RMT TOC dispute update

[43066]

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.

A significant £15-20m per strike day actual cost to the industry was quoted (so even that cost alone will be substantial compared to a rise for the numbers of staff involved), and estimates of a cost into the billions to the wider economy.

Whether it falls on the treasury or not is irrelevant as to whether this is reckless behaviour by the government

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.

That isn’t the claim that’s being made. It’s clear the treasury can afford to find plenty of magic money for bungs to high earners with large pension pots as we have seen, so anyone parroting the government’s “there’s no money” line is either gullible or being dishonest.

Of course your idea of 'negotiate' actually means 'cave in' when applied to the government.

This is nonsense. As I have said the government could have settled for a below inflation rise months ago. That’s what we will end up with eventually anyway.

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.

That’s not at all clear from what Merriman said. It’s interesting how you seem incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of the government. As I said it’s notable that you’re so quick to criticise railway subsidies, but happy to ignore the enormous costs of this dispute, to both the railway and wider economy. I do get the impression many on here actively want the dispute to continue because they like to see unions attacked and railway staff made worse off.

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?

No, you just negotiate sensibly and in good faith, resolving disputes and preventing massive damage to the industry and the economy. The mad concept is prolonging the dispute for political reasons.

 

[Meerkat]

This is nonsense. As I have said the government could have settled for a below inflation rise months ago. That’s what we will end up with eventually anyway.

When did the RMT say they would accept that? TBF I have lost track of overlapping disputes going on so long.

That’s not at all clear from what Merriman said. It’s interesting how you seem incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of the government. As I said it’s notable that you’re so quick to criticise railway subsidies, but happy to ignore the enormous costs of this dispute, to both the railway and wider economy.

I don't ignore the costs, but it takes two to tango - the union call the strikes.

No, you just negotiate sensibly and in good faith, resolving disputes and preventing massive damage to the industry and the economy. The mad concept is prolonging the dispute for political reasons.

All that can be aimed at either party to the dispute, depending on your viewpoint.

 

[Annetts key]

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?

The union is the union members. The reps are drawn from the membership. How long do you think elected reps and officials would last if they went against the wishes of the members? Hence with the attack on jobs, T&C, working practices and an initial refusal by the railways to table ANY pay increase offer, there would have been absolutely no chance that the members would have accepted, and hence settled.

I really don’t get why railway enthusiasts don’t get that in order for the railways to be any kind of sensible working system, you need railway staff that are, err, enthusiastic. Staff that are peeved off and unhappy are not going do anymore than the bare minimum. And that’s assuming that the railways can attract and keep enough employees to run the system. As the T&Cs, working practices get worse, employees may well leave. Then the railways have to spend more money recruiting and training them up. And hope that they will stay…

 

[43066]

When did the RMT say they would accept that? TBF I have lost track of overlapping disputes going on so long.

If you look at what was accepted by the same unions in Wales and Scotland, that is the clearest possible indication of what will be accepted in England. This is still a significant real terms pay cut, of course.

I don't ignore the costs, but it takes two to tango - the union call the strikes.

Because their members haven’t had a rise for years in many cases, and are now significantly worse off. The government also actively prevented TOCs negotiating on pay and then spent months pretending the dispute had nothing to do with them.

All that can be aimed at either party to the dispute, depending on your viewpoint.

The unions are there to represent their members interests, and the political stuff means little to those on the ground. It’s simply about not wanting to be made significantly poorer and with much worse Ts and Cs.

 

[Confused52]

A significant £15-20m per strike day actual cost to the industry was quoted (so even that cost alone will be substantial compared to a rise for the numbers of staff involved), and estimates of a cost into the billions to the wider economy.

Whether it falls on the treasury or not is irrelevant as to whether this is reckless behaviour by the government

It not being in the interests of unions does not make it reckless. There no clear proof that it is "careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences". Your opinions are no better than anyone else on this point because their choices are political by their very nature.

That isn’t the claim that’s being made. It’s clear the treasury can afford to find plenty of magic money for bungs to high earners with large pension pots as we have seen, so anyone parroting the government’s “there’s no money” line is either gullible or being dishonest.

