Aslef threaten Scotrail strike over Driver sickie!

[boing_uk]

Like it or not BestWestern, the law is clearly on the employers side here. It is not nice to have leave cancelled, but it is a matter of fact that an employer can do so if the need arises.

If the lieu day was agreed formally the recourse has already been explained. The driver broke their conditions of employment and acted fraudulently in doing so when the agreed leave was cancelled. It would then be ASLEF that should have sorted it out, nit for the driver to have pulled a sickie.

They took a gamble and got caught out. Simple as.

You will find that this happens quite a lot in private industry, where the nature of the business requires employees to be flexible. The law only states that a minimum of 20 days leave must be taken and essentially that it is between the employee and employer to work it out.

In practice, most people will never have leave cancelled. I worked with someone who had a 3 week cruise booked, but had to go to India for work purposes instead. They were duly compensated of course, but it happens and as long as your employment contract doesn't have grossly unfair conditions within, then yes an employee must attend work when leave is cancelled. If worst comes to worst, the employee can submit a claim in the Small Claims Court if there is an appreciable financial loss as a result, that hasn't been compensated.

It is crap I know, but that is how the cards are stacked.

Like it or not, the driver was in the wrong and got what was due them. The union cannot expect any sympathy from anyone using the train services to support any strike action because of that very simple fact.

As they say, tough titties!

 

[BestWestern]

To quote your first paragraph, it appears that 'need arising' was not a feature here, more it was in response to a union dispute. Employees have a right to expect not to be ill-treated out of spite, it's called fair treatment. To move further down, nobody 'took a gamble', he simply expected to be able to take the holiday he had booked and paid for after his employer informed him that he would be off work on a particular day. Why shoudn't he have held that expectation? What do you suggest that employees do with their leave - make arrangements to sit at home all day in case it gets cancelled at the last moment? Heck, maybe they should just come to work anyway, sit in the depot and drink tea just in case they are needed, or maybe we should just do away with it altogether?!

I don't dispute the letter of the law, but the issue is how a company choses to use that law. You can have mutual co-operation and respect, or not. Some vocations come with the condition that your life is not your own, but these are the exception and this is not one of those jobs. This isn't the police, or the armed forces, or a hospital; it's a train operator, running a scheduled service pattern, who know how many people they need and when. If, as we are told, that train operator has failed to staff it's depots sufficiently, why should the staff have to bear the brunt of that? Is it the duty of employees to suffer due to failings of their employer's management? I think not.

 

[jopsuk]

The law only states that a minimum of 20 days leave must be taken

Ahem, it is 28 days (5.6 weeks) and has been for a number of years. Public holidays can be included as part of that though.

 

[kylemore]

I can't be bothered reading through all these posts so maybe somebody has said this already!
The driver should simply have taken his days off as agreed and returned to work where no doubt he would have been docked pay and then fought it with th Unions help.
First Group are utter scum, the biggest of the parasites infesting our public transport industry, they are not innovators, they are useless incompetents when it comes to developing the railway. In fact they have no interest in developing the business, they are there simply to screw it and us (the taxpayer) for every penny they can squeeze out
Do not quote the increased passenger numbers and services please, this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with these people.

 

[boing_uk]

WellI I wasn't including public holidays - and we know how the unions respond to extra ones of those!

BestWestern, whether I think it is fair or not is irrelevant. As it happens, I agree that what has gone on in terms of cancelling lieu days as tit for tat responses to staff disputes is somewhat unfair. However thatisn't the issue here, it is the underlying cause. The issue is that management cancelled this guys leave, he gambled on pulling a sickie and got caught out doing so.

It is not right that the union should be calling for strike on this. The driver acted outside of what is protected and neither he nor the union should expect support on the matter.

If he had lost money and FSR were refusing to reimburse for those losses then it would be a different matter. But it remains that the travelling public, not FSR, are going to suffer because a driver made a bad choice. When an employer says jump, you ask "how high", not "how high, but not on Wednesdays", especially when there is a dispute already in progress.

All things being equal here, ASLEF should have been making this clear to their members and what recourse they have if they are going to suffer consequential losses resulting from FSRs actions. It isnt up to the employee to just pull sickies when management start playing unfairly; that is playground tactics and plain old stupidity that leads to precisely these issues.

Is it unfair? You bet your sweet ass it is. But that is the law and it is an employers game, where the employee has no rights in this particular respect and there is little point discussing it further because it is what it is.

