As MW has stated, if they put the offer out to the members and it was rejected they would come back with 4.01%, that needs put to members and so on. Take it as read that with the numbers returned in ballots drvs would not accept the offer.We’re not going to agree on this so I don’t see the point in debating it any further
Because an overwhelming rejection of an offer by the membership, in theory, gives the union a stronger hand in further negotiations.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ASLEF Strike LNER & Northern 1st March
- Thread starter DoubleO
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The change in stance in the RMT dispute was because the RMT initiated fresh talks and, in due course, provided assurances about pausing strikes and entering negotiations in good faith. Those assurances are detailed in the RMT's Memorandum of Understanding with the RDG.
If ASLEF wishes to receive a similar offer to that RMT obtained it would need to be proactive (as the RMT was) and it would need to provide assurances similar to those that RMT provided.
They, and Grand Central and the freight companies, are able to negotiate freely without the hand of Government interfering with its own agenda. Though I think there were one or two days of strikes on HT before they came to a deal but clearly without the Government interfering they've clearly been able to do a deal to everyone's satisfaction much more easily and quickly.
dk1
Veteran Member
They are free to negotiate as are OA operators. If the other train operators where able to do the same we wouldn't be where we are.
This appears to be (wilfully?) naive. One “offer” was made, which was rejected because it was terrible (which was always the intention), so there is now no offer on the table. No further negotiation has been possible due to the government preventing it. ASLEF’s membership have overwhelmingly voted to continue action, over and over again, so nobody can credibly suggest that the membership is against continuing, or wishes to have a referendum on the deal which the union bosses are denying them (which is the usual trope that’s trotted out). As an ASLEF member I’m quite happy with that approach, so I’m not sure why people outside the industry presume to speak for me.
Why should the union spend thousands putting an appalling deal to their members, when the government quite evidently isn’t negotiating in good faith, is actively prolonging the dispute, and will simply find another excuse not to find agreement?
All these points have been explained many, many times, but it’s clear to everyone who reads your posts on this subject that you have an agenda against ASLEF, so I have no doubt you’ll continue to ignore them.
Quite. It’s funny how ASLEF have reached agreements everywhere but the DfT operators, yet apparently it’s their fault the government won’t allow them to negotiate!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well if the government would just allow a good faith negotiation, with a view to reaching an agreement, ASLEF would be able to provide those assurances.
Last edited:
Maybe it was a condition of RDG to put it to the members before moving negotiations on? I don't know this for certain by the way, but as mentioned upthread the RMT made a move to progress talks so what's to stop ASLEF doing the same, especially as there has been no progress since the offer was made? Ultimately unions are there to get the best they can out of negotiations, but if things don't move and strikes have no effect, its up to them to consider a change of tact.
12LDA28C
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2022
- Messages
- 5,058
To show how strong and powerful the Government is and that they will do anything to break the Unions (by introducing legislation that no employer is actually willing to enforce), rather than actually engage in the necessary negotiations to settle the dispute?
dk1
Veteran Member
The RMT dispute was going exactly the same way until the government was hit with the booking office backlash & suddenly made a no strings offer out of the blue. This completely surprised the RMT membership. No engagement was made with ASLEF. There will be no change of tact until a similar reasonable offer is made & very strong support continues.
It was not "out of the blue", as it was the result of RMT initiated talks that started before the booking office decision. Furthermore, it was subject to the RMT providing assurances that were incorporated into the Memorandum of Understanding that was part of the deal.
As far as I know, ASLEF has not sought any talks similar to those that RMT initiated and nor has it offered to discuss providing any assurances similar to those that RMT provided.
dk1
Veteran Member
Nobody from government seems to want to talk unless it’s about including the ludicrous strings to a pay deal and then if you recall they even changed some of those afterwards. How is that anyway to constructively solve the dispute? If anything it seemed to be adding fuel to the fire.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It appears to be December 2022 they last met Merriman & a year last month Harper.
ASLEF have repeatedly tried to coax the Gov in for further talks & Gov have refused
This absurd, stubborn insistence on their offer being put to ASLEF members is baffling. There are established negotiating policies in place, which adhere to trade union laws.
As an ASLEF member, I don’t need to see the offer put in front of me (I’ve seen it and would reject in an instant). I’m paying for our negotiating executive to act on my behalf. When they feel there is an offer worthy of merit, then ASLEF will put it to a ballot. This is how high level collective bargaining works.
The Gov attempting to deal directly with the ASLEF members, consequently circumnavigating our union, is tantamount to inducement. It would discourage ASLEF members from negotiating via ASLEF collective bargaining.
This is an illegal practice, see Centrica inducement claim ongoing in the courts, brought by GMB, with a decision due this month or March.
