There are Good Ways for Unions to act - This Isn't one of Them

I believe that Unions are important. After all, I am in one. Unions exist to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that they have safe workplaces, to fight for a fair wage for a days work and to defend their members when harassed. This is why they were created, and this is what their mandate should be. Later today, I find myself venturing to London on the day of the TSSA and RMT’s third one-day tube strike. I’m actually quite lucky. I will arrive at Waterloo and will end my journey at Euston. As such, I will only use the Northern line; one of the few lines that operates a relatively good service when a strike is on. I will not, therefore, have to make one of the many difficult journeys that will be undertaken by other London commuters trying to get from A to B. And all this, because the two unions involved are not behaving like unions are supposed to.

Some weeks ago I wrote three blog entries charting the history of the 1911 railway workers strike which was conducted by Britain's four main railway unions. This action was primarily a response to the fact that the railway companies of Britain paid their employees poorly, while making them work exhaustive hours with poor safety precautions. Therefore, the strike action was a response to a set of circumstances which, by any reasonable measure, needed to be changed.

However, this strike action, which is over the closure of ticket offices, is not really about ‘safety,’ pay or even hours. I know that Bob Crow likes to bang on about safety like no tomorrow. But I believe he uses the ‘safety’ argument as a smoke screen to protect revealing his own agenda.

I cannot remember the last time that I purchased a paper underground ticket, maybe two years ago, maybe three? Why exactly do we need to keep so many ticket offices open? The short answer is that we don’t. Over the last 5 years ticket office sales have dropped by 50%, only 1 in 20 journeys start with a visit to a ticket office and 80% of journeys are now made with Oyster cards. Therefore, Transport for London’s (TfL) plans to close many ticket offices across the London Underground network seems, from an economic standpoint, entirely justified. This is an especially pertinent point when these ticket offices are funded by the taxpayer and we are in a time of economic stringency. Of course, this has meant that there will be 800 job losses, but TfL have repeatedly and categorically stated that that this will lead to no compulsory redundancies and no loss of earnings for existing staff. Therefore, the staff reductions will be brought about through ‘natural wastage.’

Yet, Bob Crow repeatedly states that the closure of ticket offices will reduce the safety of the travelling public. Yea right. Think of this, if there is a passenger-related safety issue to be dealt with, it is not the people in the booths who deal with it; it is the individuals in the main station area. Therefore, the reduction of ticket offices will have no effect on how these issues are dealt with within the station. Indeed, I suspect, given that three quarters of ticket offices were actually open on the last strike day, and that it is primarily the drivers and maintenance workers that are on strike, that ticket office workers themselves are unconcerned by the cuts.

Subsequently, if the RMT and TSSA’s members are on strike, but there will be no changes in working conditions for them as they are not the ones who will be affected by the cuts, it begs the question as to why the action has been taken? In my opinion, this is about the unions gaining the political upper hand in the face of future adversity. The RMT are one of the most militant unions, with one of the most hard-headed leaders it has had in a generation. With cuts looming, Bob Crow has long since woken up to the fact that his member's jobs will increasingly come under threat. Therefore, he has used the first industrial relations issue to start to fight his corner, to assert his political position, even though the matter at hand is in reality an issue that doesn't primarily affect the RMT's members.

Thus, he may cry out that the safety of the public is compromised, but in reality, Crow's aim can only be to force TfL into a position whereby he can fight later battles with the upper hand. If the unions won this dispute, it would be like tacit consent being given by TfL that they could not make changes regarding staffing issues without their consent. Thus, in the long run, a successful strike action would mean the RMT and TSSA's members' jobs would be more secure.

However, the problem with Crow hijacking the issue of ticket offices for is own end, is that he is now a bit like the boy that cried wolf. At the end of the day, most of the public can see the need for the ticket office changes and support them. Subsequently, in the future when the unions really need our support with some justifiable strike action because of potential cuts or job-losses, many of us just won’t care because our trust in the RMT and the TSSA will have been eroded to the point of non-existence. Many will no longer see them as protectors of their members, rather, they will be perceived as bullies that cannot face reality.

