ScotRail Industrial Relations issues (including conductor strike action)

[Bodiddly]

I really don't think that anyone has at any point suggested that a pay rise is in some way not deserved, or that it would be in some way undesirable. However, there's significant concern about how it might be funded, the options for doing so appear to all be viewed as even more unacceptable than doing nothing.

I disagree. I've read several posts on here saying why should we get a pay rise.
There are a lot of jealous people out there who don't understand the power of a trade union because their workplaces don't allow it.

 

[maradona10]

I might be misunderstanding you - if so apologies in advance - but if you don’t know what the terms are then why are you supporting a strike over it?

Personally I would want to know, in detail, the terms of any agreement that I was being told had been broken before deciding to withdraw my labour and lose pay over the matter.

Genuine question. Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

I’m supporting a strike over the company telling one grade there’s no dosh and refusing to enter pay talks over RDW enhancements whilst continuing with and extending another grades… if you bend over and accept it then it sets a bad precedent for the grade in my opinion. Workplace parity.

 

[nanstallon]

Continuing this dispute may alienate a lot of custom - Sunday is a day when many people want to travel, even if only for leisure purposes. Logically, this would reduce income for the TOC and therefore cause loss of jobs, but it doesn't quite work that way.

 

[Starmill]

It's interesting that the demand is apparently for parity. In the public sector, it's common for staff on lower pay bands to be offered a higher percentage pay rise than ones in higher bands. This means that the staff who do jobs that pay the most get proportionally lower rises than the ones who do less well paying jobs at the same employer. It's viewed as fairer because it reduces the spread in the cash amounts of pay awards. It also means that over time the lowest paid workers do not slowly lose real pay, and the absolute difference between the lowest paid and highest paid staff doesn't get larger. I wonder how that sort of approach would be viewed at ScotRail.

There are a lot of jealous people out there who don't understand the power of a trade union because their workplaces don't allow it.

In general, it is unlawful for an employer discriminate against someone because they are, or are not, a trade union member.

 

[maradona10]

It's interesting that the demand is apparently for parity. In the public sector, it's common for staff on lower pay bands to be offered a higher percentage pay rise than ones in higher bands. This means that the staff who do jobs that pay the most get proportionally lower rises than the ones who do less well paying jobs at the same employer. It's viewed as fairer because it reduces the spread in the cash amounts of pay awards. It also means that over time the lowest paid workers do not slowly lose real pay, and the absolute difference between the lowest paid and highest paid staff doesn't get larger. I wonder how that sort of approach would be viewed at ScotRail.

Do you think it’s fair to pay one worker an enhanced overtime rate and refuse other workers any overtime rate?

 

[Starmill]

Do you think it’s fair to pay one worker an enhanced overtime rate and refuse other workers any overtime rate?

My view is that any form of "compulsory overtime" is unfair. If overtime is genuinely overtime and entirely voluntary, my view is that it cannot be unfair to pay flat rate for it.

 

[maradona10]

My view is that any form of "compulsory overtime" is unfair. If overtime is genuinely overtime and entirely voluntary, my view is that it cannot be unfair to pay flat rate for it.

So do you feel it’s fair for one set of workers to be entitled to an enhanced rate whilst the other set gets flat rate?

 

[Starmill]

So do you feel it’s fair for one set of workers to be entitled to an enhanced rate whilst the other set gets flat rate?

I don't see how it's different to one group of workers being on a higher base salary than another.

 

[maradona10]

I find that very enlightening as to your character. You're saying it's fair to pay drivers an enhanced rate for overtime but not other grades.

 

[Watershed]

I don't see how it's different to one group of workers being on a higher base salary than another.

Yep. And so we come full circle to where we were about 10 pages earlier in this thread

Regardless of whether there's an enhancement, drivers will be getting rather a lot more for their overtime than conductors. I fail to see how the percentages, or indeed the conditions applying to a different grade, are relevant at all.

If you want to go down the road of full parity then, logically, conductors & TEs should be arguing for the same breaks as drivers, drivers should be arguing for the same book on & off allowances as conductors & TEs, and so on. In other words, everyone getting the best conditions of any grade on every issue.

Surely it's not difficult to see why that is unrealistic?

