ASLEF Strike LNER & Northern 1st March

[43066]

Quite frankly I think what most of the travelling public want is for all sides to stop this contest, and for them to be locked in a room until a solution is found.

What “contest” would that be? In terms of the wider pay dispute the union wants to negotiate with the employers, it’s the government that has prevented that for the last eighteen months or more.

In the context of this dispute it seems LNER and Northern (both directly controlled by the government, strangely enough) have reneged on agreements, to the extent that the ASLEF membership has decided to take action against them, which isn’t done lightly. As someone who claims to be a former union rep, presumably you can understand the principle that agreements need to be adhered to by both sides, or are you just defaulting to siding with the government again because you don’t like ASLEF, the railway etc.?

 

[Jamesrob637]

What's the point of a Friday? Most WFH or at least can easily WFH Fridays anyway, and there are no major sporting events on that evening.

 

[800001]

What's the point of a Friday? Most WFH or at least can easily WFH Fridays anyway, and there are no major sporting events on that evening.

LNER it’s day before engineering work between Newcastle and York so will cause some disruption with people travelling for the weekend early and also to do with set placement

 

[dk1]

What's the point of a Friday? Most WFH or at least can easily WFH Fridays anyway, and there are no major sporting events on that evening.

LNER isn’t dominated by commuting.

 

[Bantamzen]

What “contest” would that be? In terms of the wider pay dispute the union wants to negotiate with the employers, it’s the government that has prevented that for the last eighteen months or more.

In the context of this dispute it seems LNER and Northern (both directly controlled by the government, strangely enough) have reneged on agreements, to the extent that the ASLEF membership has decided to take action against them, which isn’t done lightly. As someone who claims to be a former union rep, presumably you can understand the principle that agreements need to be adhered to by both sides, or are you just defaulting to siding with the government again because you don’t like ASLEF, the railway etc.?

As a former union rep whose union did get locked into a series of very long running, and ultimately damaging disputes many years ago, I also understand that further escalations can worsen the situation considerably. Without actual details its difficult to know exactly what these breaches are, but it sounds like they are potentially happening because of the original pay / conditions dispute. So that's what needs settling, even if it means locking all parties into ongoing negotiations until a resolution is found. The other rail unions seem to have found a way through, so it can't be impossible even if it means deferring future pay talks until a later date.

 

[43066]

Apparently the internal estimate at our TOC was given operational realities you'd need over 80% of drivers in to run 40% of trains which is to all intents and purposes actually banning the withdrawal of labour.

That’s interesting - and the higher the % the more likely it is to be subject to challenge on human rights act grounds. Of course “MSL days” would still be subject to existing rostering agreements (movements of spare etc.) and there are various ways and means for drivers subject to work notices to show up for work but not drive trains. It’s unworkable on various levels, as the industry realises, and the government was warned. It’s a bad and unfit-for-purpose piece of legislation on various levels.

LNER it’s day before engineering work between Newcastle and York so will cause some disruption with people travelling for the weekend early and also to do with set placement

It’s almost as if ASLEF, who’ve been in the business for over a century, know what they’re doing.

Without actual details it’s difficult to know exactly what these breaches are, but it sounds like they are potentially happening because of the original pay / conditions dispute. So that's what needs settling, even if it means locking all parties into ongoing negotiations until a resolution is found.

The details will be known to those whose opinions are relevant; ie the membership at LNER and Northern. Settlement of the wider dispute would solve many of the industry’s current problems.

The other rail unions seem to have found a way through, so it can't be impossible even if it means deferring future pay talks until a later date.

But the government is actively preventing negotiations in the wider dispute, and it is directly controlling the parties with whom the unions would need to negotiate in this case. So there is no way forward until that approach changes.

Interesting choice of wording, appearing to blame ASLEF for the stalemate, when the government changed its stance in relation to the RMT which caused the breakthrough. As and when it does the same in relation to ASLEF we might see some movement.

