Minimum service levels for passenger rail during strike action

[Nicholas Lewis]

Dft have put out a consultation paper on this tonight with another paper on strike impact on passengers

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...evels-for-passenger-rail-during-strike-action

We are publicly consulting on the most appropriate approach for delivering minimum service levels for passenger rail services.

Minimum service levels (MSLs) aim to limit the impacts of strike action on the lives and livelihoods of the public and to strike a balance between the ability of unions and their members to take strike action with the need for the wider public to be able to access key services during strikes.

We welcome views from anyone that wishes to reply. We will give due regard to consultation responses and move to ensure that regulations are laid as soon as practicable to be in place in the event of future strike action.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-strikes-understanding-the-impact-on-passengers

Overall impact on passenger journeys​

Just over half of respondents to the survey (52%) had planned to make a rail journey during a strike week[footnote 2]. Twenty nine per cent had planned to make at least one commuting journey to/from work, 17% had planned to make a leisure journey, 4% had planned to commute to/from education, 3% had planned to make a business journey and 1% had planned to make a journey for a healthcare appointment.

Forty two per cent of all respondents, and the majority (81%) of those who had intended to travel by rail during a strike week had their journey(s) impacted in some way. Half (51%) of those who had planned to make journeys by rail made none of their planned rail journeys during the week when strikes took place. Twenty one per cent of those who had planned to make journeys reduced the number of rail journeys they made and 9% travelled on a different day.

 

[PG]

Can anything be read into the consultation closing date of 15th May? i.e. they don't expect for disputes to have been settled before then?

 

[Bantamzen]

Can anything be read into the consultation closing date of 15th May? i.e. they don't expect for disputes to have been settled before then?

It may be that this is when the government. The bill is due it's second reading in the House of Lords today:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3396

 

[JamieL]

These so-called "minimum service levels" are a charter for devastating passenger rail travel. If staff are dissatisfied and the law eliminates their ability to effectively strike, the resultant disruption will just manifest in other ways - increased sickness, work to rule, high turnover of personnel etc. The effect will be to reduce the railway passenger service to an unreliable and intolerable mess each and everyday.

Given that Scotland, Wales, Merseyside etc have all seemingly managed their railway issues much better, it strikes me that the solution to the DfT controlled railway situation is to change the Westminster Government.

 

[irish_rail]

These so-called "minimum service levels" are a charter for devastating passenger rail travel. If staff are dissatisfied and the law eliminates their ability to effectively strike, the resultant disruption will just manifest in other ways - increased sickness, work to rule, high turnover of personnel etc. The effect will be to reduce the railway passenger service to an unreliable and intolerable mess each and everyday.

Given that Scotland, Wales, Merseyside etc have all seemingly managed their railway issues much better, it strikes me that the solution to the DfT controlled railway situation is to change the Westminster Government.

Spot on. Minimum service levels simply won't work. At the moment, most TOCs haven't brought in "work to rule" . If and when they do, the kind of chaos you see at TPE will become the norm UK wide. But if this government wants to blindly walk headfirst into it, its their funeral....

 

[DarloRich]

Is there a counter consultation on minimum service levels for MP's?

 

[modernrail]

I have no objection to minimum service levels on the railway in theory. Railways unions strike more than any other and so the theory is a perfectly reasonable way of ensuring there is a service there for those who have decided not to have a car or can’t afford one, yet have essential business to go about.

If railway unions, especially the RMT, choose to use strikes to easily in terms of their overall weaponry, they should not be surprised to find broad public support for minimum service levels, which I believe exists when it comes to the railways.

Of course the theory doesn’t match the reality that the UK railway has been allowed to become amateur hour in terms of how it is staffed. It is clear from the existing replies to this thread that railway workers won’t hesitate to take advantage of the existence of amateur hour to get around minimum service levels, leaving passengers without cars exactly where they started, stuck. So we end up where we were.

Isn’t Britain great.

 

[91108]

Is there a counter consultation on minimum service levels for MP's?

They are exempt if appearing on “Im A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here”.

 

[SuspectUsual]

They are exempt if appearing on “Im A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here”.

