Possible Movement in RMT Dispute.

[dk1]

Always is busy around now with Lord Mayors Show, Armistice Day/ Remembrance Sunday and the run up to Xmas!

I was referring more to commuter traffic. Leisure travel has been very buoyant anyway.

 

[Midlands5678]

The question has to be why not Aslef though, as driver strikes cause far more disruption.

ASLEF were always months behind in the negotiation process compared to the RMT.

 

[Llandudno]

We must be very popular in the East going by what I witness.


I suppose somebody had to be first. It was news to everybody so hopefully ASLEF are keeping quiet and going to make a statement at some point.

Probably very popular in the East because of the reliable service offered…

In the north of England and Wales the reliability is so poor then passengers are slow to recover maybe?

 

[Deepgreen]

I admire your optimism! I fear any such information will have been contained in a WhatsApp that auto deleted a few days after sending!

Yes, if ever there was a messaging system that is the politician's friend...!

 

[Starmill]

No, but no serious offer is ever going to get that back.

20 months back pay is still going to mitigate those losses reasonably too.

 

[dk1]

Probably very popular in the East because of the reliable service offered…

In the north of England and Wales the reliability is so poor then passengers are slow to recover maybe?

Performance on some of the regional routes here runs from 97.8 to 99% now with annual average of 93.4% of trains arriving within 3 minutes of schedule measured at every station served.

Some of the government reforms might even already be happening here as drivers control all door operation with guards stepping in to close only should the exterior cameras fail or be bleached out by sunlight.

 

[Facing Back]

Performance on some of the regional routes here runs from 97.8 to 99% now with annual average of 93.4% of trains arriving within 3 minutes of schedule measured at every station served.

Some of the government reforms might even already be happening here as drivers control all door operation with guards stepping in to close only should the exterior cameras fail or be bleached out by sunlight.

Those performance figures sound brilliant!

 

[Purple Train]

Those performance figures sound brilliant!

I can well believe them - Greater Anglia is far and away the best TOC on the network in my opinion. Always a pleasure to travel with them.

Back on topic: as a mere passenger, obviously news of a possible resolution is good news, but I'd far rather all the reliability issues were sorted out - it's much more difficult to book around them than the strikes, after all!

 

[Jamesrob637]

I can well believe them - Greater Anglia is far and away the best TOC on the network in my opinion. Always a pleasure to travel with them.

Back on topic: as a mere passenger, obviously news of a possible resolution is good news, but I'd far rather all the reliability issues were sorted out - it's much more difficult to book around them than the strikes, after all!

GA run services on strike days too. Obviously not a full timetable, but they get at least some people where they need to be (and back). That plus the (generally, if a bit anomalous recently) drier weather in that part of the UK does tempt me to want to move to somewhere like Peterborough or a town on the Ipswich line out of London.

 

[Railwayowl80]

Sorry as a little off topic… ish.

What pay year is this pay deal for been hard to keep up and been that long 21/22? If so would that mean potentially 20 months backdated pay assuming pay is worked out April to April
Thanks

 

[dk1]

Sorry as a little off topic… ish.

What pay year is this pay deal for been hard to keep up and been that long 21/22? If so would that mean potentially 20 months backdated pay assuming pay is worked out April to April
Thanks

This is the April 2022 pay award.

So as you say would be 20 months back pay at 5%. 2023 pay award talks would commence in February.

 

[BurningFeetMan]

Worth noting that different TOCs have different pay anniversary dates. So the 2022 backpay may be less than what is being quoted here,just in case anyone was making financial decisions based on it.

 

[Railwayowl80]

Appreciate that I’m sure ours is April to April just trying to work it all can’t see it being sorted for December as mention on there YouTube video of its voted yes that is

 

[dk1]

Appreciate that I’m sure ours is April to April just trying to work it all can’t see it being sorted for December as mention on there YouTube video of its voted yes that is

Will be a welcome new year bonus for many though.

