So what's going to be the message after these strikes? "Come back to the railway, we definitely won't be shut for an entire season with two weeks notice this time and ruin your plans again".
People who act unreasonably will of course disagree; I am fine with that, thanks.
How are the strikes conducive to that?
A quote would have been useful, but I found the post, and it was one person saying "potentially an existential crisis"; I think you'd need to give them the opportunity to clarify, but one person saying "potential existential threat" does not "prove" your point.
This is exactly the point I was making above. There’s nothing to stop the RMT striking again next time they don’t like something, and this uncertainty is what will put customers off.
In what scenario would you find a strike justified?
I don't accept your premise that they will need to "come back" to the railway, because I don't believe temporary disruption will cause very many people to abandon it wholesale. It will be inconvenient for them, things will get back to normal, and the vast majority will resume their usual travelling habits. This is not the disaster many are suggesting it is, though of course it'll be difficult while it's happening. if the government decides to cripple the railway in other ways, well, that's the government's responsibility.
They aren't. The function of a strike isn't to be conducive to leisure travel. What an odd expectation to have.
I don't imagine there's any scenario in which you would concede the point!
If this goes on for months and achieves essentially nothing, like some of these strikes have, I'd probably say yes. It should be something used rarely and as an absolute last resort, not on a hair trigger for whatever petty grievance the RMT have this week.
Or get an inflation pay rise but at the expense of some of the 'perks' they enjoy being axed I.e no more 75% off fares, no more free travel etc.
Who is suggesting it is a "diasaster"? Do you agree or disagree that it is more likely that you will see a reduction in services, staffing etc, as I said earlier, than a "disaster"?
Who has that expectation?
Obviously not.
For me it would have to be something seriously objectionable. To be used very rarely. Not just we want extra pay.
For leisure travel people will find other ways to get there or go to different places. They're not going to cancel all plans and wait until the railway decides they're allowed out again. And if it's messed them about all summer, why would you come back?
Leisure travel will just find another way then.
It's certainly possible. None of us can really say for sure whether these particular strikes will turn out to be a smart move until after they've been resolved. I'm simply pushing back on the people who believe striking itself is beyond the pale, which I think is an ideologically blinkered position. Initially when these strikes were called I was of the opinion that the railway was an essential service and strikes shouldn't be allowed, but this thread has broadly changed my view.
This is one reason among many I'm not especially worried about the long term impact of strikes. The various disputes listed in that Wikipedia page (some of which took place repeatedly over many months) had no real impact on passenger numbers beyond the very short term. I think you would struggle to find many non-enthusiasts/non-industry people who even remember they took place. Even if the impact is greater this time around, people move on.
It might be expected that Southern would recover passengers quickly from these strikes, as a large proportion of their business comes from (or came from) London commuters.
I think if I put myself in your position, and having worked with guards who’ve worked through strikes, I’d never ever say they’re the lowest of the low. Its frustrating however I can think of other members of society who deserve being tarnished with that brush.
Well that's alright then (!)
You are entitled think so, but that doesn't make it accurate.
In regards to your first point maybe you need to elaborate.
Well, it's so kind of you to say that train crew who go into work are not the lowest of the low, isn't it? Perhaps you'd like to tell us the Pope may be catholic...
Rail industry jobs are not "below the national average" and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future, whatever you claim.
I refer you to the opening post but I will add that if you think that a post crosses the line (bearing in mind this thread is a special case), the procedure is to press the report button (and don't reply to/refer to the post in any thread). The decision was made (not by me) to allow discussion on the basis described in the opening post but if anyone has any comments/proposals/concerns etc these need to be sent to us directly through the report or conversation message features, rather than on the forum. Thanks
Well, it's so kind of you to say that train crew who go into work are not the lowest of the low, isn't it? Perhaps you'd like to tell us the Pope may be catholic...
Rail industry jobs are not "below the national average" and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future, whatever you claim.
I refer you to the opening post but I will add that if you think that a post crosses the line (bearing in mind this thread is a special case), the procedure is to press the report button (and don't reply to/refer to the post in any thread). The decision was made (not by me) to allow discussion on the basis described in the opening post but if anyone has any comments/proposals/concerns etc these need to be sent to us directly through the report or conversation message features, rather than on the forum. Thanks
It's toxic because some rail staff call fellow members of rail staff "scabs" and "lowest of the low" and other such nonsense just for going into work, and of course some of us actually do care about the harm that the proposed action may cause to the rail industry.
Sorry but when someone calls colleagues the "lowest of the low", it needs strong condemnation than simply saying they are not the lowest of the low, as if they are second from lowest or something.
You didn't say it; you quoted the following as a "extremely well constructed and thought out post"
What is posted there isn't the case nor is it going to happen; on average (of course there will be exceptions to that), wages within the rail industry are above the average compared to other industries, and that is highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
What facts have I got wrong then?
Really? So you have no issue with those members of rail staff who call other staff "scabs" etc?
What harms are you referring to, and how will striking reverse or prevent these harms?
.I’ll always say something about people using that term. I won’t be crossing a picket line but it’s not my place to judge.The language I’ve heard in my mess room? Blimey. It goes way beyond “scab”. You simply don’t strikebreak on the railway if you know what’s good for you.
Best story I’ve heard was someone being denied a job in 2005 because the hiring manager recognised their name and remembered they’d “strike broken” in 1981. “Well, we don’t want people like that working here”.
Next week? They need to not put one foot wrong. Give me two against a red? Call to control - this train isn’t turning a wheel until you supply me with a competent guard, or I take it ECS.
ECS all the way back to London? That’s fine. Sorry Mr. contingent guard #inserts smirk# you’ll have to get the hell off my train and kick everyone onto the platform and stand with them as I depart in splendid isolation.
It’s only 100 miles or so….
Hi mr signaller. Foliage has obscured such and such a signal. Sorry about that. Will every train need to be cautioned?
Erm, yeah.
Easy enough to utterly banjax the job….
The language I’ve heard in my mess room? Blimey. It goes way beyond “scab”. You simply don’t strikebreak on the railway if you know what’s good for you.
Best story I’ve heard was someone being denied a job in 2005 because the hiring manager recognised their name and remembered they’d “strike broken” in 1981. “Well, we don’t want people like that working here”.
Next week? They need to not put one foot wrong. Give me two against a red? Call to control - this train isn’t turning a wheel until you supply me with a competent guard, or I take it ECS.
ECS all the way back to London? That’s fine. Sorry Mr. contingent guard #inserts smirk# you’ll have to get the hell off my train and kick everyone onto the platform and stand with them as I depart in splendid isolation.
It’s only 100 miles or so….
Hi mr signaller. Foliage has obscured such and such a signal. Sorry about that. Will every train need to be cautioned? Erm, yeah.
Easy enough to utterly banjax the job, just for the sheer hell of it. Not that I condone such actions…
Can you elaborate (without shouting) please? Have you logged your concerns through CIRAS?
Confidential Reporting of Safety? That’s why it’s confidential? I wouldn’t be telling you as that’s confidential. Besides I’ve reported my issues to the signal box……..
