RMT Industrial Action Update to members

Sly Old Fox · 29 Feb 2024

Towers said:
I’ve no idea what Northern’s current Ts & Cs say around this, but it isn’t unusual at other TOCs to have phonecalls go out to those not working to ask if they want overtime on their day off. I don’t really see a major issue with that, you can always say no!

But what if you can’t say no? Or you can, but you get disciplined for it?

RailUK Forums

Deafdoggie · 29 Feb 2024

43066 said:
Can you point to any politicians who are actually saying “let’s keep the dispute going and use the money to regenerate the town centre” - it’s a completely nonsensical suggestion and I suspect you’re only making it to be provocative.

The local council is very much for it, as it's doing wonders locally. The local MP is of the same political colour and is likely to go with them. But the opposition can read the local mood and say things such as "we will do all we can to continue supporting the local boom in the hospitality sector" which, as it is being caused by the rail strikes, means they support them. It would be a very poor MP who didn't support local issues in their constituency. I can't see anyone who said they wouldn't support the local needs getting in.

Just for clarity, I'm not saying it's good for everywhere, but I am saying, for us, striking is a real boom. Which probably isn't what the unions intended. However, it depends on how many places are getting this boom effect.

Personally, given how long the strikes have dragged on, I'm not sure they are the best solution. But given the lack of an alternative they are possibly the "least worse"

dk1 · 29 Feb 2024

Towers said:
I’ve no idea what Northern’s current Ts & Cs say around this, but it isn’t unusual at other TOCs to have phonecalls go out to those not working to ask if they want overtime on their day off. I don’t really see a major issue with that, you can always say no!

Many of my duty managers will ask me via messenger. Absolutely fine by me.

Sly Old Fox said:
But what if you can’t say no? Or you can, but you get disciplined for it?

I'd love to see them try :lol:

NI 271 · 29 Feb 2024

Sly Old Fox said:
But what if you can’t say no? Or you can, but you get disciplined for it?

What? Disciplined for not working a rest day, which you’re not contracted to work?

Deafdoggie · 29 Feb 2024

I haven't read the full proposal, but if they're just saying you can be asked to work a rest day, but you can say no, I don't see that's controversial. And think that not unreasonable. If they are saying you can't say no, then that seems very, very unreasonable. But I don't see how that's enforceable anyway. Surely no one would just answer their phone!

Surely the biggest issue with sick pay is people throwing a sickie for an odd day. There really can't be many off sick for six months, and if you are, you're pretty sick! I don't see six months of full pay as unreasonable for the numbers that it must affect, it really can't be many. If there are lots, I think that highlights a different problem! I'm not suggesting they stop people being off for a day either! Just, that they've got the wrong problem.

Islineclear3_1 · 29 Feb 2024

Sly Old Fox said:
But what if you can’t say no? Or you can, but you get disciplined for it?

That would be illegal wouldn't it...?

Just don't answer the call - what can they do?

Goldfish62 · 29 Feb 2024

HamworthyGoods said:
I thought the Labour government was all for going for T&Cs as part of its ‘nationalised’ railway to bring everyone on the same T&Cs and costs down under a simplified railway?

I've not heard that one. All I've heard from Labour so far is putting contracts under Operator of Last Resort as they expire, thus saving the profit element of the management fee. Apart beyond that has yet to be revealed.

ainsworth74 · 29 Feb 2024

Deafdoggie said:
I haven't read the full proposal, but if they're just saying you can be asked to work a rest day, but you can say no, I don't see that's controversial.

And I don't think is any different to now either!

Deafdoggie said:
If they are saying you can't say no, then that seems very, very unreasonable. But I don't see how that's enforceable anyway. Surely no one would just answer their phone!

Or: "I'm really sorry boss but I literally just finished a can of beer seeing as it's my day off..."

Deafdoggie said:
Surely the biggest issue with sick pay is people throwing a sickie for an odd day. There really can't be many off sick for six months, and if you are, you're pretty sick! I don't see six months of full pay as unreasonable for the numbers that it must affect, it really can't be many. If there are lots, I think that highlights a different problem! I'm not suggesting they stop people being off for a day either! Just, that they've got the wrong problem.

Quite, taking the mick and throwing sickie's is an argument for looking at disciplinary procedures rather than chucking out the sick pay policy.

