Rail strikes discussion

[RPI]

Join one
Don't scab
Easy

Easy to say that, many people can't afford to strike, especially for three days in one pay period!

 

[Starmill]

Everybody should do the same. No Sunday services for a few weeks will force this issue to be resolved, once and for all.

I disagree. There was almost no service in Scotland on Sundays for half a year. It didn't move the dial.

 

[ungreat]

Like someone says, any abuse is unnacceptable. Any 'punishment' as it were in any business should go through 'proper' procedure. What are, if any, the repercussions of not/ refusing to strike when the rest of the union is?

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.

 

[yorkie]

Join one
Don't scab
Easy

I'm proud to no longer be a member of my union; it's an easy decision for me not to be part of a Union and others have the right to make that same choice as me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.

Anyone who calls anyone a scab is a scumbag

 

[johncrossley]

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.

So do you admit to abusing your colleagues?

 

[Retorus]

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.

You sound like a lovely person.

 

[Editrain2]

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.
Pathetic

 

[baz962]

Typically "people have beaten the government" in judicial review where they are challenging a decision by a minister. Challenges tend to be because the decision contravenes a law, not the law itself. Parliament it generally primary in setting laws

Judges don't make primary legislation, parliament does, Judges interpret and precents are set based on those interpretations.

If parliament (not the government) votes in a law then its the law. It is possible that it can get challenged if it contravenes other laws but its still the law and the judges will apply it - even if it is a stupid law.

If the government introduces anti-strike legislation through an act of parliament I don't understand how you think the unions will successfully have the courts overturn it. If Schapps just says to the TOCs/NR "fire everyone who goes on strike" or something similar then of course that can be challenged.

More likely is that lobbying by unions would prevent the law being passed by both houses in the first place.

Would it violate human rights.

 

[Facing Back]

Clearly it wouldn't. The government has forced the RMT up to the top of the hill now. They ain't marching them down again without a victory package that they can sell to their members. They have overwhelming support for the strikes. The pressure is on government to sort this out - this is of their making. Stop making threats and realise this is going to cause massive disruption to a lot of people.

I do love the single minded naivety of people who can say with complete confidence one side of this is at fault and it is for the other side, by themselves, to fix it.

Life, and complex negotiations don't work like that. You might have strongly held views but other will likely have different ones.

The rhetoric is such that, at the moment, both sides need to be able to claim victory - what that settlement looks like, I don't know.

The unions are making threats. People on here are making promises of threats. The government is making threats. Of course it is going to cause massive disruption.

The RMT has a high level of support for the strikes. The government and parliamentarians are much more likely to care about what conservative voter's level of support is. I haven't seen reliable polling on that.

Somebody up-thread said what I think is likely to be true those - generally there will be a "plague on both your houses"

 

[RPI]

A scab is a scab on the railways. Sorry to upset your apple cart but thats how it is.

Thankfully in my 20 years on the railway the number of people stuck in 1975 who use this type of language is decreasing rapidly. I've taken part in industrial action in the past and if TSSA ballot and end up voting for industrial action then I also will go along with it, but when the dinosaurs start that kind of language I rapidly lose sympathy.

And my experience of people who didn't strike last ime around was that people understood and respected their reasons for not doing so, certainly at my depot.

The bottom line is that there can be no winner from this as the Government want a fight with the unions and to reduce costs on the railway.

Personally I feel they could cut a load of costs by having a cull off middle management which the whole industry is top heavy with.

 

[Starmill]

Van Driving, I don't mean to sound derogatory! But come on! Really? It's hardly driving or signalling a train with hundreds of people on, or a chemical train full of nasty things... Its not dealing with self appointed railway experts (who actually come across as nasty and vindictive) aka the travelling public.

Hold on, so you're suggesting that van drivers don't deserve to be paid £10.20 / hour while arguing for a pay rise for significantly higher paid roles? That's not very honourable. I assume that you never receive any home delivery of mail or parcels ever, given your distaste for the work?

 

[Mag_seven]

Personally I feel they could cut a load of costs by having a cull off middle management which the whole industry is top heavy with.

The railway has been undertaking "culls of middle management" for years yet the accusation is always made that there are still too many managers! Anyway I'm never particularly comfortable with one group of workers in an industry arguing that another group of workers in the same industry should lose their jobs.

