Scotrail - RMT Strike Ballot

[Ferret]

However these tactics seem to be fairly prevalent in the railway industry - more so than in many other industries. Long term this isn't healthy - for employer or employee.

Hmmm, I always hear teachers banging the drum, BA was another, HMRC another - there's quite a list! Like I say - I hate how it's played out in public. Agreed on the last point though - ultimately it can be quite damaging for a business.

 

[O L Leigh]

Long term this isn't healthy - for employer or employee.

Care to expand on this point?

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

Care to expand on this point?

O L Leigh

My reading of it was that ultimately, strike talk is damaging for a business, which in turn can be damaging for an employee. Hard to argue with that really! That's why I'd rather a lot of things were kept out of the public domain......

 

[O L Leigh]

So you'd rather we just rolled over and be kicked...?

I've seen the worst excesses of private enterprise first hand (narrowly escaping being personally affected) and would not like to see it applied to the railways. Unfortunately the TOCs have shown that they are not to be trusted and require there to be some sort of check and balance there to prevent them going too far. That is the business of the unions.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Care to expand on this point?

Brinkmanship from either side leads to distrust and virtually guarantees a climate of hostility between the two.

A strained working relationship isn't going to be beneficial for either employer or employee. And if customers feel they cannot trust that services will actually be delivered, because of constant strike threats; then they'll look elsewhere for their transport needs - bus/coach for passengers, lorries for freight.
.

 

[Ferret]

So you'd rather we just rolled over and be kicked...?

Not at all! I've been a union member for well over 10 years My only gripe is that things have to played out in public. Let's face it, who the **** cares that management and Unions have to have a meeting to resolve disputes? All the public want is a train service! All we then end up with is drivel in newspapers about strikes yadda yadda yadda, then the type of nonsense I've read in this thread. What's the point of that?!

 

[michael769]

Yes Greenback! It'd sometimes be helpful if things weren't leaked to the sodding press so that sensible negotiations can occur without a backdrop of drivel, the kind of drivel I've read in this thread to be perfectly honest...

The rhetoric in the media came directly from press releases issued by Scotrail and interview briefings by Bob Crow, so they hardly qualify as leaks.

 

[O L Leigh]

Brinkmanship from either side leads to distrust and virtually guarantees a climate of hostility between the two.

A strained working relationship isn't going to be beneficial for either employer or employee. And if customers feel they cannot trust that services will actually be delivered, because of constant strike threats; then they'll look elsewhere for their transport needs - bus/coach for passengers, lorries for freight.

And where does this start...? Where do we get this atmosphere from? Is it from employers making and then breaking agreements, summarily dismissing staff and denying them their rights as set down in the contracts of employment that they themselves drew up? Or is it in the staff-side representatives pulling them up? The view from the inside is clear. It's just a shame that the media has shown itself incapable of accurately conveying the true story.

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

The rhetoric in the media came directly from press releases issued by Scotrail and interview briefings by Bob Crow, so they hardly qualify as leaks.

Semantics! The point is that the press can't report accurately, and blow things up out of all proportion. Any dispute won't be resolved by the press, readers or forum posters. They might be resolved around a table in a meeting though......

 

[O L Leigh]

My only gripe is that things have to played out in public. Let's face it, who the fook cares that management and Unions have to have a meeting to resolve disputes? All they want is a train service! All we then end up with is drivel in newspapers about strikes yadda yadda yadda, then the type of nonsense I've read in this thread. What's the point of that?!

Reporting it...? No point at all, I would suggest. But then I suppose people need to know about any likely disruption so that they can plan for it. It's only on THIS forum that I have ever seen discussion like this.

But the media's dabbling in the internal affairs of the railway companies does not devalue the work of the unions. What are we to do when discussions stall and the TOC starts playing silly buggers?

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Hmmm, I always hear teachers banging the drum, BA was another, HMRC another - there's quite a list! Like I say - I hate how it's played out in public. Agreed on the last point though - ultimately it can be quite damaging for a business.

