Railway Industrial Disputes Mk2

[railfan99]

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of each side, as I'm an Australian (suffice to say I dislike strikes, and fortunately have never experienced one when travelling overseas), one aspect of life in your nation(s) forming the UK and across the Channel in Europe is living and leisure costs seem quite to very high by my (perhaps incorrect) perception, yet many occupations appear to (as the median) earn far less than in my small population nation.

How on earth do people survive? (Do most in say England never have the money to travel overseas if by that one means 'beyond Spain on Mr O'Leary's conveyances')?

 

[jon0844]

More to the point: why does every thread on railway industrial relations end up discussing nursing?

Same reason any discussion about cycling always ends up with comparisons to motorists?!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2022 ==

Of course finance companies making tax payer subsidised profits (at far higher profit margins than TOCs enjoy) from extortionate railway leasing arrangements aren’t the problem - it’s those awful staff who are holding the country to ransom and must be ground into the dust!

It's funny how the Government won't be rushing to attack the banks funding the building of rolling stock that is leased at eye-watering rates to TOCs.

No, I expect they'll be so well protected that the Government would in fact gladly allow them to increase their leasing costs to ensure the investors still get a good return.

 

[Goldfish62]

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of each side, as I'm an Australian (suffice to say I dislike strikes, and fortunately have never experienced one when travelling overseas), one aspect of life in your nation(s) forming the UK and across the Channel in Europe is living and leisure costs seem quite to very high by my (perhaps incorrect) perception, yet many occupations appear to (as the median) earn far less than in my small population nation.

How on earth do people survive? (Do most in say England never have the money to travel overseas if by that one means 'beyond Spain on Mr O'Leary's conveyances')?

You're absolutely spot-on with your perception. The UK has one of the highest income inequality gaps of any developed country.

 

[yorksrob]

FT reporting

Millions of British public sector workers to be offered 5% pay rise​

OK not rail industry but article says that BoJo is going for 5% over the 2% Sunak originally wanted in an attempt to head off more strikes.



Perhaps had DfT allowed 5% months ago the rail industry wouldn't be in conflict that its now facing

That sounds like a sensible half way house. As you say, it should have been offered previously.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2022 ==

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of each side, as I'm an Australian (suffice to say I dislike strikes, and fortunately have never experienced one when travelling overseas), one aspect of life in your nation(s) forming the UK and across the Channel in Europe is living and leisure costs seem quite to very high by my (perhaps incorrect) perception, yet many occupations appear to (as the median) earn far less than in my small population nation.

How on earth do people survive? (Do most in say England never have the money to travel overseas if by that one means 'beyond Spain on Mr O'Leary's conveyances')?

The median income is apparently around £30k and I'm slightly over that. As a single person, I find that liveable (consummate with my interests of trains, booze, football etc). I think people with families or in areas with high housing costs will have more difficulty.

Incidentally, I have a friend who visited Australia for the cricket a few years back and he said the beer was quite expensive compared to here.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's funny how the Government won't be rushing to attack the banks funding the building of rolling stock that is leased at eye-watering rates to TOCs.

No, I expect they'll be so well protected that the Government would in fact gladly allow them to increase their leasing costs to ensure the investors still get a good return.

The leasing market is actually pretty competitive (the companies bid to off the cheapest financing deals) but it inherently has profit at its heart otherwise leasing companies would take their capital elsewhere. Its also risky as DfT don't provide Section 54 protection anymore and thus most fleets lease end dates are coterminous with the end of the ERMA/NRCs currently of course leasing companies realise its not that risky and fleets will get extended but risk cost money in the financial world. Also leasing costs are fixed for the duration of the lease although it depends on whether the leasing company is provided full mtce services which is the financial noose that is the IEP fleet on LNER and GWR cost base. So for sure leasing trains is costing the industry more than a directly funded model would but the industry wouldn't have been able to acquire the vehicles it did so quickly as all governments over the last 25 years have worried about how much borrowing they are doing.

