Rail strikes discussion

[Bletchleyite]

Why strangely?

Because the NHS makes the railway look efficient?

 

[Need2]

Having followed this thread since the start I have come to the conclusion that certain forum members could run the country.
Or at least they think they have the knowledge of everything and are quite capable of doing so!

 

[Wolfie]

The NR dispute is also about and more importantly staff cuts in maintainance, (and we know what the result of that would be) if you are happy for maintainance to be cut back even further....fair enough !

That is, of course, a whole different issue. I have a great deal more sympathy for RMT's case in that case.

 

[dk1]

The passenger groups on FB that I'm on are 95% against it.

Hardly surprising.

 

[northwichcat]

While annoying, drivers need a payrise otherwise services will only get worse as they cannot attract new drivers on just above minimum wage.

The difference with bus driver strikes is indeed that it's commercially justifiable to give bus drivers pay rises. There's a shortage of people with the right qualifications and those with the right qualifications are opting to drive other vehicles, as they can earn more that way. In theory a bus drivers dispute is easier to resolve because it's not in the shareholders interests for the bus operator to lose work due to staff shortages.

 

[ar10642]

I have seen quite a bit of support. In fact when Grant Shapps has posted on both Twitter and LinkedIn, there seems to be a fair few people giving him stick and supporting the strikes. Of course some side with him.

Yes, but what people say on Twitter and what actually happens in real life are worlds apart.

 

[Wolfie]

So the government wrecked the railways economy with its lockdown policy ... railway workers to blame.
Inflation running at 11% due to government lockdown policy ... railway workers should be content with a 9% paycut judging by the risible offer from government and refusal to mitigate its unsafe modernisation proposals.

Remind me again why strike action is unreasonable? Government to blame, government to blame and er, government to blame.

... and railway workers should be the only ones exempt from the consequences of a pandemic? You are having a laugh!

 

[Falcon1200]

A 10% rise, for one industry, with the tiniest fraction of the population, is barely going to touch the sides.

Although if rail staff do get 10%, a lot of other people will demand that too !

There is going to be a higher rate of incident next week.

Maybe, but from observation of managers working signalling centres during the 1994 Signallers dispute, they were experienced, knowledgeable staff who took extra care to do the job safely and correctly. The odd mistake was made, eg wrong routings, but these occur when the 'real' Signallers are on duty. The RMT made a big thing about wrong routings, making sure the details got into the media, knowing full well that Railtrack was not going to say these things happen every day !

 

[matacaster]

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.

You should bear in mind that for many years public sector pay lagged behind private sector pay. However public sector pensions were generally quite generous. Then, until the last three years, public sector pay overtook private pay (for most jobs) and private pensions stopped being final salary, yet public sector pensions generally weren't affected. Over last three years, there have been little or no rises in many jobs, but probably generally more in private sector. I don't really think railway workers have been particularly harshly treated especially when you consider many well-paid private sector jobs disappeared (eg pilots)

 

[baz962]

Yes, but what people say on Twitter and what actually happens in real life are worlds apart.

Well I'm on trains around five or six times a week and eleven hours a day and In uniform and haven't heard anything, either way. Of course some people won't support them , but others do.

 

[Wolfie]

It seems to me that we are in this bizarre situation where both the actual negotiating parties want to do that and come to a solution but the TOCs are being stopped by the DfT/HMT/Government. But then as we've seen when the RMT have requested to talk directly to the people holding the TOCs leads they've been told no, they are not part of the negotiations.

Then get you noses out and let both parties talk freely!

HMG could easily let the TOCs and TUs talk. HMT would, of course, state that they will not provide one additional penny piece.

 

[northwichcat]

Although if rail staff do get 10%, a lot of other people will demand more than that !

There's a lot of public sector organisations where pay has increased at a much slower rate than on the railways. If the railways get 10% funded by the Treasury, then you can bet people will (justifiably) claim the 1.2 million NHS staff deserve a lot more than 10%.

