Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[43066]

In recent years the RMT has been demanding "no compulsory redundancies" when any new franchise has been let (plus retention of guard roles etc).

This goes back to the fact that it’s a trade union so it would be rather odd for it to demand anything else.

Although the government effectively made this guarantee during the Covid emergency period (full employment with no furlough).
It's a fantasy when you have lost 20-30% of your custom and are attempting to re-size the business.

Given how tight staffing levels are in many areas, I rather suspect any redundancies will come from changes in working practices, for example ticket office closures, rather than as a result of lower passenger numbers. This should almost certainly be achievable through redeployment and voluntary redundancy for those who want it.

I would completely agree that, in situations such as that, the RMT should be focussed on ensuring there are no compulsory redundancies rather than resisting the change at all costs.

 

[Moonshot]

This goes back to the fact that it’s a trade union so it would be rather odd for it to demand anything else.



Given how tight staffing levels are in many areas, I rather suspect any redundancies will come from changes in working practices, for example ticket office closures, rather than as a result of lower passenger numbers. This should almost certainly be achievable through redeployment and voluntary redundancy for those who want it.

I would completely agree that, in situations such as that, the RMT should be focussed on ensuring there are no compulsory redundancies rather than resisting the change at all costs.

Given that the RMT are asking for no compulsory redundancy, it doesn't rule out voluntary severance. If and when VS packages are offered, there is generally a significant queue for that. Plenty of staff ( mainly older ones who have a decent level of service) would gladly take it.

 

[gazzaa2]

Good point, there's no way members of this government would do anything that would open them to claims of hypocrisy, is there?

It's not about hypocrisy though (that is a given). They're under pressure with donors and newspapers when it comes to getting people back to the office.

 

[High Dyke]

Given that the RMT are asking for no compulsory redundancy, it doesn't rule out voluntary severance. If and when VS packages are offered, there is generally a significant queue for that. Plenty of staff ( mainly older ones who have a decent level of service) would gladly take it.

A number of Network Staff, that qualified, for VS took the opportunity to leave - quite a few stated they were disillusioned with the company.

 

[yorksrob]

A number of Network Staff, that qualified, for VS took the opportunity to leave - quite a few stated they were disillusioned with the company.

Plus when you get to a certain age, a lot of people want to move to a job that's less intense - which is more easily done with a severance package.

 

[Bantamzen]

My original point was that those rules have been well and truly ripped up over the past couple of years. The government has basically been on the biggest spending spree in history, all based on QE. Whoever would have believed furlough payments to millions for months on end would have been a thing a few years ago?

So it sticks in the craw a little to be told “there’s no money” when that statement is actually a value judgement disguised as a statement of fact. Recent history has shown that, if the the will is there, the money can be made available.

Yes they did break the rules, but they most certainly shouldn't & are very unlikely to do it again for rail workers. Look the bottom line is this, the government are looking to claw back some of the money they p***** away during the restrictions. The civil service for example has been asked to save £35 billion per annum, and they are serious. So the railways going out on strike is madness at this time because the government will see this as an opportunity to claw back more, and blame you lot for it. Its blindingly obvious, so much so that I cannot believe people would take such a risk. Let's put it this way if my union were to ballot for a strike I would be voting against, and even if a 'Yes' result were returned (which frankly in my sector would still be unlikely) I would almost certainly not go out on strike. Because right now the axe is swinging, and I for one wouldn't want to play chicken with it.

 

[Goldfish62]

... and what is the kind of salary they are on? 4.1% of a low wage may not be much in cash terms. What increments have they had over last few years? Arrives may just cancel services, buses often don't turn up without any explanation anyway.

This is why I believe in a time of high inflation and a cost of living squeeze the lowest paid should get a higher % increase as they're the ones who are suffering the most. It's a fact that most people in poverty are also in work.

Taking the example of this alleged 5% that Bozo wants to give the railways. Applying this equally would equally would mean that someone on £25k would get half the real term rise as someone on £50k, thus increasing the wage gap.