Thus, there are good ways for unions to act, and this strike action is not one of them.

Goodbye Mr Coucher, you won't be missed

This week something shocking and unexpected occurred in the rail industry. After three years in the job, Iain Coucher, (shown) the Chief Executive of Network Rail (NR), who own and maintain Britain's rail network on the taxpayer's dime, stepped down. He won't be going immediately. He'll stay in place to help choose his successor. Now of course everyone had differing opinions on Coucher and his legacy.

Bob Crow of the RMT predictably stated that this was an exceedingly good thing. “As far as we are concerned it's good riddance to Iain Coucher,” said Crow, "He has presided over a culture at Network Rail that has attacked jobs, working conditions and rail safety while his salary and perks have gone through the roof." On the other side of the fence was Anthony Smith, the head of Passenger Focus, who praised what Mr Coucher's had done for the humble passenger, "Britain's rail passengers will thank Iain Coucher for what he has achieved at Network Rail. His relentless attention to getting more trains on time... has helped underpin the gradual rise in rail passenger satisfaction over the last few years." This was reiterated by a number of voices in the industry such as, Bill Emery, the head of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), who regulate NR, who said that Coucher had "major contribution to our improving mainline railway.”

With the first two individuals it is easy to understand why they made their comments. Bob Crow quite understandably attacked those aspects of Coucher's leadership that he perceived as affecting his union members' interests. Coucher clearly was on a weighty pay packet. Even though he waived his £150,000 bonus last year, he still received from a 'management incentive scheme' £150,000 on top of his £600,000 per year salary. This, so I am told by the papers, is four times the Prime Minister's pay packet. Therefore, while jobs amongst NR 35,000 workers are on the line, NR had Britain's highest paid public 'servant.' Indeed, Coucher was reported in The Times as having said that he would, '...refuse to take a pay cut and that he is worth every penny of his £613,000 salary.” This arrogant attitude betrays in part the culture within NR's higher echelons and even though Coucher waved his bonus last year, his management team did not. Crow's other comment does, sadly, hit the nail as three NR workers died this year. Indeed, the ORR did issue five prohibition notices and 21 improvements notices about safety. As such, as Ian Prosser, the ORR's safety director, said no one in NR's management should receive a bonus. Therefore, Bob, for once we are in agreement, this man did get paid far too much.

On the other side of the fence there is Passenger Focus. OK, this is QUANGO. Basically their role is to stick up for you, me and us, as passengers. They are always the ones that come out and complain about fare rises, they also measure passenger satisfaction. You see, they are one of last government's favourite kinds of QUANGO. It looks good, but is utterly useless. Anyhow, they are happy because Iain has made the passengers happy – simple.

It was Bill Emery's comment that was the most interesting as Iain, I'm sure, doesn't like Bill. On the 30^th April Bill wrote a nice letter to NR regarding the performance of the company this year. He described NR's year as 'mixed'. He was complementary about passenger safety and the performance of the railways generally. Basically, because of NR ,as a passenger you are safe and on time. But, Bill also stated that the ORR was still concerned with the “Lack of progress with some regulated performance requirements, your asset management competence and the weakness in timetable planning, all set in the context of there being three worker and contractor fatalities during the year.” Overall he said that, “we are disappointed that it has too often been the case that...you only make progress when we press you to do so.” Shocking really isn't it. Under Coucher NR isn't really doing its job, and as such the ORR needs to occasionally take out the poker to do make it operate effectively. This, therefore, is a problem that can only be laid at his door.

