over pay though.

More rather, the continued freezing of pay; and the threat of significant redundancy on top of this.

 

[Thirteen]

I had a quick look at the 2016 act regarding union action and there's not anything in it I would disagree with particularly. (I say this as a union member who has undertaken strike action).

I wouldn't be inclined to repeal it

I suspect the 2016 Act will be kept or perhaps tweaked by a Labour Government, I know Starmer has said he'll repeal it but to me, going back to the days of wildcat strikes and little notice of when industrial action would happen is not a vote winner.

I do wonder if the likes of TfL would be in favour of this proposed law? The Night Tube strikes probably wouldn't have happened if MSL were required.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect the 2016 Act will be kept or perhaps tweaked by a Labour Government, I know Starmer has said he'll repeal it but to me, going back to the days of wildcat strikes and little notice of when industrial action would happen is not a vote winner.

I do wonder if the likes of TfL would be in favour of this proposed law? The Night Tube strikes probably wouldn't have happened if MSL were required.

I suspect that something like the night tube wouldn't be included as part of a minimum service, however you never know !

 

[weeklycommuter]

Does not giving employees more money count as acting unfairly, or would most people not just leave a job if they thought they were better than the pay on offer and apply for one with a higher salary?
Like most people in most industries.

If key workers on the railway including train drivers and signallers do not receive attractive pay and conditions they can and many no doubt will leave for other jobs. The private sector understands this and has been increasing pay where labour market rates have increased to retain and recruit staff. There are already staff shortages on the railway, if this Government tries to hold down pay the railway will gradually collapse. Attempting to prevent railway staff from taking industrial action and attempting to force them to work for lower real pay by changing the law will achieve nothing except the collapse of the railway, pay and conditions need to be attractive to recruit and retain staff. With high inflation this means higher pay to compensate for inflation. The current high inflation is caused not by pay increases but by supply issues, especially energy costs due to the foolish dependence on gas to generate 40% of the country's electricity, inflation can only be ended by fixing the supply issues including replacing gas with wind and solar generated electricity. This country cannot function without the railway, the roads cannot cope even with the existing car and lorry traffic, the railway needs to grow to take cars and lorries off the roads.

 

[43096]

If key workers on the railway including train drivers and signallers do not receive attractive pay and conditions they can and many no doubt will leave for other jobs. The private sector understands this and has been increasing pay where labour market rates have increased to retain and recruit staff. There are already staff shortages on the railway, if this Government tries to hold down pay the railway will gradually collapse. Attempting to prevent railway staff from taking industrial action and attempting to force them to work for lower real pay by changing the law will achieve nothing except the collapse of the railway, pay and conditions need to be attractive to recruit and retain staff. With high inflation this means higher pay to compensate for inflation. The current high inflation is caused not by pay increases but by supply issues, especially energy costs due to the foolish dependence on gas to generate 40% of the country's electricity, inflation can only be ended by fixing the supply issues including replacing gas with wind and solar generated electricity. This country cannot function without the railway, the roads cannot cope even with the existing car and lorry traffic, the railway needs to grow to take cars and lorries off the roads.

All the evidence is that the country can function without the railway. That’s why Government is ok for the strikes to continue: there’s little pressure from MPs or the wider electorate.

 

[Peter Sarf]

This is all veering way off topic..



Keep in mind some facts: the government allows the railways to increase regulated fares in line with RPI each year.

The U.K. is in the top ten of the richest countries as a percentage of GDP. Depending on the statistics, in some lists we are fifth or sixth.

It’s primarily the confidence of the markets that set the exchange rates and the interest rates on government bonds.

Government debt is normally a choice made by politicians, it does directly not reflect the wealth (or lack of) the rest of the country.

Primarily, printing money (quantitative easing) which has been occurring recently, will eventually affect both the currency exchange rate and the interest rates on government bonds.

No amount of productivity of U.K. workers can result in us undercutting cheap imports from a certain Far East county.

Not all, but most productivity improvements are the result of technology, supply chain or organisation changes, not getting more “flexibility” from the employees or trashing their terms and conditions.