 

[maradona10]

Yep. And so we come full circle to where we were about 10 pages earlier in this thread

Regardless of whether there's an enhancement, drivers will be getting rather a lot more for their overtime than conductors. I fail to see how the percentages, or indeed the conditions applying to a different grade, are relevant at all.

If you want to go down the road of full parity then, logically, conductors & TEs should be arguing for the same breaks as drivers, drivers should be arguing for the same book on & off allowances as conductors & TEs, and so on. In other words, everyone getting the best conditions of any grade on every issue.

Surely it's not difficult to see why that is unrealistic?

It's hardly asking full parity to be asking for a rest day enhancement which is being given to other grades. Not the same rest day enhancement, just any rest day enhancement.

Just because the drivers receive more than a guard with or without an enhancement regardless isn't an argument to say well we may as well just not give the guards it, what they moaning about they won't receive as much anyway?

It's not asking for a driver salary or their breaks, is it?

 

[Starmill]

I find that very enlightening as to your character. You're saying it's fair to pay drivers an enhanced rate for overtime but not other grades.

Conductors are generally paid more than station staff. Is that not fair? Ticket examiners are generally paid more than train presentation staff. Is that fair on the cleaners? Some grades of staff have very little opportunities for working overtime, some have lots. Is that fair? Some staff are paid on commission, some aren't. Is that fair? And finally as I suggested upthread some staff are given larger percentage pay increases than others. Is that "fair"?

I think the key conclusion that you probably need to accept is that workplace "fairness" will always be quite subjective.

 

[maradona10]

Conductors are generally paid more than station staff. Is that not fair? Ticket examiners are generally paid more than train presentation staff. Is that fair on the cleaners? Some grades of staff have very little opportunities for working overtime, some have lots. Is that fair? Some staff are paid on commission, some aren't. Is that fair? And finally as I suggested upthread some staff are given larger percentage pay increases than others. Is that "fair"?

I think the key conclusion that you probably need to accept is that workplace "fairness" will always be quite subjective.

Very subjective in your case as you seem to think it's perfectly fair to pay a driver an enhanced rate of overtime but nobody else.

 

[Starmill]

Very subjective in your case as you seem to think it's perfectly fair to pay a driver an enhanced rate of overtime but nobody else.

It's easy to call something which personally disadvantages you unfair. But apparently not to consider overall what you class as fair or not. Is fair just a question of "what is to my personal preference"?

 

[maradona10]

It's easy to call something which personally disadvantages you unfair. But apparently not to consider overall what you class as fair or not. Is fair just a question of "what is to my personal preference"?

It's in the context of this thread and why staff are taking industrial action.

 

[Starmill]

It's in the context of this thread and why staff are taking industrial action.

And good luck to those who are, as if it goes ahead for twelve days I would predict that they will need it.

 

[Bill57p9]

There are a lot of jealous people out there who don't understand the power of a trade union because their workplaces don't allow it.

In general, it is unlawful for an employer discriminate against someone because they are, or are not, a trade union member.

@Starmill is absolutely correct.

@Bodiddly did you really mean "workplaces don't recognise it"? In the UK an employer can voluntarily recognise a Trade Union representing a trade group, however by law if member density reaches 50% the employer can be forced to recognise a TU for collective bargaining.

(As a rep in another industry) I do agree that a large number of people don't really understand what a TU is really for, especially their experiences may be negative, such as strike action.
A TU isn't doing it's job if it isn't pursuing the best interests of their members. Not the public, or the business customers or non-members but their members. Sometimes the best interest will lie in the long game, and may have short term pain.
COP26 would simply be too good an opportunity to miss to increase the pressure on this dispute, which frankly needs the pressure increased to come to a head.

Different grades do different jobs and therefore have different worth and different bargaining chips. I'm not surprised that drivers have a better deal: whilst guards and TEs do an excellent and valuable job, drivers take longer to train so represent a more valuable commodity to the business. In my employer different grades have different additional attendance payments reflective of their unique skill sets, resulting in a similar disconnect. Few people bat an eyelid, or see it as unfair (and we're two branches of the same TU).

I can't talk for the RMT but in my branch NOBODY wants to strike. Even withdrawal of goodwill is seen as a failure of industrial relations.

 

[the sniper]

However, and apologies in advance, why do you feel that you are worth the same as Drivers ? They are totally different grades and from a TOC perspective they aren't equal.

