Government minimum levels of service laws

[172007]

How would a minimum service level work at a TOC where Sundays are outside the working week? That's the interesting question.

 

[matt_world2004]

People are suggesting that under minimum service level that rail staff would just go sick there are probably far more insidious ways on the railway to make disasstifaction known

Toilet breaks being coordinated to maximise disruption, defects that would normally be worked around with through jerry rigging not getting fixed. A "not my job" attitude to problem solving staff stopping work at the nearest station as soon as their hours are over

Doesn't even have to even meet the threshold of work to rule in most places. Virtually every job that doesn't take place in an office is breaking some employment health and safety rule.

 

[ComUtoR]

You don't need to 'take a sickie' The Driving grade is pretty unique in that if you don't feel safe to drive, or may be distracted on duty; you don't drive your train.

Being 'forced' to work would induce stress and I would be too worried to drive and ask for chain of care. I'd probably get a week off at the least.

 

[ar10642]

People are suggesting that under minimum service level that rail staff would just go sick there are probably far more insidious ways on the railway to make disasstifaction known

Toilet breaks being coordinated to maximise disruption, defects that would normally be worked around with through jerry rigging not getting fixed. A "not my job" attitude to problem solving staff stopping work at the nearest station as soon as their hours are over

Doesn't even have to even meet the threshold of work to rule in most places. Virtually every job that doesn't take place in an office is breaking some employment health and safety rule.

What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?

 

[Kite159]

What trap have they walked into?

The tories were looking for an excuse to bring in some sort of minimum service requirements as per their 2019 election manifesto.

 

[matt_world2004]

What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?

Isn't the whole point of a minimal service level that some service runs?

 

[ar10642]

Isn't the whole point of a minimal service level that some service runs?

Yes but if it doesn't I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it. They haven't flinched this week have they, when everyone's supposed to be going back after Christmas.

 

[O L Leigh]

.. I believe the union provides a list, presumably members will put their name down for it, or do a random ballot.

For everyone like you who would be "buggered" to pay fees and not go on strike, there will be many more who think hmm, I can be part of the strike but actually work and get paid - without being seen as a (apologies) scab..

For starters, anyone who voted no to a strike, anyone hard up, etc - previously some did not vote for a strike but would take part out of loyalty - or fear.

There'll be plenty takers..

Firstly, no such arrangements exist because the legislation has not yet made it onto the Statute. Secondly, I don’t think you’re right about the likely rate of take-up for folk volunteering to cover work in the event of industrial unrest.

 

[the sniper]

People are suggesting that under minimum service level that rail staff would just go sick there are probably far more insidious ways on the railway to make disasstifaction known
Doesn't even have to even meet the threshold of work to rule in most places. Virtually every job that doesn't take place in an office is breaking some employment health and safety rule.

Indeed. Works as a distraction though, if that's what people want to get excited about. It does surprise me though that even nowadays many people here really don't get how the railway works. For as much as we're hated, the railway largely runs on goodwill... This seems to be a truth too inconvenient for our detractors to accept.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes but if it doesn't I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it. They haven't flinched this week have they, when everyone's supposed to be going back after Christmas.

The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about doo

 

[deltic]

Blair's labour weren't labour.

You can tell that must be the case because he actually won some elections with sizeable majorities!

 

[ar10642]

The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about doo

But it's not forcing anyone to the table because the government simply do not care if the service runs or not. It probably just gives the government ammunition for the inevitable cuts to come ("x% of services don't even run, so we don't need them, also revenue down, difficult decisions need to be made etc.)

It's simply not impacting London businesses in the way it used to and I suspect that's all the government were ever worried about.

 

[Cdd89]

I believe in a reasonable balance between workers’ right to strike, and the need to run essential services (of which the railway is one), which are competing needs. With MSLs, unions will still be able to cause inconvenience and media attention to pressure the government and make their case, and many people will reschedule travel; but those who genuinely need to travel will be able to do so, likely on unpleasant and crowded services. I think that’s right.

I do agree there is a question of what MSL is reasonable, 90% is clearly not (and nor is nearly 0%, which is the current position) and I’d argue that is where the debate should be.

