Strathspey Railway

Perhaps, but the tragedy is that exercising it only serves to damage the railway they presumably want to see succeed.

 

What would you suggest otherwise?

I would imagine it more akin to strike action. A method only taken, as a last resort, because all other reasonable avenues have been attempted and failed.

 

Mandy Rice-Davies rules.

Well, you would (say that) wouldn’t you John?

 

And equally, directors who stubbornly cling to power in the face of opposition from the workforce (volunteer & paid) can be seen as equally damaging to the railway.
Or does it only work one way in your mind?

 

.

No, but the directors are appointed by , and can only be removed by, the shareholders. I would always defend pressure on them from the workforce which is the right way to effect change.

 

I suspect though to a significant extent, in many heritage railways the shareholders and the workers have considerable overlap.

In any case, even if you are the most ardent free-market capitalist, a business in which the workforce is significantly disaffected ought to serve as a warning sign to the shareholders that all might not be well with the leaders they have elected. If nothing else, a disaffected workforce is not a recipe for delivering long-term shareholder value, whether that value would be expressed as stable dividends (in a conventional company) or delivery of heritage objectives in a heritage railway context.

Tom

 

What do you do though when you’ve tried to effect change ‘the right way’ and nothings happened though?
Some people feel they’ve been backed into a corner and this their only option, I’m guessing things have been festering for a while, it’s hardly like a whole group woke up this morning and thought ‘hey you know what? I really fancy going on strike today do you?’

 

So the workforce who provide the service/produce the product can't possibly have the intelligence to know when things are being mismanaged?
That's a very arrogant and ignorant position to take.

 

Festering a while maybe, but I suspect the Scotsman incident may have focused minds. Note the reference to decline in safety and accusations of people not following their own rules and procedures.
Be interesting what the RAIB conclusions are and whether they back this up.

 

Or the Directors can resign themselves; I gather was the hope when the SRC Board was presented with the no confidence letter and then again at the meeting this week.

I understand the SRC Board has either lost or been been made aware of the intention to resign by the holder of several key posts in recent weeks at both senior management and Board level, as well as significant number of operational staff, all of which will be critical to the safe and compliant operation of a heritage railway. At what point - by not resigning - do the Directors breach their fiduciary duty to the Company if they are unable to recruit individuals with suitable competencies to replace those lost because they will not offer services under their leadership?

Andrew

(armchair member of the Strathspey Railway Association without enough interaction with those in charge to comment on the validity of the claims / effectiveness of the current Board and who was as taken aback as most others this week when the news filtered out!)

 

So this is the SRC Board rather than the Association the issue is with?

 

That is correct.

 

In a conventional commercial business, I’d agree. But in a volunteer based organisation, I’d be cautious about that line.

I’m reminded of traditional naval practice in response to mutiny. Once the mutineers had been dealt with, it was normal that the officer subject to the mutiny would find their career effectively over. Part of their role was to lead their ship, and mutiny demonstrated their inability to lead their crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It sounds as though the Strathspey need a Robin Coombes or at the very least, readhis research on sustainability and governance on heritage railways.

 

I can think of one or two railways that could do with a Robin Coombes. I don’t know how he’s getting on with the volunteers and staff at the K&ESR but he’s certainly good for publicity, hardly a day goes by without a Facebook update of what’s going on.

 

Happened during a shareholder meeting at the GWSR.
The room voted against a proposal, whereupon the chairman got out his proxies from the absentees - proposal carried after all

 

So the wishes of the proxies don't count?
Counter-argument is that a minority showed up at the AGM to force an issue on the shareholders.

A feature of shareholding is that every share (of the relevant class) has equal weight. This may give rise to a perception of unfairness to those who put the work in, and equally, how many complaints on here have we seen about difficulty of getting to AGMs/shareholders being ignored?