National Rail strikes

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

A sight more overwhelming than the percentage of votes cast in favour of any political party that has 'won' a general election in this country in many a year, a pattern that will be repeated in a few weeks' time. Are you going to query a party's right to form a government when it only gets 40 per cent of the votes?

And 77% of RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) signaller members voted for action short of a strike - which could be pretty disruptive in itself - with a turnout of 71%. The turnout in the 2005 general election was 61 per cent

As BNM pointed out, the comparison to something as complicated as the general election with three main parties plus many others at the fringes, and a "first past the post" voting system is rather specious.

Anyway, when you crunch the numbers (as I singularly failed to do in one of the early posts in this thread  ) 54% voting yes on a 71% turnout gives you far less than 50% of union members eligible to vote in favour of a strike. What they did give the union was a fairly strong mandate for action short of a strike. Had I voted in that ballot I would have been somewhat narked that the executive apparently decided to over-rule the membership by calling strikes rather than "action short of" that the larger number had voted for.

[IndustryInsider]

The union's general secretary Bob Crow said: "I can confirm tonight that RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) is putting together an experienced legal team, including some of the most high-profile employment law experts in the country. We will be mounting the most robust defence possible in the High Court tomorrow against this attack by Network Rail on our internal democracy.

I wonder what the membership makes of it?  Either they'll be outraged that they can't strike, or the solidarity within the union will be tested by the failure of the RMT to do a 'proper' ballot and then the failure of these high-profile employment law experts to win their case on their behalf.

I'm sure a full members ballot and these law experts don't come cheap, and it is unions members funds that have been wasted.

[Super Guard]

You'd have thought after the BA^» (British Airways - about) High Court challenge that RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) would have got their act together, but then after another recent RMT Guards vote, nothing surprises me about them anymore.

What amuses me to some extent is the fact Brother Bob kicks off re: Conservative/Anti-Union Laws, if they get their records sorted, reballot, and get the "yes" they want, then they can strike.  The Conservatives did not outlaw strikes, but just expected unions to get their acts together.  It is only right that a company and industry that is going to suffer from a strike should have the right to expect the ballot to be done correctly.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) leader Bob Crow vows to re-run rail strike ballot

RMT union leader Bob Crow has pledged to re-ballot members after a rail strike was halted in the High Court.
Network Rail was granted an injunction after it alleged discrepancies in the RMT's ballot for industrial action.
It means a four-day national strike over job cuts and working hours, due to start next Tuesday, will not go ahead.
Mr Crow, the RMT's general secretary, said the judgement was "an attack on the whole trade union movement" and the executive would recommend a fresh vote. Mr Crow said: "Workers fighting for the principle of a safe railway have had the whole weight of the law thrown against them."
Network Rail's legal challenge concerned only the ballot of signallers, and did not relate to the RMT's ballot of maintenance workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about)) ballot of supervisors. But after the ruling, RMT and TSSA announced the two other strikes would be suspended and fresh ballots would be held, the timetable for which would be announced on Wednesday.
TSSA general secretary Gerry Doherty said the TSSA was standing "shoulder to shoulder" with its sister union to maintain unity.
BBC transport correspondent Richard Scott said that Network Rail targeted signal workers as the trains could not run without them. Our correspondent added that Network Rail will hope the new ballot produces a vote against industrial action, but it was also possible that the court case had angered signallers and that the next vote would produce a bigger majority.
Earlier, Charles Bear QC, representing Network Rail, told Mrs Justice Sharp, who made the order, that "unlawful" strike action would cause "immense damage to the economy".
Judge Sharp said she had come to "a very clear conclusion" that the interim injunction should be granted. She also refused the RMT permission to appeal.
Robin Gisby, head of operations at Network Rail, said: "The signallers' strike is off and train services next week will run as normal. This is good news for the millions of passengers who rely on us every day, for our freight users and for the country. A dispute with the unions remains, however, and we have a responsibility to our people to continue talking to the unions to find a settlement that works for us all."
The RMT had planned to strike over Network Rail's plans to cut 1,500 jobs and increase evening and weekend maintenance work. The union said the plans would affect rail safety.
In court, Network Rail alleged the RMT balloted 11 signal boxes that do not exist, and that in 67 locations the numbers of union members balloted exceeded the total number of employees working. It also claimed that 26 workplaces were missed out, giving RMT members at these locations no opportunity to vote.
But Mr Crow told the BBC he did not feel he needed to apologise for ballot errors and the decision was "a travesty of justice for democracy".
"There's 1,700 workplaces and over 18,000 workers that work on the Network Rail sites, and we have to at any given moment in time before we ballot, name every single grade and every work location. By the time you finish the audit it's like the Forth Bridge - you start again because someone else has been promoted, someone else has been sacked, someone dies and so on. It's a moving feast," he said.
The BBC's Daniel Boettcher said Network Rail said it had challenged up to 300 votes in the ballot, which it claimed could have swayed the vote from a yes to a no. "In the end, that wasn't actually relevant to what the court decided - [the court] didn't have to look at whether the way the ballot was carried out affected the outcome; all it had to consider whether that process had been followed correctly," he said.
Responding to the strike cancellation, Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said it would be "a huge relief" to passengers. "It is now vital that the two sides in this dispute get back round the table as soon as possible to negotiate a settlement and I call on them to do so," he said.
Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said the "unnecessary and irresponsible strike would have been bad for passengers, bad for business and bad for the economy" and "every effort should be made to negotiate a settlement". "While Gordon Brown and his weak government were powerless in the face of growing union militancy, the strike laws passed by the last Conservative government have brought the country back from the brink of transport meltdown," she added.
Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker welcomed the news, but warned it was "a temporary reprieve. It's time for Network Rail and the RMT to get back round the table. The RMT must put the problems of the railway ahead of political point-scoring," he said.
Rail customer watchdog Passenger Focus said passengers would be relieved. Chief executive Anthony Smith said passengers wanted to see renewed efforts to resolve the issue, "not just a postponement of the pain".
Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said train users could "breathe a sigh of relief" and "hope the unions will see sense by not re-balloting their members".
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the decision would "simply drag the dispute out and make it more difficult to solve. It's becoming increasingly easy for employers, unhappy at the prospect of a dispute, to rely on the courts to intervene and nullify a democratic ballot for industrial action on a mere technicality. Unions will be disappointed by this latest decision. Disputes between employers and unions should be settled by negotiation," he said.