I can't say I've heard much in the way of strike threats from teachers, BA staff or HMRC staff recently. But RMT have six strike actions currently 'live' on the railway:

• ScotRail staff
• Stirling area signalling staff
• Tyne & Wear Metro cleaners
• CrossCountry staff
• North London area signalling staff
• London Overground security staff

ASLEF have the Boxing Day tube strike and have balloted on industrial action over the S stock 'cab environment'.

That's a lot of disputes for one industry.

 

[Ferret]

Reporting it...? No point at all, I would suggest. But then I suppose people need to know about any likely disruption so that they can plan for it. It's only on THIS forum that I have ever seen discussion like this.

I see it on other fora too, and in the letters pages of newspapers.

But the media's dabbling in the internal affairs of the railway companies does not devalue the work of the unions. What are we to do when discussions stall and the TOC starts playing silly buggers?

Take action. Work to rule, strike if needsbe. Jut keep it out of the domain of the public until absolutely necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't say I've heard much in the way of strike threats from teachers, BA staff or HMRC staff recently. But RMT have six strike actions currently 'live' on the railway:

• ScotRail staff
• Stirling area signalling staff
• Tyne & Wear Metro cleaners
• CrossCountry staff
• North London area signalling staff
• London Overground security staff

ASLEF have the Boxing Day tube strike and have balloted on industrial action over the S stock 'cab environment'.

That's a lot of disputes for one industry.

Your definition of recent is clearly different to mine! And you can probably delete the XC one from that list now

 

[O L Leigh]

Take action. Work to rule, strike if needsbe. Jut keep it out of the domain of the public until absolutely necessary.

I rather feel that they had. As I said before, people need to be aware of any likely disruption so that they can plan for it. How late would you like us to leave it?

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

And where does this start...?

Quite frankly, as a customer, I really don't care whose 'fault' it is. It seems to me that both sides are as bad as each other.

I'd rather both employers and employees sorted it out and became less combative. As I said much earlier; the impression that we (the general public) get is something akin to the old tv sitcom The Rag Trade; with "Everybody Out!" being a default response. Now I'm certain that isn't actually the case - but sometimes the impression given is more important than the 'truth'.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your definition of recent is clearly different to mine!

Possibly I was just thinking of the past few weeks.

 

[Ferret]

I rather feel that they had. As I said before, people need to be aware of any likely disruption so that they can plan for it. How late would you like us to leave it?

What about when there was never any realistic prospect of a strike, but yet still it ends up in the media that there might be one, and there's talks ongoing, blah blah blah?

 

[O L Leigh]

Quite frankly, as a customer, I really don't care whose 'fault' it is. It seems to me that both sides are as bad as each other.

Sorry, but that simply does not wash.

If you want to deal with a problem you have to identify the cause. You may not be interested in the causes, but if you have any interest in the solution then I'm afraid the thorny topic must be grasped.

I'd rather both employers and employees sorted it out and became less combative.

So would we. Do we want to have to keep batting stuff back up the chain each and every time the management forget what had previously been agreed? Don't you think we'd rather have a more friendly working relationship with the managers?

As I said much earlier; the impression that we (the general public) get is something akin to the old tv sitcom The Rag Trade; with "Everybody Out!" being a default response. Now I'm certain that isn't actually the case - but sometimes the impression given is more important than the 'truth'.

Because, as I have also said much earlier, you only get to hear the bad things that happen. And only then you get the media's spun version.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about when there was never any realistic prospect of a strike, but yet still it ends up in the media that there might be one, and there's talks ongoing, blah blah blah?

Er, I don't understand.

If there is a "yes" outcome to a strike ballot then there is a realistic prospect of a strike. Talks don't necessarily stop at this point, but carry on.

So, when would you like us to tell the public?

O L Leigh

 

[aylesbury]

And where does this start...? Where do we get this atmosphere from? Is it from employers making and then breaking agreements, summarily dismissing staff and denying them their rights as set down in the contracts of employment that they themselves drew up? Or is it in the staff-side representatives pulling them up? The view from the inside is clear. It's just a shame that the media has shown itself incapable of accurately conveying the true story.