Or holidaying in the Bahamas, or giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of pounds

 

[geoffk]

These so-called "minimum service levels" are a charter for devastating passenger rail travel. If staff are dissatisfied and the law eliminates their ability to effectively strike, the resultant disruption will just manifest in other ways - increased sickness, work to rule, high turnover of personnel etc. The effect will be to reduce the railway passenger service to an unreliable and intolerable mess each and everyday.

Given that Scotland, Wales, Merseyside etc have all seemingly managed their railway issues much better, it strikes me that the solution to the DfT controlled railway situation is to change the Westminster Government.

Surely an overtime ban alone is enough to cause widespread disruption, considering how dependent the industry is on it (more so with some TOCs than others). What "work to rule" options are there?

 

[baz962]

Surely an overtime ban alone is enough to cause widespread disruption, considering how dependent the industry is on it (more so with some TOCs than others). What "work to rule" options are there?

Work to rule encompasses many things, including not working rest days. But also if say that you are spare and the company can move you three hours either way. Sometimes they have a job needs covering that is 3.5 hours before or after the official start of your spare shift and they might ask if they can move you by those hours. If goodwill is there then you might say yes and if working to rule , then no. Also again with the spare shifts, you have a minimum agreed amount of notice of that movement and say that is three days notice and they suddenly have a job uncovered a day before and they now can't move you at all because there is no notice, then again you wouldn't agree to be moved if working to rule, but might if not.

 

[Meerkat]

If this means the DfT decide they will throw money at eliminating RDW rather than pay rises who will staff be angry with - employers or the union?
Or do staff generally want the rest day rather than the money?

 

[Llanigraham]

We worked out years ago that if signallers worked exactly to the letter of the Rule Book we could close the system down very quickly.

 

[greatkingrat]

Can anything be read into the consultation closing date of 15th May? i.e. they don't expect for disputes to have been settled before then?

It's just 12 weeks from the start of the consultation

 

[yorkie]

Or do staff generally want the rest day rather than the money?

That depends on whether they are in dispute with their employer or not

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2023 ==

Spot on. Minimum service levels simply won''t work..

I've travelled in other countries during times when minimum service levels were in place; it did work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2023 ==

Can anything be read into the consultation closing date of 15th May? i.e. they don't expect for disputes to have been settled before then?

Even if all current disputes are settled, there would no doubt be further disputes at some point in the future.

 

[Meerkat]

That depends on whether they are in dispute with their employer or not

Ha! Its a relevant question though - I'm sure the union will be happy with the extra membership subs but how much do people rely on overtime to pay the bills?

 

[O L Leigh]

Still too many unknowns about how this is supposed to work to be able to form any meaningful opinion, including how it will be implemented at the rostering stage during industrial action.

 

[Agent_Squash]

For all you may disagree with the principle of minimum service levels, they've been proven to work abroad. Hopefully the end of RDW will come with them.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I'm not keen on this potential new law, but surely if minimum service laws are to be a thing they should also apply to the rail operators, nhs prisons, fire service etc when not in dispute, to ensure a minimum level of service regardless

As an example within the nhs they want a minimum number of nurses per ward etc during industrial action but currently staff wards up and down the country with below that number if they are stretched at the moment, surely it should be a two way street? nurses unions have called for minimum legal levels before but its never went anywhere

 

[Tetchytyke]

We already have minimum service levels- not all staff are in a union and not all unions are in dispute. Between non-union/non-striking staff and management there's plenty of staff to provide a minimum service, as we've seen with all recent disputes, including on the railway.

Which makes me wonder what the real point of the proposal is. I strongly suspect the intention will be to force staff to disclose in advance if they will be striking, so that pressure may be put on individual staff in advance of any strike action.

It sounds like a retribution tool to me.

The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

 

[yorkie]

We already have minimum service levels- not all staff are in a union and not all unions are in dispute. Between non-union/non-striking staff and management there's plenty of staff to provide a minimum service, as we've seen with all recent disputes, including on the railway.

Which makes me wonder what the real point of the proposal is. I strongly suspect the intention will be to force staff to disclose in advance if they will be striking, so that pressure may be put on individual staff in advance of any strike action.