The industry since privatised has largely had good IR and yet as soon as govt gets involved again we find confrontation writ large now across the entire industry workforce. At least with the franchise model the owners had to manage the risk from industrial disputes as that went straight to the bottom line and their profit line hence you could say that TOC railway staff got a reasonable deal until govt interfered.

In the short term i see neither side is going to give way so sporadic strikes seem to be the order of the day but im not sure we will see an all out coordinated strike just yet.

 

[JamesT]

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “push the reverse button into the private sector” - the ownership of the railway hasn’t changed and it hasn’t actiallh been “nationalised”. The decision to notionally categorise it as “public sector” perhaps made sense when the ERMAs were first implemented but should - in time - be reversed,
as subsidy reduces to more “normal” levels. My point was that bringing that forward would be a politician friendly way of answering complaints from other parts of the public sector about railway pay rises…

From https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/th...iesnowrunningunderemergencymeasuresagreements the classification of the TOCs as public is due to the nature of control rather than the level of subsidy. As I understand the proposals for GBR, the successors of most TOCs will continue in this mode where the government take revenue risk and therefore would continue to be public sector. The long-distance ones may return to something more like a traditional franchise and therefore be private sector.

 

[yorksrob]

The leasing market is actually pretty competitive (the companies bid to off the cheapest financing deals) but it inherently has profit at its heart otherwise leasing companies would take their capital elsewhere. Its also risky as DfT don't provide Section 54 protection anymore and thus most fleets lease end dates are coterminous with the end of the ERMA/NRCs currently of course leasing companies realise its not that risky and fleets will get extended but risk cost money in the financial world. Also leasing costs are fixed for the duration of the lease although it depends on whether the leasing company is provided full mtce services which is the financial noose that is the IEP fleet on LNER and GWR cost base. So for sure leasing trains is costing the industry more than a directly funded model would but the industry wouldn't have been able to acquire the vehicles it did so quickly as all governments over the last 25 years have worried about how much borrowing they are doing.

The industry since privatised has largely had good IR and yet as soon as govt gets involved again we find confrontation writ large now across the entire industry workforce. At least with the franchise model the owners had to manage the risk from industrial disputes as that went straight to the bottom line and their profit line hence you could say that TOC railway staff got a reasonable deal until govt interfered.

In the short term i see neither side is going to give way so sporadic strikes seem to be the order of the day but im not sure we will see an all out coordinated strike just yet.

The railway managed to get almost as much replacement rolling stock in the ten years prior to privatisation as the ten years afterwards. Having rolling stock around an extra ten years is something I would happily live with, compared to strikes/service cuts etc.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The railway managed to get almost as much replacement rolling stock in the ten years prior to privatisation as the ten years afterwards. Having rolling stock around an extra ten years is something I would happily live with, compared to strikes/service cuts etc.

For sure the rush into new train fleets in 2016-18 period often to displace perfectly good fleets has burdened the industry with extra costs being added to the already high fixed cost base right at the wrong time with insufficient revenue to cover those costs. So we find the only variable that can be controlled being the workforce costs right at the time inflation has taken off.

With govt holding all the revenue risk currently I can't understand their approach here. What they should be doing is making a bold approach by offering staff say 5% then also dangling an incentive that makes it worth their while to accept revised working patterns to move the railway onto a 24/7 basis. The reason being is the fixed costs can only be covered by increasing revenue now and we know that opportunity now lies in leisure. So that means having a timetable at weekends designed to attract passengers and more importantly keep them coming back and telling friends family it was a good experience.

It will counterintuitive to DfT of course but it stands a better chance of dealing with the long term funding issues for the industry that the short term approach thats going on now. Sadly i suspect it will need the creation of GBR to allow any revised thinking to happen and there is a risk that will drift i get further modified with the changes almost inevitable at the heart of govt come September.

 

[43066]

I did read it,

Did you? You didn’t reply to it. You still haven’t.

Did you forget about the cluster-you-know-what situation the franchise system was in pre-covid? The industry is going to be need to be bringing in a lot more than "decent" levels of revenue before the Treasury can take a massive step back without risking more franchise collapses.