As morally right as this driver may have felt, he didnt play the game by their rules and now the union are seemingly playing up to FSRs cause of making drivers out to be the bad guys. Two own goals there and it just makes everyones life, except FSRs, all that more difficult because the two weapons in their arsenal - public support and the moral and legal high ground - have been lost.

 

[CosherB]

As we seem to have the usual, rather depressing CS attempts at winding up everybody else, on the subject of automation might I suggest that a train has considerably greater input by the guy up front than you will find in most commercial aeroplanes, and therefore perhaps we ought to be putting pilots out of a job first? Just think how much air fares could go down if every flight didn't carry six figures-worth of stripe-wearing prestige in the cockpit....

You demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. We already have trains without drivers - it's not hard to do. We are a long long way from reliable pilotless aeroplanes fit for safe passenger carrying.

Hardly surprising - a train runs on rails on the ground and simply has to be run at the appropriate speed to maintain seperation from the train in front and to keep time, be stopped and re-started as appropriate for stations, junctions etc, and a few other fairly low-level functions. And of course in the event of technical failure it can be brought to a stop easily and safely.

An aeroplane is a 3-dimensional vehicle with very unusual handling characteristics. It has to be controlled in pitch, roll, yaw, altitude, and speed (a train only needs the latter 1 of those 5) as well as esoteric things like sideslip. It also has to be flown in correct part of the sky not only for navigation purposes, but also for terrain seperation, seperation from other aeroplanes, avoidance of severe turbulance, avoidance of extreme weather. It has to handle ice build-up (and avoid this) and in-flight emergencies such as engine failure or failure of any of many complex systems; if such failures are not correctly handled, the machine will crash.

Then it has to be safely transitioned from ground to air, and far more critically back to the ground again in exactly the right spot, at exactly the right speed, attitude, and configuration while dealing with crosswinds, gusts, icy runways, and possible failure of airport approach radio systems (ILS etc). Autoland systems only work in the benign conditions they are designed for - a perfect airport cat 3 ILS, little or no crosswind, no turbulance, and a non-iced runway. In short, they are for use in fog. Why do you think that although almost all today's airliners have some degree of autoland, it is only ever used in conditions of poor visibility where the only other option is to divert elsewhere?

And of course if the systems fail, it can't simply roll to a halt at 35,000 feet to await the technician! Gravity always wins!

Don't even begin to try to compare controlling a train to controlling an aeroplane!


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


When I was working in a senior position in IT, if a multi-million pound deal was nearing completion and I had a major role in the deal and holiday booked, I'd be asked to cancel it; the deal was far more important than my holiday!

In practice I never had to it, but I knew it was a possibility and I knew colleagues who did do have to do it. The company would compensate the emplyee for any resultant financial loss (travel, hotel etc). That's what this guy should have negotiated.

To simply bunk off as he did was juvenile and of course, illegal.

 

[GB]

You demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. We already have trains without drivers - it's not hard to do. We are a long long way from reliable pilotless aeroplanes fit for safe passenger carrying.

You seem to be confusing the technical abilities of current driverless trains technology. Where is this technology that can cope with the current demands of the national rail network???

You are probably right regarding fully pilotless planes as there is nothing that can counter-act the effects of gravity should something go wrong. But that doesnt detract from the fact that the modern aviation industry is currently the most automated mass transport system out there and that is a fact.

In practice I never had to it, but I knew it was a possibility and I knew colleagues who did do have to do it. The company would compensate the emplyee for any resultant financial loss (travel, hotel etc). That's what this guy should have negotiated

Quite frankly there is nothing to be "negotiated". What would you have done had they not been willing to pay the compensation?

 

[CosherB]

But that doesnt detract from the fact that the modern aviation industry is currently the most automated mass transport system out there and that is a fact.

Incorrect, unless you mean that much of a flight is flown through the autopilot rather than hand-flown, which is not what we are talking about.

As I stated extensively above, giving the reasons, there is NO automated flight system, merely autopilots of varying degree. Even the best of these only does what it's told to do by the pilots; it's just a dumb driver. the descision making, which is really what flying is about and is where the pilot earns his corn, comes from the pilot.

There are a lot of driverless trains, and HS trains (TGV etc) could easily be operated in a completely driverless mode, with little change to the on-board systems. We already have it on urban trains (I went to Toulouse recently; I travelled on a driverless tube / urban train that didn't crawl along like DLR, but was reaching high speeds, negotialting junctions etc, just like a UK suburban train).

