Rail strikes discussion

[kristiang85]

Would you support a pay ceiling being introduced for all UK workers? Which roles would be exempt? What would the ceiling be? Setting it at MP's pay is about the 95th percentile.

A pay ceiling would decimate tax income, and it would be public services gone first probably.

 

[43066]

Some (not all) are making very good profits - but they have no relationship with rail employees. So I struggle to see the relevance of the ROSCOs, unless you're suggesting they should make a 'charitable donation' to the RMT to distribute amongst its members?

That would be nice wouldn’t it .

Joking aside I do appreciate that point. But it seems somewhat perverse that the U.K. tax payer is continuing to subsidise highly lucrative rolling stock leasing arrangements when staff are told “no money for you”. It should at least be a case of very bad optics but there’s generally scant mention of it in the press (or on here!).

 

[Signal_Box]

Central Trains conductors were looking at doing this in the mid 2000s and didn't go through with it on legal advice - apparently you can refuse to carry out your duties but not selectively in that manner.

The company said fine go ahead, Central valued revenue collection as 50% of the job, so said we’ll only pay 50% of your wages - the plan was soon dropped.

 

[JohnRegular]

Considering that many NR staff have no direct relationship with the general travelling public, how do you expect them to do that?

How are strikes announced currently? Presumably in a similar fashion to that.

It could also include putting posters over ticket machines in stations explaining that there will be no ticket checks, and the reasons for striking, and announcements made by guards preceding the strike. There might be problems with these, but this doesn't seem like the biggest hurdle going by what others have said (and thanks all for the informative responses to my initial question).

 

[Watershed]

Profit is profit. Might not be as much as pre pandemic but it’s still a profit and it’s not unreasonable to want a slice.

It might not be unreasonable, but it's entirely unrealistic.

Let's say you contact a builder to build you an extension. They quote you for the materials and labour, and you agree.

They go to B&Q, who say all their prices have now increased by 10%, justifying this by saying "you've has made a big profit this year - you can afford to put a bit of that towards this increase".

Would you expect...

a) The builder to put their hand in their pocket and swallow the 10% increase, or
b) The builder to go back to you and ask if you're willing to proceed if the materials cost 10% more?

 

[Efini92]

It might not be unreasonable, but it's entirely unrealistic.

Let's say you contact a builder to build you an extension. They quote you for the materials and labour, and you agree.

They go to B&Q, who say all their prices have now increased by 10%, justifying this by saying "you've has made a big profit this year - you can afford to put a bit of that towards this increase".

Would you expect...

a) The builder to put their hand in their pocket and swallow the 10% increase, or
b) The builder to go back to you and ask if you're willing to proceed if the materials cost 10% more?

No I wouldn’t even think about it. The fact is we’ve been told there’s no money, there’s no passengers etc… then they publish documents showing they have actually made millions.
We accepted it without question for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 pay awards. Now it’s time for them to put their hands in their pockets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you support a pay ceiling being introduced for all UK workers? Which roles would be exempt? What would the ceiling be? Setting it at MP's pay is about the 95th percentile.

A pay ceiling is a stupid idea. A higher rate of taxation for very high incomes is a much better way, e.g. 60% above 150K.

 

[Llanigraham]

How are strikes announced currently? Presumably in a similar fashion to that.

It could also include putting posters over ticket machines in stations explaining that there will be no ticket checks, and the reasons for striking, and announcements made by guards preceding the strike. There might be problems with these, but this doesn't seem like the biggest hurdle going by what others have said (and thanks all for the informative responses to my initial question).

But none of that applies to Signallers, P'Way workers, S & T workers, etc!
You seem to think that all NR workers are public facing, they aren't.

 

[35B]

Profit is profit. Might not be as much as pre pandemic but it’s still a profit and it’s not unreasonable to want a slice.

It would be interesting to know what slice of that 2.5% profit you would be content with?

