Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[matacaster]

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'.

Correct!

 

[Carlisle]

£9.50 an hour is the minimum wage and well under a living wage.

Not that much below,
The living wage is £11.05 per hour in London or £9.95 elsewhere.

 

[Fokx]

Average house price in 1985 was about 30k roughly six times your yearly salary of £5500.
Average house price currently is 292k. Now if you divide £292000 by six, you get 48k. Someone on £9.50 an hour in the present day would have to work 97 hours a week to be earning 48k.

Cheers for the maths Dieseldrive!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not that much below,
The living wage is £11.05 per hour in London or £9.95 elsewhere.

I think "the Living Wage" and "a living wage" are not quite the same thing. The former translates to £21K, on which you'd struggle to get housed and fed anywhere in London without benefits, yet alone to bring up kids etc.

It would be difficult to have any quality of life in London on under about £30K unless eligible to top it up with benefits. Whereas while £20K ish is a lowish wage you could probably manage it in (say) Middlesbrough, largely due to the housing being so much cheaper.

A genuine living wage - one a couple both earning it could live a decent life on and bring up kids without recourse to benefits - is probably more like £12/hr up north, £15/hr in the South East outside London and £18/hr in London, for a full time role.

 

[Fokx]

Not that much below,
The living wage is £11.05 per hour in London or £9.95 elsewhere.

It is if you’re under 22 which many of the agency staff roles do attract , largely because many don’t require extensive experience unlike a guard or dispatch team leader for example, which act as a ‘foot in the door’ for the railway.

The £9.95 wage was also calculated pre-fuel crisis which I imagine would increase this slightly over £10

 

[AlterEgo]

Inflation rate since 1986 = 169%
I was on £5500 p.a. in 1986 x 169% = £14,795 p.a
Current minimum wage at 40 hrs a week = £19,760 p.a.
That is not peanuts.

It is, because of the very high rises in the cost of living.

I can do sob stories too, at 16 I was on £3.60 an hour and my first job proper in 2006 was on £9,900pa, but the reality is that £19K a year is still peanuts. "I had it worse" is not a defence.

 

[Fokx]

It doesn't really matter who it is about, though I would admit that drivers with their reputed £50k a year are an easy target.
Truck drivers got huge wage rises last year, and to a lesser extent so did bus drivers, but they did not have to go on strike for that. They got those rises because that is what the employers had to pay to get the staff, and good luck to them. That is how the market works, it works both ways.
What is not reasonable is to inconvenience millions of people to try and lever up ones wages, particularly when :
1 - The vast majority of people cannot do that.
2 - The taxpayer is indirectly subsidising those wages.


Inflation rate since 1986 = 169%
I was on £5500 p.a. in 1986 x 169% = £14,795 p.a
Current minimum wage at 40 hrs a week = £19,760 p.a.
That is not peanuts.
Actually I was wrong, the minimum wage is 33% higher than I was on back in 1986, not 25% !

The minimum wage is 33% higher but the cost of living compared to 1986 is also much greater and not helped at all by the housing shortage and rise in rent prices which remain uncapped.

Take home pay is much less for minimum wage workers now than it was in 1986

The other posters above have calculated the maths which help to demonstrate this.

 

[Captain Chaos]

It is, because of the very high rises in the cost of living.

I can do sob stories too, at 16 I was on £3.60 an hour and my first job proper in 2006 was on £9,900pa, but the reality is that £19K a year is still peanuts. "I had it worse" is not a defence.

I've just noticed as well that this uses CPI. Does anyone even get CPI rises anymore? I thought they used RPI?

 

[dk1]

I've just noticed as well that this uses CPI. Does anyone even get CPI rises anymore? I thought they used RPI?

I was under the impression pensions used CPI.

 

[142blue]

Drivers will be doing the same once the ballot papers arrive in the next few weeks

Good. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back although I'm expecting drivers to be offered a preferential deal

 

[Geoff DC]

I guess locomotives go by road as HGV drivers are cheaper than ASLEF ??

 

[43096]

Good. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back although I'm expecting drivers to be offered a preferential deal

Why would drivers going out on strike make much difference? Without someone in the box to move points and change light colours, or on many routes someone sat in the back cab to open the doors, you ain't going anywhere.

