New law, minimum service level must run on strike days

[johntea]

Is there not generally a 'minimum service level' running already?

To/from the larger interchange stations anyway and perhaps not past 6pm, but the last RMT strike day I had absolutely zero issues getting from Sheffield to Wakefield for example

The more local stations you're knackered, but £2 single bus fares here in West Yorkshire certainly help provide a cheap alternative! (That's a point actually, is the rollout of the £2 fare still going ahead or is that another thing scrapped / delayed by the Government now?)

 

[Bakerloo]

TPE can't meet minimum service levels even on non-strike days.

I had the misfortune of using their services a couple of weeks ago, was very unimpressed

 

[yorksrob]

One point about the way that basic services are maintained abroad when there is a strike. My understanding, although I have not been able to check completely, is that in many countries both sides are also bound by an arbitration agreement. If the union maintains the basic service, the employer is bound to concede what the arbitrator thinks appropriate, if anything. If the union doesn’t maintain the service, the employer is under no obligation to concede anything and may be able to sanction the union.

I have not read the details, but it would surprise me if this bill is so even handed.

There is also the question: who sets the level of service to be maintained? Could the employer say ‘all our normal timetable’?

I would welcome such an even handed approach. There's currently too little incentive for Government/management and unions to move together with our current set up.

I agree with your pessimism though. Our political class would far rather push the inconvenience and costs of its disputes onto the general public, so I can't see them agreeing to be bound by arbitration.

Is there not generally a 'minimum service level' running already?

To/from the larger interchange stations anyway and perhaps not past 6pm, but the last RMT strike day I had absolutely zero issues getting from Sheffield to Wakefield for example

The more local stations you're knackered, but £2 single bus fares here in West Yorkshire certainly help provide a cheap alternative! (That's a point actually, is the rollout of the £2 fare still going ahead or is that another thing scrapped / delayed by the Government now?)

Sometimes, however the last but one Saturday there were barely any services around here all day.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I'd be surprised if this actually goes this parliament session given how chaotic things are.

Haven't the unions already said MSL aren't wanted by the TOCs?

I do think Labour are playing with fire saying they'll scrap the current TU laws.

Labour leader, Keir Starmer’s speech to TUC Congress 2022

Leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer addresses Congress 2022.

www.tuc.org.uk

"If they bring forward further restrictions on workers’ rights or the right to strike, we will oppose and we will REPEAL.
Just as we will tear-up anti-trade union legislation such as the Trade Union Act 2016."
This does not however say scrap all laws relating to trade unions.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On first glance, this appears to be good news and a welcome relief for passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

I had a quick look at the 2016 act regarding union action and there's not anything in it I would disagree with particularly. (I say this as a union member who has undertaken strike action).

I wouldn't be inclined to repeal it

 

[ComUtoR]

On first glance, this appears to be good news and a welcome relief for passengers.

Why is it good for passengers ?

Imagine the chaos on the ground when there is a minimum service running and every man and his dog is trying to get on a train.

You should also consider that this is an ANTI Union law and not a pro passenger law. Surely the goal should be to eliminate the need for a strike to prevent mass cancellations ? What about... the recent questions being raised in the ticketing sub section regarding services being removed/cancelled from the timetable on strike days. Where are the provisions for passenger protection ?

There are no provisions that force employees to engage with their Unions to prevent striking or prevent any damage to the passenger. There are some generic caveats that mention 'education' and 'getting to work' The minimum service provision isn't even subject to any form of passenger consultation. Reading the Bill, the Union and the TOC could agree a minimum service provision of a first train and a last train and no other services. There is no provision for any form of local services so your leisure passenger or those hopping short distances are totally screwed still.

This really isn't passenger friendly at all.

 

[yorksrob]

Why is it good for passengers ?

Imagine the chaos on the ground when there is a minimum service running and every man and his dog is trying to get on a train.

You should also consider that this is an ANTI Union law and not a pro passenger law. Surely the goal should be to eliminate the need for a strike to prevent mass cancellations ? What about... the recent questions being raised in the ticketing sub section regarding services being removed/cancelled from the timetable on strike days. Where are the provisions for passenger protection ?