Then the next thing happened after this damning letter, was that NR published its accounts on the very next day...oh dear. Coucher revealed that revenue was down from 6.16 million to 5.69, principally due to the ORR cutting rail and freight operator's track access charges so as to force NR to make efficiencies. In addition the ORR reported that NR overspent by £149 million or 17% of its budget. As such the report showed that, NR spends too much and is receiving less money from the train operators. On top of this, with the financial crisis about to hit it hard, NR will be receiving less money from central government. This therefore a worrying time for NR, but more so for us as we fund it.

The problem with the mass-media coverage of the entire NR/Coucher resignation story is that very few sources focussed on the crux of the issue. Very sad as they were, the three worker deaths should not have been the main talking points. Indeed, their mention was usually tagged onto mention of Bob Crow's comments about safety. Further to this, every newspaper, website or journal focussed on the bonuses far too much and in a sensationalist manner. This is because we are in an age when the bonus as a concept in business is being attacked. While it is important to scrutinise bonuses, they are in reality a drop in the ocean, in NR's monetary terms and should not have received that much coverage. In my opinion, there was one gaping hole in the coverage of the story.

The coverage failed to talk about what happened to NR's finances and management under Coucher's leadership, which in my opinion was the most important issue as we pay for it. Therefore, very little commentary stated that NR uses money like liquid gold, a symptom of its corporate governance being, as described in the comments by the ORR, shockingly bad. Firstly, a recent regulatory review found that in comparison with European railways, NR is between 30 and 50 percent less efficient in spending on maintenance and track renewal. Bill Emery has said that “it's very clear that the railway industry [in Britain] does not stand good scrutiny with its peers on costs.” NR did claim that under a new 5 year cost reduction plan they were reduced by 7%, or 86 million, in 2009-10. However, this isn't reality and all that happened was that a number of projects were postponed meaning that infrastructure projects will just build up in a back-log.

Further, by NR's own measures, it stated that it had improved efficiency by 4.9%. However, this was instantly and comprehensively dismissed by the ORR, who said that in reality efficiency had 'gone backwards' in both operational efficiency and maintenance terms by 2.5%. Indeed, if things keep going like this the ORR has said that NR's debts would bankrupt the industry (yes you heard me, that's Britain's entire industry) by 2020. Its debts stand at the moment at 23.8 billion, and hence why I said that bonuses, while important to look at, are a drop in the ocean. Overall, NR's corporate governance is clearly in a mess and costing the taxpayer dearly. Therefore, the blame can only be laid at Coucher's door.

With mounting pressure and scrutiny, I therefore feel that Coucher's resignation shouldn't have been that surprising. But, I ain't complaining. I think it is good that Coucher has gone because at the end of the day, while he has been at the company since it was formed in 2002, he has overseen a period when NR's spending was unacceptably high by every measure concocted. The problem with Coucher's appointment three years ago was that he was simply promoted from being deputy Chief Executive, and subsequently didn't bring new ideas or a fresh pair of eyes to the job. Thus, he clearly allowed the continuation of inefficient working practices, mismanagement and cost inefficiencies that had been developed in the five years before hand under his predecessor John Armitt. Crucially, he didn't make the changes necessary to improve NR's corporate governance, and was, therefore, clearly the wrong man for the job. In the era of fiscal responsibility, what is needed at NR now is a new Chief Executive that is, a) not appointed by anyone in NR, b) has the ability and the knowledge to assess NR's costs and make efficiency improvements, and c) has the strength to sake the management of the company out of its complacency. These qualities are vital so that the taxpayer's money isn't wasted.

Why this was a big week for the rail industry

What with election fever and volcanoes, the fact that it has been a big week for the railway industry in Britain has largely been ignored by the media. I'm not talking about all those extra trains laid on by Eurostar to get people to and from Continent, nor the extra services put on by railway companies to move people around this country. I am instead talking about two pieces of news that may affect the humble traveller in the future. The first may leave you grinding your teeth, while the second may, depending on your perspective, leave you dancing for joy.

