TSSA Threaten National Rail Strike Over Social Distancing Fears

[Bikeman78]

Ultimately I'd start by asking the question as to why we appear to have thousands of people suddenly with nothing else to do other than visit the beach on a weekday in mid-June, compared to normal times.

Well yes I agree with that. Getting people back to work and school will help. But we need to accept that social distancing on trains does not work. The two metre rule means that a class 150 seats around 30 people. That is basically useless. To put it another way, you'd need to run a 10 car train to provide the same number of seats that a two car did previously.

 

[43066]

There's fewer people on the train potentially complaining at people not wearing masks when it is DOO (ducks)

Haha. Nope, because the guards really are “hiding in the back cab” at the moment, to use another DOO trope .

 

[JonathanH]

What is not wanted is a return to things like Friday and Saturdays nights where the place is awash with aggressive drunks vomiting or defacating all over the trains and causing problems for staff, or scenes like today on Bournemouth beach where we suddenly get mass spikes in leisure demand completely swamping the capacity that's available. Already we're starting to see a return to some of this.

Unfortunately, these are the people who are going to continue to travel by train.

Ultimately we can't have people working from home forever, and we certainly can't have people allegedly too frightened to take the train to work - the latter is something we very much still have. Work journeys simply *have* to take priority over some of these leisure journeys

These are the people who are not going to continue to travel by train.

Likewise, even more importantly we *need* the more critical workers to feel safe when travelling by train, or else we could very quickly degenerate into a state of affairs which no one would wish to see.

This is a concern I have - particularly outside the peaks into the evening. Trains basically becoming no-go areas because the 'nice' people who used to travel are not coming back now their workplace is at home.

 

[yorkie]

A strike isn't going to be very effective at the moment.

I do wonder what planet some of these people are on.

If I met Manuel Cortes I'd like to have an argument. That would be the full argument, not a 5 minute argument....

There's fewer people on the train potentially complaining at people not wearing masks when it is DOO (ducks)

I don't see how the operation of the train has anything to do with it. On the trains I've taken recently, there's been no sign of operational staff in the passenger areas of the train.

Well yes I agree with that. Getting people back to work and school will help. But we need to accept that social distancing on trains does not work....

Absolutely, and other countries can see this. The current situation is madness.

See:

Could mandatory mask-wearing replace social distancing on public transport, thus increasing capacity?

I was very alarmed to read this on the CrossCountry website: https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/coronavirus#face-covering-faqs Q: Are you doing this just to reduce the need for social distancing? No. We are doing this to further reduce the risk of infection. Used properly, face coverings can...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MikeWM]

I don't see how the operation of the train has anything to do with it. On the trains I've taken recently, there's been no sign of operational staff in the passenger areas of the train.

Same here - though I suspect guards will be back moving through the train before 'compulsory' masks go, as I expect the latter to last for a lamentably long time.

 

[PupCuff]

What impact would a TSSA strike have on the railway anyway.

Most footplate staff are ASLEF, the "man* at the back" and signallers are RMT.

Management would presumably step into supervisory roles.

Back office work would be affected and booking offices. What else?

* including women at the back

What impact would it have? Well, immediate concerns could include...

There would be no control staff,
No conductor or driver managers (including those with on-call and TOLO etc responsibilities),
No finance staff to run the payroll,
No rolling stock management on-call to authorise trains running in service with certain defects;

If it were a protracted strike...

No train planning/diagramming staff to produce amended timetables etc,
No commercial staff to plan and release advance fares
No safety staff to maintain compliance with safety legislation
No HR staff to deal with recruitment of new staff so potential frontline staff shortages

Basically, if they're rail employees and not a director or a frontline member of staff (other than ticket office staff) they'll be represented by TSSA.

The problem with a TSSA strike is traditionally it's TSSA members that are parachuted in when RMT or ASLEF go on strike as they've generally come from the 'shop floor' originally and may already have existing competencies. It would be rare for an RMT member to be drafted in to, say, staff a control room, or perform on-call duties, simply because they don't have the level of training required to do that. Therefore it relies on non-union management and office staff to cover these roles in the event of a strike - traditionally TSSA has a lower proportion of eligible staff as members than the other rail unions, but even then in the more specialised areas you tend to find membership is higher.