 

[Wolfie]

You should bear in mind that for many years public sector pay lagged behind private sector pay. However public sector pensions were generally quite generous. Then, until the last three years, public sector pay overtook private pay (for most jobs) and private pensions stopped being final salary, yet public sector pensions generally weren't affected. Over last three years, there have been little or no rises in many jobs, but probably generally more in private sector. I don't really think railway workers have been particularly harshly treated especially when you consider many well-paid private sector jobs disappeared (eg pilots)

Most public sector pensions ceased to be final salary based some time ago. Most are now on a career avarage basis. Oh, and average (normally mean) payrates are deceptive - an apples and oranges exercise. The civil service is, for example, pretty much a graduate employers now as most support roles have been outsourced.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've stated the case about 5 times throughout this thread. Is it asking too much for people to read and respond to what is written rather than just pretending it doesn't exist?

so have I.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say it (or imply it), but reducing the number of maintenance staff does not mean a railway that has lower maintenance standards or is less safe.

in the same way that the railway has reduced the number of signallers, and the standard operation is no less safe.

 

[Wolfie]

Because the NHS makes the railway look efficient?

My experiences of both the railway and the NHS suggest that you are far from accurate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My experiences of both the railway and the NHS suggest that you are far from accurate.

Either way, they are both grossly inefficient organisations. Every time I use the NHS I can see a business process that could be improved massively, and I don't even mean to cut staff, just to make things happen smoothly and make better use of them. Though I'll admit that my job does involve business process improvement so I guess I would!

British Rail was efficient - very efficient - what we have now really isn't. So in that regard I do agree with Mr Shapps.

 

[43066]

You are the sort of person who would want most taxpayers to shut the railway down and put you on the dole.

Am I indeed?

It's just more and more reasons to never join this frankly ridiculous industry.

Those of us working on the railway kinda like it…

Nobody is asking you to to join it? Other industries are available.

 

[Wolfie]

Am I indeed?



Those of us working on the railway kinda like it…

Nobody is asking you to to join it? Other industries are available.

You kinda like other people paying for it too. Your attitude is hardly a greet advert for us to do so!

 

[43066]

You kinda like other people paying for it too. Your attitude is hardly a greet advert for us to do so!

I must say, that’s a severe case of pot kettle black, coming from a civil servant!

The railway is (and always will be) partially funded through subsidy, partially funded by tax payers. Everyones’ wages have to be paid by *someone*, so I’m unclear as to the nature of your criticism?

 

[jayah]

For that you would have to ask Network Rail. (not the daily mail) However, we have a new track monitoring tool specifically for Network Rail to check the track. I very much get the impression that it will reduce the need for patrolling and find faults quicker than humans can. Should all patrolling be stopped ? I'm not sure because I don't work for Network Rail so I don't understand were they patrol, what they look for and if the human is required or not. I have no doubt that when someone photgraphs it, it will get posted on the forum and discussed.

That whole article is very disengenuous.

The point I made is that the unions are resisting replacing patrolling with technology.

The RMT oppose anything that involves less work for their members, so the only remedy would be to implement the tech on top of the full patrolling. See online ticketing and contactless, but with no reductions in station ticket offices for more details.

Either it has already happened in which case, what are they striking for? Or it hasn't and they are resisting safer and more effective processes.

 

[Need2]

There's a lot of public sector organisations where pay has increased at a much slower rate than on the railways. If the railways get 10% funded by the Treasury, then you can bet people will (justifiably) claim the 1.2 million NHS staff deserve a lot more than 10%.

But looking at the pay figures of the NHS from the earlier post then you’ll see that the NHS is already spending too much on wages!

 

[Wolfie]

But looking at the pay figures of the NHS from the earlier post then you’ll see that the NHS is already spending too much on wages!

Football clubs spend 70%+, your point is?

 

[2021_Signaller]

so have I.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say it (or imply it), but reducing the number of maintenance staff does not mean a railway that has lower maintenance standards or is less safe.

in the same way that the railway has reduced the number of signallers, and the standard operation is no less safe.

