Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[mike57]

If it is thought that the railways will become largely irrelevant outside London and the South East, I wonder why the government are spending eye watering sum of money on a new HST to the North - albeit recently truncated ?

A lot has happened since the approved parts of HS2 were given the go-ahead. And the very fact that parts of it were truncated should be warning enough that this government will drop or cut parts of the industry at the drop of a hat.

The last three words in your posting carry the most implication of what might well happen...

I think these 3 posts point us in the direction of what could happen given long and disruptive strike action.

To add a few thoughts

Post Covid commuting is never going to return to pre covid levels, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. A lot of jobs can be performed perfectly adequately without travelling to an office every day. Companies save money on office space, employees save money on travel and dont waste time travelling. Whatever our PM and certain civil servants say this is not going to change. Taking this thought forwards the passenger railway operations are going to be more dependent on lesiure travel for their income.

Unlike commuters who will endure grim travelling conditions in order to get to their destination because the alternatives are not practical lesiure travellers will either use another mode of transport or not undertake the journey at all.

Any long drawn out stike will call into the question railway subsidies, and long term investment projects. At a time when money is going to be tight justifying spending large sums of money on services that people cant use is political suicide.

Freight has a different outcome, because I dont think (in general?) frieght serices are subsidised.

I also suspect there are politicians who would like to kill off the railways, after all they have been a political banana skin for years.

So that brings us to the current dispute. Even if you consider that the workforce have a genuine case, taking stike action could result in situation where public and political patience runs out, and you end up with subsidies cut and services and routes cut back, a few unsubsidised intercity routes, and freight remaining.

It also raises a question of if the government should be susidising something that is more lesiure orientated. Day time services cut right back on some routes?

I actually think the current state of the railways is far more uncertain than at any time in my memory.

So how do a disgruntled workforce deal with companies who are constrained by the DfT and are not prepared to offer what the workforce want or even would be deemed fair. To be honest I haven't a clue, if the disatisfaction is great enough you reach the stage where people leave and redeploy into other industries, but thats not always easy. A low morale workforce has other implications for both safety and customer service, but I do think ongoing strike action might end up killing the whole undertaking, a railway version of mutually assured destruction.

 

[northwichcat]

Just a little reminder. There are more employees than just Drivers and Guards.

Here we go, none because they haven't had one.

This is where the RMT need some basic lessons in PR. If the average passenger sees a picket line of train cleaners who are striking because their minimum wage job doesn't cover the cost of living, then the average passenger will probably excuse the trains not looking clean. However, bring well paid roles in to the same dispute and the average passenger sees a picket line of rail employees, some of whom can afford to support their whole family on their salary alone and the plight of the lower paid staff gets overlooked.

There's going to be no pay rises until it's decided where the money will come from. The public won't support higher train fares or higher taxes to give on board train staff a pay rise, they want both train fares and taxes cut. While I don't support the current government, I do appreciate that they are in a difficult position regarding NHS staff getting pay rises, overall the public support that but don't support a 1p NI increase to increase funding for health and social care. Based on recent media reports it seems there may be a significant reduction in the number of public sector roles in the very near future, so it could be a pay rise for train drivers employed by OLR companies would come at the expense of imminent ticket office closures or more driver only operation.

This is just another variation on the same theme. Virtually no office workers I have ever known take a one hour lunch.

Again that's the same problem. Those overworking themselves get tired and stressed, consequently they work slower and make more mistakes. I also forgot to mention tired and stressed employees are more likely to get in to arguments with co-workers. Then if the issue isn't resolved it means high staff turnover and longer hours results in higher costs associated with recruitment.

As soon as you shorten the working day to 7hrs x 5 days work, exactly the same people realise they can now do their full weekly hours in less than 9hrs x 4 days and try to sell the 3 day weekend as another productivity gain,

Some hospital staff doing night shifts do 4 long days, rather than 5 normal length days, to avoid staffing changeovers in the middle of the night.

while falling silent on the obvious conflict.

The other conflict you're overlooking is medical appointments. Long working hours mean people have to take these during their normal working hours. Then you turn up at work one morning and find your colleague hasn't told you they'll be late in because of an appointment and it prevents you completing something on your to-do list.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2022 ==

I'm not without sympathy for the rail workers voting for industrial action, but as a someone who relies upon the train to get to work, any prolonged strike would be a very bad news for me personally. I've recently had to stop driving for medical reasons. If the railway is shut down for an extended period, I'm faced with a 2.5 hour bus journey each way as opposed to a 50/55 minute train journey.

