New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[the sniper]

These really do seem like a horrendous attack on the conditions of grades represented by the RMT for such a paltry payrise. It's the same amount offered to Teachers and Nurses yet they don't seem to have to been subjected to any changes to conditions.

The teachers and nurses are obviously working in a profitable industry, duh...

 

[g492p]

The god given right to pay rises that must match living costs is one of the more infantile arguments in the whole debate.

Firstly some of the costs have been defrayed by government payouts not captured by inflation measures.

Second is the bare reality that the cost of living crisis is caused by the country spending around £100bn a year extra on energy, most of which is leaving the country due to moronic energy policies that continue to enjoy almost universal political and public support.

The money has literally been exported to the likes of Qatar, Norway and the US and is not available to pay anyone's wages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==




It hasn't been completely taken off the table, it has likely moved into the next phase of the dispute. The railway remains financially unsustainable, DOO remains an existential crisis for the RMT whose primary means of expression is to stop the trains by calling safety critical staff out on strike, the TOCs still have no money and the government is still close to a monopoly buyer of their labour. A TOC level dispute (or a dozen of them) has more deniability for government who have not done a great job convincing anyone this dispute is between the TOC employers and their employees.

It is very different from privatisation when every problem could and usually was solved using shareholders and farebox revenue - winning a franchise based on cost savings from DOO and then not actually doing it, or paying £600 a day for drivers to work outside their 35hr/week contracts.

Again somewhat off topic, as the pay rise being offered does not match inflation, but I think it’s right that people don’t just expect to get poorer year after year. Your view seems to be that people should be happy sliding into poverty. It’s rather a bleak prospect. Not only that but a large chunk of the money you speak of has gone to the record profits many companies are seeing. In fact many companies are taking full advantage of inflation to line their pockets.

Anyway, more on topic, the main issue being discussed here is the decimation of our conditions for a pay increase that sees us poorer in real terms. I don’t see why anyone would wish to vote for that. I certainly won’t.

 

[Facing Back]

By significant flexibility you probably mean there being no requirement for fixed rest day patterns? Or the requirement for station staff to work between a range of locations? Even most hospitality staff don't do that, and that's an industry slated by many commentators for poor terms. If they work as a barista at Costo Coffee in Berwick then that's where they work. They aren't expected to work the coffee shop at Dunbar, Morpeth and Ashington too on different days.

That is far more than flexibility.

How can you book an appointment for something months in advance if you have no idea which days of the week might be rest days? Or perish the though book a social engagement or an evening out. Or organise child care? Or book accomodation to do anything.

And then on the other hand it says they want more flexible working to attract a more diverse workforce. Does that mean some people would get accommodated and know their patterns whilst others wouldn't?

I think you might be putting words into my mouth to a degree.

By "fixed rest day patterns" do you mean the same days off each week? If so then I see no requirement for that. If you mean your schedule should be available to you several weeks in advance so you can plan around it - then yes that should absolutely be the case. Also if you book leave with sufficient notice and it is approved then that should be golden and any rubbish about having to work a sunday in the middle of a period of leave is ridiculous.

I have no issue with staff being asked to rotate through a selection of realistically close locations. My staff do. I do. My family members in retail often do too - although none of the work for Costa. The key there is reasonableness. Sensible arrangements for transport etc.

You make a good point on the flexible working and diverse workforce. I have no idea what is envisaged here, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the documents. In other places with quite strict shift pattern's I've seen then it is normally done through job share agreements or by moving the affected person into a role where which hours they work is not an issue, just that they do the hours - normally an office based job. Where you have one group of "protected" workers and the rest picking up the anti-social stuff you know as well as me what happens.

 

[320320]

In the proposal it states that there will be weeks of spare shifts in the week that will have unlimited movement and also people on a spare week can be moved to cover a person’s week who is on AL or off sick. They will then take on the other persons rest days instead of their own. This isn’t a small thing. If my rest day pattern days I’m off next Friday and Saturday then I plan stuff. If I’m then told I’m covering a different week and my rest day is Monday/Tuesday l, then I wouldn’t be happy to have to cancel my plans. It’s hard enough to make plans with the shifts times we do anyway.

