Becomes less attractive when one remembers what tube stations look like at rush hour. They are noisy, crowded places, with swarms of busy commuters bustling about and the lost and confused swept along in the tide. You can scarcely get around, or hear yourself think. Now, given this, consider what a bright idea it would be to have a clearly marked, easily visible office, where you can find a member of staff. At these offices you could make a purchase, or request some information, and the staff member would be able to hear you and would have access to a computer and a machine for issuing such purchases to you, or retrieving that knowledge.
As opposed to this, TfL plan to have staff milling around with electronic tablets to help. I'll be interested to see how long the average LUL-issued tablet lasts before it gets broken - or nicked. But, leaving that aside, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced of the virtues of the ticket office. Perhaps I just lack vision, but I fail to see how trying to track down a member of staff at Bank, at rush hour, with hordes of busy people rushing around, is an improvement. Then, once you find them, you have to try and get the information you need - presumably while other people gather round. Frankly, I'm starting to think it's a preposterous idea to move staff out of a clearly marked office, set aside for the purposes of issuing tickets and information, at which orderly queues can form.
In addition - picking up on the theft point I raised above - the ticket offices can provide a valuable place of safety for staff and a valuable place of warmth out in the open air stations.
2.2 Job cuts and corporate restructure
The ticket office closures, however, are far from at the heart of things. The unions might well have offered substantial resistance to the loss of all ticket offices, but who didn't see something like this looming? Moreover, it's certainly fair to say that the ticket office at sleepy Roding Valley sees little real business. Whilst it remains to be seen whether having a member of staff standing out in the cold would be better than having them in a control room or ticket office, a case can be made that ticket offices are really an anachronism in the days of smart cards and contactless payment.
No, the real issue is that, along with the closure of ticket offices, TfL are completely restructuring their station roles. 953 jobs are disappearing; but, as well as this - and most importantly - substantial numbers of higher-level positions are being cut. In a moment I'll explain what I've been able to discover (although this is really outside of my domain) about exactly how stations work at the moment and what's going to happen in the future. For now, though, one of the key points - and one that really isn't being brought out amidst the rhetoric - is that substantial numbers of staff are facing uncertainty over their futures and the possibility of demotion.
2.2.1 Stations today
Now, let's furnish that with a bit more detail, courtesy of "ASLEF shrugged."16 At the moment, we have 2,224 CSAs (Customer Service Assistants). From what I can tell, these are your workhorses - the people who man the gatelines; who do SATS (holding up the baton on the platforms at rush hour, to help maintain safety when passengers meet the PTI (Platform Train Interface), since they invariably make a mess of the challenge of getting onto a train); who break up fights; who deal with unwell passengers (until the paramedics turn up, at least); who help deal with the inebriated; who help deal with one unders; who help get you around and about; and who take all the abuse - and often end up getting assaulted - if, say, a signal has failed (the more observant of you will have noticed that the operation and maintenance of signals is nothing to do with the CSAs, but why should that bother the angry passenger?). They, for those of you familiar with the military, are a bit like the privates and the lance-corporals, really. This is the first rung.
Above the CSAs, there are 1,450 SAMFs (Station Assistant Multi Functional) and SACRs (Station Assistant Control Room). Certainly SAMF seems to be the next rung of the ladder - these are, I believe, your ticket office staff. Now, I should emphasise that they don't just sell tickets, they offer advice, they deal with problems with oyster cards, they issue season tickets, all that sort of thing. They are the shopkeepers of the Underground. I don't really have a military analogy for them, but I gather you have to earn a promotion to become a SAMF. The situation, judging by TSSA's "call to arms," is slightly more complicated, as I believe supervisors can also be classified as "multi-functional," which implies that it's not just SAMFs who can work in the ticket offices.
The SACRs are the control room staff. Here the military analogy works a little better and they are the Sergeants and the Corporals. They are the next level of authority - although only the larger, busier stations have them. They seem to be one of the biggest losses (although I don't think they will all disappear completely), with LUL deciding that staff need to become "more visible."17 I will give my views on this later; however it used to be thought a good idea to have someone in charge, in a nerve centre. Control room staff have a good view of the station as a whole, provided by CCTV; they can direct their "troops" around - sending them where they're needed; take phone calls; call the emergency services; see what's happening with the service at large; make announcements and so on and so forth. What's more, they can do this without being berated by the passengers, or swept along in the tide of commuters. Okay, well, with the preview for my rant against "Fit the Future" over with, suffice it to say that the SACRs direct the CSAs, in brief.
Above them are 1,771 SSs (Station Supervisor). My military analogies are pretty approximate at this stage. It might be better to think of these as Sergeants or Staff Sergeants, but the finer points of the analogy don't really matter. For now, I think I want to liken these to your Lieutenants and your Captains. Each station has a supervisor (by which I mean each station will always have a supervisor on duty - that obviously requires more than one Supervisor to be assigned to each station, since they don't work all day every day) and they are in charge of the station as a whole. It isn't easy to become a supervisor, it requires a license and is a considerable promotion. They run the station, they are in charge, they have a wealth of knowledge and experience and are responsible for directing their staff. Like Captains, Lieutenants and Sergeants, though, they aren't really managers - they don't hide behind the scenes. The "Supers" are definitely men on the ground, who "muck-in" with their "troops" and will, no doubt, work alongside their CSAs and deal with the passengers and liaise with the emergency services and play their part. Furthermore, they are the ones who tend to deal with contractors and help supervise work done on the station and so on.
Now, all London Underground stations are divided into 38 groups - each of which has a GSM (Group Station Manager). These really are management types, I believe. They are in charge of their group and all the stations within it; but I don't believe they carry out front-line services and I can't imagine they spend fantastically more time outside of boardrooms and offices than they do inside them. Nevertheless, I do believe they spend plenty of time on the ground, visiting their stations, dealing with problems, monitoring, managing and generally taking charge.