There are no provisions that force employees to engage with their Unions to prevent striking or prevent any damage to the passenger. There are some generic caveats that mention 'education' and 'getting to work' The minimum service provision isn't even subject to any form of passenger consultation. Reading the Bill, the Union and the TOC could agree a minimum service provision of a first train and a last train and no other services. There is no provision for any form of local services so your leisure passenger or those hopping short distances are totally screwed still.

This really isn't passenger friendly at all.

Absolutely. We need something along the lines of some European railways with binding arbitration on both sides and a proper minimum service.

 

[Annetts key]

Laws that are anti trade unions also completely fail to help with the underlying problem(s) that is (are) causing the industrial dispute in the first place.

In the case of the national railway industrial action, the underlying cause is the conservative government preventing the railway companies from being able to negotiate freely with the unions.

 

[nr758123]

Laws that are anti trade unions also completely fail to help with the underlying problem(s) that is (are) causing the industrial dispute in the first place.

As with most things this government does, it's not about fixing problems. It's about trying to pin the blame on someone else.

 

[cactustwirly]

Why is it good for passengers ?

Imagine the chaos on the ground when there is a minimum service running and every man and his dog is trying to get on a train.

You should also consider that this is an ANTI Union law and not a pro passenger law. Surely the goal should be to eliminate the need for a strike to prevent mass cancellations ? What about... the recent questions being raised in the ticketing sub section regarding services being removed/cancelled from the timetable on strike days. Where are the provisions for passenger protection ?

There are no provisions that force employees to engage with their Unions to prevent striking or prevent any damage to the passenger. There are some generic caveats that mention 'education' and 'getting to work' The minimum service provision isn't even subject to any form of passenger consultation. Reading the Bill, the Union and the TOC could agree a minimum service provision of a first train and a last train and no other services. There is no provision for any form of local services so your leisure passenger or those hopping short distances are totally screwed still.

This really isn't passenger friendly at all.

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

 

[ComUtoR]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

How does this Bill prevent months of strikes ? It just provides a mechanism for a minimum service provision. Strikes will still happen, there will still be disruption, and the passenger will still get caught in the middle.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions

What consequence has that Bill provided ? If the Union strikes and then the minimum service provision is met then there is no consequence.

Not forgetting that this is also about strikes. "working to rule" is just as disruptive. The constant 'staff shortages' are crippling the TOCs. Neither would be covered by this new Bill. This is the first Drivers strike at my TOC in over 20yrs. Once this is all over, there may not be strike for another 20 years.

Congratulations on getting a new law to stick it to the workers, its great that you find it warm and comforting. With the Conservatives losing power at an almost exponential rate and Labour saying they will repeal the anti-union laws, which way do you want the next election to fall ? Neither party is doing anything for the passenger.

If I was required to work; I would simply go sick.

 

[philosopher]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

In terms of minimising disruption to passengers caused by strikes, the government can do one of two things. They could either continually concede to union demands so strikes do not occur, or they could outright ban strikes and other forms of industrial action.

Both approaches however have very obvious issues either in terms of workers rights or cost control and I am not saying the government should do either approach.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In terms of minimising disruption to passengers caused by strikes, the government can do one of two things. They could either continually concede to union demands so strikes do not occur, or they could outright ban strikes and other forms of industrial action.

Both approaches however have very obvious issues either in terms of workers rights or cost control and I am not saying the government should do either approach.

And somewhere in the middle is compromise - a dirty word for some.

Meanwhile with passengers voting with their feet (to work from home) I wonder how strong the union position is.

 

[baz962]

And somewhere in the middle is compromise - a dirty word for some.

Meanwhile with passengers voting with their feet (to work from home) I wonder how strong the union position is.

And that's the point, the government ( Dft) have no compromise. If you haven't heard some have had no payrise in three years and most others, in two years. We got offered 0% for the second year running.

 

[Snow1964]

And that's the point, the government ( Dft) have no compromise. If you haven't heard some have had no payrise in three years and most others, in two years. We got offered 0% for the second year running.

