It will lead to chaos

The government’s Anti-Strike laws as seen by the keyworkers who will face the sack if they refuse to cross their own picket lines

RMT report, May 2023

“It will lead to chaos and will break the industry altogether”:

Executive Summary

As RMT takes another day’s strike action in its dispute with the Train Operating Companies and with the government still pushing its Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill through Parliament, the union surveyed its members employed by TOCs, Network Rail infrastructure and London Underground asking them what they thought the impact of the new laws would be.

There were 6,318 responses in just over 24 hours and their message was unequivocal.

• 93% of rail workers said that Minimum Service Levels would worsen industrial relations in their workplace

• 90% of rail workers said that being served with a Work Notice would make them more determined to support their union and win the dispute.

• 96% agreed that Minimum Service Levels would prolong disputes, forcing unions to take more and different forms of action

• Rail workers agree that Minimum Service Levels will increase sickness absence across the industry

In addition, RMT can reveal that the Train Operating Companies’ representative body Rail Partners agrees with its workforce saying that the news laws could lead to more strikes and increased disruption.

93% of rail workers said that Minimum Service Levels would worsen industrial relations in their workplace

92.7% of rail workers surveyed said that Minimum Service Levels would worsen industrial relations in their workplace.

It 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

will

Loss of Good Will on Rail

It

Many respondents noted the poisonous effects that work notices would have in dividing colleagues against one another as some were served with work notices, backed with the threat of dismissal, while others were enabled to strike legally.

But they also stressed that any implementation of this legislation would immediately destroy any remaining goodwill and drive a wedge further between staff and employers.

“It will cause friction and tension between management and frontline personnel, leading to an unpleasant work environment and will breed apathy and resentment.”

“The railway runs on goodwill and it would forever damage relationships and affect services for the public as the scars will remain for years to come.”

“No one likes having to strike, but being forced to do something is far, far worse.”

“Staff will become very anti-management and not be so inclined to assist where needed like before. Going above and beyond will be a thing of the past.”

“Any trust and goodwill would go out the window.”

“It will agitate staff even more. Also, it will likely prolong ill-feeling and staff will likely be less flexible long term, even when we aren't in a dispute.”

“It will make employees that are forced to break the picket line more resentful towards the company which will affect their work ethic. Employees will be less productive and less likely to put themselves out for the company which would have a knock on effect for customers and the running of the railway.”

“In my 17 years of experience working for London underground there needs to be a lot of goodwill and flexibility from both workers and managers to achieve a worldclass rail service all year round, year on year. I believe enforcement of such a Draconian law would shatter the good will from workers for a long time to come.

“It would erode such a fundamental workers right, that industrial relations would be utterly smashed and bring conflict that I would never have envisaged in this country.”

Many respondents reported that good will was already at a low point and that any attempt to introduce Work Notices would only make it worse.

“The Railway has already lost the trust of it workers and the good will if any was left will be out the window. We will work and do what is required but that’s all.”

“A lot of good will keeps the trains moving where I work, this will cease if I'm forced to cross picket line.”

“There will be animosity between management and worker grades, no one will cooperate.”

“It will turn colleagues against middle management and the company.”

“We used to help because we loved the railway. That has been destroyed by the antagonism of the TOCs”.

“For staff to have to come to work during future strikes, and for management to have to issue demands for this to happen would have an overwhelmingly negative impact on working relationships and, subsequently, on performance.”

Rail industry employers agree

It turns out that the Rail industry employers share these concerns. Rail Partners, a new industry body representing Train Operating Company employers, identified one unintended consequence:

“The delivery of work notices and ensuring compliance also risks significantly overloading HR teams in operators. It further risks putting HR teams and wider operator teams in challenging situations with unions and the workforce –relationships that operators work hard to build.”

Rail Partners also identified some of the risks associated with the punitive threat that staff can be sacked for refusing to adhere to a Work Notice.

“The legislation set out by the government proposes that those who fail to fulfill a work notice would lose their protection against unfair dismissal. Under a scenario in which a significant proportion of those issued work notices fail to fulfill them, operators face a situation where they could lose a large portion of their workforce if they follow dismissal procedures. In following these procedures, operators could find themselves having too few staff to run a normal service following industrial action. This situation would be even more acute if dismissal procedures were followed with critical staff, including train drivers.”1

Workers won’t cross picket lines

Many rail workers identified the threat of dismissal as a particularly heinous part of the legislation, presenting those served with a dilemma of betraying their colleagues by crossing the picket line or facing the removal of their livelihoods by their employer. Many considered this to be tantamount to dictatorship, handing all power to employers.

