The real facts behind the ATW potential strike please

[1V53]

Well Captain you've failed to acknowledge your fundamental inaccuracies on this thread whilst continuing to expect us to listen to you. I like to give everyone a fair chance but I am having to draw my own conclusions about you now. Opinions are fine, but have the gumption to admit to your mistakes especially when you have made said mistakes when trying to make your point. For the record you were saying about train drivers on 50k in making your point about ATW drivers (who are on 34k) and stated train drivers simply light up a fag when a train fails.

 

[Greenback]

Quite a few people have pre conceived ideas that are simply not correct. This applies to many areas of life apart from railways. I have no problem with this, as we can't all be experts on everything! I have learnt a lot and seen different point sof view to ones I hold since I joined this forum.

I have changed my views on some things as a result of the debates I've read or been involved in on here. It's sometimes very hard, though, for people to admit that they are wrong about something, particularly when their views are deeply entrenched, and central to the way the view the world. Also, opinions are only opinions, and everyone has the right to their own opinions, and to express them!

I do think some people cannot be reasoned with, don't afford the same respect as they expect themselves, and continue to post simply to stir things up, rather than add anything constructive. (I am speaking generally and not referring to any poster in particular, in this or any other thread).

 

[notadriver]

Wouldn't such a person be labelled a 'Troll' in a forum like this ?

 

[chuckles1066]

Can I just add something?

In October last year I was made redundant after 28 years service which included a single period of absenteeism of 6 days due to a skin cancer op.

I desperately wanted to work.........it took me six weeks to find something which (as many of you will know due to my presence here) wasn't ideal as it involved a commute to Bath.

But it was a job, an income. Beats £65.45 JSA, trust me.

Whilst desperately looking for work, I learned one thing; to have a job is a privilege, not a right.

If train drivers don't want to drive trains on a Sunday then they should resign and get a different job. But good luck, there are 2.5m unemployed and that number will rise by 1m over the next 12 months.

This isn't a dig at railway staff, believe me, just my observation of the economic realities of the UK in 2011.

I hope my post is taken in the spirit with which it was written

 

[CarterUSM]

Can I just add something?

In October last year I was made redundant after 28 years service which included a single period of absenteeism of 6 days due to a skin cancer op.

I desperately wanted to work.........it took me six weeks to find something which (as many of you will know due to my presence here) wasn't ideal as it involved a commute to Bath.

But it was a job, an income. Beats £65.45 JSA, trust me.

Whilst desperately looking for work, I learned one thing; to have a job is a privilege, not a right.

If train drivers don't want to drive trains on a Sunday then they should resign and get a different job. But good luck, there are 2.5m unemployed and that number will rise by 1m over the next 12 months.

This isn't a dig at railway staff, believe me, just my observation of the economic realities of the UK in 2011.

I hope my post is taken in the spirit with which it was written

Great post, though i don't agree whatsoever with resignation if you don't want to work Sundays. Everything else, fair do's .

 

[1V53]

A job is not a right, correct. However, we do not all sink to the lowest wage and the worst conditions of the lowest paid worker just because 2.5m are unemployed. The company is not struggling to pay the wages or making anywhere near a loss. Why then should the staff take a cut in conditions and effectively a pay cut, just because some sectors of industry are struggling? I understand why people in your situation say things like that but with respect it is not a very well thought out argument.

 

[chuckles1066]

I understand why people in your situation say things like that but with respect it is not a very well thought out argument.

We will have to agree to differ on that.

When I was unemployed, if you'd told me I could have a job driving trains but I had to work Sundays I'd have snatched your hand off.

It's a job. And it isn't minimum wage.

Remember the alternative - £65.45 a week.

Sometimes you just have to accept that the economic realities of life conflict with what you believe are right........train drivers aren't, and don't want to be seen as, the 1970's miners.

 

[GB]

We will have to agree to differ on that.

When I was unemployed, if you'd told me I could have a job driving trains but I had to work Sundays I'd have snatched your hand off.

It's a job. And it isn't minimum wage.

...and there in lies the flaw to your argument. Of course if you are unemployed you would do what ever it takes and I dare say you would take the job with a significant reduction in current driver wages. Does that mean drivers should do the same just becuase there are people out there willing to do the job at a fraction of the cost?

