• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Railway Industrial Disputes Mk2

Status
Not open for further replies.

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
Also, you could include railway workers in an independent and binding ( on all sides) pay review commission composed of reps from government, operators, unions, economists and lay people.

And nurses. Lots of nurses. Probably some miners, too, to remind us what happened to Arthur Scargill in the 1970s.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,565
A lot of people who don’t work for the railway have no idea how it works, so telling people who do how it needs to change doesn’t always come over well. They read the papers, which are often wrong or twisted and think they know it all and then dictate how it should be. Then people get annoyed.
But lots of us in different professions come across that, and we generally try and respond and explain politely.

Moreover, somecof the comments I have seen have been well-informed, reasonable ones which still got a rude response e.g. Ones which highlight, in an intelligent way, that just because the railway has had a particular type of staff doing a specific role, there's no inherent reason why it needs that staff member to do it, or indeed why there could not be a different mix of roles altogether. They are perfectly reasonable issues to raise.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
But lots of us in different professions come across that, and we generally try and respond and explain politely.

Moreover, somecof the comments I have seen have been well-informed, reasonable ones which still got a rude response e.g. Ones which highlight, in an intelligent way, that just because the railway has had a particular type of staff doing a specific role, there's no inherent reason why it needs that staff member to do it, or indeed why there could not be a different mix of roles altogether. They are perfectly reasonable issues to raise.

I’ve worked in other professions before the railway. I’ve never done another job where people who have no clue feel quite so entitled to take it upon themselves to tell me I’m overpaid, it’s just pushing a button etc.

If idiots on Twitter etc. are getting rude responses from railway staff, that might be why.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Elections are a big digression, but only 42.4% of the votes cast were for the Tory Party, 40% for Labour, 7.4% LibDems and 3% for ScotNats - that's from 67.3% of the electorate who voted. That brings the percentages giving consent to all the parties down quite a lot.
I wonder if you are confusing the 2019 General Election result with the 2017 General Election result?

The 2019 result gave the following:-
Conservative Party.....365 seats...43.6% of votes
Labour Party.............203 seats...32.2% of votes
 

High Dyke

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2013
Messages
4,267
Location
Yellabelly Country
Anyone able to post the NR statement so we can see the other side ?
Attached PDF document of offer to General Grades (signallers, maintenance etc). Unable to access management grade (band 1-4) document.

Dear colleagues,

Two of our trade unions - TSSA and Unite – are launching member referendums today (28 July) to gather views on a clarified pay offer for general grades, bands 5-8 and controllers.

Since we made the pay offer on 12 July, we’ve continued to hold talks with RMT, TSSA and Unite to try to resolve the dispute about pay, job security and changes to working practices. This included answering questions from the trade unions about when maintenance implementation would happen and following up queries about the pay offer.

As a result of the discussions, we clarified the following points:

From date offer agreed:
  1. 4% increase in base pay (backdated to 1 Jan 2022) will include shift pay and overtime uplifts.
  2. Clarified: The £250 payment to employees who currently earn less than £24,000 p/a in base pay for FY21 financial year, is to be backdated to 1 January 2021 and will be applied before any percentage increase in pay is awarded.
  3. Clarified: Pay range scales to be lifted in both year 1 and year 2 in line by 4%.
  4. Removing the cap on season ticket subsidies so you can have a 75% discount on any season ticket for travelling to and from work.
From 1 January 2023:
  1. Clarified: A pay award of 4% will be applied from January 2023, rather than a one-off lump sum payment. This is in addition to the 4% backdated to 1 January 2022.
  2. 75% discount on leisure travel for you, your partner and any dependents (we may be able to offer this sooner, depending on how long it takes to set the scheme up).
Any pay rise in 2024 will be calculated on top of the above. Separate, but in addition to the above, there is still an individual opportunity for a form of performance related pay (PRP) for 2021/22 (between £617 & £811 depending on your function or region). For those who don’t strike, we may pay PRP for this year.

The need for us to have safer ways of working and be more efficient have not gone away. You heard last week that we are starting consultation on Maintenance reforms with the trade unions and our first meeting is taking place today. Delivering reforms will not only improve working practices, but also fund a pay rise.

There’s no additional funding from Government, so the money for a pay rise must come from within our own budget. We have made it clear that this offer, including travel, depends on the trade unions confirming that the dispute is resolved, and no more strike action taking place.

If you are a TSSA or Unite member, I really encourage you to accept this offer in the referendums.

Stay safe and thank you to everyone who is helping to keep the railway running.
 

