Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[142blue]

Do station staff still have to attend work. Is it mandatory ticket offices and lounges stay open or are they doing 40% of their hours. What about gate lines

Stations where there are no services, are the staff still told to come in at normal time.

All good will has now been lost forever, don't even ask "could you just" or "would you mind"

And will Labour remove this legislation next year?

 

[Jamesrob637]

The old chestnut "better late than never" certainly comes to mind for many.

 

[paulmch]

The old chestnut "better late than never" certainly comes to mind for many.

Tell that to the people who are likely facing a work to rule timetable indefinitely.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I suspect those who are gleefully suggesting ways they think they can circumvent the MSLs are going to be in for a shock when their unions advise them to comply.

Working to rule is quite another matter and I would be all for eliminating the routine use of overtime. I can't see all staff working to rule though, there will always be times when the overtime rates on offer are too attractive to turn down.

At our branch meeting yesterday, our guest speaker stated very clearly that the union plan to be in non-compliance with this Act.

 

[Watershed]

At our branch meeting yesterday, our guest speaker stated very clearly that the union plan to be in non-compliance with this Act.

I wonder how official that position is. It wouldn't be the first time that one hand of the RMT didn't agree with the other...

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I wonder how official that position is. It wouldn't be the first time that one hand of the RMT didn't agree with the other...

Indeed. I believe that's the position they will take until it gets to a legal challenge where they can't possibly take on the financial risk of non-compliance

 

[Goldfish62]

And will Labour remove this legislation next year?

They have already stated that they will repeal this and the 2016 legislation in "the first 100 days".

But they'd have to win the election first..

At our branch meeting yesterday, our guest speaker stated very clearly that the union plan to be in non-compliance with this Act.

Which is undoubtedly exactly what the government wants to hear.

Surely people can see that part of the reason for this legislation is to provoke certain unions into non-compliance and risk being sued out of existence.

 

[ComUtoR]

A really nicely worded letter will be posted saying that they have complied and the following names have been selected, using a fair process.

It will look all pretty with ASLEF headed paper and will look really good posted in the notice case.

It will probably be pinned up right next to the notice regarding increased sickness levels and that mental health is important in the workplace. There will be lots of contact numbers etc and a reminder regarding the statement of readiness.

Yep, totally gonna help

 

[Class83]

Those of you who seem content to cheer this on are missing the point - if strikes become so risky for the unions they will just switch tactics and work to rule instead. Given the chronic staff shortages (which very much takes the sting out of the threat to sack us), this will have a far more serious impact overall. And I will happily support them in that - why would I do anything to help a company who is not only undermining my livelihood but is now also being complicit in an attack on my democratic rights?

If the one thing this does is make TOCs employ enough drivers to operate the regular service without overtime that would be a plus.

Though I'm now wondering if 40% of services could involve a lot more than 40% of staff, but with people drinking tea in between, as unless there is an optimised 40% staff/service timetable it's unlikely to scale proportionately. Which would be ideal for the Union, most members go to work and get paid, but the service is reduced by 60%.

 

[jfollows]

After an extremely cursory glance at the map, it appears as if the "minimum service level" by law will be pretty much the minimum service provided during many of the recent strikes - Manchester to Crewe via Styal avoiding Stockport for example.
This implies two things to me:

1. The services offered under this legislation won't be significantly different from those offered prior to the legislation, in the main. Meaning an unusable service for me and for many, just difficulty and inconvenience for others. No real impact on people wanting to use trains.
2. The industrial relations aspects of compelling people to work rather than do so voluntarily will be damaging. And will result in people sitting around with no work to do but being paid anyway.

It's all political noise to try and show that the government "cares" about the travelling public and is "doing something". I don't think it will make any difference to their prospects at the next election, though, people will just remember the "years of discontent" in a similar way to Labour in 1979.

I'm personally against this legislation, but I don't see that it's going to make much difference at all to the "travelling public" and only makes the jobs of people working on the railway and providing the service more unpleasant.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

After an extremely cursory glance at the map, it appears as if the "minimum service level" by law will be pretty much the minimum service provided during many of the recent strikes - Manchester to Crewe via Styal avoiding Stockport for example.

I thought that at first, but the route via Stockport is on the MSL map, as well as that via Styal. But the North Staffs line is out, so everything runs via Crewe.
The NR strikes also closed routes via Manchester Victoria, but the TPE route via Victoria is on the map/list of services.
But TfW can take a holiday, with no services at all.

