Minimum service levels for passenger rail during strike action

[Facing Back]

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'.

The draft paper seems to be quite clear that it is the company which specify which staff are required to work, not the union. They are not allowed to discriminate between union and non-union staff (if indeed they even know which are which)

 

[Cdd89]

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.

I agree with this, except that I would argue that this is still better than numerous days of no service.

Withdrawal of goodwill is absolutely legitimate and might even be more effective in getting workers a settlement they are happy with due to sustained pressure.

 

[Bantamzen]

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

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

The Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill came about specifically because the government want to minimise the impact of strikes, so whatever we may all think of the thing it was designed to be an anti-strike/union measure. It was never going to tackle anything else, that will be left to individual departments and the Treasury.

 

[class ep-09]

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?

Fax machine that supposed to print you diagram / schedule card does not work .
What happens then …
Neither train or crew does not move a centimetre .

If there was a goodwill staff would find a way to get that diagram ( via email or printed in another location ) and take train forward .
If there is no good will , everything is stuck .

 

[irish_rail]

Fax machine that supposed to print you diagram / schedule card does not work .
What happens then …
Neither train or crew does not move a centimetre .

If there was a goodwill staff would find a way to get that diagram ( via email or printed in another location ) and take train forward .
If there is no good will , everything is stuck .

Exactly. People don't realise quite how much "goodwill" occurs on a daily basis at present to keep the job moving. Antagonising train crew in the way this government are doing really won't help things. Yes you will get a service on strike days, but the service either side will be a whole lot worse.

 

[Meerkat]

Exactly. People don't realise quite how much "goodwill" occurs on a daily basis at present to keep the job moving. Antagonising train crew in the way this government are doing really won't help things. Yes you will get a service on strike days, but the service either side will be a whole lot worse.

Is there any risk of the employer retaliating on work to rule? There's often things employers can insist on or punish but rarely do; if the relationship has broken down could this change? Can they go after the reps, take away any 'privileges' they have in terms of time and space to do their union work?
I guess the most likely end result is the government imposing a settlement and/or changing new starters T&Cs

 

[Wolfie]

Is there any risk of the employer retaliating on work to rule? There's often things employers can insist on or punish but rarely do; if the relationship has broken down could this change? Can they go after the reps, take away any 'privileges' they have in terms of time and space to do their union work?
I guess the most likely end result is the government imposing a settlement and/or changing new starters T&Cs

I don't work on the railway but l imagine that rigid staff application of all H&S law, regulations etc could pretty much bring things to a shuddering half....

 

[Krokodil]

Is there any risk of the employer retaliating on work to rule? There's often things employers can insist on or punish but rarely do; if the relationship has broken down could this change? Can they go after the reps, take away any 'privileges' they have in terms of time and space to do their union work?
I guess the most likely end result is the government imposing a settlement and/or changing new starters T&Cs

Favours would end. If your last train gets cancelled then you'll have to sit in the messroom until your booked finish time, rather than asking the TCS if you can go home early.

 

[320320]

Exactly. People don't realise quite how much "goodwill" occurs on a daily basis at present to keep the job moving. Antagonising train crew in the way this government are doing really won't help things. Yes you will get a service on strike days, but the service either side will be a whole lot worse.

This is what happened at scotrail last May. Ballot overwhelmingly in favour of strike action and action short of a strike.

RDW ban put in place as the first resort and it made the service so unreliable they had to implement an emergency timetable with massive cuts to services and with the latest trains finishing around 9.30pm.

This lasted around 6-8 weeks before a deal was agreed and normal service resumed. This had a far greater impact than sporadic strike days and didn’t result in any lost pay apart from RDW as drivers worked all of their hours including their booked Sundays.

This also puts the blame squarely at the door of the employer for not having enough staff to run the service rather than striking employees.

 

[Watershed]

If the supposed goal is to ensure we can get to work, why must it be by trains driven by unwilling drivers?

Because for several million people, that is their only realistic option for getting to work. This isn't just about drivers' strikes either - it is about any strike by any grade that could affect the running of trains (as the consultation makes clear).