Attachments

  • Pay Update General Grades.pdf
    348.5 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:

NI 271

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2012
Messages
414
Location
The Doghouse
That is because the industrial action being taken by the union membership does not just affect the employers, but members of the general public who have not been the cause of the problem but still are targeted by this industrial action.
Affected, not targeted. People whose livelihoods are at risk aren't striking to inconvenience passengers, no matter how inevitable it is that passengers will be affected by industrial action. That's just the nature of the industry, the same way parents are affected when teachers strike - I've seen a lot of teachers' strikes over the years, but I don't recall Joe Public suggest teachers are doing so to inconvenience parents.

Language is important. I couldn't criticise anyone who takes offence at the use of such inflammatory language. It is demonstrably false to claim the intention is to "target" the public. You are obviously a well-educated and intelligent man, it's difficult to consider that the use of the word "targeted" wasn't deliberate here, and if it is, it's a cheap (and inaccurate) shot. If there's one place where this sort of nonsense should be absent, it's a forum where those visiting it would consider they have an above average appreciation of the industry. The fact it isn't speaks volumes about the reality of said appreciation.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
There is an NHS pay review body so it could be possible but I agree it is unlikely.

Slight but crucial difference. As a TOC employee, my contract of employment is with the franchise holder, which is still a private company and not yet HM Government.

I'm unsure of the legal mechanism by which a third party entity with whom I have no legal contract can dictate my pay and conditions of service.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Affected, not targeted. People whose livelihoods are at risk aren't striking to inconvenience passengers, no matter how inevitable it is that passengers will be affected by industrial action. That's just the nature of the industry, the same way parents are affected when teachers strike - I've seen a lot of teachers' strikes over the years, but I don't recall Joe Public suggest teachers are doing so to inconvenience parents.

Language is important. I couldn't criticise anyone who takes offence at the use of such inflammatory language. It is demonstrably false to claim the intention is to "target" the public. You are obviously a well-educated and intelligent man, it's difficult to consider that the use of the word "targeted" wasn't deliberate here, and if it is, it's a cheap (and inaccurate) shot. If there's one place where this sort of nonsense should be absent, it's a forum where those visiting it would consider they have an above average appreciation of the industry. The fact it isn't speaks volumes about the reality of said appreciation.
Are you trying to tell me that not a solitary union member in dispute has never intimated that the general travelling public has not been targeted by strike action over the last few years, thinking back to the strikes against Southern and Northern. Some years ago, one was heard on a picket line "darn sarf" to say the public were "fair game" as the public would put pressure on the employers. "Oop norf", we have a better turn of phrase coined by a union member some years ago, describing the travelling public as "collateral damage" in the early days of the Northern dispute.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Pay review bodies are there to provide independent recommendations to the government. That's all their role is, they don't create new contracts with employees and nor do they compel Ministers.

The basis upon which the bodies are established isn't contractual, it is more of a 'gentleman's agreement'. The government agrees to honour the recommendation of the review body, and in exchange the Union agrees not to start a pay dispute. It is a far less formal arrangement than giving up employment conditions by contract.

The government would be technically free to refuse to honour the recommendation of the review body, and the Union would be free to start a pay dispute. But the idea is that doing so would make them look dishonest.
 

Backroom_boy

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2019
Messages
281
Location
London
Slight but crucial difference. As a TOC employee, my contract of employment is with the franchise holder, which is still a private company and not yet HM Government.

I'm unsure of the legal mechanism by which a third party entity with whom I have no legal contract can dictate my pay and conditions of service.
Might be something to do with TUPE regs to ensure a TOC doesn't splash out on a big raise and then hand the keys back?

Edit. Sorry you weren't talking about that. But that is probably the Government's reasoning to dictating pay levels rather than leaving it to market forces
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
Pay review bodies are there to provide independent recommendations to the government. That's all their role is, they don't create new contracts with employees and nor do they compel Ministers.

The basis upon which the bodies are established isn't contractual, it is more of a 'gentleman's agreement'. The government agrees to honour the recommendation of the review body, and in exchange the Union agrees not to start a pay dispute. It is a far less formal arrangement than giving up employment conditions by contract.

The government would be technically free to refuse to honour the recommendation of the review body, and the Union would be free to start a pay dispute. But the idea is that doing so would make them look dishonest.

... and yet HM Government is, right now, actively dictating to private companies exactly how they are to deal with their employees. TOCs are not even allowed to explore productivity measures to help fund pay increases. I'm not even allowed to work a rest-day by diktat from Whitehall. How is this not interference by Government in the normal processes of employer/employee relations? And on what grounds is this permitted?
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
I agree - the answer is ask nicely and depart when refused.

