New strike regulation possible

[pt_mad]

What I can't really understand is why the public blame the staff for going on strike, when the reality is:

• Guard or driver does their job, turns up to work and fulfils their contract and is happy in their job.
• Train Operator then decides they want to make drastic changes. They know they may be unpopular, as they go against systems of work which have been in place on some routes for over a hundred years, like guard being responsible for the safety of the train.
• The TOC knows there will be serious industrial action and a mass cancellation of services if they try and push through the changes. Jobs may also be pencilled in to go. They know there will be a cost to the TOC, the government and the public, and it could be a long term dispute.
• The operator, possibly supported by the DFT, goes ahead with pushing through the changes regardless, and faces whatever action is voted for.
• Rail staff are told the proposals and find out they may lose their safety status, their grade, and it's not guaranteed new recruits will be taken on once people in their job leave. They're also told there duties will change, and they won't be essential to the railway anymore in that the train can run with or without them.
• This worries rail staff as they fear for their job security, their conditions and the destaffing of the railways in general and stand ground for their livelihoods.
• Railway operator and government are adamant they want the changes regardless of how painful it is for the country and the growing cost. They won't give in, and neither will the staff. Public were happy with how things were going before the strike and the staffing arrangements.

How the public actually blame any union members for that I don't know really? It must be the misreporting of the situation by the media?

 

[pemma]

I don't think so. The great repeal bill (name has changed now, think it's called the European Withdrawal Bill now), enshrines all EU law into UK law to be debated and amended as we see fit in due course.

I don't think the labour lords are likely to drop laws which currently protect workers rights.

We currently have protection against a right wing government taking away our worker's rights - the EU would block them. However, once we leave the EU 50% of votes in Westminster to remove a right will see it gone forever, so expect to see rights disappearing every time the Tories are in power.

 

[pemma]

What I can't really understand is why the public blame the staff for going on strike, when the reality is:

• Guard or driver does their job, turns up to work and fulfils their contract and is happy in their job.
• Train Operator then decides they want to make drastic changes. They know they may be unpopular, as they go against systems of work which have been in place on some routes for over a hundred years, like guard being responsible for the safety of the train.
• The TOC knows there will be serious industrial action and a mass cancellation of services if they try and push through the changes. Jobs may also be pencilled in to go. They know there will be a cost to the TOC, the government and the public, and it could be a long term dispute.
• The operator, possibly supported by the DFT, goes ahead with pushing through the changes regardless, and faces whatever action is voted for.
• Rail staff are told the proposals and find out they may lose their safety status, their grade, and it's not guaranteed new recruits will be taken on once people in their job leave. They're also told there duties will change, and they won't be essential to the railway anymore in that the train can run with or without them.
• This worries rail staff as they fear for their job security, their conditions and the restaffing of the railways in general and stand ground for their livelihoods.
• Railway operator and government are adamant they want the changes regardless of how painful it is for the country and the growing cost. They won't give in, and neither will the staff. Public were happy with how things were going before the strike and the staffing arrangements.

How the public actually blame any union members for that I don't know really? It must be the misreporting of the situation by the media?

You misunderstand. The public don't want rail staff to have rubbish working conditions, they just don't like having to suffer more than anyone else as a result of the strikes. The strike is between the union and the TOC, yet the RMT are well aware TOCs don't lose out by strikes (as they keep complaining about) but the public do, yet the RMT still call strikes very early on in disputes.

 

[pt_mad]

You misunderstand. The public don't want rail staff to have rubbish working conditions, they just don't like having to suffer more than anyone else as a result of the strikes. The strike is between the union and the TOC, yet the RMT are well aware TOCs don't lose out by strikes (as they keep complaining about) but the public do, yet the RMT still call strikes very early on in disputes.

What is the alternative for the union members? Write to the TOC and ask that they keep the guards please as the public need to catch their trains? That clearly isn't going to work or the disputes wouldn't even happen in the first place. What action can members take that disrupts only the TOC and not the public?
The very nature of the job means that if public facing staff withdraw their labour, services are going to suffer. That is impossible to prevent. The government and the operator are well aware of that when they propose drastic changes in working systems. The public should and perhaphs will start wondering why their own government and their transport department won't let things lie when their own voters are getting hurt in the process and trains operated perfectly well before. If these bodies don't care and think the changes are worth it, well that's down to voters to take up with the government.

I'm not sure if any member of the public would say all this was well worth it to get rid of the guard from the night train. My fare is the same but but I feel so much better now I'm alone and the driver closes the doors.

