I find it fascinating how the railway industry has developed in a way that makes it so susceptible to long-term industrial disputes. The unique combination of fudged government-contracted private operator effectively makes it almost inevitable.
For example, in the public sector, the government is a monopsonist (the only buyer of labour), so if there's a dispute about the same thing that isn't resolved again and again, eventually they'll just impose the changes themselves and make everyone sign a new contract. That's exactly what happened with the junior doctors for example.
In the private sector however, Union leaders usually have some regard for the commercial interest of the company during a dispute. The British Airways strike has effectively been called off because it has cost the company too much at reputation level. If most companies faced the level of disruption Northern and GTR did, there would be a risk they would go out of business, either because they've run out of money in the short term or because their brand has become too damaged by comparison with their competitors in the long term.
This leads to the sort of bizarre situation we have here, where a dispute is recurring without any apparent consensus on the way forward, but an apparent quasi-unlimited threat exists to the business' commercial position as a result of industrial action.
To put it another way, as a result of the 90s privatisation, the government has lost control over the terms of employment contracts, but they've still retained an overall responsibility to protect the service delivery from shutdown by insolvency or termination at the firm running the trains today. Essentially this is a form of free insurance provided by the taxpayer, and by extension a state guarantee of permanent employment positions.
This is being repeated across the industry with varying outcomes, but with a relatively slow pace of change and little satisfaction from anybody. I can't believe I haven't quite understood it this way previously.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning implies only two ways out unless mutual agreement can be found:
- The government could impose new employment contracts on all railway employees, either through nationalisation or some other vehicle
- Loss-making routes hit by industrial action could be threatened with closure, either on a temporary basis until the dispute is resolved, or permanently
Increasingly I'm wondering if both of these ought not to be on the table, unpalatable and extreme as they both are? The alternative might be the continuation of the current disputes over and over, nationally. Eventually, the question might be over what causes less damage to the business position.
Those on these boards itching to ditch some of the least economically and socially useful services in the country might like to take note. I have to say that I personally think that this would be the worst possible outcome.
I will also pose the question that many people who hold such contracts will doubtless despise me for: should the state continue to provide effectively unlimited free insurance for the existence of the overall quantum of railway jobs, without any real oversight as to the pay and terms these offer? Of course, when taking into account the role the state played in setting up the current market, one might justifiably argue they should.