Scotrail - RMT Strike Ballot

[HH]

True but many railway employees do have rosters that have 7 day weeks, however they may also have 5 days off in a row also to balance this out, the rosters are 35 hour weeks (at least at EC) but averaged out over 12 week cycles. This is not a complaint, i think most staff prefer it this way but just worth pointing out.

Indeed in my experience it is staff that drive this type of roster because they like having several days off at once. I've often pointed out to senior Ops Managers that this cannot be the best/safest way to roster, but generally they are so scared of industrial action that nothing is done.

 

[TUC]

Legal proceedings are lengthly and costly with no guarantees at the end of it. Strike action hits the operators hard and quick and it doesn't really cost the union anything in terms of £££. Whether it works is another matter.

Situations like Mr Lewis is exactly the reason why many members are part of unions.

But Employment Tribunals are the correct route for dealing with such matters and a core role of unions is to fund representation where its required. When you say there are no gurantees of success, the independent tribunal will reach its own conclusions. Are you saying that bullying through striking should be used because it has a greater chance of success, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case?

 

[HH]

But then in 2009 we had a dispute that resulted in strike action being taken, and the lead-up to that really opened my eyes. The way that the TOC dealt with the staff was simply disgraceful. Agreements were routinely ignored, staff were summarily dismissed, lies were told to us about the state of the company's finances, we were made a derisory pay offer, the TOC refused to enter into any constructive dialogue with the staff-side representatives, lies were told in order to attempt to split the unions. Basically there was a total breakdown in industrial relations and we'd had enough of it. If we'd been able to have a sensible dialogue this outcome could have been avoided, but the problem was that the management didn't seem to want it. Really and honestly, I have never worked in any industry where anything like this has happened.

There were a few strikes in 2009; can you be more specific? In my experience TOCs do not court industrial action, and there's usually something else going on. For instance FCC had problems in that year, which seem to have been a mixture of instructions from Group and incompetence at the top (Ops & Managing Directors were not up to the job I fear). I know that the "party line" was not supported by any of the Directors, which must have caused some odd behaviours.

 

[transmanche]

The problem is that there really is an "us" and a "them"[...]

As an outsider it sounds like there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.

Staff think that management are out to 'get' them. Management think staff are 'confrontational'. Both sides act accordingly and find that their fears are realised.

 

[michael769]

Staff think that management are out to 'get' them. Management think staff are 'confrontational'. Both sides act accordingly and find that their fears are realised.

I fear you may not be far from the mark there. It is not unusual to deal with percieved confrontation by acting in a confrontational manner. The result is a vicious circle that is next to impossible to break free from. Professional arbiters, when eventally called in often discover that neither side understands what the original dispute was about, if one even existed. Indeed getting the parties to that relisation is sometimes enough to get them to start negociating rationally.

This dispute has all the hallmarks of such a situation, with staff and even the union apparently unclear if the dismissed member is guilty or not, the union falling back on traditional trades union rhetoric, and Scotrail issuing blatantly inflamtory press releases. All with no apparent empathy or concern over the impact this very public spat is likely to have on the dismissed member and his future career prospects.

 

[MacRae13]

So if the Union has not seen the full episode how can they be sure they are on the 'right' side of this?

I don't know the details of the case so I can't answer that.

But there's the crux - only a handful of individuals DO know; and anything else is speculation.

 

[O L Leigh]

There were a few strikes in 2009; can you be more specific? In my experience TOCs do not court industrial action, and there's usually something else going on. For instance FCC had problems in that year, which seem to have been a mixture of instructions from Group and incompetence at the top (Ops & Managing Directors were not up to the job I fear). I know that the "party line" was not supported by any of the Directors, which must have caused some odd behaviours.

Why should I be more specific? I chose not to, otherwise I would have said so right at the start.

Your experience may be different, but those are the facts of the dispute I was involved in. I have reported them and it's up to you to interpret the actions of the TOC in any way you see fit. That they courted the dispute is certainly one interpretation.

