Atheist:
The one thing that BOTH sides of the rail dispute agree on is that the Government's suggestion of using agency workers is totally unworkable.
Quote:
"The suggested legislative changes won't happen for the first wave of strikes in just over a week, but if there are more, Grant Shapps hopes agency workers can fill gaps.
. . .
There are a few problems.
Firstly, the UK economy has a huge recruitment problem at the moment. There are record numbers of vacancies, and not enough workers to fill them. So finding 50,000 agency workers for the railways when we can't fully resource UK airports could be a challenge.
Secondly, both sides of this fractious industrial dispute have said that safety problems with agency workers make this plan impossible. Unions and the rail industry say safety-critical roles like signallers, guards, drivers can't easily be covered. They say these workers don't work for agencies, they already work in the railway."
Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61773437
If even there were lots of train drivers on agency's books (which there aren't), they couldn't simply take over the duties of striking drivers anyway. Driving a train isn't like driving a car, where a driving licence allows someone to drive on any road in the country. Train drivers aren't allowed to drive anywhere at all unless they've got 'route knowledge'. That requires them to undergo instruction, on the specific routes that they'll end up driving on, where they have to learn about every single signal and its meaning.
(For example, it's not good enough for them to see a 'proceed aspect'. They also have to assess whether that signal might have been given to them in error if, say, it appears to be directing an 'up' train onto a 'down' line).
So a (fictitious) agency driver could be allowed to drive on any route until he'd been fully trained by another driver with experience on that route - and the only such drivers would be those who were on strike!