 

[HawkeyeTheNoo]

I see the story has now made it from the Sun to the BBC, wonder why there is still no mention of FSR taking away driver's leave in the first place!


Train strike ballot over driver's 'sickie' to watch Rangers

The ScotRail driver called in sick while he was watching Rangers in Germany
Train drivers are being balloted on strike action in support of a colleague who was disciplined for going to a football match after calling in sick.

The driver was dismissed after ScotRail bosses discovered he had been in Germany watching Rangers.

He was subsequently demoted, a punishment which the union say resulted in a pay cut of almost £20,000.

ScotRail said the driver's actions were "unacceptable" and that possible strike action was "deeply disappointing".

The 47-year-old driver called in sick in November while he was in Hamburg watching a friendly match.

'Common sense'

Aslef said the demotion was completely unjust and is preparing to ballot 1,100 members at ScotRail on whether to take industrial action in support of the driver.

Aslef's Scottish Secretary Kevin Lindsay told BBC Scotland: "This is the first mistake he has made in 21 years. He's paid a very heavy punishment for this and we think this is excessive by ScotRail.

"We are asking ScotRail to reconsider that decision. Failing to do so, the Aslef membership will get the opportunity to decide whether they believe ScotRail was correct or their own member was."

A ScotRail spokesman said: "The driver's deliberate failure to attend work meant trains were cancelled. That is unacceptable - to our customers, who want a reliable service, and to the company.

"It is deeply disappointing that our passengers could be made to suffer - yet again."

He added: "We have sent out a strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

"Our drivers are now under pressure from union officials to defend the indefensible. It is to be hoped they will ignore the rhetoric and that common sense will prevail."

The result will be announced next month.

 

[Wath Yard]

If we are to assume that the facts outlined in the earlier detailed post are correct, then those who feel that this man's actions were deserving of a sacking would do well to reconsider their position. You have applied for and been granted leave, a basic entitlement of most people's employment, not a luxury. You have made plans, bought tickets and spent a substantial sum of your own money on a foreign trip. You are then informed that your employer has decided - for reasons which are reportedly nothing more than spiteful tit-for-tat - that your leave has been cancelled, and you are now expected to lose everything that you have spent without any form of compensation, and come to work clean shaven and with a smile.... I don't think so!!

I would expect anybody with a backbone and an ounce of self respect to stand their ground in such a situation, I know I certainly would. This guy might have done better to have simply advised his employer that they were out of order, he would be sticking with his plans, and any disciplinary action following would result in him seeing them in court. As it was, the chances are that he probably didn't want to rock the boat, and took the easy option. Whichever, his employer were totally out of order and it was their actions which ultimately led to the situation, and the union have them bang to rights - assuming, once again, that the circumstances detailed are indeed correct. If that is the case, SR have dug a sizeable hole and they know better than to have done that. I would imagine this man will be back on the footplate rather soon.

You are absolutely right. The honest and honourable thing to do would to have said 'I'm sorry, I was given the day off and spent £xxx on that basis and I'm not prepared to cancel my pre-arranged plans'. However, he didn't do that and was neither honest nor honourable.

It looks very much like this bloke is just being used as a pawn in a fight between employer and union. I doubt either have that much interest in his eventual fate.

 

[Minilad]

It looks very much like this bloke is just being used as a pawn in a fight between employer and union. I doubt either have that much interest in his eventual fate.

Sadly I think thats about right.
No party comes out of this with much credit IMO.

 

[kylemore]

The ballot should be over the company breaking it's contract by withdrawing leave incorrectly, it should have nothing to do with the driver in question.
By personalising it they are falling into the grubby hands of the media and First. The driver is partly to blame, he should simply have taken his leave as arranged, in fact the Union should have advised all their members to take leave previously arranged and advised the company they had done so and that any attempt to break contractural agreements would result in a ballot.

 

[LCC106]

In terms of annual leave, in the absence of anything in writing that says differently, the employee has to request leave with at least twice as much notice as the amount (s)he intends to take so 2 weeks' notice for 1 week's leave.

The employer can refuse a request but has to provide notice of the refusal at least the equivalent amount of time that was requested (so in the above case I give, 1 week's notice if I understand correctly).