Personally I would suggest key resource working absolutely to rule and not a minute more. No, I wont do another 30 mins to get this train to depot. No, I wont stay on in the box till relief comes. Its is lunchtime, I am entitled to my break now. Back in an hour. No, I wont step up to cover this establishment gap etc etc.

That is simply working and not doing anymore. Many in the industry are not paid for that goodwill so why do it? We all know the system runs on (often) free labour. Don't offer that freebie.

EDIT - I would also get a good comms strategy in place explaining the what and the why. RMT have done a good job on comms.

I don’t think that would have such an impact as you think, at least in the media circles. And that’s what matters here. T

Ok, it would cause pockets of chaos up and down the country, but it won’t hit the news like the strikes did. The financial hit, and service disruption would likely be much higher (you won’t be able to plan too much) The unions wouldn’t be given the same air time, and the companies will play it off as “staff shortages”, and certainly wouldn’t announce “do not travel on these dates as the RMT are not doing overtime”

I can also imagine the news headlines now:

“overpaid worker brings london to a stand so they can eat their lunch”

“Overpaid train driver refuses to drive for 5 minutes so they can have a break”

“Drivers not doing overtime” is not such a news grabbing headline as “Drivers go on strike”

As much as I hate it, striking gets everyone’s attention. Working to rule, unfortunately doesn’t, and most of what you suggested will go unnoticed to the general public, only seeing their train is cancelled when they get to the station. They wouldn’t really know why
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
Network Rail offer said:
You heard last week that we are starting consultation on Maintenance reforms with the trade unions and our first meeting is taking place today. Delivering reforms will not only improve working practices, but also fund a pay rise.

There’s no additional funding from Government, so the money for a pay rise must come from within our own budget. We have made it clear that this offer, including travel, depends on the trade unions confirming that the dispute is resolved, and no more strike action taking place.

So here you see in writing, how the money ’saved’ by doing less maintenance, doing it less frequently, getting highly trained staff to do manual labour instead of their own work (such as move rails), plus getting other engineering functions to carry out technical work that is outside their engineering expertise (such as getting welders to carry out the safety critical S&T safety critical facing point lock testing) will fund everyone else’s pay rise. Oh, and never mind the job losses on top of removing the current vacant posts.

This dispute is not just about a pay rise, or technology, but also about jobs, terms and conditions (who wants to work 39 weekends a year) and working practices.

This coming from a company that have decided that professional railway staff can’t even safety cross a line that has a speed limit of 15MPH without blocking said line…
 

NI 271

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2012
Messages
414
Location
The Doghouse
Are you trying to tell me that not a solitary union member in dispute has never intimated that the general travelling public has not been targeted by strike action over the last few years, thinking back to the strikes against Southern and Northern. Some years ago, one was heard on a picket line "darn sarf" to say the public were "fair game" as the public would put pressure on the employers. "Oop norf", we have a better turn of phrase coined by a union member some years ago, describing the travelling public as "collateral damage" in the early days of the Northern dispute.
I'm telling you the reason for the strikes is not 'to "target" the public'. Railway staff are not in dispute with the public, they're in dispute with their employers. This is just a fact, and therefore not something anyone gets to have an opinion on.

Again, the public are affected by industrial action, it would be impossible for them not to be. They are categorically NOT "targeted" by it, not in this dispute, nor almost any other, whatever the industry. When my local binmen went on strike last year or the year before, they weren't targeting the public, although the public were, inevitably, affected. Ditto the librarians' strikes of the mid-2010s, and, as previously mentioned, the numerous teachers' strikes over the last 40 years.

I refer you to my previous statement that language is important - and I'm well aware that some people deliberately use provocative language looking for a rise then feign innocence when they get one. I'm also aware that some people can see right through this distasteful tactic.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
Again, the public are affected by industrial action, it would be impossible for them not to be. They are categorically NOT "targeted" by it, not in this dispute, nor almost any other, whatever the industry
If the public are not a consideration in industrial action, why would employers ever compromise?

Clearly that is not the case. The fare-paying public are the tool used by unions to put pressure on employers and governments. Without the passengers they are disrupting, they have no leverage.

And given that those of means can easily work around strikes, the most-disrupted passengers (and therefore the most powerful tools) are the poorest section of the public.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
If the public are not a consideration in industrial action, why would employers ever compromise?

Clearly that is not the case. The fare-paying public are the tool used by unions to put pressure on employers and governments. Without the passengers they are disrupting, they have no leverage.

And given that those of means can easily work around strikes, the most-disrupted passengers (and therefore the most powerful tools) are the poorest section of the public.