^^ This. A national rail strike will almost certainly force through legislation making the railways an essential service that cannot fully shut down in the event of a strike, putting 'essential workers' on the railways in the same category as 'essential workers' in prisons and hospitals. @dk1 says he likes the term rail workers were given but the term has meaning. If you run an essential service then provision has to be put in place to mean a strike causes reduced provision, rather than no provision. That doesn't just apply to railways. I'm such most parents would support teachers being on good pay and happy in their role but would also want provision in place to prevent them having to arrange last minute childcare if teachers went on strike.

 

[Annetts key]

Largely irrelevant outside London/SE (as much is already) - *EXCEPT* the main trunk lines. I'm sure there will always be a demand on the major routes, it should be all the regionals most at risk.

Can I tell my manager that answer when they are getting overly excited due to a problem closing a line or causing massive train delays?

 

[Siggy1980s]

This is where the RMT need some basic lessons in PR. If the average passenger sees a picket line of train cleaners who are striking because their minimum wage job doesn't cover the cost of living, then the average passenger will probably excuse the trains not looking clean. However, bring well paid roles in to the same dispute and the average passenger sees a picket line of rail employees, some of whom can afford to support their whole family on their salary alone and the plight of the lower paid staff gets overlooked.

There's going to be no pay rises until it's decided where the money will come from. The public won't support higher train fares or higher taxes to give on board train staff a pay rise, they want both train fares and taxes cut. While I don't support the current government, I do appreciate that they are in a difficult position regarding NHS staff getting pay rises, overall the public support that but don't support a 1p NI increase to increase funding for health and social care. Based on recent media reports it seems there may be a significant reduction in the number of public sector roles in the very near future, so it could be a pay rise for train drivers employed by OLR companies would come at the expense of imminent ticket office closures or more driver only operation.



Again that's the same problem. Those overworking themselves get tired and stressed, consequently they work slower and make more mistakes. I also forgot to mention tired and stressed employees are more likely to get in to arguments with co-workers. Then if the issue isn't resolved it means high staff turnover and longer hours results in higher costs associated with recruitment.


Some hospital staff doing night shifts do 4 long days, rather than 5 normal length days, to avoid staffing changeovers in the middle of the night.


The other conflict you're overlooking is medical appointments. Long working hours mean people have to take these during their normal working hours. Then you turn up at work one morning and find your colleague hasn't told you they'll be late in because of an appointment and it prevents you completing something on your to-do list.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2022 ==



^^ This. A national rail strike will almost certainly force through legislation making the railways an essential service that cannot fully shut down in the event of a strike, putting 'essential workers' on the railways in the same category as 'essential workers' in prisons and hospitals. @dk1 says he likes the term rail workers were given but the term has meaning. If you run an essential service then provision has to be put in place to mean a strike causes reduced provision, rather than no provision. That doesn't just apply to railways. I'm such most parents would support teachers being on good pay and happy in their role but would also want provision in place to prevent them having to arrange last minute childcare if teachers went on strike.

Who on earth do you actually think you are, to be able to judge the ability of a railway worker to support his family, on his own. You have no place to judge other people and their finances. People live to their means, and right now wages are falling behind. I pay the RMT to represent me! Not people in other industries or indeed the general public. And I'm sorry, but if others feel hard done by, then they need to take it up in their respective industry. Rail. Maritime. Transport. The clue is in the title. If people at Argos, City Office, Hotel, Airport blaaa blaaa blaaa, have issues with their wages or T&Cs, good luck to them if they want to fight, but it's not MY trade unions problem. And to finish my rant, I have wanted this ballot from the RMT for over a year, as one of its members, and many more members also wanted it too. I'm only sorry its taken so long to get a ballot out.

 

[northwichcat]

Who on earth do you actually think you are, to be able to judge the ability of a railway worker to support his family, on his own. You have no place to judge other people and their finances. People live to their means, and right now wages are falling behind. I pay the RMT to represent me! Not people in other industries or indeed the general public.

