New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[Bantamzen]

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

Most of the country are not in the professional or scientific industry. Just saying like...

 

[jayah]

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.

I am not saying people should be happy, but you need to be realistic. If £100bn extra every year is leaving the country to pay for imported gas, the your employer isn't getting that money to cover your gas bill unless you work for the Norwegian State Gas Company.

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

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 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 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.


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.


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).

At the risk of repeating myself, BR did not indulge this infantile demand for no compulsory redundancy. There were regular and large numbers of redundancies, however noble the efforts to accommodate people by reshuffling the deck.

No compulsory redundancy leads to less investment, less modernisation, lower productivity, higher costs, the wrong organisation and the wrong people doing the wrong jobs.

It has already become a slippery slope and come December 2024 no doubt will become a new red line that the RMT demand continues in perpetuity, or the trains stop running.

 

[O L Leigh]

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.

That’s not correct. Teachers contracts stipulate annual contracted hours that equate to a 35 hour per week full time position and are not open-ended as you suggest. That they work above and beyond those hours in order to deliver the quality of teaching that they do is entirely down to their own professionalism and the needs of the job, but they do that themselves and receive no pay for it.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

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

Well actually, most of the country probably will.

In April 2023 the National Living Wage goes up by 9.7% and it went up by 6.6% in April 2022.

A large number of workers are on this wage, so anyone who's pay is based on the National Living Wage will get a higher % increase than this offer and I would venture to suggest that none of those people will have have to drastically alter their job contracts and conditions and lives in order to get it.

Furthermore, Average regular pay growth for the private sector was 7.2% in September to November 2022, and 3.3% for the public sector.

So yes, while the RMT offer may be above the average public sector increase, it is still below the private sector.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well actually, most of the country probably will.

In April 2023 the National Living Wage goes up by 9.7% and it went up by 6.6% in April 2022.

A large number of workers are on this wage, so anyone who's pay is based on the National Living Wage will get a higher % increase than this offer and I would venture to suggest that none of those people will have have to drastically alter their job contracts and conditions and lives in order to get it.

Wow, you are upset because some of the poorest workers in this country are getting a percentage rise more than you? Talk about entitlement...

Furthermore, Average regular pay growth for the private sector was 7.2% in September to November 2022, and 3.3% for the public sector.

So yes, while the RMT offer may be above the average public sector increase, it is still below the private sector.

But the railway industry is largely financed by which sector?

 

[Buffer stop]

Wow, you are upset because some of the poorest workers in this country are getting a percentage rise more than you? Talk about entitlement...


But the railway industry is largely financed by which sector?

I don't think the poster was upset in anyway what so ever.

 

[yorkie]

That’s not correct. Teachers contracts stipulate annual contracted hours that equate to a 35 hour per week full time position and are not open-ended as you suggest.

No full time teacher works 35 hours per week.

That they work above and beyond those hours in order to deliver the quality of teaching that they do is entirely down to their own professionalism and the needs of the job, but they do that themselves and receive no pay for it.

It's certainly true that teachers go above and beyond but it's also the case that at certain TOCs, train crew can - and do - refuse to carry out work on the mere basis that it is slightly different to what is booked (even where it is within their booked working hours), and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes.

 

[O L Leigh]

No full time teacher works 35 hours per week.

I’m aware of that, but that’s not what I’m saying.

It's certainly true that teachers go above and beyond but it's also the case that at certain TOCs, train crew can - and do - refuse to carry out work on the mere basis that it is slightly different to what is booked (even where it is within their booked working hours), and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes.

You’re comparing two very very different roles which are not equivalent. My ex is a primary school teacher and as such she isn’t required to work shifts, weekends or unsocial hours. She doesn’t carry out safety-critical work and, therefore, doesn’t have to observe mandated rest periods. Her days off are fixed in advance and predictable, which means that she can plan her life weeks, months or even years in advance. And yet, if the information contained in this discussion is correct, she is going to get a pay increase at or near to the level offered to RMT members without having to accept any changes to her conditions of employment. So trying to draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing her job to, say, mine is utterly pointless except to highlight the difference in treatment that she gets at the hands of the government.

An only tangentially more pertinent comparison would be with the health service, which is also in financial difficulties. However, even here, while pay is a sticking point, conditions do not seem to be under attack. Instead, the order of the day is increased efficiency of operation. And in this arena I am lucky to have an insight, as a very good friend works at a large NHS trust on workforce planning and allocation which gives me an appreciation of what is happening there.

