Network Rail strike called off

Submitted by Anon on 13 August, 2006 - 4:57

By an RMT member

Network Rail operational staff have won a 35-hour week — but after an unacceptably long wait and at the price of being locked into a two-year pay deal. Workers will get 3.2% for this year and an inflation plus 0.75% increase in April 2007.

In fact management agreed the 35-hour week a full five years ago, at which point the union should have piled on the pressure for NR to deliver without strings. But instead railworkers faced an insulting offer tying the shorter working week to pitiful annual rises and no progress on important issues like staff travel.

Rightly, RMT balloted for strikes, got a big yes vote, and named dates.

Then it suspended the action so members could consider a new deal. Bob Crow called it “probably the best in the industry this year” and told the press that the union would recommend accepting the offer before the Executive had even discussed it!

But rank-and-file reps saw new offer as little better than the last one, and insisted the Executive recommend rejection. The members soundly rejected it.

Again the union leadership named strikes and again callied off the action for an offer only marginally better than the previous one — the current deal, the two-year pay deal, this time not even seeking reps’ views before making their recommendation.

Too often, the union names strikes just to call them off. If workers get to expect strikes to be cancelled, the union could be in real trouble when it does have to go ahead. Union officials should see through employers' tricks. If they want a two-year deal, they will offer a three-year deal, then pretend they are making a concession when they reduce it to two.

We could have held very effective strikes. With signallers out, few trains could run; we could have further strengthened it by getting drivers out.

Instead, the union alienated its members, then used their resultant demoralisation as an excuse to settle. Having no faith in their leaders to fight for more, members will of course vote to accept whatever was on offer.

What should we do now? Stop thinking that the purpose of a ballot is to get the bosses to negotiate. In any dispute we should seize the initiative and keep it. When we get a result for strike action there should be a strike. Members voted for it: they should get it.

If this brings management to talks then good. We must negotiate and strike at the same time.

The problem is a bureaucratic approach to disputes. The issue is seen as revolving around talks, with the workforce as a tap to be turned on and off. This lets management call the shots. They can let the ballot run, see the results, then decide what to do.

The unions should look for ways to encourage participation, eg. setting up local strike committees. More people get involved during strikes. We can show them why they should stay around after the strike, go into the branches, help build the union.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.