This argument works both ways, if the workers did their job without striking, putting the customer first in marginal disputes (see the unfairness (even if per obscure ticket terms) of some threads in disputes section, and generally started treating passengers and goods customers to encourage extra revenue, then would be more money for pay.

The current strike tactics, do the opposite, cuts revenue and entrenches the DfT into not enough money mode.

I think @baz962 is wrong to selectively quote pay percentage movements without also giving the revenue percentage movements to justify why (and how big) an increase should be given.

 

[baz962]

This argument works both ways, if the workers did their job without striking, putting the customer first in marginal disputes (see the unfairness (even if per obscure ticket terms) of some threads in disputes section, and generally started treating passengers and goods customers to encourage extra revenue, then would be more money for pay.

The current strike tactics, do the opposite, cuts revenue and entrenches the DfT into not enough money mode.

I think @baz962 is wrong to selectively quote pay percentage movements without also giving the revenue percentage movements to justify why (and how big) an increase should be given.

Because we didn't strike or even threaten a strike until this year. So that means we have given them nearly two years to offer something, otherwise they would never offer. So nothing for three years so how long do you want us to go without, four, five , ten years.

 

[najaB]

This argument works both ways, if the workers did their job without striking, putting the customer first in marginal disputes (see the unfairness (even if per obscure ticket terms) of some threads in disputes section, and generally started treating passengers and goods customers to encourage extra revenue, then would be more money for pay.

The notion that increased revenue automatically equals enhanced pay is fallacious. There are plenty of examples of highly profitable companies that pay their staff a pittance.

 

[Annetts key]

Neither is striking for months on end, causing misery and disrupting plans and preventing people from getting to work.

The unions have to face the consequences of their actions, if they are reckless and militant and cause the disruption we have seen. Then of course minimum service legislation is exactly what you should have expected.

You do know that when on strike workers don’t get paid. People don’t strike for the hell of it. It’s a last resort when the employer is being militant and stubborn, and refuses to negotiate in good faith.

 

[gysev]

There is also the question: who sets the level of service to be maintained? Could the employer say ‘all our normal timetable’?

In Belgium, it works like this:

- when a conflict arises, unions and the railway sector come together. When no solution can be found, the unions can decide to strike and the have to announce the date well in advance.
- SNCB and/or Infrabel will ask all staff that was scheduled to work on that day if they want to strike or not. Everyone can choose freely for him or herself. Answers must be returned 1 week before the strike.
- Based on the number of people that will be present, a new nationwide timetable will be planned for the day of the strike. This timetable is published 3 days in advance.
- Indicating you will come to work and then not showing up will be treated as being unlawfully absent.

This method means the right to strike is guaranteed while passengers can easily plan their trip. It also means that the number of trains running varies: on some days nearly 80% of the trains run, but during the last strike a few weeks ago this was only 30%.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because we didn't strike or even threaten a strike until this year. So that means we have given them nearly two years to offer something, otherwise they would never offer. So nothing for three years so how long do you want us to go without, four, five , ten years.

You seem to be suggesting in the way you phrase that that there is some kind of moral obligation on your employer to offer extra pay each year.

Are you doing extra work each year/providing additional value that would justify demanding that your employers pay you more? Or are you assuming that you have some right to be paid more for doing exactly the same work as you were previously doing?

 

[baz962]

You seem to be suggesting in the way you phrase that that there is some kind of moral obligation on your employer to offer extra pay each year.

Are you doing extra work each year/providing additional value that would justify demanding that your employers pay you more? Or are you assuming that you have some right to be paid more for doing exactly the same work as you were previously doing?

Or perhaps prices go up , the shareholders get more etc. My mum and dad's mortgage was under £200 month, my rent is nearly 1.5 k. But as you ask then a couple of months ago I was up north during disruption and due to drive back south. The company asked if I would drive further north and even though I didn't have to I did . Made me late by nearly two hours. Email to my driver manager praising me for avoiding the company having to cancel several trains and saving them thousands. Also would of helped hundreds of passengers. Does that count.

