Rail strikes discussion

[dk1]

Rosters are still ringing around offering overtime as they always do. No working to rule has been called by the union and no ban has been implemented by the company. They're covering the non strike disrupted days in such a way as to minimise/negate overtime but we are sufficiently short that overtime is needed to staff the service most of the time so any such ban would just hurt the customers further.

Yes I was striking today & too have been asked to FDW. I dont usually bother with them but decided i would on this occasion.

 

[Wolfie]

The trouble with totally voluntary redundancy schemes is that the ones who are first in the queue are often the ones who have the most transferable skills and are the youngest. Older workers nearing retirement will also likely take a generous severance package. The ones you are left with tend to be those who don't think they are really all that likely to get a job anywhere else on similar wages, have relatively little in way of transferable qualifications and those who just simply very reluctant to change jobs within the railway. Reduces costs, but can lead to a pool of less than optimal recruits. Square pegs round holes unless very careful.

I have never come across a voluntary redundancy scheme that doesn't involve some sort of sift of those volunteering. The brightest and best youngsters and those near to retirement and hence expensive to release are generally the least likely to be made an offer.

 

[bramling]

I have never come across a voluntary redundancy scheme that doesn't involve some sort of sift of those volunteering. The brightest and best youngsters and those near to retirement and hence expensive to release are generally the least likely to be made an offer.

I’m not sure if LU did so during the management shake-up a decade or so ago. There were certainly people who were due to retire who stayed on a bit longer and got a VS package. If it was sifted, it wasn’t sifted very much!

 

[Wolfie]

You're suggesting the union would actively go after someone that said something against it? Really?

I don't imagine "the union" would. However, there are vast numbers of offensive trolls out there. Why put your head above the parapet?

 

[matacaster]

Oh perhaps it's the other way round. Maybe it;s just not safe at all. But we'll leave that to the professionals to figure out, not the armchair experts.

Agreed.

 

[Wolfie]

Being caught in cover-up is always worse than the event. I've yet to see an example to the contrary! People just can't stand dishonesty.

Hence why the Teflon PM is now in trouble.

 

[ar10642]

Hence why the Teflon PM is now in trouble.

Is he?

 

[moleman212]

I see that BA check in staff are striking simply to get their pay back to pre-COVID levels. Now that is a strike I wholeheartedly support.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

WRT claims that Grant Shapps wants to ban you from rest day working to stop you recouping losses from striking, are you currently working to rule ie, rest day working ban or are you only striking at this point?

This was a nothing comment by Shapps, no OT or RDW ban has been introduced by any of the TOCs to my knowledge, certainly not here

 

[320320]

Rosters are still ringing around offering overtime as they always do. No working to rule has been called by the union and no ban has been implemented by the company. They're covering the non strike disrupted days in such a way as to minimise/negate overtime but we are sufficiently short that overtime is needed to staff the service most of the time so any such ban would just hurt the customers further.

Contrary to claims that we are rolling in it lots of people have left recently. Plenty of them have gone back to the airlines.

Yes I was striking today & too have been asked to FDW. I dont usually bother with them but decided i would on this occasion.

I always thought the 2 would go hand in hand although I suppose if you can get away with RDW on alternate days from striking it allows you prolong the striking as long as is necessary. Good luck with it, I hope you get the outcome you‘re fighting for.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I always thought the 2 would go hand in hand although I suppose if you can get away with RDW on alternate days from striking it allows you prolong the striking as long as is necessary. Good luck with it, I hope you get the outcome you‘re fighting for.

I believe the next stage will be work to rule which can be ran for longer and impact service levels still, unless a large scale walk out can be planned to coincide with ASLEF/TSSA.

If the other unions choose separate dates I believe RMT will look to hit separate dates to allow its members to earn on days the others strike as has happened this week.

 

[alxndr]

This rings a bell...some strikers seem reluctant to leave their jobs despite being so angry...some even professing to 'love their job'....but if you feel so aggrieved to strike, then why stay around...

Because I do love it, but I don't agree that the changes that they wish to make are right. I think we can do better than that. I think we can do better than watching our colleagues fear losing their jobs or being forced out. Because I think that the direction that they want to go in would have detrimental impacts to the quality of our railway. I love it and want to see it do better.