Yes, hence "affected".
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I refer you to my previous statement that language is important - and I'm well aware that some people deliberately use provocative language looking for a rise then feign innocence when they get one. I'm also aware that some people can see right through this distasteful tactic.
I refer you to the two examples of past union members statements that I put in my posting, to which you have completely ignored because they do not fit into your agenda of "language is important". Or is it one rule for them and a different rule for the rest of us?

I spent thirty-five years in senior management and have been in meetings with union representatives in both Canada (where we were the project lead on a Canadian Hydro project) and the UK in that time and I am very thick-skinned and have never feigned innocence at any time. I knew my ground in these meetings and I was equally aware of the ground of those union negotiators. So don't try to intimidate me as you are fighting a losing battle.

I am 77 years of age but "all my marbles are still at home".
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
Yes, hence "affected".
No, "targeted", since the disruption is meaningless without passengers inconvenienced.

Severely inconveniencing [the decreasing number of] passengers relying on the railway is the goal of industrial action.

I'm happy to hear arguments that 'the end justifies the means', and I do not begrudge rail workers fair working conditions - but I find the suggestion that passengers are mere bystanders in this action (or worse, that they should be cheering them on) to be quite poor.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
I refer you to the two examples of past union members statements that I put in my posting, to which you have completely ignored because they do not fit into your agenda of "language is important". Or is it one rule for them and a different rule for the rest of us?

It's hard to say what I think when they are presented in isolation shorn of all context.

One part of me acknowledges that not all of my colleagues are as articulate as you and I and, just sometimes, not always very subtle in their thinking. As such, these could just be the clumsy utterances of folk who maybe haven't quite thought through exactly what they are saying and how it might be interpreted. The other part of me does wonder whether they really understood what industrial action is and how it works.

What I can't condone, however, is the suggestion that just because certain utterances were heard on picket lines throws any light on what strike action is and how it operates. It's not a question of semantics but simple dictionary definitions. You target the employer which affects their customers. By withdrawing labour you are interrupting the employer's ability to carry on it's business, in this case the running of the rail network. In order to gain the maximum impact, you aim to take action at a time and/or place where such action will cause the maximum disruption. This has an affect on people and businesses wishing to use the network.

No, "targeted", since the disruption is meaningless without passengers inconvenienced.

See above.

Severely inconveniencing [the decreasing number of] passengers relying on the railway is the goal of industrial action.

No it isn't. The goal of industrial action is to move negotiations with the employer forward in order to reach a negotiated settlement.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
No, "targeted", since the disruption is meaningless without passengers inconvenienced.

Severely inconveniencing [the decreasing number of] passengers relying on the railway is the goal of industrial action.

I'm happy to hear arguments that 'the end justifies the means', and I do not begrudge rail workers fair working conditions - but I find the suggestion that passengers are mere bystanders in this action (or worse, that they should be cheering them on) to be quite poor.
Except that the reality is that passengers cannot get from a to b if there is no train available due to strike action. You can dress it up how you want, but that's the reality.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,644
Location
West is best
Is this really the case? If so, all hope is lost (in my opinion; others may disagree).
Yes, if we need to work on a signal in sidings, we now have to take possession of the sidings in order to prevent any train movements.

It’s the same on main running lines, even if there is excellent sighting distances, we have been told that we must arrange for trains to be stopped.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Except that the reality is that passengers cannot get from a to b if there is no train available due to strike action. You can dress it up how you want, but that's the reality.
Most people can and do though; this is fundamentally wrong. They either use the contingency strike service, use a bus or coach service, or use a car driven by themselves or in a car share. A number of people will cancel their travel plans entirely but it will only be a small proportion.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
A number of people will cancel their travel plans entirely but it will only be a small proportion.
I suspect this proportion is far higher than it used to be. Far more railway use is discretionary than it was before.

On each day that I have been potentially impacted by strikes, I have either not travelled or rescheduled. The required notice period meant that it was not particularly disruptive.

"Not travelling" is therefore often the least disruptive consequence. The people disrupted are those who rely on the railway and have no choice but to travel. This is a decreasing number of people, unfortunately biased toward the lowest paid.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Most people can and do though; this is fundamentally wrong. They either use the contingency strike service, use a bus or coach service, or use a car driven by themselves or in a car share. A number of people will cancel their travel plans entirely but it will only be a small proportion.
So how do you get from a to b when there is no train available..... assuming you actually do use a train in the first place?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I will admit not wishing to disrupt the thread so I will pose a question to those with a good inward understanding of trades union matters.

If during an industrial dispute a worker in conjunction with other fellow workers withdraws his labour and that causes the company to lose business. in order to keep trading before being insolvent, that worker and certain others are made redundant. Would the employer have the right to state in a reference requested that the worker in question had withdrawn his labour causing the status quo that so then exists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top