Should the London Underground be considered an "essential service" which would ban all future worker strikes?

Yes but worker strikes should be allowed

No but restrict union power

The London Underground is an essential service but workers should be able to strike for better working conditions and pay.

It should be considered essential, but not to ban strikes.

Should be considered an essential service but should be allowed to strike.

No London services should be given special consideration, the rest of the country also has public transport...

The underground should be considered an essential service but they should keep the right to strike.

No but heavily restrict union power and for how long the workers can get to go on strike

The London underground only impacts people living and working in London

This is a London centric question of no relevance to anyone working outside of the area. Although it's the capital city I consider this a local issue for the mayor and London mps to be involved in only. Not the government

Yes, but only if the Underground workers are given negotiation priority by the government

no everyone should have the right to strike within reason

It should be an essential service but strikes should not be banned

This does not effect me

Yes, but allow worker strikes

Not relevant for me

The government are paying more and more to the rich as the working class get poorer. All the strikes are the fault of the rich.

Yes as disruption of a major transit network in the Capital is detrimental not only to the economy but the smooth-flow of the city.

Automate the trains and force the old drivers to drive buses instead as punishment for being ungrateful

Workers should have the ability to strike if they see unfair treatment or policies that make it a unsafe and unequal workplace.

it should be an essential service as millions of people rely on it, but that shouldn't remove the workers right to strike.

Yes it should be considered an essential service, but strikes should still be allowed- however there should be a minimum service obligation.

Only if the strikes has happened too many times in a short period of time, and considered time wasting and or have refused several acceptable offers.

I think it should be similar to the NHS where people are allowed to strike however the work must still be covered and the trains should still run.

i believe that in terms of really bad treatment and refusal of chang eit should be allowed but not for just petty things

No, strikes are essential parts of union action, potentially limiting the scale would be a possibility, so long as the unions are compensated and are given more negotiation powers for wages and workplace quality and safety.

It should be considered essential and strikes shouldn’t be banned as it is a right but it should be heavily de incentivised

There needs to be a better balance between the have and have nots. I would like to be paid better as a teacher but am uncomfortable withdrawing my services which support the growth of our young people. Unfortunately, we and other public sector workers are simply not valued. Those with ample money are not concerned with those with less and therefore the average working people prop each other up and support where best we can. Redress the balance and no one will need to strike.

Yes but only if their unions agree with the pay and work conditions and these are reviewed periodically.

The Tube is essential and it is being improved massively, workers need to be encouraged to understand their role and remuneration needs to be considered.

The Underground should be considered an Essential Service however everyone should have the right to Strike.

Workers have the right to strike but there should be measures in place to prevent serious disruptions to public transport

Strikes should only happen during public holidays as many people use the underground to get to work as fast as possible.

No, everyone deserves the right to strike if they feel like they are not being paid or treated adequately

I think it is essential, but every worker has a right to strike, not all strikes harm the users of the service directly, for example the workers could still run the transport, but refuse to take money for it, thereby only hurting the company they're striking against.

No. Worker strikes are an important way for workers to express themselves in the inherently oppressive system of capitalism. It's inconvenient, but it's necessary.

to a degree yes - people should be able to get to work - but then for the weekend that can go crazy.

Yes, and all cities should implement similar underground and overground public transport schemes to reduce traffic and lower CO2 emissions.

I think that they should be allowed to strike and express their concerns however they should go about it in a different way. For example in Japan, train conductions continue to operate trains but refuse to accept payment from customers. This afffects those in power rather than civilians.

put more money into the services to give workers a good wage to stop the strikes rather than just banning them

the London Underground SHOULD be an essential service and workers deserve the right to strike wether they are or not.

no because if the workers were payed like they were an essential service they wouldnt have to strike

no, underground workers should have freedom of speech and should be allowed to strike, unless the government met all the requirements of the workers like better pay then the underground should be considered an "essential service"

Underground workers should be allowed to strike if underpaid but the government should act quickly as it is a very popular and essential transport service

Many of the industries that frequently strike, which should be considered essential services, are already paid well above the national average. It's becoming increasingly difficult to justify these strikes, as the workers involved are often in stable, well-compensated positions compared to the average citizen. Striking in these sectors not only disrupts vital services but also impacts the public negatively, especially when many people are dealing with financial hardships themselves. The constant strikes seem excessive, given the relatively strong pay and benefits these workers already receive.

Yes, but workers should be able to go on strike by refusing to collect fares from passengers during the strike period.

It is an essential service, however the strikes should be allowed due to lack of pay given to workers who slave tirelessly

No, but there should be a minimum service level agreement which would mean there is not complete shutdown because of strike

Underground should follows the same rules everywhere in the Country: it's either all of them or none.

