Railways hit by strikes over pay

Rail services in parts of England and Scotland were disrupted by strikes in January 2002 over pay comparisons with drivers made by other workers. More fundamentally, the disputes reflect a fragmented and privately-owned railway system. While the trade unions talk of a return to national bargaining as a way forward, the government has raised the prospect of compulsory arbitration.

A wave of industrial action hit the British rail network in January 2002. Three 48-hour strikes were scheduled at South West Trains (SWT) by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), which represents non-driving staff. In the north of England, the trade union announced four days of strike action at Arriva Trains Northern (ATN). At the same time, an unofficial overtime ban by ScotRail drivers in Scotland resulted in the cancellation of a quarter of its trains, and rejection of a pay deal by staff at the Connex South East network brought the number of operators affected by the wave of conflicts to four. Industrial action also threatened to spread to the London Underground network when rail unions accused management of reneging on a pay deal to close differences with night-time drivers on engineering trains.

The SWT and ATN disputes result from the companies awarding larger pay rises to drivers, who are mainly represented by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF). A shortage of drivers has resulted from excessive redundancies made as part of cost-cutting exercises after privatisation in the mid-1990s, leaving the train operating companies (TOCs) competing vigorously to recruit and retain staff. Labour market pressures for other employee groups are generally not as acute. However, guards, conductors and ticket staff belonging to RMT have become increasingly resentful at what they see as 'second-class' treatment. Drivers are themselves making comparisons with terms and conditions offered to similar staff in other companies. The ScotRail dispute, for example, resulted from drivers making pay comparisons with those at GNER, which provides services from London to Scotland. In December 2001, similar pay comparisons by ASLEF between rates for British and French drivers led to industrial action that cancelled a quarter of Eurostar's scheduled cross-Channel services.

The disputes, which have coincided with labour unrest in the mail company Consignia, raise implications for the future of industrial relations in the rail sector, and public services more generally. They also pose questions concerning the government's plans to reorganise and finance the industry.

A return to national bargaining?

In a bid to resolve the escalating industrial disputes, ASLEF submitted a report to government ministers proposing a return to national pay bargaining. ASLEF said that a collective approach to pay negotiations would bring an end to the 'leap-frogging' in the rail industry that had forced up drivers' salaries and led to strikes. It could also help close skills gaps and end driver shortages. The union said: 'We will make the case and hope they see the sense of it. The present state of industrial relations demands a better way.'

Rail operators and the government have been reluctant to consider a return to national bargaining in the past, on the grounds that it was impractical and might strengthen union power. A few TOCs are thought to have discussed greater cooperation on pay, especially given greater consolidation in the sector, but there appears little appetite for joint collective bargaining. The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) said that such an approach would be 'a retrograde step' and its director-general, George Muir, said: 'Instead of local strikes, the threat would be national strikes, as we saw in the past. Pay differentials are a part of life, and national bargaining can't get rid of them.'

In its response, the Strategic Rail Authority said that it was talking to operators about the issue and 'is prepared to think out of the box on pay bargaining', though it did not express support. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister was also cautious, and said that the central issue was how to deal with problems when bargaining breaks down. Some reports suggested that the government was considering whether some form of arbitration mechanism might be appropriate to resolve collective bargaining disputes in essential public services.

Compulsory arbitration?

The rail disputes highlight the potential for conflict in the sector, but not all TOCs have experienced problems. A 'partnership' agreement between RMT and GNER has facilitated closer working relations, and resulted in an agreement at the end of 2000 to standardise employees' working time to the 35-hour week enjoyed by drivers. However, other companies, many of which are new to the industry, have been less willing to cooperate with the unions.

Reflecting growing concern about the spread of industrial disputes, Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed recourse to strike action as outmoded and 'totally unacceptable'. His official spokesperson said that ministers might consider a range of options, including compulsory formal negotiations with an independent adjudicator before strike action could be considered. However, the unions said that they would fiercely oppose any attempt to legislate. Mick Rix, general secretary of ASLEF, said: 'We would never accept it.'

The government's strategy for the sector

The government was eager to dissociate itself from responsibility for the situation after Peter Hain, the minister for Europe, described the UK as having 'the worst railways in Europe' and admitted that the government had started investing in transport too late. The government outlined its plans to overhaul the country's national rail system, committing GBP 33.5 billion in public investment before 2010 to upgrade trains and stations and to improve safety on the network. A further GBP 40 billion was expected to be funded by private investors. However, bankers and analysts warned that the Strategic Rail Authority could face difficulties in implementing the plan, since the strikes and the government's decision before Christmas 2001 to force Railtrack into administration have hit City confidence about investing in the industry. Michael Roberts of the Confederation of British Industry said: 'Clearly operating conditions have got more difficult, so there are more risks and this looks more challenging.'

Commentary

The railway sector has been in a state of crisis for some time, and the strikes are only the most recent manifestation of this. Under-investment has resulted in deteriorating performance and contributed to serious safety problems. Privatisation fragmented the industry and led to redundancies and cost-cutting, setting the context for the present wave of disputes. Lately, the government has also mishandled its dismantling of Railtrack and has yet to demonstrate that it has a convincing future strategy for the industry. Through all this, railway staff remain amongst the most highly organised groups of workers, and the privatisation of the industry has increased their willingness and ability to take effective industrial action. Strikes can be targeted locally at specific operators which, as profit-making private companies, command less employee loyalty and are more vulnerable to stoppages than was the state-owned British Rail.

The threat of strike action has certainly led to improvements in the terms and conditions of staff, especially for sought-after drivers. ASLEF won a 35-hour week and consolidated pay by 'ratcheting up' on a company-by-company basis. The RMT was also successful in the summer of 2001 in resisting proposals by the TOCs to extend driver-only operations, and to dilute the safety role of the guards. The RMT is now taking a leaf out of ASLEF's book to achieve pay and hours gains for poorer-paid workers who are especially aggrieved at the TOCs' differential treatment of drivers, and to protect its members from company-imposed change. With the TOCs slow to embrace partnership deals and other accommodations to help manage the process of change, the unions' approach is, from their own point of view, eminently sensible. Passengers might not agree, but given their enduring experience of regular cancellations and delays, overcrowding and some of the highest prices in Europe, may also lay the blame elsewhere.

Attitudes will harden, however, if the disputes persist, especially as company wage offers appear generous relative to inflation. In these circumstances the government might feel obliged to be seen to take action to restrict the freedom of public service workers to strike. The government has hinted that it might intervene to make strike action more difficult, possibly through some form of compulsory arbitration, though it is not clear how this would help where relationships have broken down. Much therefore depends on the frequency and duration of the disputes and the resultant public mood. (J Arrowsmith, IRRU)