We have this at Scotrail, they call it holiday cover and you get 3 weeks notice of picking up someone’s week when they’re on annual leave.

My depot has 7 or 8 lines of holiday cover in a 60 driver link so it’s not exactly a rare occurrence to have to change plans.

Most drivers hate it as it’s maximum movement and possible changes of rest days which can see you working 9 days in a row if you have a booked Sunday.

I’d vote against that deal to avoid that alone.

 

[pt_mad]

By "fixed rest day patterns" do you mean the same days off each week? If so then I see no requirement for that. If you mean your schedule should be available to you several weeks in advance so you can plan around it - then yes that should absolutely be the case.

The latter. That is how it generally works presently.

Staff work though a roster where at some point in the cycle you will have a weekend off, somewhere else you will work a weekend and have some days off in the week and so on until you finish the pattern and return to the start.

Each individual different day of the week is worked somewhere in the cycle, and each individual different day of the week is had off somewhere else.

This means staff are available throughout the week whilst others are rest day off and so on. And means people can plan when their rest days will fall throughout the year. That is a fixed rest day pattern.

Generally nobody has the same rest days off each week (e.g. a Monday and Tuesday) unless they are on special arrangements for accommodated etc or are a station or revenue relief staff member and are spare. Or work in the head offices etc.

 

[778]

What’s the general feeling in stations and depots regarding this deal? It’s about 50-50 where I'm based.

Social media seems to be around 90% against.

Are more staff turning up for work on the most recent RMT strike days, compared to when the strikes first started?

The pay offer in December was rejected by 63% of union member (83% turnout). Would you expect this offer to be still rejected, but by a smaller margin?

 

[irish_rail]

Someone has pointed this posting to me, as I don't watch this thread. Who exactly do you refer to as the caller of a general election in the posting above?

What exactly is your point? It is the current government pulling the strings, forcing unworkable offers to be made that they know full well will have no chance of acceptance. So it is those at the very top pulling the strings (this government) who are to blame for this absolute mess. So to be pedantic , no-one is about to call an election, but if they did, when they are voted out (which all the polls suggest is an absolute dead cert) from power then these strikes would very quickly become a thing of the past. Staff and passengers happy. Whats not to like? Instead we carry on with a dead duck governemnt , desperate to appeal to its core (rapidly declining) voters who seem to have it in for the working man and women.

 

[Facing Back]

The latter. That is how it generally works presently.

Staff work though a roster where at some point in the cycle you will have a weekend off, somewhere else you will work a weekend and have some days off in the week and so on until you finish the pattern and return to the start.

Each individual different day of the week is worked somewhere in the cycle, and each individual different day of the week is had off somewhere else.

This means staff are available throughout the week whilst others are rest day off and so on. And means people can plan when their rest days will fall throughout the year. That is a fixed rest day pattern.

Generally nobody has the same rest days off each week (e.g. a Monday and Tuesday) unless they are on special arrangements for accommodated etc or are a station or revenue relief staff member and are spare. Or work in the head offices etc.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable and consistent with what i've seen in other industries.

 

[xtpe]

The document makes reference to a "link" structure for rosters.

You can't have a link if the days off aren't predetermined.

Then, on the next line, it makes reference to "no fixed rest days"

There's so many ambiguities. There needs to be a Q&A session at each TOC to clear up any misunderstandings

It means that at timetable changes, they can change rest days in link, some companies have fixed rest day patterns that cant be changed.

 

[Bantamzen]

Again, would you be prepared to put up with these kinds of changes to your working life? Your days off next week moved on a whim with a few days notice? Starting work as spare at 0800 then being told you have to start at 1500 instead and finish at 0100?

Yes or no?

Already had to. Does that answer your question?

 

[KM1991]

Are more staff turning up for work on the most recent RMT strike days, compared to when the strikes first started?

The pay offer in December was rejected by 63% of union member (83% turnout). Would you expect this offer to be still rejected, but by a smaller margin?

Yeah, a few more have given up.

That vote was for NWR. We haven’t had a vote at the TOCs yet.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Whilst my knowledge on railway rostering is virtually nil - it does seem to me that there are potentially a few safeguards available to staff who feel they might get "messed around".