 

[1V53]

Yes but the point is you are saying people who are unemployed would do the job for little more than minimum wage. So if anyone in a job paying more than minimum wages doesn't like any change to their pay or conditions then they should get out and someone would be happy to do it for peanuts. There would be enthusiasts who would drive trains for £65 a week. Taken to it's ultimate conclusion the economy would collapse because we'd all be very poor and the tax revenue would plummet. That's just one reason why it's not a well thought out argument.

 

[rodders133]

Chuckles, your arguement is very flawed. If I was out of work, then of course I would and so would many take the deal with the Sundays, and at a reduced rate. Lets face it, there are people out there who would drive trains for nothing. I dare say there are people out there who would pay to drive trains ( I give them a week max ).
The situation is what it is. When people signed up to work, they signed up to Sundays not being part of their working week. Thats the end of it.
It would be understandable if a company was on its knees, and the only way to keep them in business, hence drivers keeping their jobs was to accept things like this, and even pay cuts. This is not the case though. ATW are making huge profits and prefer to pay their shareholders their massive dividends and their directors 40% pay rises than actually looking at what their employees, who make it all happen want.

This is all without bringing the Arriva xc into it.

Chuckles, if you took a job on minimum wage in a small shop, after working there a while, you found out your boss has just bought a shop across the road and is paying the employees in that shop more than what he was paying you, would you just accept that?

 

[chuckles1066]

...and there in lies the flaw to your argument. Of course if you are unemployed you would do what ever it takes and I dare say you would take the job with a significant reduction in current driver wages. Does that mean drivers should do the same just becuase there are people out there willing to do the job at a fraction of the cost?

That wasn't the thrust of my argument.

But you knew that anyway.

I'm just suggesting that, from someone who went from being nice and cushy in my job to one who all of a sudden had to survive on £65.45 a week, sometimes you have to take a step back, look at your lot and consider whether you really do have it as bad as an unemployed person on the said £65.45 a week.

Genuine thoughts from someone who's been there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Chuckles, your arguement is very flawed. If I was out of work, then of course I would and so would many take the deal with the Sundays, and at a reduced rate.

Haven't you just self-defeated your argument?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes but the point is you are saying people who are unemployed would do the job for little more than minimum wage. So if anyone in a job paying more than minimum wages doesn't like any change to their pay or conditions then they should get out and someone would be happy to do it for peanuts. There would be enthusiasts who would drive trains for £65 a week. Taken to it's ultimate conclusion the economy would collapse because we'd all be very poor and the tax revenue would plummet. That's just one reason why it's not a well thought out argument.

That's how the UK economy works - maybe the railways need to poke their head above the parapet?

Many years ago, the company I worked for had a contract with the local wholesaler to deliver newspapers and magazines across the Avon, Glos, Somerset, Wilts area.

When the contract came up for renewal, the wholesaler put it out to all and sundry.......you had white van man signing contracts to do seven days a week at 3a.m for £2 an hour.

My company, naturally enough, couldn't compete.

 

[rodders133]

I would also like to add, the comment made about ATW drivers being compared to milk float drivers.
I think there are some real militants who sit waiting to pounce on every comment made by the high ranks, and maybe take some comments the wrong way.
The thing is, the drivers that work for the big toc`s have an easier time than those for the smaller ones. Without taking anything away from these drivers, their job is far simpler to the majority of ATW drivers. Yes they have bigger and faster trains, but the majority of the time they are running on greens with far fewer stops, and far fewer signal restrictions. The chances of an ATW driver having an incident wether it be a station overrun, a spad, wrong route etc etc are far higher.
Ive had a Virgin driver route learning in my cab before. He had never seen a semaphore signal, he said the last time he saw one was on his rules course. He was genuinely worried that he may have to drive on a route with semaphore signalling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No I havent self defeated my argument. I cant understand where you get that. The bottom line is, I have a job, and I want to make it as good as possible. You only have to switch on the news to see people getting their hands chopped off for stealing or getting stoned to death for having an affair. Does this mean I should be grateful for still being alive after drunkenly snogging the next door neighbour while my missus is in bed??
It has to stop somewhere.

 

[1V53]

That isn't how the UK economy works though. In some areas it does and look what happens? Luckily in many others it isn't all down to price. I say luckily because very often it is the cost cutting that leads to accidents. Railway staff are highly trained and meet high standards. I have already conceded that not all maintain the standards they can and should achieve.