O L Leigh

The firm that I worked for before I retired has recently torn up the existing contracts and issued new ones ,with no consoltation.This goes on all the time and many workers have no choice but to accept or lose thier jobs.

 

[Ferret]

Er, I don't understand.

Well then put your thinking cap on and work out what I might possibly be referring to! It's one I can't really spell out for you....

So, when would you like us to tell the public?

O L Leigh

Perhaps when talks have broken down?

 

[O L Leigh]

Well then put your thinking cap on and work out what I might possibly be referring to! It's one I can't really spell out for you....

Perhaps use PM or tidy up your grammar. I'm afraid it's the latter that's defeating me.

Perhaps when talks have broken down?

The XC strike would have been on Friday. If we're only just now hearing that it's off I can only assume that there were talks today at which the issues were resolved. And if those talks had broken down I think it would be reasonable to assume that more talks would have been scheduled. Quite frankly there could be talks right up to the day before a strike.

So when would you like us to tell the public?

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

The firm that I worked for before I retired has recently torn up the existing contracts and issued new ones ,with no consoltation.This goes on all the time and many workers have no choice but to accept or lose thier jobs.

Then quite simply you need a stronger union who will stand up for you. That is not acceptable but I know it does happen.

Although I would also say that some businesses need to re- write contracts in order to save money to actually keep the business afloat. This is very different as they will often (especially with smaller businesses) give back to the staff what they have taken away when times get better. The railway isn't like that-the ignoring of agreements and attempts to save money are not to keep the company afloat but to increase short tearm profit.

This is where the 'jealousy' argument comes from. 'We don't have this in my industry so why should you'.

 

[O L Leigh]

Then quite simply you need a stronger union who will stand up for you. That is not acceptable but I know it does happen.

No, but it is legal.

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

Perhaps use PM or tidy up your grammar. I'm afraid it's the latter that's defeating me.

PM sent, but there isn't much wrong with my grammar!

 

[transmanche]

If you want to deal with a problem you have to identify the cause. You may not be interested in the causes, but if you have any interest in the solution then I'm afraid the thorny topic must be grasped.

Sorry, that's not my concern. It's up to management and staff to work together and find a solution that they are both comfortable with.

So would we. Do we want to have to keep batting stuff back up the chain each and every time the management forget what had previously been agreed? Don't you think we'd rather have a more friendly working relationship with the managers?

Again, that's not the customer's concern. And the impression that the unions give with the language they use does not suggest that a non-confrontational relationship is high on their agenda.

Because, as I have also said much earlier, you only get to hear the bad things that happen. And only then you get the media's spun version.

Well it's true that only bad news appears to be deemed 'newsworthy'. But it's not all media spin; the list of active disputes with threats of strike action I posted above came from the RMT and ASLEF websites. There's no media spin there.

 

[O L Leigh]

Well it's true that only bad news appears to be deemed 'newsworthy'. But it's not all media spin; the list of active disputes with threats of strike action I posted above came from the RMT and ASLEF websites. There's no media spin there.

A list is not spin. It's just a list.

Go on then, I'll call your bluff. Have you got some citable examples of union rhetoric connected with any of these current disputes? Actually, for that matter have you got any rhetoric from any of the TOCs? Most of it seems to come from either the media, other contributors to this thread and your own "impressions".

What is your interest in this? Is it the behaviour of each side in these disputes or is it just the way that the dispute gets reported?

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

A list is not spin. It's just a list.

Er, that's what I said!

Go on then, I'll call your bluff. Have you got some citable examples of union rhetoric connected with any of these current disputes?

"end this exploitation by a company whose Boardroom is awash with cash and whose top bosses are raking it in at our members’ expense"

"low pay and exploitation by greedy companies"

"we hope that the company will see sense"

"it is clear to RMT that Scotrail are using their internal prodedures to attack and victimise their own staff"

"management bully-boy tactics"

"under-staffed and unsafe scab services in a risky and desperate attempt to break the action"

All taken from press releases on the RMT website. (So hardly surprising that's what the media reports.) All examples of what IMHO is antagonistic language and hardly likely to build the trust between employers and union which needed to solve the dispute.