It sounds like a retribution tool to me.

The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

You appear to be suggesting all TOCs have provided a minimum service during recent disputes? Are you sure about that?

 

[Meerkat]

We already have minimum service levels- not all staff are in a union and not all unions are in dispute. Between non-union/non-striking staff and management there's plenty of staff to provide a minimum service, as we've seen with all recent disputes, including on the railway.

Which makes me wonder what the real point of the proposal is. I strongly suspect the intention will be to force staff to disclose in advance if they will be striking, so that pressure may be put on individual staff in advance of any strike action.

It sounds like a retribution tool to me.

The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

They don't actually know who will be turning up until the day though AIUI, so they can't plan in the same way as this legislation would allow.
Tricky to model the impact on how many will turn up - who will be deciding which 'strikers' provide the minimum service? If its the union the tactical thing would be to allocate those they think will go in anyway, but that could cause internal friction between the 'strikers'.

 

[Watershed]

We already have minimum service levels- not all staff are in a union and not all unions are in dispute. Between non-union/non-striking staff and management there's plenty of staff to provide a minimum service, as we've seen with all recent disputes, including on the railway.

The level of service might be just about acceptable on the lines that have a service, during the hours of operation, but large swathes of the country go entirely unserved and there are no trains early or late enough for many people to make their journeys. In short, it's realistically a token service. This MSL consultation is about ensuring that there's a usable level of service on strike days.

Which makes me wonder what the real point of the proposal is. I strongly suspect the intention will be to force staff to disclose in advance if they will be striking, so that pressure may be put on individual staff in advance of any strike action.

There is no need to disclose in advance whether they are striking. The employer will give the union a 'work notice', telling them which people (either individually naming them, or saying how many people they need) will need to work. The union can ignore any non-union members and will be none the wiser as to whether individual staff were intending to strike or not.

It sounds like a retribution tool to me.

The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

If you have a read through the consultation document it makes it pretty clear what sorts of ideas the DfT has - it's proposing to either require a service over existing strike day routes for more hours (option 2a), or a service over more routes for a similar, or possibly shorter, number of hours (option 2b), or to have a service on all routes that is determined by reference to what would otherwise be running on that day (option 1, i.e. a "percentage-based" timetable).

Of course I'm sure that the legislation would have received a lesser priority in the government's agenda, had it not been for the major dispute that's currently underway. But equally, I don't think it can be called 'retribution'. It's effectively just making sure that strikes don't disproportionately affect some areas over others, and that people can actually get to work, even if they are still somewhat inconvenienced.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2023 ==

Tricky to model the impact on how many will turn up - who will be deciding which 'strikers' provide the minimum service? If its the union the tactical thing would be to allocate those they think will go in anyway, but that could cause internal friction between the 'strikers'.

As with the current strikes, the assumption generally has to be that no-one will turn up. The company decides who will provide the minimum service.

 

[nr758123]

This MSL consultation is about ensuring that there's a usable level of service on strike days.

I'd like TPE to provide a useable level of service on non-strike days, but for some unknown reason that doesn't seem to be something the DfT are bothered about.

 

[yorkie]

I'd like TPE to provide a useable level of service on non-strike days, but for some unknown reason that doesn't seem to be something the DfT are bothered about.

That's not releveant to this thread; you can still get to where you want to be, even if it's not at the time you want.

 

[43066]

Spot on. Minimum service levels simply won't work. At the moment, most TOCs haven't brought in "work to rule" . If and when they do, the kind of chaos you see at TPE will become the norm UK wide. But if this government wants to blindly walk headfirst into it, its their funeral....

It depends what you mean by “work!”.

The government’s own feasibility study was pretty agnostic on any possible benefits to the travelling public. As you say it’s acknowledged that it’s likely to simply entrench disputes and potentially lead to worse reliability for longer periods. But whether it works in that sense or not doesn’t really matter as it won’t affect this dispute anyway, then they can attack Labour from opposition if they repeal it as they’ve promised.

