Scotrail RMT strike action and possible temporary service cuts to a third of services

[43066]

No, it most certainly is not ! I was a Union member throughout my entire 38 year railway career, and Unions have a vital role to play in protecting and assisting their members, and negotiating pay and conditions. But in an industry like the railway, even the threat of strike action, never mind actually going on strike, has an immediate effect on passenger and freight user confidence, and after the last two years driving customers away to competing forms of transport is the last thing the rail industry needs. So the Union is absolutely entitled to demand a pay increase, but this has to be realistic and achievable, which 9% certainly is not.

If the threat of industrial action isn’t in the background there wont be much of a negotiation!

The union isn’t there to take account of passenger confidence or to concern itself with the wider reputation of the industry etc. It’s for the employer (who actually contracts with passengers to carry them) to manage IR with its workforce to hopefully not allow things to deteriorate to that stage. There needs to be a level of reasonableness on behalf of the unions too, of course, but I don’t get the impression the current Scotrail (or TPE) disputes are purely about pay - there’s a lot more to it.

I’ve said several times I wouldn’t personally be in favour of industrial action purely over pay, but you can hardly expect a union to enter negotiations by arguing against itself, by accepting that below rate of inflation increase is anything other than a real terms cut.

Now, in Scotland, from the same source as any rail staff pay rise, ie the taxpayer; Are NHS staff demanding, or being offered, 9% ?

The Royal College of Nursing appears to be demanding an increase of 5% *above* the rate of inflation! I have idea whether that differs as between Scotland and England.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Royal College of Nursing appears to be demanding an increase of 5% *above* the rate of inflation! I have idea whether that differs between Scotland and England.

To be fair nurses really are underpaid, whereas traincrew are very reasonably paid and so only deserve inflation unless the role has materially changed (e.g. DOO).

 

[baz962]

To be fair nurses really are underpaid, whereas traincrew are very reasonably paid and so only deserve inflation unless the role has materially changed (e.g. DOO).

And again , not all nurses. As I said before , around three years ago my local hospital was recruiting for a nurse in midwifery at 50k plus.

 

[Falcon1200]

The union isn’t there to take account of passenger confidence or to concern itself with the wider reputation of the industry etc.

Perhaps they should at least bear those issues in mind given the effect of a deterioration in both on their member's future job and earning prospects ?

 

[InOban]

At that salary the midwife would be responsible for maintaining standards across a team of midwives, and we know from recent reports how that can go badly wrong. If they recruit the right person they would be worth every penny.

The real problem is the ludicrous money paid at the top of the private sector without any evidence that it has been earned. How many companies have gone bust while paying the bosses £millions?

 

[43066]

To be fair nurses really are underpaid, whereas traincrew are very reasonably paid and so only deserve inflation unless the role has materially changed (e.g. DOO).

That’s a value judgment, some nurses are pretty well paid in absolute terms.

Of course there are rather more nurses than train crew, so the argument that “there’s no money” just looks a little hollow when there miraculously is enough money to award NHS staff a pay rise.

According to Statsia, as of 2021, there were some 600,000 nurses in the U.K. versus 20,000-odd ASLEF members (presumably even fewer guards given the prevalence of DOO in the southeast). That rather puts the relative costs of traincrew pay into perspective: it’s insignificant in overall terms.

Perhaps they should at least bear those issues in mind given the effect of a deterioration in both on their member's future job and earning prospects ?

Not really, in the same way as the NHS unions don’t concern themselves with patient numbers. In fact they’ve been every bit as strident as driving away patients as the rail unions have passengers during Covid!

 

[Taunton]

If running your business is dependent on your staff working on their day off then clearly you are not properly running said business.

To me this isn't Covid related, there were the self same issues pre pandemic, Scotrail no matter who is running it seems unable for some reason to be able to recruit enough staff to cover a 7 day operation.

Are there railway roles where the "standard" week is only 4 days? And thus it's attractive all around to work "overtime" as a 5th day?

And how do things work so differently on the railways civils side, where weekends are the high point of activity, even including Christmas Day?

If you look to other 24x7 industries, including some highly unionised ones, like fire services or airlines, you never hear of them having issues on staffing Sundays but being OK the rest of the week, one wonders why.

 

[baz962]

At that salary the midwife would be responsible for maintaining standards across a team of midwives, and we know from recent reports how that can go badly wrong. If they recruit the right person they would be worth every penny.

The real problem is the ludicrous money paid at the top of the private sector without any evidence that it has been earned. How many companies have gone bust while paying the bosses £millions?