With all due respect you assume you could just apply and get the job and do it for less money. Remember the vast majority don't make it.

I have worked in low paid jobs and I can assure you that the calibre of people in this job is predominantly very high. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

 

[rodders133]

The selection/tests/interview processes are insane. You would be amazed at how many people apply, then how many fall at the different hurdles in the selection process. Some people say anyone can drive a train, and a lot of train drivers may agree. The thing is these drivers who have got through all these tests, a lot of them didnt have a clue they had what it took to be a train driver until they were actually tested. People have inate qualities they dont know they have. An ex alcoholic and smack head with 7 kids, on their way home from the Jeremy Kyle studios could get the job before David Cameron....... because they have what it takes and Cameron doesnt.
What should we do with a deaf, blind, paraplegic, but who could tell the future?????
just stick them on benefits and forget about them??

 

[CosherB]

Well Captain you've failed to acknowledge your fundamental inaccuracies on this thread whilst continuing to expect us to listen to you. I like to give everyone a fair chance but I am having to draw my own conclusions about you now. Opinions are fine, but have the gumption to admit to your mistakes especially when you have made said mistakes when trying to make your point. For the record you were saying about train drivers on 50k in making your point about ATW drivers (who are on 34k) and stated train drivers simply light up a fag when a train fails.

Wake up, dude and smell the coffee! I never said ATW drivers were on £50k. So that is YOUR mistake, not mine!. If you are going to have a poke at me, you should at least check your facts!

I plead guilty to your second point about lighting up a fag, however but only if you take what I said literally. Actually, it was humour and not meant to be taken literally. It seems from your post above that that's something that whizzes over your head at 30,000 feet. Lighten up!

Chuckles makes a valid point. You can't see it becuase like many rail workers on here you are inward-looking. You need to stand back and see the big picture... and remember Reagan and the US air traffic controllers. You need to understand some basic financial facts - no one is owed a living; if someone else can do your job as well or better than you (so we're not talking cheap and incompetent here - the job must be done at least as well), at lower pay, they should be able take it. That's life and that's as it should be. It keeps people on their toes, ensure excelence rises to the top, and that poor performers are overtaken by the more able). It applies everywhere but in a few protected areas like the railway and many public sector areas (though the latter are facing swinging cuts as times get harder and reality bites... And it won't stop there).

It's called 'the market', and in the end it always wins. Are you old enough to remember the print unions and what happened in that most closed and most cosy of industries?

 

[Greenback]

Wouldn't such a person be labelled a 'Troll' in a forum like this ?

Yes, but it's hard to distinguish people who do this maliciously from those who are simply insistent that they are right and refuse to listen to other points of view!

Back on topic, and it's been a very interesting debate. I will be inconvenienced during the strike, but I also recognise that it's a big step agreeing that every memebr of staff MUST work overtime on a set number of occasions every year. As far as I am concerned, overtime should always be purely voluntary, and Sunday working should be part of the normal working week if it is required.

As has been said, ATW want the cheapest possible solution to Sunday working, rather than looking to bring in a proper 7 day roster.

 

[1V53]

Wake up, dude and smell the coffee! I never said ATW drivers were on £50k. So that is YOUR mistake, not mine!. If you are going to have a poke at me, you should at least check your facts!

I plead guilty to your second point about lighting up a fag, however but only if you take what I said literally. Actually, it was humour and not meant to be taken literally. It seems from your post above that that's something that whizzes over your head at 30,000 feet. Lighten up!

Chuckles makes a valid point. You can't see it becuase like many rail workers on here you are inward-looking. You need to stand back and see the big picture... and remember Reagan and the US air traffic controllers. You need to understand some basic financial facts - no one is owed a living; if someone else can do your job as well or better than you (we're not talking cheap and incompetent here), at lower pay, they will take it. That's life and that's as it should be. It applies everywhere but in a few protected areas like the railway and many public sector areas (though the latter are facing swinging cuts as times get harder and reality bites... And it won't stop there).

It's called 'the market', and in the end it always wins. Are you old enough to remember the print unions and what happened in that industry?