First of all, there is the Working Time Regulations 2018 - which offers some very minor protections (rail is generally, but not entirely exempt). Sadly Section 18 (Exempted Sectors) of that act was defined in an extremely liberal manner to whole transport sectors, in very general and vague terms, and regardless of role within each sector. That said, there may be an ambitious legal argument to be had if someone with resources wanted to challenge the scope.

Second - the railway is a heavily regulated sector, and although the consumer protection aspect is occasionally weak, management of fatigue in safety critical operational positions is taken very seriously. A lot of this is not just voluntary industry guidance - the reason any industry rules are in place is because it is likely that there is primary legislation in place that requires an operator to manage all health and safety risks appropriately and proactively. It appears to me that in many cases, organisations like the RSSB go further in their non statutory requirements and advice. If that was to be wound back, ignored or disapplied, and an incident occurred, it would put an operator in a very difficult position legally and morally.

Third - there are other statutory provisions around the right to request flexible working, time of for parents etc. A business, including an operator, cannot have a blanket policy on these - and each request must be considered fully and genuinely. They can only reject the request if their reason for doing so is provided for in the list of statutory justifications. Bigger organisations like Train Operators are going to have an extremely difficult time rejecting reasonable, lawful requests for flexible working. In any event, thousands of requests which all have to be considered individually, and usually involves an HR/manager interview etc would tie them up for months if not longer.

Forth - there comes a point where employee wellbeing does actually matter, even to bad employers. If staff are burnt out, sickness will rise, which will make their problems worse. (An employer is also responsible for taking measures to prevent workplace stress incidentally). You also have the obvious impact on employee turnover, cost of training new staff every time someone leaves and ultimately the customer experience needs a happy workforce.

Whilst it doesn't sound like the RDG agreement is especially reasonable, I think employees should be mindful that, despite the best intentions of the current government, there are at least still SOME statutory protections and natural good business management practices which will bind the hands of employers to some extent.

On a related note, I'm surprised staff/employee travel perks haven't been raised in this, or pensions.

Improving staff travel arrangements may be a nice gesture that can sweeten a (different!) eventual deal and provide genuine value to the workforce at minimal expense. Conversely, I am surprised that they don't seem to have used staff travel as a stick during industrial action either - withdrawing it / reducing it where possible. Of course, that would just be a petty action, but it's already bad enough.

 

[Annetts key]

Are you expecting management to act like this? Or are you more objecting to the principle of management setting rosters which in their view alone provide the best outcome?

I can understand the concern if trust doesn't exist - and clearly it doesn't here.

In pretty much every company that I have worked with operating shift/extended day/weekend hours, rosters (although they tend not to be called that) are set by management and they are generally carefully balanced - goodwill and flexibility of a skilled team are extremely valuable to a company. Not every decision pleases everyone and staff with particularly onerous requests are often the most disappointed.

Good planning just remove most of the uncertainty of schedules and give people a few week's notice. None of this is typically enshrined in terms and conditions, it is merely good practice and effective for both management and staff. Late alterations happen but should be rare and respect leave booked in advance and if that is not what is proposed here then I get the concern of people.

I’ve never worked for a TOC, so it may be different depending on where you work. But I do know that if you have reasonable T&Cs and reasonable management, trust develops between the management and the staff, and then, when asked, most staff will be willing to help out with a reasonable request. Be that working a longer shift on overtime, changing turns, working extra days (rest day working, or working Sundays).

However, it’s also possible that people will have encountered poor management. In which case what it actually says in black and white in the T&Cs matters, a LOT. Because then the management don’t ask nicely, they order their staff. Trust disappears rapidly causing the situation to get worse. So both sides use the T&Cs to defend their positions.

I'm sorry but the impression I have been getting for some time is that the RMT and ASLEF both feel that they are untouchable. It could merely be an impression.

I can only speak about the RMT. The RMT and it’s members definitely don’t think that they are untouchable. The current disputes are another round of battles. The RMT has experienced various previous attempts by railway employers to change T&Cs throughout its existence. A fair few over the last thirty years. So called BR T&Cs were attacked aggressively in 1992 for example for some grades of railway staff.