Goldfish62 · 29 Feb 2024

ainsworth74 said:
Quite, taking the mick and throwing sickie's is an argument for looking at disciplinary procedures rather than chucking out the sick pay policy.

Yes, an effective Attendance at Work policy that is actually adhered to, with specific trigger points for number of occasions /number of days within stated time periods. But then surely this is already in place.

43066 · 29 Feb 2024

Deafdoggie said:
The local council is very much for it, as it's doing wonders locally. The local MP is of the same political colour and is likely to go with them. But the opposition can read the local mood and say things such as "we will do all we can to continue supporting the local boom in the hospitality sector" which, as it is being caused by the rail strikes, means they support them. It would be a very poor MP who didn't support local issues in their constituency. I can't see anyone who said they wouldn't support the local needs getting in.

Just for clarity, I'm not saying it's good for everywhere, but I am saying, for us, striking is a real boom. Which probably isn't what the unions intended. However, it depends on how many places are getting this boom effect.

I accept there will be regional variations, but the trade association representing the hospitality industry reckoned the last week of ASLEF strikes alone cost the wider sector £350m (in addition to £4bn lost so far). So the strikes clearly aren’t seen as a good thing by most businesses in that industry, especially after Covid, during a cost of living crisis.

It’s unlikely that any (sensible) politician would want that to continue on a national scale, when the dispute could easily be resolved.

Hospitality sector warns over hit of up to £350m from latest rail strikes

The Night Time Industries Association said strikes over the past few years have already caused firms to lose more than £4 billion in revenues.

www.standard.co.uk

Trade association UKHospitality estimates that the current train strikes will cost the sector up to another £350 million, which comes as swathes of firms in the industry are already being forced to close their doors.

Towers said:
I’ve no idea what Northern’s current Ts & Cs say around this, but it isn’t unusual at other TOCs to have phonecalls go out to those not working to ask if they want overtime on their day off. I don’t really see a major issue with that, you can always say no!

Agreed, same here. So long as there’s no obligation on people to answer their phone on days off, I don’t have an issue with rosters or management calling.

From the document above part of the issue is the lack of clarity and the fact that, based on the government’s conduct so far, the staff/union side have zero confidence in negotiations being conducted in good faith, so the worst case scenario will be assumed.

A lot of the changes do seem very petty indeed, unlikely to result in significant savings, while having a big impact on staff (and hence resistance from the unions) , the sick pay proposals being a prime example.

Goldfish62 said:
Yes, an effective Attendance at Work policy that is actually adhered to, with specific trigger points for number of occasions /number of days within stated time periods. But then surely this is already in place.

Already standard throughout the industry.

Economist · 29 Feb 2024

Do we reckon a government might try and force a contract on us before they leave office?

Goldfish62 · 29 Feb 2024

Economist said:
Do we reckon a government might try and force a contract on us before they leave office?

Given the timescales I think they've run out of time for that and surely they'd have tried it well before now if they'd had an inclination to do so.

Deafdoggie · 29 Feb 2024

Economist said:
Do we reckon a government might try and force a contract on us before they leave office?

Never say never. But I'd be very surprised if they did. They've got bigger problems at the moment.

yorksrob · 29 Feb 2024

Deafdoggie said:
It might be what you need. It doesn't mean it's what everyone needs.

Any good incoming government would want to do what they claimed they would-this may, or may not, involve settling disputes.

Some places rely on-and need-railways more than others. I think this will be a local issue for many.

On the contrary, the vast majority of the population require public services that function properly and are not riven by industrial action. Not having this is a bad look for any government.

Deafdoggie said:
The local council is very much for it, as it's doing wonders locally. The local MP is of the same political colour and is likely to go with them. But the opposition can read the local mood and say things such as "we will do all we can to continue supporting the local boom in the hospitality sector" which, as it is being caused by the rail strikes, means they support them. It would be a very poor MP who didn't support local issues in their constituency. I can't see anyone who said they wouldn't support the local needs getting in.

Just for clarity, I'm not saying it's good for everywhere, but I am saying, for us, striking is a real boom. Which probably isn't what the unions intended. However, it depends on how many places are getting this boom effect.

Personally, given how long the strikes have dragged on, I'm not sure they are the best solution. But given the lack of an alternative they are possibly the "least worse"

What local authority is this, out of interest. I'd be fascinated to see its website.

northwichcat · 29 Feb 2024

ainsworth74 said:
I never said it should be unlimited, nor do I think it should be, clearly employers cannot have an open ended liability for sickness of employees. However where a strong scheme exists (such as Northern's) I also don't see why it should be eroded when the statutory scheme is so utterly pathetic. On which point...