It's often the way of those who are in the wrong to say 'it was a joke'. I have a SOH but reserve it for things that are funny. I'm sorry I confused your statement about £50k a year being about ATW train drivers. It may be because the thread is about the ATW strike and ATW drivers striking? If I have made an incorrect assumption because of that maybe it is because you haven't made it clear what you are actually talking about.

You are so wrong about my attitude, you have assumed and got it wrong. I have been in the industry for between 5 and 10 years. I know what it's like in the outside world thanks. I have seen conditions trashed, pay hacked back and standards eroded across many industries. I have worked in some of these industries and got out when it became evident that the people within them wouldn't stand up for themselves and let their employers threaten and bully them.

I came into this job happy with the terms and applied for it and was successful. Sundays voluntary overtime but often I work extras to balance the occasional one I can't work. At my depot the number of Sundays is high and there are occasional ones they struggle to cover. There are ways to solve this but the company instead want to force staff to work them. There are other issues too but as usual people want to preach without knowing all the facts and spout the usual drivel about the fact there are lots of people willing to do the job for less etc.

If people of this country had a bit more gumption and stood firm occasionally they might have protected their working conditions, but sadly too many let themselves be bullied and cave in. I'm all for give and take, and negotiation, but I won't put up with being bullied and blackmailed.

 

[Greenback]

I'm all for give and take, and negotiation, but I won't put up with being bullied and blackmailed.

Sums up why I support the staff despite the personal inconvenience in time and expense to me as a customer. It's not as if ATW strike at the drop of a hat.

 

[O L Leigh]

Before I joined the railways I didn't have much interest in pay and conditions. I did the job put in front of me for the money I was offered. But then all of those jobs were Mon-Fri 9-5 in a nice warm office where I couldn't actually do much wrong. However, my eyes were opened shortly after leaving my last position to join the railways.

Prior to leaving a management consultant had been brought in because we were struggling with a backlog of work, but we were otherwise a happy and committed office where genuine friendships were made and plenty of socialising took place outside of work time. But in order to justify his large fee the management consultant felt obliged to make lots of recommendations that, in order to justify paying the fee, the company felt obliged to implement. To start off with we had a large increase in the number of chiefs with no commensurate increase in indians. There were still as many pairs of hands actually doing the work, but now we had twice as many overseers meddling in our affairs. Then, shortly after I left, the management foisted a new contract of employment onto the remaining staff imposing worse conditions and more draconian penalties for non-compliance. Two of my friends refused to sign their new contracts and were told that they would be permitted to remain for a fixed period and would then find their employment terminated. There was no discussion and they had no recourse to any representation or appeal. Ever since the company has had a problem recruiting and retaining staff, to the extent that a lot of knowledge and expertise has been lost.

Now you could say, as some have already done so, that if your conditions change and you don't like it you could leave and someone else more amenable could take the job. That's very true, up to a point. And that point is where these changes represent a worsening of conditions for those staff already in post who happen not to want to leave. Unfortunately a lot of this thread so far (well, that much as I could face reading) is pointless conjecture. This isn't a comparison between the rail industry and any other, or even between those in work and those who are sadly unemployed. This is about those people who are currently in post who are looking at changes to their working conditions that would impact on their lives both inside work and outside it. There is no compulsion for any worker, whatever job they do and wherever they do it, to have to blindly accept it. Yes the workforce can me compensated for the loss of these conditions, but that level of compensation has to be considered fair. The loss of a rostered Sunday where this is currently considered to be overtime is something that would need to be looked at carefully. Not only would drivers want to feel that their overall annual earnings are not affected by such a change, but they would want to be compensated for losing the ability to choose whether or not to work any given Sunday.

Having worked inside the rail industry and elsewhere (as well as having a spell of unemployment), I really don't see what is so objectionable about this idea. Of course there is always the opportunity to leave if things don't suit, but there is no reason whatsoever why people should be compelled to leave. Working on the railway is physically and socially arduous enough as it is without management eroding what conditions you have left bit by bit.

O L Leigh

 

[CosherB]

If people of this country had a bit more gumption and stood firm occasionally they might have protected their working conditions, but sadly too many let themselves be bullied and cave in. I'm all for give and take, and negotiation, but I won't put up with being bullied and blackmailed.

It seems the sense of humour failure is totally ingrained. Sorry about what you're missing.