Arriva

On Thursday Deutsche Bahn, (DB) Germany's national rail operator and the world's second largest transport company, took over Arriva, who run buses and trains throughout the country. They did this for the not inconsequential fee of 1.59 billion. Of course the Daily Mail went wild, bemoaning the fact that yet another British Company was now owned by the evil foreigners. What also made the situation worse for the Mail was the fact that DB was a German company, the online headline being 'Now Britain's railways are taken over... by Germany.' Of course they handily forgot that Arriva themselves have engaged in overseas ventures, currently running trains and buses in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. But hey, the Mail only hates the global market place if British companies are threatened; if they are taking over companies elsewhere I suppose they see it through the prism of a new financial British Empire.

Another person that went mad, reputedly representing another interest group, was Bob Crow General Secretary of the 'Rail, Maritime and Transport Union' (RMT). Firstly, before I quote Bob, I'm going to give a warning. In the quote I will provide, it will refer to safety. But please, don't take it seriously. Anyway, are you ready? Bob said this was a "huge step in the wrong direction for rail workers and passengers". He also stated that "It should sound a warning that we're heading towards a dangerous monopoly of rail and bus services across Europe in which profit comes ahead of safety and service." There, now wasn't that fun. I think a more measured response, but equally unrealistic, came from the leader of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA), Gerry Doherty, who said: "If Germany believes railways should be run by the state in favour of the passenger, why don't we do the same here in Britain?" In short these union chiefs simply gave rabbit-fashion sound-bites, reverting to their default positions of attacking the usual suspects of privatisation and corporate empire building. While I am against both of these things, I think that the unions should provide constructive criticism so as to stimulate discussion and allow for debate, rather than reverting to the old positions that we know they are going take. In addition, I think these unions should try and cooperate more with the industry. At some point they have to get used to the fact that the franchise system isn't going away and will have to work better with it. But then, as we'll see later, one union is.

I think that the comments of the Mail and the unions should be ignored regarding DB's new acquisition (although a consistent policy of ignoring the Mail should be adopted). A more objective approach to the takeover should be taken, weighing up the pros and cons of what DB can give to the British rail industry. Firstly lets be clear, DB is already in out midst. Firstly they already own Chiltern Railways (from January 2008) as well as what was known as 'English, Welsh and Scottish Railways', Britain's largest freight haulier, now called DB Shenker. This therefore gives us, especially in the case of Chiltern Railways, a good benchmark as to the level of service we passengers can expect from the new owners.

Guess what, Chiltern is a pretty darn good company. Over the period of 10^th January to 6^th of February 2010 94.2% of all their trains arrived within 5 minutes of schedule, the fourth highest Train Operating Company (TOC) for performance. Further the company service very rarely has less than 95% of trains arriving outside of the 5 minute window in any measured period. In addition Chiltern was the first railway company to pilot e-ticketing, allowing customers to print off their ticket or have it sent to their phone as a bar-code which is then scanned at the station. Since April 5^th 2008 40,000 such tickets have been sold, significantly speeding up the time passengers spend waiting and queuing at stations, and improving their overall convenience. Further, on 14th December 2008, and in connection with Network Rail, the company opened a new station, Aylesbury Vale Parkway. This is a new terminus sited 2 miles north of Aylesbury, that reopened this part of the line. The company has also spent considerable money on improving and refurbishing their rolling stock.

Lastly, Chiltern agreed the Evergreen 3 project with Network Rail in January 2010. Firstly, this is to upgrade some Chiltern's main line, as well as doubling the line between Oxford and Bichester, allowing trains to run from Marylebone to Oxford direct. Secondly it will upgrade the Chiltern Main Line between Marylebone and Birmingham, that will allow 100 mph running, reducing journey times from 117 minutes to a mere 92. Overall, Network Rail say that their costs will be recovered by a 'facilities charge' that Chiltern will pay for the next 12 years (the charge to be taken over by whoever holds the franchise in 2022 when Chiltern's expires).