Having spent 38 years in maintenance I am aware of how it's done. The argument you're presenting is not about perceived cuts to staff but how much work/problems the signaller has to deal with. I don't believe the number of staff will be cut to the extent that nothing gets done. As an example S&T teams are historically 3 men, one of those acting as lookout if needed. Lookouts are all but gone now so how about taking that 3rd person and using them in a resource pool. If someone needs an additional pair of hands then they're available.

While not all S&T jobs need three people, I find that the vast majority are made safer, more flexible, and more efficient by having that third person. It is more nuanced than just having 3x staff hours rather than 2x staff hours as those hours can be used more effectively with three. It has parallels with the "just in time" supply chain model, it can be cheaper if everything is going well, but if there is a disruption the consequences are more severe. Running at the bare minimum is not always worth it in the long run.

If three people are rostered and one goes sick, then it's likely that a lot of the work can still be achieved. If two are rostered, then unless someone can be persuaded in at short notice, nothing can be done.

If the work is over a long stretch then with three people one person can drive around and collect them. Two miles are walked, rather than having a four-mile round trip, spending more time trackside and doing two miles of unproductive walking. If they are a response team and a fault occurs when they're part way through the walk a third person with the van could collect them from the nearest access point, rather than having to wait for them to walk back to their van, up to two miles away. I've done work in one day due to that third person that took us two or three days with just two.

If working at heights is required then three people are required. If working at height is required as a response to a fault the fault will have to wait until a third person is found.

Point maintenance tasks are vastly more efficient with three people. Just getting the equipment to site is safer and easier, and people aren't pressured into attempting to carry too much and increase the risk of injury to avoid wasting time making two trips. (For reference the kit for some fairly routine point maintenance would be: cleaning sprays/lubricant, rags, brushes, grease gun, point handle, gauge pouch, track gauge, 3-4 spanners, multimeter, general small tools, and a 20kg light at night). Some point maintenance tasks can be done with just two people, but it's two or three times faster with three people.

On a common axle counter failure the best way to identify where the problem is occurring over a several mile stretch is to physically check the security of terminals and see if any disturbances are triggered in the process of doing so. It is often the case that something may appear to be well-terminated, but is just poor enough to cause a poor connection. With three people one can remain with the diagnostic laptop while the other checks, if any warnings are triggered they can contact them and the problem is fixed there and then. If there are two people then the alternative is to check the security as best as possible, recording the times at each location, travel to carry out a diagnostic download, and then return to the location that was being checked at the time of the disturbance. One method is vastly more time-consuming and less efficient than the other...

Three people aid in the never-ending battle against vegetation. Where there is a task that can be carried out by two people, the third can clear vegetation around assets and walking routes. That time is not wasted but is harder to capture. With two people either that time is lost, or it gets ignored, making it harder for the next person.

With three people one person can focus on safety arrangements more predominantly, rather than having to do that and any work that requires two people. It doesn't have to be all they do, but they can dedicate more of their energy to that rather than trying to do everything. On faults I'd quite often ask someone else to COSS so that I'm not having to share my attention in that way.

In a team of three if someone has an injury and requires emergency assistance there is someone to meet the emergency services at the access point and there is one person who can remain with the casualty. In a team of two the uninjured party will have to weigh up leaving the casualty alone vs hoping that the emergency services are able to navigate to them and are willing to enter the railway unaccompanied.

I'm not aware of any studies that have been done comparing the safety of working separated with site warden vs working separated COSS+1 (probably because they are recorded as the same thing in the majority of systems), but I would be very surprised to find that it was not safer to have a site warden whos job is to keep you right and ensure that you do not lose situational awareness.

In the model where the third person is a general dogsbody who is allocated when required, the opportunity for learning on the job is reduced, and progression avenues are not naturally occurring. What incentive does a teamleader have to teach them when they could have someone else the next day, or no one at all? Teaching people is beneficial for all—the learner knows more, and is more engaged/satisfied because they understand what is going on, the rest of the team benefits because they have another useful pair of hands at their disposal rather than someone that's just sort of hanging around because it might as well be a mysterious arcane ritual to them.

