North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

The biggest threat would be the collapse of the railway so they are already incentivised to avoid that.

 

The problem with a strike - quite apart from actually mobilising one - is that it falls into the "something must be done, and this is something" line of reasoning. In practice it would likely just cause the one thing you are trying to avoid at all costs, which is further financial stress.

Tom

 

If they are incentivised as you say, they are failing miserably to climb out of the hole and are arguably still digging in an attempt to tunnel their way out

 

I am not a fan of strike action, anywhere. However, where it does work (even without legal protections for strikers), it works because both sides need each other. I agree with @Jamessquared that this is a "we must do something, and this is something" idea but note that, if it were well supported, the cost to management of "dismissing" strikers would be existential. Leaving aside the elements of lock-out (never a good look), possible victimisation allegations, and simple bad publicity (how would this look on the front page of the Mail?), loss of either a significant number of volunteers and/or volunteers in key skill roles would make the railway difficult or impossible to operate.

In this, I'm reminded of the alleged Royal Navy tradition regarding the punishment of mutineers - that the mutineers are punished severely, but the officers causing the mutiny see an end to their careers.

However, and more important, perhaps the fact that the idea is even being discussed should be the gravest warning bell of all. Defenders of the more "robust" unions' approach to threatening industrial action (including RMT firmly within this) highlight the role of absolute intransigence in breaking the will of the employer to push too hard. I'm not sure that NYMR can afford that - or the boost to the attempts of some "union men" to bring volunteering under statutory workplace protection that it might cause.

 

True, but the railway is already collapsing financially, structurally, morally, in reputation, in organisation, in atmosphere, in heritage, in popularity, in marketing, in response, in revenue, in donations, in bequests, in credibility, in tourism, in realism, in turmoil and in debt.

Management and leadership have lost the faith of members, volunteers, supporters, of paid staff, of Permanent Way, of Catering, of Pickering business leaders, of Grosmont business, of Goathland and even as far as Whitby.

On this forum alone 76 recent posters have, sometimes across several postings each, urged a change of direction, a change of management, a change of CEO, a change of policy, a change of attitude, a change of tone. Through volunteering I know a few of those posters as do you. For those few I did a very rough calculation based on cumulative length of service to the railway and the experience thay have. It comes to a little over 400 years worth. The majority of those 76 posters I don't know but their experience must at least treble that figure.

From your postings common themes have emerged. That nothing can change that you don't agree with, that managers of proven incompetence must be kept in employment because it's too expensive to sack them, that volunteers cost more than paid staff, that dictatorship outsmarts democracy, that diesel is easier than steam, that consultancy fees outweigh common sense, that equipment hire is preferable to ownership, that 35% of turnover spent on administration is a business plan,

So, if anyone is still reading this Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the volunteer party, I can only come to one conclusion. Every member, every volunteer, paid staff, business owners plus 76 forum posters with more railway knowledge in their little fingers than our CEO could grasp in a lifetime are all wrong and that you alone are right.

All hail to the Emperor and Empress of Park Street.

 

Once again, you resort to the 'what can we do to fight back against these volunteers' stance (let's remove their opportunity to volunteer), instead of looking at it for what it is - a statement to the management that things are not right and need to be changed asap.

If people are even talking about taking the drastic step of striking on a volunteer railway, things have gone abysmally wrong, management should hang their heads in shame and things must change without delay.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating a strike by the volunteers, because, as others suggest, the effect could be catastrophic. The problem is, what might work apart from that? How do you convince people who will not change to even listen?

 

I strongly agree. But, taking @Lineisclear at face value, he does not say "strikers should be dismissed" but "the response may be to dismiss strikers" (my paraphrasing). Given the alleged nature of the NYMR leadership's attitude to dissent, I regard that less as a threat and more as a warning of what is likely. And I regard it as all the more plausible a suggestion given his experience.

 

You are correct, but I think if there was even a threat of a strike, the management should be questioning how they have got to that point and not looking to see how sanctions can be taken against any potential strikers.
The fact that it was the first thing that John suggested (rather than suggesting talks or changes to management), says everything about the past and present bunker mentality of NYMR management.

 

I do not disagree with any of that, although unsure who you are suggesting would suffer from a Daily Mail headline. I think it would be along the lines of "disgruntled trainspotters unable to play trains" rather than negativity about a lock out. The bad publicity may well end up on those who have withdrawn their services not the management.

 

I'm not so sure - my hunch is that in a case like this, the support would be for the volunteers over management. Either way, it's less the editorial line that would matter than the public reaction - on which the British public tend to support "the little man" over "the organisation".

@ghost is absolutely right in the preceding post in his comments about the role of management in trying to defuse a dispute before it arises.

 

Not sure I agree that where railways are concerned the public supports "the little man" let alone Daily Mail readers.

 

There's a difference between heritage railways and the mainline - and especially where volunteers are seen to be "forced out"

 

I am totally in support of volunteers being listened to and having the opportunity to raise their concerns. That's why the NYMR has created a regular volunteer forum. The suggested purpose of volunteer strike was, as Tom identifies, to raise the spectre of further financial stress to force change but it's unlikely that all volunteers would support such action or who would agree on their behalf what change was sufficient. If some assume the right to represent all volunteers they could well face resentment from those who do not support such action and who just want to continue enjoying the opportunity to volunteer. Consequently such initiatives tend to collapse in acrimony and confusion but not before having damaged the railway. Far better to brinmg pressure to bear through the forum that exists for that purpose.

 

IIRC, volunteers faced with a similarly intransigent management, were talking of a strike and just the threat alone had the desired result. Maybe it is necessary to put forward the potential for drastic action in the offing to demonstrate the strength of feeling. I don't recall there being a major public backlash against the volunteers there, and the NYMR has an ongoing series of ruinous annual losses back their cases, which it would be very hard to argue is their fault.

 

I agree, but it takes two to tango. The strong sense I get is that there is no tango

 

What if 70% of the much despised management team walked out at the same time? Sometimes we hit them so hard that we forget that they are as fed us and often as rebellious as we feel. Spoke to 2 at the gala both with manager at the end of their title and both said they were ready to walk and at a recent meeting where the top tier weren’t present a lot of their colleagues felt the same way. Maybe what is needed to pull the volunteers, general staff and middle management together is exactly this kind of action.

 

Wasn't the last one of these held during normal working hours, making it hard for volunteers with jobs to attend?
Sawdust.

 

I've today been reminded of two heritage railways where volunteers merely threatened to strike and it had the desired effect so there may well be mileage in it. I've also had a long conversation with a volunteer who says that there is an atmosphere of doom and gloom amongst those he has recently spoken to and there may well be an appetite for withdrawal from volunteering. It wouldn't need many to not volunteer to bring the railway to its knees, especially as there are some that clock up as many as 100 turns/year in the footplate department and I know that they are disgruntled.
I'd hate to see it happen, though, and would rather see common sense prevail.

 

So how would "bringing the railway to its knees" help?