Increasing form filling, other paperwork or the electronic/computer/app equivalents, or any other bureaucracy significantly affects the productivity. And ever since BR was dispensed with, I’ve seen ever increasing amounts of new procedures, more forms, more paperwork/electronic/computer/app equivalents, more difficultly getting quick and sensible decisions, the list goes on. All the time that staff are dealing with the bureaucracy, we aren’t doing work that benefits passengers.

My bold.Correct me if I am wrong but what about the extra pay drivers on South West Trains (now South western Railway) got for driving trains without a guard. But there are no trains being driven as such.

If key workers on the railway including train drivers and signallers do not receive attractive pay and conditions they can and many no doubt will leave for other jobs. The private sector understands this and has been increasing pay where labour market rates have increased to retain and recruit staff. There are already staff shortages on the railway, if this Government tries to hold down pay the railway will gradually collapse. Attempting to prevent railway staff from taking industrial action and attempting to force them to work for lower real pay by changing the law will achieve nothing except the collapse of the railway, pay and conditions need to be attractive to recruit and retain staff. With high inflation this means higher pay to compensate for inflation. The current high inflation is caused not by pay increases but by supply issues, especially energy costs due to the foolish dependence on gas to generate 40% of the country's electricity, inflation can only be ended by fixing the supply issues including replacing gas with wind and solar generated electricity. This country cannot function without the railway, the roads cannot cope even with the existing car and lorry traffic, the railway needs to grow to take cars and lorries off the roads.

We do need to be more self sufficient. Pay rises can cause inflation as do supply issues. Pay rises can cause a vicious cycle of inflation as each sector reacts to the inflation caused be another sector. My view is we relied too heavily on imported fuel (gas from Russia) and we no longer have a market on our doorstep. We are going back into the cold war era - I sincerely hope nothing worse. We have to face up to a decrease in our standard of living. One thing we should be doing is spending money on energy efficiency rather than subsidising the purchase of scarce energy. Of course a natural reaction, of those who pay our wages, to strikes is to legislate against the strikes.

 

[najaB]

My view is we relied too heavily on imported fuel (gas from Russia) and we no longer have a market on our doorstep.

I agree with the general sentiment, but we didn't import much gas from Russia.

 

[Annetts key]

Correct me if I am wrong but what about the extra pay drivers on South West Trains (now South western Railway) got for driving trains without a guard.

I don’t count that as a productivity improvement. That’s a cut or removal of personnel which does not/has not improved the service for the passenger/customer. If there are still on board crew other than the driver, are they still being trained to the same standards as a guard? Do they still have the same safety responsibilities?

Look at it this way, if a shop such as a supermarket wants to reduce costs, one way would be to remove some checkouts. If the shop just removes said checkouts, it will save on the wages of the staff that would have operated them. But customers will have potentially have to queue for longer. That’s a cut. However, using technology, they could provide self-service checkout machines. Which may result in no significant change to the time that customers have to queue for.

We do need to be more self sufficient. Pay rises can cause inflation as do supply issues. Pay rises can cause a vicious cycle of inflation as each sector reacts to the inflation caused be another sector. My view is we relied too heavily on imported fuel (gas from Russia) and we no longer have a market on our doorstep. We are going back into the cold war era - I sincerely hope nothing worse. We have to face up to a decrease in our standard of living. One thing we should be doing is spending money on energy efficiency rather than subsidising the purchase of scarce energy. Of course a natural reaction, of those who pay our wages, to strikes is to legislate against the strikes.

It’s never that simple. Do we import gas? Yes. But not much. But that is not the reason that the prices of gas and electricity have gone up as much as they have. Even if we did not import any gas, the prices would still have gone nuts with the way the energy markets work.

The price of electricity at any point in time depends on the price of the most expensive electricity generator or provider (as in the price agreed between the supplying company and the distribution company) that can supply the national grid. If demand is low, there is competition between electricity generators and hence the price is relatively low. If demand is high, there is less competition because most of the generators are needed, so the price rises until the national grid has found enough generators to meet the level of demand.

As we get between 20% to 60% (depending on how windy or sunny the weather is, and how much we import or export to our neighbours) of our electricity from burning gas, the price of electricity is also dependent on the price of gas.

