RMT TOC dispute update

[Goldfish62]

It appears that the extra money found for nurses may not in fact be new money, but to be gained through "efficiencies".

 

[gazzaa2]

Damaging festivals and events is always going to have a great impact on public opinion.

It was a bit sarcastic. I think the strikes have got pointless now in 2023. They hurt some sectors of the economy and annoy the public. They don't serve any other purpose because a) the public get on with it, they aren't grinding the country to a halt and b) the government genuinely don't care. C) it isn't even newsworthy anymore. Partly because other strikes like the health service are seen as a bigger priority and also it's dragged on that long people have become immune to it.

Maybe if they'd taken a different approach earlier like "all out for a month" like the Passport Office are doing or Arriva did with the buses. A couple of days a week every month just makes little difference. They upped the ante in the build up to Christmas though and the government didn't blink. They're out of road now.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I had a walk in eye test yesterday on Tottenham Court Road yesterday because "we've had so many cancellations because of the strike"

I suspect the strikes are having a massive large affect on people and businesses but disruption is now factored in to plans, so each strike has diminishing returns.

 

[dk1]

I had a walk in eye test yesterday on Tottenham Court Road yesterday because "we've had so many cancellations because of the strike"

I suspect the strikes are having a massive large affect on people and businesses but disruption is now factored in to plans, so each strike has diminishing returns.

UK Hospitality (UKH) has announced that it expects the industry to lose around £600m in sales during the 4 strike days this month & on 1st April.

 

[father_jack]

I think you'll find education and health strikes had more effect on Cheltenham than rail strikes. But that doesn't suit the narrative here.

 

[3RDGEN]

It was a bit sarcastic. I think the strikes have got pointless now in 2023. They hurt some sectors of the economy and annoy the public. They don't serve any other purpose because a) the public get on with it, they aren't grinding the country to a halt and b) the government genuinely don't care. C) it isn't even newsworthy anymore. Partly because other strikes like the health service are seen as a bigger priority and also it's dragged on that long people have become immune to it.

Maybe if they'd taken a different approach earlier like "all out for a month" like the Passport Office are doing or Arriva did with the buses. A couple of days a week every month just makes little difference. They upped the ante in the build up to Christmas though and the government didn't blink. They're out of road now.

Agreed, it needed to be much bigger action from the start. People got used to not using the trains during COVID and given you get 14 days notice most people can plan around the ad-hoc strike days. Disruptive yes, but no longer effective.

 

[gazzaa2]

UK Hospitality (UKH) has announced that it expects the industry to lose around £600m in sales during the 4 strike days this month & on 1st April.

It's hospitality that suffers because every strike week always has to include Saturday when the trains are always packed out for leisure travel. But because leisure travel often aren't essential journeys (or you at least get 2+ weeks notice to make alternative travel plans) people can adapt to it. It means more people in cars, more people in taxis or on buses, more people staying in their local area.

 

[LAX54]

How were GA able to run such an intensive service yesterday, caught a few people out !

 

[dk1]

How were GA able to run such an intensive service yesterday, caught a few people out !

Contingency guards have been trained up intensively over the last week or so. I can only assume more are available on Saturdays. Was an hourly service on all local routes out of Norwich.

 

[island]

Only Friday was sold out.

• Tuesday: 68,567
• Wednesday: 64,431
• Thursday: 73,754
• Friday: 73,875

However, it's possible that the lower attendance on some days was due to racegoers not fancying paying £7.50 a pint for Guinness and equally eye watering prices for other refreshments.

That's the attendance, not the number of tickets sold.

 

[dk1]

That's the attendance, not the number of tickets sold.

Only Friday was sold out.

• Tuesday: 68,567
• Wednesday: 64,431
• Thursday: 73,754
• Friday: 73,875

However, it's possible that the lower attendance on some days was due to racegoers not fancying paying £7.50 a pint for Guinness and equally eye watering prices for other refreshments.

Are they not the 2022 attendance figures?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2023 ==

Thursday this year was 62,429.

 

[ExRes]

I heard a snippet on the radio yesterday about lost income, it made me wonder what ludicrous % increase would be required just to make up the lost wages, I was also wondering whether the union hierarchy have taken any reduction in their pay and perks since the start of the strikes, I very much doubt it

 

[dk1]

Looks like the Thursday strike had a massive impact on attendance. 121 fewer people could make it compared to the Friday!

