It kind of is, and its in their interests to.
It‘s the responsibility of everyone employed by ‘the railway’ to grow it, in the sense of making it better for passengers and freight users. I don’t think anyone employed by the railway will disagree with that, or if they do they need to find a new career.
The union is the collective will of its membership. It’s membership has a responsibility to grow the railway...
Okay then.
So you agree a two year 0% deal for 2020 and 2021 because times are hard, try and enter into meetings about 2022 pay with TOCs about (including items of productivity) but get told that DfT won't agree any deal; spend a year trying to get talks but get ignored.
Reject a deal that was released to the media before you (still with no talks yet remember).
Finally have talks, but the offer is actually worse than the first one (because that's fair and reasonable?), and whilst a 'fixed price whatever changes' is unacceptable, would be happy to have proper negotiations about pay, terms and conditions at TOC level - and have done this at ALL other operators; freight and passenger.
I don't know what else can be done on the Staff Side to grow the railway and move it forward, barring complete capitulation.
One of the most frustrating things about this dispute is ASLEF'S inability to get across that they have been reasonable. I've never seen the railway press been so anti-government over a pay issue before, but ASLEF don't seem to be capitalising on it.
One side has, in fact, been fair and reasonable. The other side hasn't been, despite trumpeting that they have.
It's about time politicians had to have T&C changes - call it modernisation or greater efficiencies in the workforce to increased productivity for the shareholders (i.e. the voters) - then the payrises are awarded as they sell.out their terms. No need for a bar in Westminster for example - canteen maybe.
Canteen?!!
You know they have a restaurant as well as a bar? Where you can get a very nice steak meal, silver service, for about a tenner?
Why pathetic? Everyone knows the legislation is unworkable and that the Government would have been much better off entering talks to settle the dispute rather than introducing a toothless law to attempt to force people to work.
Creating the conditions to push forward MSLs are what this dispute has all been in aid of.
I recall Mick Whelan stating that he would not agree with a single word of the RDG offer in the Transport Select Committee. The Offer called for TOC by TOC negotiations with the reaching of a settlement, and it did not say that acceptance in full was a precondition - it was stated to be normal collective bargaining. As far as I can tell ASLEF have not enabled any such negotiation and continue to claim that they are being asked to accept the worst case interpretation of the offer in full. This appears to be an extreme position designed to prevent any agreement without a change of Government. This position appears to have been a starting position from the evidence and not one which has emerged, there having been no negotiation.
At the same time they claim that the fault is entirely the Government's whilst refusing to actually try to negotiate a settlement. If this understanding is incorrect by way of actual negotiations with TOCs having taken place please provide evidence, since none appears to exist.
It was an acceptance of 4% year two (2023) whatever happened in further talks about productivity at each TOC. So some TOCs would be giving up more than others.
"4% for an unlimited list of things we have yet to agree on," isn't a "fair and reasonable offer."
It was NOT, a 'talks on year 2 will take place at each TOC, and the percentage negotiated for the changes made.' That would be reasonable.
5% is superinflationary. Inflation in the 12 months to February was 3.4%.
What year are you talking about? We are talking about the 2022 and 2023 (two years) pay deal. Also, why have you mentioned February?
East Midlands Trains Driver's pay anniversary is January;
LNER is April;
Cross Country and Avanti is May
GTR is October.
A January pay deal would normally be based on November's RPI (Nov '21 RPI was 7.1%), an October pay deal would normally be based on August's RPI (Aug '22 RPI was a staggering 12.3%).
This isn't mentioned very much, but it's yet another reason it isn't a "fair and reasonable offer" as Year One's 4% is a bit below for one, and massively below for another.
May have been discussed already, but if the current dispute is for the 2022 pay rise, where does that leave the 2023 and 2024 pay rises? Are they all separate disputes or are all 3 pay rises going to be lumped into one rise when this is eventually sorted?
The current dispute is over 2022 (except SWR and C2C who had multi-year deals previously, of which 2022 was the last year), and 2023.
2024 hasn't even been talked about yet - although EMR are now running three months late as their pay anniversary is January for Drivers.
A ballot on the offer does not "screw" its membership if the membership votes against it, which I'm sure they would. And having ballots to continue strike action without having one to vote on the offer itself seems to be a bit upside down to me. It seems that ASLEF voted to continue striking because no new offer has been made, even though the current offer hasn't been voted on as asked for by RDG before any further negotiations could take place.
Bottom line, everyone knows a ballot on the offer will return a resounding "Nope", but that official "Nope" is what has to be returned to RDG to open negotiations again.
I'll tell you what's upside down. Me paying trained negotiators money in the form of a union subscription to go into a meeting to represent me discussing pay, and then the government and RDG going, "But we want to waste everyone's time and [me the member's] money because we want to hear HIM say no."
