ASLEF CAMPAIGNS

Image:

SQUASH in the Cab

‘SQUASH IN THE CAB’ – is ASLEF’s campaign to improve our members’ working conditions within driving cabs.

We’ve called the campaign ‘SQUASH’ because it reflects what many cabs are like today - and outlines our objectives.

ASLEF wants its members to work in cabs that are:

Safe

Quiet

User-friendly

Air-conditioned

Specially seated

Healthy

To expand on the slogan OUR DEMANDS are cabs that are:

SAFE

WE WANT cabs that have no hazards - such as water leaks that can reach electrical elements

QUIET

WE WANT cabs that conform to office standards – which means you should never be subjected to single high-volume noise or regular whines which can affect your hearing. Sound emissions must be muted. Twenty years ago we didn’t expect to be able to speak to the person next to us in our cars - but times have changed. It’s time the railway caught up.

USER-FRIENDLY

WE WANT cabs with controls that we can reach with ease and don’t involve leaning or stretching to operate. We need to be able to keep our eyes on the track and not be scrambling across the cab to find a button or a lever.

AIRED

WE WANT all UK cabs to be fitted with air conditioning.

This is no longer a luxury – the most basic motor-cars now have this fitted as standard. If we are to be alert and able to concentrate for long periods, air-con is not an extravagance, but a basic necessity. It is what we are used to in our cars and in our carriages. It must become the norm in the cab. Remember, there are few occupations in the land as safety-critical as our own.

SPECIALLY SEATED

WE WANT chairs that are ergonomically designed to maximise comfortable working and prevent back pain that distracts from concentration. Seating height from the floor, length from controls and back position should all be adjustable In an office environment, this is standard: in our cabs it is often a sick joke.

HEALTHY

WE WANT cabs that protect our drivers and add to rail safety for passengers. That is why we demand train-driving specific mandatory temperature limits (both hot and cold) for cabs.

The Evidence

Headquarters Activity

Company Council Activity

Rail Unions Pension Campaign

Thousands of workers past and present, who have an interest in the Railways Pension Scheme (RPS), need your help. The rail industry unions – ASLEF, CSEU, RMT and TSSA – are backing a major campaign to safeguard workers’ retirement benefits.

The unions believe the RPS is under threat and members need to be alert and informed. We are calling on employers to:

CAP EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 10.56%

KEEP BENEFITS AT THEIR CURRENT LEVEL

STREAMLINE THE SCHEME

OPEN THE SCHEME TO ALL EMPLOYEES

What is the threat?

A pension scheme needs enough money to pay for existing benefits and those that will accrue in the future. Actuarial valuations of the various RPS sections indicate a shortfall (or deficit) in most sections, which means there won’t be enough money to pay railway workers the decent pension they have paid for. Many employers think the solution is to implement massive hikes in employee contributions and cut back on future pension benefits. In other words, pay more and get less!

Why is this a threat?

In most sections of the RPS, employees will be expected to increase their contributions significantly. Workers could be forced to drop out of the scheme if they can’t afford it. This would increase the financial burden on those who remain in the scheme, adding to the funding problems.

The workers hardest hit will be the lowest-paid, for whom any further bite out of the wage packet has a disproportionate impact.

Cutting back on pension benefits decreases the overall value, so members may see little advantage to being in the scheme. Falling membership and reduced rewards could lead to a vicious circle where the RPS disappears forever.

Why do we need to campaign?

The unions have approached the major employers in the industry. We explained to them about the problems the RPS faces but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. So we need to turn up the volume. Every union member with a vested interest in the RPS needs to let employers know how strongly they feel. Keep up the pressure on companies to keep contributions at an affordable level.

WHY CAP EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS AT 10.56%?

This was the rate paid under the original BR scheme, before contributions were reduced after surpluses in the late 1980s. Contributions higher than this could prove too expensive and lead to large numbers of members dropping out of the RPS.

WHY KEEP BENEFITS AT THEIR CURRENT LEVEL?

Pensions are deferred pay, and like all your terms and conditions of employment, they are negotiated between the employers and the trade unions.

The cost of future benefits is not the problem. The most pressing issue is clearing the deficit created by the actuary changing his assumptions from previous evaluations, such as his views on how long we are all living in retirement.

Cutting back on pension benefits will make the RPS less attractive, which means that fewer staff will want to join the scheme and more people will drop out.

WHY STREAMLINE THE SCHEME?

Privatisation of British Rail led to the creation of one of the most complex pension schemes in the UK. There are now about 100 sections. These have different contribution rates and benefits and there are huge administration costs linked to each one. It makes sense to streamline the scheme: it would be easier to run and cut out unnecessary costs. Streamlining could also lead to a standard contribution rate.

The unions want three open sections:

A train-operating section
An infrastructure and engineering section
An omnibus section.

