Arriva Trains Wales Strike

[Greenback]

I agree that the staff involved should have the final say on whether the deal is acceptable or not. I would like to thank tirphil for providing details, a sit is rarely as simple as the emdia make out.

As for the personal insults, they are unnecessary and do not help to advance the debate. However, I can understand why some of those employed on the railway are upset by certain statements. At the end of the day, some people are going to be anti union no matter what the relevant issues are that lead to industrial action, and no amount of argument will change their views.

 

[merlodlliw]

I agree that the staff involved should have the final say on whether the deal is acceptable or not. I would like to thank tirphil for providing details, a sit is rarely as simple as the emdia make out.

As for the personal insults, they are unnecessary and do not help to advance the debate. However, I can understand why some of those employed on the railway are upset by certain statements. At the end of the day, some people are going to be anti union no matter what the relevant issues are that lead to industrial action, and no amount of argument will change their views.

Look likes the courts may be in action again, according to the BBC, I agree with Greenback, there seems to be a culture of personal insults on RF that is growing and no need for it, I am aware of members leaving RF due to this.

 

[CosherB]

Thank you for the reasoned comments, those who made them.

I'm not anti-union per se, just anti personal greed in a situation where the nation is in crisis. It cannot be moral for agroup of workers who have secure well paid jobs and happen to be in a position to hold the public to ransom to get unrealistic (in the current climate) pay rises over and above the good pay they already enjoy.

I cannot stand the injustice of that, when I see hard working folk who have not only not had a pay rise for years, but who are daily in fear of losing the job they have. And the many others who have lost their jobs thanks to the resecession and can't get another.

And this isn't down to 'capitalist greed', it's down to UK facing world wide competition for services and goods in a time of economic downturn. If you want to blame someone for it, blame the Chinese or those in Taiwan where much of what UK used to do has gone.

Just because rail work is something that can't be exported should not be used by rail workers to 'get one over' on their less fortunate citizens.

If that's taken on here as an unreasonable point of view, then there's no hope for rational discussion on these forums.

Captain

 

[CarterUSM]

Thank you for the reasoned comments, those who made them.

I'm not anti-union per se, just anti personal greed in a situation where the nation is in crisis. It cannot be moral for agroup of workers who have secure well paid jobs and happen to be in a position to hold the public to ransom to get unrealistic (in the current climate) pay rises over and above the good pay they already enjoy.

I cannot stand the injustice of that, when I see hard working folk who have not only not had a pay rise for years, but who are daily in fear of losing the job they have. And the many others who have lost their jobs thanks to the resecession and can't get another.

And this isn't down to 'capitalist greed', it's down to UK facing world wide competition for services and goods in a time of economic downturn. If you want to blame someone for it, blame the Chinese or those in Taiwan where much of what UK used to do has gone.

Just because rail work is something that can't be exported should not be used by rail workers to 'get one over' on their less fortunate citizens.

If that's taken on here as an unreasonable point of view, then there's no hope for rational discussion on these forums.

Captain

A fair point Captain, but it is entirely a point of view if you see it as greed, I am not so sure, with the staff being one of the lowest paid amongst the whole of the network.

 

[Greenback]

It is a matter for the staff themselves to decide whether the offer is fair. From what I have seen, if I was a member of staff I would be in favour of it, but as long as the majority of RMT members have decided that they are against it, I will support their right to make that decision and to lose pay by striking.

If the opinion of the general public was sufficient to decide the remuneration of other groups of workers, then anarchy would result. Although I think that the pay packages of senior managers would quickly return to more realistic levels!

 

[CosherB]

Greenback, what about my point about rail (and certain other workers) being in the unique position of having captive customers?

If BA cabin crew go on strike, it hits BA, their employer. It does not hit most of their customers, as they can go and fly with another airline. In my book, that's correct use of industrial action - the action hits the employer, not the customer, as it's the employer with whom the striker has the disagreement.

Also, the strikers take a risk in going on strike that their company might go bust as a result of their action, or that their company might shrink and therefore lose jobs as some customers who went elsewhere during the strike might not come back. Without that risk, it's too easy to go on stike for trvial or greedy reasons, as one can do it with impunity.