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting choice of wording, appearing to blame ASLEF for the stalemate, when the government changed its stance in relation to the RMT. If it does the same in relation to ASLEF we might see some movement.

Well what else are we punters supposed to think? When you say the government changed their stance with ASLEF, just how did they do this? If they were prepared to get deals made up to present with other unions, why not ASLEF?

 

[dk1]

Well what else are we punters supposed to think? When you say the government changed their stance with ASLEF, just how did they do this? If they were prepared to get deals made up to present with other unions, why not ASLEF?

Wasn’t the RMT deal purely done as the government had so much egg on its face over booking office closures?

 

[DanNCL]

"I have precisely zero involvement in this, however I haven't been sent specific details of this internal matter so it *must* therefore be illegal".

I'm lost for words at the entitlement levels where some trainspotters very clearly think rail staff need to run the minutiae of their industrial relations by them before announcing action or it's somehow unacceptable. Mind-boggling, and toe-curling. If the unions had been set up a fortnight ago solely by people with zero prior experience or understanding of the law around industrial action, such a suggestion might make sense. But...

It doesn’t take being directly involved in something to see that action for something the union themselves say is separate from the dispute that was balloted for *might* not be legal. *Might* being a key word.
ASLEF were suspected less than a month ago trying to take action over something not balloted for and have also had injunctions served against them in recent years. It’s not as if ASLEF have a track record of always complying with the law.

As for ‘minutae of their industrial relations’, all I want to know is when the ballot was held for this separate dispute (as ASLEF are saying this is) and what the results are. It’s established standard practice in industrial disputes for this information to be made public.

The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate. It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.

That’s exactly how it appears to a large chunk of the travelling public.

Nobody I know likes going on strike. What we all want is for the unions to be allowed to negotiate with the employers in the usual way, and for the dispute to be resolved. The government is preventing that from happening, currently, which is to the detriment of railway workers and the travelling public, alike.

I don’t doubt that’s the case where you are but it’s definitely not the case everywhere. In a very recent Unite dispute with bus drivers, some of the striking bus drivers were more than happy to brag about being paid £75 a day by the union to sit at home watching TV instead of going to work. And whilst that’s very much a minority, it’s that minority that’ll be noticed by large swathes of the public and falsely giving the impression that all striking workers are like that, undermining the vast majority who actually are striking for the cause and as a last resort.

We both know that the reality is that 99% of striking workers don’t want to be on strike and are only striking as a last resort. But the general public, especially in the North East with the bus strike still fresh in peoples memories, won’t realise that and probably never will.

Quite frankly I think what most of the travelling public want is for all sides to stop this contest, and for them to be locked in a room until a solution is found.

Agreed. We’re all sick of this it’s gone on for far too long.

Well what else are we punters supposed to think? When you say the government changed their stance with ASLEF, just how did they do this? If they were prepared to get deals made up to present with other unions, why not ASLEF?

If I recall correctly ASLEF would have accepted the RMT deal but the government refused to offer it to them.

 

[43066]

Well what else are we punters supposed to think? When you say the government changed their stance with ASLEF, just how did they do this? If they were prepared to get deals made up to present with other unions, why not ASLEF?

It’s been done to death on various threads, but the government changed their position by offering the RMT no strings for one year, and then a local negotiation. I have no idea why - I’m not sure anyone in the government knows why either - I don’t think there’s a coherent strategy any longer.

As I suspected it appears that you’re again defaulting to blaming ASLEF, while ignoring the government’s role in the dispute, so what exactly is the point of discussing it?!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2024 ==

ASLEF were caught less than a month ago trying to take action over something not balloted for

Caught by whom? Can we have the specifics on this, please?

 

[Bantamzen]

Wasn’t the RMT deal purely done as the government had so much egg on its face over booking office closures?

I've no idea, but even if so once that door was opened what was stopping a similar deal brokered for up to 2023-24 with ASLEF?

If I recall correctly ASLEF would have accepted the RMT deal but the government refused to offer it to them.

