Rail strikes discussion

[320320]

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.

I found your reply to be disingenuous, you knew the context of the post you were quoting but chose to ignore it and play it off as defending someone being belittled.

 

[yorkie]

I found your reply to be disingenuous, you knew the context of the post you were quoting but chose to ignore it and play it off as defending someone being belittled.

On the contrary; @Starmill made an excellent point.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Could someone clarify (for me) precisely what group of railway employees the RMT represents as I'm not exactly clear any more?

 

[320320]

On the contrary; @Starmill made an excellent point.

Im sure you would think that

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

Perhaps it would be useful (for me at least) to know what group of railway employees the RMT represent as I'm not exactly clear any more. Could someone clarify?

You should ask @yorkie, I’m sure he’ll have a list of all of the railway companies and the likely union membership for each grade.

 

[Siggy1980s]

It’s called Air Traffic Control. BA is equivalent to a TOC.

BA don't employ Air Traffic Controllers either. Most Air Traffic Controllers are paid less than signallers.

 

[yorkie]

Im sure you would think that

But going back to the original point, are you saying you disagree with both the original comment (by @cambsy) and also the rail employee who made the comments regarding van drivers?

You should ask @yorkie, I’m sure he’ll have a list of all of the railway companies and the likely union membership for each grade.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Can you please elaborate.

 

[Siggy1980s]

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?

I never suggested that. You're imagining things.

 

[jayah]

BA don't employ Air Traffic Controllers either. Most Air Traffic Controllers are paid less than signallers.

The newly qualified salary is £37-41k. Senior, experienced grades are over £100k

 

[LOL The Irony]

Could someone clarify (for me) precisely what group of railway employees the RMT represents as I'm not exactly clear any more?

Guards and cleaning staff, plus some station staff, afaik

 

[Peterthegreat]

The newly qualified salary is £37-41k. Senior, experienced grades are over £100k

Indeed.

 

[yorkie]

I never suggested that. You're imagining things.

It was a question which the member was entitled to ask; your post was quoted in full, and it's reasonable to ask you to elaborate.

Can you elaborate what your post was suggesting exactly? It sounded like you were suggesting van drivers should be paid a lower wage; if you didn't intend for it to come across that way, now is your chance to inform us.

I also note you referred to "self appointed railway experts"; but you made a comment which could (rightly or wrongly) be interpreted as being disparaging of members of the delivery/road haulage industry, so would people in that industry not be forgiven for seeing your comments in a similar light but replacing the word "railway" with theirs?

 

[wobman]

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.

What relevance is a nurses pay to this debate ? Nurses don't work on the railway they are NHS staff.

 

[Starmill]

I found your reply to be disingenuous, you knew the context of the post you were quoting but chose to ignore it and play it off as defending someone being belittled.

It's your right to hold whatever views you want to and I respect that, but I don't agree that there was any further context beyond what I quoted and what I replied. I said that the post was dishonourable and I stand by my description. Or do you also in fact agree with the perspective of looking down on a delivery van driver's job choice? Do you agree that delivery van drivers are essential for the modern economy to function?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Could someone clarify (for me) precisely what group of railway employees the RMT represents as I'm not exactly clear any more?

In theory anyone working on the (mainstream) railway can join the RMT. However most, but by no means all, drivers are members of ASLE&F and most clerical and managerial staff are usually members of the TSSA. Most other roles, apart from those in some engineering roles, are almost exclusively represented by the RMT. So signallers, station staff, guards, track workers etc are usually RMT members.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Guards and cleaning staff, plus some station staff, afaik

Thanks

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

In theory anyone working on the (mainstream) railway can join the RMT. However most, but by no means all, drivers are members of ASLE&F and most clerical and managerial staff are usually members of the TSSA. Most other roles, apart from those in some engineering roles, are almost exclusively represented by the RMT. So signallers, station staff, guards, track workers etc are usually RMT members.

Thanks for clarifying

 

[320320]

It's your right to hold whatever views you want to and I respect that, but I don't agree that there was any further context beyond what I quoted and what I replied. I said that the post was dishonourable and I stand by my description. Or do you also in fact agree with the perspective of looking down on a delivery van driver's job choice? Do you agree that delivery van drivers are essential for the modern economy to function?

I don’t look down on anyones choice of career and I’m well aware that the modern economy would grind to a halt were it not for van and delivery drivers. I’d happily pay an increase in delivery costs if it was reflected in their respective renumeration.

For context, as you failed to make any comment, are you in agreement with the poster that accused railway employees of being greedy as they were well paid and that they should be thankful for their pay and conditions?

 

[Starmill]

I don’t look down on anyones choice of career and I’m well aware that the modern economy would grind to a halt were it not for van and delivery drivers. I’d happily pay an increase in delivery costs if it was reflected in their respective renumeration.

I'm glad you've been able to clarify that, but perhaps next time it would be easier if you just said so in the first instance rather than attempting to defend what you view as wrong, purely on partisan lines?

For context, as you failed to make any comment, are you in agreement with poster that accused railway employees of being greedy as they were well paid and that they should be thankful for their pay and conditions?

No; of course this isn't my view. Why on earth would it be? Not everyone is a partisan. I don't see why you're suggesting we are?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Many railway employees are well paid whilst many are not. Shouldn't everyone deserve a minimum cost of living rise?