 

[Robertj21a]

What is the alternative for the union members? Write to the TOC and ask that they keep the guards please as the public need to catch their trains? That clearly isn't going to work or the disputes wouldn't even happen in the first place. What action can members take that disrupts only the TOC and not the public?
The very nature of the job means that if public facing staff withdraw their labour, services are going to suffer. That is impossible to prevent. The government and the operator are well aware of that when they propose drastic changes in working systems. The public should and perhaphs will start wondering why their own government and their transport department won't let things lie when their own voters are getting hurt in the process. If these bodies don't care and think the changes are worth it, well that's down to voters to take up with the government.

I'm not sure if any member of the public would say all this was well worth it to get rid of the guard from the night train. My fare is the same but but I feel so much better now I'm alone and the driver closes the doors.

I understand, and agree with some of the points you make. However, the public *perception* may well be that the rail unions have a reputation for strikes/industrial disputes and are generally out of touch with what others would consider to be the real world. It's not helped when the media - and unions - carry on about who opens/shuts doors (the public couldn't care less). Also not helped when many train passengers probably haven't a clue as to whether or not their train even has a guard.

 

[Bromley boy]

Good grief. The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, indeed it pre-dates it. Compliance with the ECHR arises from membership of the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949 and whose membership includes many countries ouside of the EU and who are unlikely ever to join the EU. Its main aims are to do with upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. As such it is a very much less political organisation than the EU and there has never been any suggestion that Brexit would lead to this country also leaving the CE. It's just very unfortunate that the organisation has both its main offices and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, a city that also hosts the EU's court, the European Courts of Justice. While this may cause confusion to some I would hope that people here would get their facts straight before making sweeping statements.

And I wish people would read what has actually been written before going off half cocked!

The posts you were referencing were discussing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - entirely separate from the ECHR.

It would seem the confusion is all yours .

https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-devel...ur-rights-eu/eu-charter-fundamental-rights_en

 

[pt_mad]

Well we either respect the workers right to strike, or we ban strikes in this country, if that's what the popular consensus want. I highly doubt that it is. And that would have huge implications across the entire workforce across the nation. The employers would hold all the cards at all times over everything with no recourse for the worker whatsoever, other than taking them to a tribunal, providing they've been in the job at least two years.

 

[Bevan Price]

it is ok - Comrade Corbyn will be in charge by then.......................

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of disputes, the RMT & others are helping to ensure that Comrade Corbyn will neve become PM.

Too many people believe that all the propaganda they read in the Torygraph, Wail or Scum is the gospel trtuh - and said media will use actions by TUs to claim "this is what happens when you let the far left run the country" - and that applies even if the Tories continue to make a c**k-up of the economy, Brexit or NHS, etc...

 

[AlterEgo]

Well we either respect the workers right to strike, or we ban strikes in this country

The choice is not binary.

In fact that’s the whole premise of the legislation. It doesn’t seek to ban striking.

 

[Moonshot]

The choice is not binary.

In fact that’s the whole premise of the legislation. It doesn’t seek to ban striking.

Indeed it doesn't, in this case it seeks to mitigate the effects on the travelling public.

 

[Red Devil]

Another load of nonsense from the Daily Fail.
If this was going to happen this would have happened when they had a bigger majority than the 12 they have now. 11 actually, with Paisley's suspension.
This government has enough on its plate with Brexit, hence for nearly 12 months very little legislation has actually been pushed through parliament. Brexit taking up the majority of parliamentary business.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

And I wish people would read what has actually been written before going off half cocked!

The posts you were referencing were discussing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - entirely separate from the ECHR.

It would seem the confusion is all yours .

https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-devel...ur-rights-eu/eu-charter-fundamental-rights_en

Au contraire. It was you who chose to respond to a post referencing Article 11 of the Convention (the European Council document) by mentioning Article 28 of the Charter (the EU document). As you say by the time the proposals which are the subject of this thread are likely to be put before Parliament the UK will have left the EU and therefore this government (and any others to come) will be free to legislate away all sorts of EU inspired legislation including some which arise from the Charter. I do not know why you wish to muddy the waters of this discussion by mentioning the Charter: it will no longer provide any reliable safeguards for people in this country.

However this country will still be subject to the provisions of the Convention (except the small number of Protocols that we have not ratified; a number of otherwise liberal countries also have not ratified small parts of the Convention) with Article 11 being the part covering trade union membership and activity. It is true that the question of strike action has not been challenged directly but a ruling against Turkey did make it clear that the allowable restrictions on strikes were not intended to be interpreted liberally. In this case Turkey argued that "protection of administration of the State" (as per Article 11) allowed it to ban all civil servants from striking: the court ruled otherwise.