That’s because they were 2022 attendance figures. Thursday 2023 was around 11,300 lower.

 

[Scott1]

I heard a snippet on the radio yesterday about lost income, it made me wonder what ludicrous % increase would be required just to make up the lost wages, I was also wondering whether the union hierarchy have taken any reduction in their pay and perks since the start of the strikes, I very much doubt it

Mick Lynch donates his days pay to the union hardship fund on strike days, and when he took over he felt his salary was too high and its been reduced, I want to say to about 85k, but I am not confident in that figure tbh. That said, he is doing his job, as are the other "union hierarchy" so as a member I don't expect them to take a pay cut, and don't see any reason they should be expected to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Its not a case of "no money", its a case of "limited money".

There’s plenty of money. By the government’s own admission, the strikes have cost more than settling would have done. From the government side it isn’t about money, it’s about getting a Scargill moment, and they’re prepared to waste tens of millions of taxpayer money to achieve it.

The nurses- whose trade union have always been weak- settling on such a pathetic deal will only embolden the government so I’m honestly not sure where the RMT can or will go from here.

 

[Meerkat]

There’s plenty of money. By the government’s own admission, the strikes have cost more than settling would have done.

Wasn't that comment misunderstood? AIUI the strikes still cost less than the total future cost of settling - which is cumulative forever and affects pensions.

 

[ExRes]

Mick Lynch donates his days pay to the union hardship fund on strike days, and when he took over he felt his salary was too high and its been reduced, I want to say to about 85k, but I am not confident in that figure tbh. That said, he is doing his job, as are the other "union hierarchy" so as a member I don't expect them to take a pay cut, and don't see any reason they should be expected to.

Delighted and surprised to hear that, my past experiences show Lynch to be different from the norm then, on the other point I disagree with you totally, in many cases strikes are simply down to the union hierarchy showing off their muscles, if they expect the membership to suffer financially then so should they

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wasn't that comment misunderstood? AIUI the strikes still cost less than the total future cost of settling - which is cumulative forever and affects pensions.

I think the Minister tried to row it back, but that’s not the same thing at all.

Of course the cost is cumulative forever- but so is inflation, and the government try their hardest to deflect from that. The 10+% inflation will stay with us forever, even if inflation does drop back to 2% later this year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2023 ==

strikes are simply down to the union hierarchy showing off their muscles

I’m honestly not sure how you reach this conclusion when the vote to strike is directly determined by the membership.

If the membership isn’t aggrieved a vote for strike action doesn’t succeed.

 

[winks]

It appears that the extra money found for nurses may not in fact be new money, but to be gained through "efficiencies".

I have the revised pay offer document - there is no efficiencies to be sought from NHS Trusts. This is new money coming from the Treasury and NHS England budget.

 

[43066]

There’s plenty of money. By the government’s own admission, the strikes have cost more than settling would have done. From the government side it isn’t about money, it’s about getting a Scargill moment, and they’re prepared to waste tens of millions of taxpayer money to achieve it.

The nurses- whose trade union have always been weak- settling on such a pathetic deal will only embolden the government so I’m honestly not sure where the RMT can or will go from here.

That’s true. On the other hand I get the sense the government is realising that they haven’t got public opinion on their side in the way they expected to last year, so are now looking to settle these disputes.

Wasn't that comment misunderstood? AIUI the strikes still cost less than the total future cost of settling - which is cumulative forever and affects pensions.

This is an argument against nobody ever being given a pay rise! It is also completely spurious, as it ignores the fact that any increase will be reduced over time by inflation. The fact is the short term dispute has cost more than settling, and is still inhibiting growth.

The government could have settled with a below inflation rise months ago, but instead has spent months refusing to allow negotiations (while lying about it) and are, as noted above, effectively bankrolling the dispute with public money for ideological reasons. Some might say that’s a poor use of the taxpayers’ money you normally claim to be so concerned about!

if they expect the membership to suffer financially then so should they

You do realise the membership are the ones who have voted to strike?

 

[Meerkat]

This is an argument against nobody ever being given a pay rise! It is also completely spurious, as any increase will be reduced over time by inflation. The fact is the short term dispute has cost more than settling, and is still inhibiting growth.