Personal responsibility or good governance, such as arranging alternative transport, seems to be forgotten for the political agenda.

Ah yes, I'm sure that ~1 million commuters taking "personal responsibility" and driving into London would work out just great

The railway forms an indispensible part of the transport system of major cities. There simply isn't a realistic alternative to replace the capacity it provides for such places.

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.

The DfT sets the level, after consulting with various stakeholders. The consultation here seeks to establish what a MSL might look like.

Given the political situation of the railway, who else is realistically going to determine the MSL than the DfT? How else could the legislation work, other than to leave the details down to the DfT? It's not exactly practicable to write MSLs into an Act of Parliament!

This feels like whataboutery to me.

 

[Facing Back]

This is what happened at scotrail last May. Ballot overwhelmingly in favour of strike action and action short of a strike.

RDW ban put in place as the first resort and it made the service so unreliable they had to implement an emergency timetable with massive cuts to services and with the latest trains finishing around 9.30pm.

This lasted around 6-8 weeks before a deal was agreed and normal service resumed. This had a far greater impact than sporadic strike days and didn’t result in any lost pay apart from RDW as drivers worked all of their hours including their booked Sundays.

This also puts the blame squarely at the door of the employer for not having enough staff to run the service rather than striking employees.

I am curious why this hasn't happen in a more widespread way already

 

[dk1]

Favours would end. If your last train gets cancelled then you'll have to sit in the messroom until your booked finish time, rather than asking the TCS if you can go home early.

And without FDW agreement in place guaranteed leave goes out the window for the first few in the book at many TOCs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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

It depends how you wish to define minimum service. They certainly provided a minimum service on core routes. Where they didn’t, that was a decision made by the TOC.

Which makes me wonder whether TOCs will also be forced to run a minimum service on strike days, rather than leaving units in the yard as it was cheaper.

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).

As I say, the devil will be in the detail. A flat 25% service across a whole TOC network, for instance, is likely to require more than 25% staff levels because of the intensive way staff are diagrammed.

And if you had, for instance, 25% staffing, chances are you wouldn’t get much more running than we do now on a strike day.

As I say, it sounds like retribution to me.

 

[SynthD]

The DfT has relevant industry experts, and it has politicians. I can be guilty of whatabouttery but I don’t see it here, I want to know how blindly partisan the intended implementation is.

Work from home is another great option that is being ruled out.

 

[Facing Back]

Which makes me wonder whether TOCs will also be forced to run a minimum service on strike days, rather than leaving units in the yard as it was cheaper.

I would hope it works both ways and the TOCs are expected to roster the staff required in order to run whatever the minimum service is

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

As I say, the devil will be in the detail. A flat 25% service across a whole TOC network, for instance, is likely to require more than 25% staff levels because of the intensive way staff are diagrammed.

And if you had, for instance, 25% staffing, chances are you wouldn’t get much more running than we do now on a strike day.

Looking at it, it would appear that the service level will be focussed on the service provided - ie the number of trains running - rather than the number of staff - it will be down to the company to determine the number of staff required to run those services

 

[Tetchytyke]

The railway forms an indispensible part of the transport system of major cities. There simply isn't a realistic alternative to replace the capacity it provides for such places.

Indeed, but in other extraordinary circumstances everyone gets on with it. The railway shuts in snow, in heat, in high winds, in heavy rain. Those closures cause exactly the same inconvenience. So why is industrial action any different?

Given the political situation of the railway, who else is realistically going to determine the MSL than the DfT? How else could the legislation work, other than to leave the details down to the DfT? It's not exactly practicable to write MSLs into an Act of Parliament!

It’ll be interesting to see how these levels are determined. My guess is they’ll be determined at a level to cut the effectiveness of strike action off at the knees.

 

[Facing Back]

As I say, it sounds like retribution to me.

Out of interest, retribution for what? It reads like an attempt to circumscribe the impact of strike action to me. You can describe that as an attack on the unions if you like or an attempt to emasculate them as I read elsewhere but retribution? That sounds rather too personal....

