New law, minimum service level must run on strike days

[plugwash]

Dumb question and off-topic but is new rolling stock decided by the TOCs or the DfT? I assume it's done based on the age of the stock and if it's cheaper to upgrade than tinkering.

AIUI the norm was the DfT would include some specifications for rolling stock in the franchise specifications but the bidder would also have some flexibility in exactly what rolling stock they leased. Sometimes the government would gaurantee rolling stock leases beyond the term of the current franchise, other times the rolling stock owners would have to fend for themselves in finding a new home for their rolling stock.

There were some high profile exceptions though, the IET project was a government scheme, i'm not sure exactly what the arrangements were for the Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

There were some high profile exceptions though, the IET project was a government scheme, i'm not sure exactly what the arrangements were for the Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock.

The 700s were specified by DfT.

The 345s by TFL

 

[Peter Sarf]

AIUI the norm was the DfT would include some specifications for rolling stock in the franchise specifications but the bidder would also have some flexibility in exactly what rolling stock they leased. Sometimes the government would gaurantee rolling stock leases beyond the term of the current franchise, other times the rolling stock owners would have to fend for themselves in finding a new home for their rolling stock.

There were some high profile exceptions though, the IET project was a government scheme, i'm not sure exactly what the arrangements were for the Thameslink and Crossrail rolling stock.

+

The 700s were specified by DfT.

The 345s by TFL

You make me think. Is it the case that 350/2s and 379s are not stock that DfT has guaranteed a use for ?.

I doubt the above stock would be needed to ensure minimum service levels during a strike.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I would suspect that it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, but plenty of Conservatives would like to leave that. Being able to go off in a huff after being severely criticised by the ECHR would suit them.

It can't be there are similar laws in several European countries like France who have far more awkward unions than UK

 

[Thirteen]

It can't be there are similar laws in several European countries like France who have far more awkward unions than UK

The fact the Government have pointed out that other countries have MSLs would suggest that the unions wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried legal action.

 

[Gloster]

My reading of the situation is that the intention is to have a law which reduces the effect of strike action and so hinders the use of strikes to put pressure on employers, but provides no compensating elements for unions that do keep to the law and maintain minimum service levels. I am also sceptical, although it is too early to be sure, whether the setting of a minimum service level will be left to an impartial actor. The point about the continental arrangements that I have come across is that the unions know that if they keep to the law, the employer is bound to accept impartial arbitration.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

My reading of the situation is that the intention is to have a law which reduces the effect of strike action and so hinders the use of strikes to put pressure on employers, but provides no compensating elements for unions that do keep to the law and maintain minimum service levels. I am also sceptical, although it is too early to be sure, whether the setting of a minimum service level will be left to an impartial actor. The point about the continental arrangements that I have come across is that the unions know that if they keep to the law, the employer is bound to accept impartial arbitration.

The European approach sounds far more sensible so won't be happening here. Mind you this bill was jumped in by Truss and wasn't in the manifesto so i wouldn't be surprised to see it just slip off the radar.

 

[Thirteen]

The European approach sounds far more sensible so won't be happening here. Mind you this bill was jumped in by Truss and wasn't in the manifesto so i wouldn't be surprised to see it just slip off the radar.

MSL were in the 2019 manifesto, even Sunak agreed during a debate that there should be MSLs so I wouldn't be surprised if it's pursued.

I believe there were plans to increase the strike notice period from two weeks to a month and also reducing the strike mandate from six to three months and some sort of cooling off period which isn't in this bill but probably require an amendment of the current Trade Union Act.

 

[Peter Sarf]

MSL were in the 2019 manifesto, even Sunak agreed during a debate that there should be MSLs so I wouldn't be surprised if it's pursued.

I believe there were plans to increase the strike notice period from two weeks to a month and also reducing the strike mandate from six to three months and some sort of cooling off period which isn't in this bill but probably require an amendment of the current Trade Union Act.

A one month notice period would make it easier for passengers to plan ahead. A maximum 3 month period for the mandate to last would allow more regular chances for staff to decide BUT also might help staff decide who could only afford to strike for 3 months.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

MSL were in the 2019 manifesto, even Sunak agreed during a debate that there should be MSLs so I wouldn't be surprised if it's pursued.

I believe there were plans to increase the strike notice period from two weeks to a month and also reducing the strike mandate from six to three months and some sort of cooling off period which isn't in this bill but probably require an amendment of the current Trade Union Act.

OK i stand corrected but it certainly wasn't in the Queen speech for this session of parliament which means they have to try and find parliamentary time so it could still be a drawn out process given other priorities the government has.

