Tube Strike

[Marmora Man]

RMT members will walk out on 19, 27 and 29 June and 1 July.

The union said the action was over a failure to agree to reinstate driver Arwyn Thomas.

TFL allege that Arwyn Thomas (an RMT official) abused, threatened and harrassed strike breakers during a recent tube strike - they took disciplinary action and dismissed him. The case has been referred to an Industrial Tribunal; Arwyn Thomas & TFL are awaiting the results of the tribunal.

Bob Crow has said: "RMT has made every possible effort to get Arwyn Thomas back to work and it is the intransigence of LU management who have dragged their heels and failed to reach agreement over the past month that has left us with no choice [but] to put this strike action on. Why does he have to go back to work? At this stage he will be suspended on full pay awaiting the outcome of the Industrial Tribunal

TFL has said: "It is completely mystifying that, having agreed with London Underground that the tribunal process should take its course, the RMT leadership is now threatening strike action again. This seems a reasonable position for TFL to take - await the outcome of an independent body

This appears to me to be a totally unnecessary strike. An attempt to browbeat TFL into making a decision prior to the outcome of the Industrial Tribunal. If the IT finds TFL acted incorrectly - then the driver will be re-instated. If the IT finds TFL acted correctly - the dismissal stands. Either way it is not a matter that justifies b*****ing up the lives of 100's of thousands of commuters for four days.

[Otta]

Bob Crow just likes a reason to open his mouth. Idiot.

[Ridgley]

He is the megaphone for the London underground unions, I don?t always agree with Constant strikes at a drop of a hat but I do defend the right of trade unions as a concept as it was designed to protect the workers from bosses who would exploit them and Maggie milk snatcher Thatcher tried to band them.

[Loz]

Unions are like car drivers. 90% of them are well behaved and courteous. The other 10% need laws in place to curb their bad behaviour.

[Chippy Minton]

There are laws in place. UK labour law is some of the most restrictive in Europe and the developed world.

[Marmora Man]

There are laws in place. UK labour law is some of the most restrictive in Europe and the developed world.

But, unfortunately, they don't seem to be drafted to prevent Bob Crow and his accolytes calling pointless strikes while a due process of independent assessment is underway. What case can you make to defend the RMT action?

[Chippy Minton]

I'm not defending their action, but I do believe that generally we have industrial relation laws that are too tough in this country and that we should repeal some of Margaret Thatcher's legislation so we can compete better with Europe, especially given the current state of the economy and the fact that strike action in the UK is currently at an 80-year low.

[trizza]

I don't believe you can make case to support the RMT.

The stock response from Crow to criticism is that he doesn't care what the public think - only what his members think.

What's clear is that joining the RMT does give tube drivers disproportionate power. It seems to me that this is because they are quite a militant lot who stand together when called out on strike. They also appear to be well funded. If I was a tube driver I would probably join - why not! If you have a run in with management it seems you can rely on your union to threaten strike action... and then make good on the threat.

The problem is, of course, that if the RMT represented workers in a chip factory it would not really matter for ordinary people. However, the RMT can cause huge damage to London's economy. That places them in a position of responsibility where, IMO, strike action should be the ultimate sanction reserved for exceptional circumstances. Certainly not a disciplinary dispute where the matter has not yet been resolved internally and the employee has an independent cause of action against LU before an employment tribunal.

Instead, we have a situation where, amidst austerity cuts and nil pay rises for normal london dwellers, tube workers continually get above inflation pay rises and enjoy great job security. Why? The threat of strike action of course...

Given the importance of the tube to London's (and the UK's economy) I would support legislation that would outlaw strikes on the underground but, as a quid pro quo, establish an independent commission to set pay and resolve disputes. Wonder what the RMT would do if that was proposed....!

I suspect the alternative over time will be that LU try and marginalise the RMT through technology. I understand the upgrades to the signalling on the jubilee line means that the trains could work without drivers - only conductors (like the DLR)...However, can you imagine the chaos with the RMT if LU tried that on (it will be years before they are able to do so anyway)!

