Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Just as a thought and I by no means guarantee they will be able to help..
Are your studies linked to your role with a TOC? If so, could be worth speaking to them about accommodation and/or alternative travel for your Cardiff-Reading dilemma.
Unfortunately not. I study journalism (my second job is a newsreader for a local radio station), and as an aspiring BBC broadcaster I am a fan of Huw Edwards. (BBC's News at 10 presenter) It just so happens he is giving a lecture to those on my course, and although the academic year is finished, I have wanted to go for a long time as I would love to meet one of the people who inspired me to join the industry. It looks like I'll just have to fork out for a hotel. Thanks for the suggestion though. What premature timing this strike is!
The sad thing is is, while you can easily just cancel your train tickets, some people will have paid for events such as concert tickets, expensive hotels or other things that require the use of the train. They can't necessarily get a refund for that, so will be left paying for things they can no longer attend.
I never really get the irritation regarding contingency staff. They've been a part of the railway for years now. The way they are trained and maintain competency, sure, definitely, but that's not the fault of the individuals.
If they decline to participate it does little for their own career prospects - it is an expectation now for those in management grades who are able to do so.
Just because they're covering elements of the train service does not mean they're completely mitigating the impact on the employer. Their own productivity suffers - the ORR has made it clear that they are required to focus on the role they are carrying out and are not for example permitted to work on a laptop on the day job between station stops or in a signalbox.
I don't believe in sticking it to the public and using the impact on them as a measure of the success or failure of industrial action - it's an outdated notion. Sucking up significant amounts of management time will still have an impact and over a longer time period.
I've heard similar comments before when we've had things like ticket acceptance during guards strikes elsewhere. People rumbling that we shouldn't be helping "their passengers" as we are undermining our colleagues. I actually disagreed entirely - showing our best face to the customers to try and help them get to where they needed to be albeit in a protracted manner shows them the value of the staff who are taking action and gives us a chance to talk to them in a supportive manner if they enquire as to what it's all about, as they often did.
Ultimately it is what it is - contingency staff themselves are nothing to get upset over and I take comfort in the fact that their very presence generally means there's an impact on the company that doesn't affect the passengers. I genuinely like the vast majority of the travelling public despite their foibles and it wounds me when our internal issues affect their lives.
I find it really quite upsetting to read how colleagues can be expected to be treated if they don't strike and should anything happen I hope they would be able to take the appropriate action and those responsible dealt with.
As much as I detest the RMT for doing so I am not disputing that you have a right, and mandate, for action but of must be for each individual person to decide, based on their own circumstances and opinions, what they wish to do.
You have no idea what may be happening in someones life that means they do / do not want to do something and to outright bully and ostracise them for doing so cannot be acceptable.
The sad thing is is, while you can easily just cancel your train tickets, some people will have paid for events such as concert tickets, expensive hotels or other things that require the use of the train. They can't necessarily get a refund for that, so will be left paying for things they can no longer attend.
There are plenty of ticket resellers and potential to make a profit too.
Hotels not so much but they can be easily cancelled, there may be a small fee to pay.
As to "requiring" the use of the train. I don't believe that's really the case. The car, for example, is often touted as an infinitely better option for many people. If you can't drive then maybe a taxi would suffice.
Coaches and busses are also available. What about a plane ?
And of course the bycicle is the panacea of travel so that could be a consideration too.
I think someone posted that rail travel is only 2% of all journeys. Not sure the railway is that relevent or even required for a hotel stay before going to a concert.
There are plenty of ticket resellers and potential to make a profit too.
Hotels not so much but they can be easily cancelled, there may be a small fee to pay.
As to "requiring" the use of the train. I don't believe that's really the case. The car, for example, is often touted as an infinitely better option for many people. If you can't drive then maybe a taxi would suffice.
Coaches and busses are also available. What about a plane ?
And of course the bycicle is the panacea of travel so that could be a consideration too.
I think someone posted that rail travel is only 2% of all journeys. Not sure the railway is that relevent or even required for a hotel stay before going to a concert.
Arguing against your own industry isn't a good look. I don't think this is a serious post and I don't understand what you are trying to achieve other than trying to get a reaction.