There's families with a household income of under £50,000 who aren't struggling to meet living costs - fact. I never said all railway workers were able to manage, I said some will earn enough to be able to support a family on their own salary alone. Presumably you're aware of the married tax allowance? If you don't like it because it's not convenient then tough, you're not in the same category as train cleaners, who maybe on the minimum wage relying on food banks, so don't you dare even pretend that you are in a position to use that to justify getting a nice big juicy pay rise for yourself. If you do you're worse than some of the Tory party donors. Like I said putting very well paid drivers in to the same dispute as low paid railway employees is a PR disaster.

 

[takno]

Who on earth do you actually think you are, to be able to judge the ability of a railway worker to support his family, on his own. You have no place to judge other people and their finances. People live to their means, and right now wages are falling behind. I pay the RMT to represent me! Not people in other industries or indeed the general public. And I'm sorry, but if others feel hard done by, then they need to take it up in their respective industry. Rail. Maritime. Transport. The clue is in the title. If people at Argos, City Office, Hotel, Airport blaaa blaaa blaaa, have issues with their wages or T&Cs, good luck to them if they want to fight, but it's not MY trade unions problem. And to finish my rant, I have wanted this ballot from the RMT for over a year, as one of its members, and many more members also wanted it too. I'm only sorry its taken so long to get a ballot out.

The union leadership has never made any friends with their support of Brexit or of the hopelessly unelectable elements of the Labour Party over the last few years, and the way they present themselves in disputes has never made any friends within the union movement or without.

I mostly agree with your position on wages, but frankly you're about to enter into a large unpleasant fight with the government which you aren't going to win, and which is likely to make you collectively and quite possibly individually very unpopular with the general public.

 

[Siggy1980s]

There's families with a household income of under £50,000 who aren't struggling to meet living costs - fact. I never said all railway workers were able to manage, I said some will earn enough to be able to support a family on their own salary alone. Presumably you're aware of the married tax allowance? If you don't like it because it's not convenient then tough, you're not in the same category as cleaners on the minimum wage relying on food banks, so don't you dare even pretend that you are in a position to use that to justify getting a nice big juicy pay rise for yourself. If you do you're worse than some of the Tory party donors. Like I said putting very well paid drivers in to the same dispute as low paid railway employees is a PR disaster.

What are you whittling on about.... Married Tax Allowance...? Where did that even come from. When was that even a factor in a Union Dispute, let alone this thread.

I recall mention of a drivers only forum a few pages back. Can we have one just for "employees being balloted" too? Then we can cut out all the white noise from other employees of other industry (who frankly don't have a clue about how people feel on the railway in general (the YES vote will in itself is be protest vote in general)

If anyone else wants a pay rise, and hasn't had one since 2019 or whatever, take it up with your respective union or indeed employer, like railway workers have, as is ongoing now.

(I dont really want a seperate forum, its tongue in cheek).

My participation in this particular thread is done.

Remember 99% of employees who will have voted yes, are not on this forum.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I’m confused. Is the Railway providing an essential service or are Britains Railways due to be ripped up and tarmaced over imminently due to not being needed anymore?

 

[Goldfish62]

I’m confused. Is the Railway providing an essential service or are Britains Railways due to be ripped up and tarmaced over imminently due to not being needed anymore?

That of course depends on your political view.

 

[Bantamzen]

I am sure - but this thread isn't about "the rest of the country's workforce"

And what is the relevance of that to the unions that organise rail workers ?

There are other pockets of workers engaged in similar fights right now , posties are being balloted , as I have already alluded to some bus drivers have taken part in strike action over pay , the civil servants are looking like they are moving towards a dispute .And many others

As I have said previously this is happening at a time when much of the country is feeling the squeeze, and where a lot of us will be lucky to see any kind of pay rise. Like it or not the rail unions are going to need the support of the travelling public, and I'm afraid having large scale industrial action which is going to prove highly disruptive to many workers and businesses when things are already tight ain't going to achieve that. Without that support the industry will be full on exposed to the whim of the government, and right now they are looking for deep cuts in spending and these kind of demands shove rail workers right into the gaze of ministers.

And let's not forget the financial assistance that the industry received during the covid measures, and the fact that much of the industry is now publicly owned. This gives the public more of a vested interest, so rail unions demanding better increases than other publicly funded areas isn't going to go down well and will be a powerful weapon for this cynical government to wield. But don't take my word for it, just watch what happens should lots of strikes take place, and remember the phrase "now is not the time".