[trizza]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not defending their action, but I do believe

> that generally we have industrial relation laws

> that are too tough in this country and that we

> should repeal some of Margaret Thatcher's

> legislation so we can compete better with Europe,

> especially given the current state of the economy

> and the fact that strike action in the UK is

> currently at an 80-year low.

What?!

"repeal some of Margaret Thatcher's legislation so we can compete better with Europe".

You can't honestly be suggesting that by relaxing strike laws the UK would be a more competitive economy? OR do you want the UK to compete more with countries in Europe in relation to which has more strikes!

As an employer, I can say that the UK has strong legislation that protects employees and through the employment tribunal employees have a free way of pursuing legitimate grievances.

[Marmora Man]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I'm not defending their action, but I do believe that generally we have industrial relation laws that are too tough in this country and that we should repeal some of Margaret Thatcher's legislation so we can compete better with Europe, especially given the current state of the economy and the fact that strike action in the UK is currently at an 80-year low.

Toyota and BMW have both today confirmed that they are investing in their UK factories to develop and increase production of the Qasquai & Mini - do you really think this would be happening if they felt Britain would return to an industrial climate of the late 70s?

Perhaps, given you choose not to defend the RMT action you could justify the underlined statement above? Relaxing restrictions on union power is unlikely to make UK more competitive if Bob Crow & the RMT are to be the model.

[Marmora Man]

trizza - SNAP!

[Chippy Minton]

It's Nissan, not Toyota, that make the Qasquai and confirmed the investment today, but aside from getting your facts wrong you seem to be generalising all unions/industrial relations by getting hung up on the RMT.

Thatcher's anti-union legislation hasn't exactly made us in UK a shinning example of growth. Our economic performance lags behind that of Germany, and even reputedly public spending-addicted France.

Look to Europe for some inspiration, and we'd learn that the strength of Germany?s manufacturing industry is driven by high levels of research, investment in training, good government support, fair wages, decent rights and close co-operation with the workforce. If unions work with employers, jobs and businesses can be saved.

BTW, our anti-union laws aren't just associated to arguments about competition, repealing some of the legislation would also give back workers numerous rights.

[trizza]

"Look to Europe for some inspiration, and we'd learn that the strength of Germany?s manufacturing industry is driven by high levels of research, investment in training, good government support, fair wages, decent rights and close co-operation with the workforce. If unions work with employers, jobs and businesses can be saved."

I agree with some of you comments, but fail to see how revoking "anti-union legislation" would help to achieve much of the above - "high levels or research", "investment in training", "good government support" etc.

Germany retooled and retrained its manufacturing industry decades ago. We are light years behind and that really has little to do with anti-union laws and more to do with other factors, such as a lack of concentration on the sector, largely in favour of services.

I do not agree thar relaxed union laws lead to higher productivity and generate a substantial economic benefit - look at China, India etc. No or little employment rights, but their productivity is high. Not that I am suggesting that we should model our industrial relations laws on those countries, but it would be amusing to see Bob Crow sent on a secondment to China to see how he gets on...

What rights do you think workers should be "given back"?

[Chippy Minton]

I'd relax the restrictions on pickets, the need for industrial action ballots to be postal, reduce the employer notice period and look at the detail of how employers can take out injunctions on strikes based on technicalities - as executed by BA recently when their cabin crew in dispute. I'd also increase access to tribunals, increase compensation for discrimination, and increase the currently weak TUPE undertakings.

Both the examples of Nissan and BMW cited above, formally recognise a trade union and workers on the shop floor often know what makes a company tick - employers should embrace this rather than confront them. The law in Germany and France, for example, makes it much, much harder for a company to sack people or simply up sticks and relocate - we just need that level playing field to compete fairly.

Strikes aren't at an 80-year low because of our anti-trade union law, it's because people are fearful for their jobs as the government's cuts kick in.