 

[Mojo]

Just wondering if anyone knows why SWR’s Island Line services won’t be affected and are due to operate as normal on the day. Are the signallers, drivers and guards non-RMT, or just not part of the ballot for whatever reason?

 

[Facing Back]

Taxation doesn't work like that.

It can but only if you tip over £100k or are caught in one of the small number of married person allowance or benefit issues. For the huge majority you’re right.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Just wondering if anyone knows why SWR’s Island Line services won’t be affected and are due to operate as normal on the day. Are the signallers, drivers and guards non-RMT, or just not part of the ballot for whatever reason?

They returned a negative ballot for action.

 

[LowLevel]

Just wondering if anyone knows why SWR’s Island Line services won’t be affected and are due to operate as normal on the day. Are the signallers, drivers and guards non-RMT, or just not part of the ballot for whatever reason?

They voted against taking action. Island Line employs the signallers over there, even though I believe the actual ownership is NR. The pay scales are a bit different to the mainland too.

 

[Watershed]

They returned a negative ballot for action.

And the infrastructure is, uniquely, leased to and managed by SWR. So no NR signallers to go on strike.

 

[Efini92]

It would be interesting to know what slice of that 2.5% profit you would be content with?

The 2.5% does equate to £21m. So I’d want something rather than nothing.

 

[Watershed]

No I wouldn’t even think about it. The fact is we’ve been told there’s no money, there’s no passengers etc… then they publish documents showing they have actually made millions.
We accepted it without question for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 pay awards. Now it’s time for them to put their hands in their pockets.

Let's say they agreed, out of the goodness of their hearts (and in plain contravention of their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders) to put all their profits towards a payrise.

What's going to fund next year's payrise? And do you expect them to run the service for free indefinitely?

And perhaps whilst we're in the spirit of generosity, everyone will agree to have Sundays in their working week for free.

Oh wait, that's now how it works...

 

[Efini92]

Let's say they agreed, out of the goodness of their hearts (and in plain contravention of their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders) to put all their profits towards a payrise...

What's going to fund next year's payrise? And do you expect them to run the service for free indefinitely?

And perhaps whilst we're in the spirit of generosity, everyone will agree to have Sundays in their working week for free.

Oh wait, that's now how it works...

Or they could negotiate a productivity package which includes Sundays inside the working week.

 

[SynthD]

It can but only if you tip over £100k or are caught in one of the small number of married person allowance or benefit issues. For the huge majority you’re right.

No, between 100-120k you lose the personal allowance. It never becomes what has been suggested.

 

[LAX54]

A pay ceiling is a stupid idea. A higher rate of taxation for very high incomes is a much better way, e.g. 60% above 150K.

Is this strike NOT about pay alone, it is also about job losses ? Is it the media saying this is purely a pay rise strike, and is that also the opinion of many here too ?

 

[TreacleMiller]

That would be nice wouldn’t it .

Joking aside I do appreciate that point. But it seems somewhat perverse that the U.K. tax payer is continuing to subsidise highly lucrative rolling stock leasing arrangements when staff are told “no money for you”. It should at least be a case of very bad optics but there’s generally scant mention of it in the press (or on here!).

Heart of the issue right here for me. A private company should be just that. This quasi private / public status is in a state where the entire system would be better nationalised. I don't like nationalisation but fully agree it makes sense in rail.

If the companies are making operational profit but only due to government funding then we are effectively burning tax payers money.

 

[AlterEgo]

No I wouldn’t even think about it. The fact is we’ve been told there’s no money, there’s no passengers etc… then they publish documents showing they have actually made millions.

I expect that'll be without all the taxpayer subsidy then (!)

Make a good argument about why the taxpayer should foot the bill for railway employees' pay rises.

