We all know the reason the RMT firstly like a good strike and secondly want to control the doors, and keep the status quo. So they are able to cause maximum disruption when in dispute.
I cannot think of many other industries outside the railway where despite having guarantees and assurances that members will retain their jobs, pay, pensions and terms and conditions they are so opposed to any changes to working practices or modernisation by the employer. Surely that is the number one priority.
A lot of conclusions seem to have been jumped to. It's not surprising a union wants to retain the status quo, as that will usually act as some guarantee for job retention and future requirement for the role long into the future. Which is what a union is there for and what the members would usually hope for. As would anyone in a job they enjoy.
I could imagine there would be heavy reluctance in accepting some sort of agreement where, as a pure example, onboard staff remain considered safety critical and yet full dispatch responsibilities go to the driver. I have no idea whether this is the sort of thing being proposed here is, but a scenario like that, as far as the railway rulebook is concerned, is considered DO in the rulebook for dispatch, and the rulebook is what the whole railway works to across all operators in Britain.
Assurances would be one thing, bit how far do assurances stretch regards future franchises or management contracts? Do the RMT aim towards keeping current arrangements where a guard has safety responsibilities which must be carried out for the train to run, or give those to the driver and accept a reassurance that onboard staff will still be needed within a franchise?
Which TOC has attempted to introduce a major change like DCO without initially at least trying to fully consult with & seek an agreement from, the unions.?
In an individual situation , there appears at times unfortunately to be an element of how well ones face fits reflected in the outcome, even in a highly unionised industry such as the railway ,
Surely they would have to seek agreement from unions in some form, where a union is recognised? They would probably be breaking all sorts of agreement if they just brought it in and said off you go? I think that is simply the processes which have to be followed?
Also don't forget most drivers across the industry are in the aslef union. They would have to be consulted in the aim of agreement.
Is it known whether drivers actually want or are willing to accept full responsibility for dispatch?
Many seem to have passed that consideration by.