One Day Strikes and Solidarity on British Railways

Previously we had concluded that the instinctive solidarity of train drivers and guards on the railways, and resistance to the attacks on living and working standards of the workers on London Underground, provide a basis for a real rank and file movement, tending to overcome sectional and industrial divisions, and keeping their struggles out of the hands of trade union leaders who side with the bosses and their state.

There are three main unions involved in the railways-Aslef (Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Enginemen and Firemen), RMT (Rail, Maritime, Transport) and TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs Association).  As indicated by its name Aslef was formed in 1880 to represent all the workers driving steam engine trains.  By their very nature they had to work together, and these roles have been consolidated into the present role of train drivers.  The RMT was constituted by the joining together of the former National Union of Railwaymen, National Union of Seamen and Transport sections.  TSSA represents and organises various jobs and grades across different rail services, stations and other parts of the railway network.  Only Aslef organises a distinct workforce that is capable on its own of bringing the rail network to a halt.

The long-standing working arrangement was for both the train driver and the conductor/guard to be on board for the train to be ready to leave.  If either one was delayed, or not available (because of rostering problems, or delays), that train service was subject to delay or cancellation.  Previously there had been flexibility in train crews, if other staff are available as replacements.  With staffing cutbacks this has been increasingly difficult.  Now the pressure is on to get the train drivers to leave, if necessary, without the equivalent of a guard being present on the train.

The affinity of interest between the drivers and guards is based upon mutual concerns-the guards are fighting for their jobs (as well as their skilled roles) while the drivers are safe-guarding themselves from taking any blame if accidents or emergencies arise.  The introduction of new trains, whether Driver Controlled Only (DCO) or Driver Operated Only (DOO), can hardly be resisted-it is the staffing arrangements and procedures which will be the battle-ground. The actions of both unions’ leaders have been preventing a unified struggle from taking place.

A Second Train Drivers’ Secret Ballot

After the eight-point TUC-brokered deal between Aslef and Govia (the Southern Rail franchise bosses) had been clearly voted down by Aslef members in a secret ballot in February 2017, Aslef went back to have further secret talks with rail bosses.  This time there wasn’t the “arbitration” conducted at the TUC but direct collaboration between the Aslef union leaders and the rail bosses.  A second agreement was reached about circumstances in which “their” union members (train drivers) would take trains out without a second member of staff present-whether designated as a guard or as an On Board Supervisor (OBS).  Ignoring the hostility of the rank and file Aslef members in taking out trains alone, the Aslef leaders wanted to show they could deliver a deal the rail bosses wanted – that they could be partners with the rail bosses in future reorganisations in the rail industry.

The second deal was quickly agreed but as a secret understanding (not to be made public) which would go to a secret ballot of Aslef members.  

Unsurprisingly the nature of the Aslef/Govia deal was leaked to the media by photos on mobile phones.  The latest deal involved a five-point agreement on when trains could leave without the second member of staff, based on a presumption that they could deliver the compliance of the train drivers. The five situations agreed were: Late notice of OBS absence; OBS delayed in getting to work; delays by late running services; OBS dealing with emergencies; error on the part of the driver or OBS in leaving the OBS behind.

Enormous pressure was brought to bear on Aslef members working on Southern Railways to vote for the secret Aslef/Govia deal, which was nevertheless voted down by an even narrower margin, of less than 4%.  It proved to be a decisive rejection of Aslef leadership’s collaboration with the rail bosses.  After that the Aslef leaders abandoned further attempts to get the train drivers to leave without a second trained member of staff (equivalent to a guard) being present.  Subsequently the Aslef drivers on Southern Rail voted to re-impose an overtime ban, which was due to commence in early June.

The RMT leadership warmly greeted the results of the second Aslef train drivers’ ballot after almost a year of one-day strikes.  This had removed a potential strike-breaking role by the Aslef leadership, which the train drivers in any case would not agree to.  RMT general secretary Mick Cash followed up by writing to the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady demanding that the TUC reconvene talks with Govia and Aslef, this time with RMT participation.  This only shows that RMT, for all its declarations about being a “socialist trade union”, will not face up to the class collaborating role of the TUC (of which it still is a member).

Further RMT One Day Strikes

Southern Rail management had been insisting that they required the change in the role of the guard because of the investment in the introduction of new DOO trains, whereby the train driver would be able to control the opening and closing of the train doors.  The new trains will not be introduced for at least two years.  But it is not just Southern Rail that wanted this change in the role of the train guard.  It is clear that the Government had factored in the staffing reorganisation (the downgrading or elimination of the role of the guards) for any state investment in rail network modernisation programmes.  The Government’s Office of Rail and Road (ORR) recently stated: “ORR’s view is that with suitable equipment, procedures and competent staff in place the proposed form of train dispatch intended by GTR-Southern meets legal requirements for safe operation”.  