As an outsider it sounds like there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.


Staff think that management are out to 'get' them. Management think staff are 'confrontational'. Both sides act accordingly and find that their fears are realised.

Again, I think that's a bit of a generalisation. Not everything is treated with suspicion.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

As an outsider it sounds like there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.

Staff think that management are out to 'get' them. Management think staff are 'confrontational'. Both sides act accordingly and find that their fears are realised.

Again, I think that's a bit of a generalisation. Not everything is treated with suspicion.

Of course it is. But it's one which seems to have a basis in fact.

Like I said, I'm an outsider. I form my impression from the things I have read on here and what I've seen in the media. Including plenty of examples in this thread.

 

[O L Leigh]

But unfortunately you don't really get a balanced view based on media and statements about disputes. As I said before, you don't get to hear about all the good things that happen.

O L Leigh

 

[Goatboy]

But unfortunately you don't really get a balanced view based on media and statements about disputes. As I said before, you don't get to hear about all the good things that happen.

O L Leigh

I suspect there is no balance view. The only people who know what really happened on the day in question and the context it happened in are the member of staff and the member of public and possibly the management who viewed the full CCTV (Though this wont have audio).

Everyone else therefore has an unbalanced view based on the opinion of either side over what really happened. To call a strike on such a thing seems... well, entirely as expected for a union.

 

[Smudger105e]

To call a strike on such a thing seems... well, entirely as expected for a union.

I agree that it is entirely as expected for a Union, they are fighting for a man's livelihood and career. I would expect no less, and would certainly not criticise my colleagues if it was me that had been sacked...

 

[O L Leigh]

I am not commenting on the Scotrail dispute because I know nothing about it. I am simply making general observations about union work in relation to railway business.

As to your point about reverting to stereotype, what do you expect the staff-side to do? If they fail to reach agreement with the company, what other cause of action do you expect them to take? As I understand it, arbitration can only be used if both parties wish it. As for saying that the dispute is about a matter of interpretation is nonsense. Both sides involved in the dispute will know precisely what the issues are and those who have been asked to take part in the ballot will be aware of the issues. That these matters have not been reported in full in the media for public consumption does not undermine the legitimacy of the action.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Of course it is. But it's one which seems to have a basis in fact.

Like I said, I'm an outsider. I form my impression from the things I have read on here and what I've seen in the media. Including plenty of examples in this thread.

But unfortunately you don't really get a balanced view based on media and statements about disputes.

You don't need to rely on the media. Just look back at some of the comments in this thread:

"If it wasn't for the unions these big transport companies would get away with more than they already do."

The reason Bob Crow is training shop stewards to be more forthright is because transport managers are getting away with murder when it comes to employment law.

"Half of the disputes tend to be about management bullies attempting to force people out who are involved in union activities"​

Or some of the public statements made by RMT:

"Management resort to bully-boy tactics"

"This dispute has been on-going for far too long due to management intransigence"

"“RMT will not allow Network Rail to ride roughshod over the clear democratic will of our members"​

Even you said "The problem is that there really is an "us" and a "them". I'm sure there are things that both sides agree on. So like I said; "it sounds like there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here. Staff think that management are out to 'get' them. Management think staff are 'confrontational'. Both sides act accordingly and find that their fears are realised."

 

[O L Leigh]

Saying things twice doesn't make them any more persuasive. And nor am I going to wade back through a dozen pages of this thread to put your quotes back into their context.

Yes I did say that there is an "us" and "them", but I didn't say it automatically made things confrontational. I was simply making the point that management do not always understand operational matters, which can make their latest schemes, instructions and policies seem illogical and ill-considered. Most often we just roll our eyes and mutter about it. This is a long way short of the sort of confrontation that you seem to suggest is rife.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Saying things twice doesn't make them any more persuasive.

Well I said that's how it appears to me. I repeated my words as it looked to me that you'd lost the context of everything I said. And merely repeating the contrary doesn't give me any reason to change my view.