Regarding the above quote, only viable working conditions (ie ones that reflect market forces) can be protected by 'gumption' to prevent exploitation. Un-viable ones.. well, it's like trying to hold back the tide; you can do it for a while, but in the end the tide wins.

Bear in mind the competition for UK jobs isn't a worker/management battle like it was in the 70s, though you and many on here seem to think it still is (Bob Crow still works that groove). It is much more worrying than that, and you should raise your eyes to the real threat.

Today, it's largely coming from the far east. That's where many western jobs have gone, and that's where many more will go. And don't think that just because rail jobs in UK must by definition remain in UK that they are immune from this competition. As UK jobs migrate east, the competition for the jobs that remain here will increase dramatically. And the financial pressures that result on UK society will impinge on everyone, including the railway. That's where the threat for your future lies, IV. Not with ATW management.

 

[1V53]

I have never been on strike in my life and I still hope we don't have to. It's a last resort action when the company is bullying and refusing to look at workable nil cost alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It seems the sense of humour failure is totally ingrained. Sorry about what you're missing

[insult removed]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... only viable working conditions (ie ones that reflect market forces) can be protected by 'gumption'.

Ah that's ok then, we'll be fine.

I can see why you do this selective quoting business now Captain

 

[rodders133]

The whole debate actually has nothing to do with anyone but the drivers and the ATW management. It is just unfortunate that the industry we are all in, does in fact have an impact on the general public. For every railway dispute, there must be loads and loads of non railway disputes that are going on all the time that go un-noticed, because no-one cares, or hears about as the media also dont care, because it just aint news.
Bottom line......if you are a member of public who is affected by these disputes, please read the `correct` posts in this thread and realise that the ppl you have issues with are ATW, and not the drivers..... if you are not affected, and still have issues, I advise you to get a life.

 

[Metroland]

The whole debate actually has nothing to do with anyone but the drivers and the ATW management.

Your dead wrong about that when

1) People have season tickets or those who depend on the railways expect a service
2) We have some of the most expensive train fares in Europe
3) A very large percentage of the cost of the network in Wales is paid for by all our taxes
4) Unsustainable railway finances where it has publicly been stated it threatens the size of the network

We have absolutely every right to question where the money is going, hold the people responsible to account, even lobby our MPs about it.

It seems that virtually everyone 'backing the cause' has some sort of vested interest, not only do they fail to actually convince any reasonable person their actions are little more than feathering their own nests and even admitting 'we don't know how we get away with it and are grabbing what we can', we have silly comments about wanting to reduce people to sweat shop conditions on the minimum wage or less.

Many have no concept of where the money comes from and why actually people might object to constant strike action in difficult economic conditions, responding with childish comments such as 'you're just jealous', never stopping to think for one minute some people are actually concerned where their actions might end, either if having to pay yet every higher fares or not having any sort of service at all. Instead it's all about me, me, me and what I can grab and milk from the rest of you and anyone that dares to question it is a troll.

 

[O L Leigh]

Why couldn't ATW just offer a sensible "no strings" increase, then?

Yes, this industrial dispute has a regrettable impact on the public and those wanting to use the service, but the dispute is between an employer and it's workforce. I know from experience that the media never likes to tell the full story and, therefore, the public's perception is twisted, but it doesn't actually change the facts.

O L Leigh

 

[CarterUSM]

Your dead wrong about that when

1) People have season tickets or those who depend on the railways expect a service
2) We have some of the most expensive train fares in Europe
3) A very large percentage of the cost of the network in Wales is paid for by all our taxes
4) Unsustainable railway finances where it has publicly been stated it threatens the size of the network

We have absolutely every right to question where the money is going, hold the people responsible to account, even lobby our MPs about it.

It seems that virtually everyone 'backing the cause' has some sort of vested interest, not only do they fail to actually convince any reasonable person their actions are little more than feathering their own nests and even admitting 'we don't know how we get away with it and are grabbing what we can', we have silly comments about wanting to reduce people to sweat shop conditions on the minimum wage or less.

Many have no concept of where the money comes from and why actually people might object to constant strike action in difficult economic conditions, responding with childish comments such as 'you're just jealous', never stopping to think for one minute some people are actually concerned where their actions might end, either if having to pay yet every higher fares or not having any sort of service at all. Instead it's all about me, me, me and what I can grab and milk from the rest of you and anyone that dares to question it is a troll.