Southern Rail was not alone in its insistence on forcing through changes, even though it will be two or more years before new trains are introduced; other train companies were also clamouring for similar staffing cuts.  The RMT’s one-day strikes were spreading across the North of England.  Not only did that affect Northern mainline routes but also the regional Merseyrail (which is in the public sector and under the control of Labour-led local authorities-a similar situation to London Underground).

The RMT one-day strike on March 13th began as usual with a limited service across the rail networks affected.  The usual assurances given by rail bosses, that trains could leave safely with only the train driver controlling the train doors, had a particularly hollow ring on Merseyside.  During the day Aslef train drivers refused to cross RMT picket lines, in defiance of the Aslef leadership, bringing the whole network to a halt.  At the same time an RMT Merseyrail guard, Martin Zee, was on trial at Liverpool Crown Court, prosecuted because of an accident which had happened at Birkenhead Hamilton Square Station in June 2015.

The accident and the court case that followed highlighted the importance of safety on Britain’s railways.

The Acquittal of Martin Zee

At Birkenhead Hamilton Square Station there are three curved platforms as the tracks enter and leave the rail tunnel under the river Mersey.  Access to the platforms is by way of lifts which were converted to passenger operated, with station staff being available usually just at the upper level.  The safety of passengers on all three underground lines is left to the train guards.

The Liverpool line follows the outer side of the curve, which creates a blind spot for the guard at the rear of the train.  Zee consequently has to walk further out onto and down the platform to ensure passengers have boarded the train safely. He then has to walk back to the rear carriage to close the train doors.  On this particular day, while the train guard was returning to the rear carriage an 89-year-old passenger had fallen out of the train door onto the platform ending up by the rail track.  Having become aware of the incident Martin Zee (who was following all the procedures in which he had been trained) stopped and secured the train and together with the train driver was able to get the passenger safely back onto the platform.  Had he not spotted the passenger and acted swiftly, she could have been trapped as the train set off. A rail management enquiry exonerated Zee of any fault.

However, the British Transport Police and the Crown Prosecution Service brought Zee before a Court using the archaic Offences Against the Person Act 1861.  Even though the case against Zee was widely regarded as “threadbare” the RMT was hardly proactive in defending its member.  There had been some leaflets issued by RMT close to the time of the trial suggesting a strike if he was jailed-it would have been a bit late then!  It turned out that a rail industry expert had been present on the platform at the time of the incident and approached RMT offering testimony as an expert witness.  Having heard nothing from RMT, he assumed the case had been dropped, couldn’t believe it when he read in the local paper that it was going ahead, and approached the RMT a second time.  This rail expert, along with passengers present at the time of the incident, gave evidence at the trial, ensuring that the jury threw out the case against Zee two days later (March 15th) with a unanimous verdict.

It was therefore clear that the CPS’ decision to take Zee to court was politically motivated and vindictive. The response by rank-and-file railway workers and the travelling public put that of the RMT and Aslef leadership to shame.

RMT’s Opposition to Foreign Control of Privatised Franchises

According to the RMT, three-quarters of the privatised rail franchises are now wholly or partly controlled or owned by foreign states or companies after a Hong Kong based company acquired a 30% stake in South West Trains.  The foreign-owned franchises include some private companies, but others are German, French and Italian state enterprises.  RMT’s chief complaint seems to be that profits were being shipped abroad to subsidise commuters across the globe.  This bout of patriotic flag-waving ignores the fact that the high price of train fares in the UK (significantly higher than other European countries) is the result of a deliberate policy of successive British governments to place as much of the financial burden of railway costs as possible on rail commuters, while allowing the train operators to rack up profits.  The attacks on rail workers come from British controlled franchises and the public sector as well as foreign-owned operators.  This is a continuation of the politics of former RMT General Secretary Bob Crow (a Stalinist who died three years ago) who was behind such campaigns as “Say No to the EU: Yes to Democracy”.  This kind of patriotic-democratic “left-wing” unionism has of course led the British working class to a number of catastrophic defeats, notably the National Union of Miners under Arthur Scargill in 1984-5.

The RMT, in collaboration with some trotskist organisations, were the main sponsors of the Trade Union and Solidarity Campaign (TUSC) which stood candidates in various elections.  Under Bob Crow’s leadership the RMT disaffiliated from the Labour Party and campaigned on a platform of “left-wing” (in reality, nationalist) policies, although TUSC abandoned putting up candidates against Labour in the recent General Election, as Labour has itself embraced more nationalist policies (including rail nationalisation) under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

The open collaboration of the Aslef leadership with the rail bosses, and the disorientating tactics and campaigns of the RMT make it increasingly necessary for rail workers to take their struggles into their own hands and create their own rank-and-file organisations with a class-based political orientation.  The existing trade unions (like all the rest) on the railways collaborate with the rail bosses, and the state, for the modernisation and efficient functioning of the industry.  These unions divide the workers and prevent a real fight back against the state-organised attacks on wage rates and working conditions.  Whether the rank and file workers will be able to establish more control of their struggles or establish breakaway union organisations will be determined by their own needs.