Solving Industrial Action Disruptions

[STINT47]

Looking across the forum they're are nearly always a number of TOCs in dispute with the RMT causing significant disruption to passengers.

It's mostly the RMT that are causing the issues as they take action on almost any issue and are far to militant for today's age.

I would therefore propose that the government creates a new union/employee recognition body and the RMT be closed down.

Whilst this may be unpopular at first with some staff they would still have employee recognition and the right to strike but only over important issues.

To help ensure that the process is fair the government could run the union/body day to day but with an independent oversight committee that employees can appeal to if unhappy.

Overall it would be a win all round. Staff still get recognition and can take action, passengers will not face inconvenience and the railways will be more.profitable and a happier.place to work and travel on.

 

[PupCuff]

I would like to see some choice in the rail unions. When I was an RMT member it was very much a mixed bag; TSSA has been broadly useful although I don't plan to stay now they're selling out to the American union. You end up having to join either RMT, TSSA or ASLEF as appropriate because that's all that's on offer even if you think they're a load of nonsense.

A progressive, allied rail union with a focus on good industrial relations across all the rail workforce rather than political point scoring would be beneficial in my view.

I do also have some concerns about how much influence the unions have on day to day running of the industry - there are some (though I hope, not many) locations for instance where they are overseeing depot recruitment; allocating/denying staff RDW; even putting pressure on managers as to whether to investigate safety incidents. Etc etc. I worry that there is insufficient oversight of these which puts a real risk of bias against non-union staff, or indeed risk of failing to comply with equality/employment legislation, and opens up the potential for unofficial blacklisting.

 

[quantinghome]

Since Trade Unions were legalised in 1871, employees have had the right to organise their own unions.

How would this new union be any different to the RMT? - it will be made up of same employees. Unless it's not actually run by employees, and then it wouldn't really be a union. Your proposal sounds similar to a 'company union', something run by (and for the benefit of) the employer, not the employees. Government-controlled unions are a standard move undertaken by authoritarian regimes.

"right to strike but only over important issues." Who decides what is and isn't important?

"To help ensure that the process is fair the government could run the union/body day to day but with an independent oversight committee that employees can appeal to if unhappy." Who has the ultimate power - the government or the oversight committee?

There's plenty to criticise in the way the RMT go about things, but your cure would be worse than the illness.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure how that works considering the polar opposites of a Labour or Tory government to running a union!

 

[skyhigh]

I would therefore propose that the government creates a new union/employee recognition body and the RMT be closed down.

In that single sentence you show you have little to no idea about what you're suggesting....

 

[STINT47]

In that single sentence you show you have little to no idea about what you're suggesting....

There are companies that don't have a union but do have an employee forum/represention with the management

As the TOCs often change it would probably be best for the government to run it but with independent oversight l.

I did once work for a company who when asked about union representation advised us we did not need to join one as they had a comprehensive employee engagement process. Although in fairness no one really bothered with it.

 

[6Gman]

Since Trade Unions were legalised in 1871, employees have had the right to organise their own unions.

How would this new union be any different to the RMT? - it will be made up of same employees. Unless it's not actually run by employees, and then it wouldn't really be a union. Your proposal sounds similar to a 'company union', something run by (and for the benefit of) the employer, not the employees. Government-controlled unions are a standard move undertaken by authoritarian regimes.

This.

I think the OP misunderstands the principle of collective representation and negotiation.

 

[skyhigh]

As the TOCs often change it would probably be best for the government to run it but with independent oversight l.

Please tell me what impact the change in TOC ownership has on a union.

I am a member of a union, but I am far from someone who has strong feelings on the subject. It's clear you don't have any understanding at all.

 

[SynthD]

This seems far more work than just banning unions and any other reminder that employees aren’t slaves.