[willc]

something as complicated as the general election with three main parties plus many others at the fringes,

I wish it was going to be as complicated as that in the part of the world I live in, where, once a handful of Tory Party members (and I'll bet the turnout at the selection meeting is nowhere near 71 per cent) have decided who their candidate will be, the whole process is done and dusted - that person is the MP^▸ (Member of Parliament). Same goes for hundreds of seats, both Tory and Labour, the length and breadth of this land. Complicated it ain't.

Now you've all vented you spleen on me, Bob Crow, et al, perhaps you might care to ponder how it is that Network Rail have apparently done such a poor job of putting their case to their employees, that they voted in the way that they did.

Whatever the margins, about half of those who voted backed strike action and many more were in favour of taking action short of a strike, which suggests there is a wide gap to bridge to reach a settlement.

While Ms Villiers may be crowing about employment law, she doesn't seem to have anything to say about the Tory fragmentation of the rail industry and the patchwork quilt of terms and conditions that helped to create, which Network Rail is understandably keen to simplify. But that is never going to be a straightforward exercise in an organisation with 30,000 employees scattered the length and breadth of the land, however black and white the world may appear to all you rugged individualists.

Ms Villiers isn't even correct, because the particular requirement placed on a union, to notify an employer of every person taking part in a strike ballot by grade and workplace, which NR^» (Network Rail - home page) deployed in court, was brought in by Labour, post-1997. All the Tories' law required was a majority voting in favour of a strike or other action and notification of those voting by name and NI number, in which case NR might well not have got an injunction.

And however many clever and expensive lawyers either side deploys, talking it out is the only way this will be sorted out, whether or not the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) goes through the whole process again and holds a flawless ballot - let's face it, they will make damn sure they don't make any mistakes if they do hold another vote.

[Jez]

Im glad the strike has been called off. I have plans to travel from Cardiff-Brum on Thurs and when I found out Crosscountry were not going to be running their Cardiff-Brum service I asked could I take an alternative route and go via Brisol Parkway if my train was cancelled by was told no and that id have a refund and then would have to buy a new ticket.

I said fine but would I be charged the same amount as I originally paid but they said no, it would be down to availablity.  To be honest I dont see how it would be fair to expect me to pay extra for something that isnt my fault. TBH^▸ (to be honest) id have driven if my train has been cancelled.

Anyway im glad its all ok now.

[Super Guard]

Ms Villiers isn't even correct, because the particular requirement placed on a union, to notify an employer of every person taking part in a strike ballot by grade and workplace, which NR^» (Network Rail - home page) deployed in court, was brought in by Labour, post-1997. All the Tories' law required was a majority voting in favour of a strike or other action and notification of those voting by name and NI number, in which case NR might well not have got an injunction.

It's interesting then that Bob Crow, slags off the Conservative laws and encourages RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) members to vote Labour, when it looks like the Labour laws stopped this. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

There is an excellent article, explaining the legal position, in the Financial Times: see Union paperwork presents soft target in strike battles.