This is a long way short of the sort of confrontation that you seem to suggest is rife.

I think you're over-analysing it. I didn't say it was "rife". But enough to make it an automatic assumption that other side will act as expected - even subconsciously. And that's what makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you presume that the other person is going to be confrontational, then it's likely that you're going to be defensive - and thus create a situation where they are more confrontational.

 

[O L Leigh]

...so you automatically assumed.

Ho hum.

O L Leigh

 

[Goatboy]

I agree that it is entirely as expected for a Union, they are fighting for a man's livelihood and career.

As with everyone in this thread I have no knowledge of the specifics of this ongoing case so will instead speak generally.

Unions date from a time when they had a very important role to play becuase employment legislation in this company was at best poor and at worst completely non-existent.

We no longer live in these times.

Collective bargaining for group pay and conditions fair enough. It's important to have represenation on issues like this - one man alone cannot argue the case for changes in working practices or conditions but a group - a union - can. bBt kicking off like this every time an organisation dismisses somebody seems like something else entirely? If you feel you are unfairly dismissed by your employer there are numerous legal avenues this country allows you to explore - most of which are completely free. How can a union act impartially in that sort of situation? How do they know what happened? How does a member of staffs colleagues know what happened?

It seems to me to be slightly odd that unions are so ready to jump in and call hugely disruptive strikes based on... well based on what? Were they there when the actions they seek to defend took place? No.

Going back to the specific issue at hand, I ask again - for the third time in this thread - what was the outcome of the employment tribuneral? I assume there has been one, right? I mean we wouldn't be going in at the strike end without even bothering to follow due process first, right?

Who really wins in cases like this? It just makes peoples jobs more difficult as they lose yet more support from the travelling public, further perpetute the opinion that unions are disruptive and simply accentuate any perceived divisions between 'them' and 'us'.

 

[transmanche]

...so you automatically assumed.

Er, no I didn't 'automatically assume' anything.

If you disagree with my comments on actions inducing expected behaviour, have a read up on some behavioural science topics: particularly Theory X.

 

[O L Leigh]

Unions date from a time when they had a very important role to play becuase employment legislation in this company was at best poor and at worst completely non-existent.

We no longer live in these times.

Er, not quite.

Granted things are better, but there are still ways in which companies can engineer a dismissal. The last place I worked before going onto the railway arbitrarily introduced new contracts of employment. Two of my former colleagues decided that the new terms of employment were significantly worse than the new ones and refused to sign the new contracts. After some negotiation, and following advice from a suitable trades union, they were permitted to work out three months of notice.

Even now, the legislation is moving in a direction that makes it easier for employers to dismiss staff. Poor performance or poor attendance, even where such things are beyond the control of the employee, can be grounds for dismissal. For example, the guy pushing the refreshment trolley is likely to be trying to hit a sales target. What is he to do? You can't force people to by tepid coffee and overpriced KitKats off him if they don't want them.

Collective bargaining for group pay and conditions fair enough. It's important to have represenation on issues like this - one man alone cannot argue the case for changes in working practices or conditions but a group - a union - can. bBt kicking off like this every time an organisation dismisses somebody seems like something else entirely? If you feel you are unfairly dismissed by your employer there are numerous legal avenues this country allows you to explore - most of which are completely free. How can a union act impartially in that sort of situation? How do they know what happened? How does a member of staffs colleagues know what happened?

It seems to me to be slightly odd that unions are so ready to jump in and call hugely disruptive strikes based on... well based on what? Were they there when the actions they seek to defend took place? No.

More generalisation.

What tends to have happened when a union steps in is that the TOC has not followed the correct procedure for discipline leading to dismissal. Either a step was missed or the wrong procedure was used.

But again you miss something because you don't actually see the number of members of TOC staff who have lost their jobs for various reasons where the correct procedures have been followed and the union, apart from representing the employee (although not in ALL cases), has taken no action. I've seen drivers lose their jobs for failing medscreen, assaulting a member of the public and for having too many SOL incidents.