...if that was on the table I would have less concern with allowing employers to weaken their contractual schemes. As I quite agree that the statutory scheme should have some element of proportionality to the previous salary. However we don't live in that world at the moment so where strong contractual schemes exist they should be protected rather than eroded.

If I, and many others no doubt, were to have several weeks sickness all I would be receiving from my employer is £109.40pw which would be a tremendous drop in my wages. Thankfully even the current proposal at Northern isn't so extreme as to kick their staff back onto SSP only. But I see no reason they should see a reduction in their sick pay entitlement at all. Strong schemes, absent a strong state provision, should be encouraged and protected.

As non-Northern employees won't know the current terms, from what had been posted I got the impression the RMT were pushing for an increase in sick pay beyond the 3 month level. 3 months is the maximum most private businesses offer, so it's not an unreasonable conclusion for the non-rail employees to conclude from what had been posted.

Sly Old Fox said:
But what if you can’t say no? Or you can, but you get disciplined for it?

Every employee is entitled to at least one uninterrupted 24 hour period per week or a 48 hour one each fortnight, as well as breaks between shifts. So they can't discipline you for taking your legal breaks. However, that doesn't mean employees can't be required to do some out-of-hours support if it's in their contracts.

12LDA28C · 29 Feb 2024

northwichcat said:
Every employee is entitled to at least one uninterrupted 24 hour period per week or a 48 hour one each fortnight, as well as breaks between shifts. So they can't discipline you for taking your legal breaks. However, that doesn't mean employees can't be required to do some out-of-hours support if it's in their contracts.

Rather different rules generally apply on the railway as regards days/hours worked.

ainsworth74 · 29 Feb 2024

northwichcat said:
As non-Northern employees won't know the current terms, from what had been posted I got the impression the RMT were pushing for an increase in sick pay beyond the 3 month level. 3 months is the maximum most private businesses offer, so it's not an unreasonable conclusion for the non-rail employees to conclude from what had been posted.

Ah gotcha, whilst I'm also not a Northern employee (nor indeed a railway employee at all) I got the information from one of the links in the OP:

Some of the proposals that have caused the most distress include a reduction in sick pay from six months full followed by six months half pay, to three months at 90% followed by three months at 45%.

Deafdoggie · 29 Feb 2024

northwichcat said:
As non-Northern employees won't know the current terms, from what had been posted I got the impression the RMT were pushing for an increase in sick pay beyond the 3 month level. 3 months is the maximum most private businesses offer, so it's not an unreasonable conclusion for the non-rail employees to conclude from what had been posted.

I think it's very different the RMT wanting to increase sick pay from 3 months to 6 months and Northern wanting to decrease it from 6 months to 3 months.

Bletchleyite · 29 Feb 2024

Reduction in sick pay is another thing I'd definitely vote to strike on and would not be bought off by any level of pay rise. Sick pay is important if you are actually sick, and in the railway's case for very important safety reasons you don't want staff working when unfit to do so, even if through a mild case of the sniffles and a headache. Certainly a reasonably generous initial period needs to be at full pay.

DMckduck97 · 29 Feb 2024

Nicholas Lewis said:
Fatigue management is a legal requirement The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations specifically Clause 25.

Fatigue management is a massive joke on the railway, you can finish at 3am one day and be back in 24 hours later at 3am because the computer says yes

Goldfish62 · 29 Feb 2024

Bletchleyite said:
Reduction in sick pay is another thing I'd definitely vote to strike on and would not be bought off by any level of pay rise. Sick pay is important if you are actually sick, and in the railway's case for very important safety reasons you don't want staff working when unfit to do so, even if through a mild case of the sniffles and a headache. Certainly a reasonably generous initial period needs to be at full pay.

I would certainly find not having the initial period at full pay as completely unacceptable.

While the rest of the proposals, depending on exact detail and interpretation, don't look too bad the other side of the equation, ie what's being offered in terms of pay to compensate, is missing.

43066 · 29 Feb 2024

Economist said:
Do we reckon a government might try and force a contract on us before they leave office?