It makes total sense to press ahead with it anyway as part of their wider approach to gas lighting people into believing that the government is riding to everyone’s rescue - hoping that they’ll forget that the same government provoked and chose to prolong the worst period of industrial unrest for decades! Shows how much they really care about railway passengers…

Most people aren’t fooled, but no surprise who will be supporting the strategy on here .

I've travelled in other countries during times when minimum service levels were in place; it did work.

I’ve travelled on services in this country during disputes, with no such legislation in place, suggesting perhaps it isn’t necessary…

Worth pointing out (again) that we already have far weaker employment protections than most equivalent countries which have implemented this. You should consider whether you really want to cheerlead the most right wing government in living memory into watering them down even further. Who do you really think will benefit?

You appear to be suggesting all TOCs have provided a minimum service during recent disputes? Are you sure about that?

It’s not clear what is being proposed here, either. From the consultation document what ends up being implemented is likely not that dissimilar from what already happens in terms of the end result. So why is it necessary and why are they really doing it?

Do you honestly think the government’s actions in this dispute so far show they care about people who use the railway?! If the answer is no, what makes you think this isn’t more of the same?

It sounds like a retribution tool to me.

A bit of that to play to the hard core who ideologically despise unions anyway, and a bit more convenient scapegoating/distraction for everyone else: “the reason the country is in a mess and you can’t pay your gas bill is nothing to do with us, it’s the unions/Putin/immigrants” etc.

It’s yet more evidence the Tories are now well and truly out of ideas, are increasingly nasty/reactionary and need some time in opposition.

That's not releveant to this thread; you can still get to where you want to be, even if it's not at the time you want.

Already the case for many during the current disputes, and likely to continue to be the case.

 

[AlterEgo]

These so-called "minimum service levels" are a charter for devastating passenger rail travel. If staff are dissatisfied and the law eliminates their ability to effectively strike, the resultant disruption will just manifest in other ways - increased sickness, work to rule, high turnover of personnel etc. The effect will be to reduce the railway passenger service to an unreliable and intolerable mess each and everyday.

Given that Scotland, Wales, Merseyside etc have all seemingly managed their railway issues much better, it strikes me that the solution to the DfT controlled railway situation is to change the Westminster Government.

Strongly inclined to agree with this. Especially the bolded bit.

 

[Killingworth]

Not the same of course, but some will recall how a previous government introduced a Community Charge (starting in Scotland, but that's another story) because in principle it seemed a good idea. Unfortunately it was a very bad dea when it came to the finer details of making it work in practice and it caused more strife than many strikes and led to a change of Prime Minister.

If this government is determined to proceed I hope it's considering all those finer details to ensure it get's value for all the extra legal work that's going to be required. Lawyers are going to win whatever. Strikes aren't the only effective forms of action to disrupt services. A token minimum level unreliable service isn't what passengers need.

Memories come back of a dispute in another industry over 30 years ago. Ban on overtime, work to rule. Support was potentially patchy across the nation and in some areas very half hearted. In one or two critical places it was total and became so effective that it won the battle for all. In a lot of places the action made little difference as those units had been well managed. It could have been very different. One particular manager effectively backed all his staff against the wall and demanded to know in writing by close of business today who was going to work to rule and ban overtime. Brilliant. Solidarity. Even the mildest said they wouldn't work, and the non union members went along with the majority who were. What followed was a long period of deteriorating service there and in a small number of other key locations until the employer caved in. Afterwards a lot of the rules were simplified and a lot less overtime became available as working practices were reviewed.

 

[SynthD]

If the supposed goal is to ensure we can get to work, why must it be by trains driven by unwilling drivers? Personal responsibility or good governance, such as arranging alternative transport, seems to be forgotten for the political agenda.

Who sets the level? How is it adjusted based on non-strike reasons? What are non-strike reasons? Are people happy with the ability, or lack of, for politicians to overrule? The solution isn't ready to have its second reading, even if these questions are obvious to people not late to the issue like me. Pretending to be able to control something (and crowing heavily about it) is a lose-lose situation.

 

[Thirteen]

I think this is less about minimising strike action and more hurting the unions through financial means because if say the RMT refused to provide MSL then the strike action loses legal protection from dismissal