 

[Thirteen]

A one month notice period would make it easier for passengers to plan ahead. A maximum 3 month period for the mandate to last would allow more regular chances for staff to decide BUT also might help staff decide who could only afford to strike for 3 months.

I think the current law is fine but I understand why others might want to increase the notice period although it does make me wonder how things were handled when there wasn't a notice period or balloting in the past.

 

[Thirteen]

Mark Harper at the Transport Committee was a bit luke warm on the Minimum Service Bill, I wonder if that's deliberate in order not to stoke tension or that it won't have any effect on the current action.

 

[High Dyke]

Found this article on the proposed new law.

New anti-strike laws could actually make rail disruption worse, Government admits

The Department for Transport has suggested that mandating 'minimum service levels' could push up the overall number of strikes and encourage staff to take other action

inews.co.uk

New laws to keep the railways going during strikes could end up making the disruption worse by encouraging more strikes and causing staff shortages, the Government has admitted.

 

[507020]

Found this article on the proposed new law.

Does the article actually state who from the government has admitted this?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Found this article on the proposed new law.

New anti-strike laws could actually make rail disruption worse, Government admits

The Department for Transport has suggested that mandating 'minimum service levels' could push up the overall number of strikes and encourage staff to take other action

inews.co.uk

perhaps the DfT is listening to the TOCs and NR that this industry runs on the goodwill of the staff and its way off being resourced or affordable to do anything than run on staff goodwill. The govt just don't realise how much staff goodwill keeps the show on the road when the service is in chaos.

 

[Thirteen]

perhaps the DfT is listening to the TOCs and NR that this industry runs on the goodwill of the staff and its way off being resourced or affordable to do anything than run on staff goodwill. The govt just don't realise how much staff goodwill keeps the show on the road when the service is in chaos.

The DfT and Mark Harper might be lukewarm on MSL but keep in mind that the current Business Secretary is Grant Shapps who probably wants to push it through Parliament.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The DfT and Mark Harper might be lukewarm on MSL but keep in mind that the current Business Secretary is Grant Shapps who probably wants to push it through Parliament.

Personally we should have MSL but that needs to go hand in hand with a linked system to ensure workers covered by it get the average pay rise of other workers automatically.

 

[High Dyke]

Does the article actually state who from the government has admitted this?

No, it doesn't. And the government aren't likely to be honest and say.

 

[TAS]

To be fair, the point is surely that these risks are formally admitted by the Government as a whole, not just by a particular minister or official - i.e. the risks have been acknowledged in an official document signed off by the relevant minister, this isn't just an individual giving their opinion. The document in question is the impact assessment for the legislation, which is published by the Department for Transport and available on its website (I've quoted the most relevant paragraphs below). Clearly, the Government's overall position is that the benefits it foresees from the legislation outweigh the risks.

99. In the event that staff do lose their jobs as a result of failing to report for work when rostered to cover for MSLs, an unintended consequence could be that if a material number of workers have their employment terminated then employers may find that they are low on staff to run normal services if the situation becomes extreme. This situation becomes worse if certain staff classes such as drivers and signallers are impacted in this way. This may restrict the scope for employers to take action against employees who do not comply with the minimum service level.
100. In addition to the potential increase in strike action prior to MSLs being introduced, a further significant unintended consequence of this policy could be the increase in staff taking action short of striking. Where services are reliant on staff working additional hours, this could have a significant negative impact on the level of services provided and it is important to note that such action could continue even when MSLs are in place, (so it could be that instead of taking strike action, action short of strike becomes a more prevalent form of lawful protest). This could further disrupt the interests of the workers and businesses the legislation seeks to protect.
101. A similar risk is an increased frequency of strikes following a Minimum Service Level being agreed. This would reduce the overall impact of the policy as although service levels would likely be higher than the baseline, it could mean that an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term.

 

[Snow1964]

Consultation now launched, now open, closes 15th May

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will set a legislative framework to balance workers’ ability to strike with the public’s ability to get to work and access vital services.

Today (20 February 2023), I am pleased to confirm that a consultation on setting minimum service levels for passenger rail has opened and will run for 12 weeks from 20 February to 15 May.

The department is seeking views from the public, from the rail sector, trade unions and wider industries to develop a more detailed understanding of the impact of strike activity and how minimum service levels might be applied for passenger rail to reduce the disruptions caused by strikes.

Launch of the minimum service level consultation for rail

Announcing a consultation on setting minimum service levels for passenger rail.

www.gov.uk

The details are on these links

Minimum service levels for passenger rail during strike action

A consultation on implementing minimum service levels for passenger rail services during periods of strike action.

www.gov.uk