Well, since you have all the answers, what is your suggestion? Close the unprofitable parts of the system down? Rip up the tracks and make them into guided busways?

Shock horror: the whole thing would collapse without government subsidy. Much like the NHS really. That hasn’t stopped GPs hitting £100k average earnings without actually bothering to physically see patients “because Covid”. I’d like a piece of that public-sector-pie, please.

You mean more railway workers wanting a large pay rise friendly surely? I mean the crux of your argument seems to be that the government should be moving heaven and earth to satisfy your demands, be that through quantitive easing or reversing the financial support keeping your industry going & stuff any potential consequences. Well I'm afraid its just not that simple, so long as the government continues to offer additional support to keep you in your jobs, they are going to want to have their say, just as with the public sector at large. And right now their are far more important financial challenges than your industry, meaning that the government is much more likely to take your unions head on, which will help nobody in the long run.

Potato, pothado. Call it what you like. The crux of my argument is simply this: I’d like not to suffer a diminution in my standard of living and will do whatever it takes to prevent that.

You’re a supposed trade union member and a rep. Can I ask, what are you doing for your members in this regard? Has it occurred to you that, if your union had had the cojones to take action historically, you wouldn’t be 25% worse off than you were ten years ago? I think you realise that, deep down. That’s why you’re so triggered by the more belligerent (and effective) approach of the railway unions.

I'm sorry that you are used to working in an environment long used to reasonable pay rises,

It may surprise you to learn that I’m *not* sorry that I’m used to reasonable pay rises. I fully expect that situation to continue.

All you are doing by striking is making the situation potentially worse for yourselves, and certainly worse for the poor smucks that actually use the services you deliver.

Perhaps you should email Mick Lynch and Mick Whelan your thoughts? Could it be that the trade unions that have served the employees of the railway for over one hundred years understand the industry, and the political lie of the land, a little better then you?

The interests of passengers don’t factor into the decision to take strike action - as a supposed union member it’s utterly disingenuous of you to imply that they should.

Yes the government are involved in an ideological battle with trade unions, and the rail unions are literally feeding them this. We are still two years away from a general election, and with Boris now chased away from the Tory campfire they will become even more emboldened and will want a headline busting opportunity to appease their supporters. And where do you suppose they will find that? Oh look, the trade unions are kicking off...

I was initially uncertain about the wisdom of strike action but my view has shifted, in no small part due to the anti union and anti staff views I’ve seen expressed on this very forum. I will be voting for strike action, in the strongest possible terms, just as soon as I’m balloted.

Oh come on nobody is saying that, stop feeling sorry for yourself. What some of us are saying is that the economy is in a right mess, and rail workers striking is just making things worse & will become increasingly unpopular as more strikes bite.

I’m not feeling remotely sorry for myself. When I’m at work I’m there to drink tea and drive trains, not to win popularity contests. Threads like this reveal just how much some railway enthusiasts despise the staff who operate the railway they claim to adore.

The economy may well be in a mess. I didn’t ask for that and I don’t intend to be made worse off as a result.

You don't agree I know, but I firmly believe you are doing more harm than good engaging in this particular battle.

Gee, thanks for the advice.

That’s your view. My view is that I would rather burn this entire industry to the ground than allow myself and my colleagues to be done over in the way the civil service has been.

I finally agree with the overall sentiment of this forum. We should close the railway down! Not really. What will .*actually* happen is that things will carry on largely as they are, and we will get a half way sensible pay offer.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. You can mark my words, old son.

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of each side, as I'm an Australian (suffice to say I dislike strikes, and fortunately have never experienced one when travelling overseas), one aspect of life in your nation(s) forming the UK and across the Channel in Europe is living and leisure costs seem quite to very high by my (perhaps incorrect) perception, yet many occupations appear to (as the median) earn far less than in my small population nation.

How on earth do people survive? (Do most in say England never have the money to travel overseas if by that one means 'beyond Spain on Mr O'Leary's conveyances')?