Does it matter that the union were not there when an incident happens? No. In the same way that a barrister does not have to be there when an alleged crime has been committed to still be able to represent the accused. But the same as with a barrister, they will have access to all the relevant information regarding any incident.

Who really wins in cases like this? It just makes peoples jobs more difficult as they lose yet more support from the travelling public and simply accentuate any perceived divisions between 'them' and 'us'.

Every time we have an discussion about industrial actions I have to remind people that it isn't a popularity contest. It's unfortunate that the public get caught up in the middle of such action, but the purpose is to focus the attention of the TOC.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Er, no I didn't 'automatically assume' anything.

If you disagree with my comments on actions inducing expected behaviour, have a read up on some behavioural science topics: particularly Theory X.

Thank you, but I already understand what you're saying.

Yes you can make the point and I'm sure you could cite plenty of evidence to support it. But as someone who is INSIDE the situation you are describing, I have to say that my experience does not always back up the theory. Things are more complicated.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Things are more complicated.

I didn't say they weren't complicated. And I agreed with you that it was a generalisation - but what else can we do here other than speak in general terms?

I've not said anything other than the impression I get, reinforced by comments in this thread, is that how it appears to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

Er, not quite.

Granted things are better, but there are still ways in which companies can engineer a dismissal. The last place I worked before going onto the railway arbitrarily introduced new contracts of employment. Two of my former colleagues decided that the new terms of employment were significantly worse than the new ones and refused to sign the new contracts. After some negotiation, and following advice from a suitable trades union, they were permitted to work out three months of notice.

Even now, the legislation is moving in a direction that makes it easier for employers to dismiss staff. Poor performance or poor attendance, even where such things are beyond the control of the employee, can be grounds for dismissal. For example, the guy pushing the refreshment trolley is likely to be trying to hit a sales target. What is he to do? You can't force people to by tepid coffee and overpriced KitKats off him if they don't want them.



More generalisation.

What tends to have happened when a union steps in is that the TOC has not followed the correct procedure for discipline leading to dismissal. Either a step was missed or the wrong procedure was used.

But again you miss something because you don't actually see the number of members of TOC staff who have lost their jobs for various reasons where the correct procedures have been followed and the union, apart from representing the employee (although not in ALL cases), has taken no action. I've seen drivers lose their jobs for failing medscreen, assaulting a member of the public and for having too many SOL incidents.

Does it matter that the union were not there when an incident happens? No. In the same way that a barrister does not have to be there when an alleged crime has been committed to still be able to represent the accused. But the same as with a barrister, they will have access to all the relevant information regarding any incident.



Every time we have an discussion about industrial actions I have to remind people that it isn't a popularity contest. It's unfortunate that the public get caught up in the middle of such action, but the purpose is to focus the attention of the TOC.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thank you, but I already understand what you're saying.

Yes you can make the point and I'm sure you could cite plenty of evidence to support it. But as someone who is INSIDE the situation you are describing, I have to say that my experience does not always back up the theory. Things are more complicated.

O L Leigh

This is exactly the culture of entitlement I'm talking about. The idea that a company should be prevented from dismissing a member of staff for poor performance or attendance is laughable.

To what degree should it be allowed to continue? When the employee only comes in one day a year? Should ticket examiners be allowed to sit in the back cab with their feet up for thirty five hours a week? How many years can someone just sit at home on the sick before the company is allowed to get rid?

Believe it or not, but companies actually DON'T actively scheme ways of getting rid of staff. TOCs don't have the option to shut booking offices. They can't just device to slash services. You may not have seventeen men and a chargeman sitting in the bothy ready to clean a single platform anymore, but you're not going to see sweeping job cuts again, because employee numbers are at reasonable numbers. It costs a company more money to recruit new employees than it does to keep them. It would be bad business to do this for no reason. So you can be assured that when a company does decide to dismiss someone, it's been with consideration.