Doubtful I reckon, partly because it’s too complicated - you’d need different “standard contracts” for each TOC, given the disparity in Ts and Cs and pay, and partly because the time to try that route would have been during (or just after) the Covid restrictions. It seems a lot less likely now, with the railway far busier, only months till the election, and the minimum service levels seemingly in the long grass.

northwichcat said:
As non-Northern employees won't know the current terms, from what had been posted I got the impression the RMT were pushing for an increase in sick pay beyond the 3 month level. 3 months is the maximum most private businesses offer, so it's not an unreasonable conclusion for the non-rail employees to conclude from what had been posted.

Deafdoggie said:
I think it's very different the RMT wanting to increase sick pay from 3 months to 6 months and Northern wanting to decrease it from 6 months to 3 months.

The current arrangements will almost certainly be six months full pay, six months half, which is roughly market standard on the railway. That’s decent enough, but by no means an unusually generous arrangement compared to other sectors, indeed many employers will offer more generous terms than this (eg a year on full pay).

Bletchleyite said:
Reduction in sick pay is another thing I'd definitely vote to strike on and would not be bought off by any level of pay rise. Sick pay is important if you are actually sick, and in the railway's case for very important safety reasons you don't want staff working when unfit to do so, even if through a mild case of the sniffles and a headache. Certainly a reasonably generous initial period needs to be at full pay.

Agreed. It’s an odd thing to be pushing for, which unfortunately smacks of the government driving it; the savings made aren’t going to be that significant, but it will have a very serious effect on the small number of employees who are unlucky enough to be off longer term. Hence the union will push back strongly and this point alone could block a deal.

ainsworth74 · 29 Feb 2024

43066 said:
Agreed. It’s an odd thing to be pushing for, which unfortunately smacks of the government driving it; the savings made aren’t going to be that significant, but it will have a very serious effect on the small number of employees who are unlucky enough to be off longer term. Hence the union will push back strongly and this point alone could block a deal.

And if there were actually big savings to be made that suggests that you've got a serious underlying problem somewhere else which just cutting sick pay won't address and might make even worse!

greyman42 · 29 Feb 2024

Harvey B said:
How about Long Covid?

I think Boris Johnson just about summed that one up.

Wolfie · 29 Feb 2024

cactustwirly said:
Personally I don't see much wrong with what Northern are proposing. How many people actually spend more than 3 months on sick anyway?

The only thing that I disagree with is the clause that you can be called on your day off, which is wrong.

I think the flexibility of dispatchers being able to work from different stations is a good thing, but obviously the extra distance needs to be capped, asking to move from Piccadilly to Victoria is completely different to being asked to go to Leeds or Blackpool

Re your first para try having a hip replacement or similar with complications, or cancer treatment, or some forms of bowel surgery....

Teds said:
I assume current conditions on sick pay include retirement on ill health grounds after 12 months. That would seem to be normal in government employment.

Some managers may consider the Hidden report advisory but the HSE or RAIB will not if anything goes wrong. The consequences for the individual who rostered the member of staff for excessive hours could be very serious and almost certainly career ending. There was censure for a signalling supervisor who made a wrong decision about allowing a tractor onto a level crossing. It was suggested that he had worked too many hours for a person of his years. The way things seem to work these days, the manager who allowed that person to work excessive hours, would probably have been fired by the higher ups.

Re your first para as a recently retired Civil Servant l would say does it heck as like. A London-based former staff member of mine had cancer detected during antenatal checks. After both chemo and radiation therapy she still has issues. Having exhausted her paid sick leave (which was cut to five months full, five months half pay some years ago) she is faced with having to return to work (three young kids don't come cheap and her husband doesn't earn anything like enough by himself) while undergoing a further round of chemo. She is almost certain to under-perform.....

Blindtraveler said:
I don't personally get it because I'm self-employed but the whole issue on sick pay is very relevant to any kind of travel and transportation industry and I would agree that these attempts to mess around with it are totally unacceptable and need to be challenged. The rest day working thing I could understand is roughling feathers, I suspect that it's probably come from a manager somewhere whose previously been in another industry for example retail or customer service where getting called in at short notice on your day off has been standard practice for many a long year

What I am struggling a bit to understand is why having staff trained to work more flexibly across different locations of the business is so upsetting to people, okay so I can understand why someone might not feel what they want to be forced to do it but having it as optional would surely produce enough hits in terms of those willing to do it and especially as someone else suggested if travel time to that additional location is paid, and making provision for times of disruption also seems sensible given how much disruption we actually have

Another bet that I'm struggling with is why people think that a change of government really immediately solve all of this, it could potentially solve some of it but personally speaking and without getting too much into politics I can't see any of the current offerings solving all of it or indeed being interested in doing so and some don't even seem to have a plan for what they actually want to do with the rail industry at all which again doesn't inspire confidence

Re your last para probably because ever since Thatcher every single Tory PM has dreamed of their "Arthur Scargill" moment and the current mob are desperate for anything which might improve their chances....