 

[Dai Corner]

What are you whittling on about.... Married Tax Allowance...? Where did that even come from. When was that even a factor in a Union Dispute, let alone this thread.

I recall mention of a drivers only forum a few pages back. Can we have one just for "employees being balloted" too? Then we can cut out all the white noise from other employees of other industry (who frankly don't have a clue about how people feel on the railway in general (the YES vote will in itself is be protest vote in general)

If anyone else wants a pay rise, and hasn't had one since 2019 or whatever, take it up with your respective union or indeed employer, like railway workers have, as is ongoing now.

(I dont really want a seperate forum, its tongue in cheek).

My participation in this particular thread is done.

Remember 99% of employees who will have voted yes, are not on this forum.

I'm afraid you lost me when you (or another signaller?) said you'd want £12,000 a year to give up your right to decide whether you wanted to work Sundays or not. That's more than my pension, and more than some on minimum wage who have to work Sundays when rostered.

 

[uglymonkey]

Same old same old, is it a private company - and can do wage increases, investment and what ever it likes, provided it makes a profit. Or is it a public sector enterprise, run for the public good " lean & mean" a "drain" on hard pressed government ( your) spending - where ( like many in the public sector) haven't had a decent payrise since the financial crash of 2008. It can't be both. if there was a national strike tomorrow for 2 months, 80% of the public would not be effected ( apart from reading about it in the daily fail)

 

[Goldfish62]

What are you whittling on about.... Married Tax Allowance...? Where did that even come from. When was that even a factor in a Union Dispute, let alone this thread.

I recall mention of a drivers only forum a few pages back. Can we have one just for "employees being balloted" too? Then we can cut out all the white noise from other employees of other industry (who frankly don't have a clue about how people feel on the railway in general (the YES vote will in itself is be protest vote in general)

If anyone else wants a pay rise, and hasn't had one since 2019 or whatever, take it up with your respective union or indeed employer, like railway workers have, as is ongoing now.

(I dont really want a seperate forum, its tongue in cheek).

My participation in this particular thread is done.

Remember 99% of employees who will have voted yes, are not on this forum.

It's a shame you can't accept that this isn't a staff forum acting like an echo chamber of opinion. There are plenty of social media channels open to you for that.

So far there's been a robust, but polite and healthy debate with many excellent points made from all viewpoints.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm afraid you lost me when you (or another signaller?) said you'd want £12,000 a year to give up your right to decide whether you wanted to work Sundays or not. That's more than my pension, and more than some on minimum wage who have to work Sundays when rostered.

That's not what he said.

He said he makes £12,000 per year working his booked Sundays as "overtime", and for them to be moved into his working week he would need his basic pay to increase by that £12,000 in order not to be out of pocket by the change in the way of working.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not what he said.

He said he makes £12,000 per year working his booked Sundays as "overtime", and for them to be moved into his working week he would need his basic pay to increase by that £12,000 in order not to be out of pocket by the change in the way of working.

As operational rail staff are waged rather than salaried (i.e. paid per hour rather than a fixed annual salary regardless of overtime worked), that isn't going to make a huge difference other than in terms of pension contributions if the member of staff still worked the same number of hours.

If on the other hand they "staffed up" so overtime was no longer offered, then yes, you'd get paid less, but you'd work less too. If that was a problem it'd be worth looking for a part time job in addition, my (non railway) mate does that.

 

[DarloRich]

and where a lot of us will be lucky to see any kind of pay rise.

my point is that many on the railways havent seen a pay rise for several years and wont see one this year. I note they are not alone in this.
I agree about the politics and positioning of this potential strike. A strike now presents an open goal to the Government and they REALLY need to kick something to deflect from thier own incompetence.

 

[lineclear]

I'm afraid you lost me when you (or another signaller?) said you'd want £12,000 a year to give up your right to decide whether you wanted to work Sundays or not. That's more than my pension, and more than some on minimum wage who have to work Sundays when rostered.

You misunderstand. Signallers don't have a right to decide whether we want to work Sundays. Our Sundays are compulsory overtime, which means most of us are effectively contracted to work about 41 hours a week, with those compulsory Sundays uplifting our salary (but not pensionable).