 

[aylesbury]

Will any trains run on the srike days ,surely not all railwaymen in the RMT?

 

[Sadsmileyface]

Will any trains run on the srike days ,surely not all railwaymen in the RMT?

Most trains will run.

 

[O L Leigh]

This is exactly the culture of entitlement I'm talking about. The idea that a company should be prevented from dismissing a member of staff for poor performance or attendance is laughable.

To what degree should it be allowed to continue? When the employee only comes in one day a year? Should ticket examiners be allowed to sit in the back cab with their feet up for thirty five hours a week? How many years can someone just sit at home on the sick before the company is allowed to get rid?

It costs a company more money to recruit new employees than it does to keep them. It would be bad business to do this for no reason. So you can be assured that when a company does decide to dismiss someone, it's been with consideration.

You have totally failed to understand what I've said. Go back and read it again and you will see that I have said that rail staff have lost their jobs for disciplinary and performance reasons.

When the unions get to the stage of disruptive action it is usually because the employer has got something wrong in the process of dismissing someone. You don't get disruptive action simply because someone loses their job. I've personally seen it happen where drivers have lost their jobs where no disruptive action was taken.

You have also failed to grasp what I said about the legal position. Yes of course companies should be able to get rid of the malingerers and the lazy, but to do so this should be part of a properly managed and transparent disciplinary process. You cannot simply set unrealistic targets and then summarily dismiss anyone who fails to hit them. There must be a process that is followed to try and uncover the reasons why the targets were not hit and whether or not this was due to laziness on the part of the employee.

A particularly pertinent matter for the railway (and one that I suspect is relevant to at least one of the current disputes) is the misuse of the Managing for Attendance process (MFA). MFA is there to assist employees back into work after illness, but it has been used on at least one occasion that I am aware of for sacking someone. That is not the purpose for MFA. If, at the end of the MFA process, it is felt that an employee is malingering they should then be put through the disciplinary process. They cannot simply be sacked because they have more than a certain number of days sick.

I would add that if you think that employers don't engineer dismissals then you are living on a cloud. It is far cheaper to sack people than make them redundant. It is also a good way for companies to try and weed out the awkward staff. Even little things like failure to wear the correct uniform can lead to disciplinary action.

The unions are not ignorant to the fact that, just sometimes, someone will do something that leads to their dismissal. As I have said before, sometimes this is the correct action to take. In the case of the driver who assaulted a member of public, how could anyone stand by and say that this behaviour was excusable. Likewise the driver who failed a medscreen. But while these sorts of things can lead to dismissal, together with attendance or performance issues, there is no excuse for an employer to either circumvent or ignore the disciplinary process which forms part of the employees terms of employment. By taking disruptive action the unions are signalling that an employee has not been given access to this process. If the dismissal is fair and the employee has been dealt with according to the correct process, action would not be taken.

There is no culture of entitlement. You're exaggerating for effect. I hope I have now been adequately clear.

O L Leigh

 

[Goatboy]

Does it matter that the union were not there when an incident happens? No. In the same way that a barrister does not have to be there when an alleged crime has been committed to still be able to represent the accused. But the same as with a barrister, they will have access to all the relevant information regarding any incident.

It depends in which capacity the union is acting. If the union is acting as an advisor then I agree - its similar to the relationship between a lawyer and a client. But if the union is going beyond this and invoking strike action then it's different - they would be causing significant disruption over what, one persons side of the story? Really?

When the unions get to the stage of disruptive action it is usually because the employer has got something wrong in the process of dismissing someone.

If the employer has got something wrong in the dismissal process it will be an easy win in a tribuneral. If they STILL refuse to act reasonably, even after a tribuneral rules against them, then perhaps further action becomes justifed.

I ask for the fourth time - what was the outcome of the tribuneral relating to the current case?

If the employer is in the wrong - show them up for it legally. Employers can and should be held to account but there is no need for strike action in order to do this.

