End in sight for the ASLEF dispute: Offer now made

[Bletchleyite]

That’s not how I interpreted things.

If they have any sense GBR will be an arms-length organisation with budgets but some freedom to allocate them as they see appropriate.

 

[74A]

I am not a financial advisor...

It takes the passing of a year for current salary to be reflected in railway pension level.

Hint

Railway pension is not final salary now. Went over to career average some years ago.

 

[greatkingrat]

I am not a financial advisor...

It takes the passing of a year for current salary to be reflected in railway pension level.

Hint

If you wait a year, then the 2025 rise will be due, so you wait another year, then another etc.

 

[43066]

Along a similar line to the pension stuff, something to consider for those at higher paying TOCs and/or who have done a lot of rest day work during the year, is that the backpay lump sum might tip some of your earnings this year into the 60% marginal tax band due to personal allowance being tapered off. You might also need to register for self assessment if you don’t already do it.

Yes your correct. Southeastern drivers have had to wait over 5 years for this deal. We will still be under 65k with London waiting added on top.

Unfortunately SE also got very poor rises in the years leading up to 2019. This was IIRC down to a weak union and many of the Ts and Cs being sold for pennies years ago.

 

[Turtle]

Apparently train drivers will be responsible for the deaths of freezing pensioners this winter because of this pay deal.
If anyone has a spare ten minutes just have a scroll through all the ASLEF posts in the trending news section on X, lots of frothing anger and resentment from Tories and Daily Mail readers. It's really quite an uplifting read

As per Richard Littlejohn's article in the Fail, the Wicked Witch has snatched WFB from the mouths of us cold, hungry pensioners and handed it to the undeserving denizens of ASLEF!! Any mention of the years without pay rises? Any mention of the high tax clawback from back pay?

 

[jon0844]

As per Richard Littlejohn's article in the Fail, the Wicked Witch has snatched WFB from the mouths of us cold, hungry pensioners and handed it to the undeserving denizens of ASLEF!! Any mention of the years without pay rises? Any mention of the high tax clawback from back pay?

The asylum seekers will be most upset that the cost of housing them is no longer being blamed on the removal of the winter fuel allowance.

The allowance still available to those who actually need it.

 

[The Planner]

What is the LNER dispute? This is from PA Media on Twitter

#BreakingNews Train drivers on LNER are to stage a series of strikes claiming a breakdown in industrial relations and the breaking of agreements by the company, their union Aslef announced

 

[Kells21]

Did all 16 tocs in dispute get the same offer ? So avanti same as gwr for example ? Does anyone have a table of what potential salaries will look like if offer accepted

 

[jfollows]

What is the LNER dispute? This is from PA Media on Twitter.

#BreakingNews Train drivers on LNER are to stage a series of strikes claiming a breakdown in industrial relations and the breaking of agreements by the company, their union Aslef announced

From https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-public-sector-pay-uk-politics-latest-updates:

4m ago11.33 BST
Train drivers on LNER are to stage a series of strikes, claiming a breakdown in industrial relations and breaking of agreements.

The dispute is separate from the one related to pay. Members of Aslef are set to walk out every Saturday between 31 August and 9 November and every Sunday from 1 September to 10 November, a total of 22 days.

PA Media reports Mick Whelan, Aslef general secretary, said: “the company has brutally, and repeatedly, broken diagramming and roster agreements, failed to adhere to the agreed bargaining machinery, and totally acted in bad faith. When we make an agreement, we stick to it. This company doesn’t and we are not prepared to put up with their boorish behaviour and bullying tactics.”

 

[The Middle]

What is the LNER dispute? This is from PA Media on Twitter.

#BreakingNews Train drivers on LNER are to stage a series of strikes claiming a breakdown in industrial relations and the breaking of agreements by the company, their union Aslef announced

Assume this is linked to LNER's planned imposition of minimum service levels during previous strike action. Something ASLEF only got them to back down on by announcing additional strike dates at the time.

 

[jfollows]

Assume this is linked to LNER's planned imposition of minimum service levels during previous strike action. Something ASLEF only got them to back down on by announcing additional strike dates at the time.

I doubt it; you probably just missed my post above but it seems to be perceived bad faith and broken promises by LNER on roster and diagram issues. I think everyone knows the MSL legislation is unworkable and dead, to be killed officially soon by Labour.

 

[12LDA28C]

Assume this is linked to LNER's planned imposition of minimum service levels during previous strike action. Something ASLEF only got them to back down on by announcing additional strike dates at the time.

I'm sure there's rather more to it than that. And of course that legislation is being repealed now anyway.

 

[Merle Haggard]

If you wait a year, then the 2025 rise will be due, so you wait another year, then another etc.

My point was it's 14.9 % so worth waiting for, rather than the normal increase.

The railway pension scheme is index linked (C.P.I., though, not R.P.I. like fare increases), so if a future increase is less than inflation then you're better off as a pensioner. Neglects the effect of an extra year in the fund, but even that only applies if you haven't reached the maximum number of years (40 I think).



Usual caveat it's not advice .

 

[greatkingrat]

My point was it's 14.9 % so worth waiting for, rather than the normal increase.

The railway pension scheme is index linked (C.P.I., though, not R.P.I. like fare increases), so if a future increase is less than inflation then you're better off as a pensioner. Neglects the effect of an extra year in the fund, but even that only applies if you haven't reached the maximum number of years (40 I think).



Usual caveat it's not advice .

It's not one 14.9% increase though, it is three increases on three different dates. Anyone who retires later this year, will have the whole of the 2022 and 2023 rises included in their pension calculation. It is only the 2024 rise that would be pro-rated.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It's not one 14.9% increase though, it is three increases on three different dates. Anyone who retires later this year, will have the whole of the 2022 and 2023 rises included in their pension calculation. It is only the 2024 rise that would be pro-rated.

Certainly in my case, my pension was calculated simply on the payroll payments made to me over the previous year. I'm not sure that your assumption - that the pension calculation takes into account the fact that previous years' increases were paid late and didn't actually appear in the payroll payments during the year used for calculation - is correct.

It's something that DOES require advice from a professional, but I wouldn't make that assumption myself.

 

[Thirteen]

ASLEF is formally in dispute with Elizabeth Line with ballots for action being sent out in the coming weeks for action short of strike, or strike (this is regarding the lack of a suitable pay offer for 2024). I believe it's the first time a union at Elizabeth Line has been in dispute with the company.

I'm surprised MTREL aren't offering a suitable pay offer, it'd look bad for them and TfL if they have strike action on the Elizabeth Line.

3.8% for London Underground drivers seems kind of low as well, the lack of assurance of no T&C changes is the bigger kicker though.

 

[Tractor2018]

New independent report finds Network Rail guilty of ‘restrictive and inflexible’ working practices

Independent study finds rail industry lags behind other comparative industries Findings support need for Network Rail maintenance reforms Unblocking use of technology, adopting more flexible rostering and creating multifunctional teams are key to boosting productivity, which can unlock savings...

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Start here - and since it comes from Network Rail, you can't exactly claim it's a fabrication by The Sun / Daily Mail or whichever other press bogeyman you don't agree with.

The impact, and potential future impact, of NR's recent 'modernisation' has passed you by? Never mind.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The impact, and potential future impact, of NR's recent 'modernisation' has passed you by? Never mind.

Comparing railway industry practices with outside construction is interesting.

I retired long ago, but in my youth we made sure that possessions made the maximum use of closure. As well as the main job tasks like painting overhead gantries during an isolation for instance. The most was made of the opportunity by all parties.

By contrast, the about ten-year-long speed restrictions and narrow lanes and closures on the M1 widening from J16 to J20 and the Catthorpe interchange improvements saw work taking place only during gentlemen's hours, no work before 08.00 or after 15.00. I went past 3 days a week at varying times, it's from observation.

Perhaps a better study would be to see how roadworks and construction could be sped up by adopting railway practices.

 

[SLC001]

Personally, I find some of the comments here ignorant and sickening and I speak as a pensioner. Clearly earlier commentators are still of working age with ingrained age prejudices.
To stop the winter fuel payments and then immediately yield to union pressure without a quid quo pro is frankly disgraceful. And to pay it to those who have left! The railways are not in the real world are they. Some of the working practices on the railways are still outdated and need reform but a dominant union has a monopoly holding the public to ransom. If even one of the 11 practices quoted by the Mail today is true (no doubt people will scoff because it is the Mail), then it is all a shambles. As for LNER….
We have worked hard to put aside our pension savings and to find that we lose something because we have saved is morally wrong. Others who haven’t saved but could have get it. For some it pushes those on the border of financial stability into difficulty but it is the principle (something ASLEF would recognise?). Why should I lose money because I spent less on luxuries during my working life to boost my pension only to lose out to those who have squandered it, not planned or have simply survived on benefits – noting how many people of working age are now no longer working.
The comment about the driver working to fund our triple lock pension is an affront to older people and miles away from reality. The triple lock was introduced to not only protect pensions against the effects of inflation but to increase the basic state pension which is one of the lowest in Western Europe to a level that was reasonable, to lift pensioners out of poverty. Younger people today need to note that they will benefit from this policy. If it were abandoned, it would be necessary for working people to pay more into their pension NOW to make up for what they will lose later. So the ill feeling shown by those who resent funding pensioners income need to note that if they didn’t they too would have less pension which needs to be replaced starting now. Personally, I think the state pension will be means tested which falls foul of my fundamental principle stated earlier.
Pensioners are an easy target and in many ways discriminated against in much the same way there are other discriminatory behaviours – e.g. race, sexual persuasion, ethnicity etc. I would suggest this disgraceful bias is prevalent amongst some contributors here. Often on fixed incomes, the pay tax on their pensions like working people, the freezing of tax bands effects them badly and in many ways the failed social care system (which Labour has ignored because it would cost the “working people” too much) is causing stress and misery. Some pensioners are taxed twice, once through the tax system then a further 30-40% (Yes) on top of that to fund those who cannot afford care. Another example of losing out because you have behaved responsibly to save up to fund those who couldn’t be bothered. Refer to Lord Dilnot…..
This disregard for older people came to a head when tens of thousands of pensioners died of Covid through lack of planning, indifference and frankly age bias. The effect of Covid and containment policies were such that care homes were never considered and this indifference continues.
Contributors here need to change their thinking, acknowledge their prejudices and consider other people – the ones that pay their wages.

 

[DJP78]

Assume this is linked to LNER's planned imposition of minimum service levels during previous strike action. Something ASLEF only got them to back down on by announcing additional strike dates at the time.

Yeah. As others have posted. This dispute has been rumbling away for quite some time.

Allegations of broken agreements, management bullying and circumventing of diagram restrictions etc etc.

Agree though, I can’t imagine the attempted MSL implementation will have done much for morale and employee engagement.

Lesson to all employers, behave respectfully and honour one’s word, or face the consequences.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Personally, I find some of the comments here ignorant and sickening and I speak as a pensioner. Clearly earlier commentators are still of working age with ingrained age prejudices.
To stop the winter fuel payments and then immediately yield to union pressure without a quid quo pro is frankly disgraceful. And to pay it to those who have left! The railways are not in the real world are they. Some of the working practices on the railways are still outdated and need reform but a dominant union has a monopoly holding the public to ransom. If even one of the 11 practices quoted by the Mail today is true (no doubt people will scoff because it is the Mail), then it is all a shambles. As for LNER….
We have worked hard to put aside our pension savings and to find that we lose something because we have saved is morally wrong. Others who haven’t saved but could have get it. For some it pushes those on the border of financial stability into difficulty but it is the principle (something ASLEF would recognise?). Why should I lose money because I spent less on luxuries during my working life to boost my pension only to lose out to those who have squandered it, not planned or have simply survived on benefits – noting how many people of working age are now no longer working.
The comment about the driver working to fund our triple lock pension is an affront to older people and miles away from reality. The triple lock was introduced to not only protect pensions against the effects of inflation but to increase the basic state pension which is one of the lowest in Western Europe to a level that was reasonable, to lift pensioners out of poverty. Younger people today need to note that they will benefit from this policy. If it were abandoned, it would be necessary for working people to pay more into their pension NOW to make up for what they will lose later. So the ill feeling shown by those who resent funding pensioners income need to note that if they didn’t they too would have less pension which needs to be replaced starting now. Personally, I think the state pension will be means tested which falls foul of my fundamental principle stated earlier.
Pensioners are an easy target and in many ways discriminated against in much the same way there are other discriminatory behaviours – e.g. race, sexual persuasion, ethnicity etc. I would suggest this disgraceful bias is prevalent amongst some contributors here. Often on fixed incomes, the pay tax on their pensions like working people, the freezing of tax bands effects them badly and in many ways the failed social care system (which Labour has ignored because it would cost the “working people” too much) is causing stress and misery. Some pensioners are taxed twice, once through the tax system then a further 30-40% (Yes) on top of that to fund those who cannot afford care. Another example of losing out because you have behaved responsibly to save up to fund those who couldn’t be bothered. Refer to Lord Dilnot…..
This disregard for older people came to a head when tens of thousands of pensioners died of Covid through lack of planning, indifference and frankly age bias. The effect of Covid and containment policies were such that care homes were never considered and this indifference continues.
Contributors here need to change their thinking, acknowledge their prejudices and consider other people – the ones that pay their wages.

Would you, for those of us who aren't readers of the Mail, be able to summarise the eleven outdated working practices? I and, I'm sure, others who work in the railway industry, would be happy to analyse them for you and explain how they work in 'the real world', as it were.

 

[66701GBRF]

Contributors here need to change their thinking, acknowledge their prejudices and consider other people – the ones that pay their wages.

Strange, I never noticed SLC001 on my payslip.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally, I find some of the comments here ignorant and sickening and I speak as a pensioner. Clearly earlier commentators are still of working age with ingrained age prejudices.
To stop the winter fuel payments and then immediately yield to union pressure without a quid quo pro is frankly disgraceful. And to pay it to those who have left! The railways are not in the real world are they. Some of the working practices on the railways are still outdated and need reform but a dominant union has a monopoly holding the public to ransom. If even one of the 11 practices quoted by the Mail today is true (no doubt people will scoff because it is the Mail), then it is all a shambles. As for LNER….
We have worked hard to put aside our pension savings and to find that we lose something because we have saved is morally wrong. Others who haven’t saved but could have get it. For some it pushes those on the border of financial stability into difficulty but it is the principle (something ASLEF would recognise?). Why should I lose money because I spent less on luxuries during my working life to boost my pension only to lose out to those who have squandered it, not planned or have simply survived on benefits – noting how many people of working age are now no longer working.
The comment about the driver working to fund our triple lock pension is an affront to older people and miles away from reality. The triple lock was introduced to not only protect pensions against the effects of inflation but to increase the basic state pension which is one of the lowest in Western Europe to a level that was reasonable, to lift pensioners out of poverty. Younger people today need to note that they will benefit from this policy. If it were abandoned, it would be necessary for working people to pay more into their pension NOW to make up for what they will lose later. So the ill feeling shown by those who resent funding pensioners income need to note that if they didn’t they too would have less pension which needs to be replaced starting now. Personally, I think the state pension will be means tested which falls foul of my fundamental principle stated earlier.
Pensioners are an easy target and in many ways discriminated against in much the same way there are other discriminatory behaviours – e.g. race, sexual persuasion, ethnicity etc. I would suggest this disgraceful bias is prevalent amongst some contributors here. Often on fixed incomes, the pay tax on their pensions like working people, the freezing of tax bands effects them badly and in many ways the failed social care system (which Labour has ignored because it would cost the “working people” too much) is causing stress and misery. Some pensioners are taxed twice, once through the tax system then a further 30-40% (Yes) on top of that to fund those who cannot afford care. Another example of losing out because you have behaved responsibly to save up to fund those who couldn’t be bothered. Refer to Lord Dilnot…..
This disregard for older people came to a head when tens of thousands of pensioners died of Covid through lack of planning, indifference and frankly age bias. The effect of Covid and containment policies were such that care homes were never considered and this indifference continues.
Contributors here need to change their thinking, acknowledge their prejudices and consider other people – the ones that pay their wages.

To be fair, this Government has committed to the triple lock, which is still a substantial commitment to the wellbeing of retirees.

As a taxpayer who's been attempting to use the railways for the past three years, it's clear to me that the can has already been kicked down the road for too long in terms of settling this dispute. It's about time that rail users, retired or otherwise, were provided with a functioning train service.

 

[dk1]

Strange, I never noticed SLC001 on my payslip.

I’m pretty good at most railway acronyms but that one fails me.

 

[jfollows]

I’m pretty good at most railway acronyms but that one fails me.

See post 319 above

 

[dk1]

See post 319 above

I’ve trawled through it a couple of times but see no mention.

 

[jfollows]

I’ve trawled through it a couple of times but see no mention.

Seriously?
Look on the left at the name of the member posting.

 

[dk1]

Seriously?
Look on the left at the name of the member posting.

You mean I’ve read through that lot three times and I wasn’t even looking in the right place?

 

[swt_passenger]

I doubt it; you probably just missed my post above but it seems to be perceived bad faith and broken promises by LNER on roster and diagram issues.

…and that is the subject of a new thread here, if anyone hadn’t noticed by now:

ASLEF - LNER drivers to strike every Sat & Sun for 3 months from 31 Aug

This sounds potentially very messy https://aslef.org.uk/publications/aslef-drivers-strike-lner From ASLEF Train drivers at LNER, the train company which runs the passenger service on the East Coast main line between London and Edinburgh, will walk out on strike on every Saturday between 31...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[12LDA28C]

Personally, I find some of the comments here ignorant and sickening and I speak as a pensioner. Clearly earlier commentators are still of working age with ingrained age prejudices.
To stop the winter fuel payments and then immediately yield to union pressure without a quid quo pro is frankly disgraceful. And to pay it to those who have left! The railways are not in the real world are they. Some of the working practices on the railways are still outdated and need reform but a dominant union has a monopoly holding the public to ransom. If even one of the 11 practices quoted by the Mail today is true (no doubt people will scoff because it is the Mail), then it is all a shambles. As for LNER….
We have worked hard to put aside our pension savings and to find that we lose something because we have saved is morally wrong. Others who haven’t saved but could have get it. For some it pushes those on the border of financial stability into difficulty but it is the principle (something ASLEF would recognise?). Why should I lose money because I spent less on luxuries during my working life to boost my pension only to lose out to those who have squandered it, not planned or have simply survived on benefits – noting how many people of working age are now no longer working.
The comment about the driver working to fund our triple lock pension is an affront to older people and miles away from reality. The triple lock was introduced to not only protect pensions against the effects of inflation but to increase the basic state pension which is one of the lowest in Western Europe to a level that was reasonable, to lift pensioners out of poverty. Younger people today need to note that they will benefit from this policy. If it were abandoned, it would be necessary for working people to pay more into their pension NOW to make up for what they will lose later. So the ill feeling shown by those who resent funding pensioners income need to note that if they didn’t they too would have less pension which needs to be replaced starting now. Personally, I think the state pension will be means tested which falls foul of my fundamental principle stated earlier.
Pensioners are an easy target and in many ways discriminated against in much the same way there are other discriminatory behaviours – e.g. race, sexual persuasion, ethnicity etc. I would suggest this disgraceful bias is prevalent amongst some contributors here. Often on fixed incomes, the pay tax on their pensions like working people, the freezing of tax bands effects them badly and in many ways the failed social care system (which Labour has ignored because it would cost the “working people” too much) is causing stress and misery. Some pensioners are taxed twice, once through the tax system then a further 30-40% (Yes) on top of that to fund those who cannot afford care. Another example of losing out because you have behaved responsibly to save up to fund those who couldn’t be bothered. Refer to Lord Dilnot…..
This disregard for older people came to a head when tens of thousands of pensioners died of Covid through lack of planning, indifference and frankly age bias. The effect of Covid and containment policies were such that care homes were never considered and this indifference continues.
Contributors here need to change their thinking, acknowledge their prejudices and consider other people – the ones that pay their wages.

If you believe what the Daily Fail claims, i.e. that the Government are stealing money from the pockets of pensioners and giving it to train drivers as a pay rise then I'm afraid that tells us all we need to know about your understanding of the situation and your ability to form your own opinion rather than it being given to you by the gutter press with their right-wing agenda.

This pay deal was prevented from being agreed for more than two years by the Tories and if the DfT had not been so obstructive, drivers would have had a modest pay rise in both 2022 and 2023. I'd be interested to hear why you think someone who has changed employers or left the industry in the meantime is not deserving of the rise which they would and should have received at the time, were it not for Tory meddling and anti-union ideology. You also seem to be advocating protecting pensions from the effects of inflation whilst clearly opposing working people being afforded the same protection by awarding them any kind of pay rise in line with increases in the cost of living. Seems rather like double standards to me.