Rail strikes discussion

[Facing Back]

My point of view as a train conductor of over 20 years summed up is this.

I took a £7k pay cut coming into this job. I took it because I was at the time of life where the railway long term offered me a bit of security. It was a risk, but because of pay rises it was a risk that paid off. What amazed me was the relaxed regime. Yes you have rules, medicals, screenings, and abusive passengers, but you also don't have managers demanding you push a brush around the floor if you are sat spare for a shift. I have also never been in a job pre railway where you can get a three hour flyer.
What amazes me more is how people in this job very quickly seem to take these perks for granted. I take my lad once a year on the Cally sleeper as a trip out, couldn't do that without the perks my job offers. The railway overall has been good to me and my family.

Now it is time to put something back. We are in trouble, passengers numbers are falling off, revenue is dropping away. I can do one of two things. I can strike, or I can work a extra rest day to make up for the rising inflation. I'll choose the later. This is why I found Grant Shapps comments about overtime working offensive. Not all of us work rest days to make up for strikes, some of us do it to help ourselves out and to help the travelling public out. I don't like Tory governments, but just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the message is wrong.

I know some railway grade are not paid as well as mine, and I have sympathy with that. But neither do I care for those who are paid more than me thinking the gravy train is a ongoing journey whilst those who we take to work are struggling.

It is time to make contact with reality.

That's a perspective I hadn't thought of properly. Thanks for sharing

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

In the three months to April, the average rise in annual pay was 4.2%. In the private sector, it was 8%. So, actually, plenty of people are getting a near 10% pay rise.

Fuel and energy prices are through the roof. Plenty of railway staff are struggling, and mortgages or rent still need paying. Besides, it's ridiculous to argue that only the lowest paid people should have a pay rise.

Do you have a source for the 8%?

 

[kristiang85]

I must say I'm seeing less passenger anger regarding these strikes than in previous years - probably because most regular commuters (which are the online groups I tend to frequent) do not have season tickets anymore so no money is lost and most jobs are fine to do without using the railways now. So the unions won't feel this backlash from the regular train travellers, who can now basically ignore it.

On the other hand, if the "summer of chaos" the unions are promising happens, then strikes could well happen in July too, which is the month the RPI for train ticket rises is set, if I understand correctly. Forecasts say this could be 10% or more - and i think if that is announced then hostility towards the strikes from regular passengers - and therefore MPs - will increased markedly.

I can see it all getting very ugly very quickly.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I'm starting to wonder if I should start worrying about Warley yet...

 

[Gems]

Well I'll raise you this. If the strikes go ahead next week. They will continue all the way until Christmas. As I've said consistently, the damage that will be done by modernisation will be bad for the industry, bad for passengers and most certainly bad for operations staff. We have no choice but to fight it.

Now TSSA is balloting for strike action. Even the managerial class are in dispute...

No look. Try sounding out people on the shop floor. I have no doubt the RMT will call strike after strike. But as every week goes on more and more people will work through. It will still cause chaos because it will be difficult for the rail industry to plan not knowing what will be available. But they will fizzle out. You'll be left with a union with no backing.
You'll always get the hardcore, and good luck to them. But it is fantasy to think your average rail worker is going to take hit after hit whilst their fuel bills are going through the roof.

 

[Bald Rick]

I must say I'm seeing less passenger anger regarding these strikes than in previous years - probably because most regular commuters (which are the online groups I tend to frequent) do not have season tickets anymore so no money is lost and most jobs are fine to do without using the railways now. So the unions won't feel this backlash from the regular train travellers, who can now basically ignore it.

my take on it is that for passengers who use TOCs that have recently seen industrial action, they have seen it all before. Meanwhile passengers of TOCs who have not recently seen industrial action - well they don’t know what’s coming.

I do agree that working from home will significantly reduce the impact for many, but not all, commuters.

it’s the kids who are struggling to get to school for their GCSEs and A levels I feel most sorry for.