I will 100% support your right to strike and 100% support your desire for better terms. For this entire dispute I fully support you and what you are striking for. But.. Guards/Drivers/Platform/etc are very different grades and do different roles. There are some T&Cs in the Platform grade that I'm sightly envious of but I would never base my own personal terms on that of another grade.

Why does the Drivers terms and their agreement matter ?

TSSA could negotiate a 3% no strings pay rise year after year for Managers while the RMT/ASLEF members/grades only get 1% out of them. By your reasoning, would it be wrong for the RMT/ASLEF members/grades to be aggrieved by only ever being offered 1%? The RMT/ASLEF should not campaign for more?

In the case of these kind of rest/free day working deals, I don't think anyone ever asks for, or at least expects, pay parity with the Drivers, just the same percentage. Surely ASLEF/the Drivers just show what's possible?

 

[Bald Rick]

I find that very enlightening as to your character. You're saying it's fair to pay drivers an enhanced rate for overtime but not other grades.

Is it fair that lorry drivers are being paid overtime bonuses for working extra shifts (because there’s a shortage of lorry drivers), but warehouse people who load the lorries are just getting straight overtime (as there’s no shortage of them)?

Is it fair that in some TOCS station staff are being offered voluntary redundancy, but drivers are not?

 

[Bodiddly]

@Starmill is absolutely correct.

@Bodiddly did you really mean "workplaces don't recognise it"? In the UK an employer can voluntarily recognise a Trade Union representing a trade group, however by law if member density reaches 50% the employer can be forced to recognise a TU for collective bargaining.

(As a rep in another industry) I do agree that a large number of people don't really understand what a TU is really for, especially their experiences may be negative, such as strike action.
A TU isn't doing it's job if it isn't pursuing the best interests of their members. Not the public, or the business customers or non-members but their members. Sometimes the best interest will lie in the long game, and may have short term pain.
COP26 would simply be too good an opportunity to miss to increase the pressure on this dispute, which frankly needs the pressure increased to come to a head.

Different grades do different jobs and therefore have different worth and different bargaining chips. I'm not surprised that drivers have a better deal: whilst guards and TEs do an excellent and valuable job, drivers take longer to train so represent a more valuable commodity to the business. In my employer different grades have different additional attendance payments reflective of their unique skill sets, resulting in a similar disconnect. Few people bat an eyelid, or see it as unfair (and we're two branches of the same TU).

I can't talk for the RMT but in my branch NOBODY wants to strike. Even withdrawal of goodwill is seen as a failure of industrial relations.

What I meant by not allowing it is true in my case. Years ago we talked about joining a Union. We were technicians at a small contractor. When the owner found out he went mental and threatened to sack everyone involved. I know it's unlawful but you would see how many employers will simply sack workers for even mentioning the Union.

Nobody is saying that different positions in a company should be paid the same salary. A driver is arguably the most trained employee in a TOC (I say arguably because in maintenance, we are on constant training and competency cycle) and the salary reflects that. The RDW gripe is that a driver walks on to a set and gets paid their salary plus rdw enhancement. A guard/te walks on the same set and gets their salary plus a much reduced rdw premium. In my opinion, the rdw enhancement should be the same for all grades. Fair play to the drivers and their Union because of course they will try get their best deal but be under no illusions, this is causing friction between grades. Drivers will start to feel the animosity between themselves and other grades as employees turn on themselves because the company and government aren't listening.

All this aside as the RDW dispute is a separate issue from the main one at the moment. The current dispute which has caused the strikes is the sheer arrogance that the pay talks has provided. They only came to the table because they heard of the potential risk of industrial action during COP. If that wasn't happening they would never have entered talks. Their 'super offer' is full of smoke and mirrors but all you will see is the headline offer. If it was such a great offer, why did 84% of those polled vote to strike?

 

[snookertam]

Hopefully by a swift new offer which is accepted

I do hope you’re right. I know that’s the intention of the new strike announcement, as you’d think the threat of a strike throughout COP26 would provide enough leverage, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

I wouldn’t be completely surprised if they thought they could brazen it out. They’d probably tell everyone, residents and visitors alike, to cycle everywhere.