Inducement aside, ASLEF members have spoken by way of overwhelming mandates to continue industrial action. Had the members been interested in the Gov deal, ballot results would have ceased any further mandating of industrial action
This absurd, stubborn insistence on their offer being put to ASLEF members is baffling. There are established negotiating policies in place, which adhere to trade union laws.
As an ASLEF member, I don’t need to see the offer put in front of me (I’ve seen it and would reject in an instant). I’m paying for our negotiating executive to act on my behalf. When they feel there is an offer worthy of merit, then ASLEF will put it to a ballot. This is how high level collective bargaining works.
The Gov attempting to deal directly with the ASLEF members, consequently circumnavigating our union, is tantamount to inducement. It would discourage ASLEF members from negotiating via ASLEF collective bargaining.
This is an illegal practice, see Centrica inducement claim ongoing in the courts, brought by GMB, with a decision due this month or March.
Inducement aside, ASLEF members have spoken by way of overwhelming mandates to continue industrial action. Had the members been interested in the Gov deal, ballot results would have ceased any further mandating of industrial action
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Based on Journey Check it looks like there's an overtime ban from 1pm tomorrow. There's currently a total of 101 cancelled services. https://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail
There isn't.
Friday of half term….
ASLEF have repeatedly stated they’re available for talks and wish to resolve the dispute (as they have done everywhere not controlled by the DfT). The RDG isn’t able to do anything without the government permitting them to.
Or we just carry on as we are until we get a more sensible government, or until this government decides to settle. I’m perfectly relaxed about that approach (as are 90%+ of my colleagues)! On the other hand if ASLEF accepted the “offer” extended last year I’d probably leave the union (and the grade).
Clearly (back on topic for this thread) there is more going on at LNER and Northern.
whoosh
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,894
Other unions have been allowed to talk. The whole rail industry was provoked into striking, "Oh, look how inconvenient it all is!" Pushes MSL law through with less resistance. Settles with all the rail industry except the 'greedy drivers'. Forces only the drivers to have to comply with MSLs. Victory!
I've not got the latest results to hand, but last June at LNER:
So, like we've all been saying. It's a separate dispute, balloted separately.
There's no documentation of any meeting with ASLEF being asked for by RDG or the Government, since the last round of talks in February/March 2023.
There are meetings and a new offer which was agreed, documented with the RMT.
The 'ramping up' of the pay dispute, by attempting to use the MSLs, was met by the 'ramping up' of the number of strike days.
The de-escalation of cancelling the use of MSLs, was met by cancelling the additional strike days.
If MSLs are going to be used in the pay (and conditions - don't forget those) dispute, then extra dates of action may be used.
A ballot for strike action by ASLEF last year resulted in more talks and negotiations. A settlement (below inflation) was agreed.
One offer was made (5% year one, 5% year two but with loads of strings) BEFORE any talks took place - but after a year of asking for talks.[Jan 2023]
A second offer was made after talks took place in Feb/March 2023 (a worse one! 4% year one, 5% year two - with it looks to me the same number of strings), in around April 2023. At the end of the talks, ASLEF thought they had 4% year one, 5% year two, plus any additional productivity being negotiated at TOC level. They got a phone call the next day to say that, no, that 5% year two was for everything - massive productivity changes at some TOCs and not much change at others. Clearly unacceptable.
But then it was designed to be. Because without continued industrial strife and associated disruption, the "reasonable step" of introducing Minimum Service Levels wouldn't have been seen as quite as reasonable, would it?
Last edited:
DanNCL
Established Member
Thank you, this was the info I was seeking.
Those results suggest that the vote on the agreements dispute only covered action short of a strike? Though granted that's not the most recent ballot.
Ha! And of course, let’s not forget it’s extremely convenient to blame service disruption (cancellations, late trains, staffing shortages etc) on those pesky strikers
Wonder what they’ll blame everything on when the dispute is ended?
To be fair, the rate of cancellations due to traincrew causes is as high as it has ever been, and in some TOCs it is around half of all cancellations (compared to a more normal percentage of around 15-25%).
Train crew shortages i.e., lack of staff or staff taking industrial action?? There’s a difference
both.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,341
The dispute won't be ended whilst this government is in power. They, via DfT, don't care how much passengers are affected, or how long strikes continue. Only a minority of the population ever uses rail passenger services. That should be obvious to everybody by now.
So what will the excuse be if & when industrial action ceases and service reliability fails to significantly improve, such will be the case.
Service cancellations, overcrowding, staff shortages were endemic long before industrial action started and will still be prevalent afterwards
Why would the RDG or Government take part in further talks if there is nothing new to discuss?
