During a strike week, the city’s posture changes by the time you get to the barriers at a central London station. The typical rush becomes a sluggish, agitated shuffle. Out of embarrassment, some people stand looking at closed gates as though they might reopen. Others leave silently, heads lowered, thumbs already searching for bus routes that aren’t there.
Perhaps the most significant dispute in the most recent round of tube unrest has nothing to do with pay. Not totally. Unions have fought over pay offers and multi-year agreements, including a widely reported 3.4% increase that went into effect in April 2025 with subsequent guaranteed increases.
The numbers still matter. Underlying the older conflict, however, is a more recent one: unions’ increasing calls to stop or freeze AI-driven hiring and decision-making systems until accountability is more established.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Core Network | London Underground (part of Transport for London) |
| Key Union | RMT |
| Recent Pay Context | 3-year deal referenced by BBC included 3.4% year one, then 3% and 2.5% in later years |
| What Disputes Often Center On | Pay, fatigue management, shift patterns, working week length |
| “Nationwide” Risk | Strike action can spread across connected rail/Overground and broader UK transport disputes (pattern seen in rolling action and knock-on effects) |
| AI Flashpoint | “Management by AI” concerns: hiring, scheduling, performance metrics, accountability |
| Credible Reference Link | https://tfl.gov.uk/ (official service updates and advisories) |
Until you consider what it’s like to work in modern transportation, that sounds dramatic. Rotas come in the form of verdicts. The difference between a safe shift and one that leaves you blinking hard on the last train home is “fatigue management,” which isn’t just a wellness catchphrase.
Pay, shift patterns, fatigue, and the workweek were all mentioned as flashpoints during last year’s London walkouts. However, the atmosphere surrounding stations hinted at something more general: a pervasive suspicion that the system is being “optimized” in ways that passengers cannot see and staff cannot control.
That suspicion is directly tapped into by the demand for an AI hiring freeze. Whether it is used to rank internal candidates, screen resumes, or guide managers toward specific staffing decisions, a hiring algorithm seems to be in a different universe than a platform at 7:45 a.m.
However, algorithms are increasingly being viewed by unions as essential workplace infrastructure, on par with signaling equipment. The TUC in the UK has been advocating for a “worker-first” approach to AI, contending that employees ought to have actual control over the implementation of these technologies. International labor organizations have echoed this point, cautioning that rather than a silent rollout, AI requires union involvement and safeguards.
The last ten years seem to have taught unions that once a system is embedded, it is extremely difficult to unpool. The RMT has previously discussed developing an industrial strategy to address the rise of AI in rail, looking for agreements that maintain human accountability for management choices. The language is important. It suggests that a robot taking a job tomorrow is not the source of the fear.
Today, a manager is seen shrugging at a screen.
“Tube Strikes to Expand Nationwide” seems like a headline designed to make commuters shudder. It’s not an absurd idea, though. When the network in London goes down, the pressure radiates outward like a gravitational force. A sort of domino effect is evident even in the absence of a formal nationwide shutdown: overcrowded Overground services, congested roads, disruptions to the larger rail ecosystem, and a desire to escalate among other worker groups.
Targeted strikes, such as planned walkouts on a particular London Overground line, can swiftly expand into a larger story about labor leverage and public tolerance, as demonstrated by recent reporting.
The political climate comes next. According to surveys, many businesses in the UK are already considering freezing hiring or reducing hours for cost-related reasons. The demand for a “AI hiring freeze” falls differently in that setting. It will be interpreted as sabotage by some executives. In private, some might view it as a convenient stopgap—a way to delay hiring while continuing to place the blame on the disagreement.
Meanwhile, AI is not a topic of discussion for commuters. It feels like a notification to them. a service alert that is delayed. A bus that was rerouted. An unopenable gate. It may seem abstract when unions link strikes to algorithms, but then you realize that the algorithm is already influencing staffing levels and shift patterns, which indirectly affect commutes.
It’s still unclear if an AI hiring freeze will become a standard union stance in UK transportation or if it will only be a shrewd catchphrase employed by a select few leaders attempting to pressure management into engaging in a different type of negotiation. However, it appears clear that the battle is shifting from pay and hours to the “black box” decisions that determine who gets promoted, hired, and assigned to the worst rosters.
It’s difficult to overlook the contrast between the new target—software, data, and automated scoring—and the outdated customs—placards, whistles, and high-vis jackets—when observing a picket line outside a station entrance. It appears to be a familiar scene. The argument doesn’t.
And that’s what makes this moment feel a little shaky, more than the strike dates themselves.