Incidentally, at another Arriva company, Arriva London South, drivers have accepted an improved 3.2% pay offer after three days of strike action.

 

[43096]

This is why I believe in a time of high inflation and a cost of living squeeze the lowest paid should get a higher % increase as they're the ones who are suffering the most. It's a fact that most people in poverty are also in work.

Taking the example of this alleged 5% that Bozo wants to give the railways. Applying this equally would equally would mean that someone on £25k would get half the real term rise as someone on £50k, thus increasing the wage gap.

There is certainly something to be said for taking a notional 5% across the board and actually distributing it so it’s on a sliding scale of (say) 2% at the top end and 7% for the lowest paid. Or perhaps go for lump sum increase for everyone, which will have more impact for those on the lower pay rates.

 

[duncanp]

This is why I believe in a time of high inflation and a cost of living squeeze the lowest paid should get a higher % increase as they're the ones who are suffering the most. It's a fact that most people in poverty are also in work.

Taking the example of this alleged 5% that Bozo wants to give the railways. Applying this equally would equally would mean that someone on £25k would get half the real term rise as someone on £50k, thus increasing the wage gap.

Incidentally, at another Arriva company, Arriva London South, drivers have accepted an improved 3.2% pay offer after three days of strike action.

I can't help thinking that the RMT would be willing to settle for less than the 10-11% they are claiming for at the moment.

As with any dispute, things can be settled more quickly if both sides are willing to compromise.

 

[High Dyke]

Plus when you get to a certain age, a lot of people want to move to a job that's less intense - which is more easily done with a severance package.

I'm of a "certain age". I've always said that I wouldn't retire and they would be carrying me out in a wooden box. Now, if the job sees me ten years I'll be content.

 

[nedchester]

I can't help thinking that the RMT would be willing to settle for less than the 10-11% they are claiming for at the moment.

As with any dispute, things can be settled more quickly if both sides are willing to compromise.

I suspect that an offer of 5% with a further 5% once productivity improvements are made (DOO/DCO, Sundays inside and less need for RDW - I know this mean MORE staff) and perhaps more flexible working methods) but other saving made like redundancies (both voluntary, redeployment and compulsory should it come to that) in other areas (ticket offices, less middle management & admin). In fact I would say that the new structure of the railway should require less staff overall than is currently the case.

 

[duncanp]

I suspect that an offer of 5% with a further 5% once productivity improvements are made (DOO/DCO, Sundays inside and less need for RDW - I know this mean MORE staff) and perhaps more flexible working methods) but other saving made like redundancies (both voluntary, redeployment and compulsory should it come to that) in other areas (ticket offices, less middle management & admin). In fact I would say that the new structure of the railway should require less staff overall than is currently the case.

One thing the railway is suffering from at the moment is staff shortages.

So you wouldn't want to get rid of staff unecessarily, particularly on the operational side, as this would exacerbate the problem.

But with the end of franchising and the move to Great British Railways, I think there is potential for reducing some of the management, I.T. and admin costs. This is where savings can be made, and compulsory redundancies could be (largely) avoided through natural wastage and generous early retirement and voluntary severance packages.

 

[320320]

I suspect that an offer of 5% with a further 5% once productivity improvements are made (DOO/DCO, Sundays inside and less need for RDW - I know this mean MORE staff) and perhaps more flexible working methods) but other saving made like redundancies (both voluntary, redeployment and compulsory should it come to that) in other areas (ticket offices, less middle management & admin). In fact I would say that the new structure of the railway should require less staff overall than is currently the case.

There’s not a hope in hell that 5% is enough to buy DOO/DCO or Sundays inside the working week let alone get them both for that. You‘d be looking at a minimum 15-20% for that to even be considered.

 

[nedchester]

One thing the railway is suffering from at the moment is staff shortages.

So you wouldn't want to get rid of staff unecessarily, particularly on the operational side, as this would exacerbate the problem.

