National Rail strikes

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

The sad incident referred to is covered in this topic on the forum.

[willc]

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.

Never disputed it would seriously inconvenience people - myself included - but I think this thread got a bit more generalised when people started posting remarks like "unions are scum".

There are very complex safety-related matters at the heart of this, as pointed out above, and finding a solution is never going to be straightforward. The RMT is there to represent the interests of its members. They, after all, are the ones operating and maintaining the system and deserve the best possible protection out on the tracks from the many potential hazards or, in the case of signallers, implementing procedures they think could lead to accidents - and if strikes are bad publicity, what were Hatfield, Potter Bar, etc?

It is simply not the case that the first thing the RMT did was hold a strike ballot - it reflects a lack of progress in negotiations over many months - and as I said previously, it's pretty clear from the way the voting went that Network Rail has yet to come up with proposals that will convince its staff that they will be operating safely, whether in signalboxes or trackside, which ought to concern those of us using railways, so the sooner the two sides get talking again, the better.

[Henry]

 Irrespective of what you think of the unions, their is no doubt that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have had to spend a lot of money
 on 'catch-up' after the demise of the incompetent Railtrack.
 As a another ballot seems likely, by which time we will probably have another Tory government, perhaps
 Cameron will once again 'privatise' NR.

 Railtrack II, what a scary thought, mind you probably not much more to sell off for the share - holders.

[Electric train]

......... another Tory government, perhaps
 Cameron will once again 'privatise' NR^» (Network Rail - home page).
 Railtrack II, what a scary thought, mind you probably not much more to sell off for the share - holders.

Technically NR can not be privatised as the Government are not a share holder, a funder yes but they do not own any shares; there "NR share holders" only a few people their stake is a "limited by guarantee" they are in effect the trustees of the company shares holding and not listed on the stock market.

The Government could withdraw its funding for NR but politically that could be dangerous

[Mookiemoo]

I made the unions are scum comment and I stand by it

Try bringing unions to my industry - I'd be paid a hell of a lot less however I would have the "protection" of a union.

Think not.

At the end of the day - companies are there to make money not to employee people - if you are so good at your job and invaluable - you'll be paid what you are worth.  If you dont like the cut of your gib - go get another job.  If you can't - be greatful for what you have.

just like most people out there.

Companies are not a charity - if they can get away with less people and still do their purpose - why the heck should they have to employ more people just to save jobs/headcount.  And don't tell me, that if the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) were looking at a situation where safety was in danger but their members benefitted somehow - they would still strike.

Its purely self interest so everyone stand up for them selves and get what THEY dseserve not block bullying

[vacman]

Unions are not just there to strike, they help members to obtain certain rights that they are entitled to and that management try to hold back! The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) in my opinion always have their own political agenda though rather than truly representing their members, always too busy in Cuba or whatever!

[Mookiemoo]

Unions are not just there to strike, they help members to obtain certain rights that they are entitled to and that management try to hold back! The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) in my opinion always have their own political agenda though rather than truly representing their members, always too busy in Cuba or whatever!

CAB

Legal Aid

If you are entitled and management withhold - thats you course of action.

Unfair dismissal - take them to court.

To be fair - if the right to strike were removed I wouldnt have a problem with unions.  But how the hell can you reserve the right to withdraw labour and still expect a job at the end of it!

I bet if management said - I am withdrawing employment for four days but come back to work afterwards, that would be deemed unacceptable.

Also - pay increases T&C's are not rights - they are between the employee and the company. 

[The SprinterMeister]

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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 another more sinister danger that results from discontinuing the use of the current possession limit boards. When an engineers train is within the possession limit boards it runs under the control of the PICOP and not the signaller. The signals within the possession are where possible maintained at danger and the driver passes these under the PICOP's authority with the locomotive TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) in 'temporary isolation' mode. If the train is authorised to leave the possession by the PICOP it will come to rest at the possession limit boards and the driver will contact the signaller regarding further onward movement. The possession limit boards therefore denote the point at which the train is to resume normal running under the control of the normal signalling system.

If you discontinue the use of possession limit boards, this visual marker (which is also denoted by detonator protection) is lost. You therefore are more reliant than before on the driver and PICOP reaching a clear understanding of where the possession limits actually are when trains are being moved within the possession. If there is a misunderstanding you therefore create the risk of the train making an unauthorised exit from the possession, passing signals at danger (in the belief that it is still within the possession) and possibly entering a section of line on which trains are still running normally creating a potential collsion risk.

This concerning aspect of safety is very real and should not only be of concern to the unions but also to any of you who use the railways at weekends or other times when preplanned T3 possessions take place. It should not be brushed aside as merely a job protection measure on the part of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers).