Taxpayers – including RPS members – will save money by not picking up the bill for valuations when franchises or other contracts change. And, in an industry where workers often move between companies, an integrated scheme is simpler for workers, employers and the administrators.

WHY KEEP THE SCHEME OPEN TO ALL MEMBERS?

The more contributors to the scheme, the more people there are to build up the pension funds, so keeping the scheme open to everyone will keep it healthy and viable in the long-term. That would give all rail workers the security in retirement they deserve.
What next?

The rail unions have agreed to work together and not to enter into agreements with employers unilaterally. We have written to the government, to the trustees and to all the major employers. As employers have until the end of June to work out how to deal with pension deficits, the four general secretaries will address campaign meetings across the country. We should fight to protect our pensions:

Cherish the past.

Protect the future.

All the railway unions defending your pension scheme

Campaign meetings

9 March, Cardiff

21 March, York

28 March, Glasgow

29 March, Edinburgh

3 April, Birmingham

5 April, Bristol

10 April, Perth (at the Scottish TUC)

19 April, Manchester,

20 April, London.

Press Briefing – Monday, 6th March 2006

back to Campaigns

27th March 2006 - Punish Corporate Killing

BACKGROUND FACTS

What is corporate manslaughter?

Corporate manslaughter is a crime that can be committed by a company in relation to a work-related death.

The offence is intrinsically linked to whether a director or senior manager - a "controlling mind and will" of the company - is guilty of manslaughter. If the director or manager is found guilty, the company is guilty; if the director or manager is found innocent, the company is innocent.

Is it difficult to prosecute?

Proving corporate manslaughter has been notoriously difficult in the past.

This is because the law requires that a director or senior manager is prosecuted before the company - a separate legal entity - can be prosecuted.

But it is difficult to prosecute directors or senior managers of large companies - even though there may be some very serious failures on the part of the company or individuals - for a number of reasons including:

Large companies will often delegate safety decisions to managers low down the hierarchy or to outside companies
The law does not impose any positive duty upon company directors to take action to ensure that their company complies with health and safety law.

Have any large companies been prosecuted?

Four large companies have been prosecuted for manslaughter, three in the rail sector - and all the cases failed.

Great Western Trains was cleared of the manslaughter of seven people who died in the Southall Train Crash in 1997.
The Crown Prosecution Service tried to prosecute the company without prosecuting any individual director or manager.

The court ruled the case could not go ahead on this basis.

The company subsequently pleaded guilty to health and safety offences and was fined £1.5m.

In Network Rail and Balfour Beatty's case, the companies were cleared before the case came before the jury.
The judge decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

P&O European Ferries and two directors were acquitted of the manslaughter of 192 people who died when the Herald of Free Enterprise sank off the coast of Zeebrugge in May 1987 after it had left port with its bow doors open
The trial collapsed in its early stages when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence against any director or senior manager.

When did the government say it would introduce new laws on corporate manslaughter?

In 1997. Eight years ago.

ASLEF CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER BRIEFING

CAMPAIGN EVENTS

Image:

Official aslef web site

Freight on rail website link

Image:

Who Cares?

WE CARE

- Supporters of the Campaign

Thanks to everyone who has returned postcards or sent messages in response to our 'Who Cares?' campaign.

Below are some of the people who have contacted us
(at cproctor@aslef.org.uk or by returning a postcard or other message to
9 Arkwright Road, London NW3 6AB)

FROM ASLEF

Geoff Akerman, train driver, First/TPE urges, 'Trucks off the road and onto the rail network!'

Frank Barrington, driver, Freightliner, who calls for 'more investment
in rail freight and less in road transport'

Russ Bramhall, Branch Secretary, ASLEF Sheffield Midland 125

Pauline Calderwood, Leeds Branch Secretary, asks, 'Who cares? I care,
you care, we care!'

D.Dobson, Vice Chair of Leeds branch who says, 'Diverting freight away
from rail is not a sustainable option. The economic, environmental and
human arguments are overwhelming.'

D. Bull, Branch Secretary of Ramsgate asks, ‘Have you ever sat in a queue of lorries and thought, ‘Someone should do something about this?’ Well, now you can – send a postcard!’

Barry Edwards sent us these thoughtful comments: 'I think most of us
agree with the sentiment of getting freight back on rail. However the
Rail Industry has I believe recently shot itself in the foot.
'Recently DRS has trialled class 87s (electric locos) on freight trains.
They requested extra paths to run more freight services, apparently
these were granted with the proviso that the extra trains were
electrically hauled. This trial has been scuppered by the fact that
Network Rail has increased the pathing charge by 40% for electric
services.
'Bearing in mind the organisation(s) that negotiated these extra paths
are to all intents and purposes Government bodies, it makes me wonder if
they are really as keen as they say about 'green' transport issues. Okay
it can be argued that electric trains merely transfer potential
pollution to power stations, but at least it's a start. It seems to me
this is yet another example of today's railway is incapable of joined-up
thinking.
I cannot see how financially discouraging the use of electric traction
can promote the environmental benefits of freight on rail;
unsurprisingly these days, someone in authority hasn't thought this
through.'