 

[Facing Back]

The railway is slightly more complex than Blockbuster video's though isn't it. There isn't a railway anywhere in the world that operates in profit with no form of subsidy. The railway is more than a business, it's a form of mass transit that has a direct impact on the economy. Over the past two decades successive governments have fuelled commuting by allowing the building of houses in urban towns, they can hardly now just turn their backs on that.
Most of the railway costs are not staff costs. Only a very small percentage is wages. The majority is expensive leasing of rolling stock, and how do you solve that problem? Blaming wages for ballooning leasing costs to banks is a favourite government activity, it's been tried and tested over the decades, don't fall for it.

I agree the railway should be subsidised. I, curious about your other points though, most organisations largest single cost is people related, is this really not the case for the uk railway? The train leasing companies do appear to be allowed to make a risk free profit for proving the capital but the alternative is a loan to buy the trains and them both interest and depreciation appearing as a cost instead of a leasing charge on the balance sheet. Depreciation will be higher as there is no opportunity to recognise the residual value of the stock.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Profit is profit. Might not be as much as pre pandemic but it’s still a profit and it’s not unreasonable to want a slice.

You get a slice. How much does it cost you to go to work? How much do you get paid? If the latter is more than the former you make a profit and as you say - profit is profit - so why are you demanding more?

 

[py_megapixel]

You get a slice. How much does it cost you to go to work? How much do you get paid? If the latter is more than the former you make a profit and as you say - profit is profit - so why are you demanding more?

I assume this post is somewhat facetious.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the salary for a full-time job - one requiring extensive knowledge and responsibility, no less - to be enough to comfortably live on, for example!

 

[Bantamzen]

I don’t think the debates in this area are remotely constructive. The threads always follow the same pattern of people arguing from entrenched positions, going around in circles until they’re eventually shut down. Overall they tend to be incredibly toxic and divisive which is why many have said they won’t take part in them.

I realise the forum can’t avoid discussing the subject of IA at all, so I don’t know what the solution is, really.



Why? There’s clearly no shortage of people wanting to join the railway. I also don’t think this idea that unions and the associated attitudes are somehow not “modern” stands up to scrutiny when the vast majority of those joining up today, even from non unionised industries, still choose to join the main railway unions because they can clearly see the benefits of doing so. It’s notable that OA operators such as LUMO who (from what I’ve read on here) try to dissuade staff from joining have quite a few members now in ASLEF and the RMT.

It’s rare today for industries to be as heavily unionised as the railway which is the main reason why attitudes such as people being anti strike breaking aren’t encountered. In those industries which are unionised and in which collective bargaining exists, these attitudes are just as prevalent in 2022 as they were in the 1970s.

You might think the demise of unions is a good thing of course. I’m not so sure I’d agree when you look at the current state of Ts and Cs for many workers in this country.

I for one don't think the demise is a good thing, but why do you suppose that demise came about? Many of the reasons why so many unions are less able to use industrial action as effectively is because of action taken in the past, which has seen governments crack down on it through legislation & some instances attrition. Also society is changing, many younger people are far less inclined to join unions, or at least take part in action every time a rep cries "everybody out!". Unions have to evolve to survive.

Again that’s you’re view and you’re entitled to it. But, as someone who works on the railway, rest assured isn’t only “militant” types who feel like this - many people are relatively indifferent to the union in normal times but strikebreaking is still generally viewed as beyond the pale.

We are constantly reminded on these discussions that this dispute isn't just about relatively well paid drivers. There will be plenty of people being pressured into striking, and thus losing pay, even though they might find themselves further in debt. Its probably about the right time to remind everyone that everything is getting more expensive, and that some people will simply not be able to afford to strike. They might even quietly think that being told by much better off colleagues that not striking could lead them to being seen in a bad light as "beyond the pale".

The last time I took my turn on a picket line, my union gave very specific instructions that we were to try and persuade would-be strike breakers not to. And any form of coercion or treating colleagues differently during or after a dispute was heavily frowned upon. Sadly some reps continued to behave like they were still stuck in the 1970s, and for these reasons I felt I could no longer be a rep.