 

[Facing Back]

I get where you're coming from with things like level crossing closures, but the way you wrote before made it sound like it's a good idea to re-write existing working practices to make things cheaper while knowingly reducing safety. If rail is safer than roads it is a poor idea to reduce rail safety from where it currently is to increase road safety.

I think the argument being made here was not to increase road safety.

Devil's advocate. If taking away a tiny part of the safely of the railways reduces cost/improves reliability enough to coax a lot of people out of their cars - ie away from a much less safe form of transport - then the average is a safety improvement.

 

[320320]

Hold on, so you're suggesting that van drivers don't deserve to be paid £10.20 / hour while arguing for a pay rise for significantly higher paid roles? That's not very honourable. I assume that you never receive any home delivery of mail or parcels ever, given your distaste for the work?

TBF, it’s not the railway employees on this thread that are accusing other professions of being paid too much.

 

[Facing Back]

I don't believe that rail staff, or the TOCs or Network Rail want a strike; OTOH, the Government and the RMT however seem utterly entrenched and I see no easy or quick resolution as a result.

That sounds like what I'm reading too

 

[yorkie]

TBF, it’s not the railway employees on this thread that are accusing other professions of being paid too much.

Who is saying this and how do you know who their employer is?

Also, what is your definition of a "railway employee"?

 

[Starmill]

TBF, it’s not the railway employees on this thread that are accusing other professions of being paid too much.

Well I can only go by the post I quoted which was clearly pointing out that van drivers weren't deserving.

 

[320320]

Who is saying this and how do you know who their employer is?

Also, what is your definition of a "railway employee"?

Are you being serious? Plenty of posters in this thread and various others that have been binned have been of the opinion that railway staff are overpaid and greedy. It’s a common theme.

 

[91108]

Are you being serious? Plenty of posters in this thread and various others that have been binned have been of the opinion that railway staff are overpaid and greedy. It’s a common theme.

Well said.

 

[yorkie]

Are you being serious? Plenty of posters in this thread and various others that have been binned have been of the opinion that railway staff are overpaid and greedy. It’s a common theme.

If you disagree with any post, please do quote it and post your view. It's unclear to me which posts you were referring to; there are 437 posts in this thread.

I'm curious to understand your definition of "railway employees" if you are able to elaborate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==

Well said.

If you disagree with someone, that's fine; it's what the forum is for! But let's be constructive about it; quote the post you disagree with and you are welcome to politely state your views such as why you disagree with it.

 

[320320]

Well I can only go by the post I quoted which was clearly pointing out that van drivers weren't deserving.

Why didn’t you reply to the regional poster also? Do you think those comments were acceptable? Labelling railway employees as greedy, especially as a few are on good money and that they should be thankful they have good pay and conditions.

Is it only railway employees making snarky comments you take issue with?

 

[yorkie]

Why didn’t you reply to the regional poster also?

I could ask why you didn't reply to any of the posts you didn't reply to, but that would be pretty pointless. We can't all reply to every post.

Do you always reply to every post in a chain?

Do you think those comments were acceptable? Labelling railway employees as greedy, especially as a few are on good money and that they should be thankful they have good pay and conditions.

I can find one reference to a member saying this, which I will quote below:

Im applying for a Van driving job, which 10.50 an hour, and Ive not seen the whole Van driving, industry, going out on strike, over pay, so I do think the railway workers, are being greedy, especially as quite a few are on good money...

You are very welcome to state why you disagree with this post; if you can do so by quoting it, stating what you disagree with and why, and do it constructively and politely, your post will have more gravitas.

Is it only railway employees making snarky comments you take issue with?

But equally the question could be asked of you and non-railway employees?

 

[jayah]

I disagree. There was almost no service in Scotland on Sundays for half a year. It didn't move the dial.

Define almost no service? Perhaps nobody noticed and that was the permanent solution.

 

[320320]

If you disagree with any post, please do quote it and post your view. It's unclear to me which posts you were referring to; there are 437 posts in this thread.

I'm curious to understand your definition of "railway employees" if you are able to elaborate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==


If you disagree with someone, that's fine; it's what the forum is for! But let's be constructive about it; quote the post you disagree with and you are welcome to politely state your views such as why you disagree with it.

As you already know, there are a large number of posts on this forum that are of the view that railway employees, especially drivers, are overpaid and greedy due to them engaging in industrial action.