This country is a God awful, miserable, small minded place at times, isn’t it? I suppose that’s why pubs were invented here!

The industry since privatised has largely had good IR and yet as soon as govt gets involved again we find confrontation writ large now across the entire industry workforce. At least with the franchise model the owners had to manage the risk from industrial disputes as that went straight to the bottom line and their profit line hence you could say that TOC railway staff got a reasonable deal until govt interfered.

Indeed.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That BR rolling stock replacement programme of the 1980s/1990s was because they were allowed to (effectively) borrow to do it. From the mid 1980’s through to 1990, it was relatively easy to get Treasury approval, from 1990 much less so and from 1992, almost impossible.

The thought behind the ROSCO’s was to take financial risk away from the TOCs (and Government), especially when it came to funding overhauls and major component costs. By adopting an MEAV approach to asset value, it would make funding replacement stock that much easier.

In all of this, it largely succeeded but it did take a cost management lever away from the TOCs/Government, something the DfT hasn’t been too happy about. In some cases the ROSCOs have managed to make on a particular class, in others they have lost a packet on their estimates but their generous margins have seen them alright. In the latter case if the rolling stock had been on the TOCs books, the additional repair costs could have bankrupted them.

 

[yorksrob]

For sure the rush into new train fleets in 2016-18 period often to displace perfectly good fleets has burdened the industry with extra costs being added to the already high fixed cost base right at the wrong time with insufficient revenue to cover those costs. So we find the only variable that can be controlled being the workforce costs right at the time inflation has taken off.

With govt holding all the revenue risk currently I can't understand their approach here. What they should be doing is making a bold approach by offering staff say 5% then also dangling an incentive that makes it worth their while to accept revised working patterns to move the railway onto a 24/7 basis. The reason being is the fixed costs can only be covered by increasing revenue now and we know that opportunity now lies in leisure. So that means having a timetable at weekends designed to attract passengers and more importantly keep them coming back and telling friends family it was a good experience.

It will counterintuitive to DfT of course but it stands a better chance of dealing with the long term funding issues for the industry that the short term approach thats going on now. Sadly i suspect it will need the creation of GBR to allow any revised thinking to happen and there is a risk that will drift i get further modified with the changes almost inevitable at the heart of govt come September.

I agree with you there, but sadly we have a treasury that's only interested in settling old scores, rather than getting the railway on its feet again.

Reference all the offers and initiatives across Europe, compared to the fiasco over here.

 

[dk1]

Norwich station at 09:45 this morning shows exactly why weekends are targeted for industrial action. Concourse heaving already with queues at AMT, Starbucks, Costa , Subway, Coop & Smith's. Trains departing F&S.

 

[Goldfish62]

I agree with you there, but sadly we have a treasury that's only interested in settling old scores, rather than getting the railway on its feet again.

Reference all the offers and initiatives across Europe, compared to the fiasco over here.

Fundamental it's always been the same whatever government we have in power.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Norwich station at 09:45 this morning shows exactly why weekends are targeted for industrial action. Concourse heaving already with queues at AMT, Starbucks, Costa , Subway, Coop & Smith's. Trains departing F&S.

so not the best customer experience to encourage repeat business or tell their friends and family to go and try the new trains

 

[yorksrob]

Fundamental it's always been the same whatever government we have in power.

As they say, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

 

[O L Leigh]

so not the best customer experience to encourage repeat business or tell their friends and family to go and try the new trains

One little spark of good news to illustrate where demand for rail travel exists and you go and snuff it out. Ta muchly.

It’s a sunny summer Saturday and East Anglia has coastline and countryside worth visiting on a day like this. No doubt the A47 and A140 will have been similarly clogged at around the same time this morning (and maybe still are).

 

[dk1]

so not the best customer experience to encourage repeat business or tell their friends and family to go and try the new trains

Well they are hardly new now but no unfortunately. It is what it is though & a day that now has a huge impact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2022 ==

One little spark of good news to illustrate where demand for rail travel exists and you go and snuff it out. Ta muchly.