 

[43066]

Generally I’m avoiding this thread because most of it is the predictable (and deeply boring) point scoring and vindictive drivel from the usual suspects…

right now, I’d say the RMT are being the most sensible and measured. The tone if their communications has mellowed considerably in the past two months. Changes at the top, apparently.

Agree with this actually, they do seem to have smartened up their act. Mick Lynch also seems to have been pretty effective in many of his interviews - the media of course hates unions generally, railway unions especially, so that’s an uphill battle.

see above. Thousands of managers have left NR, and thousands more in the TOCs.

Also completely agree it’s not great to see people calling for others in the industry to lose their jobs or generally turning on each other - I include in that a certain guard on this thread with a very clear grudge against drivers! I think the TSSA dispute perhaps also levels the playing field somewhat - certainly compared to the much more divisive DOO disputes of recent years.

 

[the sniper]

Well this thread got lively.

It's an absolute dumpster fire.

 

[Gems]

Also completely agree it’s not great to see people calling for others in the industry to lose their jobs or generally turning on each other - I include in that a certain guard on this thread with a very clear grudge against drivers! I think the TSSA dispute perhaps also levels the playing field somewhat - certainly compared to the much more divisive DOO disputes of recent years.

No, no, no. We love drivers, work with them everyday. It's their backstabbing union I hate.

 

[Class 317]

I do find the line that's been reported as quoted from the RMT that rail staff worked all through the lockdowns a little hard to take.
Rail service levels were well down on most routes to 50% or less so am assuming in most roles this required far less staff day today many staff were under employed or essentially furloughed on full pay.

To many in industries where we were furloughed on 80% of pay for months on end and have no sign of pay rises, the question that we ask is how come railway staff were on 100% of pay but for large parts of the lockdowns only operating a reduced service with less hours worked?

The reason the industry I work in is not offering pay rises is that it's been hit hard by covid with revenues down significantly not unlike the situation on railways.

Being private sector if we are not profitable their simple is not money for pay rises. I know the railway is a public service but the way my colleagues see it that the subsidy required is massively increased so it's a similar situation to we face.

I would be more inclined to be supportive if a strike for a pay rise was more realistic and tied into a package of reforms aimed to support the efficiency of the industry and protect it's long term future.

Instead I see 2 sides intrenched and unlikely to come to an agreement before long term damage is done.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would be more inclined to be supportive if a strike for a pay rise was more realistic and tied into a package of reforms aimed to support the efficiency of the industry and protect it's long term future.

that is precisely what is being proposed.

 

[Gems]

I do find the line that's been reported as quoted from the RMT that rail staff worked all through the lockdowns a little hard to take.
Rail service levels were well down on most routes to 50% or less so am assuming in most roles this required far less staff day today many staff were under employed or essentially furloughed on full pay.

To many in industries where we were furloughed on 80% of pay for months on end and have no sign of pay rises, the question that we ask is how come railway staff were on 100% of pay but for large parts of the lockdowns only operating a reduced service with less hours worked?

The reason the industry I work in is not offering pay rises is that it's been hit hard by covid with revenues down significantly not unlike the situation on railways.

Being private sector if we are not profitable their simple is not money for pay rises. I know the railway is a public service but the way my colleagues see it that the subsidy required is massively increased so it's a similar situation to we face.

I would be more inclined to be supportive if a strike for a pay rise was more realistic and tied into a package of reforms aimed to support the efficiency of the industry and protect it's long term future.

Instead I see 2 sides intrenched and unlikely to come to an agreement before long term damage is done.

I know. My wife worked with Covid patients who were recovering. I felt safer at work than at home, some days I saw no more than 20 passengers, and most of those were druggies off to find a hit.

 

[43066]

No, no, no. We love drivers, work with them everyday. It's their backstabbing union I hate.

Good to hear .