Unfortunately not. I study journalism (my second job is a newsreader for a local radio station), and as an aspiring BBC broadcaster I am a fan of Huw Edwards. (BBC's News at 10 presenter) It just so happens he is giving a lecture to those on my course, and although the academic year is finished, I have wanted to go for a long time as I would love to meet one of the people who inspired me to join the industry. It looks like I'll just have to fork out for a hotel. Thanks for the suggestion though. What premature timing this strike is!
The sad thing is is, while you can easily just cancel your train tickets, some people will have paid for events such as concert tickets, expensive hotels or other things that require the use of the train. They can't necessarily get a refund for that, so will be left paying for things they can no longer attend.
The problem is that the militants they won't listen to this argument; if anything they will be happy that they causes disruption and see if as a result.
The militants are keen to paint a picture of those who disagree with them being non 'railway workers', but when asked for a definition, either none is forthcoming or its so vague and wooly that actually a lot of the people they dislike come under the umbrella.
So you'd support all other public sector workers engaging in industrial action, so long as you didn't encounter any of them saying something you didn't like on the internet?
'Obviously'...? This is year three for many with no pay rise, when will these 'natural' pay rises kick in? What mechanism will ensure these rises are given if they can only be achieved through the benevolence of an employer or Tory Government?
The fact remains that the rail industry generally pays better than many others, on average. If any industry/employer falls behind in terms of its offering, it will struggle to retain and recruit staff. It's not the case that strikes (or other militant action) are required to gain pay increases.
You're right, there's little chance of it happening because any attempt by them to achieve that will see them demonised in the same way rail staff are here, unfortunately!
I find it really quite upsetting to read how colleagues can be expected to be treated if they don't strike and should anything happen I hope they would be able to take the appropriate action and those responsible dealt with....
Going back to this, and there have been other references to railway workers by other members, I have got the impression @43096does work in the railway industry (though they would be well advised to keep their role confidential of course) and I am puzzled as to howa few people can state that he, @TT-ONR-NRN , myself or anyone else , doesn't, seemingly because we are arguing against those who support strikes?
I am curious to know what this term is deemed to mean by those who use it to try to exclude others.
Does it mean TOC + NR employees only? Front line employees only?
If it includes everyone who works within the rail industry, including all those who are not directly employed by TOCs/NR, you'd be surprised at how many people actually work in the industry.
Where exactly is the line drawn?
The number of people who are deemed not worthy of they title (by a small minority) who actually work within the industry (even if on a part time basis) is perhaps surprisingly large.
Just the whole thought process behind this "solidarity" stuff really. You do a job for money, it's a business transaction. If the company has you in high demand you'll be paid more, if it no longer needs you you'll be out the door. It's the same for everyone.
I do my job for money too. If I decided not to do it for whatever reason I couldn't get too upset if someone stepped in for a while to keep things running, I certainly wouldn't call them disgusting or vermin or whatever was said about them earlier.
Can I? Thanks for telling me. Maybe I like trains too much to leave it. Good money already earned from previous career paths, thanks for reminding me they’re available .
Right, so I don't understand the mentality. If things are really that bad, there are other options. That's what the rest of us do if we think we're getting a bad deal.
Based on what I've seen here I never would now, despite railways being of interest to me (I'm by no means a spotter, just a customer who finds it interesting). It looks like a toxic environment to work in.
I never really get the irritation regarding contingency staff. They've been a part of the railway for years now. The way they are trained and maintain competency, sure, definitely, but that's not the fault of the individuals.
If they decline to participate it does little for their own career prospects - it is an expectation now for those in management grades who are able to do so.
Just because they're covering elements of the train service does not mean they're completely mitigating the impact on the employer. Their own productivity suffers - the ORR has made it clear that they are required to focus on the role they are carrying out and are not for example permitted to work on a laptop on the day job between station stops or in a signalbox.
I don't believe in sticking it to the public and using the impact on them as a measure of the success or failure of industrial action - it's an outdated notion. Sucking up significant amounts of management time will still have an impact and over a longer time period.