With regard to cancellation, I can't see explicit wording for that in the CIPD's Employment Law for People Managers publication (updated monthly so pretty reliable source). However, neither the employer nor the employee has to justify their reasons for requiring or refusing leave.

If I understand rightly, this thread relates to lieu leave. Not sure what the case is in terms of notice here, but unless there are specific agreements already in place I'd guess it's similar to the above...

Hope I've not gone in to jargon, just thought the above may be useful (but maybe not, since I can't find anything about cancellation!) Coffee time! :-?

 

[tirphil]

I don't think anyone would argue that its not a difficult task to automate a national multiuser railway, but the question of 'why' is easy. Wonga.

Chuck enough money at this and you'll have viable solutions coming out of your ears.

The experience of ERTMS on the Cambrian suggests that it is a difficult task to automate the signalling with on train computers, on for the most part, a single line railway let alone the driving of trains. And you think this would be simple on a multi track railway?

 

[Chew Chew]

If the withdrawn leave at the last moment aspect of the story is correct then I'd have done the same as the driver.

Foolish of him to say he was ill but I wouldn't have been at work either.

Some companies need to remember that flexibility with employees is a 2 way street.

 

[455driver]

Can I ask a question of the "sack him" brigade on here (he wasnt sacked but demoted), I am assuming that you are old enough to work, do work or understand what "work" actually is.

The FACTS of this are-
the driver put in for (and got) paid leave for this day,
he then booked flights, tickets etc to see the football match on the strength that he was permitted to be off work,
Scotrail then threw its teddy out and cancelled all paid leave,
the driver had a choice, go to work and lose several hundred pounds through no fault of his own or throw a sicky.

What would YOU do if YOU were put in this situation because your employer reneges on an agreement (the paid leave)?

As for the vote, do you think it is right that Scotrail can withdraw agreements when it suits them, overtime is NEVER compulsory (unless its agreed first, committed Sundays etc), what sort of previous record does this driver have, is he regularly sick or does he have an exemplary attendance record (dont say it doesnt make any difference because it does, if I had to vote on this and the driver was a lazy #@%£ I would vote against, if he was a good worker I would vote for a strike), things in the media (of any sort) are never as straight forward as the reported "facts" portray.

 

[Daz28]

The FACTS of this are-
the driver put in for (and got) paid leave for this day,
he then booked flights, tickets etc to see the football match on the strength that he was permitted to be off work,
Scotrail then threw its teddy out and cancelled all paid leave,
the driver had a choice, go to work and lose several hundred pounds through no fault of his own or throw a sicky.

What would YOU do if YOU were put in this situation because your employer reneges on an agreement (the paid leave)?

In those circumstances, I would take the third option. Take the time off, tell my employer I am doing so, explain that I do not recognise the cancellation of leave, and lodge a grievance via the appropriate mechanisms about the way the company have behaved.

The company would then have a much harder task taking action over a dispute about leave approval, than one about fraudulently claiming sickness absence.

 

[Wath Yard]

Some companies need to remember that flexibility with employees is a 2 way street.

Very true, but from what has been written the union basically decided on a work to rule and the company retaliated with the withdrawal of lieu days. This bloke then did something silly and got caught up in the whole thing, and is now the focus of the dispute.

Depending on whether lieu days are stated in the employee's contract, FSR appear to be basically doing exactly what ASLEF did.

And who is really going to be inconvenienced if this does blow up into a full blown dispute? People who have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[CosherB]

What would YOU do if YOU were put in this situation because your employer reneges on an agreement (the paid leave)?

In his situation I'd ask the company to recompense me for my financial loss. If they refused I'd take it to the union. If I wasn't in a union (I wasn't in my job), the small claims court or my solicitor would have been my next port of call.

To do what he did - just bunk off - is playing into the hands of the employer and was opening himself to precisely what happened - or worse; a sacking, with the company being entirely within their rights to do that.

He handled this in the most unprofessional way imaginable. You can't just ignore employment law because you think you have been shafted - you have to fight it - legally!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Can I ask a question of the "sack him" brigade on here (he wasnt sacked but demoted), I am assuming that you are old enough to work, do work or understand what "work" actually is.

The FACTS of this are-
the driver put in for (and got) paid leave for this day,
he then booked flights, tickets etc to see the football match on the strength that he was permitted to be off work,
Scotrail then threw its teddy out and cancelled all paid leave,
the driver had a choice, go to work and lose several hundred pounds through no fault of his own or throw a sicky.