 

[ComUtoR]

To many in industries where we were furloughed on 80% of pay for months on end and have no sign of pay rises

I wish I could have been furloughed. A decision was made to keep the railway open to support those who needed to get to work. We were constantly told that the railway needed to run because it was essential and other key workers were reliant on the railway still running. Do you think it should have shut down ?

, the question that we ask is how come railway staff were on 100% of pay

I was on 100% pay, because I was 100% working. Many of those who were furloughed were doing 0% work for 80% of pay. There shouldn't be a division about furlough. Many were forced to stop working, many buisnesses closed, some are still feeling the long term effect. The Government pumped millions into the workforce, Furloughed or otherwise.

but for large parts of the lockdowns only operating a reduced service with less hours worked?

My terms and conditions never changed and I certainly didn't work less hours. Personally I worked more than usual.

 

[43066]

I wish I could have been furloughed. A decision was made to keep the railway open to support those who needed to get to work. We were constantly told that the railway needed to run because it was essential and other key workers were reliant on the railway still running. Do you think it should have shut down ?



I was on 100% pay, because I was 100% working. Many of those who were furloughed were doing 0% work for 80% of pay. There shouldn't be a division about furlough. Many were forced to stop working, many buisnesses closed, some are still feeling the long term effect. The Government pumped millions into the workforce, Furloughed or otherwise.



My terms and conditions never changed and I certainly didn't work less hours. Personally I worked more than usual.

Liking the new (highly topical) motif!

 

[TreacleMiller]

I do find the line that's been reported as quoted from the RMT that rail staff worked all through the lockdowns a little hard to take.
Rail service levels were well down on most routes to 50% or less so am assuming in most roles this required far less staff day today many staff were under employed or essentially furloughed on full pay.

To many in industries where we were furloughed on 80% of pay for months on end and have no sign of pay rises, the question that we ask is how come railway staff were on 100% of pay but for large parts of the lockdowns only operating a reduced service with less hours worked?

The reason the industry I work in is not offering pay rises is that it's been hit hard by covid with revenues down significantly not unlike the situation on railways.

Being private sector if we are not profitable their simple is not money for pay rises. I know the railway is a public service but the way my colleagues see it that the subsidy required is massively increased so it's a similar situation to we face.

I would be more inclined to be supportive if a strike for a pay rise was more realistic and tied into a package of reforms aimed to support the efficiency of the industry and protect it's long term future.

Instead I see 2 sides intrenched and unlikely to come to an agreement before long term damage is done.

Indeed.

I am entering into the industry shortly and disagree with the planned strikes. Im not exactly pro-union for exactly this reason, strikes or the threat of them seem to be the "go to" protocol before even getting around the table for meaningful discussion. I mean that in general terms and not just the rail industry.

"I worked through lockdown" is the general theme alongside the cost of living crisis - Indeed so did I but this phrase has become a weak statement. Sure, the country relies on key workers to get things done but I think that "on the front lines" should really be used for those who witnessed death, illness, heartbreak and all the rest of it rather than for those of us who turned upto work as normal wearing a facemask. Were rail staff at risk? Sure, so were home helpers and all the rest of them but to a much larger degree.

Pay is correctly an issue for everyone right now. Ive just had a 5% rise after two years of freezes following covid. I am worse off now than before the pandemic but in a much more senior role. Right now, its a hard lot and many will feel it more than rail staff who on the whole are paid well.

To me, we are in a semi private semi state run quasi responsible wasteland of accountability and right now public opinion will NOT back a strike for more pay. Job losses on the other hand....

 

[Class 317]

I don't think the railway should have been shut down but for many on furlough the 20 % enforced pay cut was financially extremely difficult to deal with and created cost of living issues throughout 2020 and 2021.

Many who were furloughed are still suffering financially and unfortunately will view strike action for what they see as an excessive payrise negatively. Those furloughed lost 20% of pay for well over a year in many cases and have not had a payrise for coming on 3 years or see a payrise anywhere near keeping up with the inflation happening anytime soon.