On a slightly differing note the DfT has also agreed to GA continuing its ‘GainShare’ for staff which is paid out should various targets on the likes of staff sickness & train performance be met. This will give most employees a £550 bonus and will be in November pay.

 

[pt_mad]

So, what has changed, what has resulted in the Tories caving in on the changes to Ts & Cs they were so determined to change only a matter of months ago?

Has anyone on the government side caved in? As far as I can see the offer appears to be conditional on declaring the dispute over and entering into discussions on 'reforms' from February to April. Do we not think the suggested reforms will be T & C changes still? They could be just as big and bad as before minus the ticket office closures for all anyone seems to know.

Why can't they publish a list of the proposed reforms for discussion now, so RMT members can take that into account when voting?

They're now going to be discussions at a company level. The normal dispute resolution procedures will also apply.

But the catch appears to be that if, when the list of proposed reforms comes out, presumably after the referendum result, if the list is just as bad as before, then there's no strike permitted until the discussions have concluded. Am I understanding that correctly?

Whereas right now, if a list of reforms was given to the RMT, and let's say the list was terribly unpopular, with proposals which members just would not entertain, then the proposals could be labelled as outrageous or unrealistic by the union and a ballot for industrial action could be called immediately or strike action held under the current mandate.

Accepting this appears to remove the opportunity to strike over whatever list of reforms they wish to propose until at least May does it not?

So they'd essentially have every opportunity to get their agenda for change through pre a possible general election. Certainly looks to work for the government.

 

[EZJ]

Yes of course they will, but crucially they will be negotiated by the individual TOC'S not the carte blanche eradication of them on a national level the government wanted.

Do we not think the suggested reforms will be T & C changes still

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Performance on some of the regional routes here runs from 97.8 to 99% now with annual average of 93.4% of trains arriving within 3 minutes of schedule measured at every station served.

Some of the government reforms might even already be happening here as drivers control all door operation with guards stepping in to close only should the exterior cameras fail or be bleached out by sunlight.

That is the answer though, run the trains consistently and you will get the passengers.

 

[whoosh]

I don't see the difference - both options shunted the discussion on T&C's into next year.

One was a two year deal, with only 4% given in the second year irrespective of how many changes to terms and conditions were to take place at individual TOC's - and the first year's 5% wouldn't be paid unless the 'whole package' was agreed. [One could say it was deliberately unreasonable - see below*]

And this one is a one year 5% no strings deal, with talks for 2023's pay to take place next year on an individual TOC basis regarding changes to terms and conditions.

How can you not see the difference? It's quite significant.

Basically the government have wasted millions of taxpayers money dragging this out when they could have made this offer right at the start.

*Apart from I expect they view reducing people's rights at work without much outcry, by engineering a dispute which made the rail unions look like they were being awkward, and getting through their Minimum Service Bill, as it being money well spent.

 

[RPI]

So if this gets accepted, I'm assuming back pay will also be on any overtime that was worked?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

So if this gets accepted, I'm assuming back pay will also be on any overtime that was worked?

One would assume so. The pay increase would see an increase in the hourly rate of pay from April 2022 (other alternative pay anniversary dates are available). As the hourly rate of pay increases so will any enhancements, so my Sundays are paid at Time + 40%, so if Time increases, then so does the Sunday rate. And thus any back pay will have to take that in to account too.

 

[Midlands5678]

One would assume so. The pay increase would see an increase in the hourly rate of pay from April 2022 (other alternative pay anniversary dates are available). As the hourly rate of pay increases so will any enhancements, so my Sundays are paid at Time + 40%, so if Time increases, then so does the Sunday rate. And thus any back pay will have to take that in to account too.

I would clarify that. They may well not include non contractual overtime in the backpay.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Funnily enough, I recall a seeing cartoon from a 1955 issue of Punch in a book once. A man is standing on a station platform next to a locomotive (very closely resembling an A3) and holding a newspaper in one hand, saying very loudly "Absolutely disgraceful. They're bound to do this again at Christmas when the in-laws are due to come down," and slipping the engine crew a five pound note with the other.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I would clarify that. They may well not include non contractual overtime in the backpay.

