Staff and strike action

RAIL magazine prides itself on allowing everyone to have their own opinion. For example, Nigel Harris and Christian Wolmar sit in opposite camps on privatisation, but Nigel quite rightly allows Christian to voice his own opinion.

So, while I respect Mike Thompson’s letter on staff assaults ( Open Access, RAIL 901) I must disagree with him. It comes over that he condones such behaviour, although I doubt that he does really.

His attempt at ‘union bashing’ fails in that he says: “The strike weapon is an important bargaining chip to be used responsibly in

sorting out pay disputes.”

In my opinion that is exactly what the strike action has been doing. Train operators have agreed in principle to have a second member of staff on trains, but will they be safety-critical, as guards are? If not, then their pay will be reduced accordingly. So, it appears to me that wages are being protected by the strike action.

I have also read that some trains may have to run without the second member of staff where no such person is available. I take this to mean, therefore, that the second person will not be regarded as safety-critical - in which case, who is responsible for evacuation procedures in the event of an incident? The driver has to protect his train, and depending on the nature of the incident he may well be incapacitated.

Let’s not fool ourselves that these strikes are to protect workers’ salaries from being disposed of, so that the money can go on dividends and on undeserved bonuses for senior management.

Roger Wragg, Cheshire