I don't see how drivers will ever be happy, given that they are not content with £40K+ a year job with very good job security.
*Checks payslip*
It would appear that I'm being short-changed. :-x
I'm not entirely sure that the TOC's give much attention to things like RDW sanctions. Lets face it, most disputes have at their heart some issues over industrial relations which often manifests itself as the TOC failing to adhere to agreements. Now it may be that Driver9000's employer is more honourable in this area than some others, but I really don't think many TOC's would lose sleep over allocating RDW to any drivers making themselves available irrespective of there being an RDW sanction or not. I know we had one or two drivers who were taking RDW during the NXEA dispute.
But then maybe we're getting two different things mixed up here. An RDW sanction is usually granted for a certain length of time, usually not less than 6 months and often considerably longer. However, this does not mean that a union cannot call for an O/T ban should they find themselves in dispute with a TOC, even if an RDW sanction is in effect. When this happens it is up to the drivers to decide whether or not to agree with this and, if they do, they will cease to make themselves available for RDW.
This may be closer to the situation on LM at the present moment, where the union has called for an O/T ban in spite of an RDW sanction.
With regard to an individual driver's right to decide, well I would in principle agree that this to be upheld. There are certain drivers at my location who would have found it difficult to cope financially due to their own circumstances, and I personally would not have had any issue with them having to do some minimal RDW in order to cover the bases.
But then you get the greedy bar-stewards who are just out for all they can get and will take advantage of the situation to fill their pockets with as much RDW as they can get because the competition for extras has suddenly disappeared. Likewise you have to understand how it is viewed in the messroom. When everyone else is making a sacrifice in order to try and get their employer to take notice of some issue that they are in dispute over, it undermines the effort when there is one or two greedy folk who are happy to flout the recommendations for their own gain and it does cause bad feeling. Rightly or wrongly there is an "us and them" attitude when it comes to being in dispute, and anyone who isn't one of "us" is one of "them".
But where you have an O/T ban, union membership doesn't really enter into it. A non-unionised driver could agree to abide by an O/T ban because the aims are for the good of all and not just those within the union, even though there is no compulsion for them to do so. It's down to personal conviction. Where things get tricky for them really is just when a strike is called. Union membership provides legal protection for striking workers against disciplinary action when taking part in legitimate actions. A non-union member has the stark choice of either crossing the picket line and attracting the ire of all his colleagues or being disciplined for being AWOL by the company unless he can come up with some smart third way to legitimise his absence and refusal to work on a strike day.
As with a lot of things, there are lots of different strands that can easily get tangled up.
O L Leigh