Well the advert was just for a midwife , didn't say anything about a head of midwifery.

 

[Ex-controller]

If an employer (whoever they are) concede union demands at the threat or imposition of strike or other disruptive action, it guarantees that those employees, and others, know that they can get pretty much whatever they want in future. As does anyone else employed by the same organisation.



No-one, but railway staff pay is not being cut, an increase has in fact been offered; Of course, inflation means that buying power is reduced, but that is a separate issue.

So it’s a real terms decrease in salary then.

 

[43066]

Are there railway roles where the "standard" week is only 4 days? And thus it's attractive all around to work "overtime" as a 5th day?

The fabled railway four day week is actually a “standard” 35 hour five day week compressed into four days, including weekends and bank holidays, anti social start and finish times.

Where I am you can be expected to finish work at 0100 sat night/Sunday morning, and be back in at 0500 Monday. The Sunday is apparently a day off.

Our Sundays are also inside so no extra pay for working them…

 

[Ex-controller]

So that’s basically an argument against the existence of unionisation and collective bargaining in the first place. I don’t doubt banning unions altogether is what many on here would like, but perhaps look at the countries where unions are indeed illegal and ask whether that’s a club we want to the U.K. to be a part of…

Anyone who has a problem with unionisation and collective agreements on the railway might want to look at the recent experience on P&O Ferries. If the workforce don’t stand up and fight for as much as they can get, the pay, conditions and protections that they do have can easily be eroded. There’s no such thing as a neutral arbiter in all of this, it’s a negotiation process and the strongest side will get the best deal.

 

[ar10642]

Just because others aren't getting 9%, why should railway crew sell themselves short ?

Almost nobody in any job, public or private sector, is going to be getting 9%. It's a ridiculous demand.

So it’s a real terms decrease in salary then.

Yes, that's what's going to happen to everyone.

 

[baz962]

Almost nobody in any job, public or private sector, is going to be getting 9%. It's a ridiculous demand.



Yes, that's what's going to happen to everyone.

Some train crew in at least three places got over 8% . And that's part of the problem.

 

[ComUtoR]

If you look to other 24x7 industries, including some highly unionised ones, like fire services or airlines, you never hear of them having issues on staffing Sundays but being OK the rest of the week, one wonders why.

Probably because Sundays are contractual. The Railway may be 24/7 but the employment contract can be 24/6

And how do things work so differently on the railways civils side, where weekends are the high point of activity, even including Christmas Day?

I haven't met a Driver yet who isn't contractually obligated to work Christmas day. It's part of the 'Rotation' Should Christmas and Boxing Day trains run then the could be no argument if asked to work.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has a clause in their terms to say Christmas is a non work day.

 

[dk1]

Probably because Sundays are contractual. The Railway may be 24/7 but the employment contract can be 24/6



I haven't met a Driver yet who isn't contractually obligated to work Christmas day. It's part of the 'Rotation' Should Christmas and Boxing Day trains run then the could be no argument if asked to work.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has a clause in their terms to say Christmas is a non work day.

Christmas & Boxing Day are guaranteed days off at my TOC for drivers.

 

[Moonshot]

Anyone who has a problem with unionisation and collective agreements on the railway might want to look at the recent experience on P&O Ferries. If the workforce don’t stand up and fight for as much as they can get, the pay, conditions and protections that they do have can easily be eroded. There’s no such thing as a neutral arbiter in all of this, it’s a negotiation process and the strongest side will get the best deal.

Scores of RMT members got sacked instantly at P & O. Union membership actually meant nothing whatsoever.

 

[wobman]

To be fair nurses really are underpaid, whereas traincrew are very reasonably paid and so only deserve inflation unless the role has materially changed (e.g. DOO).

The lower band nurses are paid that well, but I know some earn far more than traincrew.
It's not the best example to use against traincrews salaries, the pay scales of nurses is available online to check if you would like to check.

 

[Falcon1200]

So it’s a real terms decrease in salary then.

Unfortunately yes, just as I have had to accept my pension increase being less than half the increase in my energy bill, never mind all the other costs which are rising too. That is the world we are in just now.

 

[ar10642]

Some train crew in at least three places got over 8% . And that's part of the problem.

Good for them I guess. Absolute fantasy that everyone's going to get that, the government would rather shut the whole thing down.

 

[baz962]

Good for them I guess. Absolute fantasy that everyone's going to get that, the government would rather shut the whole thing down.

