Rail strikes discussion

[gazzaa2]

And those passengers who would have considered using the train to go on holiday will decide to take the car instead (or even fly if flying is an option [i.e. if they live on a bus route which serves the airport]). They simply won't trust the railway.

Already has happened for a couple at work who had booked to use the trains to travel to Edinburgh next month (one way via WCML, the other via ECML), they have cancelled the train tickets due to the risk of future strikes and instead booked flights.

I've cancelled any plans of using the train for leisure over the summer, unless it's a last minute decision to go somewhere on the day/that week and the trains are running, I just won't risk it.

 

[Efini92]

Well thinking you are entitled to an extra payment to check tickets with a scanner which is basically the same thing as checking tickets manually for a start.

That’s not a rule though is it?

 

[Fokx]

Well thinking you are entitled to an extra payment to check tickets with a scanner which is basically the same thing as checking tickets manually for a start.

That’s not a rule but is a topic that’s been done to death on this forum.

Checking tickets with a scanner is arguably not the same as manually checking them. If it was, the TOC’s wouldn’t be trying to move towards it or offer financial incentives to do it in the first place. It wasn’t the employees who came up with the idea for payment, it was the TOC’s themselves.

 

[Iskra]

Well thinking you are entitled to an extra payment to check tickets with a scanner which is basically the same thing as checking tickets manually for a start.

That was a sop for making up the loss of commission from onboard ticket sales after the introduction of buy before you board. It is an entitlement and one that seems reasonable to me at least.

 

[nanstallon]

Im just wondering if this a serious comment? So your saying after 3 days of striking nobody will use the railways again ?

It's a sweeping & inaccurate comment, i don't understand the comparison with coal miners striking with the resulting industry being virtually closed down.

Could we really see the majority of passengers not ever travelling by train after next week's strike action !

No, I did not say that. I was saying that people would not necessarily come back to the railway - most would, but quite a few may not, and as rail travel becomes increasingly discretionary, the captive market of commuters is getting smaller. I agree that one three day strike may not make much difference, but this summer is likely to see a lot more strikes, and that will destroy the reliability of the railway. If the government wins (and it will), there will be a lot of cutbacks. After 1985, a lot of mines closed, but it took many years before the coal mining industry was finished off. Following defeat, the railway unions will be unable to stop the cutbacks that will be imposed by a vengeful Tory government. There will still be trains from London to Glasgow, but look at some of the extreme maps in the Serpell Report to see what may well come to pass.

 

[nedchester]

Because if you slavishly adopt that you’d suffer a cut in pay by thousands per year… which is the union’s point…

You must know that, so why misrepresent the position?

I actually think the RMT should get close to an inflation pay rise but get rid of allowances for technology etc. These things should have been sorted years ago by the privatised companies but they kicked the can down the road.

In this dispute the pay is the easy part it’s the allowances for different extras that need sorting. And it’s different for different TOCs and even within TOCs. Bonkers!

 

[Fokx]

Checking tickets is checking tickets by whatever means.

One is checking tickets, one is data collection.

It’s these little allowances for this and that which are muddying the waters for this dispute.

You’re comparing the TPE dispute to the national dispute. Both are completely separate and are ongoing. If one dispute was settled, the other would still be ongoing (subject to re-ballot this month)

I actually think the RMT should get close to an inflation pay rise but get rid of allowances for technology etc. These things should have been sorted years ago by the privatised companies but they kicked the can down the road.

It benefits the company and it benefits the employee, it’s win win for both and not much different from an employee incentive bonus found in most work places

In this dispute the pay is the easy part it’s the allowances for different extras that need sorting. And it’s different for different TOCs and even within TOCs. Bonkers!

Now that I completely agree with.

 

[the sniper]

What am I suggesting?

I don't think there is any chance your pay isn't going to rise but it's a question of how much and when; striking is unlikely to work as if the Government caved in it would only invite more of that sort of behaviour. They need to stand firm on this.

I'm not really sure anymore. Isn't that exactly the issue? The 'natural' answer was seemingly none, then it'd be very little and not for a very long time, without dispute. How long should rail staff be expected to wait? If it weren't for the current dispute it'd have been four years at least for many staff with no pay rise.