To sum up, the role of the third person is hard to quantify, but they are important in many subtle ways and everything works a lot smoother with them. I think it would be a mistake to remove them. Even just discovering that something is unexpectedly required, say two padlocks were found to be broken and you need a second spare. That third person could fetch one from the van. If they're not a general dogsbody floating around between teams they might even know where to find it in the van! Or in the case of something more technical, they might know what it looks like.

How about planning maintenance so that 1 line block will be used by more than just 1 group of mtce staff be that PW, S&T, D&P etc etc

On this point I do agree, and I feel that having and utilising more PCs (Protection Controllers) would be of benefit. It isn't always possible due to the nature of the work but it could be done more often than not, and I think it's something that really does need doing.

 

[quantinghome]

a new line maybe needed, expensive to build but once installed just basic maintenance needed, no onboard staff, so no wages, or risk of problems in service... the Port Island line Kobe Japan, now being built in France for test phase in 2023, revenue service with drivers 2024, and driverless in 2026 and 2027... plus a few others. Don't worry about your last point that wont be programmed into them.

That's a small length of urban railway. Nothing like a main line railway.

To be sure, there are plenty of railways which are driverless, even unattended (and that's a significant difference). But they are all new builds and they are almost entirely metro systems.

You will never be able to retrofit entirely unattended Grade 4 Automation (link to explain what that actually involves) on existing main line railways. You would need to rebuild every railway from scratch, just because you don't like the idea of negotiated wage settlements!

 

[jon0844]

I don't imagine "the union" would. However, there are vast numbers of offensive trolls out there. Why put your head above the parapet?

I think it's more likely that there just aren't loads of people who are against the strike action, rather than them fearing reprisals for giving a vox pop statement on the street.

I can't recall people being scared to air an opinion on things before. What about on here? What about from an anonymous account on social media?

 

[Hellzapoppin]

Because I do love it, but I don't agree that the changes that they wish to make are right. I think we can do better than that. I think we can do better than watching our colleagues fear losing their jobs or being forced out. Because I think that the direction that they want to go in would have detrimental impacts to the quality of our railway. I love it and want to see it do better.


While not all S&T jobs need three people, I find that the vast majority are made safer, more flexible, and more efficient by having that third person. It is more nuanced than just having 3x staff hours rather than 2x staff hours as those hours can be used more effectively with three. It has parallels with the "just in time" supply chain model, it can be cheaper if everything is going well, but if there is a disruption the consequences are more severe. Running at the bare minimum is not always worth it in the long run.

If three people are rostered and one goes sick, then it's likely that a lot of the work can still be achieved. If two are rostered, then unless someone can be persuaded in at short notice, nothing can be done.

If the work is over a long stretch then with three people one person can drive around and collect them. Two miles are walked, rather than having a four-mile round trip, spending more time trackside and doing two miles of unproductive walking. If they are a response team and a fault occurs when they're part way through the walk a third person with the van could collect them from the nearest access point, rather than having to wait for them to walk back to their van, up to two miles away. I've done work in one day due to that third person that took us two or three days with just two.

If working at heights is required then three people are required. If working at height is required as a response to a fault the fault will have to wait until a third person is found.

Point maintenance tasks are vastly more efficient with three people. Just getting the equipment to site is safer and easier, and people aren't pressured into attempting to carry too much and increase the risk of injury to avoid wasting time making two trips. (For reference the kit for some fairly routine point maintenance would be: cleaning sprays/lubricant, rags, brushes, grease gun, point handle, gauge pouch, track gauge, 3-4 spanners, multimeter, general small tools, and a 20kg light at night). Some point maintenance tasks can be done with just two people, but it's two or three times faster with three people.

On a common axle counter failure the best way to identify where the problem is occurring over a several mile stretch is to physically check the security of terminals and see if any disturbances are triggered in the process of doing so. It is often the case that something may appear to be well-terminated, but is just poor enough to cause a poor connection. With three people one can remain with the diagnostic laptop while the other checks, if any warnings are triggered they can contact them and the problem is fixed there and then. If there are two people then the alternative is to check the security as best as possible, recording the times at each location, travel to carry out a diagnostic download, and then return to the location that was being checked at the time of the disturbance. One method is vastly more time-consuming and less efficient than the other...