Every time we have an discussion about industrial actions I have to remind people that it isn't a popularity contest.

It pretty much IS a popularity contest, no? The railways are not currrently operated purely as a public service. They are operated as private commercial enterprises. 'Being popular' amongst customers and therefore driving more custom is fairly crucial to this.

Continually nark off your customers and you can't be suprised if they go elsewhere and how good a situation is that?

It nearly caused significant issues for British Airways - people simply stopped using them due to the constant threat of strike action disrupting plans. They moved to other carriers. Some have never returned. Had it gone on any longer losing the 'popularity contest' would have been terminally damaging for BA.

 

[O L Leigh]

It depends in which capacity the union is acting. If the union is acting as an advisor then I agree - its similar to the relationship between a lawyer and a client. But if the union is going beyond this and invoking strike action then it's different - they would be causing significant disruption over what, one persons side of the story? Really?

You seem to believe that disciplinary matters are simply a case of "he said, she said". It simply doesn't work that way.

As I have said before, I am unable to comment on this particular dispute because I have no knowledge of it. I don't even know in what capacity the sacked member of staff worked never mind what they have been accused of. However, these things are not simply decided on one person's word over another, otherwise the TOC could equally be guilty of taking action simply based on their side of the story.

If the employer has got something wrong in the dismissal process it will be an easy win in a tribuneral. If they STILL refuse to act reasonably, even after a tribuneral rules against them, then perhaps further action becomes justifed.

An employment tribunal can only be applied for after all other means of negotiation or conciliation with the employer have failed. It is also not necessarily the case that a tribunal will order reinstatement.

You should have a read up on employment law and how it applies to these situations.

I ask for the fourth time - what was the outcome of the tribuneral relating to the current case?

Why don't you find out for yourself?

If the employer is in the wrong - show them up for it legally. Employers can and should be held to account but there is no need for strike action in order to do this.

I'm afraid that often there is every need for strike action. It is mercifully rare because, as I have been trying to highlight, relations between management and staff is largely harmonious. But every now and then things go wrong and action needs to be taken to get important issues addressed. It's not always about dismissals either, so there often is not recourse to any other means of resolution except disruptive action.

It pretty much IS a popularity contest, no? The railways are not currrently operated purely as a public service. They are operated as private commercial enterprises. 'Being popular' amongst customers and therefore driving more custom is fairly crucial to this.

Continually nark off your customers and you can't be suprised if they go elsewhere and how good a situation is that?

Again, you misunderstand. This is a specific internal issue between staff and management. It is regrettable that the public gets caught in the middle of it, but frequently the only way to grab management's attention is take disruptive action. Actions like this are also mercifully rare.

It nearly caused significant issues for British Airways - people simply stopped using them due to the constant threat of strike action disrupting plans. They moved to other carriers. Some have never returned. Had it gone on any longer losing the 'popularity contest' would have been terminally damaging for BA.

Over-simplification.

BA was riven with internal issues following it's privatisation. Management practices were poor and so industrial relations suffered. It was right for BA staff to take action in order that the internal culture changed. Had it not done so the airline would have failed, and rightly so. No company deserves to survive "by right".

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

This is exactly the culture of entitlement I'm talking about. The idea that a company should be prevented from dismissing a member of staff for poor performance or attendance is laughable.

To what degree should it be allowed to continue? When the employee only comes in one day a year? Should ticket examiners be allowed to sit in the back cab with their feet up for thirty five hours a week? How many years can someone just sit at home on the sick before the company is allowed to get rid?

Believe it or not, but companies actually DON'T actively scheme ways of getting rid of staff. TOCs don't have the option to shut booking offices. They can't just device to slash services. You may not have seventeen men and a chargeman sitting in the bothy ready to clean a single platform anymore, but you're not going to see sweeping job cuts again, because employee numbers are at reasonable numbers. It costs a company more money to recruit new employees than it does to keep them. It would be bad business to do this for no reason. So you can be assured that when a company does decide to dismiss someone, it's been with consideration.