What is your interest in this? Is it the behaviour of each side in these disputes or is it just the way that the dispute gets reported?

My 'interest' is as a customer of the railways - and not wanting to have my journeys disrupted.

I have already discussed my opinion of the behaviour of both sides in the dispute - particularly in post #254.


As an aside, if you want to see how pervasive this impression is. Here's a quote from this evening's edition of Old Harry's Game on Radio 4Extra (originally broadcast in 1995).

"The check-in demons have gone on strike. I blame Bob Crow."

 

[O L Leigh]

Got any links? I could only find one of them.

Mind you, do you not think that perhaps some of these quotes might actually not be rhetoric but and accurate reflection of what has been happening...? Just asking.

Yes you have made you position clear. You're more interested in the appearance of the dispute than in the dispute itself, except that you are interested in criticising the process of industrial relations but not about what actually happens behind the closed doors. You'd like to judge without understanding.

Yes, you've been clear

Oh yes, we're used to "public perceptions" here on the railways and the silly jokes that are made in popular culture. Very droll.

O L Leigh

 

[transmanche]

Got any links? I could only find one of them.

Just browse the Latest News Items on the RMT website.

Mind you, do you not think that perhaps some of these quotes might actually not be rhetoric but and accurate reflection of what has been happening...?

I have no doubt that some of them are accurate. But the language used is quite provocative. Using more conciliatory language could be far more productive. But presumably the choice of words has been made for a specific reason - and certainly not the language I would use if I were working for RMT.

You're actually a good example of this. Throughout this thread, the language you have used has often been accusatory and seemingly designed to provoke a reaction rather than reach any consensus.

Yes you have made you position clear. You're more interested in the appearance of the dispute than in the dispute itself, except that you are interested in criticising the process of industrial relations but not about what actually happens behind the closed doors. You'd like to judge without understanding.

Which proves my point. You've written something that uses quite aggressive language to try and provoke some kind of negative reaction from me.

I have explained to you importance of perception, but you have chosen to reinterpret it to mean something else. It's not that I want to "judge without understanding", it's more of a case of not needing to understand. I'm sure you don't care about industrial relations in my workplace - and I see no need to criticise you for that. However poor industrial relations in your industry does have a direct affect on my life. So as a customer, I don't care how you (i.e. the employers and employees) sort it out - I'd just rather that you do.

If you think a confrontational style is best suited to achieve your objectives of a more harmonious workplace, then good luck with that. I think such an approach is doomed to failure and is damaging to the long-term interests of the industry. YMMV.

Oh yes, we're used to "public perceptions" here on the railways and the silly jokes that are made in popular culture. Very droll.

Does it nor occur to you that if the union used a different approach they might achieve better results and not become the butt of humour? You might dismiss it as a 'silly joke', but Andy Hamilton (the writer of the show) obviously feels that's how the RMT is perceived by public. Bear in mind that joke is over 18 years old - what's changed to make it not relevant today?

 

[Smudger105e]

I think that there is a chasm between the views of those that think that staff side should not take any form of industrial action if it disrupts the travelling public, and the views of rail staff who do not see any alternative to taking action in certain isolated circumstances.

I am therefore going to refrain from posting further in this thread, as certain posters are refusing to listen to the views of others. I must also say that this is some not all posters.

 

[transmanche]

I think that there is a chasm between the views of those that think that staff side should not take any form of industrial action if it disrupts the travelling public, and the views of rail staff who do not see any alternative to taking action in certain isolated circumstances.

FWIW, I wouldn't say that rail staff should never take industrial action. It's just that the threat of industrial action appears to be used more than in many other industries. And it's the apparent reliance of it as a negotiating tactic that I would question.

 

[O L Leigh]

Just browse the Latest News Items on the RMT website.

I did. That was the first place I headed but, as I said, I only found one of them.

