Well over 100 RMT reps discussed the casualisation dispute on Thursday, the majority view being that the union should follow TSSA and call off the planned strikes.

There were, however, some calls to continue the action, albeit in a different form. Tubeworker supports this view, but it turned out to be a minority.

Over two dozen reps gave their views. All agreed that the unions’ fight so far had pushed management back from some of its attacks, but there was some difference of opinion as to the extent of this. Some argued that management’s offer was actually pretty good, could be seen as a victory for the unions, and that RMT should accept it. Others pointed out its several and significant failings. Tubeworker agrees with the latter view.

Many reps raised criticism of the union's handling of the dispute, highlighting in particular a perception of 'tailing the TSSA'; the delay in deciding to make this an all-grades battle and involving non-station grades; and patchy provision of information and publicity. Several reps made the point that if the union did not learn from these mistakes, it would repeat them, and when management came back for more attacks, we could find ourselves back in the same room regretting the same failings and calling off another strike when we would rather keep up the fight.

As mentioned in previous comments [1], there was no vote at the meeting. Some attendees got the impression that the decision had already been made. But there was quite a wide discussion, and the final decision did reflect the majority view expressed by those who spoke. Of course, the problem with not taking a vote is that you don’t register the views of the big majority who did not speak!

Later the same day, RMT’s National Executive voted to call off the strikes [2]. The union told members very quickly – rather more quickly than it had told them of its decision to call the strike in the first place!

At a (smaller!) Tubeworker meeting the next day, we had a very useful discussion about the dispute. Check back to the blog for an assessment of the dispute and in-depth looks at the various aspects of it.