London - There was a distinctly retro feel about the capital on Thursday. The day after a Budget which had established beyond doubt that the Conservatives were back in government, London commuters gritted their teeth, put on sensible shoes, and set out on what was for many a long walk to work.
Old bicycles were dusted off, and vintage scooters. Extra river boats plied the Thames. At major Tube stations, it was back to the “bobby on the beat”, as police were deployed in pairs in case the crowds lost their cool (which they mostly didn't; it was back to the stiff upper lip). Transport for London added a nostalgic touch of its own by requisitioning some old Routemasters for the day. With conductors.
And the reason for all this? Pretty much the whole of the Underground was on strike - the first time that a labour dispute had shut down the network in its entirety since 2002.
There was more disruption for those intending to travel to or from the west of England and Wales. Here, the number of high-speed trains was reduced by half because staff at First Great Western, like their colleagues on the Tube, were taking what used to be called “industrial action”.
Both stoppages can be seen as an early sign that the economic recovery is for real; trades unions sense that their bargaining position is stronger than it has been for a while. The rail strike was called over potential job losses when new trains are introduced that are designed to have neither guards nor buffet cars. It is an old-fashioned beef about jobs.
The trigger for the Tube strike, however, was the introduction of a weekend night service on some lines from September, for which the unions want a lot more compensation than they have been offered. As such, this is also a classic worker dispute about pay and conditions. But it comes after a series of smaller strikes over such matters as the closure of ticket offices, which suggests a more general climate of poor industrial relations.
The plans for a night service seem to have been particularly badly handled. By any standards, the introduction of night working where there was none before (though of course there are late nights and very early mornings) represents a big change. Even if night shifts are entirely voluntary - which is not clear, although jobs are being added - there will still be fears that at some point night working could become compulsory. The unions cite “quality of life” issues and contractual changes as reasons why they should receive a better deal than is on the table.
Whatever one thinks of the offer - among transport workers, Tube drivers are already pretty well paid, with a salary of around £50 000 a year - something is wrong when there remains such an enormous gap between management and staff, and such ill-feeling, so late in the day. It is, after all, just two months before the first weekend night services are supposed to run.
London's transport system has undoubtedly improved in recent years. But a competent management at London Underground might have been expected to prepare the ground rather better than it apparently has, even if it is up against union leaders keen not to betray the legacy of the late Bob Crow. There has been criticism of negotiators unversed in the arts of dealing with rail unions, and neglect of time-honoured informal channels. It is quite an achievement - on both sides - to have all four unions “rock solid”.
And yet... it may be just an impression, but it was not at all evident to me on Thursday that the government, or the Mayor of London, or even Transport for London were particularly upset. Of course, the networked world enables many more people to work from home. But there are other reasons why a total shutdown of a transport system that carries three million people a day, and front page pictures of frustrated commuters, might serve everyone except the unions quite well indeed.
First, it fuels the argument that a vibrant modern metropolis like London needs a transport system that cannot be held to ransom by union power. The disruption and economic damage caused by a strike that completely knocks out a crucial form of transport can be used to justify the imposition of something like the French system of a “service minimum”. Strikes are not completely outlawed, but if there is a strike, a skeleton service must run.
Second, the London shutdown can be cited as a reason why the law on strike ballots should be tightened, as has been proposed in the past, to require a minimum level of participation.
And although London Mayor Boris Johnson declined to mention it on Thursday, it provides a compelling argument for the introduction of driverless trains. If Tube drivers see night working as a quality of life issue, there is - or soon will be - a remedy. As things stand, the Underground is preparing to introduce trains that operate without drivers from 2022, but the plan is to keep drivers for at least another 10 years. That timetable is far too timid.
Technological advances have eliminated whole sectors of (often less pleasant) employment, and created countless others. Where trade unions stood out against change, the partings were bitter: just in my lifetime, coal-mining and newspaper printing come to mind.
Personally, I detest self-service check-outs at supermarkets, but they make the economics of longer opening work, for everyone's convenience. Railways have long left the age of steam. The driverless Docklands Light Railway is safe, reliable, and almost impervious to strikes. Union power is not what it was. Tube trains and, eventually, cars will operate without drivers. In time, London's July day without the Tube could be seen as a decisive stage along that path.
The Independent