[willc]

It's interesting then that Bob Crow, slags off the Conservative laws and encourages RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) members to vote Labour, when it looks like the Labour laws stopped this.

Presumably because he would still rather deal with a Labour government than a Tory one.

After all, if Dave gets in, we will doubtless hear much 1980s-style talk about management's right to manage. Even if allowing the self-serving managers of the western world's banking system to manage things did a better job of almost bringing global capitalism to its knees than an avowed Marxist like Mr Crow has - and caused more long-term harm to this country's economy and taxpayers' pockets than an RMT strike ever would - or do all those of you using colourful language about unions have short memories?

[grahame]

After all, if Dave gets in, we will doubtless hear much 1980s-style talk about management's right to manage. Even if allowing the self-serving managers of the western world's banking system to manage things did a better job of almost bringing global capitalism to its knees than an avowed Marxist like Mr Crow has - and caused more long-term harm to this country's economy and taxpayers' pockets than an RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) strike ever would - or do all those of you using colourful language about unions have short memories?

This is getting a very great deal more generalised than "across the west" - indeed I suspect it's wider even that our usual "wider picture".   

I'm going to suggest that it could be regarded as a failure that should be shared, whatever the rights and wrongs of any dispute, for customers and wannabe customers to be seriously inconvenienced by industrial action, or by the threat of it. Vering off the subject of your post, Will, but I feel that the threat of action is sometimes as harmful as the action itself - just like the announcement that a train has been cancelled harms the business it does, even if it turns up a few minutes after it was scheduled to come along.

Where the failure occurs on either side (and however blame is shared) in the rail industry, in the long term it does that rail industry harm.

[Super Guard]

It's interesting then that Bob Crow, slags off the Conservative laws and encourages RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) members to vote Labour, when it looks like the Labour laws stopped this.

Presumably because he would still rather deal with a Labour government than a Tory one.

After all, if Dave gets in, we will doubtless hear much 1980s-style talk about management's right to manage. Even if allowing the self-serving managers of the western world's banking system to manage things did a better job of almost bringing global capitalism to its knees than an avowed Marxist like Mr Crow has - and caused more long-term harm to this country's economy and taxpayers' pockets than an RMT strike ever would - or do all those of you using colourful language about unions have short memories?

Agree 100%... point I was making is Bob Crow should get his house in order and get the ballot right first time than needing to slag off anti-Union laws, and even get that wrong (and i'm an RMT member I might add).

[inspector_blakey]

There's an interesting article on the strike that wasn't (for the moment, at least!) on Christian Wolmar's website. I'm not always his greatest fan but find myself agreeing with him 100% on this one!

[Electric train]

There's an interesting article on the strike that wasn't (for the moment, at least!) on Christian Wolmar's website. I'm not always his greatest fan but find myself agreeing with him 100% on this one!

Like you I am in agreement 100% with what he said in his article

[Bob_Blakey]

I don't have much knowledge of the detail of the dispute between NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), but during a radio interview over the weekend Bob Crow stated quite categorically that it was the intention of NR to reduce the number of safety staff present at worksites.
I assume he was talking about lookouts or people allocated to similar duties.
Does anybody know if this claim is true?

[Electric train]

I don't have much knowledge of the detail of the dispute between NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), but during a radio interview over the weekend Bob Crow stated quite categorically that it was the intention of NR to reduce the number of safety staff present at worksites.
I assume he was talking about lookouts or people allocated to similar duties.
Does anybody know if this claim is true?

NR has / had plans to change the way "T3 Possessions" (These are where the engineer takes possession of the Line to carry out work such as track renewals) often refered to as a "Total Block"  The current system (simply) the signaler places signals to danger and applies a reminder device, the PICOP^▸ (Person In Charge Of Possession) (Person In Charge of Possession) arranges for marker boards / Red banners and dets to be placed at the limits may also involve clipping of points, once this is done he can then allow work to take place in "work sites" he also controls the movement of trains into the possession and between worksites.  The giving up is the reverse of the setting up.

There have been a few accidents involving staff in the setting up and lifting of T3's one local to the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are was 3 years ago when (I think it was) the PICOP got struck by a train after he had informed the signaler the line was clear, the PICOP walked back to the access point in the four foot with an umbrella up!  NR want to change the this traditional way (dating back over 100 years) of taking possessions, NR's view is in track circuit areas signals are good enough to protect trains so why not work sites (the proposed system had more detail than that) NR withdrew this proposed changed and agreed to further development and discussion with the Unions.

There is also a general trend to prohibit "RED ZONE" working that is on an open and operational line with lookouts the NL (Dutch railways) have baned this type of working. 
Its my belief that NR will not put something in place that will place staff in danger or the public but they are determined to reduce costs by becoming more efficient regrettably that means a lower head count and changes to working practices