 

[baz962]

Not to diverge too much away from the core subject, but why is it that whenever there's a rail strike a lot of people seem to always mention train drivers at some point? I'm not talking about on the forums but I feel like a lot of people's minds always shift towards that particular role. I mean already as we see here the strikes don't have anything to do with the train driver's union yet their mention inevitably came up.

Because drivers do get a reasonably decent renumeration and I'm a driver btw and because it gives the media something to bash us with and gives them a headline. Easier to turn the travellers on you.

 

[dk1]

I guess locomotives go by road as HGV drivers are cheaper than ASLEF ??

View attachment 115284

Very funny lol.

 

[ungreat]

So you blame the front line workers then? The very people who actually do the work that enables the whole railway network to operate?


A significant number of jobs that RMT members do requires years of training. Then there is the experience gained from years working doing the job. It’s not easy or cheap to replace these workers.

And in the past, railway front line workers have had some years with either no pay rise (and I don’t mean the last three years), below inflation rises, or have had to trade terms and conditions for an above inflation pay rise.

As to wanting more, doesn’t that apply to the majority of people who have to work?


The RMT as a union is only representing the feelings of the members. The RMT would not have balloted if they did not think there would have been a reasonable chance of a yes vote.


Excuse me, the RMT leadership don’t get to decide. The RMT General Secretary carries out the instructions of the NEC (National Executive Council) which is made up of ordinary members that have been elected by ballot for a fixed term of office. They will consider reports from elected representatives before deciding on any action. The elected representatives in turn speak with ordinary members to understand their problems.

What is driving this is the railway companies being prevented from offering a pay increase due to the current government controlling the money/finances. Previous to the COVID19 outbreak, the RMT union and (most of) the various railways companies did negotiate and find ways of finding reasonable settlements.

Ex frickin xactly!!

 

[43066]

I guess locomotives go by road as HGV drivers are cheaper than ASLEF ??

View attachment 115284

I think these days more freight goes by rail because they can’t afford the HGV drivers

 

[Sirius]

Not to diverge too much away from the core subject, but why is it that whenever there's a rail strike a lot of people seem to always mention train drivers at some point? I'm not talking about on the forums but I feel like a lot of people's minds always shift towards that particular role. I mean already as we see here the strikes don't have anything to do with the train driver's union yet their mention inevitably came up.

I suspect the right wing press use it because it’s a reasonably well paid job (well above the average salary) that the average reader/listener perceives as little more (if at all) more complicated than driving a car.

Much like the “Civil Service gold plated pensions” it’s a tired old trope that’s easy to incite resentment between groups of working people who have far more in common with each other than with the media elite and owners peddling it.

 

[Class 170101]

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).

If thats where you were (as per pre 2010) then yes you would stay in that format however we are not there and are in the Centralised position of Milton Keynes os it would be carnage as @The Planner says below

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.

Unlikely actually as they are cheaper than TOC / FOC planners.

Having gone through the carnage of 2010, splitting it back out regionally would set it back even further. To say TOCs aren't aware of the other operators is a bit wide of the mark as well.

We try our best.

I'd agree with that.

I think NR doesn't pay the planners much for the skill set and means that many don't stay in post for long. I think there was an assumption that TPS would be all-singing and dancing removing the need for traditional planning skills.

If I worked at MK then I would be concerned about the axe coming in that direction.

TPS is not foolproof and cannot discount conflicts where different rules apply depending upon what move is being made at complex junctions.

 

[northwichcat]

I think "the Living Wage" and "a living wage" are not quite the same thing. The former translates to £21K, on which you'd struggle to get housed and fed anywhere in London without benefits, yet alone to bring up kids etc.

I think it's widely accepted if you want London workers who live local, then you need to pay more.

The term 'living wage' has been abused by the Conservatives. It was originally a term a not-for-profit came up with based on real living costs. Then George Osborne increased the minimum wage for those over 25 and rebranded it as 'the living wage'.

Average house price in 1985 was about 30k roughly six times your yearly salary of £5500.
Average house price currently is 292k. Now if you divide £292000 by six, you get 48k. Someone on £9.50 an hour in the present day would have to work 97 hours a week to be earning 48k.

