YouGov poll suggests most want British Rail back.

[Oswyntail]

And how exactly has that legislation come about if not for union pressure . Would we see legislation in the workplace to protect workers health and safety , to protect workers right to a minimum break entitlement and a bucketload more rights but for unions ?

Quite likely. IIRC in the 60s and 70s at least, improvement was seen as a change to established practice, which warranted a pay rise

So what happened with the recent non management pay increase at Northern then . I must have imagined the part where after months of failed negotiations ASLEF got a successful ballot for strike action . They then also announced strike dates . Suddenly the TOC found the ability to offer a guarantee of at least an inflationary payrise to its staff bringing a swift resolution to something that they had attempted to settle for at least 6 months prior on the TOCS terms . That sounds like a positive result

Possibly - or possibly the threat of financial loss made the cost/benefit ratio different, thus prompting short-term solutions that would result in a long-term problem being even worse. Who knows?

 

[muz379]

Quite likely. IIRC in the 60s and 70s at least, improvement was seen as a change to established practice, which warranted a pay rise

I dont accept that some of the things that all workers now take for granted would have come about but for workers sticking together in established trade unions .

Possibly - or possibly the threat of financial loss made the cost/benefit ratio different, thus prompting short-term solutions that would result in a long-term problem being even worse. Who knows?

What about the long term problem of driver attrition that was also solved by the negotiation of a driver retention package ? .

This was another thing that came out of the strike that the union actually wanted a resolution to rather than the solution the TOC wanted to take which was burying its head in the sand about the issue .

 

[Robertj21a]

I dont accept that some of the things that all workers now take for granted would have come about but for workers sticking together in established trade unions .


.

Nor do I accept that it needed '.....workers sticking together in established trade unions' to achieve changes. Most companies employ sufficiently capable and professional management teams to ensure that a good balance is maintained between the needs of staff and the objectives of the company.

 

[313103]

Nor do I accept that it needed '.....workers sticking together in established trade unions' to achieve changes. Most companies employ sufficiently capable and professional management teams to ensure that a good balance is maintained between the needs of staff and the objectives of the company.

Where do think this takes place on the railway, I have yet to meet Management who would think it was good of them to give us pay let alone a pay rise and good terms and conditions.

If you think that management seriously think of the staff alongside the objectives of the company, you my friend are living on a different planet then I am.

Name a company in the rail industry where companies (in your words) 'employ sufficiently capable and professional teams' ? My experience tells me a different story where the previous HR team required help from the Trade Union Reps to solve some of their problems, sadly and probably expected this was never reciprocated.

 

[NSEFAN]

Where do think this takes place on the railway, I have yet to meet Management who would think it was good of them to give us pay let alone a pay rise and good terms and conditions.

If you think that management seriously think of the staff alongside the objectives of the company, you my friend are living on a different planet then I am.

Name a company in the rail industry where companies (in your words) 'employ sufficiently capable and professional teams' ? My experience tells me a different story where the previous HR team required help from the Trade Union Reps to solve some of their problems, sadly and probably expected this was never reciprocated.

I've heard other staff say this too. Why is there such an abrasive relationship between certain management and staff? The reason often given is that those who are bad managers are also those who haven't worked their way up from the bottom. As a result, they have little appreciation for the actual roles the staff play and this leads to conflicts. Do these bad managers feel somehow threatened by the presence of the union, causing them to resent the drivers and guards?

 

[Flamingo]

A LOT of managers on the railway were union reps in a previous lifetime (it is said semii-in jest that the good Reps get offered a management role to get them out of the Union!). Having said that, one of the worst (people skills) managers I know was a union rep!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most companies employ sufficiently capable and professional management teams to ensure that a good balance is maintained between the needs of staff and the objectives of the company.

Interesting that you should say this on a day that 37 companies have been publicly named and shamed for "forgetting" to pay their staff the National Minimum Wage.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the likes of Kings Group estate agents- who underpaid their staff by a piffling £80,702.34- H&M and Welcome Break have "capable management teams" who "maintain the needs of their staff" when they don't even pay them the legal minimum for their work.