But with the end of franchising and the move to Great British Railways, I think there is potential for reducing some of the management, I.T. and admin costs. This is where savings can be made, and compulsory redundancies could be (largely) avoided through natural wastage and generous early retirement and voluntary severance packages.

Not much to disagree with there.

 

[Goldfish62]

Did rail firms really make “bumper profits” during COVID as per the RMT quote in the article on the BBC News website?

It's easy to check the veracity of the RMT's claims by looking at the annual accounts on Companies House.

I've looked at random sample of companies and below I've compared the profit margin (pre-tax profit as a %age of turnover) for the latest published accounts with the previous year:

First MTR South Western Trains: to March 2021 3.2%, prev year: 0.4% loss
The Chiltern Railway Company: to Dec 2020 2.5% loss, prev year: 0.3%
Govia Thameslink Railway: to July 2021 2.8%, prev year: 1.2%
First Greater Western: to March 2021 2.3%, prev year: 3.8%
Abellio East Midlands: to March 2021 1.7%, prev year: 8.8%

Apart from EMR in the year ending March 2020 those profit margins are pathetic and leave no room for manoeuvre.

So the RMT is talking nonsense. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that the pay rise that is being sought will have to be funded by central government.

 

[nedchester]

There’s not a hope in hell that 5% is enough to buy DOO/DCO or Sundays inside the working week let alone get them both for that. You‘d be looking at a minimum 15-20% for that to even be considered.

Unless it's forced on you. That's when it gets very messy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’s not a hope in hell that 5% is enough to buy DOO/DCO or Sundays inside the working week let alone get them both for that. You‘d be looking at a minimum 15-20% for that to even be considered.

DOO is certainly a big increase in effort and (more importantly) responsibility. I'm not opposed to it per-se, I think it has a role, but it is one where I do agree that a considerable increase in pay is justified.

My general view on pay is that people (in all jobs) should generally* get inflation every year, but bigger steps when there is a fundamental change to the role, which DOO is. (Scanning tickets instead of clipping them, by contrast, isn't, just to give you an idea of where I sit overall, though I do see that the move away from on-board sales may justify some extra base pay to offset the fact that commission is no longer available).

* The current situation is a bit odd due to fuel prices; giving RPI (say) now may be quite damaging, but prices may come back down again.

 

[Dai Corner]

There’s not a hope in hell that 5% is enough to buy DOO/DCO or Sundays inside the working week let alone get them both for that. You‘d be looking at a minimum 15-20% for that to even be considered.

More fuel for the Governments "Greedy railway staff demand 20% pay rise to give up their right to decide whether to work on Sundays".

 

[Watershed]

There’s not a hope in hell that 5% is enough to buy DOO/DCO or Sundays inside the working week let alone get them both for that. You‘d be looking at a minimum 15-20% for that to even be considered.

And that is where negotiation comes in.

Because the government's stance will likely be that 2-3% is all they are willing to give 'for free'. So anything more than that would be down to what they get in return, i.e. productivity increases.

Things are going to get very ugly if the RMT holds firm on wanting 10% 'for free'.

 

[Goldfish62]

Well, it literally is a lot easier to run a railway with no passengers. I can certainly imagine someone making that statement in jest, as the flaw in that observation is entirely obvious to anyone. I'm not sure it could sensibly be considered a mission statement.

We have a saying on the buses: "An empty bus is a happy bus." Obviously anyone sane knows that's not actually a very good idea.

 

[LAX54]

Given that the RMT are asking for no compulsory redundancy, it doesn't rule out voluntary severance. If and when VS packages are offered, there is generally a significant queue for that. Plenty of staff ( mainly older ones who have a decent level of service) would gladly take it.

In recent times, when VS has been available, they have passed over long term staff members, as it's cheaper to let a person with less service go !

 

[Dai Corner]

In recent times, when VS has been available, they have passed over long term staff members, as it's cheaper to let a person with less service go !

Not only cheaper, but potentially easier to replace or do without if the long-server has built up specialist knowledge and experience.