But many others identified the destructive consequences for employers, further wrecking industrial relations and employment relations and pitching employers into further disputes:

“I'll get sacked because I'll ignore it.”

“If members were sacked it would take between 6 months and 2 years to recruit replacements, so more chaos cause by the Tory government.”

“Workers will not want to cross the picket line. I would not cross the picket line and would do whatever it takes not to. If that means workers all call sick or develop food poisoning because they all happened to be at the same restaurant the day before, so be it. I can see employers using this to force trade union reps into work. We will refuse and be disciplined or sacked.“

“I for one will go sick to avoid crossing my own picket line if there were no other option. Disputes may never be resolved and hundreds of workers sacked or disciplined.”

“If I was to be issued a work notice, I will not cross the picket line. I understand that I could be sacked but to have your right to withdraw your labour undermined by such vicious and atrocious legislation is a step too far! We have a very strong mandate for strike action and I foresee many people defying these work notices. The logical conclusion is that they will have to sack those that refuse but when they have sacked everyone one that defies a work notice how do they expect to actually run the railway with such depleted staff?”

Sacking safety critical staff will compromise operational safety

Some respondents pointed out the impact that such sackings might have on operational safety in a safety-critical industry:

1 Rail Partners written evidence to the Transport Select Committee, Q10 https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/119139/pdf/

“It took 3 months training before myself and other new colleagues were qualified to do safety critical duties unsupervised. If we have to be sacked/suspended for refusing to work on a strike day, my employer is unlikely to be able to fill the gaps in the rosta for a long time (especially if peer trainers have also been sacked!) This will lead to either cancelled services, or dangerously understaffed stations leading to unsafe services.”

90% of rail workers said that being served with a Work Notice would make them more determined to support their union and win the dispute.

If you were served with a work notice by your employer which meant you would have to cross your union’s picket line during a strike or face sanctions from your employer, which of these statements best expresses how you would feel?

It would make me more determined to support my union and win the dispute

I would not mind I don’t know

Responses

96% agreed that Minimum Service Levels would prolong disputes, forcing unions to take more and different forms of action

If the government presses ahead with legislation to force rail workers to provide a Minimum Service Level during strike action which of these statements do you think will best describe the result:

Responses

It will prolong disputes, forcing unions to take more and different forms of action

It will make no difference to the dispute

It will improve the prospect of the dispute being settled

90% of rail workers said that if they were served with a Work Notice it would make them more determined to support their union and win the dispute, while 95% agreed that the implementation of Minimum Service Levels would “prolong disputes, forcing unions to take more and different forms of action”

Rail employers – and even the government - agree

It turns out that both the government’s own impact assessment and the Train Operating Companies’ employers’ body ‘Rail Partners’ agree with rail workers’ assessment.

Rail Partners’ evidence to the Transport Select Committee echoed this, warning that one unintended consequence of the MSLs legislation would be that unions would launch more and longer strikes and find other ways to take effective action.

“The introduction of MSLs may change the approach that workers take to industrial action – for example with staff choosing not to work additional hours/rest days, which can lead to staff shortages and service cancellations. Additionally, if the legislation reduces the impact of strike action on a given day, it could mean trade

unions increasingly vote to take strike action more frequently which negates the aim of this policy.“2

The government’s own impact assessment on its first iteration of this legislation noted that “In addition to the potential increase in strike action prior to MSLs being introduced, a further significant unintended consequence of this policy could be the increase in staff taking action short of striking. ….A similar risk is an increased frequency of strikes following a Minimum Service Level being agreed. This would reduce the overall impact of the policy as although service levels would likely be higher than the baseline, it could mean that an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term.”3

More and longer disputes and strikes

From the frontline, rail workers reported that this legislation will make strikes more common and result in longer disputes:

“Staff would dig their heels in over the slightest thing, if anything it would make strike action more common.”

“It will mean we have to plan for longer and more industrial action.”

“It means more strike days, more loss of earnings, poor service for the company to its customers this has not been thought out. This will be a disaster for everyone.”

“It will just cause more disruption as more strikes will be organised resulting in more disruption due to minimum service levels.”

“It will only serve in making the Unions and their members more determined to fight on for workplace justice. (A feeling of collective injustice is a huge motivating force and would be a lasting mistake by this or any other government if carried out in a democratic society were free speech and free will matter above everything else.)”