Three people aid in the never-ending battle against vegetation. Where there is a task that can be carried out by two people, the third can clear vegetation around assets and walking routes. That time is not wasted but is harder to capture. With two people either that time is lost, or it gets ignored, making it harder for the next person.

With three people one person can focus on safety arrangements more predominantly, rather than having to do that and any work that requires two people. It doesn't have to be all they do, but they can dedicate more of their energy to that rather than trying to do everything. On faults I'd quite often ask someone else to COSS so that I'm not having to share my attention in that way.

In a team of three if someone has an injury and requires emergency assistance there is someone to meet the emergency services at the access point and there is one person who can remain with the casualty. In a team of two the uninjured party will have to weigh up leaving the casualty alone vs hoping that the emergency services are able to navigate to them and are willing to enter the railway unaccompanied.

I'm not aware of any studies that have been done comparing the safety of working separated with site warden vs working separated COSS+1 (probably because they are recorded as the same thing in the majority of systems), but I would be very surprised to find that it was not safer to have a site warden whos job is to keep you right and ensure that you do not lose situational awareness.

In the model where the third person is a general dogsbody who is allocated when required, the opportunity for learning on the job is reduced, and progression avenues are not naturally occurring. What incentive does a teamleader have to teach them when they could have someone else the next day, or no one at all? Teaching people is beneficial for all—the learner knows more, and is more engaged/satisfied because they understand what is going on, the rest of the team benefits because they have another useful pair of hands at their disposal rather than someone that's just sort of hanging around because it might as well be a mysterious arcane ritual to them.

To sum up, the role of the third person is hard to quantify, but they are important in many subtle ways and everything works a lot smoother with them. I think it would be a mistake to remove them. Even just discovering that something is unexpectedly required, say two padlocks were found to be broken and you need a second spare. That third person could fetch one from the van. If they're not a general dogsbody floating around between teams they might even know where to find it in the van! Or in the case of something more technical, they might know what it looks like.


On this point I do agree, and I feel that having and utilising more PCs (Protection Controllers) would be of benefit. It isn't always possible due to the nature of the work but it could be done more often than not, and I think it's something that really does need doing.

I can understand your comments and concerns but if a resource pool is available then you ask and get the right person for the job but they're all available to help as required.
Some depts really struggle for staff whist others have spare resources. That's nonsense .
You can also make far better use of the senior people by not using them for mundane tasks.

 

[alf]

To be sure, there are plenty of railways which are driverless, even unattended (and that's a significant difference). But they are all new builds and they are almost entirely metro systems.

Two Paris Edwardian metro lines have been converted & are entirely staff free & there is a 1970’s metro line in Nuremberg that is now unattended.
In the UK the new stock on the Glasgow subway is to go unattended. So it not right to say unattended are all new build.

 

[dk1]

I always thought the 2 would go hand in hand although I suppose if you can get away with RDW on alternate days from striking it allows you prolong the striking as long as is necessary. Good luck with it, I hope you get the outcome you‘re fighting for.

I think that might be the reason why. I was surprised we went straight to striking if I’m honest. That’s quite unusual for us.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The automated driverless railways are small and self contained networks. The mixed traffic nature of the UK railway would make automation really difficult

 

[320320]

This was a nothing comment by Shapps, no OT or RDW ban has been introduced by any of the TOCs to my knowledge, certainly not here

I believe the next stage will be work to rule which can be ran for longer and impact service levels still, unless a large scale walk out can be planned to coincide with ASLEF/TSSA.

If the other unions choose separate dates I believe RMT will look to hit separate dates to allow its members to earn on days the others strike as has happened this week.

I figured that Shapps was talking nonsense but I assumed a rest working ban would have been in place as soon as the ballot results came back.

Working to rule can also have a more disruptive effect as seen at Scotrail where an emergency timetable had to be implemented because of the sheer volume of train cancellations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2022 ==

I think that might be the reason why. I was surprised we went straight to striking if I’m honest. That’s quite unusual for us.

That’s why I was surprised there was no RDW ban already in place. As soon as our first offer was rejected we went straight to a RDW ban the following day.

 

[GB]

Don't know if its already been posted but here is the latest from TSSA.