 

[Bletchleyite]

You misunderstand. Signallers don't have a right to decide whether we want to work Sundays. Our Sundays are compulsory overtime, which means most of us are effectively contracted to work about 41 hours a week, with those compulsory Sundays uplifting our salary (but not pensionable).

That's a bit different from TOC staff. I don't think most of us really have a view on how exactly Sunday working is structured. The key is that (a) there are enough staff to ensure a proper Sunday timetable, and (b) that withdrawing such labour at short notice (other than for genuine sickness) is considered industrial action and as such requires the usual processes to be followed including a ballot before it is conducted. Both of those things are needed to ensure reliability of Sunday operations.

If you call it "compulsory overtime" or "in the working week" is a bit moot from a passenger's perspective, though I guess you'd benefit from it being "in the working week" as you'd enjoy higher pension contributions.

 

[LowLevel]

As operational rail staff are waged rather than salaried (i.e. paid per hour rather than a fixed annual salary regardless of overtime worked), that isn't going to make a huge difference other than in terms of pension contributions if the member of staff still worked the same number of hours.

If on the other hand they "staffed up" so overtime was no longer offered, then yes, you'd get paid less, but you'd work less too. If that was a problem it'd be worth looking for a part time job in addition, my (non railway) mate does that.

We aren't.

We are paid a salary which covers averaged hours over our working roster, IE our booked "in the week" turns. Waged pay per hour only covers overtime.

My basic salary as a guard is about £31k which covers my 35 hour working week, which has Sundays outside. I also have committed Sundays as overtime which works out to about £4k per year, so in practice I would usually earn about £35k per year for my rostered work.

If my Sundays were brought into my working week with no increase in my salary I would see an immediate £4k pay cut. Yes, I'd get an extra rest day in the week in lieu of each Sunday worked instead but I don't want that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If my Sundays were brought into my working week with no increase in my salary I would see an immediate £4k pay cut. Yes, I'd get an extra rest day in the week in lieu of each Sunday worked instead but I don't want that.

Perhaps what is needed is to offer two options for length of working week, then? That is, you can choose 4 days or 5 (or whatever it is), with Sundays being part of both (but swappable for those who really don't want them and those who love them)?

 

[bramling]

Questions to help me "make up my mind":

1. Am I right in thinking that (insert railway job e.g. driver, site manager, guard, signaller, planner etc) salary/benefit packages have gone up enormously adjusted for inflation until Covid hit in 2019 since:
   a. 1980?
   b. 1990?
   c. 1995?
   d. 2000?
   e. 2005?
   d. 2010?
   f. 2015?
2. If they stayed stagnant for a couple of years even with 10% inflation would the above still be the case?
3. Has there been some substantial difference in the basic difficulty of the role since then? And if so what?
4. Is it difficult to recruit for the role?
5. How many are leaving for pastures new?
6. How does the pay compare against similar roles internationally?
7. How does the pay compare against jobs of similar complexity and responsibility locally?
8. Most crucial question - how do the above questions compare to answers for other government employees such as nurses, teachers, etc

It is my understanding that the answers to the above questions are ones such that the only sensible objective response to a national rail strike by government is "bring it on" and "fire and rehire" but I equally acknowledge my understanding may be totally screwed so would be interested in what the correct answers are.

If we take the view that wages are a function of supply and demand, and given that there are shortages of labour now (as evidenced by the numbers of “cancelled due to train crew unavailable” cancellations), depressing working conditions when there’s already shortages is not going to end well for anyone, even if we were to see some savage cuts.

I think these 3 posts point us in the direction of what could happen given long and disruptive strike action.

To add a few thoughts

Post Covid commuting is never going to return to pre covid levels, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. A lot of jobs can be performed perfectly adequately without travelling to an office every day. Companies save money on office space, employees save money on travel and dont waste time travelling. Whatever our PM and certain civil servants say this is not going to change. Taking this thought forwards the passenger railway operations are going to be more dependent on lesiure travel for their income.

Unlike commuters who will endure grim travelling conditions in order to get to their destination because the alternatives are not practical lesiure travellers will either use another mode of transport or not undertake the journey at all.

Any long drawn out stike will call into the question railway subsidies, and long term investment projects. At a time when money is going to be tight justifying spending large sums of money on services that people cant use is political suicide.

Freight has a different outcome, because I dont think (in general?) frieght serices are subsidised.

I also suspect there are politicians who would like to kill off the railways, after all they have been a political banana skin for years.

