Based on a 8.30 maximum shift length they could only work one peak.
I thought that was the case, so in reality you would need double that number - two shifts would probably be sufficient on a strike day. I would be surprised if LU even had 800+ managers doing jobs that wouldn't need to be done on a strike day, who are medically fit, etc. to drive trains, who could be trained even if there was sufficient trainers to do so (which there aren't), training was quick and easy (it isn't) and there would be no issues from the unions (there would be).
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart. --Antoine de St. Exupery
From my experience of partaking in ASLEF strikes on the Underground and BR, those who choose to come in to work and break the strike tend to be ignored by others for an awful long time. the term "scab" is used to those who do so. there are people around today who I will not talk to if I see them in the street because they broke the ASLEF strike in 1982.
There's been instances of main line managers driving and guarding trains during recent disputes and there's been reportable incidents. It's not a good idea at all.
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2019 21:03:26 GMT by roythebus: typo
A vague memory has surfaced of a proposed long-term system-wide strike around 1980. Signals dept had no experience of a long-term stoppage, and were worried that relays may stick so it was proposed that Area Managers would work the occasional empty train on all routes every day. But talks overcame the strike, so it never became reality.
Did the problem of sticking relays arise after 7/7 resulted in some long term closures?
While this may have been acceptable in the past (and the phrasing suggests we are), the current laws around industrial action are quite clear - only persons belonging to the specific trade union involved in the dispute have any protection under law should they chose to strike (and even then only for the first 6 weeks I think if you stick strictly to what the legislation says).
Anyone else not coming in and citing the dispute as a reason for absence is considered to be taking ‘secondary action’ - which is illegal and they thus can be subject to disciplinary proceedings including dismissal should their employer be sufficiently hostile to trade unions to push the matter.
However I am not sure how a company would know who is a union member.
As part part of the Thatcherite anti trade union laws it is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for any union taking strike action to pass on to the companies management a complete list of their members.
If your name is not on the list, then the employer can take disciplinary action as you will legally be dreamed to be ‘absent without leave’ and in breach of your contract of employment.
By contrast anyone on the list gets legal immunity from disciplinary action if they take strike action in the first 6 weeks after the ballot result in favour of action is announced.
Beyond 6 weeks the legal protection disappears and technically a fresh ballot must be held to rest the clock. In reality (particularly in the public service sector) employers are rarely that harsh and will not take disciplinary action against union members even though 6 weeks have passed.
However the longer a dispute goes on past the 6 week threshold, then the greater the chance the company will be able to argue in court that the strike mandate is no longer valid - hence in long running disputes like the current one on South Western Railway over the role of Guards, regular ballots must be held to provide legal protection to the union and its members.
This is why trades unions are very proactive at telling members to ensure their details are up to date.