 

[LAX54]

More fuel for the Governments "Greedy railway staff demand 20% pay rise to give up their right to decide whether to work on Sundays".

The 94 dispute did revolve around Sundays in the working week for Signallers, and the money offered to compensate for the loss of Sunday rate, plus the annual pay rise, was about 18% - 20% overall, but the Union was set dead against the Sunday deal, and it went to a vote, which was in the end a North / South divide, with the South voting yes, and the North no, they were concerned that if they agreed, all of a sudden they would be working Sundays after the TOCs started running trains on Sundays.
How real that would have been, who knows ? but they ended up turning down a big rise, and a very slim risk of Sunday working.

Not only cheaper, but potentially easier to replace or do without if the long-server has built up specialist knowledge and experience.

agreed, when I retired in 2021, I had been at the PSB for 30+ years, knew all the little quirks and oddities that the panels had, (and there are a lot ! ) I wrote some down and gave them to the LOM, but I know I missed some off !

 

[Fokx]

I suspect that an offer of 5% with a further 5% once productivity improvements are made (DOO/DCO, Sundays inside and less need for RDW - I know this mean MORE staff) and perhaps more flexible working methods) but other saving made like redundancies (both voluntary, redeployment and compulsory should it come to that) in other areas (ticket offices, less middle management & admin). In fact I would say that the new structure of the railway should require less staff overall than is currently the case.

Or they could cut planning roles.

Why have 6 people doing similar jobs at NR and the TOC’s when you could cut down the staff numbers and have a single team doing it

Don’t count your chickens nedchester

 

[Hellzapoppin]

Quite a few people in Capital delivery with long service got VS and few more got redundancy. I had 42 years and got redundancy. Happy days.

 

[nedchester]

Or they could cut planning roles.

Why have 6 people doing similar jobs at NR and the TOC’s when you could cut down the staff numbers and have a single team doing it

Don’t count your chickens nedchester

I can see many planning roles being absorbed into GBR from the TOCs/NR.

Something that is inevitable at some point. I'm accepting of that. I can retire then.

 

[Watershed]

Or they could cut planning roles.

Why have 6 people doing similar jobs at NR and the TOC’s when you could cut down the staff numbers and have a single team doing it

Don’t count your chickens nedchester

Just because they are doing similar jobs doesn't mean that there is necessarily scope for significantly reducing numbers. No different to how, if all the TOCs were merged, you wouldn't save that many traincrew.

There is certainly some scope for efficiencies across the industry - but that will primarily come where staff are currently 'sitting around' for some of their working day. For example having dispatchers, gateline or customer service staff from multiple TOCs at the same station, or traincrew who work inefficient diagrams with lots of passing or waits between services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Or they could cut planning roles.
Why have 6 people doing similar jobs at NR and the TOC’s when you could cut down the staff numbers and have a single team doing it
Don’t count your chickens nedchester

The intended regional structure of GBR suggests there will be 5 planning teams (matching NR Regions).
The number of TOCs doesn't look like reducing much, either.

 

[nedchester]

The intended regional structure of GBR suggests there will be 5 planning teams (matching NR Regions).
The number of TOCs doesn't look like reducing much, either.

That would be a good idea.

Going back to regions would be a very good idea (just like it was before NR tried to move everyone to MK).

It's farcical that planning at TOCs is done (theoretically) without looking at other operators service leaving NR to sort out the bigger picture.

NR planning at MK does not have the best reputation in the industry due to the large turnover of staff. There are some great planners there but too many planners taken off the street and given poor training. I would suspect that MK will be one of the places where there will be a lot of redundancies it is replaced by GBR.

 

[Goldfish62]

In recent times, when VS has been available, they have passed over long term staff members, as it's cheaper to let a person with less service go !

That's a topsy-turvy way of doing it. It's usually cheaper to get rid of long term staff. The one-off higher cost of VS is usually easily outweighed by the saving in employment costs over time. The only exception is those within a couple of years of retirement age.