I have no doubt that some of them are accurate. But the language used is quite provocative. Using more conciliatory language could be far more productive. But presumably the choice of words has been made for a specific reason - and certainly not the language I would use if I were working for RMT.

Yes, perhaps. I think I may have said right at the start that I feel that some of the union matters can be a bit more confrontational than is perhaps strictly necessary, and I would have to say that the RMT lays it on a bit thicker than some of the other unions active in the rail industry. But, rightly or wrongly, they do get results.

You're actually a good example of this. Throughout this thread, the language you have used has often been accusatory and seemingly designed to provoke a reaction rather than reach any consensus.

Which proves my point. You've written something that uses quite aggressive language to try and provoke some kind of negative reaction from me.

Not really, no. You're entitled to the opinion, though.

I am finding it hard to address what you're saying because it keeps shifting around. One moment you're interested in the way unions work and the next you're not. I try to explain that the perception you get is due to two things; a) the interaction of the unions and TOCs, and b) the way that the media (mis)report these interactions; but then you tell me you're not interested and suggest that we should all get along better.

On that point alone, I agree. If we all got along better we wouldn't have so many issues regarding industrial relations and the unions wouldn't have to take disruptive action when the situation deteriorates so far. Then you wouldn't have to worry about your day being disrupted.

But I just can't seem to impress on you how breakdowns in industrial relations impact on your perception of the railways, the unions and the staff who work on them. You can't address one problem without addressing the other, and when it comes to industrial relations you can't ignore the position of the unions. And neither is the answer simply to curb the power of the unions as the TOCs will just take advantage. Relations have to improve on BOTH sides before your perception or impression of the railways improves.

I have explained to you importance of perception, but you have chosen to reinterpret it to mean something else. It's not that I want to "judge without understanding", it's more of a case of not needing to understand.

And for me this is where the confrontation comes in. How can you judge something without understanding it?

I'm sure you don't care about industrial relations in my workplace - and I see no need to criticise you for that. However poor industrial relations in your industry does have a direct affect on my life. So as a customer, I don't care how you (i.e. the employers and employees) sort it out - I'd just rather that you do.

And in most cases we do sort it out without recourse to disruptive action, as I believe I have said on more than one occasion. Your day is not affected and you can go about your business without problems.

If you think a confrontational style is best suited to achieve your objectives of a more harmonious workplace, then good luck with that. I think such an approach is doomed to failure and is damaging to the long-term interests of the industry.

See above. Most of the time things are sorted out amicably without recourse to disruptive action. This is why I keep trying to interest you in understanding what is actually happening rather than simply refusing to engage.

Does it nor occur to you that if the union used a different approach they might achieve better results and not become the butt of humour? You might dismiss it as a 'silly joke', but Andy Hamilton (the writer of the show) obviously feels that's how the RMT is perceived by public. Bear in mind that joke is over 18 years old - what's changed to make it not relevant today?

I'm not bothered if we are considered to be an anachronism by the public. The union does not represent the public. They represent me and my colleagues. The problem with public perception (and, by extension, your own position) is that it is often based on skewed reporting by the media. Everyone loves a villain and the the media pander to it. So for all the good he does, Bob Crow becomes a figure of fun, the big bad bogeyman spouting rhetoric from the 1970s who stops the trains and tubes from running. We could easily apply the same test to almost any public figure, and that is exactly what the media does, making any name a by-word for almost anything they want.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's just that the threat of industrial action appears to be used more than in many other industries. And it's the apparent reliance of it as a negotiating tactic that I would question.

An equally valid interpretation is to question whether or not the TOCs are more hamfisted in their dealings with staff than employers in other industries and that the unions are actually fighting a valiant rearguard action against the erosion of their terms of service, safety of the railways and against summary dismissals. Given that the railways are safety-critical the question becomes even more urgent.

The problem is that to answer either of those questions you have to try and understand what happens inside the industry and the dealings between TOCs and their employees. Unfortunately, your refusal to engage in the discussion and to persist with your impressions, perceptions and interpretations is stifling the debate.

O L Leigh