28.10.1999

Safety not profit

On Friday of last week the RMT called off the strike of its guard members as a result of an injunction obtained in the high court by three train operating companies (TOCs), led by Virgin. The strike, due to take place on October 29, was over changes to their safety functions, introduced via amendments to the rule book. These amendments put the driver in charge of the train instead of the guard, with sole responsibility for protection. The guard’s role becomes one of looking after the passengers’ general well-being.

The RMT leadership had been looking for a way out. Union bureaucrats do not see their role in times of low working class combativity as one of leading and facilitating a fightback. Rather they seek to divert and defuse disputes, regarding the eventual acceptance of the employers’ latest demands as inevitable, while they can only hope to limit the damage.

So the ‘campaign’ to oppose the rule changes was half-hearted and marred by poor organisation and lack of communication. Members complained of having to rely on the bourgeois press for information, including in some cases regarding official notification of the strike. In areas where the right wing dominated the leadership - for example East Anglia and the south-east - the ballot was lost as a result. Members were advised that, since there was no immediate threat to jobs, it would be best to keep their powder dry. However, in other areas there was an overwhelming majority in favour of action.

The issues of safety and job security are in fact closely linked. The changes would heap more and more responsibility on drivers - often overburdened already by long hours and a heavy workload. But for the profit-hungry TOCs safety comes a poor second in the unceasing drive to shed labour and thereby cut costs. By introducing greater flexibility future job losses would be facilitated. The changes were brought about after pressure from the Association of Train Operating Companies, the trade body of the 25 companies. The idea is eventually, through further rule amendments, to remove the operating functions from the guard altogether, with all operating responsibility placed on the driver. The role of guards would be reduced to that of ticket collectors or Kit Kat sellers. Little safety training would be required. This would allow the TOCs to contract out. This has already happened with ticket collectors, who - to give one example - have been transferred to Burns Security by First Northwestern on considerably worse pay and conditions.

There is nothing the companies would like more than the generalisation of guardless trains, at present restricted to suburban and local services. Here one-person operations are run only with the help of numerous safeguards - CCTV, mirrors, automatic doors, etc. On high-speed, inter-city services this would be more problematic, though not impossible. Technically of course, driverless trains are possible too, as the Dockland Light Railway demonstrates. But the safe, comprehensive introduction of such a system would involve a complete reconstruction of the network, with investment cost so prohibitive as to rule it out for the foreseeable future.

So the rule changes threaten both jobs and safety. Protection of trains involved in accidents, to give an extreme example, is vital. This includes the placing of detonators on the line half a mile behind and in front of a disabled locomotive. Any delay can result in another train colliding with the disabled train or ploughing into passengers escaping across the tracks. Train crew have almost automatic reactions in such circumstances, with the guard immediately protecting the rear and the driver the front. Under the new rules the driver and guard are supposed to consult each other before deciding what needs to be done. This is a recipe for confusion and fatal delay. Railworkers were absolutely correct to oppose these changes.

The high court decision came as little surprise, as the TOCs were claiming that as the rule book is a Railtrack responsibility, and they have to implement it, the industrial dispute is with Railtrack and not them. The guards however cannot strike against Railtrack, as they are employed by the TOCs. The high court has therefore deemed the strike to be secondary action, illegal under the trade union laws. This judgement has seemingly removed the right to strike from any railworkers employed by TOCs whose conditions are changed via the rule book. This has to be challenged - not in the high court, but by defiance.

With careful preparation and a campaign of mobilisation the strike could have gone ahead, no matter what the judges say. But defiance of the anti-union laws was the last thing on the mind of the RMT tops. An alternative tactic, still relying on the involvement and initiative of the rank and file, would be to frame the union’s demands in such a way that separate disputes could be legally declared against the individual TOCs. Such a development is still possible, but would be disastrous without careful coordination.

Both rail unions have prominent members of the Socialist Labour Party on their leadership. Bob Crow is assistant general secretary of the RMT and Mick Rix is general secretary of Aslef. Comrade Crow is currently standing for re-election against a strong rightwing candidate, Mick Cash. However, in view of Crow’s high profile in the current dispute, his chances have been boosted considerably. But he has not publicly called for defiance of the union legislation - something which for Arthur Scargill (and therefore the SLP) is almost a matter of faith.

There are other SLP members and supporters on the executive of the RMT. Jim Connolly did make the call to defy the judges - before the NEC meeting which called off the strike - only to fall strangely silent afterwards. In general neither he nor Danny Bermingham can be considered leftwing in terms of RMT politics. Both supported the witch hunt against former executive member Patrick Sikorski - then an SLP ‘comrade’ of theirs. John Leach and Paul Burton are considered more leftwing by many.

In fact the SLP’s response to the whole safety issue has been predictably inadequate. Far from attempting to coordinate a fightback (as far as its declining influence allows), it contented itself with issuing a press release expressing its “deepest sympathy” for the victims of the Ladbroke Grove disaster. It condemned “the previous Tory administration for hiving off our rail and other services to the public sector”, and the present government for “its refusal to return them to public ownership”. The question of workers’ control is not mentioned. Socialist News refers vaguely to “democratic control and accountability” - clearly secondary to state ownership in its eyes.

Railworkers are angry at the way the TOCs and Railtrack have put profits before safety. They know that if the running of the industry was placed under their direct control safety would be a priority. They want to hit back. This anger could be turned against those who promised much, but delivered defeat, including SLP members on the leadership.

Not only the RMT, but Aslef too are in an excellent position to gain widespread support on this issue of rail safety after the furore over Ladbroke Grove. The TOCs and the government would have a public relations disaster if they dragged the RMT into court and sequestration. In fact rail safety in such circumstances is just the sort of issue which could spark a revival of working class combativity, transforming a simple trade union dispute into a political fight directed against the anti-trade union laws and a Blair government which openly fawns before multi-millionaire capitalists like Richard Branson.

Steve Johnson