You do have a right to question it, but your, mine, and others opinions count for very little with regards the actual dispute, which is between staff and management.

 

[Metroland]

Why couldn't ATW just offer a sensible "no strings" increase, then?

Yes, this industrial dispute has a regrettable impact on the public and those wanting to use the service, but the dispute is between an employer and it's workforce.

Like the many, many others. What is it about the constant disputes between railway staff? You have hundreds of people applying for each position, yet you would think the way some people talk it's a sweat shop with the worst conditions in the world, rather than the reality, which is people are queuing around the block for jobs.

Like others, I don't especially care whose fault it is, I just wish people would look at the bigger picture, act like professionals, on professional rates of pay, and get back to work and stop playing politics taking money away from far more pressing causes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You do have a right to question it, but your, mine, and others opinions count for very little with regards the actual dispute, which is between staff and management.

So up yours and mind your own business! We'll see about that, when there is the next fares strike, or people lobby to forget rail investment, and spend the money other causes, because the service is expensive and unreliable.

 

[O L Leigh]

I never made any claims about driving being like a sweatshop. However, protection of conditions are often what makes the job less arduous.

I'm sure you're right that you could still fill the driving grade with lots of new entrants, even by appealing to the lowest common denominator with the poorest conditions for the lowest pay. But I predict that you would quickly have an issue with recruitment and retention of staff and a gradual erosion of safety standards. In an industry that rightly strives for a zero tolerance to errors it should be a no-brainer that you look after your staff. But fostering poor industrial relations and introducing sweatshop working standards by viewing your staff merely as economic units that must work at maximum output flies right in the face. As a general rule, TOC's want more from less.

O L Leigh

 

[CarterUSM]

So up yours and mind your own business! We'll see about that, when there is the next fares strike, or people lobby to forget rail investment, and spend the money other causes, because the service is expensive and unreliable.

Yes, more or less, and yes, I suppose we will see, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Metroland]

A very presumptuous statement indeed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never made any claims about driving being like a sweatshop. However, protection of conditions are often what makes the job less arduous.

I'm sure you're right that you could still fill the driving grade with lots of new entrants, even by appealing to the lowest common denominator with the poorest conditions for the lowest pay.

Nobody has, least of all me, said the railway should be flooded with incompetent people on low pay. What I have said, for the benefit of doubt, if the industry was more open and working to a true market, strikes and industrial disputes would be less common, there would be better competition for jobs and from people that want to run services and so on. There would also be more opportunity for employees to move.

The airline industry works to a fairly open standard. While trains ain't planes, you can hardly claim that the safety record is poor, or even it's not well rewarded.

There is trying to improve conditions and there is operating a cartel of labour in a restrictive market. Even Crow admits there is little the companies can do than pay pretty much what is demanded, within reason, because in reality there is not much else they can do. This is fairly unique, because most of the time pay rises depend on true productivity, else companies simply go bust.

 

[O L Leigh]

Maybe it's just a matter of perception, but this really isn't a cartel of labour.

Having been involved in a strike myself I was amazed and appalled at some of the tricks that were pulled by the TOC during the so-called negotiations. I won't discuss them openly here (or anywhere else, for that matter), but it wouldn't have been too great a leap of logic to interpret their actions as an attempt to exacerbate the dispute rather than resolve it.

Needless to say, no matter what had been reported by the media, the main thrust of the dispute was not pay but conditions and the TOC's record at following working agreements. The pay offer was modest but came with strings, and we ended up settling for a lower pay award and our conditions unchanged. However, if we hadn't taken action the company would almost certainly have continued to take liberties and would eventually ground us down to a position where we would have been working to the lowest common denominator. We had already repulsed such a situation when harmonisation was offered.

This isn't because of any cartel but because of a strong staff-side representation, which is something I feel is very important. Without this we would soon be working in a situation where the lowest common denominator applied and where staff turnover would be high, ultimately to the detriment of the TOC's as well as the staff themselves.

The right to legally withdraw labour is something that is not unusual to rail staff and is available to everyone irrespective of their employer or the industry they work in. It is a "last resort" option that unfortunately has to be taken where a workforce is in dispute with an employer.

O L Leigh