Gas is traded internationally, hence no matter how much gas is extracted in the U.K., the price fluctuates depending on world wide supply and demand.

If more stable prices are wanted, either the market place systems need to be amended/changed, the whole U.K. energy sector system nationalised, or a combination of improving our energy efficiency (including super insulating occupied buildings such as homes, offices, shops, workplaces) and investing in using more renewable energy sources and more advanced energy storage systems.

In terms of inflation, in an ideal (okay, my ideal) world, no one would get or need annual pay rises, because the price of goods or services would also not rise.

But in the real world, the Bank of England is supposed to try to maintain inflation at 2% (as set by the government). Governments want this level of inflation as a balance. Some inflation helps reduce the values of government debt over the long term.

 

[Trainbike46]

I don’t count that as a productivity improvement. That’s a cut or removal of personnel which does not/has not improved the service for the passenger/customer. If there are still on board crew other than the driver, are they still being trained to the same standards as a guard? Do they still have the same safety responsibilities?

How would you measure productivity on the railways? My suggestion would be passenger-kms per staff-hour, which does increase by going DOO (as fewer members of staff, for the same passenger-kms)

Look at it this way, if a shop such as a supermarket wants to reduce costs, one way would be to remove some checkouts. If the shop just removes said checkouts, it will save on the wages of the staff that would have operated them. But customers will have potentially have to queue for longer. That’s a cut. However, using technology, they could provide self-service checkout machines. Which may result in no significant change to the time that customers have to queue for.

I would argue DOO is more similar to introducing self-checkouts than reducing the number of checkouts, as people get where they're going equally quickly on a DOO train as on a train with a guard. Reducing the number of services would be akin to removing checkouts in a supermarket.

I do think this DOO discussion is going somewhat off-topic.

Back on topic, I think this proposed law is a bad idea because it reduces democratic rights, and because it will not help reduce the impact of strikes on passengers. A much better idea would be for the TOCs to be allowed to negotiate with the unions to come to a compromise, taking into account the different situations on different TOCs. These negotiations shouldn't just be about pay, but also take into account various working practices that may (or may not) benefit from changing through negotiation. The current government-imposed stand-off doesn't help anyone, least of all the passengers

*edited to remove an accidental extra not in a sentence

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree with the general sentiment, but we didn't import much gas from Russia.

True. But the rest of Europe does get more gas from Russia and we seem to share prices with them. An open market.

I don’t count that as a productivity improvement. That’s a cut or removal of personnel which does not/has not improved the service for the passenger/customer. If there are still on board crew other than the driver, are they still being trained to the same standards as a guard? Do they still have the same safety responsibilities?

Look at it this way, if a shop such as a supermarket wants to reduce costs, one way would be to remove some checkouts. If the shop just removes said checkouts, it will save on the wages of the staff that would have operated them. But customers will have potentially have to queue for longer. That’s a cut. However, using technology, they could provide self-service checkout machines. Which may result in no significant change to the time that customers have to queue for.


It’s never that simple. Do we import gas? Yes. But not much. But that is not the reason that the prices of gas and electricity have gone up as much as they have. Even if we did not import any gas, the prices would still have gone nuts with the way the energy markets work.

The price of electricity at any point in time depends on the price of the most expensive electricity generator or provider (as in the price agreed between the supplying company and the distribution company) that can supply the national grid. If demand is low, there is competition between electricity generators and hence the price is relatively low. If demand is high, there is less competition because most of the generators are needed, so the price rises until the national grid has found enough generators to meet the level of demand.

As we get between 20% to 60% (depending on how windy or sunny the weather is, and how much we import or export to our neighbours) of our electricity from burning gas, the price of electricity is also dependent on the price of gas.

Gas is traded internationally, hence no matter how much gas is extracted in the U.K., the price fluctuates depending on world wide supply and demand.

If more stable prices are wanted, either the market place systems need to be amended/changed, the whole U.K. energy sector system nationalised, or a combination of improving our energy efficiency (including super insulating occupied buildings such as homes, offices, shops, workplaces) and investing in using more renewable energy sources and more advanced energy storage systems.

