Yes I understand that and don’t disagree. But from the perspective of the employer, I’m sure they’ll know their company councils well enough to just roll their eyes at the pronouncements coming out of the union propaganda department and carry on with business as usual. The language of the RMT isn’t entirely helpful or conciliatory, but talking about a war is one thing but actually waging one is something else.
To play Devil’s advocate for a moment, there is possibly some mileage in saying that the various disputes the RMT have had over the role of the guard have been largely successful. On both GA and Southern they’ve conceded on methods of working but have preserved the position of the second person on the train, even if they are not guards or involved in train dispatch.
I totally hear what you're saying - I think in terms of TOC management you're absolutely right - but there's now one giant change. No longer are TOC higher ups more responsible to shareholders than the DfT (bar wording in a contract). DfT (and government) are now the key stakeholders, and increasingly responsible financially. In my opinion, at least, this government are far more likely to both engage with and revel in a war than any other. Essentially, for the first time since the mid 90s there is the opportunity for long term rail strategy, not just TOCs thinking about the next 7 years (at best), and being bankrolled by the government on the basis of contractual obligations.
In terms of the southern/GA points, isn't it the case that at southern, there was actually very little concessions versus what was offered initially? I could be wrong entirely, but I seem to recall one of the "battles" re: DOO, essentially ending with the union taking what was the TOCs first offer? Every time it was rejected, the TOC made the offer worse, lots of striking occurred and the end result was the union claiming a victory over what they could have had 18 months earlier and without the loss of days and days (or even months) of staff wages?
All this aside, my main point is essentially the former - we now have the unprecedented opportunity for someone in government to come up with a long term, national strategy, and actually implement it, without having to worry about things like franchise agreements and short term interests of TOCs.