I’d also challenge you to cite some proof for your claim that railstaff refuse to carry out different duties within their hours.

 

[43066]

Modern leadership styles include performance management for all levels, 360 feedback, peer assessment, open door policies etc - as I'm sure you know.

TOCs are a little “backward” in terms of this kind of thing, to say the least. It’s a million miles away from other parts of the private sector in this respect. It’s a strange industry which, to be fair, many such as myself have joined because they wanted to get away from things like 360 degree feedback and office BS. It certainly delivers in that respect, but that also comes with some downsides hence why the unions are so important.

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.

I can see how it comes across like that, to be fair. Unfortunately the culture on the railway is somewhat adversarial but, in my experience, people still tend to go the extra mile to help out where they can - I certainly do and so do the vast majority of my colleagues. That is something that is never really discussed on here. I don’t think the adversarial nature of the industry is down to the unions, per se, if anything they’re a by product of it.

What I would say is, as someone who very much held the stereotypical views of the railway unions before joining the industry, I’ve seen things in a completely different light from the inside.

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.

I agree with this. Unfortunately some posters (you’re not one of them!) hold entrenched positions for their own reasons, recite the same biased and dogmatic views on every thread, and are clearly more interested in point scoring than fruitful discussion. This rapidly becomes tiresome and doesn’t really add any insight or understanding.

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

That could be said about many if not most industries, to be fair. The concepts of trade unions and workers standing up for themselves at all seem “old fashioned” in an era of zero hours contracts and the “gig economy”. I’m not at all sure that’s a good thing. People who regard unions with suspicion would do well to consider why the right leaning media is so quick to vilify them, and who really benefits from this attitude.

At the risk of repeating myself, BR did not indulge this infantile demand for no compulsory redundancy. There were regular and large numbers of redundancies, however noble the efforts to accommodate people by reshuffling the deck.

No compulsory redundancy leads to less investment, less modernisation, lower productivity, higher costs, the wrong organisation and the wrong people doing the wrong jobs.

It has already become a slippery slope and come December 2024 no doubt will become a new red line that the RMT demand continues in perpetuity, or the trains stop running

The idea that resisting compulsory redundancy is infantile doesn’t get any less ludicrous every time you suggest it. Surprise surprise most people don’t want to get sacked because they have rent or mortgages to pay and families to feed.

You actively seem to want redundancies to happen and vilify unions for resisting it. I have to wonder what motivates someone to actively want to see other people lose their jobs…

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

So why are the railway unions regularly pilloried on here for not caring about passengers? It’s not part of their remit - any more than teaching unions or nurses unions are supposed to care for students or patients respectively.

and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes.

More fool them. Perhaps that’s why we read of the teaching profession being unable to attract quality graduates and teachers leaving in droves. Isn’t it telling that, now that teachers are finally standing up for themselves, this government’s response is to legislate to try to make it harder for them to strike. Are you in favour of that approach?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Wow, you are upset because some of the poorest workers in this country are getting a percentage rise more than you? Talk about entitlement...

No, I am not upset at all. I am all in favour of the lowest paid workers getting a bigger increase.

I was merely pointing out that your assertion that the offer to the RMT was good and better than most other people was not the case. Many people, on lower or higher wages, will receive a greater % increase and without the strings attached.

The Median annual pay for full-time employees was £33,000 for the tax year ending on 5 April 2022 according to the ONS. Therefore myself and many other people in this dispute are below or well below this figure and are therefore not necessarily considered well paid.

Personally if they offered the same as other public sector employees i.e. roughly 4% + 4% with no strings attached then I and many others would be quite happy and all this nonsense would be over.

But the railway industry is largely financed by which sector?

To be honest I don't really care. My contract of employment is with a private company who's parent company is a large private company which makes large profits.

But I do recognise the current state of the industry and the finances in general so am more than happy to be flexible and not be greedy, but also don't see why those of us who work full time and have below median pay for full time workers should accept all the proposed changes just to get a pay rise which a) other public sector workers are offered without such strings and b) is still below that of the private sector.

 

[yorkie]

So why are the railway unions regularly pilloried on here for not caring about passengers? It’s not part of their remit - any more than teaching unions or nurses unions are supposed to care for students or patients respectively.