Your magic money allegations change like the wind, we do remember what you say. In the case of pensions it was the original decision to believe that high earners would continue to work late in their careers and pay very high tax on their pension contributions which was wrong. This is worst for those on final salary pensions the crystallised amount is a standard large multiple of the pension and where the pension contribution must go into the scheme. My local GP's surgery has lost 3 senior doctors to this madness. In reality it is likely that the change will save money on training costs and capital costs of increasing training capacity. There are hidden factors such as a guarantee to pay at least 5 years counts, if if it is payable, against the Lifetime Allowance making the effective limit even lower than people think. It is your claim that this a bung to higher earners which is objectionable because, as the doctors have demonstrated, anyone earning that much makes a rational choice to not pay the tax and not continue in employment. it isn't a bung because they were never going to pay that tax anyway. The treasury will not forgo any revenue or pay any more as a result. The whole idea was Gordon Brown's and Osbourne took advantage, they were both wrong.

 

[Kite159]

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.

Is there any proof that he has donated his pay on every strike day since the start in June?

Also reducing his 'base' salary to 85K is one thing for a headline figure/PR, but was there some arrangement for a near enough guaranteed bonus payment or extra pension money to take his salary back to what it was before he replaced Cashy?

Last train from Southampton towards Basingstoke yesterday (18:30) was very busy, even in the rear coaches. Mix of football fans & other passengers heading home, the car park operators must have been laughing to the bank, along with the bus companies gaining extra passengers who would otherwise have taken the train [i.e. Romsey to Southampton]

 

[winks]

So basically the Union (and its members ) are striking for what reason now ? The pay offer is simply not going to be improved, so all that it is doing is inconveniencing passengers and resulting in staff losing wages.

 

[Krokodil]

It not being in the interests of unions does not make it reckless. There no clear proof that it is "careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences".

Deliberately preventing a resolution (spending months preventing negotiations from moving while lying about it; throwing DOO-shaped grenades into negotiations at the eleventh hour...), causing widespread chaos (not just on strike days, loss of goodwill has turned Avanti and TPE upside down) and harming the economy as a result is reckless.

 

[yorkie]

....I really don’t get why railway enthusiasts don’t get that in order for the railways to be any kind of sensible working system, you need railway staff that are, err, enthusiastic. ...

That would be nice but I've come across unenthusiastic staff ever since I started using the railway; indeed it was probably worse a couple of decades ago than it is in the modern era. It's not the majority by any means, but it's always been very noticeable.

So basically the Union (and its members ) are striking for what reason now ?

Unions don't like to lose face, so can't be seen to be giving in.

 

[Krokodil]

Is there any proof that he has donated his pay on every strike day since the start in June?

What business is it of yours?

So basically the Union (and its members ) are striking for what reason now ? The pay offer is simply not going to be improved, so all that it is doing is inconveniencing passengers and resulting in staff losing wages.

How many times? The pay offer is not the obstacle. 5+4 (or was it 5+5?) is an acceptable offer. What's not acceptable is the loss of fixed/rolling rest day patterns, 12 hrs movement off spare, plus full weeks of spare when you could be moved onto any rest days. This is the sort of thing that makes it really difficult to plan a family life. It will make retention much more difficult and at the same time doesn't really gain much in the way of productivity.

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

That would be nice but I've come across unenthusiastic staff ever since I started using the railway; indeed it was probably worse a couple of decades ago than it is in the modern era. It's not the majority by any means, but it's always been very noticeable.

When "unenthusiastic" translates to "unwilling to work rest days" or "unwilling to do any favours for the TCS or Control" then instead of mere surly customer service, you might find yourself wondering if you'll get home that night.

 

[Snow1964]

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

On the basis that the Union promised they would get a pay rise and protect jobs. But that was 4-5 months ago, and now people can see the reality.

Instead the strike has achieved virtually nothing (apart from losing many people lots of days pay), the offer remains almost same as at the time of strike vote.

Since the 2 most recent days were called 2-3 weeks ago, there has been zero sign of any further gain to the members, but a loss of about 1% of annual pay. That's not a sustainable rate of progress.

Now at over 4 months of the mandates 6 months validity, so unless they can get another mandate, strike action ends in 7 weeks time anyway.

Got to get at least 50% turnout and 40% supporting action to be lawful, and apathy to voting (disillusionment) might be the downfall of continuing action.

I'm not sure the Government can even make new offers during the local election purdah period, (haven't checked dates but just after Easter).

 

[43066]

It not being in the interests of unions does not make it reckless. There no clear proof that it is "careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences". Your opinions are no better than anyone else on this point because their choices are political by their very nature.

As a tax payer I would like to see this government settle the wider public sector disputes in a pragmatic way that doesn’t cost the economy huge amounts. It’s odd that so many on here seem to slavishly parrot the propaganda put out by the government - I am convinced this is due to a dislike of unions rather than any genuine concern over costs.