Although it should also be pointed out that what you don’t hear about are the many, many times when the RMT and the employer have reached agreements without any ballots for industrial action, let alone any overtime bans or strikes.

BR did not have agreement for no compulsory redundancy. There were lots of redundancies, many of them compulsory.

BR T&Cs as I said had other arrangements. Did it mean that there were never any redundancies? No. But those arrangements did mean that the company made every effort to accommodate staff that still wanted a job on the railways. Hence keeping the number of compulsory redundancies a lot lower than they otherwise could have been. So for example, if a signal box closed, those staff may be offered jobs in other departments.

No compulsory redundancy doesn't mean no redundancy, but it is extremely limiting and inevitably means either less investment, less progress, outdated organisation, the wrong jobs or the wrong people doing them.

Wrong. It very much depends on the circumstances. If the employer has internal vacancies, and/or a voluntary redundancy scheme, the employer can take the opportunity to develop (invest) in their staff, train them up, so that the company have the right number of trained staff to do the work required. While giving their staff an assurance that if they want to continue to work, they will have a job. This builds trust and is generally better for both the employees and the employer.

The pay offer in December was rejected by 63% of union member (83% turnout). Would you expect this offer to be still rejected, but by a smaller margin?

Careful, there are more than one group of railway staff in dispute.
The referendum you are referring to was for RMT members employed by Network Rail. Not staff employed by the train companies (TOCs).

 

[43066]

You haven't engaged in what is actually being proposed, because by your own admission you don't "know enough about how these things work to make an informed comment". As such, how you can have the audacity to lecture us the way you do, I don't know. You've given nobody a reason to respect your opinion, so please spare us the theatrics.

Very well said.

 

[Facing Back]

I’ve never worked for a TOC, so it may be different depending on where you work. But I do know that if you have reasonable T&Cs and reasonable management, trust develops between the management and the staff, and then, when asked, most staff will be willing to help out with a reasonable request. Be that working a longer shift on overtime, changing turns, working extra days (rest day working, or working Sundays).

I have never worked for a TOC either but one I think I'm quite sure about is that you can't develop T&Cs in sufficient detail that they cover every eventuality effectively. You hire managers to manage and they work out the details with their teams. Modern leadership styles include performance management for all levels, 360 feedback, peer assessment, open door policies etc - as I'm sure you know. If a manager isn't up to the job then train them, just as you will expect them to do the same with their team. You really can't codify every possible eventuality in a document and expect it to work. You set a framework, expectations, a job description on 1 page then you work with you team.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==

I can only speak about the RMT. The RMT and it’s members definitely don’t think that they are untouchable. The current disputes are another round of battles. The RMT has experienced various previous attempts by railway employers to change T&Cs throughout its existence. A fair few over the last thirty years. So called BR T&Cs were attacked aggressively in 1992 for example for some grades of railway staff.

Although it should also be pointed out that what you don’t hear about are the many, many times when the RMT and the employer have reached agreements without any ballots for industrial action, let alone any overtime bans or strikes.

To be fair to the RMT, the only contact I have with members is on forums like this and the leadership interviews and appearances at select committees and the like so it is unfair of me to characterise 40,000 members and countless local reps from the comments of a few dozen people.

I don't agree in principle with certain things I hear - but again some of these are annecdotal - such as "If something is good for the company and doesn't disadvantage me I will only do it if I get something in return". Perhaps that is colouring my view. I am supportive of the objective of unions in the main and have worked constructively with many, in the UK and abroad.

 

[CE142]

Having read it again today, it really is so vague on everything...

It seems they(the DFT) have looked at everybodys different CRI agreements and taken the worst bits out of everyones and tried to lump it all together into one national CRI2. Now if you want to change T&Cs for the worse, then you should expect an increase in your salary above and beyond the Pay Cut that they have offered.

 

[12LDA28C]

Already had to. Does that answer your question?

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

 

[p.d87]

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

Well said

 

[Facing Back]

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

They can be imposed after a consultation and with no vote in many circumstances.