Jurg said:
I've never worked on the railways, but I have worked in a variety of jobs and sectors over the last 20-odd years. In other sectors I've dealt with, any talk of 'modernising' terms and conditions generally gives employees more opportunity to take control over their work-life balance. The opposite seems to be the case when the government / management side use this phrase in the railway negotiations. It's an almost Orwellian subversion of language, and I can understand the frustration of the workers who are just trying to make a living and live their lives, with all the complications that entails that might not fit onto a Treasury spreadsheet or management roster.

It's pretty clear to me as an outsider that the employer strings are being pulled by a government spoiling for any high-profile and disruptive fights with unions they can provoke in order to justify more draconian anti-union legislation. It's not just the railway worker's problem, it should be concerning to anyone who has to work for a living.

Whilst I don't expect that a Starmer government would give this country anywhere near the transformative change it needs, I would at least have some hope that union negotiations would return to being an honest process between employers and employees to get the job done, rather than political pantomime to please party donors.

Your first para is spot on albeit that similar attitudes impact on the whole public sector and have done since 2010.

PyrahnaRanger · 29 Feb 2024

DMckduck97 said:
Fatigue management is a massive joke on the railway, you can finish at 3am one day and be back in 24 hours later at 3am because the computer says yes

EU drivers hours for those working on tachos will let you be back at work, wheels turning to wheels turning in 9 hours after a 15 hour duty, so 24 hours sounds pretty lush to me! Although under that scheme, rest days are rest days, so you can’t work them under any circumstances, and it always amazes me that train drivers are allowed to work on them. swings and roundabouts I suppose. But I agree - it’s ridiculous that people in safety critical roles are put in roles where fatigue can be an issue.

43066 said:
The current arrangements will almost certainly be six months full pay, six months half, which is roughly market standard on the railway. That’s decent enough, but by no means an unusually generous arrangement compared to other sectors, indeed many employers will offer more generous terms than this (eg a year on full pay).

Hmm. Maybe in the banking/finance sector, but I don’t think I know anyone outside Government-backed organisations that gets anything like six months. I’m happy my current employer pays from day one of being off sick - a previous employer paid nothing until day three when SSP kicked in, and I suspect there are plenty more out there like that.

AverageJoe · 29 Feb 2024

DMckduck97 said:
Fatigue management is a massive joke on the railway, you can finish at 3am one day and be back in 24 hours later at 3am because the computer says yes

That’s plenty of time. 99% of jobs are like that.

9am start Monday
9am start Tuesday and so on.

Did you mean 3am finish with a 3pm start meaning only 12 hours rest?

I’ve had shifts like that and they are difficult, especially since although you may theoretically have time to rest most people can’t just flick a switch and change their sleeping pattern to suit.

scrapy · 29 Feb 2024

AverageJoe said:
That’s plenty of time. 99% of jobs are like that.

9am start Monday
9am start Tuesday and so on.

Did you mean 3am finish with a 3pm start meaning only 12 hours rest?

I’ve had shifts like that and they are difficult, especially since although you may theoretically have time to rest most people can’t just flick a switch and change their sleeping pattern to suit.

I think they mean 3am finish Sunday morning after a late shift, then back in work 3am Monday morning for an early. The Sunday being classed as a rest day but you get precisely 24 hours between shifts, where you effectively need to sleep twice in that time.

richfoz84 · 29 Feb 2024

I expect some of this talk of altering sick pay, is to stop people “milking the system” and going off for 6 months when they’re not actually sick, and simply taking advantage of the system. That,’in itself, will save the company money and help staffing levels!!

Wolfie · 29 Feb 2024

richfoz84 said:
I expect some of this talk of altering sick pay, is to stop people “milking the system” and going off for 6 months when they’re not actually sick, and simply taking advantage of the system. That,’in itself, will save the company money and help staffing levels!!

No system l have ever heard of allows anyone to take six months off without significant medical documentation.

RMT Industrial Action Update to members

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member