 

[deltic]

Interesting that you should say this on a day that 37 companies have been publicly named and shamed for "forgetting" to pay their staff the National Minimum Wage.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the likes of Kings Group estate agents- who underpaid their staff by a piffling £80,702.34- H&M and Welcome Break have "capable management teams" who "maintain the needs of their staff" when they don't even pay them the legal minimum for their work.

Having worked in a payroll team you will be amazed by how many staff are incorrectly paid for a whole host of reasons - many of which are down to data entry problems. Few staff seem to notice the problem some of which were on-going for years. They were only picked up as I as the most junior member of the team starting running queries on the payroll system as we were transferring to a new system.

In these cases I wonder how many staff noticed there were underpaid and did something about it. Are these underpayments picked up by HMRC reviewing PAYE data or via complaints from staff?

 

[3141]

Interesting that you should say this on a day that 37 companies have been publicly named and shamed for "forgetting" to pay their staff the National Minimum Wage.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the likes of Kings Group estate agents- who underpaid their staff by a piffling £80,702.34- H&M and Welcome Break have "capable management teams" who "maintain the needs of their staff" when they don't even pay them the legal minimum for their work.

Interesting that you quote Welcome Break, because in their case it's £1318 and 19 workers. They employ many more than that, so it's probably a genuine mistake. It doesn't provide evidence for questioning the capability of their entire management team, nor does it cancel the earlier post suggesting that many management teams do try to find a good balance between staff and company interests.

 

[Greenback]

A LOT of managers on the railway were union reps in a previous lifetime (it is said semii-in jest that the good Reps get offered a management role to get them out of the Union!). Having said that, one of the worst (people skills) managers I know was a union rep!

That certainly used to be the case in the Royal Mail. After strikes in 1988 a few new managers appeared on the sorting office floor who had been reps during the strike. It was said this was done to reduce the chances of an effective strike in the future, and it seemed to work.

I have to say that my union rep on the railway was by far the worst I've ever known in any of my jobs. He was also given a promotion, but couldn't hack it and asked to return to his old role!

Interesting that you should say this on a day that 37 companies have been publicly named and shamed for "forgetting" to pay their staff the National Minimum Wage.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the likes of Kings Group estate agents- who underpaid their staff by a piffling £80,702.34- H&M and Welcome Break have "capable management teams" who "maintain the needs of their staff" when they don't even pay them the legal minimum for their work.

Unfortunate timing, really!

Interesting that you quote Welcome Break, because in their case it's £1318 and 19 workers. They employ many more than that, so it's probably a genuine mistake. It doesn't provide evidence for questioning the capability of their entire management team, nor does it cancel the earlier post suggesting that many management teams do try to find a good balance between staff and company interests.

I do think that the Welcome Break case may have been as they said, an IT issue. Mistakes can happen, and although I'd like to think that all companies will adhere to the law and pay what is required, I can't help suspecting that there are exceptions to that where some firms will deliberately underpay and hope to get away with it.

There are bad appeals everywhere, and it would be just as naive to think that all of them have the best interests of their staff at heart at all times, as it is to think of them all as evil, tight fisted fatcats.

 

[Tom B]

I've heard other staff say this too. Why is there such an abrasive relationship between certain management and staff? The reason often given is that those who are bad managers are also those who haven't worked their way up from the bottom. As a result, they have little appreciation for the actual roles the staff play and this leads to conflicts. Do these bad managers feel somehow threatened by the presence of the union, causing them to resent the drivers and guards?

For balance, promoting people based on their having 'served their time' at a lower grade is equally as bad as bringing in somebody external who hasn't done the job before.

A balance is required, as is managing of the managers. A new manager from another industry/division may be able to bring Good New Things, which is great, or he may just try to change things for the sake of it, which is less so.

 

[Robertj21a]

For balance, promoting people based on their having 'served their time' at a lower grade is equally as bad as bringing in somebody external who hasn't done the job before.

Well said, and very true. Unfortunately, many people misunderstand the different skills required. Knowing your job thoroughly is essential to get that job done and your skills and professionalism will, hopefully, rub off on to less experienced colleagues. You can also help with mentoring and training.

Taking over a management role will probably require that person to have totally different skills, involving man-management, basic knowledge of the legal issues affecting employment, empathy, negotiating ability etc.