Your magic money allegations change like the jwind, we do remember what you say. In the case of pensions it was the original decision to believe that high earners would continue to work late in their careers and pay very high tax on their pension contributions which was wrong. This is worst for those on final salary pensions the crystallised amount is a standard large multiple of the pension and where the pension contribution must go into the scheme. My local GP's surgery has lost 3 senior doctors to this madness. In reality it is likely that the change will save money on training costs and capital costs of increasing training capacity. There are hidden factors such as a guarantee to pay at least 5 years counts, if if it is payable, against the Lifetime Allowance making the effective limit even lower than people think. It is your claim that this a bung to higher earners which is objectionable because, as the doctors have demonstrated, anyone earning that much makes a rational choice to not pay the tax and not continue in employment. it isn't a bung because they were never going to pay that tax anyway. The treasury will not forgo any revenue or pay any more as a result. The whole idea was Gordon Brown's and Osbourne took advantage, they were both wrong.

Have you actually read up on this? The cost of elimination of the lifetime allowance is going to be several billion over the next few years.

If the concern was really the NHS, the measures could have been a lot more targeted: make no mistake, this is a bung to high earners generally, and far more high earners in the city, professional services firms etc. will benefit (clearly who this is really aimed at) than doctors. Many in this category will reach the lifetime limit at a relatively young age and will now continue to benefit from favourable tax treatment to save huge amounts of tax they would otherwise have paid.

Hunt can’t even tell us how many doctors will continue working(!) and the IFS has heavily criticised the policy. It’s off topic to discuss in detail but it’s frankly delusional to imagine this isn’t going to be very costly indeed, or that it’s really meant to help the NHS. Yet “there’s no money” for nurses and rail staff…

What is Jeremy Hunt’s pensions giveaway and who gains most?

Chancellor’s changes have been criticised as a multibillion-pound handout to Britain’s wealthiest

www.theguardian.com

In the budget, Hunt abolished the pensions lifetime allowance, which is the limit on how much people can build up in their pots over their lifetime. Previously, anything over £1.07m was subject to a tax charge of up to 55%. The limit applied to all personal and workplace pensions but excluded the state pension, and was due to be frozen at its current level until 2026. Instead of increasing the allowance, as had been expected, the chancellor scrapped it altogether.
He also increased the annual allowance – which is the maximum someone can save in a pension pot in a single tax year before having to pay tax – from £40,000 to £60,000.
The Treasury says it acted because the lifetime allowance led many professionals, such as NHS consultants and GPs, to retire early on reaching the limit, creating a staffing crisis.
Official budget documents show that abolishing the lifetime allowance will cost the Treasury a total of £2.75bn over five years. Isaac Delestre, research economist at the IFS, said the whole policy of exempting pensions savings from inheritance tax was wrong and should be reformed by government.

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

On the basis that the Union promised they would get a pay rise and protect jobs. But that was 4-5 months ago, and now people can see the reality.

Somehow I doubt you speak for the RMT membership.

 

[Confused52]

As a tax payer I would like to see this government settle the wider public sector disputes in a pragmatic way that doesn’t cost the economy huge amounts. It’s odd that so many on here seem to slavishly parrot the propaganda put out by the government - I am convinced this is due to a dislike of unions rather than any genuine concern over costs.

You can be convinced of anything that suits your purpose. However you have now said that to me twice and been wrong twice. What the government say is not always propaganda, you are confusing them with someone else.

Have you actually read up on this? The cost of elimination of the lifetime allowance is going to be several billion over the next few years.

Yes I have. As I said the cost is illusory, the well paid have never paid voluntary taxes: to the point of leaving the country if necessary under the highest rates of income tax under Labour. It is a fact that when the top tax rate is too high people find ways to not earn or legally avoid tax. No one was going to pay those exorbitant rates of tax by choice. The left wing commentariat including the IFS come out with this stuff but HMRC know better.

If the concern was really the NHS, the measures could have been a lot more targeted: make no mistake, this is a bung to high earners generally, and far more high earners in the city, professional services firms etc. will benefit (clearly who this is reallyaimed at) than doctors. Many in this category will reach the lifetime limit at a relatively young age and will now continue to benefit from favourable tax treatment to save huge amounts of tax they would otherwise have paid.