Giles Hinton, St Blazey Branch Secretary
John Hopwood, ASLEF Potters Bar
S.F.House, driver Wessex trains, Penzance
R.C. Pain, Train Driver, EWS
Rob Phillips, Lampeter

FROM OTHER UNIONS

Anna McKeown, Chair, Association of Professional Tourist Guides
Alastair Rowe, Leading Conductor, Wessex Trains

FROM OTHER ORGANISATIONS

Norman Bradbury, Rail Future
Peter White, Campaigns Officer, Ilford North Young Labour

FROM RETIRED PEOPLE

William Bennet, ex-GNER driver, Enfield
George Case, Potters Bar
Ted Driscoll. National Pensioners Convention, Blackheath
Dot Gibson, London secretary of the National Pensioners Convention
Joy Moss, Greater London National Pensioners Convention
Mrs Pat Prendergast, London Irish Elders Forum
P. Shukla, Treasurer Greater London National Pensioners Convention
Peter Smith, Over-50s Forum

FROM BUSINESS

Martyn Pellew, PD Ports plc says, 'The UK government needs to use every
opportunity to promote energy efficient alternatives to road transport.'

Mrs J. Smith, Network Education

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download/view/print campaign publicity resources:

Poster | Sticker | Postcard | Letter to M.P.

Image:

Union seeks Government intervention in Freight Campaign

Thursday 09-06-05

ASLEF has written to ministers at the departments of transport and the environment to seek support for its ‘Who Cares?’ campaign which is aimed at maximising the use of rail for freight transport.

The union has stressed to Margaret Beckett at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and to Alistair Darling at the Department for Transport that government and ASLEF objectives are very similar.

Acting General Secretary Keith Norman says a successful outcome for the campaign would achieve three major targets:

1
To reduce CO2 emissions and other pollutants in line with the government’s commitments to the Kyoto protocols

2
To radically reduce heavy traffic on our major roads, thus cutting down on congestion with a solution largely favoured by major haulage companies

3
To achieve these goals without affecting public life-styles.

We have asked the ministers to indicate a general attitude towards our objectives that we can use in campaign material and with discussions with Network Rail and freight companies.

We will report the responses from the ministers when we receive them.

© Copyright ASLEF 2005. Web Design & Management Powerline Systems Ltd

Image:

Union at Parliament

Wednesday 08-06-05

ASLEF leaders met MPs last evening to discuss how politicians can assist and develop union campaigns. The MPs put forward positive proposals and suggestions on the Freight on Rail and rail safety campaigns, offered to promote a debate within the union on Europe and considered methods of raising ASLEF concerns in Parliament.

The meeting began with a review of the General Election – and the ASLEF group of MPs stressed the importance of trade union assistance in Labour’s victory. Ann Cryer was especially grateful because the BNP had conducted a particularly volatile campaign in her constituency. Robin Cook specifically thanked ASLEF members north of the border.

The union representatives – led by acting General Secretary Keith Norman, National Organiser Andy Reed and vice-president Steve Usher– explained the background to, and progress in, the legal cases involving BNP member Jay Lee. Gwyneth Dunwoody reminded the meeting that the trial of BNP leaders Tyndale and Griffin for incitement to racial hatred was due to begin in Leeds on 16 June.

The politicians congratulated the union on its ‘Who Cares?’ campaign to move more freight by rail. They felt that, with suitable pressure, it was an issue that could attract government support because it could improve environmental targets without affecting the population’s life-style. They advised the union about expert advice on carbon savings and the Kyoto protocol.

There were also discussions about the ownership of former Railtrack land, and the MPs promised to attempt to involve the government in the union campaign to use available technology to counter the hazards of level crossings.

© Copyright ASLEF 2005. Web Design & Management Powerline Systems Ltd

AMICUS/GMB William Cook dispute ends

05 May

Former ASLEF EC President Bill Ronksley has, in his role as Secretary of Sheffield Trades Council, written to strikers at steel company William Cook to congratulate them on their courage and persistence as the four-year old dispute came to a conclusion.

William Cook’s sacked members of AMICUS and the GMB for taking a single day’s strike in April 2001 to oppose a massive cut in wages. At one time 120 workers were locked out.

Eddy Grimes, the senior steward at Cooks, addressed last year’s ASLEF AAD to give an update on the dispute and, as on previous occasions, the delegates held a collection which was matched by an EC donation.

Last year the William Cook workers won a tribunal against the employer against which the employer appealed. The courts then appointed an independent mediator to seek a financial settlement between the two sides.