Of course the ideal candidate is likely to be the one who is proficient in both areas.

 

[Greenback]

It is true, and all appointments should be made on merit and competencies.

During my working years I've seen numerous examples of bad results where this has not been the case. Having said that, all the examples come from the early days, in recent times recruitment seems to be a more robust and fair process than 25 years ago, though I'm also sure that doesn't entirely remove the problem of poor decisions being made by recruiting managers - otherwise known as human error.

 

[island]

Back on the original topic, I think the main reason people want "British Rail" back is that they remember, or are told about, a soft-focus past where the trains all ran on time, everyone got a seat, there were uniformed staff on every platform to help you with your luggage, tell you the time, make you a cup of tea, etc., a guard and a steward on every train, and so on.

Renationalising the railways will achieve none of this.

 

[Greenback]

Or maybe they remember how it really was and still think it's better than the current way of doing things?

Still, it's true to say that the past is often viewed through rose coloured spectacles.

 

[Railsigns]

Back on the original topic, I think the main reason people want "British Rail" back is that they remember, or are told about, a soft-focus past where the trains all ran on time, everyone got a seat, there were uniformed staff on every platform to help you with your luggage, tell you the time, make you a cup of tea, etc., a guard and a steward on every train, and so on.

No, it's not that at all. The main reason is we were promised lower fares and reduced public subsidies would result from privatisation but the exact opposite has happened. Passengers and taxpayers aren't getting value for money and public debts are rising to unsustainable levels, yet the government goes on pretending rail privatisation has been a success, since the truth would undermine their ideology and put future privatisation plans in jeopardy.

 

[bavvo]

I don’t think people are that naïve that they remember some golden age under BR, nor that it was some kind of grim dark age. For most people little has changed apart from the uniforms and paint job. The rolling stock is still mostly that which was designed and built by BR, the stations much the same, even the timetable hasn’t changed that much. Aside from new technology which happened independently anyway (wifi/internet etc).
The reason the majority when asked say they want BR back/renationalisation etc is because they realise they have been sold a pup. Everything is pretty much the same, except the costs, which have soared through the roof.
Privatisation was sold on the premise that it would reduce fares and taxpayer subsidy. The reverse happened. People of all political hues can see that on it’s own terms, this particular experiment has been a very expensive failure.

 

[Robertj21a]

I don’t think people are that naïve that they remember some golden age under BR, nor that it was some kind of grim dark age. For most people little has changed apart from the uniforms and paint job. The rolling stock is still mostly that which was designed and built by BR, the stations much the same, even the timetable hasn’t changed that much. Aside from new technology which happened independently anyway (wifi/internet etc).
The reason the majority when asked say they want BR back/renationalisation etc is because they realise they have been sold a pup. Everything is pretty much the same, except the costs, which have soared through the roof.
Privatisation was sold on the premise that it would reduce fares and taxpayer subsidy. The reverse happened. People of all political hues can see that on it’s own terms, this particular experiment has been a very expensive failure.

If I may use your own words 'A very expensive failure' - presumably you view the record numbers of people using the trains as yet another failure ?

 

[Railsigns]

presumably you view the record numbers of people using the trains as yet another failure ?

I view it as an irrelevance, as far as the public v. private debate goes. Here's why:

1. Passenger numbers returned to growth some years before privatisation.

2. Passenger numbers have grown to record levels in Northern Ireland, where the railways are publicly owned.

3. The TOCs themselves argue that passenger numbers are linked to GDP growth when it comes to lobbying for franchise terms that protect their profits should passenger numbers fall, but conveniently forget about that link when claiming the credit whenever passenger numbers rise. This is sheer hypocrisy on their part.

 

[bavvo]

If I may use your own words 'A very expensive failure' - presumably you view the record numbers of people using the trains as yet another failure ?

The point is, with more passengers using the network, and paying more in fares, railways as a high fixed cost business should have needed less subsidy, not more.