Rail workers take less risk (though they do take some - some passengers will just stick 2 finger up to the railway and go by car, never to return to rail travel. Even more frieght operators will transfer to road where they have a choice of carriers - those customers will be lost for ever.). But the vast majority of rail's customers have little choice but to use the railway even though they end up being punished by rail workers who have a beef not with those customers, but with rail management.

Bottom line - a 'just' strike should cause pain to one's employer, never to one's customers.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Greenback, what about my point about rail (and certain other workers) being in the unique position of having captive customers?

If BA cabin crew go on strike, it hits BA, their employer. It does not hit most of their customers, as they can go and fly with another airline. In my book, that's correct use of industrial action - the action hits the employer, not the customer, as it's the employer with whom the striker has the disagreement.

Also, the strikers take a risk in going on strike that their company might go bust as a result of their action, or that their company might shrink and therefore lose jobs as some customers who went elsewhere during the strike might not come back. Without that risk, it's too easy to go on stike for trvial or greedy reasons, as one can do it with impunity.

Rail workers take less risk (though they do take some - some passengers will just stick 2 finger up to the railway and go by car, never to return to rail travel. Even more frieght operators will transfer to road where they have a choice of carriers - those customers will be lost for ever.). But the vast majority of rail's customers have little choice but to use the railway even though they end up being punished by rail workers who have a beef not with those customers, but with rail management.

Bottom line - a 'just' strike should cause pain to one's employer, never to one's customers.

whether anyone likes it or not some strikes will always inconvenience passengers, thwere are othere means of transport cars/coach/other toc's, when it comes to my colleagues fighting for the t&c's etc im sorry but unless an amicable conclusion is made there sometimes can be no choice and to compare atw with BA is laughable how many passengers had flightts cancelled and couldn't get other flights 1000's thats how many

 

[strange6]

whether anyone likes it or not some strikes will always inconvenience passengers, thwere are othere means of transport cars/coach/other toc's, when it comes to my colleagues fighting for the t&c's etc im sorry but unless an amicable conclusion is made there sometimes can be no choice and to compare atw with BA is laughable how many passengers had flightts cancelled and couldn't get other flights 1000's thats how many

Fair point is that. Those BA strikes caused massive disruption to people

 

[Greenback]

It is almost impossible to strike without adversely affecting customers. This is obviously a factor that should also be taken into account by the workers concerned, along with their loss of pay, the likelihood of gaining an improved offer from the employer, and the likely effect on the company and its business. Naturally, a lot of these factors should also be uppermost in the minds of the employer.

Many people seem to believe that those who go on strike are either naive and being led by communist union bosses desperate to use them to further their own political ambitions, or a bunch of selfish bar stewards who should be putting the needs of the rest of the UK before their own interests. This attitude is often perpetuated by the mainstream media coverage of industrial disputes, which likes to portray the employees in the worst possible light.

If I am inconvenienced by the proposed action, I will obviously not be happy, but I will remember that there are two sides to every dispute and that it is the strikers right to take action and to decide whether or not to agree to having their terms and conditions altered.

 

[CosherB]

Fair point is that. Those BA strikes caused massive disruption to people

Who will probably never fly BA again. Never using an AW train again if you live and / or work in their region might not be an option.

The vast majority of inconvenienced BA passengers flew with other airlines instead. When rail workers go on strike, there's often no alternative for the passenger (and don't forget the passenger is not part of the dispute - that is between workers and management).

it is up to the disgruntled worker to find a form of industrial action that impacts the employer but has minimum effect on the customer, whose dispute it isn't.

It's not my job to define what that should be, but off the top of my head how about not doing any ticket checks? The passengers still travel, but the employer loses revenue.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

i don't think not doing ticket checks will really bother ATW "Drivers" lol also things like revenue cannot work as they just put G4 rpis at platforms etc

 

[tbtc]

It's likely that people can't stand up for what he is saying because they avoid these threads - why? Probably because any opinions that counter your own are shot down, whatever their level of merit

After recent experience, I've kept away from contributing in threads like this. It becomes very "us" and "them" and there's nothing you can say that convinces anyone otherwise...