Chiltern also benefits from a longer franchise that most TOCs, and in 2002 the then owners signed a 20 year contract to run the service. This means that the company has been able to propose a raft of bold projects that will improve journey times, enhance the passenger experience of rail travel and make the company more efficient. A lot of the proposals that I am going to cite were initiated under the previous owners, Laing, however DB have not, to my knowledge, put a hold on any of them. Indeed many of them have been proposed after DB took over in January 2008.

In cooperation with Network Rail they have a range of improvements They want to lengthen platforms at South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Saunderton, Kings Sutton, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Sudbury and Harrow Road and Northolt Park to accommodate eight coach trains to improve capacity. They hope to add an extra track (to make the number up to four) between South Ruislip (Northolt Junction) and West Ruislip, double the line between Princes Risborough to Aylesbury and reopen the link between Oxford and Princes Risborough. In addition, their goal is to build an interchange at West Hampstead which would allow passengers to connect with London Overground, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and First Capital Connect services. Further, they wish to re-open the line between Aylesbury to Bedford via Milton Keynes and the line from Oxford to Bedford. Lastly, and I do think this is a little 'pie in the sky,' they also want to extend Oyster Pay-as-you-go to Aylesbury and High Wycombe.

These are just some of the many ideas for improving the service that they have provided. I think whether you agree or disagree with the franchise system or corporate empire building, under DB Chiltern has consistently acted as we would wish a franchise holder to. They have attempted to improve the service for travellers by investing in the infrastructure, improving the rolling stock, running to time and making the traveller's journey more pleasant. Therefore Chiltern have become since 2002 an industry leader, acting as a benchmark against which all other companies are measured. DB's recent takeover of them has not affected this position and has even improved it. When DB acquired Chiltern in January 2008, they knew what an ambitious and forward thinking company they were getting, as well as the fact that they had a long-term franchise commitment. As such because Chiltern have continued with their ambitious plans and still generate new ones, I think that this must represent that DB also have an ethos of network, performance and service improvement.

Therefore, part of me is pleased that DB have acquired Arriva. It will expand the benchmarks against which those companies that do not perform well and which are driven by veracious profit motive, such as Stagecoach and National Express, can be measured. Further it will allow the passenger and service orientated ethos that Chiltern posses to spread to other parts of the British Railway industry. Lastly, and most importantly, we may see more investment, better trains and a better ride for our buck on Arriva owned TOCs.

East Coast

Earlier in my post I mentioned that I thought Bob Crow of the RMT and Gerry Doherty of the TSSA should try and work with the franchise system as it isn't going anywhere soon. The potential for unions to interact with the franchise system was given full expression on Monday when the Train Driver's union, The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), announced that they were going to bid for the East Coast franchise that is currently run by the state after National Express had the franchise stripped from them. They will run it as a not-for-profit company, meaning that all the revenue could be re-invested in the service and potentially allowing the fares to be reduced.

Surprisingly, this news did not receive much coverage, probably the result of a big ash cloud. Indeed I had to be alerted to it by my friend Katie (thanks Katie). But this is very important news, and if ASLEF succeed in their goal then it may signal a change in the way that we start thinking about Britain's rail franchises. Firstly, as I have stated, we all have to get used to the fact that the franchise system isn't going away and that re-nationalisation is not on the cards. None of the three major parties have committed to it in their manifestos and with the massive national debt it would not feasible for the government to pay off the different Train Operating Companies and take over the services. Therefore ASLEF have shown us that their may be cooperative route to pseudo-nationalisation, that will reform the privatised network that will keep costs low, improve services and reduce fares. With sketchy information it is not clear how this proposal by ASLEF will pan out, but I feel that it is an exciting move.

Conclusion

Perhaps the events of this week, have signalled the start of the 'mature phase' of the privatised railway network, where an ethos of good service and dedication to customers can proliferate and where new ideas come to the fore. Perhaps, even, there may be a case for saying this is when the privatised network may even start to work, and maybe, at last, we can start again to have a railway network we can be proud of. But then again...we'll see.

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.