I've heard similar comments before when we've had things like ticket acceptance during guards strikes elsewhere. People rumbling that we shouldn't be helping "their passengers" as we are undermining our colleagues. I actually disagreed entirely - showing our best face to the customers to try and help them get to where they needed to be albeit in a protracted manner shows them the value of the staff who are taking action and gives us a chance to talk to them in a supportive manner if they enquire as to what it's all about, as they often did.
Ultimately it is what it is - contingency staff themselves are nothing to get upset over and I take comfort in the fact that their very presence generally means there's an impact on the company that doesn't affect the passengers. I genuinely like the vast majority of the travelling public despite their foibles and it wounds me when our internal issues affect their lives.
Just the whole thought process behind this "solidarity" stuff really. You do a job for money, it's a business transaction. If the company has you in high demand you'll be paid more, if it no longer needs you you'll be out the door. It's the same for everyone.
Also I've witnessed some drivers make remarks towards other roles which are displaying anything but solidarity to other roles; it reminds me of when an older sibling can say/do something to their younger sibling but if anyone else does, they don't accept it
Based on what I've seen here I never would now, despite railways being of interest to me (I'm by no means a spotter, just a customer who finds it interesting). It looks like a toxic environment to work in.
I've read a lot of this thread and I can't be bothered to get into all the politics of it.
However, what I will say is that the monthly fee for being in the union is worth its weight in gold should you ever find yourself needing their assistance and legal advice.
Just the whole thought process behind this "solidarity" stuff really. You do a job for money, it's a business transaction. If the company has you in high demand you'll be paid more, if it no longer needs you you'll be out the door. It's the same for everyone.
I do my job for money too. If I decided not to do it for whatever reason I couldn't get too upset if someone stepped in for a while to keep things running, I certainly wouldn't call them disgusting or vermin or whatever was said about them earlier.
Right, so I don't understand the mentality. If things are really that bad, there are other options. That's what the rest of us do if we think we're getting a bad deal.
Based on what I've seen here I never would now, despite railways being of interest to me (I'm by no means a spotter, just a customer who finds it interesting). It looks like a toxic environment to work in.
So you agree then that if you are in high demand you deserve more. The industry is short of drivers , so we are in demand. Thanks for supporting our pay rise request.
To be fair the ROSCOs are profit making businesses which have done nothing more than entering into contractual arrangements beneficial to themselves.
That is what profit making businesses are supposed to do - indeed their directors are legally bound to act in the best (financial) interests of their shareholders. If those arrangements happen to be at the expense of the tax payer, more fool those who negotiated on the taxpayers’ side! The shareholders are also often institutional investors such as pension funds.
The fault is with the system, rather than with the ROSCOs themselves.
It comes down to the bottom line. It costs substantially more to lease a train over its lifetime than to buy it outright. Also leading is a revenue cost which adds to subsidy, whereas buying outright is a capital cost which can be seen as investment.
So you agree then that if you are in high demand you deserve more. The industry is short of drivers , so we are in demand. Thanks for supporting our pay rise request.
I agree if you are in demand then market forces will dictate you are paid more.
The only thing I would disagree with is the word 'deserve'. I am not suggesting you don't deserve your current wages or an increase, just that people who do other roles which are not in such demand may equally 'deserve' a pay rise but have less success in securing one.
I've read a lot of this thread and I can't be bothered to get into all the politics of it.
However, what I will say is that the monthly fee for being in the union is worth its weight in gold should you ever find yourself needing their assistance and legal advice.
Oh most definitely the best £34 you can spend each month if finding yourself in bother. I was in that situation back in 2001 & seriously expecting to be demoted from the driving grade which was only a couple of years after getting into it. The assistance I got was overwhelming & I will never forget the senior ASLEF member representing me saying “don’t worry if you get dismissed today as I will get you reinstated at the appeal”. Thankfully it didn’t come to that.
Oh most definitely the best £34 you can spend each month if finding yourself in bother. I was in that situation back in 2001 & seriously expecting to be demoted from the driving grade which was only a couple of years after getting into it. The assistance I got was overwhelming & I will never forget the senior ASLEF member representing me saying “don’t worry if you get dismissed today as I will get you reinstated at the appeal”. Thankfully it didn’t come to that.
This is the only reason I am still a union member in my non railway job.
