Railway strikes- I think they are overdoing it

[MushMonster]

So, many people in UK commutes for work, many take the trains. I am one of them.
I do love the service, the apps are great to buy tickets and find train timetables, they run really well, even if delayed tend to be just 30 min or so, it is comfy. Also, it is electric, so better for the environment. I walk from and to the station, so it keeps me fit.
When the strikes started I just ut up with the inconvenience thinking that they were facing some redundancies, so protesting against that or low pay, I support.
But it has turned since las set of strikedays and this week into a strike against the consumer, from my point of view.
When they walked out last time, I got stuck in the city I work for 4 hours. The buses were fully booked and ran with delays. There had cancelled all the trains, not even a single one was on the timetable. I witness a large amount of people stuck for hours on end after a full days work or travelling with huge cass and children. The buses were fully booked till after 12 at night! So what I witnessed was actually only a fraction of it. When I caught the coach next day, the driver was warning passengers that on Wednesday London was so packed that coaches were delayed for 5 hours to get into London.
This time aroud, they published a set of dates, then they changed them, but I have read that in London they have walked out one day early. Changing the dates was to accomodate a busy weekend in London. So there must be another huge amount of people left stranded.

Trains are a vital service to me.
But they are cancelling a huge amount of trains on week long strikes.
Changing dates means they affect people who had planned around the original dates. They cost the commuter more money and stress. People are using buses and coaches yamming roads and polluting. People arrive late to work or back home, missing important things.
Newspaper today mention 600 million of cost to this country, to the tax payer, us who struggle with the cost of living.
I do not see this affecting anyone else bit the user. The train company will only return the money from the train ticket, not cover for the cost of the bus or driving or other alternative.
If they were reducing services, like running one train per hour instead of 30 min, then nobody would be stuck for hours on end, it will be only an inconvenient. The train company will have to return the ticket price if you train is in the delayed lot. But they are cancelling all trains at some points in UK.

Now, they know very well what they are doing. They know what is happening to all those stranded passengers. They know that the buses cannot cope with the amount of people, let alone the traffic due to people driving.

I think they should not be allowed to cancel more than 10% of the services, that they should grant alternative routes within 60 min of the trains they cancel, that strikes should not last more than one day per week and they should publish the revised detailed timetables for each station as soon as the strike date is set, so we can plan our commute.
So, what do you think?

AIBU- You support the strikes as they are currently
AINBU- They need to calm it down and provide a good basic service on strike days

The strike action is working. The employer has now entered into negotiation.

Never forget who could have prevented this dispute from escalating so far in the first place, or who if no one else, should have the clearest insight into the level of disruption strike action would cause. On both accounts that would be the employers.

It should also be remembered that the UK has some of the most draconian anti-strike legislation in Europe. To meet the legal threshold for strike action there must be at least a 50% turnout in the strike ballot. That should give a good indication of how thoroughly overworked, underpaid, underappreciated and despairing so many workers in the UK currently are.

If not, here's a flavour. Nurses are balloting for strike action. Likewise junior doctors. Likewise the school teachers' unions. We might see closures in the new year. The PO are currently striking. The University and College Union just achieved a 57% turnout in an aggregated ballot - meaning every university in the entire country will be affected - with an 81% 'yes' vote.

Our essential services are on their knees and workers are at the end of their rope. If employers continue to refuse to budge and any of these unions decide to join forces, we could well see something not dissimilar to a general strike in the not too distant future.

I say bring it on. As for essential services, the government has a responsibility at minimum to provide a decent transport infrastructure and education, and has done a good number on privatizing both. If you turn such services into an aggressive, competitive, capitalist business model, this is the inevitable result.
Thanks for nothing, Blair and Major, no wonder HE and the railways are in the state they currently are.

Sorry - haven't read all of the thread.
in this instance the strikes on the 5/7/9 November have been called by the RMT union which is the union for signallers and other staff …these staff earn significantly less than train drivers (who are not on strike on these dates but obv can’t work if their are no signallers to make sure the trains are safe to travel!)
If they did not inconvenience people how would companies take them seriously?
Staff who take strike action DO NOT GET PAID and with the cost of living crisis do you not think they have to really think about whether they want to strike or not.
they know it’s inconvenient for people but this is THEIR LAST RESORT!

NB. I forgot to mention the disgraceful behaviour of P&O toward their entire staff body whom they sacked during the spring by email, replacing them with unqualified crew. This led to safety-critical issues which resulted in numerous ferries being confined to dock. You now couldn't chase me onto one of their ships with a red hot iron held to my butt-cheeks. I'm old enough to recall P&O's former company name - Townsend Thoresen - the reasons why that name is tainted and the rationale behind why they discarded it. Seems they still haven't learned.