To quote Article 11 in full:

Freedom of assembly and association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

As far as restricting the rights of transport workers to strike goes it would seem that the only way this could be done while complying with Article 11 would be to protect "the rights and freedoms of others" in terms of freedom of movement. Indeed I know that jcollins has suggested this possibility in another thread. However the UK has not ratified the protocols relating to freedom of movement due to concerns that this would contravene some provisions of UK legislation relating to the various different statuses held by UK citizens/passport holders as well as those relating to immigration. These issues were not insignificant in the Brexit debate and the government stance is highly unlikely to change. As such, at least as I see it (IANAL!), there is no way for a government to restrict the rights of transport workers to strike while still complying with the ECHR. So perhaps all this will turn out to be a load of hot air!

 

[Bromley boy]

Au contraire. It was you who chose to respond to a post referencing Article 11 of the Convention (the European Council document) by mentioning Article 28 of the Charter (the EU document).

What on earth are you talking about?!

@B&I commented that ECHR article 11 included a right to strike (it doesn’t explicity). I responded by referencing article 28 of the charter on fundamental rights (which does refer to strikes) because I thought he may have confused the two. I acknowledged that the charter will no longer have relevance to the U.K. following withdrawal from the EU. @jcollins then responded to me referencing the charter and the apparent irony of my leave vote, the charter being an EU animal.

Rest assured I’m fully aware of the differences between the ECHR and the Charter. I have no idea what prompted your irrelevant (and patronising) lecture on the ECHR’s origins.

I suspect either:

(I) you didn’t read my post properly and mistakenly assumed my reference to the charter was a reference to the ECHR;

(II) perhaps you have never heard of the charter yourself and therefore confused yourself into thinking my reference to the charter was a reference to the ECHR.

I don’t care either way but I would respectfully ask that you read my posts more carefully in future before responding.

EDIT: in addition to the UK’s impending departure from the EU I’m also fully in favour of repealing the HRA and leaving the ECHR. I simply don’t think it’s necessary in the U.K., and only serves to provide a “criminals’ charter”.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What on earth are you talking about?!

@B&I commented that ECHR article 11 included a right to strike (it doesn’t explicity). I responded by referencing article 28 of the charter on fundamental rights (which does refer to strikes) because I thought he may have confused the two. I acknowledged that the charter will no longer have relevance to the U.K. following withdrawal from the EU. @jcollins then responded to me referencing the charter and the apparent irony of my leave vote, the charter being an EU animal.

Rest assured I’m fully aware of the differences between the ECHR and the Charter. I have no idea what prompted your irrelevant (and patronising) lecture on the ECHR’s origins.

I suspect either:

(I) you didn’t read my post properly and mistakenly assumed my reference to the charter was a reference to the ECHR;

(II) perhaps you have never heard of the charter yourself and therefore confused yourself into thinking my reference to the charter was a reference to the ECHR.

I don’t care either way but I would respectfully ask that you read my posts more carefully in future before responding.

You really should not assume that any member who responds to your posts does so with the intention of solely communicating with you. This is a forum, a place for discussion between any members who choose to respond, as well as a place for learning new information just by reading. I'm sorry if you think I gave a patronising lecture but I have no doubt that at least some who read it will have learned something new. I also believe that a discussion here becomes more valuable by members providing information that others might not have been aware of or hadn't considered in the context of the particular discussion. And if you find my responses so irritating feel free to put me on your Ignore List.

 

[Bromley boy]

You really should not assume that any member who responds to your posts does so with the intention of solely communicating with you. This is a forum, a place for discussion between any members who choose to respond, as well as a place for learning new information just by reading. I'm sorry if you think I gave a patronising lecture but I have no doubt that at least some who read it will have learned something new. I also believe that a discussion here becomes more valuable by members providing information that others might not have been aware of or hadn't considered in the context of the particular discussion. And if you find my responses so irritating feel free to put me on your Ignore List.

TL/DR of my last:

Don’t ask me to “get my facts straight” when you’re the one who clearly didn’t bother to read or understand what I’d actually written in a post you chose to respond to in an extremely patronising manner.

An acknowledgement of and apology for your mistake clearly isn’t going to be forthcoming, so I’ll leave it there.

 

[Dave1987]

Do you think there will be riots over this?