You can be smug about your superior bargaining power and you can consider it sour grapes. Or you can be open minded to hearing about different people's experiences and circumstances on a forum which is generally a brilliant place to share and a polyglot of different experiences, politics, circumstances and opinions. You don't have to agree with them but there is no real benefit to be had in perpetuating the image of arrogance.

The railway is - in my opinion - a bubble, in which industrial relations and so many other things operate in a manner which is alien to those of us who are outside of it and reminds us of bygone days

 

[12LDA28C]

They can be imposed after a consultation and with no vote in many circumstances.

They can, but you can hardly blame union members for voting against proposals which will potentially give them a vastly inferior work/life balance and increase fatigue which is really not a good thing on the railway where the primary concern is, and always should be safety.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2023 ==

You can be smug about your superior bargaining power and you can consider it sour grapes. Or you can be open minded to hearing about different people's experiences and circumstances on a forum which is generally a brilliant place to share and a polyglot of different experiences, politics, circumstances and opinions. You don't have to agree with them but there is no real benefit to be had in perpetuating the image of arrogance.

My post was in response to someone who's attitude seems to be 'put up with your new contracts, suck it up or get a new job if you don't like it' which seems to be the opinion of more than a few who frequent this forum. I don't know what industry you work in, but I wouldn't dream of joining an online forum where I spouted forth my opinions on how your industry should be run and any reforms which I considered necessary.

 

[Facing Back]

They can, but you can hardly blame union members for voting against proposals which will potentially give them a vastly inferior work/life balance and increase fatigue which is really not a good thing on the railway where the primary concern is, and always should be safety.

I do not for a moment blame union members if they vote against a proposal which they feel is detrimental to them - it is one of the reasons why trade unions exist and I think you know that wasn't the point of my post.

I agree there is work to be done on either clarify or amending the rostering piece of the proposal but much of the rest of it doesn't seem to affect work life balance. It does affect what staff do on a day to day basis and alters the balance of control slightly and there is clearly a general resistance to change - which is normal.

Not that it matters of course as I not a member but the argument on fatigue and safety really hasn't been made well - perhaps it can and will be moving forwards - so I don't think it is gathering much traction or sympathy.

 

[Buffer stop]

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

Nail on head outed

 

[yorkie]

These really do seem like a horrendous attack on the conditions of grades represented by the RMT for such a paltry payrise. It's the same amount offered to Teachers and Nurses yet they don't seem to have to been subjected to any changes to conditions.

There is absolutely no comparison between conditions in these areas; teachers for example are simply expected to work for as long as necessary to get a job done and are subject to regular observations. There is no way the rail unions would put up with what teachers or nurses have to go through.

You just can't make this comparison, it simply doesn't work!

We had a passenger death for the first time in 13 years, so yes they are less safe than they were.

You can't infer that.

I never mentioned a cause of that derailment. I used it to put a rough date on the thread I mentioned, and the importance of the question the thread raised after the crash. The question I subsequently asked was in relation to your question about whether I thought that a move away from labour intensive methods would compromise safety.

Bringing this incident into the discussion was disingenuous and irrelevant

Do you believe that removing maintenance staff and stretching the remaining ones thinner will improve safety? Did we, as a railway, increase or decrease the maintenance provisions after the spate of infrastructure related derailments under Railtrack?

Are you suggesting the railways were safer in the 1950s when we had more workers? Modern systems have actually improved safety and we no longer rely so much on manual methods of work.

Do you really, seriously think they will stop at ticket office closures?

Is this just more speculation or do you have any evidence?

I replied to your statement "I would expect announcements and/or online information to be available, rather than have to go to a ticket window to ask about a delay." Machines can only regurgitate the information given to them. In my example that I gave of this, the machine provided the correct information. It was told a train has been cancelled, and then told passengers the next service. What a staff member did was tell them (the bemused looking passenmgers on the platform) to ignore that announcement as it was running as normal. Joe public arent as profficient as members of this forum are at understanding train operations.

Having staff at stations (which is not currently the case at most stations) does not necessarily mean that correct or more accurate information is given; there have been numerous instances where staff have had no more, or even less information than was available through industry systems. The reality is we are on a much better position now, with modern technology, than we were in the bygone era of loads of staff at each station.