I don't think their involvement in pay negotiations results in better outcomes. Twice my job has been put at risk of redundancy and the union didn't do a great deal to support me. But I know colleagues who have been wrongly accused of wrongdoing and the union have been a great help.
Similar to the railways, there are certain things within my role that, in extreme circumstances, could result in criminal prosecution and a prison sentence. I hope I never find myself in that situation but I am glad to know the union will have my back if I do.
This is difficult. They wouldn't specifically be able to prevent redundancy, but their presence is there to ensure the procedures laid down are fair and followed.
My critique was of the way that the Tory government which created the botched privatisation in the 1990s was determined that it would be seen as risk free to investors. Hence, whenever a franchisee was in difficulty it would be allowed to walk away from the franchise and either the state or another company would take over. Similarly, the ROSCOs always make a profit, thanks largely to the soft terms they were deliberately given. This is what I mean by risk free capitalism, and it is not healthy. Rather similar to the way that the banks were baled out - by the same Labour government which did nothing about remedying the botched railway privatisation, so I am not being party political.
I have no wish to live in China, but I believe that we live in a democracy here, with freedom of expression.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This would backfire; many more trains would be cancelled on the day following a strike day. It seems that neither the government nor the RMT care about the travelling public, who are just a pawn in the political battle between a union bashing government and a militant, rather selfish union. A plague on both their houses.
So you agree then that if you are in high demand you deserve more. The industry is short of drivers , so we are in demand. Thanks for supporting our pay rise request.
In my opinion, drivers like us shouldn't be living to our current wage, we should live to around 80% of our wage, that way over time we can build up enough capital to be able to take part in serious action defending our terms and conditions. Remember what Peter Wilkinson of the DfT said a few years ago about drivers having to pay off expensive cars etc. During my first year as a qualified driver, I budgeted as though I were still a trainee. Far too many members of our generation are interesting in living for today and showing off on social media rather than budgeting properly.
I’m pleased for you that you are financially secure. Not everybody is in the same position. I’ve always had a problem with money and now my finances are in a shocking state. But this isn’t really the forum to be discussing it.
Regarding union subs, the amount I put in over about 10 years would have paid for a lot of advice/representation, so my new policy is to simply save the money and if one day I need it, I've got it. Any job I do, I have to enjoy it or I wouldn't do it.
Going back again to the debate about 'railway workers', I don't think anyone should be made to feel they should disclose what job they do, but I've seen some terrible assumptions made. @TT-ONR-NRN has come in for some stick and, while I would advise he doesn't disclose any information regarding his employment, I will point out to those who have been making assumptions about him, that it is possible to have more than one occupation / job and/or to be studying while working; I know a lot of people who do (or have done) this and it is a lot more common than some people think. It is dangerous to make assumptions about what jobs people do or don't do.
As for the ROSCOs, I am not sure it is entirely without risk, but I do broadly agree with those who express concern at how the industry is structured but it's probably best to discuss this further elsewhere; it's a complex subject in its own right. We do have some experts on this matter on the forum and I would definitely listen to what they have to say on this matter as it's never as simple as it seems from the outside.
@nanstallon - your clarification makes a lot more sense and is not unreasonable; that wasn't how I was interpreting your post at all, and so the explanation is most welcome.
and once people have adapted to managing without trains, they won't necessarily all flock back to the railway after the strike is over. How many coal miners are left working in UK?
I've read a lot of this thread and I can't be bothered to get into all the politics of it.
However, what I will say is that the monthly fee for being in the union is worth its weight in gold should you ever find yourself needing their assistance and legal advice.
and once people have adapted to managing without trains, they won't necessarily all flock back to the railway after the strike is over. How many coal miners are left working in UK?
But the problem with this argument is neither side will 'win', because they are both correct (to a point).
Some people won't come back or will take years to come back because they have been put off. During some recent disruption I was appalled at how customers were treated and several were certainly put off making future journeys; I know because I heard some of the discussions they were having!
But others - such as people like me - will continue to use the railway regardless.
The railway is increasingly relying on people who make discretionary and/or occasional journeys rather than people who have no choice every single day. The railway is also at a stage where it needs all the income it can get. Those who act against the interests of the wider industry are - in my opinion - being selfish. But others will disagree and we will never reconcile that.