 

[DT611]

I think if you took a poll in London on the subject, you would get significant support for the removal of the right to strike from all public sector employees.

yeah, it will be because they can't do it and not for the reasons you think. effectively it will be "well i can't have it/do it so no one else can"

Employees would have to negotiate with management as they do elsewhere in the private sector

they are all ready doing that. sometimes that doesn't work and it needs to be taken further.

the right to strike is not universal. If you become a public sector employee that is a privilege, and you should expect to make sacrifices.

not in terms of pay and conditions or working rights no

I am also in favour of the public being able to sue unions for these wild-cat strikes - that would probably be more effective.

and i'd be in favour of the unions refusing to pay these members of the public and doing what they can to run rings around said members of the public via whatever means should that ever happen.

They would have to get their pension from private companies like everyone else.

or, the state.

The right to strike must be withdrawn to protect the general public.

no it mustn't. withdrawing the right to strike is a form of slave labour, or at least legitimizing it. there is nothing about a strike that the general public needs protecting from. walk/ride a bike/get the bus. it won't kill you. many people have no option but to do any of those as they have no trains. and it will remind those stuck in a bubble that not everything works all the time.

There was justification for the work forces having strong unions prior to the war

and there still is

but from the 60s onwards it was increasingly apparent that militancy had taken hold in a number of unions and that is what moved public opinion against them.

or, maybe it was all the lies told that caused both of those.

 

[Robertj21a]

yeah, it will be because they can't do it and not for the reasons you think. effectively it will be "well i can't have it/do it so no one else can"

they are all ready doing that. sometimes that doesn't work and it needs to be taken further.

not in terms of pay and conditions or working rights no

and i'd be in favour of the unions refusing to pay these members of the public and doing what they can to run rings around said members of the public via whatever means should that ever happen.

or, the state.

no it mustn't. withdrawing the right to strike is a form of slave labour, or at least legitimizing it. there is nothing about a strike that the general public needs protecting from. walk/ride a bike/get the bus. it won't kill you. many people have no option but to do any of those as they have no trains. and it will remind those stuck in a bubble that not everything works all the time.

and there still is

or, maybe it was all the lies told that caused both of those.

Are you a union shop steward by any chance ? - or at least planning to become one ?

 

[DT611]

Nor do I accept that it needed '.....workers sticking together in established trade unions' to achieve changes.

really? yeah, right. if for example, workers didn't unite to change the conditions of the businesses of the industrial revolution would those businesses have changed or stayed the same? considering change would have cost those businesses more and would have meant what they would have considered, restrictive legislation. if unions weren't needed, they wouldn't exist. its as simple as that.

Most companies employ sufficiently capable and professional management teams to ensure that a good balance is maintained between the needs of staff and the objectives of the company.

but some don't. and that some, is some to many. so therefore unions are still needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you a union shop steward by any chance ? - or at least planning to become one ?

no, i just see it all as it is . and i realize that people can't always be trusted. therefore we need laws/rules/enforcers to help protect us. employment laws and rules, and unions being the perfect example in terms of this thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I may use your own words 'A very expensive failure' - presumably you view the record numbers of people using the trains as yet another failure ?

no, but privatization has nothing to do with it. other external factors which would have happened anyway do. as mentioned above, NIR (northern ireland railways) has had a lot of growth and its nationalised.

 

[Robertj21a]

Always interesting to see how other people view things. Thank you.

 

[kermit]

I don’t think people are that naïve that they remember some golden age under BR, nor that it was some kind of grim dark age. For most people little has changed apart from the uniforms and paint job. The rolling stock is still mostly that which was designed and built by BR, the stations much the same, even the timetable hasn’t changed that much. Aside from new technology which happened independently anyway (wifi/internet etc).
The reason the majority when asked say they want BR back/renationalisation etc is because they realise they have been sold a pup. Everything is pretty much the same, except the costs, which have soared through the roof.
Privatisation was sold on the premise that it would reduce fares and taxpayer subsidy. The reverse happened. People of all political hues can see that on it’s own terms, this particular experiment has been a very expensive failure.

On top of which, social cohesion is promoted in a society where people know that they have a stake as tax-paying citizens (and we all pay VAT) in the infrastructure of the nation in which they live.

The other tried and tested (repeatedly in the last 35 years) method to artificially promote social cohesion is to have a war.