There are numerous examples of trade unions working with employers to provide decent jobs and a viable business model at the same time. The RMT isn't representative of all trade unions!

[Loz]

Some good, some bad there, Chippy.

relax the restrictions on pickets

I disagree. Pickets are only strikers bullying non-strikers into not turning up for work.

the need for industrial action ballots to be postal

Only if the ballot remains secret and that all members have equal ability to turn up to the vote. Unfortunately, that generally means it has to be postal.

reduce the employer notice period and look at the detail of how employers can take out injunctions on strikes based on technicalities

Unions are supposed to be professionals. Unions will happily take an employer to a tribunal for not following employment law to the letter. Why should they not be held to the same level of correct procedure?

Besides, the first BA injunction stopped the ridiculous Christmas strike. BASSA should have been ripped to shreds for that stupid move alone.

I'd also increase access to tribunals

Agreed. I'd rather see both sides forced to go to an independent tribunal than end up on strike. I'd also say that the tribunals decisions be legally binding on both sides. Especially as this strike is about the RMT trying to get around a potentially unfavourable tribunal decision.

increase compensation for discrimination

I have a general problem with discrimination compensation, as it tends to become an industry in itself. I'd like to see people compensated for actual loss, but any punitive damages go to charity.

increase the currently weak TUPE undertakings.

Agreed.

[Chippy Minton]

With regard to the injunctions point, unions are up against it when it comes to being able to go to court simply because of the figures involved.

BA had millions at its disposal that they could use to take the union to court. Unite, and unions in general, have smaller finances at their disposal. Yes, they should follow correct procedure, but it's the technicalities issue I have a problem with - if the same princple was applied to last year's general election as BA used, there would have been dozens of results rendered null and void.

BTW, BA don't give a stuff about the general public - they engineered the possibility of a Christmas strike. They knew a strike was coming for months and months and wanted it to take place at a time when they would gain maximum public sympathy for them, but also at a time when they'd loose the least amount of revenue because there would be less business travel i.e. the area of the business that they care most about, over this period.

[nashoi]

Especially as this strike is about the RMT trying to get around a potentially unfavourable tribunal decision.

It maybe potentially unfavourable, but that is unlikely. Attached is the summary of the application for interim relief. For this to be successful (and it was) you have to show the interim tribunal you have a good chance of success.

Bad industrial relations are the result of bad management.

[trizza]

@Chippy 06.54

"increase compensation for discrimination"

Employment tribunal awards for discrimination (as compared with constructive/unfair dismissal) are not limited...so not sure how you plan on increasing them.

"The law in Germany and France, for example, makes it much, much harder for a company to sack people or simply up sticks and relocate - we just need that level playing field to compete fairly."

I just don't understand how you equate "competing" with ramping up employment rights. Are you really just saying that it's just not fair that employees in Germany (and particulary France) have more employment rights? I just don't think there is any evidence enhanced employment rights improves a country's competitiveness.

The only evidence in the UK we have of strong unions and weak anti strike laws is the 1960's/1970's and look what happened...

[Loz]

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It maybe potentially unfavourable, but that is

> unlikely. Attached is the summary of the

> application for interim relief. For this to be

> successful (and it was) you have to show the

> interim tribunal you have a good chance of

> success.

OK, but I read the document and as far as I can see, LU have complied with the interim orders by paying him in full until the final tribunal decision is made. What exactly is RMT's complaint here? Why are they calling for strikes? The interim tribunal has made it's decision. Stop arguing with the referee.

Interesting also was the fact that the person in question admitted a lot of the charges, but claims exemption is he was bullying, intimidating and abusing people on behalf of the union. Nice.

> Bad industrial relations are the result of bad management.

Sometimes. Rarely in the RMT's case.

