The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,963
Just seen on the BBC website.
Just seen on the BBC website.
Network Rail workers have voted in favour of a UK-wide strike in a row over pay, the Rail, Maritime and Transport union has said.
Its members voted 4-1 for action after the union rejected Network Rail's latest pay proposals.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said the ballot result showed "the anger" of staff at "attacks on their standards of living and their job security".
What about the public that are paying extortionate prices on some journeys can they strike?
Bit of a coincidence it's announcement given who's just been voted in?
They are free to use alternative transport at any time if they so wish.
When would the 'Strike' be if it was to go ahead
What about the public that are paying extortionate prices on some journeys can they strike?
When would the 'Strike' be if it was to go ahead, and would it affect the entire network or just commuter routes or the cross intercity ones.
Is there some direct link between this and the amount Network Rail staff are paid?
NR staff have been offered 0% pay rise this year, and tied only to inflation from 2016-2020. In the meantime NR managers have awarded themselves bumper bonuses worth 20% of their salary.
Interesting that the Tories are already on the attack about setting a 40% yes vote from all elgible members for a strike to go ahead, given that they themselves haven't got 40% of votes from all eligible voters since the 1950s.
In case anyone questions the mandate this time, turnout was 60% and 80% of votes were in favour of strike action, with 92% of votes being in favour of action short of a strike.
I find it interesting that people argue these staff "don't deserve more money", yet in the same breath forecast "huge disruption" when they don't turn up to work. Make up your mind folks.
Probably...48% of the rail fare money goes to Network Rail.
Is there some direct link between this and the amount Network Rail staff are paid?
I find it interesting that people argue these staff "don't deserve more money", yet in the same breath forecast "huge disruption" when they don't turn up to work. Make up your mind folks.
So you (and Spad) think pay should be equated and linked to your ability to collectively cause massive disruption -and not to all those boring things like ability, attitude, integrity, qualification, technical skill, competence, intelligence, ablity to work under pressure, etc. etc......
So you (and Spad) think pay should be equated and linked to your ability to collectively cause massive disruption -and not to all those boring things like ability, attitude, integrity, qualification, technical skill, competence, intelligence, ablity to work under pressure, etc. etc......
And there's a direct link as to how much of that goes to paying staff?
And there's a direct link as to how much of that goes to paying staff?
Staffing costs are around £2000m, which is about 33% of total income.
So yes, they do have a big impact.
Surely as Network Rail is under European directive a state organisation Pay should be capped at a max of 1% in line with other public asector workers nurses, teachers etc?