There is unfortunately some thinking in the industry that the railway runs simply by a driver getting on a train and a signaller making the signal go green, when the reality of it is there's a lot of prerequisites that need to be in place for that to happen, and those prerequisites are what primarily TSSA members deal with. For what it's worth I don't think TSSA members would vote to strike nationally on this particular issue. Indeed most TSSA members are currently dealing (ie, spending most of their waking hours) with how to try and get the railway back on its feet again, not the opposite.

 

[yorksrob]

But that is (and needs to be!) a temporary situation. We need people to get back to work. Nobody I know, who is currently working from home, has any desire to do so full time




Sorry, but that is an absolutely ludicrous comparison. It’s extraordinary how the actions of the NUM in the 1970s seem to have poisoned the British public against trade unions, forevermore.

Mining in the UK was a stand-alone industry, which ultimately became uncompetitive on the world stage, along with most of this country’s traditional heavy industries. The railways are a different kettle of fish: they also require subsidy, but come with massive external economic benefits.

Thank goodness the decision makers in government are somewhat more worldly and pragmatic than some of the contributors to this board .

The rail unions are doing a good job of poisoning public opinion of trades unions all by themselves.

If they call a strike over this, I can't see them having any sympathy from the public over any resultant Government legislation.

 

[43066]

The rail unions are doing a good job of poisoning public opinion of trades unions all by themselves.

If they call a strike over this, I can't see them having any sympathy from the public over any resultant Government legislation.

You’ll get no disagreement me on that, nor would you from many other railway union members!

 

[Chester1]

The rail unions are doing a good job of poisoning public opinion of trades unions all by themselves.

If they call a strike over this, I can't see them having any sympathy from the public over any resultant Government legislation.

Completely agree. Its an absolutely mad time to consider striking. With 44% of workforce working from home at least 1 day a week (and many every day) and another chunk furloughed it would have a low impact on passengers compared with any recent strike. The government won't care about losing a bit more money, its losing money everywhere and a strike would provide them with a once in a generation opportunity to crush the rail unions. With a majority of 80 they would force through legislation for a minimum strike service level similar to France e.g. 30% and fire anyone who broke the law. Its probably the most stupid time to strike for decades.

 

[talldave]

When did rail unions become experts in virus transmission? And more knowledgeable ones than the WHO at that?

 

[Fisherman80]

I really don't see how any railway union is in a position to strike. I suspect if one was to occur,the damage would be irreversible.

 

[anthony263]

Scrap social distancing I say. I am a member of unite and too be honest I'm getting sick of the unions going on about this . This virus is like flu never going away and we just gonna have to live with it. Social distancing is likely to be scrapped in schools. Scenes at beaches showing people have had enough now.

 

[BJames]

I know it's not exactly the same but there was disruption on the District Line today and social distancing was not possible. Nobody looked concerned as far as I could see, people happily sat down next to each other and just absorbed themselves in their phones or in their books as usual. Staff chatting and joking around on the platforms. Not really seeing any evidence of terrified people on the transport network - those people too scared to use it have stayed at home!

 

[pdeaves]

Everybody does their own 'risk assessment'. I assess that risks are minimal and I can mingle with folk, you assess the risk is too high and keep away. It's clear that the Great British Public already does that (see beaches, etc.). Can the unions not accept that their members, and members' customers, might be grown up enough to decide for themselves what to do, rather than being forced one way or the other?

 

[45107]

Everybody does their own 'risk assessment'. I assess that risks are minimal and I can mingle with folk, you assess the risk is too high and keep away. It's clear that the Great British Public already does that (see beaches, etc.). Can the unions not accept that their members, and members' customers, might be grown up enough to decide for themselves what to do, rather than being forced one way or the other?

Ever thought that it may be the members of the union are raising concerns ?

 

[yorkie]

Ever thought that it may be the members of the union are raising concerns ?

In my experience of unions, as well as based on what I've heard from other union members, a small minority are very vocal, and those are the ones whose views the unions tend to represent, rather than the silent majority.

 

[PupCuff]

Ever thought that it may be the members of the union are raising concerns ?

