A few days ago the strikes affecting Southern led the Daily Mirror to call on its front page for the railways to be nationalised. Er - just how exactly would that help? I expect it would help the already too powerful unions get their way. The strikes would be settled and service, after a fashion resumed. Some folk might think that things had improved, for a while, until the next phoney dispute. But the rest of us would know that an opportunity to improve productivity and efficiency had gone for good.
I have come to the conclusion that the left is right when they say that the Tory trade union laws are unfair and don't work. It is now absolutely clear that said laws are far too weak and that they discriminate against consumers, in particular the customers of large, public sector funded, monopoly enterprises by providing totally inadequate protection against militants acting without even a hint of reasonable justification.
There have been suggestions in the press (not the Daily Mirror, mind) that unions should lose their protection against bring sued for the effects of strikes. I'm not sold on that idea, as I can't see how you would decide whether the action was justified in many disputes where there are often many more than 50 shades of grey. Who can decide whether a war is a "just" war?
Well, if a union adamantly insists that its action is on the grounds of safety and argues against driver operated doors, when its own members have operated such trains safely elsewhere on the network for decades, the union signed up only 8 months ago to allow driver-only operation when the guard is not available and the relevant safety authority sees no concern, then we can be sure that the unions are having a laugh. Except that it's not funny.
So maybe financial sanctions is the answer. An answer there needs to be as management need to be able to manage. Roles need to be able to be redefined. Change has to be accommodated, nay, embraced. The alternative is the equivalent of keeping the man with the red flag in front of the vehicle. Or living in what amounts to Cuba.
I don't buy that not being allowed to strike is some form of slavery or serfdom. Employees are free to walk and get another job, which wouldn't be difficult in an economy that is close to full employment and constrained by labour shortages. A job as well paid as a railway job, though? Not so easy. And why should they I hear some folk say? Because the idea that a railwayman has to always work in the railway is part of the "job for life" attitude that belongs in the past, I reply.
And if you thought for a millisecond that the Southern dispute was about safety, or job security, or even just more dosh, here's Sean Hoyle, president of the RMT: he says "rule no. 1" for his union is to "strive to replace the capitalist system with a socialist order". Together with his unsavoury comment about drowning the bosses in spit.
At this point I start to feel a little sorry for the foot soldiers in this war (the rank and file union members), as well as those who are collateral damage (the travelling public). Apparently they have been asked to vote for up to 56 days of strikes in 2017. Now, if they don't get paid for the days they don't work, that's a quarter of their salary. One suspects that, somehow or other, it doesn't hurt them as much as that, or there would be no question of them voting for it. If it doesn't hit them in their pockets, why not? And then I remember that they elect their leaders and feel a bit less sympathy.
But at least these turkeys have voted for Christmas - time off at Christmas. Just like the BA strikers. A couple of days off before Christmas? Lovely! But it's easier for the flying part of the travelling public to decide not to go by BA in the future, if they want to get their own back. Rail passengers generally don't have that choice. That's why the price for working in the railway - and earning an inflated salary by doing so - should be to forgo the right to strike.
Nationalise the railways? I've got a better idea: nationalise the unions. Always remember, when these people advocate nationalisation, that their organisations are actually in the private sector!
PS I drafted much of this last week after reading the Daily Mirror headline. By the weekend the Sunday Times had run an editorial on much the same lines as above, just a bit more temperately worded.
Of course Phil the answer is, as always, a Liberal one.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whose hands the enterprise is in but who can most efficiently and effectively manage it. That sadly is the difficult question to answer because both nationalised and private companies have often failed to deliver public services well.
Vested interest will always win over customer service. Just look how poorly our buses are run since privatisation. The very concept of customer service seems utterly lost on the private operators. Buses don't turn up, they run early, they don't run at all and the poor old customer is told nothing, offered no compensation and bus drivers seem not to give a damn. I am not saying it was utopia before Bus Deregulation but it is very bad now following it. And let's not forget that Government has always kept London buses regulated; I wonder why?
But back to the rails. The problem is us and them; well I would say that as a Liberal would I not. Depending on what perspective you take on the UK railways they are The Government, Network Rail (recently nationalised), its contractors, the private franchise operators, the rail unions or the customers. You could add into that pot the Passenger Transport Authorities in the major cities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Who are 'us' and who are 'them'? It's a complex muddle and it is easy for one part of this muddle to blame another part with the customers usually being the victim.
My view, having been a railway enthusiast for many years, is that the Liberal solution is a mutual one where everyone involved in building, maintaining, running and using our railways has stake in their success. Yes, even as a life-long trade unionist even I doubt that nationalisation will cure the ills of the railways.