 

[strange6]

After recent experience, I've kept away from contributing in threads like this. It becomes very "us" and "them" and there's nothing you can say that convinces anyone otherwise...

That's a fair point as well. Industrial relations is a very thorny topic and can lead to a breakdown in everyday working life. I stay out of the politics in ANY job that i do - it really is the best way

 

[Legzr1]

There is another option - get rid of unions all together and do as you're told.

If you don't like doing as you're told then leave.

Would that work?

Actually,you wouldn't have to go as far as banning unions.

All you'd need is a legal system set up so that any legal industrial action can have an injunction placed against it at the last minute.

Yeah,that might work...

 

[krus_aragon]

I earn £29,632.68 which equates to £81.18 per day, which then equates to £3.38 per hour and i defend the fine people of this country for a living so can i have 40k a year i'd go on stike but thats against military law lol.

That £3.38 seems to be based on working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If you were working, say, a 40 hour week that'd be equivalent to ~£14 an hour for the hours you are at work.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

i don't think not doing ticket checks will really bother ATW "Drivers" lol also things like revenue cannot work as they just put G4 rpis at platforms etc

Not collecting revenue was looked into a while back.Union lawyers advised that the course of action would constitute a breach of contract and would render members liable to dismissal.Union members are protected by law if they take part in strikes or overtime bans as long the action is taken after a proper ballot.

 

[Geezertronic]

That £3.38 seems to be based on working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If you were working, say, a 40 hour week that'd be equivalent to ~£14 an hour for the hours you are at work.

Unfortunately I don't see being a member of the armed forces as a 40 hour per week job, I mean it's not as if you can tell the enemy to not attack during non working hours

 

[tbtc]

Unfortunately I don't see being a member of the armed forces as a 40 hour per week job, I mean it's not as if you can tell the enemy to not attack during non working hours

There are a lot of other benefits. Like, the Armed Forces have the most generous pension scheme in the country (which employees do not have to make any payment into, generous early retirement benefits etc), subsidised accommodation etc. However, any debate about the military only ever focuses on the headline wage (hourly rate).

There's a similarity to rail staff, to an extent - pension/job security etc. However, with any industry, when you are on X thousand a year, you only care about whether you get an above inflation pay rise or not - the fact that other people get only Y thousand a year isn't important.

 

[krus_aragon]

Unfortunately I don't see being a member of the armed forces as a 40 hour per week job, I mean it's not as if you can tell the enemy to not attack during non working hours

I take your point that hours aren't anything like that regular, particularly when on deployment, but I found the ~£3 an hour wildly misleading.

My first instinctive comparison was with the national minimum mage (currently around £6?) which would put you being paid half as much as a supermarket shelf stacker. I hope you'll agree that you get paid better than that (although I can't really say much on what is and isn't the right salary for a member of the armed forces).

 

[313103]

Strike now off!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...off-strike-on-six-nations-day-91466-28094244/

So normal service.

 

[Tom B]

Unfortunately I don't see being a member of the armed forces as a 40 hour per week job, I mean it's not as if you can tell the enemy to not attack during non working hours

I wonder what would happen if Mr Crow was in the army. "I'm not going to fight, I don't clock on for at least three minutes yet, and even then I've not finished me tea - why can't those pesky insurgents only attack us for 35 hours a week (for no longer than 7h48m at a time)?"

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I wonder what would happen if Mr Crow was in the army. "I'm not going to fight, I don't clock on for at least three minutes yet, and even then I've not finished me tea - why can't those pesky insurgents only attack us for 35 hours a week (for no longer than 7h48m at a time)?"

People knock him, but as I have said in previous threads the RMT members voted for him democratically and the majority of us agree with him, we know the avg Joe Public can't stand him, sorry to be blunt but the avg Joe Public doesn't fight to protect my job/pay/conditions yadda yadda, Bob Crowe and the RMT do a very good job in doing so!