The doctors were just the first affected. The figure was such that a final salary pension with 5 years paid on death just after retirement would leave a lump sum payable to a spouse on an occupational pension of 40k or more with 55% tax. The number of roles to be affected was going to be rising. The demise of final salary pensions (now just in part of most pensions) leave many at the whim of market values and that variability adds to the risk of not enough or too much. The problem would have been a decrease in the average pensioner income over time. That would have led to more supplements to the basic pension. In any case those that do get lucky will just add to the ever growing higher rate tax from pensioners. It just is not sensible to reduce the benefits of success to the workforce just because they aren't low paid. That is socialism - working for equal of outcome not equal opportunity.

 

[43066]

What the government say is not always propaganda, you are confusing them with someone else.

You can hang on every word this government put out, others are not so easily fooled. And their actions speak louder than their words…

Yes I have. As I said the cost is illusory, the well paid have never paid voluntary taxes: to the point of leaving the country if necessary under the highest rates of income tax under Labour. It is a fact that when the top tax rate is too high people find ways to not earn or legally avoid tax. No one was going to pay those exorbitant rates of tax by choice. The left wing commentariat including the IFS come out with this stuff but HMRC know better.

The cost is not illusory and is spelt out in various sources if you care to look for it. To suggest otherwise is factually incorrect and half baked laffer curve generalities won’t change that. This decision by Hunt has opened a straight forward route for significant tax avoidance by very high earners, there are also inheritance tax implications which appear not to have been thought through. This has nothing to do with the NHS or doctors and it’s quite clear this government is not remotely interested in the NHS.

Reducing tax rates and simplifying the tax system isn’t necessarily bad in itself at the right time, but what you appear to be missing is that millions in this country are being told there’s nothing for them, while the highest earners are given a large tax break. Being taken for fools is starting to annoy many people, including many more moderate conservative voters, hence these desperate attempts to placate the wealthy and the large pensioner voting base.

It just is not sensible to reduce the benefits of success to the workforce just because they aren't low paid. That is socialism - working for equal of outcome not equal opportunity.

This is properly Trussite stuff. You now appear to be confusing a progressive tax system with socialism. I will leave this aspect of the discussion there as it’s drifting off topic.

 

[Annetts key]

It not being in the interests of unions does not make it reckless. There no clear proof that it is "careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences". Your opinions are no better than anyone else on this point because their choices are political by their very nature.

Any decisions that affect either the country or the lives of the people of the country ARE political. Hence ALL decisions by the government are political.

And, yes, decisions by the unions may also be political. But, the unions are attempting to look after their members. The objective is not to attempt to change the government. Before the RMT got any offer from the employers, the employers told the RMT that they wanted changes to T&Cs, working practices etc. And during the talks, of which there have been many, many days worth, for the most part, the employers would not negotiate. Only later on did the employers make a pay offer.

That’s hardly reasonable behaviour from the employers. Especially as we now know that the government behind the scenes have been limiting what the employers can do. That I would call unreasonable political interference.

 

[Confused52]

Any decisions that affect either the country or the lives of the people of the country ARE political. Hence ALL decisions by the government are political.

And, yes, decisions by the unions may also be political. But, the unions are attempting to look after their members. The objective is not to attempt to change the government. Before the RMT got any offer from the employers, the employers told the RMT that they wanted changes to T&Cs, working practices etc. And during the talks, of which there have been many, many days worth, for the most part, the employers would not negotiate. Only later on did the employers make a pay offer.

That’s hardly reasonable behaviour from the employers. Especially as we now know that the government behind the scenes have been limiting what the employers can do. That I would call unreasonable political interference.

Could you not have understood that position by reading the NRCs etc, I think it was obvious that their contract was with government. It was the also inevitable consequence of GBR being in the wings.

The real question is what will the response be to the per TOC consultation events. We would like to hear views on that because there is a clear risk of an all out strike given the declared negotiating position of the RMT. What are your thoughts?

 

[DNCharingX]

As if these conditions will be accepted at individual TOCs??? What are they getting at here haha

 

[Krokodil]

Could you not have understood that position by reading the NRCs etc, I think it was obvious that their contract was with government.

Evidently Grant Shapps didn't think that it was obvious. Why else would he have denied it for so long?

As if these conditions will be accepted at individual TOCs??? What are they getting at here haha

Some operators already had those conditions in place (and their staff were considerably better paid as a result). The government are clearly hoping that those operators will settle, leaving only those with the most to lose (ending up with the same conditions, but without equal pay) still fighting. Divide and rule, you see.