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

Indeed, but in other extraordinary circumstances everyone gets on with it. The railway shuts in snow, in heat, in high winds, in heavy rain. Those closures cause exactly the same inconvenience. So why is industrial action any different?

I'm sure I heard somewhere that Boris wanted to legislate to ban snow, wind and sunlight on the railways.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Looking at it, it would appear that the service level will be focussed on the service provided - ie the number of trains running - rather than the number of staff - it will be down to the company to determine the number of staff required to run those service

I think that is highly likely. A 25% service will require 40%+ staffing. A good way of neutering strike action.

You can describe that as an attack on the unions if you like or an attempt to emasculate them as I read elsewhere but retribution? That sounds rather too personal...

This government perceive strike action as an action targeted at the Conservative Party, and so this is about teaching the unions a lesson. Look what they say about striking nurses, this is about revenge.

 

[Facing Back]

It’ll be interesting to see how these levels are determined. My guess is they’ll be determined at a level to cut the effectiveness of strike action off at the knees.

It would be pretty pointless if it didn't reduce the impact of strike action

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

I think that is highly likely. A 25% service will require 40%+ staffing. A good way of neutering strike action.

I will take your word for the numbers. I'd totally agree that, running 25% or services will require more than 25% of operational staff

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

This government perceive strike action as an action targeted at the Conservative Party, and so this is about teaching the unions a lesson. Look what they say about striking nurses, this is about revenge.

On that point, I'm going to respectfully disagree that they think that is targetted at the conservative party and I don't think they care enough to worry about revenge. However curtailing the power of the unions for sure - if you call that teaching the unions a lesson then so be it.

 

[Krokodil]

And without FDW agreement in place guaranteed leave goes out the window for the first few in the book at many TOCs.

I would imagine that local agreements would stand, so the quota would be granted (it wouldn't be in the employer's interest to allow a backlog of unspent leave to form) but the roster clerks would not be granting any more, even when spare crew are available.

 

[Carlisle]

This is what happened at scotrail last May. Ballot overwhelmingly in favour of strike action and action short of a strike.

If even the largely pro trade union Scottish Government’s failed to avoid months of industrial action disrupting their railways over recent years, why is minimum service legislation such a bad idea for the passenger?

 

[43066]

I don't work on the railway but l imagine that rigid staff application of all H&S law, regulations etc could pretty much bring things to a shuddering half....

Let’s be honest the railway could be made to run pretty terribly for as long as this government is likely to remain in power. The current issues at TPE/AWC would spread much more widely over the network. Even the legislation we are discussing isn’t likely to be in much before the end of the year (AIUI), and there’s nothing to stop RDW bans and work to rule continuing after that. There’s no way they will want that kind of thing in the run up to the GE, so I suspect they will want to settle by spring/summer 2023 latest.

ASLEF are (supposedly) making good progress with RDG according to their latest communications and there is an update to members later this week.

Favours would end. If your last train gets cancelled then you'll have to sit in the messroom until your booked finish time, rather than asking the TCS if you can go home early.

Zero favours goes both ways, of course: refusal to do anything not on diagram, taking the absolute maximum possible time to do things, no overtime. Nobody wants to work like that because it’s childish and petty, but things can certainly be made very, very awkward if the company starts behaving like that in the first place.

There simply isn't a realistic alternative to replace the capacity it provides for such places.

So how about simply negotiating in good faith (including perhaps allowing more localised negotiations), making a fair (still below inflation) offer, with reasonable (ie much more minor) changes to Ts and Cs and settling the dispute?

That is the glaringly obvious solution for those who actually want the railway to improve for both staff and passengers, rather than just wanting to see unions attacked at any cost.

I think that is highly likely. A 25% service will require 40%+ staffing. A good way of neutering strike action.

No doubt that’s what they’d really like, but if the levels get set too high they’d potentially run into embarrassing ECHR Article 11 type challenges.