I have a question. Every time someone says the strikes are only about pay, a rail worker will claim that it's about more than pay, yet will never elaborate further. So from my (and several other's) point of view, you're standing next to the body with a bloody knife and sadistic smile on your face, saying 'it wasn't me guv'. So can someone who voted for strike action please tell us what more this is about?
I have a question. Every time someone says the strikes are only about pay, a rail worker will claim that it's about more than pay, yet will never elaborate further. So from my (and several other's) point of view, you're standing next to the body with a bloody knife and sadistic smile on your face, saying 'it wasn't me guv'. So can someone who voted for strike action please tell us what more this is about?
You are likely to get deluged with answers. However it is a good point, and speaking from a Northern conductors point of view, it's about pay, just pay, and nothing but pay. So why the hell have we been cast into a dispute involving NR staff who's grievances will be so much harder to settle? It makes no sense. We know the government are pulling the strings, but by lumping us all into the same action it will be so much more difficult and costly. I'm not sure us as conductors will suffer this for very long.
I have a question. Every time someone says the strikes are only about pay, a rail worker will claim that it's about more than pay, yet will never elaborate further. So from my (and several other's) point of view, you're standing next to the body with a bloody knife and sadistic smile on your face, saying 'it wasn't me guv'. So can someone who voted for strike action please tell us what more this is about?
I think it’s very contrasting whether you work for Network Rail or a Train Operator. The former have been threatened more with job cuts whereas the latter haven’t so pay is the underlying factor.
So you agree then that if you are in high demand you deserve more. The industry is short of drivers , so we are in demand. Thanks for supporting our pay rise request.
Why is the industry short of drivers? I don't believe it's a question of the number of applicants, which is where price is the key point in competitive markets. Reduce the number of employers of qualified drivers, and the competition on price will fall. Ditto if the industry can recruit more drivers so that establishments stop being so tight.
Just to be clear, you are happy to pay more tax to fund this, correct? And if you are, great, but would the majority of people?
On a related note, I personally would be happy to pay more tax to enable rail fares to be reduced in price, and for every staff to have a visible staff presence in the form of someone constantly patrolling the train (or all stations to be staffed in the case of a suburban network like LO). But would most people be happy to do this? I think we all know the answer to that!
It's quite clear we're not going to agree on the morality of striking, as I suspect we approach it from diametrically opposed perspectives. However, one area we likely agree is that the railway does need to modernise, potentially to a great extent. The difference is I simply don't accept that modernisation should come at the expense of staff, in large part or small. It is entirely possible to make changes without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(And yes, I'd be happy to pay more tax, for all sorts of things, including your proposal.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The militants are keen to paint a picture of those who disagree with them being non 'railway workers', but when asked for a definition, either none is forthcoming or its so vague and wooly that actually a lot of the people they dislike come under the umbrella.
I am not a railway worker and never have been. I will also be severely inconvenienced by the strike. Despite this I am fully supportive! You are doing the same thing you accuse others of by suggesting this is the railway versus the world.
It's ALWAYS about PAY! Even when the unions say it's about safety or job roles or anything else, it all comes down to PAY. As someone else says, unions generally do a great job in supporting their members with legal and other matters. Where they go wrong is when their leaders use their ideology to take advantage of a situation like the one we're in now. No thought for the bigger picture and the negative impact on all the people impacted by the strikes at a difficult time for many. I'm alright Jack! They simply don't care and often display the same behaviours they accuse the people they are negotiating with of. I really despise this government (I know technically it's NOT the government but they provide the funds) but I hope they win this one and the unions lose it.
Why is the industry short of drivers? I don't believe it's a question of the number of applicants, which is where price is the key point in competitive markets. Reduce the number of employers of qualified drivers, and the competition on price will fall. Ditto if the industry can recruit more drivers so that establishments stop being so tight.
Everyone seems to be short of staff at the moment. I've never seen so many "we're hiring!" signs everywhere on every type of business. I'm getting several LinkedIn messages a day from recruiters asking me to apply to this job or that. I don't quite understand what's driving it.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
.