I'm not sure what quotes you are objecting to exactly, but people are entitled to observe that the actions taken are harmful to passengers, and ultimately the industry as a whole. I think we are all in agreement that the Unions aren't interested in caring about passengers.

More fool them. Perhaps that’s why we read of the teaching profession being unable to attract quality graduates and teachers leaving in droves. Isn’t it telling that, now that teachers are finally standing up for themselves, this government’s response is to legislate to try to make it harder for them to strike. Are you in favour of that approach?

This doesn't match my observations.

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

I’m aware of that, but that’s not what I’m saying.

What are you saying?

You’re comparing two very very different roles which are not equivalent. My ex is a primary school teacher and as such she isn’t required to work shifts, weekends or unsocial hours. She doesn’t carry out safety-critical work and, therefore, doesn’t have to observe mandated rest periods. Her days off are fixed in advance and predictable, which means that she can plan her life weeks, months or even years in advance. And yet, if the information contained in this discussion is correct, she is going to get a pay increase at or near to the level offered to RMT members without having to accept any changes to her conditions of employment. So trying to draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing her job to, say, mine is utterly pointless except to highlight the difference in treatment that she gets at the hands of the government.

An only tangentially more pertinent comparison would be with the health service, which is also in financial difficulties. However, even here, while pay is a sticking point, conditions do not seem to be under attack. Instead, the order of the day is increased efficiency of operation. And in this arena I am lucky to have an insight, as a very good friend works at a large NHS trust on workforce planning and allocation which gives me an appreciation of what is happening there.

I wasn't the one making the comparison; I suggest you look up through the thread. I refer you to what I said earlier.

I’d also challenge you to cite some proof for your claim that railstaff refuse to carry out different duties within their hours.

Example: a TPE driver booked to pass between Leeds and Hull; the booked driver was unavailable and the driver who was passing, refused to work that train.

This is not an isolated example and has happened numerous times at the TOC concerned.

 

[O L Leigh]

What are you saying?

Your assertion that teachers are required to work “as long as necessary” is incorrect. They have contracted hours the same as everyone else but their contracts express them as annual rather than weekly totals.

Example: a TPE driver booked to pass between Leeds and Hull; the booked driver was unavailable and the driver who was passing, refused to work that train.

And you’re absolutely certain that there were no extenuating circumstances to this (e.g. route/traction knowledge, booked driver covering from spare on the day and exceeding his hours, etc)?

 

[43066]

I'm not sure what quotes you are objecting to exactly but people are entitled to observe that the actions taken are harmful to passengers, and ultimately the industry as a whole.

It is a regular theme to see posters criticising unions for not considering passengers, but this completely misses how the interests of unions and passengers aren’t aligned, as you yourself seem to have acknowledged.

Those same criticisms rarely seem to be levelled at the government (who do owe a duty to passengers) who are also acting against the interests of the industry through their approach to this dispute.

This doesn't match my observations.

The profession is struggling to attract graduates according to the Department for Education’s own figures.

My impression has long been that teachers are poorly paid, treated badly and many grads will go elsewhere because they can earn more money and be treated better.

You must surely agree that is a bad thing for the future of the teaching profession and for the quality of education in this country?

Number of graduates in teacher training in England at ‘catastrophic’ level

Initial DfE figures show just under 29,000 graduates have signed up this year, a 20% fall on last year

amp.theguardian.com

The number of graduates training to be teachers in England has slumped to “catastrophic” levels, with the government missing its own recruitment targets by more than 80% in key subjects such as physics.
The Department for Education’s initial teacher training figures show that just under 29,000 graduates have signed up this year, a 20% fall compared with 36,000 last year, and far below the 40,000 trainees registered during the pandemic in 2020-21.
But the figures are far worse for secondary school recruitment, where they are at just 59% of the DfE’s annual target, well below the 79% reached last year. It means the government has missed its own targets in nine of the past 10 years.
Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the figures were “nothing short of catastrophic” because of acute shortages.

I realise it’s off topic to discuss the reasons underpinning this in detail on this thread, but it’s another example of a public service that the current government has allowed to decline.

 

[NI 271]

Most of the country are not in the professional or scientific industry. Just saying like...

I’m interested in how that is relevant to the fact that the average wage rise in *the country* was 5.7%?