This is so far off the mark it's unreal ; what sort of workplaces are you talking about anyway? It's not about "befriending"; again you do like to twist people's words.


I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve other than further turning the general public against your cause. If that's your aim, well done!

What's so far off the mark? That people won't in reality be calling people scabs or parasites in the workplace, because of the inevitable consequences of doing so, so people here needn't get too outraged about it? In reality the extent of any issues will largely be the same as any other person in any workplace exhibiting any behaviour that might make them less popular.

 

[windingroad]

I really think all this talk about passengers abandoning the railway for good is so overblown. Predictions of catastrophe and doom are constantly being predicted on this forum, as if passengers are so fickle that the slightest inconvenience will cause them to swear off trains forever.

Crises, even ones as big as COVID-19, are ultimately transitory. Strikes may temporarily reduce passengers but they will return once resolved, as they always do.

 

[miami]

Well no, the vast majority of railway staff haven’t had a payrise at all since 2019. That’s kinda why we are 45 pages into this thread in a matter of days.

I suspect the average person who has received 15% rise over the last 3 years and is looking at another 2-3% is thinking "why should they get more"

Reality is that people in public sector driven pay areas have not had the pay increases that the private sector has for the last 3 years, and even a 10% rise today would not catch up to 2019 levels.

But that's not what people will think, and that is potentially an existential crisis for the railway, the government wants to use this to break the back of the unions.

Sadly I have heard "our members haven't had a rise for 2 years, bleet bleet front line workers etc" which means nothing to me. They haven't mentioned that the average wage has increased X% in the last 3 years but the average rail wage has increased Y% and all they want is to narrow (not even close) that gap.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I really think all this talk about passengers abandoning the railway for good is so overblown. Predictions of catastrophe and doom are constantly being predicted on this forum, as if passengers are so fickle that the slightest inconvenience will cause them to swear off trains forever.

Crises, even ones as big as COVID-19, are ultimately transitory. Strikes may temporarily reduce passengers but they will return once resolved, as they always do.

But if the RMT get what they want out of this strike, how long before they strike again to get a little more, or because they want something else and know all they have to do is strike to get it? Where is the line drawn?

 

[Horizon22]

I am referring to 'the railway' as the entity seen by the travelling public, of course there are detailed nuances to labour over.

Evidently; there's probably hundreds of different roles, and maybe about a dozen or so different "sectors" within each TOC, let alone NR, the DfT or FOCs.

 

[windingroad]

But if the RMT get what they want out of this strike, how long before they strike again to get a little more, or because they want something else and know all they have to do is strike to get it? Where is the line drawn?

Are you suggesting strikes be banned entirely? The slippery slope argument you're posing could be applied to any industrial action, in any industry.

 

[the sniper]

But if the RMT get what they want out of this strike, how long before they strike again to get a little more, or because they want something else and know all they have to do is strike to get it? Where is the line drawn?

Working in the industry you should know that pay talks are scheduled, they don't occur randomly. I'm not sure why pay going up 'a little more' at yearly intervals is considered untoward, particularly at times of rising costs/inflation?

 

[baz962]

We left the depot on a single yellow and you made me late (you’ve realised who I am now ). Our job is truly a sport of kings, isn’t it. Privileged to do it and we do earn well for it.

Let’s hope our RMT colleagues are successful in their endeavours.

I made you late pfft.

 

[windingroad]

Working in the industry you should know that pay talks are scheduled, they don't occur randomly. I'm not sure why pay going up 'a little more' at yearly intervals is considered untoward, particularly at times of rising costs/inflation?

Haven't you heard? Strikes are exponential now!

 

[gabrielhj07]

Yes, the two main forms of 'protected' industrial action in the UK are 1) the complete withdrawal of labour - a strike, in other words, and 2) doing only the minimum required to fulfil the terms of employment, i.e. 'work to rule', which includes overtime bans and the like.