DISPUTE UPDATE: PAY TALKS

Yesterday, 22 June, TSSA Organisers and representatives, alongside our sister unions, met with Network Rail for another round of pay talks for Bands 5-8 and equivalent, and Controllers.

The start of the meeting was dominated with concerns around the letter issued to all three Trade Unions inviting us to consultation on the 01 July around changes to working practices and redundancies.

Read the contents of the letter by clicking here

Our position on no compulsory redundancies and no changes to T&Cs without our consent, along with a pay increase that accounts for the rising cost of living, has not changed. We were hopeful that we would at least make some progress towards achieving those aims.

Although the company suggested that they would remove the invitation to attend the meeting on 1st of July, they would not (or could not?) withdraw the letter.

At that point the meeting was adjourned and has yet to reconvene.

-

Despite what rumours members be seeing in the press, we can confirm that no improvement to pay was made or offered at yesterday’s meeting.

We can also confirm that despite the company spin and assurances we have been given that talks will resume for our Bands 1-4 members, we are still waiting to receive an invitation from Network Rail to get back around the table since our last meeting was unexpectedly cancelled with barely 30 minute’s notice last Friday.


We were in attendance at the meeting yesterday and we were, as always, willing and available to meet with the company all day for as long as necessary. However, we did make it clear that as our Bands 5-8 and equivalent and Controller members were part of joint recognition agreements with our sister unions, we would only entertain attending pay talks if all parties were available, and only then if Network Rail are prepared to make realistic offers, that genuinely address all areas of our dispute.

Where are we now?

• No realistic offer on pay has been made to our members.
• Network Rail letter issued on 20 June remains in place.
• Network Rail have confirmed that they plan to make redundancies - but have not agreed to a no compulsory redundancy agreement.
• We are still waiting to be invited back round the table to discuss Bands 1-4 pay.

With Network Rail confirming in writing its intention to make staff redundant, our demand for a no compulsory redundancy agreement is more important than ever. Be assured, as your trade union, we will not agree any attacks on your job security or your terms and conditions.
We will update with you with more details once we have them. In the meantime,

• Vote yes to both questions on your TSSA ballot
• Encourage any colleagues not yet a member of our union to join today – this is a crucial moment to have union representation.

 

[Falcon1200]

NR - offer is 2% plus 2 payments of 0.5% of salary this year, changes to T&Cs
- ~2500 compulsory redundancies
- increase weeks on nights (28-39)
- reduce night shift pay from 1.25x to 1.10x rate
- reduce weekend shift pay from 1.50x to 1.10x rate
- no mention of new tech in moderation so far
Also talk of fire and rehire for mobile operatives, onto self employed contracts requiring own vans, no guarantee on fuel allowance.

The reduction in maintenance staffing (among other things) concerns me too, but have NR not said that the 2500 reduction will be achieved primarily by voluntary severance, rather than by sacking staff ? In which case it would seem a fairly simple matter for NR to agree to no compulsory redundancies, in order to move negotiations forward.

 

[dk1]

That’s why I was surprised there was no RDW ban already in place. As soon as our first offer was rejected we went straight to a RDW ban the following day.

I suppose they must have their reasons &/or an agenda. We just follow advice.

 

[the sniper]

A Shapps instigated RD/OT ban would have been the most spectacularly own goal. If it was considered, it really shows how little he knows about how the industry works. It'd probably end up causing far more chaos/unpredictability than the strikes in some respects/places.

 

[SynthD]

Change is one thing, but the industry certainly sees more than its fair share of change for the sake of it.

It’s been a drawn out process of digitisation with stop-starts of politicians. Even if Mick Lynch’s tech loving child was leading the change there’s a lot to do.

 

[Starmill]

It sounds like the overtime ban has been a totally empty threat anyway. Even in a limited context of only the day before / after the strikes.

 

[jayah]

NR have deployed huge amounts of tech and RMT cooperated with changes to mtce organisation years ago when the track measuring was substantially automated. Also condition monitoring has been effectively deployed across the network and helps with warning against potential failures. In all of it though you still need somebody to go there and either prevent a failure by intervention or deal with a failure when it occurs. NR's productivity revolution isn't about technology its changing employees T&Cs so they have to work when NR needs them to ie nights and weekends. Actually much of this happens now but staff get paid enhancements to volunteer for those shifts but they aren't proposing to consolidate all that in the staff wages and expecting workers to both just accept those changes and potentially be made redundant - can't see many people accepting that.

