"Fatcat bosses laughing all the way to the bank"I love that Mick Cash’s socialist utopia has people paid 150 grand a year to fire out press releases that do nothing but condemn any sort of change in their industry
"Fatcat bosses laughing all the way to the bank"
"Gravy train"
"Do as I say, not as I do"?
An historical perspective:- during the 1960s/70s/80s NUR was the 'moderate' union and ASLEF the 'extremists'. For well over a decade Sidney Green was General Secretary of the NUR, followed by Sidney Weighell, and Ray Buckton held the equivalent post at ASLEF. Greene and Buckton had a personal antipathy that probably outweighed their respective union positions and, let's not forget, the rail industry wasn't the fragmented mess that it has degenerated into. I probably know less about the two unions than anyone else on here, but I do find it interesting that their perceived political objectives have changed since that time.
I remember reading an academic paper written in the 1950s (which I unfortunately can't find at the moment) that said much the same thing. To me it seems likely that the average union worker has never been as politicized as the labour movement would like to make him out to be.the number who are engaged with their union has fallen as well leaving union activities to those who are more obsessive (for want of a better word) about politics and wanting to use the union as a vehicle for political change.
The Labour movement is, and always has been, a coalition between unionised workers and middle-class progressives (some of which are ideologues). Of course there are exceptions but it's largely correct that the latter are more pragmatic than the former. It's all political - how else would you describe organising employees to work together and force their employers to give them better pay and conditions? But there is a difference between the kind of pragmatic politics most unions and union members are into, and a highly ideological politics espoused by a minority of Labour party members. Of course it's all on a sliding scale and there's a good deal of overlap.To me it seems likely that the average union worker has never been as politicized as the labour movement would like to make him out to be.
It is a fairly uncontroversial statement that union officials, and to a lesser extent those who vote in union elections, form a minority that is generally further left and has a broader conception of what the union should do than the average union member.
I'm using "political" in its broadest sense of how power is distributed within groups and decisions are made, as opposed to Politics in the party political or ideological sense.As for "it's all political", this is to ignore things like how "business unionism" is a very dirty word in some quarters.
You are missing my point that the labour movement and the unionised workforce probably do not overlap as much as they are sometimes made out to be. It is a fairly uncontroversial statement that union officials, and to a lesser extent those who vote in union elections, form a minority that is generally further left and has a broader conception of what the union should do than the average union member.
As for "it's all political", this is to ignore things like how "business unionism" is a very dirty word in some quarters.
RMT: the push to eliminate a second safety-critical member of staff is bound to be a big issue for a guards' union. Once that's gone there's nothing in the rule book to stop trains running as driver-only, which would lead to job losses among RMT members. It's very predictable that this would lead to a strong pushback from the RMT. Up until to 1980s the guard's role was never under threat so the union didn't need to fight as hard.
I don't know what the break down of RMT members is. London Underground staff probably make up a high number.But, whereas all members of ASLEF are train drivers, less than 10% of RMT members are guards / conductors etc (at a guess). And the RMT doesn’t just do militant on the issue of DOO!
Ultimately unions are there for their members and to further their interests. Nothing wrong with that of course; it's the entire point of unions existing and it's necessary to achieve a balance between interests of companies and employees. Looking at the rail unions it may be that the perception of 'militancy' is simply a function of the situation the union is facing. Looking in turn at ASLEF and RMT:
ASLEF: when rail traffic was reducing and steam giving way to diesel and electric, the role of the driver was in decline and ASLEF needed to use more aggressive tactics to keep their members' jobs. Hence the fight over many years to keep two drivers on trains and frequent strikes. However privatization and the coincident growth in traffic was a boon for drivers, giving them the upper hand in pay negotiations with the TOCs, and 'militancy' was simply unnecessary.
RMT: the push to eliminate a second safety-critical member of staff is bound to be a big issue for a guards' union. Once that's gone there's nothing in the rule book to stop trains running as driver-only, which would lead to job losses among RMT members. It's very predictable that this would lead to a strong pushback from the RMT. Up until to 1980s the guard's role was never under threat so the union didn't need to fight as hard.
I’m sure there are several drivers/guards etc.. on here are proud Tory supporters,
According to their website, they have 83,000 members and are a ‘fast growing’ union.I don't know what the break down of RMT members is. London Underground staff probably make up a high number.
