Leading Article: Rail strike sends mixed signals
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.IT IS hard to believe that the dispute behind today's rail strike could not be resolved if both sides chose to show greater imagination and flexibility. The core issue is the measuring of productivity gains and the sharing out of the resulting savings. The Government's public sector pay policy imposes a freeze on wage bills. All increases must be funded from improvements in efficiency. Railtrack says the additional pounds 4.3m it offered the signalmen on Monday evening is thus recoverable. The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union claims Railtrack is understating the saving, so more should be available - and that signalmen should also be rewarded for previous gains.
This is deeply familiar territory, even if some features of the contemporary political landscape have a fresher look: an economy only recently emerged from a recession in which public sector unions settled within a 1.5 per cent pay limit; a Labour Party in the throes of choosing a new leader; and a government preparing British Rail for privatisation.
It should not be beyond the wit of those involved in the dispute to achieve a compromise that keeps everyone reasonably happy. Railtrack needs to be able to demonstrate that a better offer is also covered by gains in efficiency. The signalmen want to be able to attribute part of the award to past productivity gains; and for the Government, the improved offer must not be too close to the 5.7 per cent believed to have constituted Railtrack's first offer - the one John McGregor, the Transport Secretary, caused to be dropped.
The public's attitude remains equivocal. Last week's strike gained by taking place in glorious weather. Large numbers of commuters stayed at home, enjoyed the sunshine and toasted the union leader, Jimmy Knapp. The Government's intervention, which it at first denied, created the impression that the union negotiators had been misled by Railtrack. Majority sympathies were with the signalmen, archaic though their wage structure seemed.
But with two further strike days now scheduled, that could change. In the Commons yesterday, Mr Major sought to brand the acting Labour leader, Margaret Beckett, as 'the striker's friend'. Even today's shiny new centrist Labour Party is likely to be damaged by continued disruption by what could be portrayed as old-fashioned, thoughtless trade unionism. Paddy Ashdown will have struck a chord yesterday when he said that strikes should be the last resort, not the first.
In the longer term, it is in the Government's interests that the dispute should be settled swiftly and equitably. The market both for privatised railway franchises and Railtrack itself will be sluggish if potential operators fear being held to ransom by workers who operate the infrastructure.
Against the short-term gain of Labour discomfiture, the Cabinet should set serious damage to its already deeply flawed privatisation programme.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments