RDG response to RMT's recent "road map" proposal.

[Russel]

I’d also add that I’d never forget when FirstGroup took over from Virgin, Steve Montgomery did a ‘roadshow’ for all the frontline staff at each depot and he was asked repeatedly if he believed guards and ticket office staff had a future on the railway. He said yes as he believes that they are fundamental. Look how he’s changed his tune. An individual with zero convictions or a liar, take your pick. Wish I’d recorded it.

Ticket office staff are no longer fundamental, and haven't been for a long time, so he was simply telling staff what they wanted to hear...

 

[scouseyb123]

Ticket office staff are no longer fundamental, and haven't been for a long time, so he was simply telling staff what they wanted to hear...

That makes him a liar then. What a great leader of the industry.

 

[Facing Back]

This is the so-called chairman of the RDG who has personal responsibility for the mess. If he truly cared about the railways, he’d be working day and night tirelessly to find a solution, not sitting on his hands. If you were the chairperson of the RDG would you just be content “riding it out”? Even if I had personal animosity for the unions on the other side of the table I’d be doing whatever it took to negotiate a settlement that works for all stakeholders in the industry, not allow it to fester. The man is obviously gutless and no leader. Its a shame that you’re willing to defend him lying to staff.

He is not so "so called chairman", he is the chairman, whether you like it or not and he is jointly responsible with a good few other stakeholders, including the RMT for this mess.

He's presented the last and final offer - what else do you expect him to do? My reading is that he and the team had to work very hard to get consensus with stakeholders to find the concessions that were in the offer, after working hard to agree with the RMT negotiating team what a mutually acceptable offer might look like. This was then summarily dismissed by the RMT NEC. Correct me if I am wrong.

If I was the chairman of the RDG I would be doing exactly what he seems to be doing. Calling for and encouraging dialogue whilst at the same time not prepared to make another offer until the last one was put to the members. If I was in a situation where I believed that the negotiating team on the other side of the table were subject to abrupt reversals at the whim of their masters, rather than operating until a remit where they had authority up to a certain level - as is normally the case - the last thing I would do is expend my political capital to persuade my peers and stakeholders to accept something.

I've never met him so I can't comment on whether he is gutless and no leader but you clearly have and it seems that you didn't get on.

 

[RT4038]

Erm its perfectly possible to judge someone based on that. He’d rather not show leadership if that’s what he really believed but took the cowards way out and fibbed to frontline staff? That’s not what anyone in a leadership position should do. What strange logic you bring to defend a liar.

So what should he have done, at the start of his tenure, when asked this question? (' I don't think ticket offices or guards have any future in this industry'?) . What would the railway staff reaction have been to that ? (Oh, thanks for being honest. We think you're a great leader for that.) Yeah right.

 

[scouseyb123]

So what should he have done, at the start of his tenure, when asked this question? (' I don't think ticket offices or guards have any future in this industry'?) . What would the railway staff reaction have been to that ? (Oh, thanks for being honest. We think you're a great leader for that.) Yeah right.

He is not so "so called chairman", he is the chairman, whether you like it or not and he is jointly responsible with a good few other stakeholders, including the RMT for this mess.

He's presented the last and final offer - what else do you expect him to do? My reading is that he and the team had to work very hard to get consensus with stakeholders to find the concessions that were in the offer, after working hard to agree with the RMT negotiating team what a mutually acceptable offer might look like. This was then summarily dismissed by the RMT NEC. Correct me if I am wrong.

If I was the chairman of the RDG I would be doing exactly what he seems to be doing. Calling for and encouraging dialogue whilst at the same time not prepared to make another offer until the last one was put to the members. If I was in a situation where I believed that the negotiating team on the other side of the table were subject to abrupt reversals at the whim of their masters, rather than operating until a remit where they had authority up to a certain level - as is normally the case - the last thing I would do is expend my political capital to persuade my peers and stakeholders to accept something.

I've never met him so I can't comment on whether he is gutless and no leader but you clearly have and it seems that you didn't get on.

where has he called for and encouraged dialogue? He’s disappeared! The way you talk about it I feel like you have more insider knowledge than you’re letting on. Pray tell us who you really are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

So what should he have done, at the start of his tenure, when asked this question? (' I don't think ticket offices or guards have any future in this industry'?) . What would the railway staff reaction have been to that ? (Oh, thanks for being honest. We think you're a great leader for that.) Yeah right.

What a great leader of the industry, almost as great as your logic.

 

[Facing Back]

where has he called for and encouraged dialogue? He’s disappeared! The way you talk about it I feel like you have more insider knowledge than you’re letting on. Pray tell us who you really are.

From his letter:

"Notwithstanding the above, we are encouraged that you are seeking to move forward, and we continue to remain available for industry talks next week to explore options that would enable us to be able to give our employees a pay increase while ending the industrial action that will see your members lose further earnings."

I do not work in the industry and have no insider knowledge of any kind. What I do have is an interest in this matter and I've read the submissions from either side plus all of the dialogue and insight here. I also have significant experience in negotiating large deals for both private and public organisations in difficult situations, and the behaviours and brinkmanship here are quite obvious.

Of course the actual objectives and "bottom line" that each party has are not obvious.

 

[Russel]

What a great leader of the industry, almost as great as your logic.

So, as RT4038 said, what should he have done when asked?

You're criticizing him for lying, if he was honest, it would have caused uproar...

 

[baz962]

So, as RT4038 said, what should he have done when asked?

You're criticizing him for lying, if he was honest, it would have caused uproar...

But we now have that same uproar , but we would have had more respect for telling the truth.

 

[LowLevel]

I'd be amazed if it didn't pass.

But if it indeed didn't pass, well then the RMT can keep on striking, and as demand for rail travel falls the staff can be laid off.

Afterall, how many people work in Longbridge now.

You'd be amazed if it didn't pass? What planet are you on?

The red line for even the most moderate staff member is having our days off chucked into a bingo machine every 3 months with every roster cycle change.

Goodbye childcare arrangements, goodbye booking anything in advance, goodbye matching with partners.

It literally says each time work is reviewed (which is every few months) the number of rest days will be allocated according to averaged hours and put into the roster to suit efficiency within the business.

There is an almost total lack of understanding from external parties here.

Forget Sundays. There's many ways to skin a cat on that score, some win, some lose with it. How your time off is arranged and planned is absolutely crucial to functioning as a human being and the proposed offer removes any hint of there being any obligation towards the employee's work life balance.

Just 18 months ago the Department for Transport signed off contractually setting my grade's time off as it is in exchange for a hybrid of Sundays in the week for new starters and committed for the remaining all but the most senior staff who were allowed to retain their conditions with a zero percent payrise. They can stick to their word.

 

[scouseyb123]

So, as RT4038 said, what should he have done when asked?

You're criticizing him for lying, if he was honest, it would have caused uproar...

another person defending the indefensible

But we now have that same uproar , but we would have had more respect for telling the truth.

Exactly

 

[Facing Back]

But we now have that same uproar , but we would have had more respect for telling the truth.

He's the MD of First Group Rail. Judging by the comments about them on this forum he has no chance of respect from many regardless of what he does.

Its a fact of corporate life, and politics too, you don't announce something until you are ready to announce it, until that point you keep on parroting the party line. If he has to line up a board, 15 TOCs, NR and 2 government departments before agreement and approval, he is not going to stray a hair's breadth from the official line - until the official line changes.

 

[Goldfish62]

He's the MD of First Group Rail. Judging by the comments about them on this forum he has no chance of respect from many regardless of what he does.

Its a fact of corporate life, and politics too, you don't announce something until you are ready to announce it, until that point you keep on parroting the party line. If he has to line up a board, 15 TOCs, NR and 2 government departments before agreement and approval, he is not going to stray a hair's breadth from the official line - until the official line changes.

And given that he talking in his First Rail capacity and pre-Covid when prospects for the railways were very different I'm surprised anyone is unable to see the distinction.

 

[scouseyb123]

He's the MD of First Group Rail. Judging by the comments about them on this forum he has no chance of respect from many regardless of what he does.

Its a fact of corporate life, and politics too, you don't announce something until you are ready to announce it, until that point you keep on parroting the party line. If he has to line up a board, 15 TOCs, NR and 2 government departments before agreement and approval, he is not going to stray a hair's breadth from the official line - until the official line changes.

He's the MD of First Group Rail. Judging by the comments about them on this forum he has no chance of respect from many regardless of what he does.

Its a fact of corporate life, and politics too, you don't announce something until you are ready to announce it, until that point you keep on parroting the party line. If he has to line up a board, 15 TOCs, NR and 2 government departments before agreement and approval, he is not going to stray a hair's breadth from the official line - until the official line changes.

He’s got a conflict of interest in that he works as the MD for First Group’s Rail division and also the chairman of the RDG. No matter the checks and balances in place he will be swayed and biased towards favouring outcomes that FirstGroup seek. Would be delusional to think he’s going to be pure and innocent about not being biased towards this.

Regarding him towing the party line to paraphrase you, then I’m sorry if he’s willing to do that then he can never be trusted to negotiate in good faith when it comes to revealing his true colours. So he is as much a reason for it being stalled as any of the unions. He should do the honourable thing and resign and let someone less tainted take his place, got an idea of someone who would be much better (and much more liked)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

And given that he talking in his First Rail capacity and pre-Covid when prospects for the railways were very different I'm surprised anyone is unable to see the distinction.

Conflict of interest

 

[Facing Back]

He’s got a conflict of interest in that he works as the MD for First Group’s Rail division and also the chairman of the RDG. No matter the checks and balances in place he will be swayed and biased towards favouring outcomes that FirstGroup seek. Would be delusional to think he’s going to be pure and innocent about not being biased towards this.

Regarding him towing the party line to paraphrase you, then I’m sorry if he’s willing to do that then he can never be trusted to negotiate in good faith when it comes to revealing his true colours. So he is as much a reason for it being stalled as any of the unions. He should do the honourable thing and resign and let someone less tainted take his place, got an idea of someone who would be much better (and much more liked)

There has been quite a lot of discussion on here as to why it is not a conflict of interest to hold both posts. Many corporate officers hold more than one role and trade bodies are absolutely no exception. The RDG is too small to be able to find and fund someone of his seniority and expertise by itself and the chair must surely be a very part time role in any case. Somebody in the industry can tell you with more accuracy but the RDG simply coordinates, it doesn't decide - the boards of it's member companies and ultimately the DfT do that.

No checks and balances are required - he will be reading a script that all members have bought into.

I very much doubt he is in the room during negotiations in any case but if you expect negotiators to "reveal their true colours" then your understanding of negotiation differs from mine.

If you have insider knowledge that he is personally a reason for the negotiations being stalled then I would be fascinated to hear it.

Out of interest who do you have in mind who would be much better and much more liked?

 

[Russel]

another person defending the indefensible

I'm not defending anything, I'm asking you, as it's you criticizing him, and clearly know better, what, in your opinion he should have done?

 

[scouseyb123]

It's not about principles or lying. He's running a business. Things change. For example, there's been a huge shift in how tickets are sold that does mean there is a convincing case for the restructuring of ticket office roles.

For the record I think he is a very poor senior manager: you only have to look at the serial poor appointments of TOC MDs (Mellors at SWR, Whittingham at Avanti, Leo Goodwin at TPE) and FirstGroup's inability to pick up on poor performance on its operations until they have spiralled out of control. That is all down to Montgomery's inability to run the business. First should be asking serious questions about his competence.

He isn't.

Thankyou for providing a balanced reply. Whilst I disagree with you on him being compromised, I totally agree his track record on shaping the industry through the people he puts into leadership positions is shocking. It should ring alarm bells but sadly this completely uninspiring, cowardly, hugely disliked individual is the lead strategist and negotiator for the rail industry. He needs to resign now.

 

[ar10642]

So what’s the solution? Roll over?

Yes. The strikes aren't working.

It isn’t just the RMT, btw. For all the bluster, it is ASLEF who have the real power. ASLEF strikes are much more effective because, whilst you can get the office junior to come and play at being a guard, you can’t get the office junior to drive the train so nothing at all runs.

OK, but the government simply don't care if nothing runs as they have demonstrated several times.

 

[Confused52]

Not settling costs £1.4bn a year for the duration of the strike - which will end at some point. After that the cost is £0. The £0.5bn per year will last forever.

I don't take the public rhetoric of the either the unions or the RDG at face value but I'm not going back to track changes between various deals.

Merriman gave the 1.4bn cost as being to the wider UK economy. The cost to the taxpayer is not the same thing as the UK wider economy has flexibility to change buying behaviours and by now with consumers used to the railway's behaviour the costs will be less but the economy will have changed to avoid some costs. For example some in hospitality will have lost their jobs spending is still possible. The simple equating of costs in the wider economy to taxpayer funded costs of employment is wholly bogus. The wider economy costs are likely to cause hardship to less people overall than the potential increase in general taxation at a point where that is at a high point and planned to take more and more up to 2028.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

He’s got a conflict of interest in that he works as the MD for First Group’s Rail division and also the chairman of the RDG. No matter the checks and balances in place he will be swayed and biased towards favouring outcomes that FirstGroup seek. Would be delusional to think he’s going to be pure and innocent about not being biased towards this.

The Chair of the RDG is traditionally one of the Rail Owning Group MD’s. Steve Montgomery took over as chair in 2020 from Arriva Trains UK MD Chris Burchell.

 

[Facing Back]

Merriman gave the 1.4bn cost as being to the wider UK economy. The cost to the taxpayer is not the same thing as the UK wider economy has flexibility to change buying behaviours and by now with consumers used to the railway's behaviour the costs will be less but the economy will have changed to avoid some costs. For example some in hospitality will have lost their jobs spending is still possible. The simple equating of costs in the wider economy to taxpayer funded costs of employment is wholly bogus. The wider economy costs are likely to cause hardship to less people overall than the potential increase in general taxation at a point where that is at a high point and planned to take more and more up to 2028.

Thank you and I agree. The £1.4bn wasn't my number - it was used by someone else to make a point and I was simply parroting it to make a point regarding the cost of settling vs the cost of the strike. We all tend to like a single number to focus on and I know no such number does or can exist for this.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

For the record I think he is a very poor senior manager: you only have to look at the serial poor appointments of TOC MDs (Mellors at SWR, Whittingham at Avanti, Leo Goodwin at TPE) and FirstGroup's inability to pick up on poor performance on its operations until they have spiralled out of control.

For the record Whittingham was not a FG appointment but a Virgin one.

Whittingham was TUPE’d across to Avanti like all the other staff at the end of the Virgin West Coast franchise.

I’m not going to add comment on whether he was the right person or not just correct the facts on who appointed him.

 

[chuff chuff]

I base my view on Steve Montgomery on his time at scotrail no idea what he has been up to since,however he seemed chief **** stirrer whilst 2nd and 1st in command at scotrail.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I base my view on Steve Montgomery on his time at scotrail no idea what he has been up to since,however he seemed chief **** stirrer whilst 2nd and 1st in command at scotrail.

This is all getting rather personal. It is nevertheless interesting that ScotRail won the Scottish Public Transport Operator of the Year award in 2012 and 2013 and was Rail Operator of the Year in 2014, with ScotRail hitting a peak of customer satisfaction and operational performance. Perhaps the competition wasn't very strong either.

(For the avoidance of doubt; although I did work for ScotRail this was many years earlier, in BR days.)

 

[chuff chuff]

Yes perhaps I should have kept that to myself but that was how I saw it at the the time.I do have to say firsts time in scotrail probably was the best I've seen though was mainly down to Mary Dicksons influence it fell away when she moved on.
To be fair the competition before and since haven't been exactly stellar.

 

[tomuk]

For the record Whittingham was not a FG appointment but a Virgin one.

Whittingham was TUPE’d across to Avanti like all the other staff at the end of the Virgin West Coast franchise.

I’m not going to add comment on whether he was the right person or not just correct the facts on who appointed him.

For as senior role as Whittingham to TUPE over without the express decision of First Group just wouldn't happen. FG were under no obligation to keep him.

 

[Starmill]

Conflict of interest

RDG is a trade body. How's it possible to have a conflict of interest when working across a trade body your organisation is a member of?

Also conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts, are usually not even against the law unless in some specific public office, or in relevance to a specific offence or regulated profession.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

For as senior role as Whittingham to TUPE over without the express decision of First Group just wouldn't happen. FG were under no obligation to keep him.

TUPE applies to all roles no matter how junior or senior. You could choose to put the person in question on Gardening Leave but you can’t stop them being transferred.

 

[Mag_seven]

This thread has run its course. We will now await further developments before any further discussion is allowed.

Thanks all