 

[Dan G]

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

Just to clear this up, Cheltenham Festival 2023 attendance figures:

2022 number in brackets

Tuesday: 60,284 (68,567) -12.1%
Wednesday: 50,387 (64,431) -21.8%
Thursday: 62,429 (73,754) -15.4%

Cost of living crisis blamed for alarming drop in Cheltenham crowd figures - but what is driving the downturn?

It is too early to draw definitive conclusions from the steep drop in attendance figures over the first three days of the Cheltenham Festival,... Read More

www.racingpost.com

Attendance was capped to 68,500 daily this year. Friday was the only day sold out (no data for Friday available yet).

Against the limit of the 68,500 daily cap, Thursday had the best attendance of the first three days.

 

[LAX54]

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.

And Clacton/Walton/Harwich

 

[SCDR_WMR]

So basically the Union (and its members ) are striking for what reason now ? The pay offer is simply not going to be improved, so all that it is doing is inconveniencing passengers and resulting in staff losing wages.

Terms & conditions. I would take a 'no pay rise' for 2022/23 with no changes to term over the current offer given the terms of the deal meaning I would physically take home less pay than currently as the efficiencies affect my terms for more than other TOCs (who some will get the pa rise for zero or minimal changes to t&C's)

 

[dk1]

And Clacton/Walton/Harwich

Yes AFAIK. Lots being trained up at Colchester last Wednesday. Not my area so don't get involved with the GE sidecreally.

 

[Geeves]

Northern are also training up the office staff to be guards again so the message has obviously gone out to the TOC management. Doesn't look great

 

[LowLevel]

Northern are also training up the office staff to be guards again so the message has obviously gone out to the TOC management. Doesn't look great

Well it was pointless spending time and effort on that when they could run hardly anything anyway with NR striking.

I assume they're gambling that the NR vote (which closes at midday) will be in favour and therefore that far more trains can run in future.

It'll still be knocking lumps out of their management productivity, given they're not allowed to do their day job whilst working trains or stations (no sneaking on to the laptop in the back cab for example).

 

[Krokodil]

Northern are also training up the office staff to be guards again so the message has obviously gone out to the TOC management. Doesn't look great

Stand by for a medley of wrong-side door releases and attempts to dispatch against a red then.

Given that Northern and TPE have said that their guards are key to their revenue protection, there will be a considerable hit to revenue anyway.

 

[coppercapped]

Any decisions that affect either the country or the lives of the people of the country ARE political. Hence ALL decisions by the government are political.

And, yes, decisions by the unions may also be political. But, the unions are attempting to look after their members. The objective is not to attempt to change the government.

Really?

The RMT's web site states:

Objects
4. The objects of the Union shall be:-
.
.
.
(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

If the RMT wants to be taken as a trade union which is only negotiating on behalf of its members then maybe it should drop this aim.

Otherwise it could also be accused of saying one thing but wanting something different. It's members deserve better.

This is the RMT's 'Clause Four' moment.

Before the RMT got any offer from the employers, the employers told the RMT that they wanted changes to T&Cs, working practices etc. And during the talks, of which there have been many, many days worth, for the most part, the employers would not negotiate. Only later on did the employers make a pay offer.

That’s hardly reasonable behaviour from the employers. Especially as we now know that the government behind the scenes have been limiting what the employers can do. That I would call unreasonable political interference.

 

[12LDA28C]

Really?

The RMT's web site states:

If the RMT wants to be taken as a trade union which is only negotiating on behalf of its members then maybe it should drop this aim.

Otherwise it could also be accused of saying one thing but wanting something different. It's members deserve better.

This is the RMT's 'Clause Four' moment.

Ah, this old chestnut again. Yawn.

If you actually believe that a union can bring down a government by striking then you have a very vivid imagination. But of course this government is doing a very good job of destroying itself without any help from anyone else.

 

[mrmartin]

If the NR RMT result is to accept and ASLEF agree too (not saying that is on the cards, but it is possible), surely the RMT TOC strike is really weakend?

DOO trains will be able to run as normal, managers can probably run a relatively good core service as guards? Can stations be left unstaffed?

 

[coppercapped]

Ah, this old chestnut again. Yawn.

If you actually believe that a union can bring down a government by striking then you have a very vivid imagination. But of course this government is doing a very good job of destroying itself without any help from anyone else.

Yawn!

If the quoted objective of the RMT is so insignificant, then why is it still in the RMT's rule book?

 

[Dan G]

Ah, this old chestnut again. Yawn.

If you actually believe that a union can bring down a government by striking then you have a very vivid imagination. But of course this government is doing a very good job of destroying itself without any help from anyone else.

The RMT believe it. That's the problem.