Whatever

In case it, and other unions threatening Harrods, Eurostar's third party cleaners OCS and Swissport, have not noticed, there is a recession brewing out in the wider world. Calling a strike that will disrupt millions of people going about their business is not a smart move, but one that can only help to accelerate economic decline. It may be unpalatable, but in difficult times such as these it is imperative that pay restraint is shown – and we all have to bear the brunt of such restraint if we are to keep hold of our jobs and help prevent a deeper and more damaging recession.

I support the right to strike. But people don’t have the right to strike just because they are employees. Striking should be the last resort – not a strategic form of intimidation to be used every time you want to gain something. And a strike is just as much a sign of a union’s failure as it is management’s – ultimately costing both employer and employee alike.

The problem in the RMT's case is that it can – and frequently does – hold London to ransom. This approach is increasingly losing the union any friends it had among the beleaguered commuting public. A pay rise of 4.95% and final salary pension on wages of up to £50,000? Most commuters can only dream of such favourable terms and conditions. A senior manager at one of the big accountants told me only today that he would receive a 1.5% rise this year if he delivers an “exceptional” performance.

Crow’s argument is that the terms of his maintenance worker members are less favourable than those of other tube lines – lines that are now in the hands of the public sector in the form of Transport for London. Crow knows that Tube Lines is a private company and it is up to the company to set its own terms and conditions. We wouldn’t expect Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda to sit down together and harmonise their pay and conditions would we? Yet their employees “do the same work”, to quote Crow. Like the rest of us, if Tube Lines’ workers don’t like their terms they should go and get a job elsewhere.

However, the ridiculous situation whereby we have two-thirds of our network’s infrastructure in public hands and one-third in private – thanks to the government’s flawed PPP approach – plays into Crow’s hands. This leads to confusion in the minds of the public and situations where we get Mayor Boris Johnson announcing an increase in the London Living Wage to £7.45 an hour for all GLA staff, including those of TfL, while Tube Lines’ staff do not receive it.

Both the Government and Johnson need to carefully consider the current defective approach, as failure to tackle it will only cause more disruption in the future. As for Johnson’s vote-winning ‘no strike agreement’, if all infrastructure were to come under TfL’s remit he could then try to implement this. Other public sector experience shows that a pragmatic, open-communication approach from management can avert strikes and Johnson should seriously consider the ramifications before removing one of our democratic rights. However, we already have a no strike rule for the Metropolitan Police and I feel the public would welcome the same for other key sectors that serve it, including transport. Crow’s dogmatic approach may yet backfire.

Meanwhile I would suggest that Tube Lines chief Terry Morgan considers introducing the London Living Wage – after all, even private sector companies such as Barclays have introduced it for their contractors’ staff. Offering a living wage in our expensive city is the sign of a good employer – and one that wants to motivate and retain the best staff - be it public or private sector.