Now the 13 remaining strikers have accepted a deal worked out on the eve of a Court of Appeal hearing. The terms must remain confidential, but while they have not got their jobs back, the strikers are said to be pleased with the outcome and have thanked ASLEF for its practical support.

TUC welcomes no change in small claims limit
Welcoming the announcement today (Tuesday) from Lord Falconer that he is not to raise the small claims limit for personal injury, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'We’re very pleased to hear that the small claims limit for personal injury is not to be increased from £1,000 to £5,000, as had originally been proposed. Any increase would have denied many thousands of workers access to justice and legal compensation or forced people into the arms of "no-win, no fee" companies.
'Had the change gone ahead, it would have seriously limited the ability of trade union legal services to provide access to justice for those injured as a result of employers’ negligence. A recent TUC survey showed that over 70% of claimants currently represented would be seriously hindered from getting suitable advice from a solicitor if the limit had been increased.'
When the proposals suggesting an increase were first announced, the TUC wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking him to keep the limit at £1,000.

NO LIMITS ON JUSTICE SAYS KEITH NORMAN

11 March

ASLEF has urged the Lord Chancellor to reject a proposal that would raise the cash limit in small claims going before the courts. And he repeated his call to the Scottish Justice minister.
The effect of such a move would deprive many workers of access to justice acting general secretary Keith Norman told Lord Falconer QC.
"Unions as a whole pursue more injury cases than arise from any other source. ASLEF, like other unions, does not pursue dubious claims. Our service can be contrasted with that offered by less scrupulous organisations.
ASLEF members have never faced a cost associated with our providing this support. We have consistently provided this service, which has become more important as the state no longer provides legal aid for such cases" he said.
"In the year to 31 December 2004, 115 out of the 140 cases, which were pursued successfully, were for awards of less than £5,000. We understand this is proportionately less than other unions, but is still the significant majority. This includes a small number of cases for less than £1,000, when currently no costs are recoverable.
We, along with our solicitors, essentially absorb this cost. However the point is we simply could not afford to do so if the limit was raised. We also recognise the role claims play in relation to improving health and safety."
"Many injury cases are not easy to win. They are harder to win without good representation. Insurers fight even in the cases where liability is obvious. They have even been known to say they will not pay, because the value is below the small claims limit and therefore they do not anticipate that the claimant can afford to run the case. After all, the loss of a few thousand pounds is a lot to working people, especially those on low wages."
"What at first sight may seem like a positive move, in raising the small claims limit to help claimants, in fact will deprive the greatest proportion of access to justice" said Keith Norman.

Rail union calls for advanced cab warning system
Train drivers’ union ASLEF has repeated its call for investment in advanced warning systems for train drivers' cabs. Commenting in the aftermath of last week’s level crossing disaster in Berkshire in which seven people include the train driver died, ASLEF's acting general secretary Keith Norman said: 'Level crossings are a major site for deaths on the railway network. The technology exists to give train drivers advance warning of blockages on the track.' A preliminary report from the Health and Safety Executive concluded neither railway staff nor rail infrastructure was to blame for the fatal train crash on 6 November. The report found the driver of the high speed First Great Western service from London to Plymouth had just two or three seconds to brake before his train smashed into a car apparently parked on a level crossing near Ufton Nervet . Seven people, including the driver of the car, died in the crash, and another 37 were taken to hospital. The driver of the train, ASLEF member Stanley Martin, had been driving at the permitted speed for the stretch of line and there was no blame attached to him, the report said. This finding backed up a statement from ASLEF that Mr Martin had done everything possible to avert the accident.

Image:

TRADE UNION MEMBERS VOTE TO RETAIN THEIR POLITICAL VOICE

Trade union members have once again voted overwhelming to retain their political voice by voting to retain their political funds.

On Friday 12th November 2004, eight unions closed their political fund review ballots – ASLEF, BECTU, CATU, CWU, FBU, GMB, TSSA and USDAW. All achieved overwhelming yes votes, with an average 77% affirmative vote.

This brings the total number of unions to achieve massive yes votes, in this the third round of review ballots, to 16.

Commenting on the results, Jenny Smith of the Trade Union Co-ordinating Committee said:

“These are outstanding results, which yet again demonstrate that trade union members want to retain their political voice. The results show that union members support the work of their unions; and are a vote of confidence on union achievements and future ambitions. The time has come for the Government to repeal this unnecessary, bureaucratic, and cumbersome piece of legislation which forces unions, unlike private companies not only to establish political funds, but to hold review ballots every ten years to retain them.”

AUTUMN POLITICAL FUND REVIEW BALLOT RESULTS:

Union
Yes %
Turnout %

ASLEF
80
49

BECTU
75
29

CATU
67
19

CWU
73
33

FBU
74
42

GMB
88
19

TSSA
78
26

USDAW
81
18