So that brings us to the current dispute. Even if you consider that the workforce have a genuine case, taking stike action could result in situation where public and political patience runs out, and you end up with subsidies cut and services and routes cut back, a few unsubsidised intercity routes, and freight remaining.

It also raises a question of if the government should be susidising something that is more lesiure orientated. Day time services cut right back on some routes?

I actually think the current state of the railways is far more uncertain than at any time in my memory.

So how do a disgruntled workforce deal with companies who are constrained by the DfT and are not prepared to offer what the workforce want or even would be deemed fair. To be honest I haven't a clue, if the disatisfaction is great enough you reach the stage where people leave and redeploy into other industries, but thats not always easy. A low morale workforce has other implications for both safety and customer service, but I do think ongoing strike action might end up killing the whole undertaking, a railway version of mutually assured destruction.

An unfortunate point is that sometimes these cycles of decline end up being broken by a disaster. Arguably this happened in the 1980s - certainly with London Underground and the King’s Cross fire, and perhaps the same could be said for BR and Clapham.

 

[baz962]

This forum is insane at times, someone breaks the law often repeatedly they are given all the help in the world on the disputes page.
Law abiding railway workers just wanting a pay rise in line with inflation are treated like criminal

The union leadership has never made any friends with their support of Brexit or of the hopelessly unelectable elements of the Labour Party over the last few years, and the way they present themselves in disputes has never made any friends within the union movement or without.

I mostly agree with your position on wages, but frankly you're about to enter into a large unpleasant fight with the government which you aren't going to win, and which is likely to make you collectively and quite possibly individually very unpopular with the general public.

Well according to many on here the railway is used by a very small percentage of the population and is irrelevant. So you know what it doesn't matter then if we go on strike. If we lose , that's our cross to bear. As for someone above saying that we can afford to support our family. When my partner lost her job due to covid I couldn't afford to. Due to many other things outside my control in the past my driver salary wasn't anywhere near enough and then because of only one tax allowance and paying 40% of some of my salary , we struggled.

 

[LowLevel]

Perhaps what is needed is to offer two options for length of working week, then? That is, you can choose 4 days or 5 (or whatever it is), with Sundays being part of both (but swappable for those who really don't want them and those who love them)?

What I really want is to continue earning at least £35k, I'm not really bothered about the detail

Having them in the week isn't worth the loss of effectively guaranteed extra pay to me.

 

[duncanp]

And what is the relevance of that to the unions that organise rail workers ?

There are other pockets of workers engaged in similar fights right now , posties are being balloted , as I have already alluded to some bus drivers have taken part in strike action over pay , the civil servants are looking like they are moving towards a dispute .And many others

If the unions aren't careful, all this industrial action will turn, over the next two years, into a repeat of the 1978/1979 "Winter of Discontent" which led directly to the election of Margaret Thatcher.

I can understand why all of the above mentioned groups of workers are concerned about the cost of living, and want a pay rise to match. However the money for the pay rise has to come from somewhere, and in the rail industry this could mean higher fares and/or cuts to services.

 

[Howardh]

The TOC's must already be taking a hit on income as passengers like myself aren't buying those advance tickets as we know strikes might be approaching. So even if there are no strikes, there's already a loss?

 

[306024]

Politics Live currently on BBC2 will be discussing the railway shortly.

 

[duncanp]

....and right on cue, the RMT have announced a 24 hour strike on the tube for Monday 6th June, right after the Jubilee Bank Holiday.

London Tube strike: RMT announce walk out after Jubilee bank holiday

About 4,000 station staff are set to walk out on 6 June in a dispute over job losses and pensions.

www.bbc.co.uk

London Tube strike: RMT announce walk out after Jubilee bank holiday​

A 24-hour walkout across the London Underground will take place after the Queen's Platinum Jubilee bank holiday weekend, a rail union has announced.
About 4,000 station staff are set to walk out at 00:01 BST on 6 June in a dispute over job losses and pensions.
The strike is separate from a smaller walkout planned for 3 June at Euston and Green Park stations.
Transport for London (TfL) said it would do "everything we can to minimise any disruption".
Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) general secretary Mick Lynch accused TfL of "trying to bulldoze through 600 job losses on London Underground".
"Our members are not prepared to accept that," he said.
"Instead of seeking to cut jobs, TfL and Mayor Sadiq Khan need to put further pressure on the government to secure increased funding for the network so we can have a properly staffed modern 21st-Century tube."