I would say that in a lot of cases, particularly recently, with the rail unions I feel the tail has been wagging the dog, the views of the unions' officials are frequently very different to that of their members. See facemasks, overwhelmingly detested by union members yet forced through by their unions. Management work to support their staff at locations being told to be torn down by the unions at the threat of triggering a dispute. Management being held to inflexible policies by union officials which mean that (as an example) training with appropriate adjustments for social distancing and such can't go ahead, so the union member is stuck on their training wage for longer etc. Going back further, no opposition to industry pension changes which left their members working longer and for reduced pension. There isn't a mechanism to consult the members on a proposed change by management, it is simply done from the view of the rep, who in many circumstances are experienced negotiators with their ears to the ground on how this will affect (and be perceived by) their members - unfortunately there are also reps who are reps because they want the time off trains/want an excuse to have a row with management/want an excuse to push their weight around/subscribe to the loony left, the whole 'comrade' thing etc.

Back when I was an RMT member, at my location the rep had always been the rep, and in the however many years I was there no vote was ever held of the members to keep the "elected" rep in place or return a new one. It was galling because there were a number of people willing and able to do a more competent job. Perhaps things are different now.

 

[johnnychips]

I do remember that when I was in the NUT, many years ago, I kept getting a lot of ballot forms through the post asking me to vote for strike action or not, that I couldn’t be arsed to reply to; then suddenly we were on strike. Sometimes I agreed with it, sometimes I didn’t, but I could hardly complain as I hadn’t been bothered to vote. However, I thought it was the situation now that a majority of members, not that just those who voted, had to agree to a strike. On the other hand, I might be talking rubbish, so I am sure somebody can enlighten me.

 

[Starmill]

I think a strike is reasonably likely, though obviously not certain. A huge number of people, including people who never follow politics usually, are genuinely furious with the government for their failure to take the threat of the virus very seriously, and their appalling prioritisation of Conservative interests above the safety and wellbeing of the general public. Many of these people will be in trade unions, filtering their views through to the top levels.

Let us not forget that TUC officials worked in the Treasury for a few days to help them devise the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. It's ironic that a huge number of people whose employers were about to announce redundancy had their job saved by the trade unions even if they weren't members.

 

[bramling]

Same here - though I suspect guards will be back moving through the train before 'compulsory' masks go, as I expect the latter to last for a lamentably long time.

Masks aren't going to last, it's already breaking down, not least because many staff are choosing not to wear them (because they interfere with performance of their duties). If there is a strike over distancing it won't be over masks.

 

[bramling]

I think a strike is reasonably likely, though obviously not certain. A huge number of people, including people who never follow politics usually, are genuinely furious with the government for their failure to take the threat of the virus very seriously, and their appalling prioritisation of Conservative interests above the safety and wellbeing of the general public. Many of these people will be in trade unions, filtering their views through to the top levels.

I'm not sure it would go as far as a strike, however I completely agree you're spot on with a huge number of people being furious with the government over the handling of this - for various reasons. I'm not sure it's necessarily a prioritisation of Conservative interests, just a combination of complete incompetence and perhaps the populist way elements of this have been handled.

I'm certainly not alone in getting urges of madness even just seeing Boris's bumbling face on TV now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As far as I can see, the government proposal is for the standard still to be 2m separation, with "1m+" in some settings if you cannot achieve 2m.
There are supposed to be extra provisions if reducing to 1m (the "+"), ie masks, visors, screens, seating restrictions etc.
As far as I can see there is no instruction to transport operators to adopt a simple 1m limit, and the advice is still to avoid public transport where possible.
A long-term 2m standard will destroy the railway, maybe even 1m+ will not allow enough capacity to maintain the existing network.
It seems the union is crying wolf before any detailed regulations have been produced.
Imagine if the NHS had gone on strike for "social distancing" reasons in March.

 

[MikeWM]

Masks aren't going to last, it's already breaking down, not least because many staff are choosing not to wear them (because they interfere with performance of their duties).

I did strongly suspect front-line staff weren't exactly keen on the idea, given the tiny number of staff (certainly < 5%) I saw wearing them immediately prior to June 15th. (If you want to do something, you don't have to wait until it is mandatory!)

 

[bramling]

I did strongly suspect front-line staff weren't exactly keen on the idea, given the tiny number of staff (certainly < 5%) I saw wearing them immediately prior to June 15th. (If you want to do something, you don't have to wait until it is mandatory!)