According to TfL18 their job description is:
Lead and motivate a team of Managers, Station Supervisors and staff to provide a World Class Customer Service at Stations. Ensure a safe, clean, efficient, comfortable and secure environment is provided at Stations.
Make of that what you will - although it sounds like a mere concatenation of buzzwords to me. I suppose they are the Colonels and maybe the Brigadiers.
Underneath them, however, you have 190 DSMs (Duty Station Manager). These are probably Lieutenant Colonels and Majors. They assist the GSMs and presumably do a lot of the management legwork. TfL19 give the job description for Duty Managers as:
To manage operational delivery activities within a specific area of the business and to contribute towards the effective and efficient delivery of the business.
I can only imagine this is the job description for a DSM, with the "specific area" being stations.
2.2.2 Stations tomorrow
It is not easy to find vast swathes of detail on LUL's plans - perhaps partly because they're still a tad embryonic. Nevertheless, "London Reconnections"20 inform us that, in future, stations will be grouped into four categories:
Under the original proposals (which, according to the agreement reached with the unions, should be subject to further reviews) there will be six gateway stations. These are essentially the large stations such as King's Cross St. Pancras and Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 where many people who are new to the tube will get their first taste of it. In other words, they're "gateways," they're transport "hubs," they're stations which serve major mainline stations or - in the case of Heathrow - an airport. Many visitors to London will find themselves at these stations first, they will enter the network at these stations. Gateway stations also see substantial passenger numbers. These will be the only stations to retain "VICs" and will also have 12 "visible" members of staff (as well - or so it seems to my untrained eye - as one other staff member, perhaps in the control room?) They seem to be intended to be the best equipped to accommodate large numbers of people who are new to London Underground.
Destination stations, almost all of which are in central London, are stations like Bank/Monument and Bond Street, which see large numbers of passengers. These are also "destinations," they're stations which many people descend on and they tend to see more exits than entries. They are, therefore, staffed accordingly. Less emphasis seems to have been placed on helping those new to the network, but they're intended to accommodate lots of traffic. This traffic, it seems, is anticipated to consist of a thoroughly mixed bag of travel-hardened commuters, old hands, "newbies," visitors, the young, the old, etc., etc. They will have eight "visible" members of staff (plus one who, again, I think is in the control room).
Metro stations are stations like St. Paul's and Chancery Lane. These are predominantly commuter destinations and they seem to be staffed on the assumption that most users will know what they're doing and where they're going. There will be three "visible" staff.
The locals (with local Bs being the more operationally simple stations (e.g. no lifts, only two platforms, fewer users, that kind of thing)) are the rest. They're stations like Roding Valley and Buckhurst Hill, suburban stations, which don't see much in the way of traffic, or in the way of tourists.
I note with interest that these stations include places like Woodford, White City, Hainault, Northolt, etc. In short, all of the Central line's timetabled reversing points (except Marble Arch, but that's used only for the very first westbound train on a Sunday) are local stations. It seems, then (and this is a point to which I will return), no account seems to have been taken of operational difficulty train-side. Presumably, staff assisting in detraining is set to become a thing of the past like the bad old days, for LUL have no concept of learning lessons. But either way, these seem to be stations which are simple only on the customer-side of things. They will get 1 permanent "visible" member of staff and a sort-of roving supervisor, who will be assigned to six local stations (actually the number may vary from location to location, I'm not sure).
Now, along with these changes to stations come changes to staff - the number of them and - most importantly - their roles.
Out of nothing, right at the bottom, comes a new grade - CSA2 (Customer Service Agent 2). Actually, there's some confusion about whether the "A" in "CSA" is for Agent or Assistant, but it doesn't matter too much. These are right at the bottom and they're essentially useless. I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't be having a dig at this point, but they are essentially the worst of customer service. According to TfL,21 they will "carry out 'meet and greet duties.'" In other words, then, we can look forward to our tube stations being turned into Walmarts, or Apple stores, where some under-paid, unbearable customer service assistant greets us at the door and asks us if we're having a nice day and if we've ever been to a tube station before.
Now, there are certain qualifications which are required before a person can work on operating a railway, which CSA2s will not have. They exist solely to provide "customer service" and fix ticket machines, and will mostly be deployed (if that's the right word) at gateway and destination stations. They will not be able to assist in the running of the railway in any way and will be of little real value. Boris Johnson and TfL, there, saving you money by making sure that every penny of your tube fare is well-spent and not wasted.
Right, that's that little rant over with. We now move on to another one. CSA1s (Customer Service Agent 1) get the best job description I've read yet - full of corporate buzzwords. They will "Provide world class customer service by proactively identifying and moving to areas of customer need." Fantastic, don't you think? Anyway, CSA1s are like the CSAs of today and will perform a valuable function. They will be operationally qualified, can assist in operating the railway and also assist in running the station. They will very much be the workhorses - perhaps not unlike today - and will be the permanent member of staff at local B stations. They will also "enable ticket machine management," which is a sign of things to come, I'm sure. Metro and gateway stations will also get (a) CSA1(s), I believe.
Now, just above the two CSAs (although TfL present them on the same level in their diagram), there will be the CSS (Customer Service Supervisor). These - it seems - will be qualified to the level of today's SSs. They will be the permanent member of staff on duty at Local A stations and will also be posted to gateway stations and destination stations. I do believe - in the latter case - one CSS will be posted to the control room and one (or maybe more, I'm not fully sure) will be in the ticket hall.
TfL say they will be qualified to the level of supers and there seems to be some overlap between their proposed role and the role of supers. However, they are definitely not replacing supers and neither are they at the same level as today's supers. Qualified to the same level, they may be, but they will not "rank as highly." They will not be in charge of the station - like a Captain is in charge of a ship - and there will not be one per station. In fact, their job description:
Take local accountability for station operations (e.g. Ticket Halls, Control Rooms) at Gateway and Destination Stations under the direction of the Customer Service Manager
Makes me think that "Aslef shrugged"22 is right to put them at the same level as SAMFs/SACRs.