That is a widespread attitude on the railway and I would note you’re therefore describing a large number of the colleagues and friends I like and respect as “dinosaurs” and “dubious characters”. I cannot agree with that when I personally know them to be anything but! I’m afraid that’s the kind of statement that really doesn’t do much to make staff feel welcome on here.

I’d also observe that throwing around terms like “dinosaur” and “dubious characters” doesn’t add any more to constructive debate than terms like “scab”.

Nothing that is said on here will change the practical reality of what I’ve said in terms of advice. If people can’t afford to take part in action where it’s voted for I’d urge them to speak to their reps and do anything possible to avoid strike breaking.

If it is still widespread in your industry, then I'm sorry to say but that saddens me. It also makes me wonder if rail workers feel so strongly about strike breakers, what they feel abut us punters. It really doesn't give off a good image. I realise that you are not concerned about that because the industry is bullet proof, and that no matter how crap the coming weeks will be for us punters, we'll just slavishly come back when its over. Or will we? You and your colleagues might just want to give that more than a brief thought when considering future industrial action. I know in my part of the public sector, a vote on the principle of industrial action over pay returned a 70% or in favour result, but with less than 45% of the membership actually voting. And talking to many colleagues about it, the general consensus is given the current administration's desire to cut budgets deeply, going on strike would be an act of masochism.

 

[Watershed]

I agree the railway should be subsidised. I, curious about your other points though, most organisations largest single cost is people related, is this really not the case for the uk railway? The train leasing companies do appear to be allowed to make a risk free profit for proving the capital but the alternative is a loan to buy the trains and them both interest and depreciation appearing as a cost instead of a leasing charge on the balance sheet. Depreciation will be higher as there is no opportunity to recognise the residual value of the stock.

The ROSCOs were essentially given a licence to print money for nearly two decades, and some deals are still locked in at silly prices. But in recent years the market has become considerably tighter and some ROSCOs have lost out, e.g. Porterbrook with the 350/2s and Akiem with the 379s.

It remains ludicrous for the government, which is able to borrow at less than 1%, to put rolling stock on the 'national credit card' by having ROSCOs borrow the money for them at an effective interest rate of 5-10%. But that is the political dogma of the Treasury for you, and even if the Treasury changed its policy tomorrow, it would take decades for the savings to be realised.

 

[LittleAH]

Not to do with Brexit. Our Covid policy is the cause of the rapid inflation.

Wrong. According to BoE experts, financial experts etc.

 

[Thermal]

MPs aren't paid enough anyway, but that's for another thread.

Watching the almost farcical rail strikes debate taking place in the commons right now , I couldn't agree with this more. If these are the people we are relying on for a solution (from both sets of benches), it's going to be a miserable summer with the competence on display.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The problem with jobs on the railway or many public sector jobs is they're highly specialised and there is only 1 employer (TOCs now are government) hence the need for unions. I'm in IT and therefore have an open market for my skills, don't like the terms offered by 1 employer then I move to another, train drivers do not in the same way.

The only issue with unionized model is it relies on both sides being reasonable and reaching agreement. In this case, I think the pay rises should be tied to performance, i.e. profitability increases or subsidy reductions like in private industries.

Also I thought unions were there to support those who cannot afford to strike, solidarity anyone?

 

[JonathanH]

A pay ceiling is a stupid idea. A higher rate of taxation for very high incomes is a much better way, e.g. 60% above 150K.

As an aside, removal of the Upper Earnings Limit on National Insurance would be a really neat way of achieving (near) 60% tax rates.

However, higher rates of tax at higher levels of earning just push up the headline pay figures even more as those on higher incomes seek compensation for higher tax rates. The root cause of arguments about pay do seem to be the failure of our economy to keep the earnings of those at lower levels of income in scale with those at upper levels. Ironically, pay increases expressed as a percentage, rather than a nominal amount, fail on just this point. It is strange that Unions seem to campaign on a percentage basis.