 

[yorkie]

I don’t look down on anyones choice of career and I’m well aware that the modern economy would grind to a halt were it not for van and delivery drivers. I’d happily pay an increase in delivery costs if it was reflected in their respective renumeration.

We could increase everyone's pay and we could all pay more for everything, but would that solve the problems?

For context, as you failed to make any comment, are you in agreement with the poster that accused railway employees of being greedy as they were well paid and that they should be thankful for their pay and conditions?

In addition to the answer provided above, I'll point out that not replying to a post does not imply agreement with that post!

 

[RPI]

In theory anyone working on the (mainstream) railway can join the RMT. However most, but by no means all, drivers are members of ASLE&F and most clerical and managerial staff are usually members of the TSSA. Most other roles, apart from those in some engineering roles, are almost exclusively represented by the RMT. So signallers, station staff, guards, track workers etc are usually RMT members.

At GWR Revenue Protection Inspectors actually have dual representation either RMT or TSSA, some areas are mostly one or the other.

I don't believe there are many grades that have this arrangement, I'm not sure of the history but a lot of Revenue Protection grades were previously management and are now supervisory after harmonisation a few years back, after several different grades were inherited from Wessex Trains/First Great Western and Thames.

 

[2021_Signaller]

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.

I thought I gave a stout defence on page 4, I think, of why the reverse is actually true. The huge risks and responsibilities we manage with the volume of traffic we move is high.

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.

The reason is because Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is signatory to, says:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”

So there you are. If you want to read more about it you can do so here: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_11_ENG.pdf

God. For someone who’s been in the railways for just over a year, it’s genuinely probably one of the worst industry’s for the politics.

I for one won’t be striking, I didn’t vote for it. Joined the union but should’ve done my research first, if I new RMT we’re for brexit i Wouldn’t have joined them in the first place.

Get over it. There was a democratic vote. One side won, yours lost. I haven't boycotted the litany of companies that wanted us to stay in.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

That is about the long and short of it.

Well done to the RMT for making sure they're negotiating with the Conservative Party, and an especially rightwing one at that. Very clever!

The amount of disruption strikes will cause is lower than it would have been three years ago, and the political landscape has changed.

 

[320320]

I'm glad you've been able to clarify that, but perhaps next time it would be easier if you just said so in the first instance rather than attempting to defend what you view as wrong, purely on partisan lines?

No; of course this isn't my view. Why on earth would it be? Not everyone is a partisan. I don't see why you're suggesting we are?

Thanks for clearing that up, although i‘m sure you’ll understand the possibility of someone reaching that conclusion given that you made no comment when railway workers were being labelled as greedy but took umbrage with the reply to that post.

 

[Starmill]

Thanks for clearing that up, although i‘m sure you’ll understand the possibility of someone reaching that conclusion given that you made no comment when railway workers were being labelled as greedy but took umbrage with the reply to that post

I believe it is a conclusion you just made up, and is based on no evidence beyond your own personal bias.

 

[Peterthegreat]

At GWR Revenue Protection Inspectors actually have dual representation either RMT or TSSA, some areas are mostly one or the other.

I don't believe there are many grades that have this arrangement, I'm not sure of the history but a lot of Revenue Protection grades were previously management and are now supervisory after harmonisation a few years back, after several different grades were inherited from Wessex Trains/First Great Western and Thames.

I think things have changed over time. When I started in 1978 there was a difference in the "status" of salaried staff and wages grade staff. The former were almost exclusively TSSA members and the latter (apart from footplate staff) were members of the NUR. Things became a bit more complicated when staff were promoted and were then eligible to join the TSSA. Some remained in the NUR, others joined the TSSA and some became members of both. Although not specifically prohibited neither the NUR nor senior management were too happy if junior management were still in the NUR!

 

[johncrossley]

Get over it. There was a democratic vote. One side won, yours lost. I haven't boycotted the litany of companies that wanted us to stay in.

I presume the RMT have apologised and admit they were wrong. I'd be very surprised if most RMT members still support that policy.

 

[320320]

I believe it is a conclusion you just made up, and is based on no evidence beyond your own personal bias.

There were 2 posts.

You made no reply when railway workers were labelled as greedy in the original post.

You to umbrage when a condescending post was made towards van drivers in reply.

Its an easy conclusion to come to, based solely on your choice of what to reply to.

 

[Egg Centric]

Its an easy conclusion to come to, based solely on your choice of what to reply to.

Or perhaps he's worried how rail staff are coming over?

Again - now that we're in this Brave New (Old) World of Great British Railways it's up to rail staff, headed by the unions, to sway public opinion. Failure to do so will be fatal.

You won't get a more sympathetic audience than this forum imo.

 

[Starmill]

There were 2 posts.

You made no reply when railway workers were labelled as greedy in the original post.

You to umbrage when a condescending post was made towards van drivers in reply.

Its an easy conclusion to come to, based solely on your choice of what to reply to.

So it's your contention that if someone posts something on the forum and I don't respond to it then I support it? I think you're talking rubbish.

Even if it were the case as you claim, and it is not, then I don't see how the the comment I replied to would be justified differently. As I have already pointed out I don't believe two wrongs would make a right. It seems as though you do?

 

[43096]

BA don't employ Air Traffic Controllers either. Most Air Traffic Controllers are paid less than signallers.

The newly qualified salary is £37-41k. Senior, experienced grades are over £100k

I get the feeling Siggy1980s is making stuff up, hoping no-one will reply with the facts.