Good point. I believe in the past when we have had back pay they have calculated in that way, i.e. adjusted the hourly rate of pay at the selected date and everything from that date onwards is recalculated.

But yes, suppose it is worth checking.

 

[KM1991]

So if this gets accepted, I'm assuming back pay will also be on any overtime that was worked?

Backpay will be paid on overtime, shift allowances, regional allowances. Everything that makes up your day to day pay will be backdated.

 

[RPI]

Backpay will be paid on overtime, shift allowances, regional allowances. Everything that makes up your day to day pay will be backdated.

Many thanks, I thought as much.

One would assume so. The pay increase would see an increase in the hourly rate of pay from April 2022 (other alternative pay anniversary dates are available). As the hourly rate of pay increases so will any enhancements, so my Sundays are paid at Time + 40%, so if Time increases, then so does the Sunday rate. And thus any back pay will have to take that in to account too.

My grades pay anniversary is October so about 13 months for me should this go through

 

[Facing Back]

One was a two year deal, with only 4% given in the second year irrespective of how many changes to terms and conditions were to take place at individual TOC's - and the first year's 5% wouldn't be paid unless the 'whole package' was agreed. [One could say it was deliberately unreasonable - see below*]

And this one is a one year 5% no strings deal, with talks for 2023's pay to take place next year on an individual TOC basis regarding changes to terms and conditions.

How can you not see the difference? It's quite significant.

If the previous offer was as you describe it, then I would agree that this offer is significantly different.

However my recollection of the previous offer differs from yours. Agreed it was a year 5%/4% deal, but the conditions for the first 5% were purely that the RMT ended their dispute and committed not to restart it until the individual TOC negotiations on the changes to T&C's were either agreed or a period (6 months) or negotiations had not led to an agreement. The second year 4% was indeed contingent on agreement, but the 5% was not.

So the RMT would agree to talk and to pause the strike and the 5% would be paid. Which is pretty much how I was reading this offer. There are minor differences and some details which don't seem to have been published.

I admit I haven't read the previous offer for months so my recollection could be faulty and I'm happy to be corrected. I will read it again when I'm back in my office with my computer.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

If the previous offer was as you describe it, then I would agree that this offer is significantly different.

However my recollection of the previous offer differs from yours. Agreed it was a year 5%/4% deal, but the conditions for the first 5% were purely that the RMT ended their dispute and committed not to restart it until the individual TOC negotiations on the changes to T&C's were either agreed or a period (6 months) or negotiations had not led to an agreement. The second year 4% was indeed contingent on agreement, but the 5% was not.

So the RMT would agree to talk and to pause the strike and the 5% would be paid. Which is pretty much how I was reading this offer. There are minor differences and some details which don't seem to have been published.

I admit I haven't read the previous offer for months so my recollection could be faulty and I'm happy to be corrected. I will read it again when I'm back in my office with my computer.

You are sort of right.

I re-read it yesterday to check.

The first year was 5% which was paid immediately and the dispute ended.

The second year was set at 4% and there was a defined list of national changes to Ts and Cs which were expected to be agreed and implemented (albeit consulted locally).

If at the end of the 3 month negotiation and consultation period and Avoidance of Dispute process there was no agreement then the matter would be referred to some sort of undefined Industry Arbitration Panel. If at that stage there was no agreement then the RMT was free to declare a new ballot for industrial action. BUT point 7 in the details of the process indicated that if the list of changes were not agreed then they would be imposed anyway, without the 4% yr 2 increase in pay.

So, in short, whilst the Yr 1 and Yr 2 pay increases were not directly linked they were by default linked and by default accepting Yr 1 meant you accepted the long list of changes they wanted.

If you accepted Yr 1 you automatically went to Yr 2 discussions.

At that stage you could either agree to the changes proposed and get a 4% pay rise no matter what changes you actually had to implement OR you could not accept them and they would be implemented anyway but without the 4%.