[nashoi]

Your first point is a fair question. I am guessing here, but I would imagine one reason the driver wants to get back to work is because the rates he's getting paid are likely to be the minimum they can pay, stripped of overtime and all allowances etc. As this has been going on since Oct/Nov last year it's probably cost him thousands. That's the cynics answer, it's also quite possible that given his so far unblemished 29 year record as employee and union official, he might be quite committed to the job, heaven forbid. Maybe being wrongfully sacked after 29 years is something he finds a teensy bit stressful and he's quite keen to get back.

After an employee has won interim relief the employer has in effect been told they will probably lose the tribunal and so should reinstate the employee until that decision. As far as I am aware they are not legally obliged to do so, but it does seem to me, to keep a man at home on full pay for months on end when he wants to work is perverse. Why are they insisting on doing this?

Your second point is at best a disingenuous interpretation of the evidence. Nowhere is he trying to gain any 'exemptions' for being a unionist, or for any other reason.

[Chippy Minton]

Trizza - I'd argue a happy workforce, with the same rights as those enjoyed with European colleagues, lends itself to a more productive workforce and the fact that Germany, for example, has more rights than us us supports this. Yes, they shifted their manufacturing model years ago, but why does that mean that we shouldn't at least try and keep up? If the only way of quantifying an individual's worth is how much we pay them then we're all doomed!

Clearly, examples such as India and China where there are very little/no employment rights aren't comparable. UK manufacturing has declined to such an extent that it now exists largely on the fact that what's left is a highly skilled, well trained, value-added workforce that offers something that these countries can't.

[Loz]

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Your second point is at best a disingenuous

> interpretation of the evidence. Nowhere is he

> trying to gain any 'exemptions' for being a

> unionist, or for any other reason.

Hmmm. That document is, admittedly, not completely clear. The primary reason for the appeal is on the grounds that his "dismissal is unfair by reasons of section 152 of the 1992 act. He relies on section 152(1)(b) of the 1992 act stating that his dismissal is unfair because the reason or principal reason was that he has taken part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time."

Later in the document the person in question "admitted his wrongdoing, and was regretful". I suppose that leave the question of whether his actions that day actually amounted to gross misconduct, but he certainly abused other members of staff. So you could be right and you could be wrong. I guess that's why everyone should wait for the tribunals verdict.

[trizza]

Loz, I take your point, and would generally agree that a happy workforce = a more productive workforce. Most enlightened employers take this view also and give perks/rights in excess of the statutory minimum - albeit many still don't recognise unions for collective bargaining etc. Granted, there are those employers who don't act in this way.

I just don't think there is a compelling economic case to disband anti union law and expand (already broad) employment rights.

As far as the RMT is concerned, if the industrial tribunal (who are an independant judicial authority) conclude that the employee is guilty of gross misconduct and the dismissal was lawful then that should be the end of it. If they strike then they are basically saying to management that they don't care about the rule of law and it is the union that decides what is lawful and what is not - a completely intolerable position.

[Loz]

I think you are getting me and Chippy mixed up, Trizza!

[tog_in_sox]

Having waded through the IR also I too cannot see any justification for strike. This guy has at least done enough to be subject to disciplinary proceedings and threatening behaviour whilst on picket is clearly a breach of strike rules. So he has broken both LU and RMT regulations. His words of excuse and contrition are clearly insincere and simply legal placatory remarks that ring exceedingly hollow, note no mention of apology or restitution to the offended staff.

With 29 yrs service he stands to lose a lot from dismissal including travel benefits as he would be entitled to free travel on all trains (yup he could commute from anywhere in the UK for free, new employees can only ever graduate to a 75% rebate on train fares), buses, trams, tubes, DLR and overground. He's also on probably well over 30 days hol entitlement plus bank hols. Unless he's been hopeless in job his salary plus o/t, etc is probably well north of ?50k.

CM, you've made no compelling or substantiated argument for the improvement of labour laws . More particularly what particular rights are truly unjust? Being bound to non-violent, unintimidating and non-abusive picketing? Having to show that all genuine members were balloted? Not having to have a true majority of the membership vote for strike action? Being able to strike for up to 12 weeks without threat of job loss?