Despite May’s weasel words on being a “Government for everyone” and “enhancing workers rights post Brexit” the Tories have voted against pretty much everything to enhance them. People are not stupid. They can see if they can get this through Parliament that this would be the just the start of a full scale attack on trade unions and workers rights. In that situation I don’t believe civil unrest could be ruled out.

 

[Dave1987]

The choice is not binary.

In fact that’s the whole premise of the legislation. It doesn’t seek to ban striking.

Yet....... that’s a long and slippery slope once the Tory hardcore right have smelt blood against the trade unions.

 

[pemma]

What planet are you on?

I wasn't aware of the exact dates and I'm not an expert on the sale of gold either. I was just posting what I was aware of that the value of gold goes up and down over time after you complained that Brown sold our gold. You didn't say that he sold our gold for less than he could have got if it was sold 5 years later.

From the Daily Telegraph in 2009

The source may not give the full picture though due to it's pro-Conservative political stance. The same source takes George Osborne's view that Gordon Brown should have retained a budget surplus so there was a rainy day fund ready for when things went wrong. Yet Gordon Brown became chancellor when the country was in deficit, so whatever he did he was going to be criticised by the pro-Conservative press.

 

[al78]

People are not stupid.

We'll agree to differ on that one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yet....... that’s a long and slippery slope once the Tory hardcore right have smelt blood against the trade unions.

Didn't you vote Tory?

 

[pemma]

What is the alternative for the union members? Write to the TOC and ask that they keep the guards please as the public need to catch their trains? That clearly isn't going to work or the disputes wouldn't even happen in the first place. What action can members take that disrupts only the TOC and not the public?
The very nature of the job means that if public facing staff withdraw their labour, services are going to suffer. That is impossible to prevent. The government and the operator are well aware of that when they propose drastic changes in working systems. The public should and perhaphs will start wondering why their own government and their transport department won't let things lie when their own voters are getting hurt in the process and trains operated perfectly well before. If these bodies don't care and think the changes are worth it, well that's down to voters to take up with the government.

I'm not sure if any member of the public would say all this was well worth it to get rid of the guard from the night train. My fare is the same but but I feel so much better now I'm alone and the driver closes the doors.

In the case of both Northern and Merseyrail any DOO/DCO would come in alongside brand new trains being introduced, so it wouldn't be a case of no guards and nothing in return for the passengers.

Is passenger safety and accessibility are the number one concerns then a more constructive approach would be to work with TfN, BTP, local police forces, RUGs and disability groups to come up with a list of concerns. For instance, is there evidence that crime is higher on DOO trains, are vulnerable passengers more at risk at unstaffed stations or on DOO trains, if there isn't a guarantee of a second member of staff on all services would disabled people be able to use the train etc. It might not come up with the result the RMT want on all lines but it would then be strong evidence unlike the RMT bleating "DOO bad, guard good - we want an independent report done (not at our expense) to prove it as we don't believe the RSSB report which states DOO is safe if properly implemented."

The biggest problem with the RMT's DOO disputes is they've started a dispute with every new franchise - in some cases they've tried to start dispute with the old franchise over what's in the ITT for the next franchise. They've even tried to to start a dispute with franchises which had no plans to get rid of or change the guard role 'just in case.' Having the rep go to the new franchise holder to seek assurances is completely reasonable and expected but reporting it as a dispute with an evil private/foreign owned company (delete as applicable) and immediately balloting for a strike if a 100% guarantee for the duration of the franchise isn't given, is not using strike action as a last resort (the way it's suppose to be) and just proves Mick Cash has a big ego. I've been saying for a long time that if the RMT don't grow up the government will look at changing legislation which will make other trade union members suffer for Cash's arrogance, fortunately it sounds like this idea will only class public transport as an essential service opposed to making it harder for anyone to strike.

 

[Panupreset]

Is it possible for a member of the public to propose a bill to be passed for parliament? I would propose new parliamentary working hours bill.