 

[whoosh]

The point of engaging in such disruption though would be the same effect as strike and other forms of industrial actions . Force managment around the negotiating table indeed didn't something similar happen during the southern DOO dispute where some drivers refused to stop at stations because of the health and safety concerns about doo

There needs to be various things met and risk assessed for DOO to take place, like station lighting levels (General levels as well as any dark spots dealt with), gaps between train and platform, signal sighting if the stopping point needs changing for the previously mentioned things for example.

The Health & Safety Rep would be normally be involved and highlight any issues that Management hadn't thought of (happens more often than you'd think!).

In the Southern dispute, the company imposed DOO at various locations overnight, without any Health & Safety Rep being invited. Consequently, some drivers took issue with this.

 

[headshot119]

I don't think anyone like that would last at any of the organisations I've worked for. And I wouldn't want to work at a place where people behaved like that anyway!


OK so you expect some people to behave dishonorably if we simply have a similar law to what already exists in countries like Italy? Interesting.

Anyway as a one off, for one day, sure they would get away with it. But I don't think they could get away with doing it repeatedly.

A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?

 

[D1537]

A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?

This is actually worse, though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lose my job if I'd ignored Government Covid guidance (indeed, I'm sure about that, because I'm a public employee and *did* ignore it at some points where it made my job difficult).

 

[yorkie]

A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?

If you disagree with something I said, please quote what it is you are disagreeing with.

You sound a bit confused; guidance does not remove freedoms. I am also curious to know what I said that you think constitutes "telling" people what to do.

I don't understand how whatever it is that I've said on another topic has anything to do with this topic, but perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[Watershed]

I believe in a reasonable balance between workers’ right to strike, and the need to run essential services (of which the railway is one), which are competing needs. With MSLs, unions will still be able to cause inconvenience and media attention to pressure the government and make their case, and many people will reschedule travel; but those who genuinely need to travel will be able to do so, likely on unpleasant and crowded services. I think that’s right.

I do agree there is a question of what MSL is reasonable, 90% is clearly not (and nor is nearly 0%, which is the current position) and I’d argue that is where the debate should be.

Agreed. A bit like DOO, it's not really a tenable position to claim that it's fundamentally unacceptable, nor would it be appropriate to roll it out nationwide. There is a balance to be had, and that nuance seems to be lost on a lot of people.

A bit like how you spent many months telling people to ignore government guidance on Covid, it's funny how the removal of those freedoms wasn't acceptable to you, but others are when they don't suit your personal agenda?

It's funny how some people's definition of freedom included being forced to stay at home, to be vaccinated etc. That's the exact opposite of what I'd have thought freedom means. It's also a freedom that affects everyone, not just a small minority of the population as is the case with workers subject to MSLs.

Nothing in this proposed legislation removes people's freedoms. You are always free to leave, if you don't like working for the railway. But what it does it to remove the protection afforded by a lawful strike for people who decide to breach a MSL.

That merely reverts the position to the default that would apply if you deliberately didn't turn up to work for any other reason - you can be fired and potentially sued for the losses you've caused. I don't see that being able to do so with impunity qualifies as any sort of freedom. It's a privilege that has long been subject to restrictions and limitations.

 

[headshot119]

If you disagree with something I said, please quote what it is you are disagreeing with.

You sound a bit confused; guidance does not remove freedoms. I am also curious to know what I said that you think constitutes "telling" people what to do.

I don't understand how whatever it is that I've said on another topic has anything to do with this topic, but perhaps you can enlighten me?

Ah yes, we have a couple of classics from Yorkie here.

The member is well aware of what he has posted in the Covid subforum, strong statements along the lines of; and I will happily concede I am paraphrasing rather than directly quoting though regular readers of the forum will be familiar with "I won't visit Germany while they have these Draconian face mask laws". Italy also enforced similar laws during the dark days of Covid, and you were quite robust in speaking out against them.

Edit - Infact members of the forum have raised that the contents of the Covid subforum may in hindsight infringe the proposed "Online Safety Bill". @island

Under the Online Safety Bill I suspect a lot of this forum's COVID subsection would have been at risk of classification as "legal but harmful" because it didn't correspond to the official line.