On the level above these are CSM1s (Customer Service Manager 1) and CSM2s (Customer Service Manager 2). One can't help noticing that there is almost no suggestion that station staff might actually be involved in the running of the railway. Indeed, LUL management seem singularly unaware that they operate a railway and one is left with the feeling that they believe themselves to be operating some kind of entertainment centre.
Still, you'll be pleased to know that CSMs will be:
Leading by example in delivering world-class customer service
And will be:
Accountable for their station scorecard including sales revenue, to link individual and business performance
I'm particularly fond of the idea of a "station scorecard." I don't know if they already have those, but do you think the CSMs with the most gold stars get a bag of sweets?
Anyway, they have some proper jobs, too. They seem to be in charge of "station performance" and map best to today's SSs. They're also tasked with managing their staff, disciplining them, conducting "return to work" interviews and so on, and will be involved in event planning and "[responding] to issues with tenants" - which I assume relates to contractors? Importantly, they're involved in security as well. The Local A and Bs get a mobile CSM2, which I assume means that one CSM2 will serve more than one Local station? Metros also get a CSM2 (or maybe more than one?) and Gateway and Destination stations get (a) CSM1(s) (I assume just one?)
Finally, at the top of the tree, there will be AM-Ss (Area Manager - Stations). And they will be "closer to detail of customer service," which is very much in-line with the new proposals. They are in charge, then, in overall charge of their station(s) and staff. There will be three different types of area under the new proposals. Complex stations, like Bank, are put into "Solo" areas and there's only one station in Solo areas. At these stations, there's one AM-S and (a?) CSM1. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I imagine Gateway and Destination stations are probably in solo areas. Less complicated stations (which seem to be Metro stations) - like Mile End and Bethnal Green - will be grouped into "Twin" areas. Two stations per area, you won't be surprised to learn. Judging by the diagram, there'll be one AM-S per Twin area, with a CSM1 or a CSM2 at each station. Finally, there're what must be the local stations, which end up in a "Multiple" area. The "White City Area," for example, is a Multiple area, consisting of Hanger Lane, Ealing Broadway, West Acton, North Acton, East Acton and White City (under the original proposals, which are subject to change). They get one AM-S per area with a "number of Mobile Customer Service Manager 2s."
There. Aren't you glad you read this post after all that? The upshot of all of this - the key point of the whole strike really - is best shown in the following diagram:23
It should not come as a surprise to anybody, then, that the second reason for the strikes was the loss of 953 jobs. Or rather, the loss of 953 posts - it's entirely possible that LUL will have been leaving vacancies unfilled recently, to lessen this blow. TfL insist that there will be "no compulsory redundancies,"
24 but that Voluntary Severance (VS) will be available to anyone who wants it. I believe VS applications have been put on hold subsequent to the post-strike negotiations, however they seemed to be quite popular, with 450 staff members having "expressed an interest"
25 as of 04/02/2014. TfL further insist that staff who are prepared to be "flexible" (that's a lovely word - utterly meaningless here, of course, but it looks good on the front cover of the Evening Standard) will have a job.
There is, however, no getting around the loss of 953 jobs and VS is all very well for those who were approaching retirement age anyway - but less good for those who've recently earned their wings and have a family to support. Let me be quite plain about this - qualifying to become an SS, for example, has never been easy - it's a serious promotion. Becoming an SS is the sort of thing you aspire to after plenty of years on the gateline - SSs have devoted real time, effort and commitment to their careers.
Here we touch on the real heart of the matter. LUL have promised protected pay for three years, which is essentially how long it'll take them to completely roll out all of their changes. After that, the problems begin. Let me explain.
Return, for a moment, to the diagram above. Notice that the 38 GSMs are pretty much safe - they can comfortably step into the AM-S roles. I'm sure they'll need to "adapt" and "be flexible," but their rank and their pay packet is pretty much safe. This leaves 190 DSMs competing for 59 remaining AM-S positions. Those who do not make the cut naturally will have to apply for CSM positions - presumably CSM1. Discount, for the moment, the role of VS and - of course - of any intermediate and subsequent external recruitment. This would leave us with 131 DSMs who could become CSM1s and 205 of the 1,771 SSs could fill the remaining CSM1 positions. That leaves 1,566 SSs to fill 635 CSM2 positions. 931 SSs are now competing for 666 CSS posts - along with 1,450 SAMFs/SACRs. Even if all CSS positions were filled by (downgraded) SSs, that would still leave 265 station supervisors back on the gateline, where they began. LUL say that no SSs would be graded lower than CSS, but it remains to be seen how this will be achieved unless enough people take VS. The other thing to note is that you then have 265 SSs (LUL say none), 1,450 SAMFs/SACRs and 2,224 CSAs competing for 2,500 CSA1 positions. That's where 1,439 jobs go (or 1,174). CSAs, it seems, are not eligible for VS. It's also important to note that when all of those staff joined, CSA1 (or equivalent) was entry level. That's their entire career nullified. Now, there will be 486 CSA2s, but as these aren't even licensed staff, I can't imagine anybody agreeing to that demotion.
Little wonder, then, VS is looking so attractive. Even VS and short-term protected pay, however, can't get around the numbers. The devil is in the details. It's not so much the ticket office closures - it's scarcely the job losses - it's demotion (or "flexibility"). It's demotion of people who have not been underperforming, it's demotion of people who have done their time, sat their exams and earned their promotions. It's demotion of the people who run London Underground, at a time when it's carrying more passengers than ever before.
26 Indeed, according to TfL, in 2012/13 1.23 bn journeys were made - up from 1.18 bn in 2011/12, 1.11 bn in 2010/11, etc., etc. It's demotion of the people who have to take all of the abuse, who are frequently assaulted, who have to deal with one unders, who have to face the very real threat of terror, who work very unsociable hours and all of this for a very ordinary pay-packet (according to the Guardian,
27 an SS's salary in 2009 was £35-39k, while CSAs earned £24-29k.) This has to pay for a house in, or near, London, the food on the table, the kids, and any entertainment you might like for yourself - in London.