For the benefit of others who, like @Bantamzen, haven’t read the linked text, it explains that the two categories to which he refers were the only two to receive *above inflation* pay rises, and that the average pay increase across *all* sectors during July-September was 5.7%.

 

[O L Leigh]

I wasn't the one making the comparison; I suggest you look up through the thread. I refer you to what I said earlier.

Apologies if I got that wrong, but you did conflate teachers working “over and above” with railstaff refusing to do so which certainly gave me the impression that you were.

 

[yorkie]

Your assertion that teachers are required to work “as long as necessary” is incorrect. They have contracted hours the same as everyone else but their contracts express them as annual rather than weekly totals.

You are being disingenuous; as I said before the roles are not comparable in this area.

And you’re absolutely certain that there were no extenuating circumstances to this (e.g. route/traction knowledge, booked driver covering from spare on the day and exceeding his hours, etc)?

Yes.

It is a regular theme to see posters criticising unions for not considering passengers, but this completely misses how the interests of unions and passengers aren’t aligned, as you yourself seem to have acknowledged.

Those same criticisms rarely seem to be levelled at the government (who do owe a duty to passengers) who are also acting against the interests of the industry through their approach to this dispute.

Well you can feel aggrieved if you like, but that changes nothing.

Th profession is struggling to attract graduates according to the Department for Education’s own figures.

My impression has long been that teachers are poorly paid, treated badly and many grads will go elsewhere because they can earn more money and be treated better.

You must surely agree that is a bad thing for the future of the teaching profession and for the quality of education in this country?

Number of graduates in teacher training in England at ‘catastrophic’ level

Initial DfE figures show just under 29,000 graduates have signed up this year, a 20% fall on last year

amp.theguardian.com

I realise it’s off topic to discuss the reasons underpinning this in detail on this thread, but it’s another example of a public service that the current government has allowed to decline.

This is slightly different to what you said earlier; as I said earlier my observations are not consistent with what you posted above.

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

Apologies if I got that wrong, but you did conflate teachers working “over and above” with railstaff refusing to do so which certainly gave me the impression that you were.

Most (if not all) teachers go over and above as a matter of course, even during non contracted time, in comparison to some rail staff at some TOCs refusing to make reasonable adjustments during working hours; as I said earlier the point made by a previous poster comparing T&C's between these roles is making an invalid comparison.

 

[TreacleMiller]

That’s not correct. Teachers contracts stipulate annual contracted hours that equate to a 35 hour per week full time position and are not open-ended as you suggest. That they work above and beyond those hours in order to deliver the quality of teaching that they do is entirely down to their own professionalism and the needs of the job, but they do that themselves and receive no pay for it.

Know many teachers? The ones I know are 50 hours plus. Never met a teacher skimming on 35 hours.

 

[66701GBRF]

Yes.

How?

 

[43066]

Well you can feel aggrieved if you like, but that changes nothing.

It’s just notable that there is a strong bias against railway unions on here, which appears to be based on an inherent dislike of unions and/or a misunderstanding of the role they are supposed to perform. Unions are criticised far more than the government, which speaks volumes for anyone who has actually followed politics over the last couple of years or understands the current railway dispute (which is about Ts and Cs far more than it’s about money).

This is slightly different to what you said earlier; as I said earlier my observations are not consistent with what you posted above.

Which part of what I said above did you disagree with? I also pointed out that (at least some) teachers have voted to strike and the government’s response is to try to make that more difficult through legislation rather than listening to their concerns or negotiating.

Most (if not all) teachers go over and above as a matter of course, even during non contracted time, in comparison to some rail staff at some TOCs refusing to make reasonable adjustments during working hours; as I said earlier the point made by a previous poster comparing T&C's between these roles is making an invalid comparison.

In my direct experience most rail staff regularly go above and beyond their basic duties to help out, as a matter of course. As you have said comparisons in this area aren’t valid, so why are you drawing one here?

 

[O L Leigh]

You are being disingenuous; as I said before the roles are not comparable in this area.

Not so. I'm correcting a factual inaccuracy in your posting. That is all.

Know many teachers? The ones I know are 50 hours plus. Never met a teacher skimming on 35 hours.

Used to be married to one. Besides that isn't what I said, as I explained in a later post.

 

[SJN]

I'm not sure what quotes you are objecting to exactly, but people are entitled to observe that the actions taken are harmful to passengers, and ultimately the industry as a whole. I think we are all in agreement that the Unions aren't interested in caring about passengers.