So therefore as soon as you accepted Yr 1 there was no way you were not going to get all the long list of changes.

This time round there are fundamental differences.

Namely, and most importantly:

There is not a defined list of changes you must agree to (each TOC has different Ts and Cs and has different types of work to start with so not all changes would be necessary, suitable or desirable in all TOCS anyway) and it allows for each TOC to make proposals which are suitable for each TOC.

There is not a pre set fixed pay increase for Yr 2 no matter what (there is scope for getting more than 4% depending on what and how much you give up)

There is no threat of imposing the changes regardless (so there is probably scope to just bin off the changes and skip a year with no increase, if it came to it, or just go back to another year or two of strikes!).

It should be possible to discuss proposals on a grade by grade and company by company basis to see what is desired or possible for each grade in each company.


So while this new offer is broadly similar it is different enough to be different to the last one.

And I'm not stupid enough to think that the DfT / RDG hasn't given a list of "nice to haves" or a budget % figure for the Yr 2 discussions in the background.

 

[Facing Back]

You are sort of right.

I re-read it yesterday to check.

The first year was 5% which was paid immediately and the dispute ended.

The second year was set at 4% and there was a defined list of national changes to Ts and Cs which were expected to be agreed and implemented (albeit consulted locally).

If at the end of the 3 month negotiation and consultation period and Avoidance of Dispute process there was no agreement then the matter would be referred to some sort of undefined Industry Arbitration Panel. If at that stage there was no agreement then the RMT was free to declare a new ballot for industrial action. BUT point 7 in the details of the process indicated that if the list of changes were not agreed then they would be imposed anyway, without the 4% yr 2 increase in pay.

So, in short, whilst the Yr 1 and Yr 2 pay increases were not directly linked they were by default linked and by default accepting Yr 1 meant you accepted the long list of changes they wanted.

If you accepted Yr 1 you automatically went to Yr 2 discussions.

At that stage you could either agree to the changes proposed and get a 4% pay rise no matter what changes you actually had to implement OR you could not accept them and they would be implemented anyway but without the 4%.

So therefore as soon as you accepted Yr 1 there was no way you were not going to get all the long list of changes.

This time round there are fundamental differences.

Namely, and most importantly:

There is not a defined list of changes you must agree to (each TOC has different Ts and Cs and has different types of work to start with so not all changes would be necessary, suitable or desirable in all TOCS anyway) and it allows for each TOC to make proposals which are suitable for each TOC.

There is not a pre set fixed pay increase for Yr 2 no matter what (there is scope for getting more than 4% depending on what and how much you give up)

There is no threat of imposing the changes regardless (so there is probably scope to just bin off the changes and skip a year with no increase, if it came to it, or just go back to another year or two of strikes!).

It should be possible to discuss proposals on a grade by grade and company by company basis to see what is desired or possible for each grade in each company.


So while this new offer is broadly similar it is different enough to be different to the last one.

And I'm not stupid enough to think that the DfT / RDG hasn't given a list of "nice to haves" or a budget % figure for the Yr 2 discussions in the background.

A great summary thank you.

On the previous deal, by accepting year 1 you are not agreeing to the long list of changes - but are aware that they might be imposed without your agreement. I don't see why this new deal is different. It is silent on the matter and it is possible that the DfT has changed it's goals but that was stage 2 in any case. It is clear in this deal that there is a list of changes to be discussed.

In this offer by accepting year 1 you also automatically go into year 2 discussions - but this is normal.

There is nothing to suggest that the TOC's will not impose changes to T&Cs if the negotations fail.

I'm still not seeing a material difference

 

[AverageJoe]

In summary, are guards generally happy with this deal?

Is it looking likely to be agreed?

 

[ValentaFan1974]

In summary, are guards generally happy with this deal?

Is it looking likely to be agreed?

From what I’m hearing from my travels, the vast majority in all grades are happy to take the 5%… I know I certainly am. I’ve said all along I’d be happy with 3-5% no strings…. With the underpin I’d actually get about 6.5% so I’ll have some of that thank you!