The RMT were in a similar position last year. They broke the deadlock by initiating talks with the RDG to discuss fresh proposals from the RMT. Those talks led to the deal that RMT accepted.
RMT was able to initiate fresh talks with the RDG by tabling something new to discuss. However, ASLEF has not presented anything new to discuss. Nor has it requested talks with the RDG to discuss the potential for something similar to the RMT deal.
Whatever the cause happens to be.
Well, if the dispute was settled, it’s likely that that issue would rectify itself, or at least substantially improve. A workforce with low levels of moral/goodwill will inevitably have higher levels of absence than a happier one.
Your determination to blame this situation on ASLEF is extraordinary.
ASLEF has made clear that the “deal” tabled by the government was unacceptable, and it was rejected months ago. They’ve also made clear that they would be open to a further negotiation over certain global issues, with other issues negotiated locally, but the government have outright refused this, on the basis that ASLEF should put the (now long rejected) deal to its membership, despite this being against the constitution of the union, and against the clear wishes of its membership, as demonstrated through subsequent re ballots with 90%+ wanting to continue action. Hence the impasse, which will continue until the government accepts its original proposal is dead and buried, and permits an actual negotiation along the lines of the above.
A negotiation certainly doesn’t work by the government unilaterally decreeing what the “deal” is, and ASLEF simply rubber stamping it!
Although the dispute over agreements with Northern and LNER is separate to the wider pay/Ts and Cs, both of those operators are directly controlled by the government, which rather tells its own story.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What is clear is that the government still wishes to continue its dispute with ASLEF for whatever reason, and is using the “ASLEF should put the deal to the membership” line as a pretext. It could easily end (or at least pause) the dispute by offering a proposal more along the lines of that offered to the RMT - and this might still happen as we get closer to the election.
Albeit it will be interesting to see how well the local negotiations with the RMT go, and they could well end up back in dispute over the next few months.
Last edited:
ASLEF wasn't asked to rubber stamp the April 2023 deal, but from what I can gather just to put it to the membership. Which didn't happen because ASLEF have a rule that says their executive can decide if they think a deal is acceptable or not, and in the latter case not have to put it to the membership. Yes, most of the membership have voted on continuing the industrial action in the absence of a new deal (i.e. post April 2023), but the sticking point is that the old one (April 2023) was never put to them, which may be a condition of moving forward with further negotiations to get a new deal on the table.
Both sides are playing silly sods here, but (and this is the important point) it is the union's membership that is potentially losing out more than RDG / TOCs / DfT, so it is the job of the union to find a way out of the impasse. Or they could wait until after the General Election and hope that an incoming government puts ASLEF's dispute right at the top of their priority list, otherwise this will just rumble for months, maybe years more.
That is only a “condition” because the government wants it to be. Whilever they don’t want to the dispute to be resolved, they’ll find another pretext to prevent it. The membership won’t accept that deal, and the government knows that!
As an ASLEF member why on earth would I want the leadership to put a deal to me they don’t even think is acceptable themselves? It’s also not for this government to dictate how the union should respond - the fact they’re arrogant enough to believe otherwise speaks volumes.
Simply untrue; ASLEF have made clear they’re open to negotiation, and they’ve achieved sensible resolutions at all employers not hamstrung by the government. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably argue that ASLEF are playing “silly sods” against that backdrop.
So you’re still determined to blame the union for the government’s intransigence - no surprise as (as noted above) you have continually sided with the government, and criticised the unions, throughout the dispute for your own reasons.
The ASLEF membership (many of whom aren’t losing out financially due to overtime more than offsetting strike days) is better off waiting until after the election than accepting the terrible terms offered and long since rejected. Why not? We’ve waited almost two years, what difference a few more months?!
Technically we don't know this, it has not gone to the membership because the executive have decided its not acceptable. But why should it go out to the membership? Because its created almost a year-long deadlock maybe?
That isn't true though is it? They have been asked to put it to the membership and they haven't. To that extent the ball is in their court.
Oh please with the "you want to blame ASLEF", I've made my position quite clear. I blame all sides in this, and yes that includes ASLEF for refusing to put the deal to the members. This may surprise you but unions can get things wrong, and sometimes dig their heels in for the wrong reasons, and frankly they are right there doing just that in my opinion.
Are you sure? If / when Labour take over, they're going to have a lot on their plate. ASLEF's ongoing dispute may be way down the list of priorities. After all they've hardly been banging the drums in favour of the industrial action, in fact didn't Starmer say at on point he was against the strikes. I'm fairly certain I read that somewhere, and if it was the case you might be stuck in a deadlock for a lot longer.
- Status