Anti-strike laws

The official end of the latest round of rail strikes is unlikely to bring much relief to passengers, given that members of the Aslef union are still refusing to work any overtime until Sunday. But why was the disruption allowed to happen in the first place?

Passengers were assured last year that travel chaos would be mitigated by new laws designed to ensure that 40 per cent of timetabled services would be operated during strike periods. Since July, railways have been one of a number of industries where employers are entitled to issue a “work notice”, requiring unions to provide staffing to support a minimum service level. Yet this has not been enforced once in the past 10 months. What is the point of having this legislation on the statute book if even state-run operators are unwilling to deploy it?

The Government has been swift to pin blame on rail companies, but some believe the legislation is poorly drafted. The timescale in which an agreement would need to be reached is arguably too short, and it involves negotiation between multiple organisations, which would be very difficult to coordinate. Lawyers have warned that, if implemented, the plans would face legal challenges. This needs addressing.

Rail users ought to be furious that minimum service levels have been ineffectual. But with commuter rail travel volumes still far below pre-pandemic levels, some clearly see strike action as yet another excuse not to go into the office and to work from home instead. At a time of stagnant growth and declining productivity, the country must get back to work – on the railway and across the economy.