 

[jfollows]

I thought that at first, but the route via Stockport is on the MSL map, as well as that via Styal. But the North Staffs line is out, so everything runs via Crewe.
The NR strikes also closed routes via Manchester Victoria, but the TPE route via Victoria is on the map/list of services.
But TfW can take a holiday, with no services at all.

Stockport's not on the map at https://assets.publishing.service.g...0a/msl-for-passenger-rail-consultation-ia.pdf, but I may be misinterpreting it or there may be an alternative map.
EDIT Oh yes, this is a map of the 5/6/7 January 2023 service, so historically what we had already.
In any case, it occurs to me that - based in part on some of the thoughts expressed above - we may end up with fewer services under the "minimum service level" provision than we had during many recent strikes. It's a really bad idea and poor legislation but it's not about providing a "service", it's about retaining votes.

 

[Wolfie]

Perhaps so, but if anything the unions should then be in favour of these proposals - it means that industrial action is still highly disruptive but doesn't cost their members much pay.


Some Acts need Orders for certain provisions to enter into force. In this case it's a question of the Act giving the Secretary of State the power to make Regulations that establish minimum service levels; it's these Regulations that are the subject of the consultation.


That may be the case at LU but conditions vary by operator. Clearly, some operators will be able to resource a 40% service more efficiently than others.


This hasn't happened in other countries that have enacted MSLs; what leads you to believe it would therefore automatically happen in Britain?

Re your last para other countries with MSLs don't have such Draconian anti-union laws. TUs can and will look to use every legal avenue at their disposal. Litigation against the legislation is inevitable for a start.

 

[Goldfish62]

A really nicely worded letter will be posted saying that they have complied and the following names have been selected, using a fair process.

It will look all pretty with ASLEF headed paper and will look really good posted in the notice case.

It will probably be pinned up right next to the notice regarding increased sickness levels and that mental health is important in the workplace. There will be lots of contact numbers etc and a reminder regarding the statement of readiness.

Yep, totally gonna help

Agreed. But the government wants to sow discord and discontent. It's all part of their wider agenda.

 

[scrapy]

Those who are ‘forced’ to work strike day most certainly will work their rostered shift and not some lashed up last minute timetable. unions must give 2 weeks notice for strike action and unfortunately the company can only move our shifts by 2 hours otherwise 28 days notice must be given.

That depends some TOCs can cancel your job and give you a new diagram 48 hours before.

 

[baz962]

That depends some TOCs can cancel your job and give you a new diagram 48 hours before.

Ours can but the movement and length of job is restricted. Something like original turn length and one hour maximum movement.

 

[Midlands5678]

Better still , just call while at home about fatigue and stress , stay in bed and get paid sick leave .

Here here!

 

[NI 271]

But TfW can take a holiday, with no services at all.

I did initially look at the map and wonder why Wales was expected to have no service at all, but surely if TfW are not in dispute, their services will simply operate in full if strikes are confined to onboard TOC staff and not signallers etc?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I did initially look at the map and wonder why Wales was expected to have no service at all, but surely if TfW are not in dispute, their services will simply operate in full if strikes are confined to onboard TOC staff and not signallers etc?

I've not studied the small print, but I think the MSL applies if there is a "national strike".
I'm not sure if we have had one of those yet, with the excluded TOCs, but maybe the NR strikes would be classed as "national" even if the TOCs still operate.
There certainly have been days of NR strikes but TOCs working (not just TfW/Scotrail), so the MSL terms wouldn't then apply to the TOCs.
What I'm trying to say is the you'd (eg) expect a normal service on WCML/ECML in those situations, not just an MSL frequency which would apply if the TOCs were also on strike.

 

[class ep-09]

It will be quite interesting to see how the 40% operates in practice, my local line has 3 (unevenly spaced) services an hour daytime, and during strikes has tended to be one an hour.

So that is 33.3% not 40%, I guess they will have to top it up with some extras during the peaks, or will they, presumably wont want to bring in extra staff just for peak so the extras will probably be scattered over an approx 8 hour shift.

I note reading it there is section on ASOS vs 40% MSL (action short of strike, vs Minimum service level) too. No doubt the best brains in Union HQ will be planning action to meet this.


Not very well thought through if it forces another colleague to be rostered in as a contingency to cover your skive approach to ensure the 40% is met. Surely stuffing up your mates is not going to make you Mr popular.