What would YOU do if YOU were put in this situation because your employer reneges on an agreement (the paid leave)?

Personally I would have told them that the day off was agreed, and if they do not replace the money spent I would be having the day off and then go to the union, as said before he played into First hands by lying and saying he was sick. The driver made a silly decision and is lucky he is still in a job, I do sympathise greatly however he made a bad mistake and he has paid a price for it

 

[michael769]

What would YOU do if YOU were put in this situation because your employer reneges on an agreement (the paid leave)?

I'd resign. Seriously who would want to work for an employer that behaves like that?

(And before anyone asks I have done this for a very similar reason where an employer promised two days in lieu and then claimed it was only actually one).

Lying to my manager about being sick just to watch footie and then whining to my union when I got caught would simply reduce me to the same despicable level.

 

[DownSouth]

My opinion is that regardless of whatever led up to the driver faking a sickie, a line has been crossed and that his employer quite rightly believes he can no longer be trusted in such a position of responsibility as a train driver. If it was a smaller business he would definitely not have been offered the chance to be reinstated in a lower-grade position. He would have been marched out by security once he was supervised retrieving any personal property he left at work.

If they dare to go on strike, ASLEF faces a long uphill battle to have any chance of winning the public onto their side in this one. They've turned up on Monday for a race that was run on Sunday, the public won't go for it when the figurehead is a guy who lied to take a sickie, and the salaries of train drivers will get dragged into the debate at some point. If they don't strike then they might have a half-decent chance at looking okay in the public view come the end of things.

In my opinion ASLEF should offer to settle the matter if the former driver gets bumped up a grade or two from his current position and both sides can look good. FSR would look good for offering the guy a second chance he didn't deserve, and ASLEF could take credit for getting their member a better deal than he deserved. And then they can get back to the core business of being a trade union - negotiating better conditions for their members in the future.

I don't think anyone would argue that its not a difficult task to automate a national multiuser railway, but the question of 'why' is easy. Wonga.

Chuck enough money at this and you'll have viable solutions coming out of your ears.

Correct. Some of the iron ore railways in Western Australia - with the heaviest regular service trains in the world - are in the process of shifting to regular trains being monitored from an air-conditioned control centre the other side of the continent. The reason it works there is that those railways play a critical role in generating real revenue and there's no element of public transport involved.

It won't happen anywhere else on Australia's classic railways because every party involved would be glad to enjoy the benefits of it as long as somebody else is signing the cheques.

The experience of ERTMS on the Cambrian suggests that it is a difficult task to automate the signalling with on train computers, on for the most part, a single line railway let alone the driving of trains. And you think this would be simple on a multi track railway?

The driving of the trains would be the easiest part of automation, and safeworking is an issue that could be overcome easily as long as enough was invested to do it right. The hard part would be getting the AI to deal with every possible hazard that could arise on a line in a populated area that's neither elevated nor underground.

Not being on the ground in the UK or a rail expert, I don't know too many details, but I've read a few articles and forum threads about the ERTMS trials on the Cambrian Line. Reading between the lines, it doesn't really seem like it's being taken that seriously. If a mining company like Rio Tinto can go from normal train driving to nearly full automation in just a few years you would think that Network Rail and their partners could make it work if they really wanted it to.

 

[notadriver]

Also did he really say he was ill or did the company lie?

 

[michael769]

The ballot should be over the company breaking it's contract by withdrawing leave incorrectly, it should have nothing to do with the driver in question.
By personalising it they are falling into the grubby hands of the media and First. The driver is partly to blame, he should simply have taken his leave as arranged, in fact the Union should have advised all their members to take leave previously arranged and advised the company they had done so and that any attempt to break contractural agreements would result in a ballot.

I agree. Assuming the facts claimed earlier in this thread is accurate it seems bizarre that they are not taking action over that - it would garner much more public support than their current approach that seems intended to further harden the general public's attitudes to train drivers.

I can only assume that either ASLEF want to prioritise troublemaking over their members interests, or their leadership is incompetent. Either way if I was an ASLEF member I'd be seriously concerned about what my union dues were actually paying for.

 

[tirphil]

The driving of the trains would be the easiest part of automation, and safeworking is an issue that could be overcome easily as long as enough was invested to do it right. The hard part would be getting the AI to deal with every possible hazard that could arise on a line in a populated area that's neither elevated nor underground.