Parliament will work alternate early and late weeks. Early's will commence at 0515 until 1315. Lates will commence 1500 until 2300. There will be one day off each week which can be any day Monday to Saturday. A late sitting on Saturday does not preclude an early sitting on Monday. All MP's must sign on each day at Parliament at or before the booked start time. Parliament will sit two Sundays a week as enforced overtime. Hours will be published 9am the Thursday before.
The speaker can amend the start time by up to an hour and the length of time sat for up to an hour with 24 hours notice. Hours can be amended for any reason, maintenance work, football matches, rock concerts.
One week in 8 start time will be 1200 'as required'. By 9am the Thursday the week before Speaker will publish the hours MP's will sit, the start time of which may vary +\- 3hours from 1200 and which day will be rest day.
All requests for annual leave will be accepted/refused by the speaker. No more than 5% of MP's maybe off any given day.
If the house is running late, MP's are obliged to finish the day's debates.
One break of a minimum of 40 minutes or two 20 minute breaks will be provided each day.
Working hours will be revised each 6 months as required by the Speaker.
All MP's will be required to live within 30 minutes of parliament.
Parliamentary assistants to be done away with. MP's will have to close their office doors behind them when they leave.
MP's should not consume alcohol within 12 hours of sitting in the house. Random compulsory drink and drugs testing will take place.
MP's will be tested annually on Parliamentary rules.
MP's will be required to undertaken routine medicals.
MP's will be required to attend Parliament even if no debates are tabled.
MP's will be allowed free travel on one operator. This will not include any service operated by TfL including the underground.
Attendance rates will be monitored and subject to disciplinary action should they fall below a certain level.
Mistakes and errors will be subject to disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal and or imprisonment.
As Parliament is an essential service (running the country!), industrial action by MP's is illegal.

 

[pemma]

Didn't you vote Tory?

If you search some of @Dave1987's old posts you'll see he was one of the few people who were pro-Cameron and Osborne on here. Presuming 1987 is his year of birth it's perhaps not a surprise that he's become anti-Tory. I know plenty of people under 35 who used to be Conservative supporters (mainly because that's the party their parents support) and now wouldn't even consider voting Conservative, some are even pro-Corbyn opposed to wanting a centre-left government.

 

[pemma]

Is it possible for a member of the public to propose a bill to be passed for parliament? I would propose new parliamentary working hours bill.

No. Either write to your MP or organise a petition.

Parliament will work alternate early and late weeks. Early's will commence at 0515 until 1315. Lates will commence 1500 until 2300. There will be one day off each week which can be any day Monday to Saturday. A late sitting on Saturday does not preclude an early sitting on Monday. All MP's must sign on each day at Parliament at or before the booked start time. Parliament will sit two Sundays a week as enforced overtime. Hours will be published 9am the Thursday before.

Don't forget MPs should spend one day a week working in their constituencies, so you're actually proposing MPs will be forced to work 7 days a week some weeks given you are making them sign on in London 5 or 6 days a week, even if they represent the far north of Scotland. Some MPs do actually work Sundays as overtime - have you ever noticed how many media interviews with MPs are done on a Sunday morning?

 

[Panupreset]

Yes I am. With Sundays outside the working week there are plenty of weeks in my roster where we are rostered to work 6 days a week and sometimes 7 days a week. Not everyone has a 4 day week.

Who decides MP's working hours and T&C's and remuneration?

 

[pemma]

Yes I am. With Sundays outside the working week there are plenty of weeks in my roster where we are rostered to work 6 days a week.

Choose to work or are forced to work? I'd argue many MPs already choose to do additional work on Sundays, while Friday is generally seen as the day they should be in their constituencies which also allows them to appear at events which may be taking part in their constituencies over the weekend.

Also don't forget MPs have to get to work. Do drivers on Chiltern want to start providing a 24 hour service? If not you might want to re-think your idea about them starting at 5:15am, otherwise MP's expenses will be go through the roof and we'll pay for that.

 

[Panupreset]

Forced to work. Where there are Sundays in our roster we are contractually obliged to work them. They are paid as overtime and are not included in 35 hour working week.

When we are on early shifts and there is not a train to to get us to work in time or home from a late shift we have to drive to work. We cannot claim any form of expenses to cover the cost of driving to or from work.

In the last couple of years some parts of our route have been remodelled and resignalled. Major changes have been made to two depots. We have had to learn the changes in our free time.

 

[Dave1987]

Didn't you vote Tory?

No I didn’t.

 

[AlterEgo]

No I didn’t.

I must be confused about you posting that the May 2015 election, when the Conservatives won an overall majority, was a great result then. You also followed it up by expressing concern that people don't admit to voting Tory in case they get targeted by socialists.

Basically, you thought it was all great until they came for your right to strike.

 

[Dave1987]

I must be confused about you posting that the May 2015 election, when the Conservatives won an overall majority, was a great result then. You also followed it up by expressing concern that people don't admit to voting Tory in case they get targeted by socialists.

Basically, you thought it was all great until they came for your right to strike.

Once May was selected as the PM, and the Tories took a huge step to the right I changed. I have already explained this.