What part of TUPE is weak or unfair? I've been TUPEd twice and my pension, salary, holiday and privileges have all been protected so I've never lost out. I may not have gained the privileges of others but why would that be unfair? I signed an original contract without duress for a set of conditions I believed to be reasonable in the first place.

"Thatcher's anti-union legislation hasn't exactly made us in UK a shinning example of growth. Our economic performance lags behind that of Germany, and even reputedly public spending-addicted France. " We've had over 20 yrs to repeal anything Maggie did so laying this at her door is Unionist platitudes rather than constructive collaboration with employers and government to address genuine injustices. How many years of Labour rule did we just have?

"...formally recognise a trade union and workers on the shop floor often know what makes a company tick" - Point of order, a union is not mandatory or a pre-req to successful working practice or competitiveness. A will to work hard even in adversity and having the right product (a capable product giving best value) are key. In these austere times more than any other that's about keeping costs down rather than over-delivering on quality.

Good relations come from mutual respect between the management and each employee. This is what's needed for a productive workforce as is a collective pride in product, competitive drive to as able as possible and a true sense of what is a fair reward for one's labours. None of this needs a union, it all stems from the values and beliefs of each individual in the organisation.

"The law in Germany and France, for example, makes it much, much harder for a company to sack people or simply up sticks and relocate - we just need that level playing field to compete fairly." That "level playing field" would prevent companies from changing their circumstances to increase their competitiveness, thereby driving them out of business. Employment is not a right. A worker is not entitled to have a job near where they live. Address the cost of living and financing and perhaps then we'd have more competitive industries.

"If the only way of quantifying an individual's worth is how much we pay them then we're all doomed!" It's a fact that a Tube Train driver's worth has been set at a minimum of ?30k+ by continued Union militancy that is our downfall.

"UK labour law is some of the most restrictive in Europe and the developed world." I think if you examine the law a little more closely you will find that unions have had a significant and arguably anti-competitiveness impact on our labour laws too. Health and safety strictures born from a "compensation culture" are also to blame.

"Strikes aren't at an 80-year low because of our anti-trade union law, it's because people are fearful for their jobs as the government's cuts kick in." By inference if people weren't afraid for their jobs we'd be having a lot more strikes in the UK? This of course making us hugely competitive in the international arena!

"increase compensation for discrimination" and the wider compensation culture does not enhance labour relations or increase competitiveness. It is absolutely deleterious to a business entity's ability to deliver a best value product. Compensation should be limited to lost earnings to date. Officers of the company suspected of discrimination should be wholly accountable at their own disciplinary prosecutions and equally liable to lose their tenure with full loss of exit privileges and full culpability for any criminal proceedings thereafter. Companies should only be compelled to improve their processes to prevent further discrimination. Punitive financial damages serve nothing more than to threaten the prosperity of a company and its remaining employees.

Back to OP.

This matter should be solely between the guilty individual, LU/TfL and the tribunal. The union has no reasonable justification for inflicting inconvenience and cost on millions of unassociated people., indeed their only justification should be deemed criminal extortion. I would be wholly in favour of the ability to lodge a class action suit against the RMT for the full compensation to both individual travellers and their dependent employers. All workers and employers should be legally bound to resolve their disputes through mediation and to abide by the rulings handed down. I say this personally, as a non-unionised employee of LU proud of the service it is commissioned to provide in the face of militant sabotage and infrastructure legacy. The irony is that a large no. of the some 20,000 employees of LU depend on their colleagues and "bruvvahs" to get to work, how's that for fostering good working relationships.

What're the odds that Bob and his Crow-nies will hatch something in the run-up to the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee? The sooner this serpent is made impotent the better. The RMT leadership recently rejected a pay offer above inflation for TfL staff thus thumbing their noses at the 20,000+ non-member colleagues that work there. The sooner we can automate the trains the better.