In terms of inflation, in an ideal (okay, my ideal) world, no one would get or need annual pay rises, because the price of goods or services would also not rise.

But in the real world, the Bank of England is supposed to try to maintain inflation at 2% (as set by the government). Governments want this level of inflation as a balance. Some inflation helps reduce the values of government debt over the long term.

My bold. The productivity improvement I thought was that a guard would no longer be needed due to the technology other TOCs and their drivers are using. That does not reduce the quality of the product to the customer (passenger). It does allow the former guard to carry out other duties that could be argued actually improve the customer experience. For example revenue protection and just being visible. If that is not to be then why are SWR drivers getting more money - for what ?.

I wonder at the energy markets. They are so interconnected. Leads to competitive prices but also leads to affects of shortages outside our sphere affecting us. We import electricity from France and I suspect they will charge us more as demand, in the rest of Europe, for their electricity increases.

As you say, and I have seen it mentioned before that, a little inflation is preferable - 2% iirc. Mainly because getting too close to zero risks going below zero and ending up with deflation. Where what you have bought (raw materials particularly) become worth less than when a manufacturer bought them leading to a drop in prices and a loss over the cost of materials.

How would you measure productivity on the railways? My suggestion would be passenger-kms per staff-hour, which does increase by going DOO (as fewer members of staff, for the same passenger-kms)

I would argue DOO is more similar to introducing self-checkouts than reducing the number of checkouts, as people get where they're going equally quickly on a DOO train as on a train with a guard. Reducing the number of services would be akin to removing checkouts in a supermarket.

I do think this DOO discussion is going somewhat off-topic.

Back on topic, I don't think this proposed law is a bad idea because it reduces democratic rights, and because it will not help reduce the impact of strikes on passengers. A much better idea would be for the TOCs to be allowed to negotiate with the unions to come to a compromise, taking into account the different situations on different TOCs. These negotiations shouldn't just be about pay, but also take into account various working practices that may (or may not) benefit from changing through negotiation. The current government-imposed stand-off doesn't help anyone, least of all the passengers

That is a good way of putting it (productivity on the railways).

The problem is the government is tempted to micro manage the railways. This is an inevitable result of the state subsidising the railways. I thought privatisation was supposed to remove that shackle but alas not. * So it follows the government will want to legislate against strikes generally but must in particular be thinking about the predicament the railways are in.

* = It does alarm me how much (high) rest day working is relied upon by certain Train Operating Companies (TOCs).

 

[Annetts key]

We import electricity from France and I suspect they will charge us more as demand, in the rest of Europe, for their electricity increases.

We both import and export electricity. At the moment we are exporting electricity to France.

* = It does alarm me how much (high) rest day working is relied upon by certain Train Operating Companies (TOCs).

Relying on overtime was a problem identified back in 1988 when the railways were B.R., unfortunately it’s cheaper to use overtime working rather than employing enough staff.

Of course, companies that rely on overtime working are more likely to experience operational problems should they find themselves subject to industrial action because they have failed to reach a negotiated agreement with the representatives of their employees.

On the subject of DOO and general discussions regarding inflation, they are off topic. As I don’t wish to annoy the moderators, I will leave it there. But if you do wish to discuss these subjects further, feel free to open new topics, where I will be happy to post my views.

 

[nw1]

It's not forcing anyone to go to work. It's removing the protection that striking workers currently enjoy from unfair dismissal, if the minimum service level isn't complied with. That protection is an exception to the basic principle that if you don't turn up to work, you can be fired.

And I would hope that striking workers have protection from unfair dismissal.

Or should we live in a society where employers can exploit their employees with employees having less and less recourse to defend themselves through industrial action?

 

[Yew]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

The rail companies could stop the strikes at any moment with a stroke of a pen.

I think you will find UK is a country which spends more than it earns and has done for many years. That means general living standards will decrease for the vast majority. This is because the value of the pound sinks and debt interest payments increase under such circumstances. Sure, some will buck the trend, but there is no magic money tree

Let's move away from this infantile misunderstanding of state level macroeconomics. You don't cut your way to growth; you need to invest in your future. Unfortunately, the delusional policies of austerity are very profitable for those who buy off state assets at a bargain basement rate.