 

[Carntyne]

I have been an RMT member for the last 20 odd years and this will be my first actual strike. Let me try to explain why this is such a big issue for members.
We all put our lives at risk to provide transport for the people who were classed as key workers. We were classed as key workers. We did our part of the bargain and when we asked for some financial recognition, we were ignored and told we should be grateful we have a job. Absolute bollocks. The only reason Abellio came to the negotiating table is because they saw the unrest that was stirring the closer the COP26 came and were told by Transport Scotland to sort it out. Well, they didn't sort it out. The payrise should actually be from 2019 but is only backdated to April 2021. The second year rise is tied to conditions that the company can basically renege on. So the second year rise could be taken from us and we'd have no say on that until 2023. The company are also trying to dump the no compulsory redundancy clause the Scottish Government were adamant should be included in the franchise agreement. This would be a threat to some grades and would also lead to posts being closed forever.
We as workers are not being greedy and you will see that with our revised pay claim. We deserve a pay rise, as do everyone else who risked their lives to keep the Country running no matter what industry you are in. Covid has been used by employers as a large stick to beat their employees with. Why would anyone say they are not worth a payrise during Covid?

Who do you think is trying to dump that? The company leaving in 5 or 6 months? Behave.

There is an appalling level of understanding within our workforce about who is doing the negotiating on the 'other' side and the amount of additional funding they have poured in to keep the lights on over the past 18 months.

 

[Falcon1200]

Should the 12-day strike go ahead (and I hope and pray that somehow an agreement will be reached), it will be an absolute disaster for all concerned; Scotrail's passengers left without a train service, the striking staff losing pay, and the rail industry as a whole; Because as pretty well every major rail strike in history has shown, some of the industry's customers will find other means of transport and will not return to the railway. Which is the absolute last thing the industry needs just now.

 

[snookertam]

Yes, but how critical is the railway to it?

The railway has always been critical to any major events in Glasgow, up until now. Whether it’s sporting events at Hampden or Celtic Park, Commonwealth Games, big events in the City Centre, the presence of a comprehensive suburban network in Glasgow has always carried a lot of the load when it comes to moving large amounts of people around.

When it comes to COP26, visitors will be staying all round the city and beyond into outlying suburbs. The population will increase markedly for that fortnight. The likelihood of disruption in the roads, including the closure of the Clydeside Expeessway which goes past the site of the summit, means that the train service will very much be relied upon for getting people around - at least it would be under normal circumstances.

The potential fly in the ointment here’s that it’s quite clear that public transport is evidently not seen as part of the Covid recovery in Scotland. There does seem to be an attitude that it can just be left to run with minimal service, and it makes me wonder just how much it’s usage would have been encouraged during this event. As I said slightly facetiously above, people may well be told to cycle. But there is a disconnect between an event like this occurring and services running at 50% of normal frequency. What they likely wouldn’t cope with is no train service for the duration - you’d be as well shutting Glasgow down for the fortnight (although, it sounds like they might be up for that…).

Very critical given that having everyone arrive by car and air will significantly undermine the entire event, in turn meaning delegates are less likely to be taken seriously and crucial decisions are less likely to be made.

It could be argued that COP26 is more critical to the railway than the railway is to it. If the railway can’t even run a service for a conference how on earth can they expect the railway to seriously be considered and developed as major resource in fighting the climate emergency.

I agree with you here, but my concern is that it’s clear in Scotland just now that the government and public agencies *don't* see the railway as a major resource in fighting the climate emergency. They talk about decarbonisation but not about encouraging usage. More talk about active travel and 20 minute neighbourhoods instead.

Who do you think is trying to dump that? The company leaving in 5 or 6 months? Behave.

There is an appalling level of understanding within our workforce about who is doing the negotiating on the 'other' side and the amount of additional funding they have poured in to keep the lights on over the past 18 months.

Why should they trust anyone who doesn’t commit to a ‘no compulsory redundancies’ clause? Would you like your job to be under threat like that?

 

[Watershed]

It's hardly asking full parity to be asking for a rest day enhancement which is being given to other grades. Not the same rest day enhancement, just any rest day enhancement.

Just because the drivers receive more than a guard with or without an enhancement regardless isn't an argument to say well we may as well just not give the guards it, what they moaning about they won't receive as much anyway?

It's not asking for a driver salary or their breaks, is it?