It should be considered an essential public service but this shouldn't restrict the right to strike.

Yes, but allow workers to strike. Using the Underground on a reduced service creates disruption in itself, and highlights its importance

It is an essential service however due to being owned privately they have the right to demonstrate pay

yes and any worker who is found to have striked off work or organised a workers strike must be fired. Ban worker unions for workers employed by Transport services.

No, I believe that for many it is a service that is essential for their day to day but that to remove a workers right to strike is unethical. If you don't want workers to strike ensure they are treated fairly.

Workers should not be prevented from striking for better pay and conditions. However, skeleton services are still important

Yes this sis because if unions were allowed to organise and strikes were carried out people in London especially commuters travelling in and out of the city would suffer. This is because alternative methods of transport like travelling by car would be used to get to work and that has a side effect of more pollution.

Conservatives shouldn’t be looking to ban anything, but discouraging strikes by allowing strikers to be replaced.

I believe that the Underground network is key, however workers should be able to strike if their pay affects their lives and is clearly meagre in the grand scheme of things.

No, strikes should run like they do in Japan and Australia, where the service still runs while refusing payment.

Yes, but strikes should inconvenience the company and not the individual. ie. still in service as normal but without taking payment

Every worker should be given the right to strike. However travel costs should be reduced and capped.

No, the London Underground should not be considered an "essential service" that bans all future worker strikes. Instead, ensure robust contingency plans and alternative transportation options during strikes, while respecting workers' rights to strike under appropriate conditions.

Yes but only banning the ability for all staff members to strike at once. Schedules should be as least impacted as possible whilst still providing them with the freedom to strike.

Britain must adapt to the change that is electric vehicles and other greener forms of transport. The London Underground however must be protected by the government as it holds a significant stake in British culture.

If the pay and quality of work is terrible then some action can be taken but there should be standards so strikes can’t just happen over little things.

There should be minimum cover so the service still runs but workers should have the right to strike.

There should be a baseline service, ensure the services are properly funded and staffed there will be no need for strikes, value the workers and the workers will value the service.

No. The government should not be able to stop any group of workers going on strike if their rights and conditions are being infringed

It should be considered an essential service which should prioritize workers needs to minimalise the need to strike

Yes, However, People should strike if they deem their working enviroment to be unfit for their circumstances

People have the right to strike to support their rights, but there should be 'safety net' options in place to ensure that people who need to make essential journeys, or people who may be vulnerable, aren't isolated.

Yes, but striking should not be banned as it is one of the liberties given to the population under a functioning democracy

It should be considered an essential service. However, every worker in every sector should have the right to strike.

No, but I think the strike laws in general should be reviewed as they don’t appear to be working well right now

I do believe it should be essential but I think there should be more in place for workers to protest without having to not work

Rail workers should be allowed to strike, but those effected by the strikes should not have to go to work either

Current strikes are for greed purposes only. If future issues arise over actual problems, I fully support worker strikes.

The removal of the ability to remove a recognised group of workers their right to strike would eventually lead to tyranny or exploitation by an employer organisation

If all workers are paid a fair and living wage with reasonable terms and conditions, they would not need to strike!

I don’t care about London Policies, it’s a joke that they have priority policies whilst the rest of us suffer

It should be considered as an essential service and the government should increase the worker's pay.

Allow strikes but have the service run but free. So people won't be impacted but the point goes across

No, they should better conditions for TFL workers once and for all in order to stop those particular strikes.

All workers have the right to strike, it is an essential service which is why it should be run safely and workers compensated fairly

I don't live in the south so hard to say how essential the service is but I believe workers should be allowed to strike if they are working in an unfair environment.

It is essential but banning worker strikes is like ripping them of possibly striking for better work conditions or pay in the future

There should be less disruptive strikes in exchange, workers can economic disruptions to the company by allowing passengers to not pay during strike hours.

Yes, but workers should be allowed to protest pay as they have the right to earn a comfortable wage, so that they have enough disposable income

No but they should not allowed to be tactical with it and also not on weekends so they disrupt peoples time off work as well.

Performance standards should be set. Any company that falls below will be subsumed into public control

I support the point of the strikes and what workers are asking for, however, they do cause a massive amount of disruption to people other than those that they are directing their demands to.

This is an essential service, but workers should still have the right to strike, which I fully support.

ALL London transport should be essential service and their employers should be paid and treated well to avoid so much disruption!

Workers should be paid to reflect such an "essential service" and if they are underpaid they are well within their rights to strike.

No all sectors should be allowed to demonstrate their disagreement peacefully with the goverment. As long as daily activities are not hindered too much

I think it should ban worker strikes but it should be checked on regularly to make sure the job conditions and pay are fair and ethical