I agree with the general sentiment, but we didn't import much gas from Russia.

If we had a larger state that used the profits of North Sea oil to set up a sovereign wealth fund, we would be in a better state now.

 

[Thirteen]

It's interesting how the press releases from the various unions differ when they take action. ASLEF almost like they're apologising for striking whereas the RMT are more gun ho.

I'm in favour of strikes when it's about pay, working conditions and safety, I'm not so tolerant when it's to do a dispute that could be resolved through meditation like the one the RMT threatened a few months over a manager on the Victoria Line for example. I suspect those sort of strikes would not be able to go through if the threshold was raised.

 

[43096]

The rail companies could stop the strikes at any moment with a stroke of a pen.

Really. How are they going to do that? I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said that DfT is micro-managing the TOCs.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Relying on overtime was a problem identified back in 1988 when the railways were B.R., unfortunately it’s cheaper to use overtime working rather than employing enough staff.

Of course, companies that rely on overtime working are more likely to experience operational problems should they find themselves subject to industrial action because they have failed to reach a negotiated agreement with the representatives of their employees.

The Government and the train operators can and should end all opportunities for action short of a strike by employing enough staff to deliver the train timetable seven days a week and all other work on the railway though staff working their normal contracted hours and stop relying on staff working overtime and rest days to deliver the train timetable and other work on the railway. It is not possible to solve this problem with a minimum service. Working overtime and rest days outside contracted hours is voluntary and staff do not have to do this. If staff are unhappy or if they want to do something else that day they will not volunteer even without official action by their unions. Many more trains have been cancelled and far more disruption caused due to reliance on overtime and rest day working and not having staff volunteer to do this than due to strike action. The recent collapse of the Avanti West Coast service is only one example. This is a long standing problem, I have lost count of the number of Govia Southern and Thameslink trains, including driver only services, that have I have seen cancelled due to no driver being available for the train over the last two years. In one case when I arrived at the station I found that the train I was relying on had been cancelled due to the lack of a driver and I had to postpone the journey to another day. It got to the point where I could not rely on the timetable even though there was no industrial action.

 

[Sm5]

I fully agree that productivity needs to increase; I completely disagree that Lizz Truss' plan would have helped us get there.

In the rail industry, productivity increases would in most cases require changes in working practices (or just pushing more passengers on each train), which can only realistically be achieved through negotiations with unions. Therefore, the government needs to allow these negotiations to happen

if railways didnt have unions then you wouldnt need negotiations with them.
Employees would be able to raise by their merits, rather than by someone negotiating for the good of the whole.

The problem for rail is it is now in competition with Road and IT. In my world suburbia roads are more busy than ever since covid.. if they bought an extra car in Covid its 3-5 years before they sell it. Similarly the well trodden working from home.

Railways are not doing anything to encourage passengers to return, indeed in London it feels like they are doing the opposite, and hence justifying that extra car bought in lockdown.

i’m similarly not reading many complaints about the strikes, not like the old days where it was a 72 hour media feast covering before, during and after..indeed I dont know anyone who cares about the strikes.. they just wfh / drive the car.

When I read the history books of the 1953 strike, it reads similar… prior railways were ok, after passengers never came back and goods found better ways making lines unviable and ultimately Beeching.

I suspect by 2025 we may see another reshaping of Britains railways, with a more hardline “if you want a train you pay for it“ approach from government to local authorities.

For businesses, higher tax coupled with tax rebates for investment could be a way to drive an increase in productivity.

Collecting tax on all sales in this country equally regardless of medium would be a good start.

Raise corporate taxes, just encourages off shoring of profits but also on shoring of global losses… Was it Goldmans who onshored all its global losses onto its UK entity ensuring it has no UK tax to pay for around 60 years back during Gordon Browns tenure ?


Raising productivity on railways is a hard thing to do, you cant make the train go faster and simply earn more profit Like in other industries efficiency is volume… on my line the weekend service has been cut by 2/3rds, the train length by half… it is still rammed to standing as a consequence, on Monday its back to full service and full length, its still rammed to standing, except in the afternoons and later evenings. Theyve cut the early morning, and the last 3 at night.. yet its still running at a record loss, if you believe what we are told.

if its the case the only way a train minimises its loss is to be at 3x seating capacity throughout… then something somewhere is broken.