All of this could be stomached, I suggest. It's a bitter pill, but it could be swallowed. The worst of it, however, is the uncertainty over peoples' futures. With the reshuffle, people don't know whether they will have a job, what their job will be, or where they will be working. For CSAs the change of location is pretty normal, but for Supers who have spent a lot of time at a particular station, getting to know the regulars, etc.
28 - this level of uncertainty over their futures is outrageous. LUL, not content with merely taking the biscuit, have raided their staff's cupboards and helped themselves to all of their cheesy comestibles.
2.3 The big picture
As I mentioned earlier, the call for strike action also extended to control room staff and RMT T/Ops - what's their gripe?
Well, I'm not convinced they don't both have serious cause for concern. Whilst I think ASLEF are probably right in not balloting for strike action (if only from the point of view of realpolitik) I have to say I'm on the side of any and all RMT and TSSA staff who observe the strike. Even if we assume that the loss of jobs and corporate restructure isn't a sign of things to come across the tube as a whole - or we agree that that has no bearing on the issue at hand - and even if we buy the idea that this won't mean unstaffed stations, both parties are still gonna be hit hard by the reshuffle.
I will explain why very shortly, but first, I want to touch on those two points. Firstly, I think it's naïve at best to imagine that this is not a sign of things to come. Certainly, T/Op numbers will have to go up with the coming of the night tube, there's no two ways about it, but TfL have made clear their intentions to eventually go "NoPO" ('driverless').
29 Certainly, anybody who's read this blog will know that even simple ATO is not working well up on the tube and the recent set-back in converting the sub-surface lines to ATO (the contract has been re-let, with Bombardier losing it) makes NoPO seem even more distant. Nevertheless, it's in Johnson's manifesto
30 and Mike Brown has said:
31
We will never again order an underground train with a cab
There is, then, no guarantee that T/Ops and control room staff (who, after all, oversee and control the operation of trains) won't be asked to be "flexible," also. We will have to wait and see and, certainly, this wouldn't give them a cause for strike as it's speculation. This, then, is not relevant. But, I do think it's a point that adds meaningful context to London Underground's industrial relations and the attitudes of staff to management.
LUL have repeatedly asserted that part of their plan is that:
Every Tube station will be visibly staffed and controlled by our people during operating hours
Which sounds great, but we've heard all that before, and that never stopped stations like Snaresbrook from being unstaffed
32 - and that was before the "night tube". Frankly, stations being more regularly unmanned seems to be what's written on the wall to me. LUL are as bad as Boris Johnson for making assertions with no basis in fact. When the "Deep Tube Railway" document (the document detailing plans for 'driverless' trains, among other things) was first turfed-up by RMT, LUL insisted it was just "blue sky thinking," before finally being forced to concede it was the real deal. I will return to LUL's duplicity, but it's important to point out that this is not proof positive that they're lying this time. It doesn't even suggest that. It is, however, a strong reason for staff not to be very impressed by these assertions.
These are asides, however. I bring them up to try to give you an understanding of some of the suspicion and bad blood among LUL employees. Neither of these things has anything directly to do with this strike, but it certainly doesn't entice staff to cross picket lines, or - for that matter - "be flexible."
The main issue for RMT T/Ops, however, is that it's not going to be much fun being a T/Op if you run into a problem at a Local B station, with only a CSA1 on duty and the "mobile" CSM2 quite possibly unable to reach you. Today, you can count on having an experienced, fully qualified super to help you out, tomorrow, things could go south really fast. Now, I don't work stations or trains and I don't want to get into fatuous speculation, but if something goes really wrong at a Local station (I'm thinking one unders, a large fight, signal or points failure (in these instances, I believe a member of staff has to secure any points manually), a problem with OPO equipment which might require assistance in dispatching a train, etc.), sorting that out is gonna become an almighty nuisance. The best news is, all of the Central line's critical reversing points and depots are located at Local stations. Those are the stations with the complex points and signals, too. Happy travelling, folks!
As an example, during the Notting Hill Carnival, you may remember that a Central line train at Holland Park started smoking, a few passengers panicked and the news had a field day with pictures of passengers climbing all over the train in an attempt to get out. In this situation, since the train was part way into a tunnel, the procedure which the T/Op correctly carried out was to walk back through the train, calm everyone down, move passengers out of the carriages which were in the tunnel and alert Wood Lane (the control room). Then, all doors can be safely opened. Obviously, if this had been an actual fire (not smoke from the brakes), passengers would not have been calmly moved to another carriage. Anyway, in the meantime, a member of staff is supposed to open the doors from the outside. This is what eventually happened. The reason it took longer than the Evening Standard think it should have taken, is that there was no member of staff to hand, for they were all dealing with a fight and there is no escalator at Holland Park.
Now, this is a special example - this was Notting Hill Carnival. Holland Park is also underground and so subject to particular staffing requirements and will become a Metro station according to the current proposals. Nevertheless, my point is that I wouldn't fancy being stuck on a smoking train at Snaresbrook, in the middle of the night, with only a CSA1 to hand. After the catastrophic fire at King's Cross St. Pancras, various staffing regulations (the current, newer, regulations are referred to as "section 12") were brought in. Now, don't get me wrong, TfL's proposals are in accordance with all regulations as far as I can tell. Furthermore, I am not saying that these proposals are dangerous and I'm aware that some rural, non-section 12 stations don't have very many members of staff today either. What I am saying, however, is: when things go up the wall, as a passenger I want (and as a T/Op, or member of control room staff, I would want) a skilled, experienced super on the station - not a CSA1. LUL seem to be taking lessons from the airline industry in "tombstone economics." At the moment they have a fantastic safety record. This was hard-earned through the employment of plenty of skilled, highly-trained staff. They are vital to the safe running of the railway. It is my relatively uninformed opinion that a Local B station will not be as safe tomorrow - with staff cuts and with the higher grades being decimated - as it is today. That is, until we have a major incident and everybody's wondering why there weren't enough qualified people on hand to deal with it. Happy travelling.