This doesn't match my observations.

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


What are you saying?

I wasn't the one making the comparison; I suggest you look up through the thread. I refer you to what I said earlier.


Example: a TPE driver booked to pass between Leeds and Hull; the booked driver was unavailable and the driver who was passing, refused to work that train.

This is not an isolated example and has happened numerous times at the TOC concerned.

Sometimes managers forget that favours can work both ways. Myself and a colleague wanted to swap jobs, a manger caused a fuss simply because he could. I reminded him that he regularly called me asking to swap jobs or hours and I generally agreed but this could change if he wouldn’t help me out with the swap I wanted to do. Maybe some mangers at that TOC aren’t very well liked and people don’t want to help them. Or maybe the driver was over their hours, due a break or felt too tired to do an extra drive.

 

[g492p]

No full time teacher works 35 hours per week.

It's certainly true that teachers go above and beyond but it's also the case that at certain TOCs, train crew can - and do - refuse to carry out work on the mere basis that it is slightly different to what is booked (even where it is within their booked working hours), and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes.

Some teachers don’t go above and beyond at all, and are poor at their job. You can’t speak in sweeping statements about whole groups of workers. When you say “and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes” it makes it seem like you’ve got a personal issue with rail workers, the vast majority of whom roll with the punches. There is good and bad in all industries. Also, at my depot, when your job is canned you sit spare. If resources tell you to work a job within your hours, you do it. It happened to me today. Perhaps you’ve been misinformed about how crewing trains works. Anyway, what teachers do or don’t do is not particularly relevant to this deal.

 

[ar10642]

It is a regular theme to see posters criticising unions for not considering passengers, but this completely misses how the interests of unions and passengers aren’t aligned, as you yourself seem to have acknowledged.

Well it shouldn't be a surprise that passengers don't have a lot of time for the unions then.

Those same criticisms rarely seem to be levelled at the government (who do owe a duty to passengers)

We can vote out governments, but we're stuck with the RMT.

 

[Robertj21a]

It’s just notable that there is a strong bias against railway unions on here, which appears to be based on an inherent dislike of unions and/or a misunderstanding of the role they are supposed to perform. Unions are criticised far more than the government, which speaks volumes for anyone who has actually followed politics over the last couple of years or understands the current railway dispute (which is about Ts and Cs far more than it’s about money).



Which part of what I said above did you disagree with? I also pointed out that (at least some) teachers have voted to strike and the government’s response is to try to make that more difficult through legislation rather than listening to their concerns or negotiating.



In my direct experience most rail staff regularly go above and beyond their basic duties to help out, as a matter of course. As you have said comparisons in this area aren’t valid, so why are you drawing one here?

I think you're assuming that others view all unions as much the same. Personally, I'd treat most unions as worthwhile and of use to their members.
Then you have the RMT........much more like the 'bad old unions' like Scargill's NUM - often out of touch, with a healthy chunk of arrogance and tendency to look for trouble much of the time.
Possibly just an impression....

 

[yorkie]

It’s just notable that there is a strong bias against railway unions on here, which appears to be based on an inherent dislike of unions and/or a misunderstanding of the role they are supposed to perform. Unions are criticised far more than the government, which speaks volumes for anyone who has actually followed politics over the last couple of years or understands the current railway dispute (which is about Ts and Cs far more than it’s about money).



Which part of what I said above did you disagree with? I also pointed out that (at least some) teachers have voted to strike and the government’s response is to try to make that more difficult through legislation rather than listening to their concerns or negotiating.

As I quoted above, "Perhaps that’s why we read of the teaching profession being unable to attract quality graduates and teachers leaving in droves", this is, at best, an exaggeration.

In my direct experience most rail staff regularly go above and beyond their basic duties to help out, as a matter of course. As you have said comparisons in this area aren’t valid, so why are you drawing one here?

I have refuted false claims; I wasn't the one who came up with this comparison.

Not so. I'm correcting a factual inaccuracy in your posting. That is all.

That's not correct; I was not posting inaccurately. On the contrary, you made claims which are, at best, disingenuous.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

For me it's not helpful to compare professions, each has particular circumstances and for every one with better t&C's there's some with worse.