More on that can of course be read in the appropriate thread rather than cluttering up this one!


It's interesting that you now look to Italy for anti-strike laws, and seem in support of them, do you not see that in removing peoples freedom similar to the many and varying Covid laws?

I'm genuinely curious as to were you stand on the political spectrum, I always had you down as someone relatively liberal, but since Covid you seem quite selective when it comes to freedom and consent of the governed. At some point you yourself belonged to a union as you've mentioned on the forum, I wonder what drove you to be so anti union? Is it the political side of things rather than working for the benefit of workers rights?

 

[O L Leigh]

Nothing in this proposed legislation removes people's freedoms. You are always free to leave, if you don't like working for the railway. But what it does it to remove the protection afforded by a lawful strike for people who decide to breach a MSL.

That merely reverts the position to the default that would apply if you deliberately didn't turn up to work for any other reason - you can be fired and potentially sued for the losses you've caused. I don't see that being able to do so with impunity qualifies as any sort of freedom. It's a privilege that has long been subject to restrictions and limitations.

Sorry, but you don't revert to the default of being open to action as a consequence of being AWOL. Taking part in legal industrial action provides you with protection from dismissal. This is not something that is done "with impunity" but rather in a very narrow legally defined set of circumstances. Being fired because you fail to comply with an MSL invoked as a consequence of taking legal industrial action is an infringement of a person's rights.

Not that I think it will come to this. When (if) the legislation is passed, the unions will be looking closely at it and seeing how best they can circumvent it's requirements. How workers take industrial action will change.

 

[Cdd89]

The unions will be looking closely at it and seeing how best they can circumvent its requirements. How workers take industrial action will change.

If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.

 

[yorkie]

Ah yes, we have a couple of classics from Yorkie here.

The member is well aware of what he has posted in the Covid subforum, strong statements along the lines of; and I will happily concede I am paraphrasing rather than directly quoting though regular readers of the forum will be familiar with "I won't visit Germany while they have these Draconian face mask laws". Italy also enforced similar laws during the dark days of Covid, and you were quite robust in speaking out against them.

How is that telling people what to do?

It's interesting that you now look to Italy for anti-strike laws, and seem in support of them,

I don't see how it is unreasonable to disagree with a particular policy or law in place in any given country while also agreeing with a different policy or law in place there?

Must one agree or disagree with all laws in a particular country?

do you not see that in removing peoples freedom similar to the many and varying Covid laws?

I do not see how this is similar, no.

Indeed on the contrary, without this law some people will have no means to get anywhere; that is more similar to being restricted by 'Covid laws' than the opposite to that.

I'm genuinely curious as to were you stand on the political spectrum, I always had you down as someone relatively liberal, but since Covid you seem quite selective when it comes to freedom and consent of the governed.

I am curious as to what it is you are disagreeing with me; you appear unhappy with my criticisms of the restrictions imposed on society during Covid, is that so?

I do not think people should be prevented from going places, whether that be by Governments or the effective result of actions by Unions.

I also don't see how your comparison is valid; you have taken two unrelated subjects and compared them in a puzzling way.

At some point you yourself belonged to a union as you've mentioned on the forum, I wonder what drove you to be so anti union? Is it the political side of things rather than working for the benefit of workers rights?

I quit my union because I realised that the union was not really interested in what members such as myself wanted; they constantly went on about how we should not be going to work and other nonsense when that was inconsistent with what my colleagues were telling me they wanted.

My union was demanding restrictions on our freedoms and also seeking to deny people such as myself from doing the job that we signed up to do.

I tried having a conversation with my union about my concerns; they didn't want to know and refused to have anyone speak to me except for a junior admin person.

Unions can indeed appear to have political agendas and they can put their own agendas before the views of ordinary members.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Blair's labour weren't labour.


Excellent!

"Blairs Labour weren't Labour"
Please look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'd gently suggest that the poster of the comment to which you replied Excellent was not alive during the 70s when the unions did have real power. In my 21 years on the railway I was involved in 4 strikes and not one of them got us what we wanted. I support the current strikes although I think they will not succeed.