 

[the sniper]

I am entering into the industry shortly and disagree with the planned strikes. Im not exactly pro-union for exactly this reason, strikes or the threat of them seem to be the "go to" protocol before even getting around the table for meaningful discussion. I mean that in general terms and not just the rail industry.

What do you make of the pay and T&Cs offered by the industry, just out of curiosity...?

 

[43066]

Im not exactly pro-union for exactly this reason, strikes or the threat of them seem to be the "go to" protocol before even getting around the table for meaningful discussion. I mean that in general terms and not just the rail industry.

I probably had similar views before joining the industry, if anything I was probably more anti union than yourself.

I expect you’ll rapidly see a different side once you see for yourself how important and beneficial the unions are and how badly they’re misrepresented. They’re relevant to so many aspects of the railway and its operation, with strikes just being the tip of the iceberg when things go wrong - also very much the last resort rather than the first.

You’ll also soon see how laughably inaccurate the Daily Mail stereotypical nonsense trotted out on this thread is.

I’ll leave it there for now. As I say I’m not intending to get too involved with this thread - sadly they all go the same way.

 

[Facing Back]

Hopefully your application is unsuccessful. The people who have fought hard to have pay and conditions that “look fine” to you don’t need the likes of you undermining their efforts to secure better terms and conditions during the worst cost of living crisis many of us have ever seen.

That is terrible. Whatever the merits of your case, or not, its not the 1970s where you could operate a closed shop. "You can't join my railway because I don't agree with you a point of principle". I sincerely hope your attitude does not represent the majority of this applicant's future colleagues.

 

[TreacleMiller]

What do you make of the pay and T&Cs offered by the industry, just out of curiosity...?

Night and day to the rest of the working options in the country. Dont get me wrong, I think many jobs are underpaid and some less stressful jobs overpaid. However, a final salary pension in this day and age is nuts. Working hours are lower than my current role by around 10 hours a week at least. Ill be doubling my income on the driving grade compared to what I currently earn. Sure its a LOT more demanding and will bring a different type of stress but I do think (based on granted limited exposure) the unions know theyve got it good on the railways and want to keep it that way - who could possibly say otherwise?

 

[Facing Back]

But who's going to pay for Mick Lynch's £160k a year package.

compared to private sector organisations of similar scale and influence a fully loaded package (which in the account likely includes employers as well as employee NI, commited costs of expenses such as hone office, chauffer car etc) of £160 is reasonable.

Its way ahead of a civil service package for a similar scale role - surely it should be benchmarked against the public not private sector?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2022 ==

Would it violate human rights.

If you are looking to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights - I wish you look with that. See what kind of employment law cases they listen to.

If you are thinking of EU law then we are no longer subject to it, or to the European Court of Justice. Parliament copied most of it into UK law but that will would be superseded by the new laws passed by parliament to allow this - and UK courts recognise this.

Thats all beside the point that in no way does it violate human rights

 

[the sniper]

Night and day to the rest of the working options in the country. Dont get me wrong, I think many jobs are underpaid and some less stressful jobs overpaid. However, a final salary pension in this day and age is nuts. Working hours are lower than my current role by around 10 hours a week at least. Ill be doubling my income on the driving grade compared to what I currently earn. Sure its a LOT more demanding and will bring a different type of stress but I do think (based on granted limited exposure) the unions know theyve got it good on the railways and want to keep it that way - who could possibly say otherwise?

I'm always intrigued by the mental anguish those who make the decision to join the industry must go though who profess to be anti, or not 'pro-union', yet seem largely enticed and entirely happy to enjoy all the privileges that the trade unions have thought hard to retain/achieve.

 

[TreacleMiller]

I'm always intrigued by the mental anguish those who make the decision to join the industry must go though who profess to be anti, or not 'pro-union', yet seem largely enticed and entirely happy to enjoy all the privileges that the trade unions have thought hard to retain/achieve.

I see a job I want - I apply for it. The rate is the rate, how it got to be the rate isn't relevant to me nor to pretty much anyone else. The company need to pay it to attract the relevant talent vs. The risk, stress and skill of the role.