Once public facing staff start to be removed from our stations (moving ticket office staff into other roles won't save any money)

This already started a very long time ago!

there will be nobody to explain what is happening to the public in case the computer gives out the wrong message.

The last time I was given the wrong message, it was from a member of station staff. Had I checked Traksy I would have realised their information was wrong.

Why do we need a staff member just in case something happens? The same reason we have a red flag and detonators on every train. Just in case.

IF we "need" staff at stations, how do trains manage to operate at the majority of stations in the UK?

So you had a bad experience and now all ticket offices are redundant.

Nope; ticket offices are becoming redundant because times are changing.

Is your experience more common than being sold the correct ticket, or would you say it's a rare occurance?

It is surprisingly common; I'm guessing you don't read the fares section of the forum much!

What I prefer is someone there who knows what they're doing when I don't know which ticket to purchase.

Good luck with that; as a general rule the knowledge of ticket office staff is quite poor, based on the experience of not just myself but many others.

And so do the queue of people in front of me the majority of times I use it, it seems.

Perhaps e tickets aren't yet enabled for those journeys? or perhaps people need showing how to use the technology; moving staff out of an office and into a public area would help with this.

Its funny that you mention that the railway needs to change with the times. Why is it that there seems to be loads of ticket offices and platform staff when you go abroad? Are they existing in a different timescale?

It's highly variable; progressive countries like Sweden abolished traditional ticket offices.

I'm not entering into any further correspondence with you on this thread, as you are going round in circles and the points you make are based on misunderstandings or theoretical positions that would be best debated in dedicated threads (but preferably with some evidence rather than unfounded and outdated claims by yourself)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2023 ==

I don’t know. What I do know is that the CIS screens were still showing the old information long after the staff had informed the passengers. I presume it was a last minute change.

But why can't that be corrected by announcements rather than having staff physically present to make this correction? And really the issue should be fixed at source.

But are there actually proposals to leave more stations unstaffed anyway? Or is this just more speculation on your part?

No human has a good answer, which is why I’m surprised people still believe Conservative politicians…
As this is increasing off-topic, I will leave it there.


All safety critical engineering systems need certain checks, inspections, measurements, tests, etc. to confirm that they meet the requirements and standards. With motor vehicles for example, the manufacturer sets out a service schedule. Plus the government has various requirements under the MOT legislation. A driver will get in trouble if a motor vehicle is found not to comply with the law.
Aircraft manufacturers and countries have similar requirements for aircraft. An aircraft operator (airline) will get in trouble if found to ignore the manufacturer or the requirements of any country it flys over.

Do you have evidence that the appropriate checks are not going to be made or is thi speculation on your part?

It’s no different on the railways. Except that in a lot of areas, with the railways, it’s the railway itself that decides on what the requirements are. Hence, they can choose to do less maintenance, less frequent inspections, etc. But if there is less maintenance, less frequent inspections, items that are potentially out of tolerance or out of specification may continue in service for longer before the problem is discovered. Hence the overall risk of either a train delaying fault (or cancellation) is increased. But also the overall risk of of something worse is also increased.

So you have evidence that risk will be increased? Have you done or seen a risk assessment on this basis?

But it’s also the little things. So let’s take a practical example. Network Rail have reduced the frequency of maintenance visits to equipment cupboards/cubicles that contain signalling equipment. Hence as the padlocks are no longer being maintained as frequently, often they seize up due to either rust, corrosion or contamination. So now, if technical staff need to maintain the equipment, they have to spend time cutting the padlocks off (each lock costs over £35 each) and go and get replacements, which means that they can’t do as much scheduled maintenance as planned. A typical installation is two locks per cupboard, with there being two or three cupboards at most sites. So if all locks are affected, that’s £140 to £210. Or if they are attending a failure, it takes longer to diagnose the problem, and hence longer to fix the problem. Hence trains are disrupted for longer than they otherwise would be.

Do you have evidence that trains are going to be disrupted for longer?

The job of a union is to look after its members. And unions are used to the media giving them bad PR.

Exactly my point; the idea that they care about passengers is misplaced.