Im sure you won’t be surprised to know that my definition of “railway employees” is people employed on the railway, be they, TOC, FOC, NR or any of their contractor.

 

[91108]

If you disagree with any post, please do quote it and post your view. It's unclear to me which posts you were referring to; there are 437 posts in this thread.

I'm curious to understand your definition of "railway employees" if you are able to elaborate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==


If you disagree with someone, that's fine; it's what the forum is for! But let's be constructive about it; quote the post you disagree with and you are welcome to politely state your views such as why you disagree with it.

I quoted the post I agreed with and didn’t feel I needed to quote you, as 320320 already had done so.
I expressed my support for his reply.

 

[Starmill]

Why didn’t you reply to the regional poster also? Do you think those comments were acceptable? Labelling railway employees as greedy, especially as a few are on good money and that they should be thankful they have good pay and conditions.

Is it only railway employees making snarky comments you take issue with?

No, of course not. But if you disagree with a post I'd suggest that you reply quoting it as it is not clear to me what you mean. Whether comments are acceptable or not isn't a matter for me but I disagree with the post I quoted and I explained why, I think that's rational. In any case, if a hypothetical person did do what you suggest I would still disagree with the approach as I don't think two wrongs would make a right.

 

[jayah]

I'd never scab.
Anyone who does just gets what they deserve.
Been a driver 35 years and I've seen the blowback on scabbing.
My outlook on it

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==


Scabs in another name tbh

Do you put any limits on what they deserve? Throwing something over them? Keying their car perhaps? Putting through their windows?

Your employer probably has rules around what you should do if you witness bullying or harrassment in the workplace, even if you are not actively participating.

People would do well to read up on the HR policies in place before things get out of hand.

 

[yorkie]

As you already know, there are a large number of posts on this forum that are of the view that railway employees, especially drivers, are overpaid and greedy due to them engaging in industrial action.

Im sure you won’t be surprised to know that my definition of “railway employees” is people employed on the railway, be they, TOC, FOC, NR or any of their contractor.

OK if all contractors qualify that's fine it means I qualify. I also assume we're not just talking about the National Rail network but all railways and all their contractors/suppliers, correct? If so that really is a lot of people and you can't easily identify who is or isn't in that group.

I quoted the post I agreed with and didn’t feel I needed to quote you, as 320320 already had done so.
I expressed my support for his reply.

OK you agree with someone who says there are "plenty" of people in this thread calling railway workers "greedy" but I've done a search and only identified one (out of 444 and counting). You are welcome to agree with such a statement without providing any evidence for it, but if no evidence is forthcoming, I am not convinced it's true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==

No, of course not. But if you disagree with a post I'd suggest that you reply quoting it as it is not clear to me what you mean. Whether comments are acceptable or not isn't a matter for me but I disagree with the post I quoted and I explained why, I think that's rational. In any case, if a hypothetical person did do what you suggest I would still disagree with the approach as I don't think two wrongs would make a right.

Exactly this.

 

[Starmill]

Do you put any limits on what they deserve? Throwing something over them? Keying their car perhaps? Putting through their windows?

Your employer probably has rules around what you should do if you witness bullying or harrassment in the workplace, even if you are not actively participating.

People would do well to read up on the HR policies in place before things get out of hand.

I think that mostly people disagree with the use of such names as they're not very nice, certainly I do.

However I don't think actual bullying at work is likely or commonplace over trade union issues.

 

[jayah]

Thankfully in my 20 years on the railway the number of people stuck in 1975 who use this type of language is decreasing rapidly. I've taken part in industrial action in the past and if TSSA ballot and end up voting for industrial action then I also will go along with it, but when the dinosaurs start that kind of language I rapidly lose sympathy.

And my experience of people who didn't strike last ime around was that people understood and respected their reasons for not doing so, certainly at my depot.

The bottom line is that there can be no winner from this as the Government want a fight with the unions and to reduce costs on the railway.

Personally I feel they could cut a load of costs by having a cull off middle management which the whole industry is top heavy with.

It is not even a fight to reduce costs on the railway, they haven't proposed compulsory redundancy yet.

It is about public sector pay. The unions fought for years to be on the public payroll and now they are, they don't like it. If train guards get 5% and choose not to work Sundays, while nurses are paid less and get a lower raise, just about everyone except the RMT will be outraged.