Not being on the ground in the UK or a rail expert, I don't know too many details, but I've read a few articles and forum threads about the ERTMS trials on the Cambrian Line. Reading between the lines, it doesn't really seem like it's being taken that seriously.

It is being taken seriously inasmuch as in excess of £130 million has been spent so far on the Cambrian alone. However in hindsight perhaps ERTMS is better suited to new build lines or lines that can be completely rebuilt with purpose built rolling stock rather than trying to bolt it on to existing infrastructure and 20 year old rolling stock.

 

[Legzr1]

If they dare to go on strike, ASLEF faces a long uphill battle to have any chance of winning the public onto their side in this one.

When did 'winning public support' become the be-all-and-end-all?


Hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that maybe a yes vote in a ballot becomes a very strong tool when attempting to negotiate with childish management?

It holds a lot more weight than 'public support' ime.

 

[CosherB]

When did 'winning public support' become the be-all-and-end-all?


Hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that maybe a yes vote in a ballot becomes a very strong tool when attempting to negotiate with childish management?

It holds a lot more weight than 'public support' ime.

This is the sort of naive inward-looking attitude that is not uncommon on here among railway staff. In case it had passed you by, 'The Public' pay for the railway that employs you through taxes and fares. You NEED their support if your industry is to grow (or even avoid drastic cut backs). Alienate the public, and the media will pick up on it (it sells papers etc) and the politicians (who are very interested in getting votes) will see an ideal opportunity to boost their own position (follow any anti-rail public feeling by persuing anti-rail policies) while saving money (by not spending on rail)!

The public is your customer. Your customer (indirectly but very definately) pays your wages! You alienate them at your peril!

I'm amazed I need to point that out!

 

[68000]

Can I ask a question of the "sack him" brigade on here (he wasnt sacked but demoted), I am assuming that you are old enough to work, do work or understand what "work" actually is.

The FACTS of this are-
the driver put in for (and got) paid leave for this day,
he then booked flights, tickets etc to see the football match on the strength that he was permitted to be off work,
Scotrail then threw its teddy out and cancelled all paid leave,
the driver had a choice, go to work and lose several hundred pounds through no fault of his own or throw a sicky.

Are these really the facts or is this hearsay?

 

[DownSouth]

Also did he really say he was ill or did the company lie?

We haven't seen any source from the company comment on that yet, but that's not really relevant because ASLEF acknowledged it in a page linked earlier.

The driver was discovered to have reported in sick when he was abroad at a football match. As a result his employer, Scotrail, has taken him off the footplate and demoted him – reducing his salary by almost £20,000.
...
‘Compared with these cases, this punishment for one unwise ‘sickie’ in 21 years of working on the railway is deeply, deeply unfair.

This is the sort of naive inward-looking attitude that is not uncommon on here among railway staff. In case it had passed you by, 'The Public' pay for the railway that employs you through taxes and fares. You NEED their support if your industry is to grow (or even avoid drastic cut backs). Alienate the public, and the media will pick up on it (it sells papers etc) and the politicians (who are very interested in getting votes) will see an ideal opportunity to boost their own position (floolow any anti-rail public feeling) while saving money (by not spending on rail)!

I'm amazed I need to point that out!

+1

For a good example of that, you just need to look at the Qantas saga of last year. The public were generally quite annoyed by the disruptions caused by random short strikes all over the place, especially the strikes cancelled only after flight schedules were changed to work around them. Sympathy for the staff only came when the management grounded the fleet and locked the workers out, and even then it's still a contested topic in Australia.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Deleted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is the sort of naive inward-looking attitude that is not uncommon on here among railway staff. In case it had passed you by, 'The Public' pay for the railway that employs you through taxes and fares. You NEED their support if your industry is to grow (or even avoid drastic cut backs). Alienate the public, and the media will pick up on it (it sells papers etc) and the politicians (who are very interested in getting votes) will see an ideal opportunity to boost their own position (follow any anti-rail public feeling by persuing anti-rail policies) while saving money (by not spending on rail)!

The public is your customer. Your customer (indirectly but very definately) pays your wages! You alienate them at your peril!

I'm amazed I need to point that out!

I pay plenty of taxes so therefore I pay my own wage!

I for one am not on ASLE&F's side on this one, however if there is a need for strike action that I agree with I would strike, we fight for our rights! we stop doing so at our peril.