 

[najaB]

Are you doing extra work each year/providing additional value that would justify demanding that your employers pay you more? Or are you assuming that you have some right to be paid more for doing exactly the same work as you were previously doing?

Inflation.

A below inflation pay rise (or no pay rise at all) means that the employee would be receiving less for doing exactly the same work.

 

[matacaster]

Inflation.

A below inflation pay rise (or no pay rise at all) means that the employee would be receiving less for doing exactly the same work.

I think you will find UK is a country which spends more than it earns and has done for many years. That means general living standards will decrease for the vast majority. This is because the value of the pound sinks and debt interest payments increase under such circumstances. Sure, some will buck the trend, but there is no magic money tree and simply saying UK should borrow more to pay for railway pay (and any other group with clout, pensioners, NHS staff, GP's etc) in preference to any other group is the law of the jungle. One way which is a decent compromise is flexibility in working practices which improve efficiency and could in the long term increase the number of railway staff to cope with projected passenger numbers.
Suppose Keir Starmer was in charge, what would you expect him to offer which would be acceptable to unions, but affordable? Sturgeon caved in too.

 

[najaB]

I think you will find UK is a country which spends more than it earns and has done for many years. That means general living standards will decrease for the vast majority.

And we should just accept our lot, right? No point in fighting to try and effect change.

Suppose Keir Starmer was in charge, what would you expect him to offer which would be acceptable to unions, but affordable? Sturgeon caved in too.

Well, two ideas are public ownership and revenue sharing.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think you will find UK is a country which spends more than it earns and has done for many years. That means general living standards will decrease for the vast majority. This is because the value of the pound sinks and debt interest payments increase under such circumstances. Sure, some will buck the trend, but there is no magic money tree and simply saying UK should borrow more to pay for railway pay (and any other group with clout, pensioners, NHS staff, GP's etc) in preference to any other group is the law of the jungle. One way which is a decent compromise is flexibility in working practices which improve efficiency and could in the long term increase the number of railway staff to cope with projected passenger numbers.
Suppose Keir Starmer was in charge, what would you expect him to offer which would be acceptable to unions, but affordable? Sturgeon caved in too.

For starters, the government should (allow TOCs to) talk to the unions, and negiotiate in good faith. Ideally, each TOC would make a wish list with changes in working patterns that would make the railway more reliable and, over the long term, more financially sustainable. Measures that come to mind are things like sundays commited or inside, DOO, ending the need for double staffing coupled units as on XC. What measures should be proposed will obviously depend on the TOC. And then a comprimise were staff get a decent payrise and the TOC gets changes in working patterns gets agreed. The key point is though that this requires negotiation in good faith, and the government is currently making that impossible.


The proposed law appears to be focused on putting more blame on the unions, and not on actually fixing any issues


As an side, the whole argument regarding "there isn't any money" has lost a lot of power due to Lizz Truss attempting (and fortunately failing) to give many billions to the richest people in our society. Can the government seriously maintain there is money for that inflationary plan, and not to give normal people a pay rise more or less in line with inflation? That is clearly bull****

Regarding Sturgeon caving in, Scotrail and ASLEF agreed a 5% pay rise, so quite significantly below inflation. Just goes to show that when negotiation isn't blocked by a tory government agreements can and do get made

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Or perhaps prices go up , the shareholders get more etc. My mum and dad's mortgage was under £200 month, my rent is nearly 1.5 k.

Sure, prices have gone up, and that's tough for pretty much everyone. Having to pay £1.5K rent is hard

But the problem is... the reason prices have gone up is - very crudely - because as a country, we are not producing enough wealth to match all the things people would be buying - and that means that we are all (barring some redistribution of wealth) somewhat poorer. The fact that the same amount of money is effectively chasing fewer goods and services manifests itself as inflation. It is *impossible* to solve that problem by just paying people more money. All that means is you'd have even more money chasing the same amount of goods/services/etc. which then locks in even higher inflation, leaving everyone no better off than before. Indeed, the inflation/economic instability that would result from trying to pay everyone more money to match inflation would probably (and ironically/counter-intuitively) leave us all even worse off. The only way to solve the problem is by us, as a country, producing more. I'm not trying to be mean or anything by saying that - it's simply pointing out (roughly speaking) the laws of physics.

