Bob Crow - helped by silence

I am mindful that next week Britain will ground to a halt if the proposed RMT strikes go ahead. Over the last week and a half I have tried to keep up with the news, so at the moment I have whirring round my head ballots, Network Rail (NR), the RMT and rather unsettlingly, Bob Crow. I have, however, been startled by the coverage of the industrial dispute, as it seems to me that there is a number of imbalances in the reporting that inhibit the reader in making up their mind as to where the truth lies. Are the strikes justified? Is safety going to be diminished if NR implements the changes as Bob Crow says? Or is he merely protecting the jobs of the RMT's members?

I am astounded that there has been very little detail in the media as to where NR will actually will be cutting staff. To read the press reports all you will hear is two things. Firstly, 1500 maintenance and signalling jobs are being lost, and secondly there will be changes to maintenance and signaller's working patters. This, I suspect, doesn't give a populous, whose knowledge of railway operation is limited at best, the most accurate idea of the changes at hand. I feel that a more explicit statement, detailing the alterations in working patterns, may go some way to allow for people to form a balanced opinion of what the actual issues are. This said, with Bob Crow, General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, (RMT), simply yelling that safety is at risk, most people are inclined to believe his interpretation. This is a failing of NR's PR, and hands Crow an easy press victory.

However, underlying all the yelling a dialogue was taking place between the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) and NR as to the changes in working patterns of the maintenance staff. Within this dialogue Crow did superficially appear to get some support from the ORR, who raised some concerns about the safety implications of the new arrangements. He stated that the ORR's statements were “nothing short of condemnation of NR's cost cutting plans.” Yet what this betrays is the truth of what the ORR's concerns were.

Closer inspection of what the ORR's Chief Executive, Bill Emery, said, show up that Crow's statement on their concerns was clearly influenced by his own views. Emery stated that “we would have serious concerns if NR presses the 'go' button without being ready.” Clearly the 'without being ready' part of the statement is essential because Emery's comments do not condemn NR for implementing alterations. Rather, the concern of the ORR is to make sure that the new maintenance arrangements are achieved in an ordered, effective and safety-conscious manner.

Indeed the ORR's concerns boiled down to a number of key points. Firstly, there was the issue as to whether junior managers under the new arrangements may have to work longer hours, while still having to make essential decisions with regard to safety. Secondly, there was a concern that changes had not been adequately tested before implementation across the country at the same time. Thirdly they were worried that the performance of trains on the West Coast Main Line may suffer, and lastly that NR would classify certain jobs that were safety-critical as 'non-productive.' Overall Emery and the ORR was worried that NR may be “skimping on planning.”

Ian Coucher, Chief Executive of NR wrote a letter to Emery on the 2^nd March addressing all the points. Firstly most of the changes proposed had been tested across the network and West Coast Main Line performance would not suffer. Secondly managers would have controlled working hours. Lastly the classification of certain jobs (basically track-gang look-outs) as 'non-productive,' would mean that track-gangs would have to work in safer 'green-zones,' where the line was closed for maintenance, rather than 'red-zones' where trains still run as work is being carried out. In addition Coucher argued that, 'we also want our people to start to think about productivity and efficiency, and what else they can do to add value to the task...for example cleaning out signal lenses while they pass them rather than sending out another team.' On the face of it, and let me clarify that I am no engineering expert, these seem reasonable counter arguments. Further, I think that for a publicly-funded body such as NR to want to economise is not unreasonable.

But this dialogue is hidden from the public unless you read the railway press. All we hear is Crow banging on about safety. However this is quite clearly Crow's default argument and he uses it time and again. I cannot think of one industrial despite involving the RMT where Crow doesn't state that safety is being compromised. Indeed, the RMT is about to ballot tube drivers on London Underground's proposal to remove staff from 800 stations. This, in Crow's opinion, would compromise passenger safety as it “will turn Tube stations into a muggers paradise.”

In reality Bob Crow uses safety as a tool to add weight to his argument and gain public support. This therefore shrouds his actual concern, protecting the jobs of his members which he is entirely entitled to do. Indeed the ORR's Safety Director, Ian Prosser, told RAIL magazine that the dispute regarding maintenance arrangements was actually about the fact that maintenance staff would loose overtime and have to work more weekends. Yet because we have heard very little from NR (and the ORR) about what is actually happening to maintenance arrangements, the loud voice of Crow rings out unopposed. This allows him to frame the debate, lead the media in one direction and ultimately influence public opinion. If NR and the ORR actually said more in public, tried to educate the public about these changes and how railways work generally, then Crow's growing influence on how the media reports strike action may be diminished. Further it may also lead to more measured and rational criticism of NR by the public, which the that isn't simply based on the RMT and Bob Crow's agenda.