It’s a sunny summer Saturday and East Anglia has coastline and countryside worth visiting on a day like this. No doubt the A47 and A140 will have been similarly clogged at around the same time this morning (and maybe still are).

A47 is surprisingly quiet so far today.

 

[VP185]

Norwich station at 09:45 this morning shows exactly why weekends are targeted for industrial action. Concourse heaving already with queues at AMT, Starbucks, Costa , Subway, Coop & Smith's. Trains departing F&S.

Stations and trains into the West Country, heaving. Good job no one travels by rail anymore!!

There’s even been huge queues of people all morning waiting to see some lovely members of staff who are sat behind desks. It looks as if money or cards are being handed over by, what I assume are, potential passengers and in return, they get handed what looks very much like a ticket. Now I initially thought it was a ticket office, but I heard Grant Shapps tell us no one uses them anymore so I’ve got no idea what activity is really occurring there.

 

[startingaparty]

I don't think the odd day here or there is going to be effective. There needs to be something like a fortnight-long or maybe even month-long strike to really get the message across to the government that the unions won't back down lightly. It's time they showed the government just how powerful they are and bring the entire railway system to a grinding halt (pun intended).

EDIT: Yes, it won't be pretty but then neither will railway employees being unable to heat their homes or put food on the table and the latter should be the priority.

 

[Dryce]

There is viable need for mass transit. Having used the network over the last few months it can be seen the commuters may not have returned to pre-pandemic level, but the trains are far from empty. If the railways were closed then what ? These passengers would accept journey times double what they are now on buses ?

I used the phrase 'level of viable need'

And it's very noticeable that the level of commuting and the amount of travelling for work has dropped.

That in itself raises the question of the level of taxpayer support that is justifiable - there's a stronger argument for taxpayer support for work related travel needs - and not so much for leisure or discretionary travel.

The railways system carries a small minority of freight and passengers in the UK - that adds further quesuions to the level of support it receives vs the level of support . (And granted - there are some categories of needed freight and passenger transport that are much better handled by the railways system than alternatives).

If the railways were closed then what ? These passengers would accept journey times double what they are now on buses ?

Well there are two things to consider. Firstly not all competitive bus / coach journeys are 'double' rail times. It depends on the journey - so as an example central Scotland to Aberdeen and Inverness are competitive with the trains - and journeys to Inverness will become faster by road when the A9 is dualled (public expenditure on a road competing with any expenditure on the railway).

The other thing to consider is that if the railway offers so much better better convnenience - then what is that worth in terms of fare increases to cover the railway cost. Or should questions be asked: could the buses and coaches be systemically improved at better value to the taxpayer and economy.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Stations and trains into the West Country, heaving. Good job no one travels by rail anymore!!

There’s even been huge queues of people all morning waiting to see some lovely members of staff who are sat behind desks. It looks as if money or cards are being handed over by, what I assume are, potential passengers and in return, they get handed what looks very much like a ticket. Now I initially thought it was a ticket office, but I heard Grant Shapps tell us no one uses them anymore so I’ve got no idea what activity is really occurring there.

Well if your a random traveller then you need assistance to buy the right ticket especially with all the options available and do the machines do all the different special fares. It easier in London with a simple fare structure.

 

[Dryce]

What is the purpose of a strike ? To withdraw labour to inconvenience the employer ? That inevitably causes chaos.

If strikes had no noticeable effect then there’s not much point in them.

Besides according to grant shapps the strikes in their current form already are ‘bringing misery’

In the case of the railways the strikes are traditionally aimed at the passenger - and through the impact on the passenger to get leverage on the politicians and employers.

The problem for this dispute compared with what might have happened 5 years ago is that the day to day need railways has shifted a bit - so even where people are commuting a larger proportion have an automatic fall back to home working. It means that the strikes may still cause significant disruption and annoyance to the public - but lower impact than in the past.

So I'm guessing it will go on a bit - more of a battle of attrition than would have been the case previously.

 

[yorksrob]

So I'm guessing it will go on a bit - more of a battle of attrition than would have been the case previously.