I'm not going to enter any further correspondence with you on this thread; if you have any actual evidence to backup your claims, feel free to go into more detail in a new thread. Your speculation and false equivalence fallacies aren't helpful and I don't see a need to continue responding to refute your unfounded claims.

 

[ComUtoR]

There is absolutely no comparison between conditions in these areas; teachers for example are simply expected to work for as long as necessary to get a job done and are subject to observations

It's very similar in the driving grade.

We are expected to finish our diagram, irrespective of late running. Drivers getting stranded or working far beyond time is pretty common. Being late every day is par for the course.

Drivers, at my TOC, have 8 "observations" over a 2 year constant cycle as a minimum. 4 are covert, 2 are direct, and the other 2 are full assessments style days.

However, I totally agree. I wish people would stop comparing industries, especially on key issues such as who get paid more/less.

 

[Mcrdvr]

Then it shall forever have to live within the constraints of a publicly funde

Again somewhat off topic, as the pay rise being offered does not match inflation, but I think it’s right that people don’t just expect to get poorer year after year. Your view seems to be that people should be happy sliding into poverty. It’s rather a bleak prospect. Not only that but a large chunk of the money you speak of has gone to the record profits many companies are seeing. In fact many companies are taking full advantage of inflation to line their pockets.

Anyway, more on topic, the main issue being discussed here is the decimation of our conditions for a pay increase that sees us poorer in real terms. I don’t see why anyone would wish to vote for that. I certainly won’t.

Well said

 

[Bantamzen]

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

It was imposed, we did strike but it did us no good. This is what happens when you are publicly funded. But what is more telling is that you think this deal is paltry. I think you need a reality check, most of the country won't get any like what has been offered. The railway industry is where it is because it hasn't dragged itself out of the 1980s. If you want to change this, then get the industry working well enough to attract private investment.

 

[mandub]

And was it imposed with no consultation, or did you vote for those changes yourself? Pretty foolish if the latter, and if the former it sounds like sour grapes or jealousy on your part that union members will actually be allowed to vote on whether they want to see their Ts & Cs trashed for a paltry pay rise when you didn't get that option.

Think you've nailed the motivation for pretty much every comment on the topic by this poster.

 

[NI 271]

I think you need a reality check, most of the country won't get any like what has been offered.

Yes they will. 5.7% is higher than 5%, so most of the country will indeed get "any (sic) like what has been offered", that's how averages work. And I highly doubt all those other workers are seeing a bonfire of their T&Cs proposed for railway staff to pay for it, although I won't do as you've done above and state that as if it's fact.

"Average wages in the UK have risen at a slower pace than prices. In July to September 2022, regular wages rose by 5.7% year-on-year, and total pay, which includes bonuses, rose 6.0%"

Professional and scientific industry the only one where pay continues to match rising prices - Office for National Statistics

Article exploring how wage growth in different industries compares with rising prices

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[Bantamzen]

Think you've nailed the motivation for pretty much every comment on the topic by this poster.

Well sadly you are completely wrong. I don't have a motivation, all I am doing is pointing what should be obvious to everyone. The railway industry has been failing for years. It can't always be relied upon & its generally way too expensive unless you are prepared to buy well in advance via split ticking sites. All of this is evidenced in the fact that so many franchises have crumbled, and the government has had to step in and keep it going. The problem here is that some people inside the railway industry want to keep private sector level advantages on public sector budgets. And speaking of which @NI 271 comes along to prove my point....

Yes they will. 5.7% is higher than 5%, so most of the country will indeed get "any (sic) like what has been offered", that's how averages work. And I highly doubt all those other workers are seeing a bonfire of their T&Cs proposed for railway staff to pay for it, although I won't do as you've done above and state that as if it's fact.

"Average wages in the UK have risen at a slower pace than prices. In July to September 2022, regular wages rose by 5.7% year-on-year, and total pay, which includes bonuses, rose 6.0%"

Professional and scientific industry the only one where pay continues to match rising prices - Office for National Statistics

Article exploring how wage growth in different industries compares with rising prices

www.ons.gov.uk

Now add in public sector wage rises......

 

[NI 271]

Now add in public sector wage rises......

There's really no need, You said "most of the country". Well, that's what that 5.7% applies to.