Or another way to look at it: If rail workers get paid more to match inflation so that they get protected from the general standard of living reduction, that means they are getting a higher share of the nation's wealth - which means the rest of us end up even worse off - because we suffer the aggregate reduction in the UK's living standards plus an extra reduction in order to redistribute some of the UK's wealth to rail workers. Does that seem fair?

 

[DanNCL]

Ironically on some routes at the minute this would mean more trains running on strike days than on any other day!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As an side, the whole argument regarding "there isn't any money" has lost a lot of power due to Lizz Truss attempting (and fortunately failing) to give many billions to the richest people in our society. Can the government seriously maintain there is money for that inflationary plan, and not to give normal people a pay rise more or less in line with inflation? That is clearly bull****

I would argue that the whole thing with the Liz Truss fantasy economics/Kwasi Kwarteng's idiotic budget proves exactly why you can't just hand out more money. Truss and Kwarteng provided us with a textbook example of what happens when, collectively as a nation, you try to spend money that you don't have!

 

[matacaster]

For starters, the government should (allow TOCs to) talk to the unions, and negiotiate in good faith. Ideally, each TOC would make a wish list with changes in working patterns that would make the railway more reliable and, over the long term, more financially sustainable. Measures that come to mind are things like sundays commited or inside, DOO, ending the need for double staffing coupled units as on XC. What measures should be proposed will obviously depend on the TOC. And then a comprimise were staff get a decent payrise and the TOC gets changes in working patterns gets agreed. The key point is though that this requires negotiation in good faith, and the government is currently making that impossible.


The proposed law appears to be focused on putting more blame on the unions, and not on actually fixing any issues


As an side, the whole argument regarding "there isn't any money" has lost a lot of power due to Lizz Truss attempting (and fortunately failing) to give many billions to the richest people in our society. Can the government seriously maintain there is money for that inflationary plan, and not to give normal people a pay rise more or less in line with inflation? That is clearly bull****

There is no doubt the Truss screwed up royally by failing to get independent forecasts on what the effect of her changes would be and reflecting on them. IE it seemed to bond market as if it was back of a fag packet stuff and results highly unpredictable.... They didn't like that.
Whilst the cut in higher rate tax touched a raw nerve with virtually everyone (including me), previous cuts have actually increased the tax take as its no longer worth the very rich paying expensive accountants for little benefit. Dont forget also that some train drivers, all doctors, senior teachers etc pay higher rate tax, so it's not just for the super rich. Nonetheless, Truss screwed up in not realising that the general public saw it as rewarding the rich whilst hurting the poor.
She was right in one respect though in my opinion, its time Britain increased productivity, increased exports and reduced reliance on imports so we can afford better school, hospitals and effective defence which I guess we all want.

Sure, prices have gone up, and that's tough for pretty much everyone. Having to pay £1.5K rent is hard

But the problem is... the reason prices have gone up is - very crudely - because as a country, we are not producing enough wealth to match all the things people would be buying - and that means that we are all (barring some redistribution of wealth) somewhat poorer. The fact that the same amount of money is effectively chasing fewer goods and services manifests itself as inflation. It is *impossible* to solve that problem by just paying people more money. All that means is you'd have even more money chasing the same amount of goods/services/etc. which then locks in even higher inflation, leaving everyone no better off than before. Indeed, the inflation/economic stability that would result from trying to pay everyone more money to match inflation would probably (and ironically/counter-intuitively) leave us all even worse off. The only way to solve the problem is by us, as a country, producing more. I'm not trying to be mean or anything by saying - it's simply pointing out (roughly speaking) the laws of physics.

Or another way to look at it: If rail workers get paid more to match inflation so that they get protected from the general cost of living reduction, that means they are getting a higher share of the nation's wealth - which means the rest of us end up even worse off - because we suffer the aggregate reduction in the UK's living standards plus an extra reduction in order to redistribute some of the UK's wealth to rail workers. Does that seem fair?

Spot on!