I prefer renationalisation.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

If the private sector is so good. Why does every privatised sector need an industry regulator to over see it and ensure fair play?

It's because the private sector would fleece/rip off everyone at the earliest opportunity and put in such unfair T&Cs that would be like playing the dice game Craps with loaded dice! The public would never win on anything.

Why is it that the private sector has had to resort to moving the goalposts when it comes to timetables? Because they've gone for quantity over quality that's why! BR did better, operated more trains and faster ones too, journeys in a large number of areas are now slower than in the steam days.

Just about every TOC now has a timetable that will collapse like a house of cards with the most minor of knocks.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You get regulators when one part of the equation (network rail) is so much more powerful than other parts of the particular industry involved. In rail they don't really touch the franchised passenger operators as they are effectively delivery agents for the DfT and now relatively minor players.

The overcrowding of the Network started in sector days when it became the thing to increase frequency and time everything tightly, all to maximise your ORCATS take. It became the habit to minimise journey times at all costs.

The DfT has continued this theme to maximise it's revenue projections and likes a fairly full network, their work on the IEP timetables being a good example. That policy has the added advantage of stopping anybody else getting access.

The real problem with this policy is that net industry running costs have soared as a result of the extra trains. In old BR days a considerable proportion of those additional services would never have been authorised as the Treasury liked BR to price off excess demand that could not be fully paid for.

 

[island]

Or maybe they remember how it really was and still think it's better than the current way of doing things?

Still, it's true to say that the past is often viewed through rose coloured spectacles.

I could have put it another way — people say they want the return of British Rail as a proxy for wanting higher staffing, lower/less confusing fares, and so on.

 

[67018]

If the private sector is so good. Why does every privatised sector need an industry regulator to over see it and ensure fair play?

It's because the private sector would fleece/rip off everyone at the earliest opportunity and put in such unfair T&Cs that would be like playing the dice game Craps with loaded dice! The public would never win on anything.

Just because some regulation is required doesn't prove that the government should run everything.
In general, the private sector does not rip people off because, if they do, they tend to lose their customers and go out of business. Regulators are often introduced to act on behalf of consumers where this is difficult or impossible.

Why is it that the private sector has had to resort to moving the goalposts when it comes to timetables? Because they've gone for quantity over quality that's why! BR did better, operated more trains and faster ones too, journeys in a large number of areas are now slower than in the steam days.

Just about every TOC now has a timetable that will collapse like a house of cards with the most minor of knocks.

I'd like to see some figures that show that BR operated 'more trains' given that pretty much every train that was around at privatisation is still running and a load have been built since, and that passenger numbers have doubled.

As for the 'faster' argument, that's been gone through here numerous times - the priority these days is on capacity not speed, given the aforementioned increase in passenger numbers.

This thread is becoming a stale and repetitive airing of people's pre-digested political ideas - is anyone interested instead in discussing how the railways might be run better?

 

[Olaf]

Remember union members have to vote to strike and they will therefor only strike if the situation is unacceptable.
And they like everyone else are also members of the public who have needs. If companies had it their way (private or public) people will be working in unsafe, underpayed conditions. If talks fail the only alternative is strike action.

That is clearly not the case; the strikes are typically based on a low turnout and are quite obviously, in most case, politically motivated.

Reading what some on here have said suggests that some think rail workers should lose the pension pot they've earned, get less money and lose their rights that they signed a contract for.
How would any of that be fair just because others like coppers can't strike?

I think that this has no relevance on nationalisation.
A national company can run like a TOC but without profit going to big business. Nothing else needs to be changed.

No; the intention is to avoid burdening the state with additional pension liabilities that it will not be able to meet. Public sector pensions are going to have to come to an end, with staff getting their pensions in the private sector.

Sorry, but the no-strike agreement is essential for all operations returning into state ownershi[ due to the abuse of the current arrangements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Neither does the assumption that unions are out to screw over the employers. .

In my personal experience, the Union Reps were out to screw their own members; they were only ever interested in feathering their own nests and acted like a bunch of hells angels towards the colleagues. They are the ones that ended up as the current middle management in the organisation I am thinking of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In that case, expect social unrest of similar or greater levels than the 60's or 70's.