Nevertheless, I must be very careful. In the case of the Holland Park incident, there is no doubt whatsoever that a CSA1 could have dealt with that incident - the procedure is very simple. The problem at Holland Park was really an absence of staff on the platform. Certainly, then, it is a good case against the staff cuts we will be seeing - particularly out in the suburbs. All the same, stations out in the suburbs aren't - currently - especially heavily manned. Additionally, the plan to have more staff "visible" seems - if anything - to be an improvement. Admittedly, it's an improvement whose effectiveness is dented slightly by requiring them all to mess around with ticket machines and removing - in most stations - the "nerve centre," with a person in charge, with all the information. Not all stations today have control rooms, however, and many stations do have SSMFs (
Station Supervisor Multi Functional) - i.e. supers who deal with ticketing.
That notwithstanding, I use the Holland Park incident as the most recent example of how things can go south on London Underground. London Underground is a very safe place to be, but this has a lot to do with its staff. When things go wrong (really wrong - as in the case of 7/7; wrong - as in the case of Holland Park; or a bit wrong - as in the case of the signal failure at Mile End we had on the Central line a few weeks back
33), I want an experienced super on the station, not a fresh-faced CSA1. This isn't only so that they can deal with the incident itself, but also for keeping everyone calm and safe afterwards. The panicking at Holland Park shows you how quick people are to lose their heads and, even when the doors were opened, people were still tearing around. You want an experienced super in charge of the situation. I remind you that these strikes were not purely about the loss of jobs, they were about the substantial cull of positions in the higher grades and, resultantly, the loss of large numbers of highly-qualified, experienced staff on London Underground stations. I invite you to consider whether you think that's a good thing, and how safe you would feel out in the suburbs if there were a fight in progress, or a lairy drunk on the platform, or an almighty problem on a train, knowing that the super you used to have has been replaced by a CSA1. Of course, an individual CSA1 may perform better in an individual situation than an individual super - but that doesn't negate the idea that training and experience are good and the loss of those who have it is a loss.
All of this will have an affect on the poor T/Op who has to get the train moving with less assistance. For the people in the control room, though, I think that applies with even more force. I can only imagine that they will see their workload go up substantially and will have a much bigger job getting anything fixed again without supers on the ground at every station. It means fewer of the right people in the right place at the right time. To me, it's like being a colonel in the army and being told that all your experienced, well-trained, well-qualified Lieutenants and Captains are getting the sack, or will be replaced by a few extra lieutenants and a few lieutenant colonels. This, I can only imagine, will make dealing with faults, getting a service going, dealing with customer incidents, and all the rest of it much harder. Additionally, it remains to be seen what effect this is gonna have on stations, but if a contractor makes a mess of things on a station one night - which is a pain in the bottom for the control room staff as much as anyone - there might not be anyone with the experience of a super to get it right. I presume the AM-S will be left to deal with it, or a CSM, but I'm sceptical that this is an improvement on having a super at every station, with the keys and with the responsibility.
These points don't just apply to the staff, however. I raise them because they apply to us - the commuters. If you don't fancy supporting the people who do a fantastic job keeping you moving every day, think about only yourself instead.
2.4 LUL and industrial relations
As this is a post about industrial relations, I feel it important to say something about LUL's record with regard to industrial relations. Partly, this is because it has a bearing on how the strikes came about, partly because it will help explain the attitude - and concerns - of the staff involved, and partly as a pre-emptive riposte to all those who complain about "them" always being on strike.
The very first thing to say, of course, is that "they" were predominantly station staff, in this case. I can't even find enough information to be sure about this, but it is my understanding that the last time "they" walked-out (certainly in large numbers across the network) was 2010. Prior to that, some of you might be interested in the revelation that the last time TSSA went on strike on the tube was during the General Strike of 1926.
34 Even Assembly Member Richard Tracey isn't old enough to have been inconvenienced by that.
This does bring me on to another interesting point, though. Something that is easy to overlook - but very relevant to the rhetorical "why are they always on strike?" question - is that the tube is kept moving by members of a large number of very different professions. This has resulted in three unions and multiple groups of employees for LUL to frustrate. You see, LUL doesn't just treat its T/Ops like shit, it likes to treat all of its staff that way, but at different times - this gives a nice, even spread.
As a result of this, when a T/Op with an immaculate record performs a questionable manoeuvre under explicit instruction from control room staff and gets the sack (a sacking the courts found unacceptable) - and RMT think that maybe something should be done about this - there's a 'tube strike.'
35 Even though all station staff, all ASLEF T/Ops, all engineers, all control room staff, all junior managers, etc. are working, it's a 'tube strike.' In this case, the control room staff and signaller involved got a ticking off and an action plan. Also, another T/Op involved in a similar incident was given a 12 month caution.
Similarly, when all station staff have no idea what their jobs will be, and the SAMFs have no job at all, and they think that maybe something should be done about this - there's a 'tube strike.' This is in spite of the fact that all ASLEF T/Ops, all engineers, some control room staff, all junior management are working.
When the ERU and fitters over at the former Tube Lines felt they should get the same deal as their counterparts - who do exactly the same job, but used to work at Metronet - there was a threatened (I can't remember if it ever materialised) 'tube strike.' Do you see my point?
What I hope will be one final nail in that particular coffin is this little nugget from "Aslef shrugged":
36
Apart from the Boxing Day dispute we've not lost a single day to industrial action since RMT walked out over the unfair dismissals in January 2011, every dispute has been settled by negotiation and no one on either side wants to rock the boat let alone capsize it.
Print that Evening Standard. Please print that, Evening Standard - anything to raise the level of your rag just slightly. Alas, I fear I'm being hopelessly optimistic (so much for being a cynic), why would the Evening Standard let trifles like facts and reasoned argument get in the way of whipping up some stupid, "righteous" anger. Although, perhaps the best epitaph for the Evening Standard (when the happy day of its demise finally comes) would be:
37
A truth misinterpreted is so much more useful than a lie.