The action is likely to force the closure of almost all stations in zone 1, although overground services are expected to remain open.
As part of the financial support agreed between TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT), the mayor of London has had to make £400m in savings, raise up to £1bn in extra revenue, and carry out a review of TfL's pension fund.
To meet these targets TfL has proposed to close 600 posts on the Underground.
It said no one would lose their job and the cuts would come through not replacing staff who had left or were going to retire.
A review of TfL's pension scheme found reforming it could save TfL up to £182.4m a year.
Andy Lord, TfL's Chief Operating Officer, said: "We are extremely disappointed that the RMT has announced unnecessary strike action on 6 June and share Londoners' frustrations that this, and the linked action short of a strike, has been designed to disrupt the Jubilee weekend.
"It is particularly surprising that the RMT has threatened to spoil this moment when the nation is coming together as nobody has or will lose their jobs as a result of the proposals we have set out and there have been no proposals on pension changes."
All lines on the TfL network were affected by two 24-hour strikes in March when 10,000 RMT members walked out.

 

[DarloRich]

If the unions aren't careful, all this industrial action will turn, over the next two years, into a repeat of the 1978/1979 "Winter of Discontent" which led directly to the election of Margaret Thatcher.

I can understand why all of the above mentioned groups of workers are concerned about the cost of living, and want a pay rise to match. However the money for the pay rise has to come from somewhere, and in the rail industry this could mean higher fares and/or cuts to services.

It is difficult to listen to pleas for pay restraint from someone ( Johnson/Sunak/Mogg etc) richer than Croesus. It is always those at the bottom who must be restrained in thier demands. Never those at the top. Funny that.

 

[bramling]

It is difficult to listen to pleas for pay restraint from someone ( Johnson/Sunak/Mogg etc) richer than Croesus. It is always those at the bottom who must be restrained in thier demands. Never those at the top. Funny that.

And I can’t help but get the feeling this contributes to the current rather toxic atmosphere which pervades this country at the moment. Add to that their “do as we say, not as we do” mentality, and it’s no wonder we have problems right left and centre.

I find this country an utterly depressing prospect at the moment, and the rail situation is simply one of many symptoms of all this.

I don’t believe we have a government who are serious about actually attempting to deal with any of the many issues going on. I struggle to think of positive things this government has achieved.

 

[muz379]

That's a bit different from TOC staff. I don't think most of us really have a view on how exactly Sunday working is structured. The key is that (a) there are enough staff to ensure a proper Sunday timetable, and (b) that withdrawing such labour at short notice (other than for genuine sickness) is considered industrial action and as such requires the usual processes to be followed including a ballot before it is conducted. Both of those things are needed to ensure reliability of Sunday operations.

If you call it "compulsory overtime" or "in the working week" is a bit moot from a passenger's perspective, though I guess you'd benefit from it being "in the working week" as you'd enjoy higher pension contributions.

Unfortunately I think that the DFT are very much in the same boat as passengers in not having a clue or interest in how to properly structure sunday working .

Having them in the working week with another rest day guranteed is obiously the most desirable option for staff who wish to continue working a 4 day week . Although there are still issues around the fact that many staff (myself included) still view sundays as a more valuable day off than other days . Be that because working them as additionals are paid more or because they wish to spend time with families and have enjoyed the conditions to enable them to do so for so long . For that reason in my view any deal to bring them inside the working week is going to include an uplift in pay even if it is still for a 4 day week .

Currently one of the issues is that a lot of places have agreements that effectively make sunday working compulsory overtime . A common one is to require a member of traincrew to come in for their booked sunday if no cover can be found . The issue occurs however if that member of staff is unavailable to work because they are off sick / other duties because of medical/incident/competency related reasons . If there is not either a requisite spare coverage(some places do not have sunday spares) or apetite for overtime . Then sundays can still go uncovered despite there on paper being a contractual arrangement to cover them . You can entice a higher apetite for sunday overtime with increased payment a la TPE dispute or you can increase spare coverage for sundays although if you then have full coverage you are paying people overtime to sit spare when they wouldnt be required . Other days of the week surplus spare can be used to cover for training or briefs but are managers going to want to come in on sunday to engage in this ?