Was this documented publicly anywhere? It seems like an odd decision when they could effectively bring all existing disputes to a close before the general election.

It’s been done to death on various threads, but the government changed their position by offering the RMT no strings for one year, and then a local negotiation. I have no idea why - I’m not sure anyone in the government knows why either - I don’t think there’s a coherent strategy any longer.

As I suspected it appears that you’re again blaming ASLEF, while ignoring the government’s role in the dispute, so what exactly is the point of discussing it?!

As above, was this documented? Because if not I can't draw any other conclusion.

Believe me, I have real reason to not fully trust the top tables of any union after what happened in my old union (CPSA) around 1994-95. A very long story short, they began to completely defy mandates and even votes at conferences because they were blindly determined to push through a merger with another of the sector's union that mainly represented management. It was a shocking example on how union execs can go rouge, and frankly left me fed up with them to the point that I simply couldn't tell members to tow the line, so I resigned as a rep.

 

[dk1]

I've no idea, but even if so once that door was opened what was stopping a similar deal brokered for up to 2023-24 with ASLEF?

That’s a question you need to ask the DfT. They haven’t offered us anything anywhere similar & in fact haven’t agreed to meet ASLEF for around a year now.

 

[Bantamzen]

That’s a question you need to ask the DfT. They haven’t offered us anything anywhere similar & in fact haven’t agreed to meet ASLEF for around a year now.

Its a question I'd want to ask both sides.

 

[DanNCL]

Caught by whom? Can we have the specifics on this, please?

Caught may be a push (and I’ve amended my post) but their cancellation of strike days the second it was confirmed that LNER wouldn’t be using minimum service legislation gave it away - the extra ‘pay dispute’ dates were in fact almost certainly about minimum service legislation, something they hadn’t balloted for.

Was this documented publicly anywhere? It seems like an odd decision when they could effectively bring all existing disputes to a close before the general election.

Don’t believe it was, just what people are saying on these forums.

 

[dk1]

Its a question I'd want to ask both sides.

Only the DfT can explain why they agreed to meet and offer a no strings pay deal to one union but not the other.

 

[irish_rail]

Only the DfT can explain why they agreed to meet and offer a no strings pay deal to one union but not the other.

Indeed, and I'd argue its probably an instruction coming from the very top, in a desperate (and misguided) vote winning exercise for the forthcoming General election. In reality all it has done is ensure a large group of the electorate, plus their friends and family definitely will not vote for the incumbent!

 

[Bantamzen]

Only the DfT can explain why they agreed to meet and offer a no strings pay deal to one union but not the other.

Well it was only a no strings offer until the end of the 2023-24 deal right? Future offers may well not come with no strings. However looking at ASLEF's webpage, their position is as such:

Fair Pay: Stand with Train Drivers | ASLEF

DISPUTE RESOLVED Train Drivers deserve fair pay that keeps up with the cost of living

aslef.org.uk

We have negotiated pay deals with open access operators, freight operators and passenger operators in Wales and Scotland all whilst we have been in dispute with what is unfortunately a growing number of passenger operators, this has highlighted that this current dispute is one pushed by the Conservative Westminster Government as all of the employers who we are in dispute with are under the DfT's control. To resolve the dispute as it now involves multiple employers, the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) stepped in to handle negotiations on behalf of all the train operating companies. We negotiated in good faith with the RDG and believed a deal could have been reached. However, the offer that we received in April 2023 contained red lines which we had outlined to the RDG in our negotiations. This offer was made by the RDG with the intention of it being rejected.


As requested in the offer, we informed the RDG that the offer had been rejected but they have refused to come back to the negotiating table which has left us with no choice but to continue with our industrial action.

So they say the RDG has refused to go back to the table, but then ASLEF didn't put the April 23 offer to their membership. And it seems they won't budge on this position whilst the "red lines" exist, which aren't very explained other than ASLEFs rules state they won't put out an offer that they (the leadership) won't recommend. Now I know other unions do not have this rule (including mine), so honestly from this position it feels very much like a stand-off driven by both sides.