So if you are using all this tech, why is there still so much 'patrolling' going on. Why are there the same number of people employed doing the same jobs?

You seem to think modernisation has already happened - in fact it has hardy begun.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2022 ==

As its pro-rata I don’t think their members will complain about the increased commission payment.

The RMT oppose high pay, whose taxes fund public services.

The RMT oppose high fares that bring higher commission for their members and fund the railway.

The RMT opposes productivity which is required to raise pay and make the railway financially sustainable.

The RMT wants a monopoly buyer of their labour which massively reduces their bargaining power.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2022 ==

The reduction in maintenance staffing (among other things) concerns me too, but have NR not said that the 2500 reduction will be achieved primarily by voluntary severance, rather than by sacking staff ? In which case it would seem a fairly simple matter for NR to agree to no compulsory redundancies, in order to move negotiations forward.

You are obsessed with compulsory redundancy and preserving unproductive jobs. This was quite normal until recent years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2022 ==

Which I addressed - and I notice a rather uncharitable assumption about workloads. When things go wrong somewhere, the answer is not always to throw labour at it and make that the sole priority.

It would be interesting to know why this example was used, and especially when that constraint has cause issues - if indeed it ever has. But, as the example is given, this outsider who opposes the strikes regards this as a red herring that fails to recognise the practical constraints that underpin team boundaries and work allocation.

Network Rail says it does happen and a number of people here have tried very unconvincingly to defend why.

Network Rail want flexibility in all dimensions, skills and geography.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2022 ==

You’re confusing a conductor with that of a Revenue Inspector.

The conductor role consists mainly of the following in order of importance:
- Passenger Safety, Dispatch and PTI risks
- Reliability of services and timetable
- Customer service
- Revenue Collection

There’s naturally much more to the role but I’ve simplified it here

If their job role includes tickets and revenue that is what they should be doing without having their feet up in the back cab.

They shouldn't need bribing with piece rates to what they are already being paid for.

 

[GB]

It sounds like the overtime ban has been a totally empty threat anyway. Even in a limited context of only the day before / after the strikes.

Can anyone point me to where Schapps or anyone from the government has said there would be an overtime ban? Unless its been spoken about since what he was saying was that staff probably wouldn't be able to do overtime to top up their money due to less services running on the inbetween strike days. People have taken what he said out of context and and come up with "government ban on overtime" type thing. ...unless of course as I said he made more remarks since?

 

[jayah]

No, actually you have yet again. Let me explain how this works. The maintenance can't get on the track to do their job - jobs that cannot be replaced by tech - due to the safety requirements which are now so onerous they now take an age for the signaller and the techs to agree.

For example, let's say the techs wanted to get on the track to do some maintenance on the AWS. It might only be a 30 minute job. Maybe I have gaps of 10 minutes between trains and previously 3X10minute gaps means that the total job will take one hour to complete.

If it now takes an extra 5 minutes to grant and give up the line block because of the placement of TCODs (now being introduced). The same maintenance job now takes 2 hours with 6x10 minute gaps between trains. The maintenance team is now 50% less productive than it was before the new safety policy brought in by NR senior management.

Do you now understand?
NR is making the signaller do more work and the maintenance spend more time doing nothing and waiting to get on track. The lack of productivity of maintenance is nothing to do with maintenance.

Nobody is going back to red zone working. Far too many have died and been seriously injured. Working on the track means stopping the trains. Preferring to go to work when trains are running will not alter that.

There is still a lot of wasteful and unproductive patrolling and visual inspection going on, and protecting those processes is all about jobs and nothing about safety.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

There is a RDW/overtime ban on TPE, drivers and conductors are working to rule.
Hence all of the cancellations

 

[dk1]

There is a RDW/overtime ban on TPE, drivers and conductors are working to rule.
Hence all of the cancellations

Im Confused with that. Is that they are working to rule or that the TOC has not renewed the FDW agreement with ASLEF?