It was P&O staff in the spring. Next time it could be any of us.

Not just a railway job, it needs to be a driver's job (at one of a select few TOCs and you'll need to do a hefty amount of overtime) for the headline salaries you've been reading about. No point applying for one of the roles facing redundancy! And for the record, OP, you were the one who said several times that the money looked good compared to your job. I've no doubt yours is a valuable job and I want to be clear I say that with no edge or sarcasm.

I don't think anyone has said you shouldn't post here, certainly I haven't so I'm not sure why you've mentioned that.

And yes, the gods of time can be tossers. Blame away, I blame them for plenty!

What exactly are they striking over? I'm not entirely clear on that?

I recall an election manifesto in 2008 where a candidate promised to bring industrial peace to the city they hoped to be Mayor of. Then one in 2019 promising legislation to require a minimum level of service as I understand may be the case in German law. Yet none of this has happened.

No prizes for guessing whose name was on both manifestos.

Time to revert those changes. To get our services in good conditions and change, for which we need general elections.
Many people have very good reasons to strike, but let's face it, we cannot close hospitals, for example! The need for a new legislation that covers minimum services during strikes is crystal clear to me, yet allowing people to state that they support the strike!

Bollocks. If those basic services are essential then they should be paid commensurate to their level of importance.

But surely you can see that serves no purpose whatsoever? These strikes have been effective because of the impact they've had - if the number on strike were reduced by x% then the impact would be reduced and therefore wouldn't have got them their requests.

The posts upthread by stopringingme help explain - it's conditions and hours which in turn have a knock on effect to safety. As well as wages for workers at the bottom end of the pay scale.

Oh excuse me. Strikes should only occur if convenient to everyone. You are being utterly insane.

I think you’re blaming the wrong people. Strikes inevitably cause inconvenience. If they didn’t, why would they bother? The fact that it’s got to the point of strikes is a failure of management.

Look up ROSCOs. They are rolling stock companies. Much of your ticket price goes to them and they are rolling in cash (no pun intended). These companies rent/lease the rolling stock to the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). This is why it's so broken...you can call yourself a TOC, win a contract to run a line, without much capital up front, so it's a low(er) risk investment. You have to pay a ROSCO exhorbitant amounts to lease their stock. You're also needing to pay stockholders. So the easiest thing to skimp on are...cleaners, train crew, station staff, who get paid very little.

No, it works on other countries ever so well!
You can perfectly have 99% of medical personnel on strike, for example, but they will be at work covering the minimum or above minimum services (so let's say, 50% or more are working and getting paid).
I suppose the secret lies on that neither the company or government ignores that they are on strike just because a good part of the service is still provided. And press puts these things on the front cover when is about essential services, with full follow up. To put pressure, usually they get closer to the minimum service as usually they provide a % above it as to minimise the effect on the user when it comes to critical services, like medical services, for example. The minimum service is clearly listed in legislation, by the way, not pulled out of thing air.

No, it works on other countries ever so well!

So does working enforced overtime, being imprisoned for protesting against conditions, long hours for little pay, no holidays, no health and safety considerations, few opportunities to address bullying or to raise a grievance.

Be careful what we wish for.

I'm bowing out as we're at loggerheads but that makes no sense. 99% on strike but 50% working?

Also, it being listed in legislation is just plain wrong.

Is that correct, that striking workers get no pay? I’m sure I read that the Union pay striking workers. My dad went on strike a few years ago and was paid by the union. But I’m absolutely no expert in this so I’m more than happy to be corrected.

No. You don’t get paid.

There is a hardship fund I believe but I’m not aware of any payment from the Union to all striking workers.

So those on strike really are not doing it lightly.

No, we don't get paid. And I'm not aware of a hardship fund.

Striking isn't done lightly, especially by those at the lower pay grades

There is worriedmum

The RMT National Dispute Fund.

(1) Not everybody is a train driver or on a train driver's salary.
(2) Multiple unions are involved.
(3) Multiple employers are involved - Network Rail, and the individual train operating companies.
(4) As a result, different groups are striking for different reasons.
(5) It's not all about pay. It's also about terms and conditions, and the potential impact of those T&C changes on safety.
(6) Some of the strikes have been called off, but you'd need to check which to determine whether your individual journey is affected.
(7) Don't believe the headlines or soundbites.

Thank you.

JenniferAllisonPhillipaSue

👍🏼

@JenniferAllisonPhillipaSue a post as good as your username 👏

I think the tory fatcats are over-doing it.

If the people who run these services where treated better and adequately paid are you willing to pay more for your ticket then? No because every year the prices go up and people moan. Well you cannot have it both ways either. Its not a race to the bottom. Rights and pay should be protected as much as possible.