Unions are important and serve an important role, they do however need to learn when not to throw stones in glass houses. I suspect right now is one of those times.

What would your suggestion be? Union members get paid more or that those of us who look at unions with a degree of scepticism should simply ask very nicely to work for less money?

 

[Facing Back]

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

Thank you and yes of course you are quite right. The ECHR would probably enter into a discussion if the UK passed a law banning forming or joining trades unions, although there are precedents.

However if a law was passed which restricted the right of certain professions to strike then this clause does not prohibit it, as shown by precedent in Hungary and Poland amongst others. Clause 1 "protection of his interests" does not mandate that the law respects the right to strike. People would still be in union. Similar arguments were used when secondary picketing was banned if my memory serves.

Clause 2 would be met. There would be no restrictions on these rights - anyone can join a union.

I've read the ECHR articles but thank you for the link.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2022 ==

that is precisely what is being proposed.

"I would be more inclined to be supportive if a strike for a pay rise was more realistic and tied into a package of reforms aimed to support the efficiency of the industry and protect it's long term future."

Forgive me Bald Rick, proposed by whom - the RMT? I don't believe that I have seen their package of reforms? So much on here I could have easily missed it though.

 

[Egg Centric]

I'm always intrigued by the mental anguish those who make the decision to join the industry must go though who profess to be anti, or not 'pro-union', yet seem largely enticed and entirely happy to enjoy all the privileges that the trade unions have thought hard to retain/achieve.

If we take the benefits of a job versus its overall demand on a single axis in the long run, the unions will only ever achieve a certain amount above the mean that employers can "accept".

Once that "certain amount" is hit - that's it. Any other result doesn't make sense, this is common sense.

At that point you're paying the union for maintaining the status quo. That's probably a very sensible thing to do. But relies on a sensible union and this doesn't seem to be this.

Regardless of that - someone joining the staff once the union acheived the uplift - what are you suggesting? They join the union out of gratitude for things they did before the staff member joined (or perhaps were born)? Well I can see something in that but it ignores the union also needs to consider the future which it clearly isn't...

 

[the sniper]

I see a job I want - I apply for it. The rate is the rate, how it got to be the rate isn't relevant to me nor to pretty much anyone else.

Probably easier not to give it too much thought.

The company need to pay it to attract the relevant talent vs. The risk, stress and skill of the role.

You've clearly not been on this forum too long! Everyone here knows that clearly isn't the case...

Regardless of that - someone joining the staff once the union acheived the uplift - what are you suggesting? They join the union out of gratitude for things they did before the staff member joined (or perhaps were born)? Well I can see something in that but it ignores the union also needs to consider the future which it clearly isn't...

The chap seems quite keen on and surprised by the survival of the final salary pension scheme. I wonder how that's happened... Must be a miracle, prayer is cheaper than paying subs, I suppose. I'd pray for it too, if it weren't for my beliefs. Maybe railway staff just deserve a final salary pension scheme, unlike most workers?

Personally if I were particularly anti or not pro-union, I'm not sure I could bring myself to join a job that has been so clearly enhanced/protected by trade union involvement. I couldn't take all the perks while fundamentally disagreeing with how they were achieved. But as I said, probably best not to give these things too much thought.

 

[wobman]

Well this thread got lively.

I am not going to state my own views, but I feel compelled to clarify a few matters where some posters appear to be under a misapprehension.



Not so, TOCs and DfT (and other funders) are very keen to have Sundays in the week. See the Scotrail deal.



assuming (by your username) that you are a signaller, you have had it confirmed there will be no need for any redundancies. So you have that part in the bag.




It varies. Some are likely to be past the point of no return already.



The Government has never stated the railway needs to make a profit, at least not for around 30 years. What the Government is stating is that the substantial increase in subsidy over the last few years (and not all Covid related) must be limited. Even on the most optimistic forecasts, annual subsidy will still represent more than half the cost of the railway.