Rather sadly you seem to be tarring every rail worker with the same brush and infact you are completely wrong with your 'observations' about staff.

The vast majority of staff are professional and hardworking. Ticket examiners are not allowed in the cabs anyway so you certainly won't find them in there with their feet up.

Many rail staff-often drivers in a few companies-don't get any sick pay without a doctors note. And if you self certify more than once in a set period you are investigated-possibly sent to occupational health and possibly officially reprimanded so there is very little truth in your claims about staff going sick too often.

The unions will only stand up for people they feel are unfairly victimised or dismissed. If someone has clearly broken policy then they will not represent them or aid them getting their job back. That much should be obvious but some people seem to be unable to understand.

Finally, no one wants strike action. The union don't want the bad press they always get and the staff don't want to strike as they loose pay for it but you seem to fail to understand that dealing with these companies isn't always as easy as employment tribunals etc. and it is very common for rail companies to side with the customer without fully investigating allegations leaving the enployee to prove their innocence on their own whilst the big powerful and rich rail operator builds a case against them. It really is often a case if guilty until proved otherwise.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

Rather sadly you seem to be tarring every rail worker with the same brush and infact you are completely wrong with your 'observations' about staff.

The vast majority of staff are professional and hardworking. Ticket examiners are not allowed in the cabs anyway so you certainly won't find them in there with their feet up.

Many rail staff-often drivers in a few companies-don't get any sick pay without a doctors note. And if you self certify more than once in a set period you are investigated-possibly sent to occupational health and possibly officially reprimanded so there is very little truth in your claims about staff going sick too often.

The unions will only stand up for people they feel are unfairly victimised or dismissed. If someone has clearly broken policy then they will not represent them or aid them getting their job back. That much should be obvious but some people seem to be unable to understand.

Finally, no one wants strike action. The union don't want the bad press they always get and the staff don't want to strike as they loose pay for it but you seem to fail to understand that dealing with these companies isn't always as easy as employment tribunals etc. and it is very common for rail companies to side with the customer without fully investigating allegations leaving the enployee to prove their innocence on their own whilst the big powerful and rich rail operator builds a case against them. It really is often a case if guilty until proved otherwise.

There's a difference between reading and understanding.

I wasn't alleging that ticket examiners spend all their time in the back cabs. Nor was I suggesting that staff actually only come in one day a year.

I was asking to what extent poor attendance or performance should be tolerated, and putting forward examples of extremes to highlight the point that TOCs shouldn't be in the position where they simply have to tolerate it for fear of unions short-sightedly ruining everything for everyone.

And of course unions want strike action. Why wouldn't they? They have NO other way of maintaining their profile nor their authority and subsequently their bargaining position, and subsequent to that, their membership dues. To suggest that it's NOT their objective is naive.

In fact, I very much doubt that the strike is about Scott Lewis at all. If it hadn't been him, it would have been literally any other case, just so they could flex what little muscle they have with their ever dwindling membership numbers. The apathy towards the vote itself is evidence enough, this is lashing out, this is death throes behaviour. I honestly can't wait to see the numbers that turn out to duty next week. I think it's going to be a startling wake up call.

 

[bb21]

This is exactly the culture of entitlement I'm talking about. The idea that a company should be prevented from dismissing a member of staff for poor performance or attendance is laughable.

I don't think that is what he was suggesting.

If it hadn't been him, it would have been literally any other case, just so they could flex what little muscle they have with their ever dwindling membership numbers.

This is a highly dangerous assumption. The union cannot just call for industrial action as they wish. There needs to be some core issue that is causing a dispute. If there is no dispute, they cannot just ballot their members as they wish.

 

[Mojo]

The 35% turnout is significantly better than 14% for the PCC elections.

However in order to vote in a public election, you do not have to pay money and fill in a membership form to join a club, which sends you periodicals every so often and have notice boards in your work place.