What is the important issue for signallers?
I don’t know, I’m not a signaller. Of the small number of signallers that I have spoken to, they appeared to be happy to continue industrial action.
This is not true. Everything has been explained and clarified. In some cases multiple times. Having been involved in negotiations with unions more times than I care to remember (albeit not these negotiations), it is the first priority of the ‘management’ side to make sure the ‘staff’ side fully understand what is being presented to them. And, I’m sorry to say, it is quite common for union reps to say they understand what they have been offered, and then claim subsequently that they don’t. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic, and I would bet a few quid thatthis has been deployed in this negotiation.
I know and speak to some of the RMT negotiating team for maintenance. You admit to not being involved with these negotiations. So how would you know what questions have been asked, and which have been answered. Throughout the talks, the RMT negotiating team have asked lots of questions. Many of which have not been answered in sufficient detail. Written questions have been submitted, with long periods with no answers.
Regarding staff who are contracted to 40 hours contracts (former Amey), unless the situation has been resolved in the last couple of weeks (holidays have interrupted communications), the company were unable to explain how they would be affected if they wanted to move to the IMC 25 contract (based on the GTRM/Carillion T&Cs).
The existing organisation has well documented templated organisation charts. Where are the templated organisation charts for the new organisation?
When Paul Rutter was asked about welders FPL testing points, he appeared not to know anything much about how this is done on HPSA POE, and maintained that there aren’t many in service. Considering that HPSA points are now made by Network Rail, that’s a very funny answer.
When asked what happens if the FPL test done by welders does not pass, the answer was that S&T would be called. But if there are no S&T booked to the job, where are they coming from? If there are S&T on duty somewhere, they will likely be tasked with other work, which could be twenty miles or more away.
Which is not true. Read the documents more carefully.
And, as you know, scheduled maintenance is just one part of maintenance activity.
Yes, MST work is only one part. But MST is a significant part of some maintenance functions. So is it incorrect that there is a substantial reduction in MST work then?
This is extracted directly from a Network Rail document:
Network Rail said:
50% REDUCTION IN MST (MAINLY FREQUENCY)
Now I agree that different engineering functions are affected differently.
Hence for track, the current MSTs drop from 37000 to a proposed 19000, 50% reduction.
For S&T, the current MSTs drop from 1040000 to a proposed 600000, a 40% reduction. Some functions are less badly affected.
Do you really, honestly think it appropriate for some signals to have their frequency of maintenance drop to once every four years (I’m told that this applies to LED banner signals)?