And it is not small compared to other areas. It is substantially more than the roads budget, for example. More than the entire housing and local communities budget. More than the Foreign Office. More than Culture, Media, Sport, Food, Environment and Rural affairs combined






they are not. The roads make substantial ’profit’, if you can call it that, for Government as taxes and duties applicable to road transport far outweigh costs directly associated with road transport (including accident recovery).




right now, I’d say the RMT are being the most sensible and measured. The tone of their communications has mellowed considerably in the past two months. Changes at the top, apparently. TSSA meanwhile seem to have lost the plot a little, with some very odd communications. Possibly to deflect issues at the top there?




80% and not rising any more.



thousands have already left Network Rail, all in management or clerical grades, voluntarily; many others have been redeployed. This has been to the benefit of those that wanted to leave, those that wanted to stay, and the company, because they agreed to restructuring to better position the company for the environment it is in. The same is on offer to maintenance staff. It’s really quite simple.



see above. Thousands of managers have left NR, and thousands more in the TOCs.

also not sure how you can be ‘top heavy’ with ‘middle management’.



not just the Political landscape (politics with a big “P”) but the business environment the railways sit in, and the relationship with Government - industry politics (small “p”) if you like. I actually think Mick Lynch gets this - he certainly said as much in the letters published a year or so ago when the RMT was at war with itself - he just needs to persuade his colleagues. Fingers crossed that he does, and quickly.

From the latest ORR passenger usage figures they show 2022 Q1 usage as 82% and Q2 as 85%, to me that is rising numbers of passenger usage. There was a peak figure of 92% in May at the time of school holidays, we are only 8 weeks away from the summer holidays.
Your figures do not correlate with ORR figures.

Regarding the Network Rail staff dispute let's say I believe the posts from staff involved, many taking redundancy as they had no other choice. Redeployment to another job in another area is not suitable for most people, so in them circumstances they will take voluntary redundancy.
It's a ploy that doesn't show the full impact of such cuts in staff numbers, the future will show how this is a mistake by Network rail.

Can you show me the figures that show 1000s of management leaving tocs ?

I've looked for this data & I can seem to find it anywhere, the data I've seen shows the opposite just by looking at Toc recruitment pages & management structures at tocs.

 

[91108]

I’m quickly reaching the stage where I’m going to leave the union. I’ve not been balloted yet but it’s coming, and I just can’t afford to strike.

I'm the same, really cannot afford it, I have approximately 100 per month spare, the strikes will cost me at least double this... only need 5 or 6 strike days to wipe out the benefits o

The fact your financial position is so perilous is one of the reasons why the majority of members of the rmt voted for a strike. Look at the rate of inflation, your standard of living isn’t even going to stay as it is, if you do nothing.
The Union will have a hardship fund, speak to them.

You can leave the union and work through and then get pay rises and see safety standards continue on the back of others striking. Or maybe you leave the union and work through and see the union action fail helped by you working. Either scenario isn’t good, nobody wants it but it is the reality of what is being faced.

ps I’m out of this now, the tone will only go further downhill.

 

[davews]

There are now two threads on here that I am avoiding. I have kept out of the Ukraine one because the whole thing upsets me. With it seems quite a few pro-strike people on here and rambling uncontrolled discussion this thread and its earlier versions also qualifies. Not sure what I am doing next week but hoping beyond hope that the whole stupid action is cancelled, some of us have a life to enjoy.

 

[skyhigh]

Ill be doubling my income on the driving grade compared to what I currently earn.

If I'm completely honest I believe that any trainee driver who chooses not to join ASLEF is a little unwise. I know of at least 2 trainees who would have lost their jobs without backing from the union. The local reps are generally very supportive and will help you out or answer any questions you have. Management is not always on your side. ASLEF are also generally much more measured than RMT. If you're not in the union, you don't get any of that. Obviously fully your choice but don't just rule it out completely before you have the chance to get settled in.