Even a 25% service - not that much more than we have currently on RMT strike days - isn’t that useable and would potentially lead to dangerous levels of overcrowding; something increasingly likely as numbers travelling rise (we’ve all become used to quieter trains, but overcrowding has returned with a vengeance). So that neatly goes back to the question of what is this legislation really likely to achieve, other than making the UK government look like it’s taking advice from Moscow on how to manage its internal affairs.

 

[dk1]

I would imagine that local agreements would stand, so the quota would be granted (it wouldn't be in the employer's interest to allow a backlog of unspent leave to form) but the roster clerks would not be granting any more, even when spare crew are available.

The top 4 in the book are guaranteed leave at my depot regardless of whether the roster clerk can cover their turns or not. This goes out the window when there’s no FDW agreement in place. Has caught many of my colleagues out in the past.

 

[320320]

I am curious why this hasn't happen in a more widespread way already

I was amazed to hear that RMT staff were working rest days on non strike days.

If even the largely pro trade union Scottish Government’s failed to avoid months of industrial action disrupting their railways in recent years, why is minimum service legislation such a bad idea for the passenger?

Minimum service levels would have had no effect during the scotrail driver dispute as no one was on strike.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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?

They have said all along that the legislation will not be applied to this round of industrial action.
Even when passed it will take an age to determine what service levels are appropriate and how the industry should deliver it.
The legislation also covers more sectors than just rail.

 

[Llanigraham]

Haven't some of the ToCs already siad that they can't see a way of implementing this minimum service level?

 

[ar10642]

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.

Again you can either say the railways are an essential service deserving of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to keep it running (which I agree with) or you can say what you just said.

 

[Bald Rick]

RDW ban put in place as the first resort and it made the service so unreliable they had to implement an emergency timetable with massive cuts to services and with the latest trains finishing around 9.30pm.

I am curious why this hasn't happen in a more widespread way already

It has. TPE, Avanti, Cross Country, LNER and Northern all have RDW ‘non agreement’ to some extent in traincrew grades and have done for some time.

As I say, the devil will be in the detail. A flat 25% service across a whole TOC network, for instance, is likely to require more than 25% staff levels because of the intensive way staff are diagrammed.

That depends which 25%, of course.


I’m a bit surprised there has been no comment on what type of minimum service people are favouring, or example whether:

1) the whole network or some part of it (eg principal routes only)
2) open 24/7, or the ‘passenger day’, or perhaps a 12 hr day (as now in strikes)
3) a normal or reduced level service on what is open.

Because, for example, a ‘25%’ service could mean any of those things.

 

[Class 170101]

Can someone explain how you would get 25% service to work in a PSB / IECC / ROC?

 

[43066]

Again you can either say the railways are an essential service deserving of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to keep it running (which I agree with) or you can say what you just said.

It’s you that’s being inconsistent.

For months you were saying you didn’t think the railway was important, bragging about how you don’t use it, strikes didn’t affect you, asking why should it be subsidised etc. You’ve also made clear you view rail staff daring to aspire to anything better than you had as a minimum wage retail worker as some kind of impertinence.

Now that the government has announced minimum service legislation you’re suddenly keen to talk up how essential the railway is after all. Funny that!

I’m a bit surprised there has been no comment on what type of minimum service people are favouring, or example whether:

1) the whole network or some part of it (eg principal routes only)
2) open 24/7, or the ‘passenger day’, or perhaps a 12 hr day (as now in strikes)
3) a normal or reduced level service on what is open.

Because, for example, a ‘25%’ service could mean any of those things.

It seems to me there’s a good likelihood we won’t ever see a mandated minimum service level in action, because the current dispute will (hopefully) be settled with a two year deal before it’s anywhere near to being implemented, and it’s fairly likely the legislation won’t survive much beyond the next GE anyway.

I suspect we would end up with something not dissimilar to an RMT strike day: ie a reduced-but-useable service over certain routes for shorter hours, much reduced or non existent in outlying areas. Although questions like:

Can someone explain how you would get 25% service to work in a PSB / IECC / ROC?

Again show how difficult it might be in practice, and it’s unclear just how much implementation detail has actually been thought through.