Yes it does, and I've explained clearly and simply why it does. Yet you clearly haven't read what I've written. Go and read it. I'm not going to post the same thing again and again. The consequences of the so called 'modernisation' plan is bad for operations staff, bad for the industry and bad for passengers.

 

[jayah]

Better tell old Granty that then, he’ll soon cut unaffordable wages.

Have a think when you next have an appointment in the NHS how many people are between you and the caregiver?

Pretty extraordinary to be spending 47% of a very large budget on wages in 2022.

Can you name many sectors other than schools?

 

[windingroad]

The passenger groups on FB that I'm on are 95% against it.

To be fair, the demographic on Facebook tends to be older and more conservative, so I'm unsurprised that this would be the case. I don't know anyone under 40 who really uses it anymore.

 

[jayah]

Because the NHS makes the railway look efficient?

One hires locums at eye watering rates, due to running permanent staff shortages in key roles acting as an inflexible monopoly buyer of labour and another has 10yr old trains going into store while funding new purchases of rolling stock in the same role.

It's a competition for who can the be the least, not most efficient.

 

[2021_Signaller]

... and railway workers should be the only ones exempt from the consequences of a pandemic? You are having a laugh!

To laugh would be to compare something that just couldn't be imagined ... like bailing out the banks to the tune of £trillions. Not busting the railways and then expecting the railway workers to pay for it with jobs cut, safety cut and a real terms salary cut of 11%.

 

[ar10642]

Am I indeed?



Those of us working on the railway kinda like it…

Nobody is asking you to to join it? Other industries are available.

You're right of course. I am thinking ahead to later life (15-20 years maybe) when I maybe can't keep doing software development. Younger ones are going to come in and be able to keep up with the latest developments much better than I am when I start pushing 60, I'm sure ageism might start kicking in too and maybe the choices get made for me. The railways interest me so I thought maybe it could be one of many options for later life.

But this forum has put me right off based purely on the things the staff themselves have said. I'd want to come in, do a job well and come home, not be part of all... this.

 

[Stephen42]

£47k is well above any national average and very few organisations in 2022 spend half their entire budget on staff pay.

You are quoting staff costs per FTE not headline salary. Staff costs includes overtime, bonuses, national insurance and pension contributions on top. The national mean full-time PAYE was £38k last year, with employer NIC and pension contributions it's more like £44k.

As a comparison staff costs per FTE in rail according to ORR were £57k franchised train operators and £61k Network Rail.

Franchised train operator staff costs were £3.6 billion in 2020-21, a slight decrease of £14 million (0.4%) from 2019-20. This includes salary costs, holiday pay, sickness pay, overtime and other associated staff costs.
2.28 Franchised train operators’ full time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers increased by 493 (0.8%) to 62,221. The average staff cost per FTE was £57,450, a decrease of 1.2% since 2019-20.
2.29 Since 2015-16, full time equivalent staff numbers increased by 5,678 (10.0%). The average staff cost per FTE has increased by £3,657 (6.8%) since 2015-16.
Rolling stock costs

Network Rail’s staff expenditure in 2020-21 was £2.7 billion, a 5.8% annual increase. The average total cost for a full time equivalent (FTE) member of staff was £61,249, an annual decrease of 1.0%. This was largely due to an increase in total FTE of 2,867 (6.9% increase, to 44,523 FTE in total) which was higher than the increase in staff expenditure (£149 million or 5.8%).

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Even after being delayed by over 3hrs on the WCML yesterday, I had not a single complaint and many many messages of support from passengers regarding the strike. Including 1 person who introduced himself as staunch conservative, yet is appaled at Shapps tone and messages.

There wil never be "full support" of striking or any other Industrial Action, but it seems those who use trains are remarkably in support currently. Whether that continues as strikes do it another question however.


Also, as 22 pages have been added since I last looked, has anyone mentioned the offer by NR?
* 2% plus 2 payments of 0.5% of salary this year, in exchange for ending strikes and accepting set milestones of efficiency towards modernisation program.