Teachers don't work shifts, myself in IT, just in IT you can get just above minimum wage starting salary vs 100k+ depending on industry and obviously it can be shifts or not.

My view with all public industry is that there should not be pay review bodies etc, it's simple take the average private sector increase. Then you don't get any richer or poorer than the rest of the population.

 

[Sleepy]

As g492p has stated you normally do what's asked within your time - yesterday I was spare starting at 1315, at 1730 I was phoned and advised I need to work part of a diagram which would take me up to my finish time of 2135. I was also asked if would work overtime to do the last part of the diagram finishing at midnight, which I agreed to do thus avoiding a round trip being cancelled. In the past with same situation I've felt too tired to work beyond my booked finish time and declined to do so (If a safety incident occurred you wouldn't get any leeway for helping out).

 

[Facing Back]

Some teachers don’t go above and beyond at all, and are poor at their job. You can’t speak in sweeping statements about whole groups of workers. When you say “and yet teachers would simply get on with such changes” it makes it seem like you’ve got a personal issue with rail workers, the vast majority of whom roll with the punches. There is good and bad in all industries. Also, at my depot, when your job is canned you sit spare. If resources tell you to work a job within your hours, you do it. It happened to me today. Perhaps you’ve been misinformed about how crewing trains works. Anyway, what teachers do or don’t do is not particularly relevant to this deal.

My experience is that "most" teachers do go "above and beyond" just as I am sure most rail workers do.

I agree that what teachers do is not relevant to this deal. I would say though that it relevant to this discussion and a comparison of expectations inside and outside of the rail industry is interesting and enlightening. I would also suggest that the pay terms offered to teachers is relevant to this deal as the government is clearly looking to maintain parity and equivalency.

 

[43066]

And you’re absolutely certain that there were no extenuating circumstances to this (e.g. route/traction knowledge, booked driver covering from spare on the day and exceeding his hours, etc)?

I’d be interested to understand how any of this can be known unless that specific driver had given a detailed account of his actions to the poster concerned - there are just too many variables at play. It’s also possible that the driver concerned was at the end of their shift and was too tired to continue driving.

Ultimately of course sometimes crew can and do refuse to help out but again, in my experience, train crew agree to help out far more than they refuse. So any implication that traincrew are awkward customers who do what they can to get out of work, while staff in other professions always “go the extra mile” is both inaccurate and unfair.

Also, at my depot, when your job is canned you sit spare. If resources tell you to work a job within your hours, you do it.

Same where I am. Refusal would only really be possible if it took you beyond your day (and if you agreed to do it and had an incident the company would likely try to blame you for being fatigued - damned either way) !!!

Well it shouldn't be a surprise that passengers don't have a lot of time for the unions then.

Spectacularly missing the point (again). The RMT aren’t interested in whether you like them or not. It isn’t their job to win popularity contests with passengers. But you dislike them anyway, despite previously stating you barely use the railway and drive everywhere.

Are you similarly irritated that the BMA don’t consult with you for your opinion on them when you visit your GP?

We can vote out governments, but we're stuck with the RMT.

What an odd statement. The RMT isn’t in government and isn’t a political party, last I checked.

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

As I quoted above, "Perhaps that’s why we read of the teaching profession being unable to attract quality graduates and teachers leaving in droves", this is, at best, an exaggeration.

That has long been my impression both from the media and people I’ve spoken to who’ve exited the industry (including my step dad who was a class room teacher for many years), all of whom cited stress, unreasonable expectations and little reward for the effort required.

I realise experiences will vary.

 

[Mcrdvr]

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.

Most of the country won't get what we have been offered? Really? most of my friends and family outside the railway in the private sector have had 6% plus rises and some with added one off payments for extra help with the massive cost of living increases. As for the 80's . Its more like the Tories not the unions who are trying to drag us back into them days with deliberate cuts to funding, the compromising of maintenance and demonisation of staff and service. God knows why because all that defunding that was deliberately done in the 80's and early 90's was to get it ready for the farce of privatization. Fast forward to now and privatization ain't gonna happen again so why would they do it all again other than to attack and try destroy the unions? Which , of course
,as Huw Merrimen confimed at the transport committee recently - it's exactly that. The attack on t&C's is imo is just plain and simple an ideological revenge attack on unions and workers that have dared to stick up for their conditions and their work/life balance over the years. Covid was just the cover the Tories needed to launch its ambush.