 

[class ep-09]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

If you think current level of strikes is bad , wait till train crew start “working to the rule “ and stop doing overtime .
You / public may somehow get to work but will you be able to come back ?

 

[Annetts key]

if railways didnt have unions then you wouldnt need negotiations with them.
Employees would be able to raise by their merits, rather than by someone negotiating for the good of the whole.

Well, how well it works with individual employees taking up issues with line managers depends on the management of the company. It definitely does not work if you don’t have a good manager or if the manager does not have authority to change anything.

Because of these sorts of problems, employees grouped together. The groups formed into what we now call unions. For the employees, by acting collectively, it greatly increases the negotiating power. For employers, if they are prepared to negotiate in good faith, it means that lots of small problems can be sorted out without staff resorting to individual action or just up and leaving. And less chance of individual work places/locations/depots etc. walking out (unofficial action).

Unions and companies can also negotiate collective agreements, which should make operating the company far easier. Instead of many smaller sets of negotiations, the employer negotiates with the union.

Raising productivity on railways is a hard thing to do, you cant make the train go faster and simply earn more profit Like in other industries efficiency is volume… on my line the weekend service has been cut by 2/3rds, the train length by half… it is still rammed to standing as a consequence, on Monday its back to full service and full length, its still rammed to standing, except in the afternoons and later evenings. Theyve cut the early morning, and the last 3 at night.. yet its still running at a record loss, if you believe what we are told.

if its the case the only way a train minimises its loss is to be at 3x seating capacity throughout… then something somewhere is broken.

The railway is more of a service industry and comparing it to a manufacturing industry doesn’t really help. The railway has lots of fixed costs as well as costs per train.
Even within the fixed costs, there are variations.

By fixed costs, I mean costs that are normally fixed regardless of the number of trains that run on a line.

Some examples of fixed costs:

• cost of emptying Signallers - as long as any area that they control has any part open to traffic, they have to be on duty
• Mobile Operations Managers (MOM) - these staff are the first responders if there is an incident or failure that stops trains
• engineering maintenance staff that provide 24 hour / 7 day a week ‘fault’ cover
• cost of all maintenance that is performed at scheduled time intervals (for example point operating equipment is maintained every 12 weeks)
• cost of power (electricity, gas, oil) used for powering the infrastructure (not including OHL or third rail)
• administrative, organisation, management etc. costs.

The above is just some examples and is far from exhaustive.

Then you have items where the costs do depends on the train service.

Plus you have the costs of renewing infrastructure. Resignalling, layout changes, all those big engineering jobs that disrupt timetables.

IMHO yes, the railways are broken. BR was not wonderful and had many faults. But the mess that we have now is definitely broken. There are too many companies involved and the organisations within some parts of the railways feels very top heavy.

The modern railway is obsessed paperwork or their electronic/computer equivalent forms and systems all of which eat up employees ‘working’ time.

A maintenance team are never going to be very productive if two to three hours of an eight hour shift are spent dealing with the paperwork/electronic/computer equivalent forms and systems.

The railway is also obsessed with data. Regardless of the quality (or lack of) or how useful the results are. The company then make important decisions based on the output from the flawed data.

Network Rail also is good at boxing itself into a corner. And then wonders why productivity figures fall off a cliff. For example some routes/regions have now banned using unassisted lookout warning (red zone working). So now engineering staff have to wait until the line can be closed to traffic (lineblock, possession of the sidings or T3 possession of running lines) before they can walk or work on or near a line. Even in sidings with a line speed of 15 MPH or less.

And I won’t even go into too much detail about how much waste occurs when the railway puts jobs out to contractors. The TVSC resignalling works that took place a few years ago resulted in signals less than five years old (LED types) and point operating equipment (point machines) well within their service life being scrapped (the signals end up in a skip). Then the four tracking on the Filton line did the same. Guess what happened with the Bristol East Junction project?

The point I’m trying to make is that the companies and the government like to blame increasing costs on the employees not being flexible. But they don’t want to talk about most of the other reasons for the increasing costs.