Where did I say I’d do it , or that i work for railways in the first place ?

 

[Goldfish62]

In summary, the MSL has been set in different ways for different parts of the rail industry.

TOCs (both heavy rail and light rail) will be required to operate 40% of normal services on strike days. I suspect that's a reference to the absolute number of schedules, which could mean less than 40% of passenger vehicle-miles operate, as some services may be curtailed (e.g. Waterloo to Exeter services may only run as far as Basingstoke or Salisbury). Operators are free to choose which services to run, but the government's wording suggests they expect them to largely run services during the peak morning and evening hours.

Infrastructure providers such as Network Rail and Rail for London will be required to have "priority routes" as identified in the following map open between 6am and 10pm, including sidings and depots within a 5 mile radius of these lines:

View attachment 146089

There's an exact list here; it's effectively the same as Network Rail's existing "Key Route Strategy" network (i.e. the lines that were open during the signaller strikes), with a couple of additions.

Obviously the opening hours are considerably longer than what happened during the signaller strikes (generally 7am-7pm) so there should be a much more normal level of service on lines that are open. Wales once again gets a pretty raw deal though, with only the GWML to Cardiff included in the priority routes list.

What a strange list, including the Thames branches and the Island line (which would probably struggle to operate at 40% at the best of times...)!

 

[Spartacus]

Matlock?!?!

Someone who things their important in the DfT live up there?

 

[yorksrob]

The map seems to have been pulled out of someone's backside. Cleethorpes gets a service but Hull doesn't. Ilkley gets a service but Harrogate doesn't. Ashford gets a service but Canterbury doesn't.

Completely pointless and a distraction from reaching an agreement.

 

[Spartacus]

The map seems to have been pulled out of someone's backside. Cleethorpes gets a service but Hull doesn't. Ilkley gets a service but Harrogate doesn't. Ashford gets a service but Canterbury doesn't.

Completely pointless and a distraction from reaching an agreement.

I suspect a good deal of it's based around where places are signalled from, though the likes of Cleethorpes would still need some rather minor boxes manning.

What I can't help but wondering is if it's based on 40% of the WTT, what if somewhere has some other plan in place, particularly and emergency timetable as the Midland Mainline does now? I bet it's not much above 40% for EMR as it is. In the MML's case the current timetable requires potentially significantly more staffing than normal due to the number of boxes on the route via Malton Mowbray.

 

[Bald Rick]

The map seems to have been pulled out of someone's backside. Cleethorpes gets a service but Hull doesn't. Ilkley gets a service but Harrogate doesn't. Ashford gets a service but Canterbury doesn't.

Completely pointless and a distraction from reaching an agreement.

Its almost exactly the routes that were opened in the NR strikes.

 

[choochoochoo]

It will be a shame that my trains on MSL strike days will be travelling very slowly with extra time spent performing platform duties due to overcrowding. (Oh and if they're too overcrowded and I can't safely walk through the carriages from one end to another then I'm not moving the train.)

The planners better put in an allowance for this, because it would be even more of a shame if due to these delays my PNB is spoilt.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect a good deal of it's based around where places are signalled from, though the likes of Cleethorpes would still need some rather minor boxes manning.

What I can't help but wondering is if it's based on 40% of the WTT, what if somewhere has some other plan in place, particularly and emergency timetable as the Midland Mainline does now? I bet it's not much above 40% for EMR as it is.

Yes, we were always told during strikes that x percentage of services were running, which never bore any resemblance to services near me.

In terms of signalling, hasn't Hull recently been re signalled ?

Its almost exactly the routes that were opened in the NR strikes.

Yes, still lacking any sort of customer based logic - e.g. how is it deemed logical not to have any services across the Pennines.

 

[Thirteen]

How would MSL work for the DLR?

 

[Facing Back]

Yes, still lacking any sort of customer based logic - e.g. how is it deemed logical not to have any services across the Pennines.

I thought there were services across the Pennines included? It specifies Liverpool/Manchester to York via Huddersfield. Not Leeds but I guess it would be hard to avoid it

 

[yorksrob]

I thought there were services across the Pennines included? It specifies Liverpool/Manchester to York via Huddersfield. Not Leeds but I guess it would be hard to avoid it

The map shows a gap between Huddersfield and Manchester, therefore I assumed this stretch not to be included.

During the RMT strikes, this section sometimes runs, sometimes doesn't.