Nope, it’s an argument against the statement that settling would be cheaper than the economic cost of the strikes. So your ‘fact’ isn’t a fact AIUI.
Besides the obvious point of it being the cost of settling this dispute, not all the disputes caving in would encourage.

 

[43066]

Nope, it’s an argument against the statement that settling would be cheaper than the economic cost of the strikes. So your ‘fact’ isn’t a fact AIUI.

You haven’t actually addressed the point I’ve made, so there’s little point discussing it further!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2023 ==

Besides the obvious point of it being the cost of settling this dispute, not all the disputes caving in would encourage.

Again it isn’t about “caving in” it’s about negotiating a settlement. The government could have done so months ago but has chosen not to at huge cost to the wider economy.

Someone who claims to be as concerned about railway finances and subsidies as you do should be bothered by that, yet you seem just to ignore it!

 

[yorksrob]

Nope, it’s an argument against the statement that settling would be cheaper than the economic cost of the strikes. So your ‘fact’ isn’t a fact AIUI.
Besides the obvious point of it being the cost of settling this dispute, not all the disputes caving in would encourage.

It's ironic that the dispute has been drawn out by the Government to deter other public services from striking, and they've gone ahead anyway.

Such tactical prowess !

 

[Carlisle]

It's ironic that the dispute has been drawn out by the Government to deter other public services from striking, and they've gone ahead anyway.

Such tactical prowess !

Weren’t disputes already bubbling up at least on TPE, Northern, Scotrail & Caledonian Sleeper over various issues towards the end of Covid but prior to the cost of living crisis?
Industrial relations in the sector have been pretty poor for a while for various reasons & under different governments .

 

[Annetts key]

It's ironic that the dispute has been drawn out by the Government to deter other public services from striking, and they've gone ahead anyway.

Such tactical prowess !

Reminds me of Darth Putin (@DarthPutinKGB) tag line: I am and remain a Master Strategist…

 

[Confused52]

Nope, it’s an argument against the statement that settling would be cheaper than the economic cost of the strikes. So your ‘fact’ isn’t a fact AIUI.
Besides the obvious point of it being the cost of settling this dispute, not all the disputes caving in would encourage.

Merriman actually quoted costs in the wider economy being greater than the costs of settling in the Select Committee; that generated the notion about costs of settling being less than those incurred. Those costs do not fall on the treasury but the general public and are not future recurring costs. The claims that what Merriman said is proof that there was money available to settle on the basis of his remarks are, and always were, bogus.

I suspect that the Government now see the issue of t's and c's as no longer part of the negotiation but are to be imposed. That means that the maximum savings achievable will now be achieved and so there is no need to discuss efficiency savings further with the unions in the TOC dispute. That should be borne in mind when considering the lack of efficiency savings desired in the NHS. The T&C s appear to be the important issue for both sides all along.

 

[Goldfish62]

Merriman actually quoted costs in the wider economy being greater than the costs of settling in the Select Committee; that generated the notion about costs of settling being less than those incurred. Those costs do not fall on the treasury but the general public and are not future recurring costs.

Those facts seem to be lost on a lot of people.

 

[Meerkat]

Again it isn’t about “caving in” it’s about negotiating a settlement. The government could have done so months ago but has chosen not to at huge cost to the wider economy.

Someone who claims to be as concerned about railway finances and subsidies as you do should be bothered by that, yet you seem just to ignore it!

The union could also have negotiated a settlement months ago. Of course your idea of 'negotiate' actually means 'cave in' when applied to the government.
Settling would almost certainly cost the railway more than the strikes - the figure Merriman was talking about was the cost to the whole economy, and disregarded the effect that such a caving in would have on other pay disputes.
Its also a rather mad concept - that you would settle every dispute on how much damage strikes could cause...how many strikes would you budget for, where would it stop?

 

[Sleepy]

Messing with /forcing changes to t&c is a great way to keep workforce morale at rock bottom and to encourage the quoted "Nobody gives a damn railway"
Recruitment /retention at lower paying TOCs is certainly showing now - never seen such frequent advertising for qualified drivers for example.

 

[Goldfish62]

Recruitment /retention at lower paying TOCs is certainly showing now - never seen such frequent advertising for qualified drivers for example.

It's the same everywhere, not just the railways and not just this country.

The whole world's going mad.