 

[Facing Back]

Even a formal warning would be ridiculous.... "employee scum why did you report as sick yesterday"
"Because I was ill"
Job done

You're very entitled to your opinion of course but I can assure you that corporate HR departments are very well versed in this kind of matter. Generally they phrase it slightly differently and all of the senior HR people I know and work with are very committed to the welfare and to a balanced treatment of employees, to the point where they go to battle with site managers who want to terminate staff prematurely. But I can also tell you they tend to have zero tolerance for people taking the piss, and they are pretty good at spotting it.

 

[P Binnersley]

Minimum service levels also open a can of worms for the TOCs (/Government). If an "essential" service level is required on strike days, then it should also be provided during engineering work and other long term disruption (e.g. Carlisle bridge) - or by definition it isn't "essential".

A line near me is currently being operated by buses (again). Does this mean that a bus replacement service is sufficient on this line on strike days?

 

[headshot119]

I do not see how this is similar, no.

Indeed on the contrary, without this law some people will have no means to get anywhere; that is more similar to being restricted by 'Covid laws' than the opposite to that.

That's an interesting insight into your thought process, I can understand how you could consider the governments Covid restrictions, and industrial action on public transport to be restricting peoples freedom of movement. Similar really to how Brexit has lead to a removal of peoples freedom of movement around Europe.

Perhaps you can then understand how the government imposing restrictions and legislation during Covid removing peoples freedom of movement, could be compared to the government passing legislation which removes the right of workers to peacefully withdraw there labor in protest?

I quit my union because I realised that the union was not really interested in what members such as myself wanted; they constantly went on about how we should not be going to work and other nonsense when that was inconsistent with what my colleagues were telling me they wanted.

My union was demanding restrictions on our freedoms and also seeking to deny people such as myself from doing the job that we signed up to do.

I tried having a conversation with my union about my concerns; they didn't want to know and refused to have anyone speak to me except for a junior admin person.

Unions can indeed appear to have political agendas and they can put their own agendas before the views of ordinary members.

This is also an interesting insight, perhaps it will be possible to discuss this in person with you at a future forum meet? It's been quite a while since I have attended one and it would be great to catch up, and demonstrate my freedom to be able to move around the country free from government interference, obviously we'll also need to choose a day workers have not chosen to peacefully withdraw there labour, a freedom which they currently enjoy but the government appears to wish to remove.

 

[O L Leigh]

What do you think any of this will achieve when the government have shown they're happy for no service to run?

This is indeed part of the problem, and something I hinted at up-thread. The government's focus is on saving money and not on running public services, whether that be the railways or health and social care. So we're all going to hell in a handcart.

Given that they care so little about the extent of the service being provided it is rather ironic that they want to get this legislation pushed through to ensure that trains move. It's been said already, but it has all the hallmarks of a contrived situation engineered to suit a political aim, none of which has anything to do with dealing with any of the underlying issues facing our public services. It's like they want to have a fight in spite of the effect it will have on the public.

Incidentally, reading the press coverage, I find it odd that I and my colleagues find ourselves in the same band of indispensability as fire and ambulance crews and ahead of health and education workers, border force and other transport workers. I can only understand that the lines have been drawn thus for political rather than practical reasons.

 

[the sniper]

If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.

I think for a lot of people that disruption that is unpredictable, very short notice, potentially very wide spread and every day is worse than knowing 14 days in advance that there'll be no trains, maybe just a few days per month.

 

[Facing Back]

People who falsely claim to be ill for one day are going to get away with it (assuming they stay at home) for sure, however if they did it repeatedly they may find they can no longer get away with it.

I would assume such behaviour would be very uncommon; I can't imagine many people, if any, behaving such a way at any organisation I've ever worked for. If anyone thinks this would be common at their workplace, it would be interesting to hear more on that.

I agree they will get away with one day.

My experience is that it would be uncommon. I have seen a few teams who have had a symbolic one day protest about things that they object to but can't change or stop, and management has allowed it and after that life goes on.

The railway might be different.

 

[O L Leigh]

If the outcome is disruption that takes forms other than “zero service on weekdays” — which is the type of disruption that most hurts those who can least afford it — then that’s a positive. Better for disruption to be spread out than concentrated into days with zero service.

If.

We'll have to wait and see what actually happens.