[willc]

Unions are not just there to strike, they help members to obtain certain rights that they are entitled to and that management try to hold back! The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) in my opinion always have their own political agenda though rather than truly representing their members, always too busy in Cuba or whatever!

CAB

Legal Aid

If you are entitled and management withhold - thats you course of action.

Unfair dismissal - take them to court.

To be fair - if the right to strike were removed I wouldnt have a problem with unions.  But how the hell can you reserve the right to withdraw labour and still expect a job at the end of it!

I bet if management said - I am withdrawing employment for four days but come back to work afterwards, that would be deemed unacceptable.

Also - pay increases T&C's are not rights - they are between the employee and the company. 

None of which has any relevance to the safety issues at the heart of this - and if you really think Network Rail's management have any desire to negotiate these issues individually with the 17,000 employees concerned, you must be kidding.

And were I to fall out with my employer, I would far rather take my chances with my union's lawyer (something as an individual I would never be able to afford) representing me against the employer's fancy and expensive lawyers than rely on the miserably-funded CAB, never mind attempt to get legal aid, which is notoriously hard to obtain for employment cases.

And I'd rather stay out of the courts or employment tribunals full stop.

[inspector_blakey]

None of which has any relevance to the safety issues at the heart of this...

I think the crux of this argument is to what extent you believe there are genuine safety-related concerns at stake. After all, Network Rail put its plans to ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) which responded by detailing its concerns, although even that letter opened opened with the following paragraph (with my emphasis in bold):

Following an extensive review of Network Rail^s maintenance restructuring plans, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has today voiced support for the principles, but raised significant concerns about some aspects of the proposed implementation.

It has been reported that ORR has confirmed in a second letter to Iain Coucher (see Christian Wolmar article posted above) that these issues have been dealt with. Bob Crow's near-farcical grandstanding performance on the steps of the High Court has actually made me more cynical about whether any bona fide safety concerns are behind this dispute.

[Tim]

Oh there are safety concerns, BUT they are very complicated.  Any change of working procedure at least in theory carries a risk, but at the same time you can't stand still and working practices do need to modernise. 

The only solution to this kind of issue is for the details of each change to be hammered out throughly in talks.  RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are now doing this which is great.  Just a shame the threat of strikes came first.  Either NR didn't initially consult sufficiently or the RMt was more interested in needlessly throwing its weight around.  I don't know which party was to blame but it always seemed to me to be a rather unnecessary strike.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Daily Mail:

Railmen threaten strike to bring country to a standstill on polling day

Militant rail unions are threatening to bring the country to a standstill in the run-up to the General Election - or even polling day itself.
The timing of a possible strike by the hardline Rail Maritime and Transport Union would be humiliating for the Prime Minister, and annoying for him and his rivals.
All three major political parties have pledged to use Britain's rail network as extensively as possible during their election campaigns.
And a strike - the first national rail strike for 16 years - would exasperate millions of voters who may decide to lay the blame with the Government, and take out their anger in the polling booth.
But the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)'s executive committee said it will meet to decide the timetable for another ballot of its members.
Union sources said last night that it is 'perfectly possible' that a strike would be held 'before, on or after polling day.'
It comes amid an air of growing militancy in Britain, with a public sector bracing itself for massive cuts in a bid to tackle the crippling ^167billion deficit.
At the National Union of Teachers' annual conference on Monday, dozens of activists raised their fists and chanted the Marxist-inspired mantra 'The workers, united, will never be defeated!'
Union members unanimously backed a resolution demanding 'a campaign of action, up to and including strike action where needed, to oppose job cuts, pay freezes, threats to pensions and cuts in services'.
The spontaneous chanting followed a speech by Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who urged public sector workers to 'stand together to defend every job and every service'.
They should take 'united industrial action' if needed to defend jobs, pay and pensions, he said, and condemned the Labour government as the 'worst in the history of this country.

[willc]

Just a shame the threat of strikes came first. 

It didn't - they've been in talks for months.

[The SprinterMeister]

Oh there are safety concerns, BUT they are very complicated.  Any change of working procedure at least in theory carries a risk, but at the same time you can't stand still and working practices do need to modernise.

However where a change of working practice involves a greater potential risk to the travelling public & staff it should be thoroughly resisted. It should be the subject of negotiation and risk assessed from all possible angles before being bought into use. Importing risk to save money is not the way forward.

I realise my explantion of T3 possessions and PLB's above may have been incomprehensible or unpalatable for some. I have however had experience of engineers trains & T3 possessions.

[inspector_blakey]

News feed from the Press Associaton via the Guardian. Looks like promising news at least.