Of course not everyone will get that and personally I wouldn't ask for that. But the problem is then that some train crew will argue that the money was offered there , so why not for them. And of course you potentially get crew leaving for tocs that are paying upto 20k more , because that's the difference between the highest and lowest paid tocs . Then you have to recruit , train etc and will have train crew shortages in some places. The other thing to bear in mind is that some lorry drivers are now level or nearly level with the lowest paid train drivers . Would many be attracted to the job then , or some leave the job to drive a truck on similar money but with no weekends and not knowing what time you are starting off spare , or getting a leave day up until three days before the day you need.

 

[Gems]

Most Scotrail timetables north of the central belt were so shockingly bad before this, it must be a nightmare now.

 

[ar10642]

Of course not everyone will get that and personally I wouldn't ask for that. But the problem is then that some train crew will argue that the money was offered there , so why not for them. And of course you potentially get crew leaving for tocs that are paying upto 20k more , because that's the difference between the highest and lowest paid tocs . Then you have to recruit , train etc and will have train crew shortages in some places. The other thing to bear in mind is that some lorry drivers are now level or nearly level with the lowest paid train drivers . Would many be attracted to the job then , or some leave the job to drive a truck on similar money but with no weekends and not knowing what time you are starting off spare , or getting a leave day up until three days before the day you need.

Well that's the thing. If you want a serious pay rise like that you typically have to move jobs, with all the risk that entails. Nobody's just going to hand you 9% for continuing to turn up.

 

[ComUtoR]

Well that's the thing. If you want a serious pay rise like that you typically have to move jobs, with all the risk that entails. Nobody's just going to hand you 9% for continuing to turn up.

So if you were managing your business, would you prefer high rates of staff retention or high rates of staff turnover ? The more Drivers that leave, just adds to your training issues.

 

[ar10642]

So if you were managing your business, would you prefer high rates of staff retention or high rates of staff turnover ? The more Drivers that leave, just adds to your training issues.

I wouldn't be increasing my staffing costs by 9%. Take it or leave it.

 

[320320]

I wouldn't be increasing my staffing costs by 9%. Take it or leave it.

ASLEF asked for 7.8% not 9%. Scotrail offered a package worth a possible 7.2%, made up of a guaranteed 2.2% and a revenue sharing scheme worth an extra 5%, potentially, if revenue targets were met. There has never been any detail of what would need to be achieved to enable the 5% payment but going by previous schemes staff were not optimistic of seeing anywhere near 5%.

Scotrail could probably had a deal with an offer of 4.5-5%, some people would still be looking for more but I think an offer like that would have been put to the members and accepted and would have been seen as a good outcome by both sides.

 

[InOban]

Some train crew in at least three places got over 8% . And that's part of the problem.

I think that was because they had a two year deal, and the second year was index-linked. Not a result of recent negotiations.

 

[Walter Whigham]

Most Scotrail timetables north of the central belt were so shockingly bad before this, it must be a nightmare now.

Here in Dunblane we recently lost the few through services to and from Inverness and Aberdeen. We have had to go back south to Stirling to pick up or catch a Dundee train to Perth and change. Now all services at Dunblane are going to suffer decimation. Talking to people locally, many will resort to buses (which are not too bad, and pretty reliable) or use their cars. The latter does, of course, blow the First Minister's COP26 aspirations clean out of the water. Meanwhile, she and Ms Gilruth continue to mislead the public.

 

[dk1]

I think that was because they had a two year deal, and the second year was index-linked. Not a result of recent negotiations.

Always good when it’s index linked & the March RPI figure climbs over & above what was on the table. This year they hit the jackpot

 

[Thermal]

Well that's the thing. If you want a serious pay rise like that you typically have to move jobs, with all the risk that entails. Nobody's just going to hand you 9% for continuing to turn up.

I can never get my head around this kind of attitude. I don't work for Scotrail but another TOC where RPI has increased 19% since the last pay increase and by the time the next deal is finally sorted RPI will be up well into the 23% - 28% range. Is it really so outrageous to be asking for a pay rise that will still come nowhere close to even standing still with my real expenses? Even at 7.8% it would still be a huge wage reduction in relative terms.

By your argument, we should all just move TOC's, and spend the best part of the next year being unproductive whilst we all have to learn a whole new set of routes and traction. How would this be anything but detrimental to all involved?

 

[baz962]

I think that was because they had a two year deal, and the second year was index-linked. Not a result of recent negotiations.

Two were and one wasn't. But that is irrelevant. Government and government departments/agencies are known to u turn. If the dft wanted , they could of just said that RPI was above expected and refused. Point in essence is that pre agreed or not , places are getting it .