“When strike action is less effective more will be required.”

Others noted that if people were sacked or disciplined as a consequence of refusing to cross a picket line having been issued with a Work Notice, it would make disputes more intractable or create whole new ones:

“It will only exacerbate the problems in any dispute. More disputes could arise for example if a colleague was disciplined for refusing to carry out a work notice - which I certainly would - then the dispute has all these other issues to resolve around whatever the original dispute was. Also could see a resurgence of ‘unofficial action’.”

2 Rail Partners written evidence to the Transport Select Committee, Q10 https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/119139/pdf/ 3

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1 112717/transport-strikes-minimum-service-levels-bill-impact-assessment.pdf

Crucially, many others argued that if leverage from strikes was diminished, unions and members would be forced to find other ways of exerting pressure, developing new and novel forms of industrial action.

“If the effects of strike action are diminished then different forms of action will have to be found.”

“It'll force unions to explore different ways of taking industrial action.”

One major theme in the responses to this question was the impact that an overtime ban or work to rule would have:

“There will be more sickness levels, work by the book, no doing favours and a slowing down of work schedules and processes.”

“An overtime ban would be inevitable, and the service delivery is dependent on free day working”.

“We would just work to rule and stop all overtime The railway would have even more trains cancelled.”

“Rest day working would stop. Work to rule increase.”

“People will seek other ways of missing shifts. People will go sick. People will be late on duty. It would have a detrimental effect on passengers.”

“Everyone will do as little as possible in the workplace and create problems so that service is not met.”

“I, for one will be refusing any overtime in the future. My level of cooperation, if this bill is forced on us will be zero with management at the company.”

“If the government force staff to work the unions could bring in longer sections of work to rule which would impact services and customers harder and for longer periods of time.”

“Unions and workers will have to be creative in how to disrupt and subvert.”

“Workers will find a way to fight. Always.”

This is an important issue. Because of the lack of resilience built into staffing at TOCs in particular, any overtime ban or work to rule would quickly derail plans to deliver a normal service and create more uncertainty for passengers.

If rail companies think that strikes called with two weeks’ notice are a problem for passengers, they will be entering a whole new world of uncertainty if this legislation is passed and implemented. And that’s before considering the impact this law will have on sickness rates.

Rail workers, industry leaders and employers all agree that Minimum Service Levels will increase sickness absence across the industry

Mark Phillips the Chief Executive Officer of the Railway Safety Standards Board (RSSB), a rail employer owned body responsible for developing railway safety, rules and standards, told a fringe at the Conservative Party conference in October that:

"It can be progressed, but it won't make the slightest bit of difference. If you introduce minimum service levels there's the huge issue of how is that level set and particularly if you set that minimum level and you've rostered staff to work then I would suggest then you'd probably have a much higher level of sickness arise because of that because people won't want to be seen to be breaking the strikes that their colleagues are involved in." 4

The employers’ body Rail Partners agrees. In their evidence to the Transport Select Committee they noted that “Finally, it is unclear how compliance with a work notice works if an employee declares themselves sick on a strike-day.”

Sickness absence on and around strike days also features strongly in the RMT survey. The single most common term in the qualitative responses (with more than 800 references) was sickness:

“I can see colleagues calling in sick and the new laws making things much worse.”

“Workers that are told that they must go to work may choose to find ways to not go such as sickness, both physical and mental, or may choose to seek alternative employment. Workers that are staunchly against providing minimum service levels will become more inventive in finding ways around it as will the unions. I cannot see how this will help any dispute being settled, only prolong it.”

“It would be chaos basically. There’d be so much anger in the workplace, people going off sick, anxiety, stress, people getting dragged through hearings for not turning up to their work notice... the list is endless.”

“Most people would not want to cross the picket line, so they would either go sick or face the consequences. Managers will have to deal with more paperwork and have more headaches trying to arrange cover, and the minimal train service promised to customers will be disrupted further causing more frustration.”

“I would be embarrassed to cross the picket. I would rather take off sick which will probably have an impact on my relations with my bosses which isn't great, but the strain on worker and bosses relationship is already at breaking point.”

“Well if I was picked to ensure a minimum level was achieved, I would be thinking of ways to ensure that I was not going to turn out, bluntly I would not be there.”

“People will pull together to make a group decision to all go sick which will make the business suffer just the same as strike action.”

“Unannounced and unauthorised absences, last minute sick calls leaving poorly planned services to either be run understaffed and potentially dangerously or cancelled.”