There is one big difference between now and the 1980s. In the 1980s the idea of a mum with primary school aged children, doing a full time job was unheard of. Today it's common for parents of school aged children to be working 70 hours or more between them. That's actually another reason for the higher property prices - couples have more money due to women working more, so couples can afford to offer the high asking prices being advertised for houses.

 

[SuperNova]

The minimum wage is 33% higher but the cost of living compared to 1986 is also much greater and not helped at all by the housing shortage and rise in rent prices which remain uncapped.

Take home pay is much less for minimum wage workers now than it was in 1986

The other posters above have calculated the maths which help to demonstrate this.

There wasn't a min. wage in 1986.

 

[matacaster]

Average house price in 1985 was about 30k roughly six times your yearly salary of £5500.
Average house price currently is 292k. Now if you divide £292000 by six, you get 48k. Someone on £9.50 an hour in the present day would have to work 97 hours a week to be earning 48k.

The average house price is heavily skewed by properties in London and South east, up north its considerably less.

 

[The Planner]

The average house price is heavily skewed by properties in London and South east, up north its considerably less.

And it wasnt skewed in the 80s?

 

[matacaster]

And it wasnt skewed in the 80s?

Yes, of course it was, but possibly more now?

 

[Goldfish62]

The average house price is heavily skewed by properties in London and South east, up north its considerably less.

House prices in the South West, particularly Cornwall are now higher than parts of the South East.

 

[Sprinter107]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

Train drivers haven't been balloted as yet for industrial action.

 

[Starmill]

Regarding the minimum wage discussion, the rate will increase significantly ahead of inflation for next year because it was held down slightly from the 'on target rate' for this year, and because the aim of the policy is for it to reach 2/3 of median wages. It may track slightly higher if the government don't include 21 and 22 year olds in it. There's every possibility that it will start to come quite close to the Living Wage Foundation rate. But this is all getting quite off topic.

 

[Facing Back]

????. 90-95% of people who use the train have got no idea who the RMT are. They are more bothered about the rising price of tickets and how it’s pricing people out.

Do you actually know anyone who doesn’t use the train anymore because of the rmt? Lool


I’m not allowed to travel 100 miles for work.

Everybody I have spoken to who use the train know who the RMT are - although to be fair some of them think they represent drivers too.

They are bothered about the rising price of tickets for sure. They are also bothered about falling levels of service and are very bothered about the potential for long term disruption.

I don't recall anyone saying "I'm not using the train anymore because of the RMT" but a number have stopped using the train because of the threat of strikes and have many other, more reliable long term arrangements. The prevailing opinion is that the railways are resistant to change and operate inefficiently.

There are quite a few surveys available from reputable sources - such as the CIPD - discussing a very significant increase in the number of people who commute 100+ miles to work. On the flip side part of this is driven by the fact that they commute 2 or 3 days a week rather than 5 and firms have rationalised their offices a bit.

 

[Mugby]

Has it been intimated yet when the proposed industrial action could start and what form it will take?

 

[Facing Back]

So how does HR get involved in that exactly?

There are some colleagues of mine I like more than others, therefore some I speak to more than others. There are a couple of people I won’t swap shifts with, usually because they’ve messed me about in the past. That’s entirely my prerogative. Do you seriously think “X won’t be mates with me, won’t go out of his way to talk to me or swap shifts with me” is an issue prople can run to HR about?

If there is a pattern of people being discriminated against - for example they could get swaps before the strike and not afterwards then they have a case. How HR choose to respond depends on the firm - and of course the support the person gets from their reps.

If this is a a common occurrence and happens to many people all of whom have only one thing in common then its a case which has a stronger chance or making progress at a tribunal. Many have and many don't get that far and are settled with a compromise before they get that far.

None of this suggests than an individual need to accept swaps or any other quid-pro-quo but that the company and the union may be required to make changes to process so that systemic discrimination cannot happen. You are of course free to swap with people you trust to return the favour, or you think have a genuine need, or you like the colour of their socks - and nothing wrong with that - I'm merely responding to a point about whether HR can involved.

This is merely something I see frequently in a number of other industries where HR will very much get involved in this kind action.

 

[Frankfurt]

Train drivers haven't been balloted as yet for industrial action.

I know of a few TOCs where drivers are about to be balloted anytime now, papers literally being printed.