来源：《卫报》
原文刊登日期：2022年5月29日
Last week’s overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action by members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) has been predictably portrayed as a return to 1970s-style union militancy. Against a backdrop of soaring inflation and public sector pay caps, a potential confrontation between organised labour and the government does have a certain retro quality. But the alarmism is overdone and misses the deeper issues at stake. The RMT’s demands for better pay and job security should be seen in the context of an industry whose future is suddenly and disturbingly uncertain.
上周，全国铁路、海运和运输工人联合会（RMT）成员以压倒性多数投票赞成罢工，如预见的那样，这被描绘成上世纪70年代风格的工会斗争的回归。在通胀飙升和公共部门薪酬设置上限的背景下，有组织的劳工和政府之间的潜在对抗，确实具有某种复古意味。但这种危言耸听言过其实，忽略了更深层的利害关系。RMT对更高工资和工作保障的要求应该放在一个行业的背景下来看，这个行业的未来突然变得令人不安地不确定。
Total passenger numbers on trains have now returned to about 80% of pre-Covid levels. But the figures are significantly lower on profitable commuter routes – particularly those into London. White-collar workers have embraced hybrid and remote working as the new normal, and the rail industry faces an annual £2bn shortfall in revenue. While the population stayed at home during the pandemic, the government spent an extra £15bn to keep the network running. But as it turns the financial taps off and demands deep spending cuts, the government is in effect ordering the rail industry to cut its cloth according to these changed circumstances.
目前，火车上的乘客总数已恢复到新冠疫情前的约80%。但在利润丰厚的通勤线路上，这一数字要低得多，尤其是去伦敦的线路。白领们已将混合和远程工作模式视为新常态，而铁路行业每年面临20亿英镑的收入缺口。在疫情期间，英国人都呆在家里，政府却额外花费了150亿英镑来维持铁路网络的运行。但当政府关闭财政水龙头并要求大幅削减开支时，政府实际上是在命令铁路行业根据这些变化的环境削减开支。
Understandably, given the high proportion of fixed costs involved in running a railway, the RMT’s leaders fear that their members will bear the brunt of this coming retrenchment. As well as a pay rise to reflect the impact of double-digit inflation, the union is seeking to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies. The resounding vote to strike if necessary has strengthened the RMT’s hand. On the other side of the table, the train operators are justified in arguing that changing patterns of rail usage may require more flexible working patterns. Compromises will be needed if levels of disruption not seen since the 1990s are to be avoided.
可以理解的是，考虑到运营铁路所涉及的高比例固定成本，RMT的领导人担心工会成员将承受即将到来的紧缩的冲击。除了加薪以反映两位数通胀的影响外，工会还寻求确保不会出现强制裁员。如有必要就罢工的压倒性投票加强了RMT的影响力。另一方面，铁路运营商有理由认为，改变铁路使用模式可能需要更灵活的工作模式。如果要避免自上世纪90年代以来未见的中断程度，就必须做出妥协。
In the longer term, the government must decide what future it actually wants for the sector. Imposed cuts leading to less frequent, more crowded trains could trigger a spiral of decline. That would be utterly at odds with Whitehall’s levelling up agenda, which purportedly aims to boost and develop public transport infrastructure and services beyond south-east England. It would also undermine the vital role that the rail industry should play in the country’s transition to net zero.
从长远来看，政府必须决定它真正想要的铁路行业的未来是怎样的。强制削减导致列车班次减少、列车更加拥挤，可能会引发螺旋式下降。这将与白厅的均衡发展议程完全相悖，均衡发展据称旨在促进和发展英格兰东南部以外的公共交通基础设施和服务。这还将削弱铁路行业在英国向零碳排放转型过程中应发挥的关键作用。
One of the leading historians of our railways, Christian Wolmar, has written about the “inability of successive governments to set out precisely what they are for”. Should rail travel be treated as essentially a business like any other, or as a public good to be run – and subsidised – according to different criteria? Driven by a short-sighted determination to rein in spending following the pandemic, Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, is reverting to the former proposition. That could have lasting and damaging consequences. Our railways deserve better than a future of managed decline.
研究铁路的一位著名历史学家克里斯蒂安•沃尔马曾写道，“历届政府都无法明确阐明运营铁路的目标”。铁路运输是否应该本质上像任何其他生意一样被对待，或者按照不同的标准被视为一项公共产品来运营并获得补贴？在疫情爆发后，英国交通大臣格兰特•沙普斯在控制开支方面的短视决心的驱使下，又回到了前一主张。这可能会产生持久和破坏性的后果。我们的铁路值得更好的未来，而不是有管理的衰落。