Employees on strike forfeit their pay for the time they're on strike, and have that time deducted from their duration of employment when things like statutory redundancy payments are calculated. On the other hand, employees working to rule are paid because they are doing exactly what their job requires them to do, even though the withdrawal of "above and beyond" working like overtime can still cause the company losses.

There is no middle ground - employees who turn up and claim their pay despite doing less than their contracts require, or who deliberately do their jobs badly, are subject to disciplinary proceedings and can be dismissed for misconduct.

Thanks for this useful explaination.

 

[yorkie]

That’s not a rule but is a topic that’s been done to death on this forum.

Checking tickets with a scanner is arguably not the same as manually checking them. If it was, the TOC’s wouldn’t be trying to move towards it or offer financial incentives to do it in the first place. It wasn’t the employees who came up with the idea for payment, it was the TOC’s themselves.

I can't imagine having such awkward conversations with an employer; I'd be embarrassed to.

One is checking tickets, one is data collection.

You’re comparing the TPE dispute to the national dispute. Both are completely separate and are ongoing. If one dispute was settled, the other would still be ongoing (subject to re-ballot this month)

It benefits the company and it benefits the employee, it’s win win for both and not much different from an employee incentive bonus found in most work places


Now that I completely agree with.

To be honest I actually agree with the idea of giving TPE the same deal that Northern have; it's a great idea. However what I can't agree with is the idea of refusing to scan tickets until the company agrees. I personally feel the company is best off not agreeing to any such deal, while that refusal to scan exists, as giving in just encourages such behaviour and will cause the company further problems down the line.

The DfT, TOCs etc need to avoid rewarding poor behaviour; all too often they have caved in and this just creates more demands further down the road.

I'm not really sure anymore. Isn't that exactly the issue? The 'natural' answer was seemingly none, then it'd be very little and not for a very long time, without dispute. How long should rail staff be expected to wait? If it weren't for the current dispute it'd have been four years at least for many staff with no pay rise.

Well in order to remain competitive in the marketplace they will have to offer a rise sooner or later; that's how it works!

What's so far off the mark?

The idea that many other workplaces are as toxic as you describe; I've never experienced anything like that.

That people won't in reality be calling people scabs or parasites in the workplace, because of the inevitable consequences of doing so, so people here needn't get too outraged about it?

I don't doubt that it happens; we've seen rail staff say so on this forum, but it will be very much a (very vocal) minority who act this way.

In reality the extent of any issues will largely be the same as any other person in any workplace exhibiting any behaviour that might make them less popular.

So why are some in the industry so keen to paint a different picture? If you had disagreed with them, you'd have more credence now.

 

[SignallerJohn]

But if the RMT get what they want out of this strike, how long before they strike again to get a little more, or because they want something else and know all they have to do is strike to get it? Where is the line drawn?

I heard next year we want 50% and a 3 day working week of 8 hour shifts. And the year after I’m hearing 1 day weeks.

 

[windingroad]

The DfT, TOCs etc need to avoid rewarding poor behaviour; all too often they have caved in and this just creates more demands further down the road.

I know you aren't deliberately trying to be provocative here, but you must see how patronising a phrase like "need to avoid rewarding poor behaviour" is. These people are not pets to be rewarded or punished at will.

 

[yorkie]

I really think all this talk about passengers abandoning the railway for good is so overblown. Predictions of catastrophe and doom are constantly being predicted on this forum, as if passengers are so fickle that the slightest inconvenience will cause them to swear off trains forever.

Crises, even ones as big as COVID-19, are ultimately transitory. Strikes may temporarily reduce passengers but they will return once resolved, as they always do.

As I said earlier, it's not a binary thing.

It won't lead to a massive drop in customer numbers, but it will be a case of having to endure a loss of frequency on some services, staff reductions, possibly some ticket price increases as the Government may seek to shift the burden off the taxpayer and so on.

So, no catastrophe and doom (is anyone actually saying that, or is this something else that has been made up?) but definitely not positive news for the railway at a time when revenues are already down by an amount that is enough to cause significant concern.

I know you aren't deliberately trying to be provocative here, but you must see how patronising a phrase like "need to avoid rewarding poor behaviour" is. These people are not pets to be rewarded or punished at will.

