Letter: How rail union learnt a lesson

Mr Roger Straker
Thursday 15 April 1993 23:02 BST
Comments

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.

Sir: In your profile of Jimmy Knapp (10 April), you overlook a crucial event in early 1985, when the then National Union of Railwaymen Executive voted for an all-out strike on London Underground over one-person operation of trains and was comprehensively rolled over by the membership, more than three-quarters of whom ignored the strike call - totally unprecedented in the history of a trade union with a long tradition of solidarity. It was undoubtedly this event which led the union's executive to accept the proposition that the BR membership should be balloted later in that year over driver-only operation in BR. Had there been a ballot in London Underground, the earlier humiliation could have been avoided.

As always the loyal servant of his union, Jimmy Knapp campaigned vigorously in support of the executive's recommendation to strike. But when the majority in BR voted against a strike, far from being a humiliation, this actually justified the decision to hold a ballot, since the vote was held before a strike ballot became a legal requirement.

With regard to the present dispute, the Government will be unwise to rely on anti-union sentiment, when it is widely perceived that the fundamental issue, as with the teachers, is the impact on staff of the implementation of radical changes without pre-planning, selective testing and building up a sufficient constituency of support.

The public is actually very nervous about this, and senses that the Government, in pursuit of commercial disciplines, behaves in a way no self-respecting commercial enterprise would contemplate.

Yours faithfully,

ROGER STRAKER

Hove, East Sussex

The writer was personnel director of London Underground (1984-92).

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in