(Full credit to John Bull of "London Reconnections").
And another thing...Lecturers at my university have been on strike at least twice this year - and there were three brief, 2-hour strikes to boot. The public perception that tube workers are 'always' on strike - so very much unlike anybody else - is not particularly fair. One counter-example does not, of course, prove that, but one of the true reasons why tube strikes are more noticeable is because tube workers are so integral to the everyday lives of Londoners. In short, tube workers do a great job, they do a job that's so important - and they do it so well - that if a few of them don't deign to do it for a couple of days, it "brings disruption to millions of Londoners."
38 Reason enough, you might think, for them to get a decent deal and for the actions of LUL which have precipitated this strike to be opposed.
Of course, one of the biggest reasons for any strike on London Underground is LUL. Allow me to digress into a small history lesson. The "textbook" I will be using for this lesson is a couple of posts by "Aslef shrugged" - I recommend the originals highly.
39,40
On Boxing Day 2011 & 2010 ASLEF T/Ops were, indeed, on strike. The reason for this strike was that prior to 2010, a reduced service was run on Boxing Day. T/Ops who didn't mind working worked and T/Ops who wanted to spend one extra day off with their families, not in a tunnel, used up a day's annual leave. This was a fine system indeed and plenty of trains ran. In fact, when ASLEF were on strike on Boxing Day, plenty of trains were run by RMT T/Ops alone. In spite of this general fine-ness, LUL decided that they would run a Sunday service in 2010 (meaning that twice as many T/Ops would be needed), because that would look good on a poster.
London Underground operates with shift patterns so unfriendly that when LUL tried external recruitment, a lot of new recruits left within the first 12 months.
41 Resultantly, the average tube worker has a relatively compromised social life and, because of this, ASLEF thought it might be nice if some sort of agreement could be arrived at to compensate T/Ops for the loss of the traditional day off to spend time with their families. LUL posited that as Boxing Day fell on a weekend and was not a bank holiday, it was a normal working day.
ASLEF, therefore, balloted for strike action and the result was in favour. Finally, when it was too late, LUL decided that they would offer to go back to the old arrangement, but couldn't honour that offer, because it was too late to amend the timetable. The result of the ballot was announced by 15/12 and yet LUL managed to take so long to come up with a response that they couldn't follow said response through. Moreover, this response was simply to go back to the way things were in the beginning. This tardiness on LUL's part and their recalcitrance was the reason for that strike. Do you know, it's almost as if:
Yet again, militant LUL bosses were blackmailing workers and businesses with strike misery. LUL seemed to be doing everything in its power to block agreement.42
Alright, that was a cheap shot at Richard Tracey, whose words I have misappropriated for rhetorical purposes. However, while strike action is politically very convenient for LUL and the GLA (and the slightly poor realpolitik would be my strongest criticism of this particular strike), I'm not sure I would want to seriously pursue that conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, I invite you to reassess who it is that has been causing Londoners "misery" and I remind you that TfL managers - whose jobs are safe and whose salaries are six-figure - manage a company which receives large amounts of tax money.
After that fiasco, the nasty unions, who are "blackmailing workers and businesses" and 'always' on strike, thought it might be worthwhile sorting the issue out before it came up again. ASLEF make requests for a meeting, but there is no movement from LUL. Almost exactly a year later, LUL finally make it to the negotiating table and come up with nothing. There is, predictably, a strike.
So, where am I going with this? Eventually, there was a resolution and a deal was done. T/Ops get a Boxing Day bonus, in exchange for not moving depots for 18 months. It took, however, two strikes to get us there. Subsequently, as I've noted, between January 2011 and the recent strikes, all disputes were settled through negotiation. It takes, however, industrial action to even bring LUL to the negotiating table - this is how LUL treat their staff. I refer, again, to the T/Op sacked for carrying out the irregular manoeuvre he was ordered to carry out. In his case, the tribunal described the manager handling his appeal as being more concerned with covering up the mistakes that had been made at the initial hearing.
43 Nevertheless, it took industrial action to deal with that unfair dismissal and the T/Op still never got his job back - he was re-employed, but not on trains. LUL will not be diverted for anything less, this is the issue that needs to be understood, this is where there is blackmail. Perhaps LUL managers could do with reading their own pamphlets on the topic of "flexibility."
My point about LUL not being diverted for anything less is also very important. Although, all through the strikes, Mike Brown et al. were calling on the unions to meet for talks, talks did take place at ACAS prior to the strike and LUL came up with nothing. Again. Only after the strike did they bring anything meaningful to the table. This was not the unions being determined to strike.
Now, some of you might be wondering whether there is another alternative - something that doesn't hit the travelling public, some "action short of strike." Well action short of strike was taken - the ticket barriers were left open. This hits LUL's revenue, but doesn't affect the commuter. A nice way, you might think, of protesting to your boss, without "making 5 million other people suffer for it." Now, I saw the ticket barriers so open at Hainault, but there are suggestions that LUL were undermining this action by having the gates closed remotely.
44
I shouldn't be going on hearsay, though, so let's try something a little more concrete. Action short of strike was carried out on the District line some years back by T/Ops at Acton Town depot. This dispute was over remote booking on and off and Acton Town was, at that time, the only depot where this was carried out. Agreements to discontinue the practice were repeatedly reached, before being abrogated by management.
45
Finally, I mentioned above that I thought there was a case to be made that this is poor realpolitik on the part of RMT and TSSA. I might have argued more strongly for this if they hadn't got anything from the post-strike ACAS meetings, but they did get something. Nevertheless, I don't think many ticket offices will be saved and I don't think there's much that can derail LUL. Also, apparently, ASLEF have run out of membership forms at Leytonstone depot.
46 However, a strike was the only recourse the unions had left and, frankly, they've achieved more than I would have predicted - even if I think it's quite paltry. Moreover, RMT - at this stage - have in excess of 80,000 members. Given that membership of RMT costs £235.56 a year,
47 I don't think it's unreasonable for me to suggest that its members are relatively content with the results it produces for them. How content? Well, this year, there's at least £235.56 worth of contentedness - which is quite a lot of contentedness.
3. What actually happened?
I have mentioned section 12 regulations before. Section 12 stations include, I believe, all underground stations and possibly some other, complex stations. Due to the fact that members of station staff would not be booking on, the main effect on the service was expected to be non-availability of staff at section 12 stations. This would obviously require those stations to close, which would - naturally - affect what sort of service could be run. In the end, people who kept their eye on the live updates will have noticed a large number of central London stations did close. On the other hand, when I went from Roding Valley to Holborn on the Wednesday, only Bethnal Green and Chancery Lane (not exactly a horrendously difficult hike from Holborn) were shut (as were Wanstead and Redbridge - those veritable hubs).
This, then, was one of the factors behind curtailed services (e.g. the Central line only ran to Holborn on Wednesday and Marble Arch on Thursday (and only as far as White City from the other side of London)) - why bother running trains through sections if there aren't going to be (m)any stations open on that section?
Another factor was obviously the absence of any RMT T/Ops who didn't book on for duty and, perhaps the last one, was the absence of any control room staff who also heeded the call. Naturally, with a deficit of people in charge in the control room - and, perhaps especially, with a deficit of signallers, as well - it's difficult to run any kind of service at all. Additionally, it takes longer to get a service running again after an incident.
LUL therefore deployed as many "suits" and "office bods" as they could, along with anybody else they could find, to provide assistance and information at the stations which were open. As well as this, a pretty reasonable service was run (which was quieter than usual) and I could have got to university if I'd wanted to (and I doubt I was the only one). Meanwhile, a few of London's workers had to brave the horrors of the open air, buses, a fairly extensive national rail service, black cabs, bikes, cars and every other means of transport under the Sun. The poor bastards.
4. The resolution (of sorts)
After extensive talks at ACAS, RMT and TSSA called off the second round of industrial action. In exchange for this, they received
48 (which I don't think is all that much from LUL, but then what do I know?) increased consultation on the implementation of "fit for the future," a concession to a "station-by-station review" (including a review of ticket office closures) and, essentially, a few more rounds of discussion.
As much as I am a little unimpressed, I doubt any more was ever going to be forthcoming. I am a colossal cynic, but it seems I have been absolutely trumped on this issue. I would certainly point out to those even more cynical than me that the process of industrial action seems to have done its job fairly well here. In response, then, to those who argue that the strikes are "completely pointless,"
49 and that nothing will deflect LUL from their path, I would say that the unions seem to have got what they should have had to begin with. That is to say, due to strike action and the threat of further strike action, LUL have deigned to engage with the unions in their cull of employees and complete reorganisation - which doesn't seem too unreasonable, as the unions are the representatives of the employees. Meanwhile, in consequence of this, the unions have agreed not to "[bring] disruption to millions of Londoners,"
50 for they do not strike for their own amusement, nor as a means of "[blocking] innovation and progress on our tube network," or "blackmailing workers and businesses."
51
5. The roamings and ramblings of a central line commuter (and tube nerd)
As plainly demonstrated by the unending whining we have witnessed about how the strikes could "only hurt London,"52 tube workers do a fantastic job - day in day out - which is important for the everyday functioning of the city. As implicitly recognised by all those who don't fancy a trip via the multitude of alternative forms of public transportation, they also do an uncommonly good job.
This job, indeed, can involve dealing with dead people on the track, getting physically assaulted because the service - which you are not responsible for - is up the wall, and the risk that in that bag over there might be another bomb. These are the people who don't get paid very much, have to work extremely unsociable hours, have to take all the abuse, have to deal with drunks, have to go on the track, and have to deal with customers when, say, a signal fails - which is no fault of the poor people on the stations, but they get the wrap for it.
As a result of the efforts of these individuals, the tube is currently carrying record numbers of passengers; not solely as a result of this, but this has played an important part. These individuals therefore feel that some remuneration might be due from a company that can't stop boasting it's carrying record numbers of people and whose management are very well off. They also feel that, against this backdrop, all the job cuts, all the uncertainty over their futures, and their treatment by management is distinctly undue. "Fit for the future" means people with mortgages to pay and a family to support don't know if they will have a job or not, don't know what/where that job will be and don't know whether they will be facing a substantial pay cut or not. Ultimately, it means a lot of bad blood, a lot of uncertainty and a lot of people who have worked hard for their promotions who might be losing out in a very big way. The hours are miserable - and that's something often forgotten - you get almost no social life, you face constant abuse everyday from the patrons, you know you're working for a potential target of attack, your management treat you like an inconvenience and you don't get paid all that much, given the cost of living in London. It's not a lot to expect that, if you are going to be made redundant, you could be given some satisfactory information. You might also expect your management to hold timely and meaningful talks with your representatives and to engage with you. In short, then, staff feel they have been very ill-treated; morale is low; they face uncertainty, confusion and the prospect of demotion, through no shortcoming of theirs. Indeed, the staff are managing to operate a network which is performing better than ever. These people are aware of LUL's track record when it comes to negotiation, are aware of how that company treats their staff, and they feel that something needs to be done.
In light of this, tube workers are in dispute with their management. This is not about "blackmailing Londoners;" they are - when left by management with no other recourse - trying to come away from this with the ability to pay the rent and the bills, through the only thing any worker can bargain with - their labour. This is London, it is the home of British business and free market economy. Some of us are not especially happy about this, but it is. Tube workers are employees - they do not owe you anything. They do not owe you anything. They are employed by a company to do a job; they may refuse their labour when treated unacceptably by that company. By this refusal, one aims to protect one's working conditions and jobs, by disadvantaging the company. This gives employees some leverage - some bargaining power - and enables a more just agreement to be reached. You, Londoners, are not to compel people to work under circumstances unacceptable to them, with no right of reply.