What I said is absolutely true, and the behaviour is poor. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative.

I heard next year we want 50% and a 3 day working week of 8 hour shifts. And the year after I’m hearing 1 day weeks.

The use of hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument.

 

[ar10642]

Because if you slavishly adopt that you’d suffer a cut in pay by thousands per year… which is the union’s point…

You must know that, so why misrepresent the position?

Why would you lose thousands by checking tickets in a different way?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Working in the industry you should know that pay talks are scheduled, they don't occur randomly. I'm not sure why pay going up 'a little more' at yearly intervals is considered untoward, particularly at times of rising costs/inflation?

I do, but I’m also talking about other strikes. Strikes over how the 701s can be operated, how long the Gatwick Express can be, how EMR connect is run, etc.

I heard next year we want 50% and a 3 day working week of 8 hour shifts. And the year after I’m hearing 1 day weeks.

Very witty. I’m sure such drama really strengthens your argument.

 

[yorkie]

I really think all this talk about passengers abandoning the railway for good is so overblown. Predictions of catastrophe and doom are constantly being predicted on this forum, as if passengers are so fickle that the slightest inconvenience will cause them to swear off trains forever.

Crises, even ones as big as COVID-19, are ultimately transitory. Strikes may temporarily reduce passengers but they will return once resolved, as they always do.

Any potential financial crisis will of course be averted, by reducing frequencies and that sort of thing. Or not going ahead with planned expansions or frequency uplifts, not restoring services that were dropped in the last couple of years. That's all okay with you, yes?

 

[windingroad]

So, no catastrophe and doom (is anyone actually saying that, or is this something else that has been made up?) but definitely not positive news for the railway at a time when revenues are already down by an amount that is enough to cause significant concern.

The very next post after mine called it a "potential existential threat", which would seem to prove my point.

 

[ar10642]

I really think all this talk about passengers abandoning the railway for good is so overblown. Predictions of catastrophe and doom are constantly being predicted on this forum, as if passengers are so fickle that the slightest inconvenience will cause them to swear off trains forever.

Crises, even ones as big as COVID-19, are ultimately transitory. Strikes may temporarily reduce passengers but they will return once resolved, as they always do.

They always *did* when everyone was forced to travel into a physical workplace every day. A lot of people no longer have to do that. I mostly work from home, but when I do go to the office I pay about £20 extra to go by train so I can work/read a book on the way. Make it impossible to do this for 6 months (or however long this is going to go on for) and I have to drive instead I might get used to it and not bother with the railway anymore, just as one example.

 

[windingroad]

What I said is absolutely true, and the behaviour is poor. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative.

Yes, obviously it's my prerogative, but do you understand why some might find the way you describe workers somewhat patronising?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2022 ==

They always *did* when everyone was forced to travel into a physical workplace every day. A lot of people no longer have to do that. I mostly work from home, but when I do go to the office I pay about £20 extra to go by train so I can work/read a book on the way. Make it impossible to do this for 6 months (or however long this is going to go on for) and I have to drive instead I might get used to it and not bother with the railway anymore, just as one example.

Sure, but working patterns are already changing. Growth in the railway is likely to be primarily from leisure, and there's no reason why the railway can't facilitate that and continue to grow passenger numbers, much as it did in the past with commuters.

 

[the sniper]

I do, but I’m also talking about other strikes. Strikes over how the 701s can be operated, how long the Gatwick Express can be, how EMR connect is run, etc.

So essentially anything goes. Do you not think such an approach would affect your own employment?

 

[windingroad]

I do, but I’m also talking about other strikes. Strikes over how the 701s can be operated, how long the Gatwick Express can be, how EMR connect is run, etc.

Okay, but like I said earlier: what's your solution? Would you ban striking? Because this slippery slope argument can be applied to any and all industrial action.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Okay, but like I said earlier: what's your solution? Would you ban striking? Because this slippery slope argument can be applied to any and all industrial action.

I simply believe the more regular the RMT make these strikes, the less seriously the reason for the strike will be taken the next time they strike.