Therein lies the danger for the industry.

Part of me wonders whether it would be less damaging to have an all out strike for a couple of weeks to force a resolution, rather than a damaging drip...drip of disruption that causes people to turn away over the long term.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Part of me wonders whether it would be less damaging to have an all out strike for a couple of weeks to force a resolution, rather than a damaging drip...drip of disruption that causes people to turn away over the long term.

Are you confident that such a two week all out strike would force a resolution, but what would then happen if the Government decided to play hard-ball over the matter?

 

[DanBlanchflowe]

More to the point: why does every thread on railway industrial relations end up discussing nursing?

Because they are both considered in Europe to be essential public services.
However the train driver is paid more than double the nurse.
Our taxes should not rise to pay the train driver more.
Instead the Chancellor should attempt to bring more equality and fairness to public sector pay.

A Registered NHS Nurse scale 5 starts on £25,655 after 3 years training & has to pay tuition fees & student loans.
A TPE train driver gets £58,000 3 years after starting paid for training.

 

[43066]

Because they are both considered in Europe to be essential public services.
However the train driver is paid more than double the nurse.
Our taxes should not rise to pay the train driver more.
Instead the Chancellor should attempt to bring more equality and fairness to public sector pay.

A Registered NHS Nurse scale 5 starts on £25,655 after 3 years training & has to pay tuition fees & student loans.
A TPE train driver gets £58,000 3 years after starting paid for training.

They are completely different jobs, in completely different industries. It is nonsensical to suggest that the pay should be similar just before they’re “public services”.

Why should doctors be paid more than nurses? Why should nurses be paid more than bin men?

 

[DanBlanchflowe]

In the case of the railways the strikes are traditionally aimed at the passenger - and through the impact on the passenger to get leverage on the politicians and employers.

The problem for this dispute compared with what might have happened 5 years ago is that the day to day need railways has shifted a bit - so even where people are commuting a larger proportion have an automatic fall back to home working. It means that the strikes may still cause significant disruption and annoyance to the public - but lower impact than in the past.

So I'm guessing it will go on a bit - more of a battle of attrition than would have been the case previously.

We are lucky in Europe to consider a passenger service essential.
In some populous parts of Western nations, a passenger rail service has not been considered necessary for decades.
My daughter lives in Nashville. There is no passenger rail service to any other state. Only one suburban peak hour line.
Passenger services only just touch Tennessee which has nearly as big land area as England!!

 

[GadgetMan]

Because they are both considered in Europe to be essential public services.
However the train driver is paid more than double the nurse.
Our taxes should not rise to pay the train driver more.
Instead the Chancellor should attempt to bring more equality and fairness to public sector pay.

A Registered NHS Nurse scale 5 starts on £25,655 after 3 years training & has to pay tuition fees & student loans.
A TPE train driver gets £58,000 3 years after starting paid for training.

As a driver, I'd like more equality and fairness and have my pay matched with an MPs please. As neither MP, nor us thick drivers need any formal qualification or previous relevant experience.

 

[DanBlanchflowe]

They are completely different jobs, in completely different industries. It is nonsensical to suggest that the pay should be similar just before they’re “public services”.

Why should doctors be paid more than nurses? Why should nurses be paid more than bin men?

Has you post ever been under scrutiny by your HR Department's Job Evaluation Team?
In mine they scored 12 different criteria to assess the post's 'worth'.

Job evaluation: considerations and risks booklet - Acas
https://www.acas.org.uk › sites › default › files › job...

PDF

Obviously in job evaluation a doctor would score higher than a nurse and a refuse disposal operative lower than a nurse.

I wonder which of the nurse or the train driver would score higher???????????????

 

[Dryce]

Therein lies the danger for the industry.

Part of me wonders whether it would be less damaging to have an all out strike for a couple of weeks to force a resolution, rather than a damaging drip...drip of disruption that causes people to turn away over the long term.

The risk for the unions is that after two weeks of no railways a sizable chunk public basically just shrug and say 'so what?'.

At the same time the staff on strike lose 4% of their income.