Now, I am not naïve about this. A strike is certainly intended to bring a given issue to public attention. It is also intended to bring political pressure on the company, whose customers will be dissatisfied with it, when it cannot provide a service. However, do not confuse this politicking with an attack on the people of London. Frankly, I think tube workers have an axe to grind with the travelling public - frankly I think they have enough axes to fell a small rainforest to grind with the travelling public. Nevertheless, no complaint has been raised against Londoners - this is not a strike over the frequent assaults, this is not a strike over people urinating on stations, this is not a strike aimed at the travelling public. This is a strike targeted solely at LUL. This is a dispute with management - who caused the problems in the first place - it's not about angering Londoners; but Londoners would do well to sit down and think about why there's a strike, and whether it could have been prevented, and whether staff are being treated in a way in which they themselves would want to be treated.
The tube's bosses, (who, I remind you, are the ones who won't talk to the unions until it's too late) are getting their pay rises and pensions and job security - whereas the people who have to put up with the violence, the cold, the rain, and who have mortgages to worry about (since they do not get paid hundreds of thousands of pounds) have no idea whether they will have a job, where it will be, or what it will pay.
Here, in management, you have the group of people that is to blame for your disruption. This is a group of people who, unusually, are managers working for a company partly funded by the taxpayer. They will suffer no fallout whatsoever, have steady jobs, very good pay packets (this is a company partly funded by the taxpayer...), very good pensions (this is a company partly funded by the taxpayer...). These people will not lift a finger to come to an agreement - or prevent the unions having recourse to industrial action; but will use it as an excuse to gain political advantage at the expense of Londoners. I don't think this is acceptable, I don't think this is how industrial relations between management and staff should work, I don't think taxpayer's money should prop up this system, and if (as I'm sure it is) it's the same elsewhere, then I think something ought to be done about that as well. I did not feel remotely wronged; but if I had felt wronged, I would not have taken out my anger on the people working hard to transport me around, and who have been completely ill-treated by a management that will feel no flack for it; but should be made, insofar as possible, to do so.
But then why should the people actually doing the work and performing important roles have any right to be treated fairly - by managers or patrons? Why should they have any say, at any stage?
If you're among the legions so annoyed about the strike - rather than directing your ire at those who are actually doing the job, and being treated like dirt, who might suddenly find themselves with no way of paying the mortgage after years of working their way up to become a supervisor - consider asking questions of the management. Consider asking questions of the management who have consistently refused to talk, who have forced strikes on previous occasions - by not talking until it was too late - when the strikes need never even have been proposed. Why don't you take a look at the organisation public money actually funds - a look at how it is run and where its priorities are - before rushing to blame the people doing the work every day?
If you think the strike was that bad, complain to the people making the problems. If, after careful reading about operation of mass transit systems - and particularly London Underground - you think there is no reason for ticket offices to remain open, and the pointless corporate reshuffle is entirely essential, ask whether it has been implemented in any reasonable way. Ask why people do not yet know whether they will have a job to go to.
6. Now hold on, wait a minute!
It has presumably occurred to some of you, at some point (perhaps while reading this), to wonder why they don't simply leave. Many of them could simply take VS without fuss. Why do they have to make their problems everybody else's?
Firstly, there are plenty of alternative arrangements. I am happy - as I've touched on before - to see you accepting how good the service London Underground staff provide is. However, for two days - just two days - you can make alternative arrangements. Moreover, a surprisingly good service was run - especially from the suburbs into areas where other transport is more readily available.
Secondly, as I've stressed, they don't owe you anything. If you've been inconvenienced, you should consider the root causes of this dispute. However, London Underground staff are in dispute with their employers and they are right to mount legitimate protest against their treatment, to refuse their labour and to refuse to be pushed around in this way.
I accept that the broader debate about the rights and wrongs of industrial action are beyond this post and if you're dead set against strikes in principle, I'm unlikely to have made much of a dent. However, I stand completely behind those trying to bring about a more equitable working environment.
More to the point, you will note that the second round of strikes were called off - and for very little in the way of concessions. Did the Evening Standard take this opportunity to point out the way the unions had not, on this occasion, "[done] everything in [their] power to block innovation and progress on our tube network"?53 Did they even make any concession that a job had been well done by all negotiators in reaching a temporary resolution to the dispute - in avoiding a strike? You can bet your last penny they didn't.
Yes, they could go elsewhere, but people who have worked hard for recruitment, gone through the training, won their licenses for safety critical work and worked their way up through a company, doing a job which ordinarily they want to do, simply want their management to talk to their representatives. They want them to talk, rather than refusing to do anything until it's too late, when they make the offer that was asked of them, but too late to implement it. These people want to know if they'll have a job, and they want it recognised that many people are doing safety critical and hazardous jobs - whilst taking all the abuse - and that they may need to be treated accordingly.
*
All comments, criticisms, corrections, opinions, requests to shut up and keep my opinions to myself, etc. are welcome.
Additionally, I feel I should make the following plain. In this post, I have referred, on numerous occasions, to the blogger called "Aslef shrugged." As a London Underground employee and fantastic blogger, he is a fine source of information. His work is made public and has informed me of a great many things. As such, I have made reference to his relevant and enlightening posts wherever I feel they are relevant to an argument or discussion. I wish to make it quite clear, however - especially as he is a London Underground employee - that I have never met him, that he has had no input in this post whatsoever and that my use of his blog as a source does not in any way imply that he supports my position, or endorses this post. The main reason - in case any of you have just raised suspicious eyebrows - for this extraordinary disclaimer is that his blog has been used as part of LUL's court case before.
54 Bearing things like that in mind, I felt obliged to just point out that he was not involved in this post - I wouldn't want to get anybody into trouble. All vitriol to be addressed to TUT please.
---
_platform_2_look_west.JPG)