Fake news!!!! It's China trying to take over the world!According to their website, they have 83,000 members and are a ‘fast growing’ union.
Last time I looked a few years back they had 90,000 members, and were the ‘fastest growing’ Union.
The time I looked before that, they had 95,000 members.
Straight from the Trump book of public relations!
Plenty of Turkeys vote for Christmas. The (admittedly, few) 'proud Tory' Guards taking part in the recent industrial action was amusing.
To be fair people vote as they do for a broad spectrum of ideological reasons, often going beyond the job they do. Plenty of train crew vote Tory (I’m one of them). That doesn’t mean I agree with the Tory party’s approach to trade unionism. In a similar way I know remainers who voted for Boris Johnson’s government purely because they were so terrified of Corbyn getting into power.
It's one thing voting Tory because you think you can afford to, quite another being an 'out and proud' Tory.
Are some bus workers still represented by RMT? They certainly used to be in some areas.I don't know what the break down of RMT members is. London Underground staff probably make up a high number.
RMT does appear more inclined to strike. But it seems that these are primarily 'defensive' strikes i.e. against job cuts, changing current jobs to less skilled ones (e.g. guard to revenue collection / passenger assistance), and not 'offensive' strikes such as striking to get massive pay increases. (Happy to be corrected, but that's my impression).
In the theoretical scenario of driverless trains being rolled out in a major way (not actually possible, but that's another discussion), ASLEF would doubtless be taking a harder approach.
On the subject of train crew voting Tory - as I don't want to multiquote all the posts:
It's not so much just turkeys voting for Christmas any more. Certainly in the driver grade, and in some places the guard grade, you only have to look at the salaries and the cars in the car park to see that they're not the working class hero roles they once were, doing 6 day weeks for a pittance.
Salaries of 40-65k+ paired with detached houses, frequent holidays and nice cars are decidedly middle class. There are no two ways about it.
Hardly a surprise a huge chunk of a middle class profession vote Tory.
If you honestly believe that train drivers especially, but also some better paid guards, signallers and various other roles in the industry, are working class, when they all fit the lifestyle I've described, you need to seriously rethink.
Really? I wish my local Con Club campaigned for better wages for the people who put money behind the bar!ASLEF do not want nationalisation. They would loose all the power they have, that which has seen massive increases in salaries way beyond any other rail workers salaries.
ASLEF tried to demand massive pay rises under nationalisation and Sir Peter Parker told them to get back to work otherwise he would shut the railway down.
Under privatisation, their short lived general secretary Mick Rix advocated re-nationalisation. He was then booted out at the next election.
ASLEF is about one thing and one thing only. Drivers and how much money they can get for them.
They should not be called a union, a better description would be conservative club.
Absolutely spot on!!
There are several couples who are drivers in our depot each of them earning over £60k so that’s a household income over £120k even more with overtime and they still want to call themselves working class?
The railway like every job has evolved from ‘The good old BR days’ where yes the pay was poor, conditions were poor so the unions were needed. The problem (or not!) is that the unions have done such a good job over the years to get the salary we are in that the job is no longer working class.
Can you imagine saying to someone working in the care home industry who works for minimum wage, 50hr weeks, 5/6 days a week that your working class. Oh! and BTW me and the wife/husband earn over £60k each, driver a brand new Range Rover and going back to my 4 bedroom detached house!! They would just laugh in your face.
I find it baffling that the "other" rail union (TSSA), once the most moderate, has become so left wing.
The RMT and TSSA leaders tend to line up together with their vocal demands for the removal of private ownership in the railway.
ASLEF: when rail traffic was reducing and steam giving way to diesel and electric, the role of the driver was in decline and ASLEF needed to use more aggressive tactics to keep their members' jobs. Hence the fight over many years to keep two drivers on trains and frequent strikes. However privatization and the coincident growth in traffic was a boon for drivers, giving them the upper hand in pay negotiations with the TOCs, and 'militancy' was simply unnecessary.
That’s mostly because of the leader.
So ASLEF didn't try and fail to keep the secondman?The role of the train driver was not then and still isn't in decline. Perhaps you are confusing the footplate line of promotion with the abolition of steam and all the labour redundant from MPDs.