So you recognise that it's reasonable for different grades to have different conditions on salary or breaks. But not when it comes to the formula used to calculate overtime payments?

Why is that formula so sacrosanct that it must apply to all grades? Do you think that management grade staff should be striking because they don't get paid for overtime at all?

Personally, if I were a Scotrail guard or TE, I would be far more aggrieved by how much more the drivers get paid. And I would be looking to achieve something nearer to parity on that, before fighting for anything else.

If it was such a great offer, why did 84% of those polled vote to strike?

Only 57% of eligible members returned their ballot, so by definition, 84% of members can't have voted to strike.

If it was such a poor offer, why did only 48% of members vote in favour of a strike?

 

[maradona10]

So you recognise that it's reasonable for different grades to have different conditions on salary or breaks. But not when it comes to the formula used to calculate overtime payments?

Why is that formula so sacrosanct that it must apply to all grades? Do you think that management grade staff should be striking because they don't get paid for overtime at all?

Personally, if I were a Scotrail guard or TE, I would be far more aggrieved by how much more the drivers get paid. And I would be looking to achieve something nearer to parity on that, before fighting for anything else.


Only 57% of eligible members returned their ballot, so by definition, 84% of members can't have voted to strike.

If it was such a poor offer, why did only 48% of members vote in favour of a strike?

What's your problem with other grades asking for a rest day enhancement which they only seem to want to provide to drivers? Surely you can see why it's led industrial action?
If management want to strike for whatever reason then that's up to them. RTMs have been doing overtime during this dispute by covering trains and then bragging to staff about how much they are earning.

 

[Taylor]

So you recognise that it's reasonable for different grades to have different conditions on salary or breaks. But not when it comes to the formula used to calculate overtime payments?

Why is that formula so sacrosanct that it must apply to all grades? Do you think that management grade staff should be striking because they don't get paid for overtime at all?

Personally, if I were a Scotrail guard or TE, I would be far more aggrieved by how much more the drivers get paid. And I would be looking to achieve something nearer to parity on that, before fighting for anything else.


Only 57% of eligible members returned their ballot, so by definition, 84% of members can't have voted to strike.

If it was such a poor offer, why did only 48% of members vote in favour of a strike?

Because they read the email management sent them falsely claiming a deal had been agreed by the RMT?

 

[Watershed]

What's your problem with other grades asking for a rest day enhancement which they only seem to want to provide to drivers?

I don't have a problem with it.

But it seems there are a lot of people who don't appreciate that it's inconsistent to demand "equality" on rest day enhancements - and yet accept that in other areas, it's reasonable for terms to differ between grades. And that, accordingly, this claim can't be justified on the basis of 'fairness'.

Surely you can see why it's led industrial action?

I appreciate that not everyone is happy with the current situation. But if I were in the shoes of a conductor/TE, a strike is the last thing I'd be voting for right now.

 

[maradona10]

Is it fair that lorry drivers are being paid overtime bonuses for working extra shifts (because there’s a shortage of lorry drivers), but warehouse people who load the lorries are just getting straight overtime (as there’s no shortage of them)?

Is it fair that in some TOCS station staff are being offered voluntary redundancy, but drivers are not?

Who's talking about lorry drivers? What a pointless comparison.

I don't have a problem with it.

But it seems there are a lot of people who don't appreciate that it's inconsistent to demand that - and yet accept that in other areas, it's reasonable for terms to differ between different grades. And that, accordingly, this claim can't be justified on the basis of 'fairness'.


I appreciate that not everyone is happy with the current situation. But if I were in the shoes of a conductor/TE, a strike is the last thing I'd be voting for right now.

You clearly do have a problem with it or else you wouldn't keep making arguments against it. You aren't a TE or a conductor so you don't know that. If my granny had balls she'd be my granda....

 

[snookertam]

I don't have a problem with it.
I appreciate that not everyone is happy with the current situation. But if I were in the shoes of a conductor/TE, a strike is the last thing I'd be voting for right now.

I think the important bit here is ‘if I were in the shoes of a conductor/TE’. That’s maybe the issue here. Those taking strike action will be losing money through this. They’re not doing it lightly and the reality is there are probably a number of issues in the background that have pushed them to this point. I dare say that the stated reason of the RDW enhancement is merely the straw that’s broken the camels back.