“I'd go sick if issued a work notice, I don't think I'd be the only one”.

“Members will not cross the picket line even if this law is forced upon us, ‘sickness’ levels will rise and will cause more disruption on the strike days as services will still be cancelled due to staffing issues”.

“People going sick or just not turning up, resentment building so people eventually not doing their job properly, bad relations in the work place - it’s also just morally wrong.”

Increased stress, poor mental health and operational safety

Many also noted that sickness rates would be likely to increase in any case because of the huge increase in stress around a strike and the service of Work Notices. The pressures associated with being coerced into work, with having to defy managers and being faced with the threat of dismissal would inevitably lead to higher sickness rates, again defeating the stated object of the legislation by diminishing the level of certainty any passenger would have that their services would run.

“There will be worse mental health and stress from having to cross a picket. More long-term sickness due to mental health and greater sickness leave post or pre action. The service will a lot worst in normal no action days as a result.”

“Higher levels of sickness due to stress and hatred within the workplace and outside of work. Poor relationships between work colleagues and management.”

Sickness levels would definitely go up as more people will suffer from stress and depression as a result.

“Mass sickness seen across the industry from work related stress.”

“If I was rostered to work I would go sick due to stress , I would never cross a picket line.”

“Staff booking sick, increasing stress and anxiety amongst staff, worsening industrial relations for the long term.”

“Increased long term sickness, people refusing to cross picket line”.

“People just going sick and off with stress due to the situation we would be put in.”

Many workers also raised the issue of risks to operational safety associated with the issuing of Work Notices. As the RMT has written to the Office of Rail and Road, this law will import new levels of risk into the system, creating dangers to operational safety. Rail workers also picked up on this in their responses:

“Increased sickness will definitely occur but more importantly, morale, which is already low, will plummet. This will result in people being less motivated to do their job, less motivation leads to lower standards, lower standards will lead to safety being compromised. It can only spell disaster for the rail industry and other industries as a whole and ultimately, the people most effected, will be the general public.”

“Staff will become overwhelmed with anxiety about being forced to cross picket lines and attend for duty. This will cause significant harm to people's mental health and will almost certainly increase sickness levels and increase the risk of safety of the line incidents as people's mental health deteriorates due to the stress and anxiety of the situation.”

“Going sick or taking annual leave is one thing that always happens, this leaves the work force short of staff, making longer work hours for the staff left over to cover,that causes fatigue and compromises safety as the company still expects the same levels of productivity”.

It is only necessary to point to Transpennine Express to see foreshadowed what this new normal might look like. Transpennine Express has cancelled 1 in 4 of its trains in recent months, blaming this extraordinary level of cancellations on "very high levels of sickness and a training backlog following the pandemic". As with Avanti and the loss of goodwill, staffing at TPE is run on a lean model and the slightest shock, whether through refusal to work rest days or higher than average sickness levels can create mayhem for passengers. This would undoubtedly be far worse in a case where Work Notices are served on staff and the effects could spiral. As Abellio Executive Jamie Burles told the Transport Select Committee,

“To achieve the Government’s aspirations, you would need to consider things such as the sickness point, which you mentioned directly. If there was to be the unintended consequence of higher sickness, the flexibility point is that you might have to issue work notices to a higher percentage of employees in order to guarantee being able to deliver the minimum service level.”5

In other words, it’s likely that the only way a TOC could overcome the likelihood of sickness levels rising would be by serving more work notices than it needs, multiplying the problem. And as employee relations deteriorated further, with little other legal form of redress and increasing workplace stress, sickness rates would be likely to multiply further.

Conclusion – Tyrannical and oppressive legislation that will wreck the industry

This report has focused not on the way these laws will grossly undermine rail workers’ human rights but on the practical impact they will have on the industry. What it shows is that there is a significant level of agreement within the industry, shared by workers and employers alike that they will end up creating more chaos and more uncertainty.

The final words should be left to two rail workers from the survey, who paint vivid pictures based on their working experience of what will happen if Minimum Services become law or are ever implemented.

“Like any other group of society when under tyrannical oppression - and I really do see this as an attempt to oppress workers - unions will figure ways around legislation, staff will figure out new ways to vent anger and disrupt services day to day”.

“There will be massive disruption and staff will leave the industry. Working relationships with management will suffer. The client will suffer and ultimately the passengers will suffer. If this is their idea of Great British Railways, like most things they dream up, it will lead to chaos and will break the industry altogether.”

5 Q85: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13069/pdf/