 

[43066]

As above, was this documented? Because if not I can't draw any other conclusion.

It’s public knowledge, and was discussed at the time extensively on here.

It seems like an odd decision when they could effectively bring all existing disputes to a close before the general election.

It is an odd decision. Again, you’ve noticed that things aren’t exactly going swimmingly for this government, and that they aren’t exactly competent?

Believe me, I have real reason to not fully trust the top tables of any union after what happened in my old union (CPSA) around 1994-95. A very long story short, they began to completely defy mandates and even votes at conferences because they were blindly determined to push through a merger with another of the sector's union that mainly represented management. It was a shocking example on how union execs can go rouge, and frankly left me fed up with them to the point that I simply couldn't tell members to tow the line, so I resigned as a rep.

That’s might have been the case with your union, thankfully mine is rather more effective, and enjoys strong support. I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of union officials “going rogue” in fact I’ve personally asked Mick Whelan directly about the strategy, and I was left satisfied with his answers. And I’m no fool.

Caught may be a push (and I’ve amended my post) but their cancellation of strike days the second it was confirmed that LNER wouldn’t be using minimum service legislation gave it away - the extra ‘pay dispute’ dates were in fact almost certainly about minimum service legislation, something they hadn’t balloted for.

With respect it was explained to you at the time that ASLEF merely changed their tactics in relation to the MSLs being consulted on by LNER. That was perfectly legitimate, as part of the existing dispute, and the only person I recall suggesting otherwise was you. LNER then decided to abandon the consultation, hence the action was cancelled.

 

[dk1]

Well it was only a no strings offer until the end of the 2023-24 deal right? Future offers may well not come with no strings. However looking at ASLEF's webpage, their position is as such:

Fair Pay: Stand with Train Drivers | ASLEF

DISPUTE RESOLVED Train Drivers deserve fair pay that keeps up with the cost of living

aslef.org.uk

So they say the RDG has refused to go back to the table, but then ASLEF didn't put the April 23 offer to their membership. And it seems they won't budge on this position whilst the "red lines" exist, which aren't very explained other than ASLEFs rules state they won't put out an offer that they (the leadership) won't recommend. Now I know other unions do not have this rule (including mine), so honestly from this position it feels very much like a stand-off driven by both sides.

Why would ASLEF put an offer that is not in its members interest to a vote? You only have to look at the percentage of drivers voting for continuation of industrial action at all the train operators involved to see that.

 

[DanNCL]

With respect it was explained to you at the time that ASLEF merely changed their tactics in relation to the MSLs being consulted over on LNER. That was perfectly legitimate, as part of the existing dispute, and the only person I recall suggesting otherwise was you. LNER then decided to abandon the consultation, hence the action was cancelled.

We’re not going to agree on this so I don’t see the point in debating it any further

Why would ASLEF put an offer that is not in its members interest to a vote? You only have to look at the percentage of drivers voting for continuation of industrial action at all the train operators involved to see that.

Because an overwhelming rejection of an offer by the membership, in theory, gives the union a stronger hand in further negotiations.

 

[dk1]

Because an overwhelming rejection of an offer by the membership, in theory, gives the union a stronger hand in further negotiations.

The overwhelming vote every six months to continue is more than enough. ASLEF will never put an offer to members that it feels is unfair & not in their interest.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why would ASLEF put an offer that is not in its members interest to a vote? You only have to look at the percentage of drivers voting for continuation of industrial action at all the train operators involved to see that.

Perhaps because this might have been a condition of moving to further negotiations should the members reject it? Whilst it is true that votes on extending industrial action have had a large majority in favour, the actual offer was not put to the membership. So this is a failing on RDG's part for insisting on it, and ASLEF's for insisting on not putting it to the vote despite it being potentially a blocker on moving forward.

 

[Agent_Squash]

MSL is a pointless evolution where it does not work and escalates the issue.