The biggest problem is, perhaps, not those punters who aren't wearing them, but those who are using them incorrectly - either round their necks, or fiddling with them. This applies to pretty much *everyone*.

I bet we'll find this was precisely why the scientists didn't implement the idea earlier on, with the decision to do it now being a political one.

Anyway, not a major problem as the measure is already falling apart. If there is a strike it won't be over masks.

 

[yorksrob]

The biggest problem is, perhaps, not those punters who aren't wearing them, but those who are using them incorrectly - either round their necks, or fiddling with them. This applies to pretty much *everyone*.

I bet we'll find this was precisely why the scientists didn't implement the idea earlier on, with the decision to do it now being a political one.

Anyway, not a major problem as the measure is already falling apart. If there is a strike it won't be over masks.

Fiddling with masks might marginally increase the risk of people catching something off of their hands, but it won't stop the mask stopping droplets being released into the carriage, which is what they're for. Probably not much of an argument for those who'd just prefer not to carry passengers though.

 

[43066]

Fiddling with masks might marginally increase the risk of people catching something off of their hands, but it won't stop the mask stopping droplets being released into the carriage, which is what they're for. Probably not much of an argument for those who'd just prefer not to carry passengers though.

Not if the masks aren’t worn correctly, or are of the wrong type. Many masks, even those of the “correct” type, and worn properly, simply replace frontwards “jets of infection” with sideways or backwards ones. The elephant in the room, of course, is that there’s scant evidence that masks have any tangible benefit at all outside clinical settings.

Union posturing aside, rest assured, the vast majority of rail staff know which way their bread is buttered. Nobody I know genuinely wants to run trains with no passengers on them (other than a mate who drives freight trains ).

 

[yorksrob]

Not if the masks aren’t worn correctly, or are of the wrong type. Many types of mask, even when worn properly, simply replace frontwards “jets of infection” for sideways or backwards ones. The elephant in the room, of course, is that there’s scant evidence that masks have any tangible benefit at all outside clinical settings.

That does suggest that a simple cloth covering as required, is probably best for the task in hand.

Union posturing aside, rest assured, the vast majority of rail staff know which way their bread is buttered. Nobody I know genuinely wants to run trains with no passengers on them (other than a mate who drives freight trains ).

That's reassuring, but running trains with 2m social distancing isn't far off running them empty.

 

[Butts]

Manuel should be sent back to where he belongs in Fawlty Towers..

 

[bramling]

Fiddling with masks might marginally increase the risk of people catching something off of their hands, but it won't stop the mask stopping droplets being released into the carriage, which is what they're for. Probably not much of an argument for those who'd just prefer not to carry passengers though.

Since the scientific advice has been conflicting at best, and since no one has definitely come out and said what the balance of risk is in relation to droplets versus surfaces, I prefer to take the risk with air-borne droplets, rather than having something on my face which as well as being intrusive and distracting is also a risk of transmitting germs to the very places where we’re supposed to be avoiding - the mouth and nose. Should I find myself on a very crowded train then I *might* reconsider this.

As for empty trains, I don’t think we’ll see strike action over this. However we may well see some more localised action, more along the lines of “work to rule”. This might manifest itself in a crew refusing to take a train if it’s overcrowded, until some people get off.

Now if that situation arises, there will certainly be scope for trouble. I’m sure people on their way to and from work will be very happy to step aside to make way for a trainload of seasiders.

Another point to add, this forum seems to have a thing about young people, however spare a thought for another group - those who have been shielding for the last three months and counting, and who in some cases have barely left their homes, let alone been to a park or beach. At some point many of these face the genuinely daunting prospect of returning to work - indeed as a society we *need* them to, and in many cases they’re strong economic contributors. It isn’t just unions driving an “essential journeys” mindset, although of course they do represent many people in this cohort, and no doubt quite reasonably wish to ensure their safety and well-being is at least considered.

 

[43066]

That's reassuring, but running trains with 2m social distancing isn't far off running them empty.

Nobody sensible thinks that’s a good idea, either.

Keep in mind most front line rail staff have been going to work throughout this pandemic. The people who want these ridiculous measures to continue are the type who were living it up on Bournemouth beach yesterday, while the government pays them to do nothing. Not the rail staff, working through the stifling heat, to deposit them there!!!