Unfortunately, that is what is anticipated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Big business is mistrusted because of the undue influence it brings to bear on the running of the Country.

Exactly the same is said when applied to the unions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You may have a point that not all big companies are necessarily bad, but there is the whiff of power without responsibility about them.

Ditto.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Back on the original topic, I think the main reason people want "British Rail" back is that they remember, or are told about, a soft-focus past where the trains all ran on time, everyone got a seat, there were uniformed staff on every platform to help you with your luggage, tell you the time, make you a cup of tea, etc., a guard and a steward on every train, and so on.

Renationalising the railways will achieve none of this.

I would expect that the timing of the survey was a factor in the results ... a misty-eyed view of the BR unicorn being another.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it's not that at all. The main reason is we were promised lower fares and reduced public subsidies would result from privatisation but the exact opposite has happened. Passengers and taxpayers aren't getting value for money and public debts are rising to unsustainable levels, yet the government goes on pretending rail privatisation has been a success, since the truth would undermine their ideology and put future privatisation plans in jeopardy.

Public subsidy for the railways is being steadily reduced - the policy has been to shift the balance in the financing of the railways back to the user from the tax payer, and in the case of London and SE operations have or are close to being self financed. So the overall burden of the railways is being reduced.

Value for money is improved by eliminating operating costs, which will be harder to achieve under state control due to coercion, but is necessary in order to scale-up activities.

Capital investment is however going to be problematic going forward. Over the last 10 years or so, a lot of the work has been financed by debt, but NR is close to it's credit limit. A lot has been achieved so far with the relatively cheap debt, but additional capacity, particularly were it is really needed, is going to be one or two orders of magnitude more expensive than the little schemes seen so far.

This would be one arguement for having NR under state control so that it could access the currently relatively cheap Government debt financing. However this will not last, and Government expenditure will be significantly constrained in future years. The next phases of the financial crisis will most likely be more devastating than the last, with Government finances taking the biggest hit.

So going forward, if additional capacity is to be provided for the anticipated growth, it is going to require a substantial private sector involvement, with perhaps backers taking ownership of particular corridors. The alternative is yield management, which is already being planned for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yeah, it will be because they can't do it and not for the reasons you think. effectively it will be "well i can't have it/do it so no one else can"



they are all ready doing that. sometimes that doesn't work and it needs to be taken further.



not in terms of pay and conditions or working rights no



and i'd be in favour of the unions refusing to pay these members of the public and doing what they can to run rings around said members of the public via whatever means should that ever happen.



or, the state.



no it mustn't. withdrawing the right to strike is a form of slave labour, or at least legitimizing it. there is nothing about a strike that the general public needs protecting from. walk/ride a bike/get the bus. it won't kill you. many people have no option but to do any of those as they have no trains. and it will remind those stuck in a bubble that not everything works all the time.



and there still is



or, maybe it was all the lies told that caused both of those.

Dribble.

If you feel the need to strike, you should probably go and find another job, or perhaps retire to a monastery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

really? yeah, right. if for example, workers didn't unite to change the conditions of the businesses of the industrial revolution would those businesses have changed or stayed the same? considering change would have cost those businesses more and would have meant what they would have considered, restrictive legislation. if unions weren't needed, they wouldn't exist. its as simple as that.



but some don't. and that some, is some to many. so therefore unions are still needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no, i just see it all as it is . and i realize that people can't always be trusted. therefore we need laws/rules/enforcers to help protect us. employment laws and rules, and unions being the perfect example in terms of this thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


no, but privatization has nothing to do with it. other external factors which would have happened anyway do. as mentioned above, NIR (northern ireland railways) has had a lot of growth and its nationalised.

The problem is that the unions are made up of Luddites that are living in the past; the world has changed for the better, but a number of the unions are still peddling the gospel of the Cold War. That is all it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the private sector is so good. Why does every privatised sector need an industry regulator to over see it and ensure fair play?

We have the vote to prevent or remove the tyrants; tyrants such as Brown, Blair, Foot, Wilson, etc, etc. They are the more dangerous to society, and have done far more damage, perhaps only to be surpassed by the media manipulation of the current set of malcontents.