Solution is to get back around the table and thrash it out like any normal human being would. Unfortunately the tories are held bent on bringing the country down to its knees as well as their own party

The solution surely would be to make illegal unions using MSLs as a reason for more strike action.

Give the laws a bit of teeth, rather than just being there.

 

[trainophile]

Do we know what dates are actually affected? Trainsplit seems to have Thurs 29th and Saturday 2nd annotated as overtime ban but are still selling tickets On Northern, as they are on 1st March incl both Northern and TPE.

 

[DJP78]

Well, certainly make them reap what they sow. Attorney is American I appreciate. What was the point of 40% MSLA (Minimum Service Level Agreement), if nobody is going to follow it?

You mean the MSL’s that are the brainchild of a ideologically driven authoritarian Tory party lol

No one wanted MSL’s. TOC’s, RDG and DFT all said it would enflame the dispute, cause a further deterioration in working relations and increase disruption for passengers by lengthening industrial action.

Can’t wait to see the outcome for the first TOC to impose MSL’s

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2024 ==

As for questioning the legitimacy of ASLEF’s strike balloting (as some contributors have), this is laughable.

There are strict laws regarding balloting, serving notice, ensuring the correct numbers have voted etc etc

Any decision by a union the size and scale of ASLEF will be compliant with the relevant trade union laws

What is clear is that ASLEF have repeatedly invited the Gov to further talks which the Tories keep shying away from. They’ve had over 18 months to resolve this dispute

 

[TreacleMiller]

Yes I suppose the 225 fleet will stand down during any action as not as easy to diagram when there is no good will.

Not really, the issue is competence on them and several trainers, who will no doubt be out driving, don't sign them.

800/801 far easier all round.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do we know what dates are actually affected? Trainsplit seems to have Thurs 29th and Saturday 2nd annotated as overtime ban but are still selling tickets On Northern, as they are on 1st March incl both Northern and TPE.

There is an overtime ban on 29 February to 2 March. There is strike action on 1 March.

There will be services on both Northern and LNER on the overtime ban days but expect some disruption, possibly at short notice. Unless the MSLs are used there will likely be no service at all on Northern and only a limited service on LNER.

 

[dk1]

Not really, the issue is competence on them and several trainers, who will no doubt be out driving, don't sign them.

800/801 far easier all round.

Yes that’s what I was saying. Wont be easy to diagram them around competent drivers/driver managers.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

You mean the MSL’s that are the brainchild of a ideologically driven authoritarian Tory party lol

No one wanted MSL’s. TOC’s, RDG and DFT all said it would enflame the dispute, cause a further deterioration in working relations and increase disruption for passengers by lengthening industrial action.

Can’t wait to see the outcome for the first TOC to impose MSL’s

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2024 ==

As for questioning the legitimacy of ASLEF’s strike balloting (as some contributors have), this is laughable.

There are strict laws regarding balloting, serving notice, ensuring the correct numbers have voted etc etc

Any decision by a union the size and scale of ASLEF will be compliant with the relevant trade union laws

What is clear is that ASLEF have repeatedly invited the Gov to further talks which the Tories keep shying away from. They’ve had over 18 months to resolve this dispute

One fundamental (and seemingly, ignored/not understood by gvt) problem with MSLs is that to run 40% of the timetable you probably need about 80% of the traincrew resources. On complex networks it may be more. In effect its a highly inefficient timetable with long turnarounds etc, particular if strikes are done on an individual operator basis as there is little ability to plan the service from a ‘blank sheet of paper’. This is why ASLEF is quite correct to say that it essentially removes their ability to withdraw their labour, as even on a strike day you’d need loads of staff working to hit the MSL target. By comparison on a ‘normal’ strike day you might get 10-15% of the timetable running using alternative staff (DMs etc.)

Essentially on a MSL strike day, you’d end up paying a large proportion of your staff to sit around in messrooms and at termini on really inefficient diagrams. At least if they were on picket lines, you’re not having to pay them!

 

[tomoufc]

Solidarity with all workers set to undertake additional strike action.