 

[Pumbaa]

There is another option - get rid of unions all together and do as you're told.

If you don't like doing as you're told then leave.

Would that work?

You mean like the rest of the country? Precious few industries have industrial representation now. While I don't advocate this, and I am thankful to be in a union, and feel that Union representation is necessary and a good thing, RMT takes the mick, ASLEF are a lot better; rail staff are well privileged and drivers most so.

A pay rise for most grades to bring them towards driver type pay, with a 7-day working week is where the railways should be headed. Strike all you like, you still provide a public service on behalf of the state as a private company.

 

[mumrar]

I have great admiration for our armed forces but that doesn't mean I'll support statistics deliberately skewed to make another workforce look bad.

The 24 hour a day 365 days a year is an awful comparison to make, not least because it implies that soldiers never eat, drink, sleep or wash. If you didn't sleep you'd probably be dead before any insurrgents had a go.

It is a very tough job, one I can't do myself due to medical restrictions, but one I would not have pursued either, it takes a special kind of person to be in the military. Whilst I may need help on the background of how our forces are deployed, after tours of duty are there not large amounts of time not spent fighting, having leave, or training and the like. If being on the front line is considered 24/7 then being at home must surely be considered 0/7 until the next tour of duty is on?

I'm asking this open-minded to the answers, so please don't think it is narrow-minded seeking equally narrow-minded responses.

 

[CosherB]

People knock him, but as I have said in previous threads the RMT members voted for him democratically and the majority of us agree with him, we know the avg Joe Public can't stand him, sorry to be blunt but the avg Joe Public doesn't fight to protect my job/pay/conditions yadda yadda, Bob Crowe and the RMT do a very good job in doing so!

That's a very narrow view which if persisted with will lead to rail in UK being seriously sidelined in favour of road and air.

The public are getting seriously pi55ed off with the RMT, the public vote for the politicians, and the politicians want to be voted for so will follow public opinion in their transport descison making.

What value your pay and conditions when you're out of a job?

 

[CarterUSM]

That's a very narrow view which if persisted with will lead to rail in UK being seriously sidelined in favour of road and air.

The public are getting seriously pi55ed off with the RMT, the public vote for the politicians, and the politicians want to be voted for so will follow public opinion in their transport descison making.

What value your pay and conditions when you're out of a job?

A fair point again, but i will believe it when i see it! Rail has never been more popular!

 

[Captain Chaos]

That's a very narrow view which if persisted with will lead to rail in UK being seriously sidelined in favour of road and air.

The public are getting seriously pi55ed off with the RMT, the public vote for the politicians, and the politicians want to be voted for so will follow public opinion in their transport descison making.

What value your pay and conditions when you're out of a job?

A fair point.

However I am of the opinion that rail travel will become ever more popular. Certainly within the next decade or so with the prospect of peak oil. Oil prices are for sure only going one way as oil reserves get depleted thus increasing the price at the pump. I can only guess that £2 a litre at the pump isn't that far off realistically. Once demand outstrips supply (i.e what can be pumped out isn't enough to cater for what is required) prices will really start rocketing. No amount of government intervention is really going to prevent this. Only when proper viable alternative options for running a car as opposed to fossil fuels are available and useable will we then see a reverse of this trend. Rail travel will seem a more viable option financially at least anyway.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[Flamingo]

That's a very narrow view which if persisted with will lead to rail in UK being seriously sidelined in favour of road and air.

The public are getting seriously pi55ed off with the RMT, the public vote for the politicians, and the politicians want to be voted for so will follow public opinion in their transport descison making.

What value your pay and conditions when you're out of a job?

So, rail workers should be prepared to work for minimum wage?

The railways are private companies. They will make an economic decision, balancing their costs, investment and available subsidy against their possible return on their investment. When companies stop wanting franchises after taking the bottom line into account, that is what will make a difference.

The public vote making a difference was sold off along with the railways.

 

[Legzr1]

You mean like the rest of the country? Precious few industries have industrial representation now. While I don't advocate this, and I am thankful to be in a union, and feel that Union representation is necessary and a good thing, RMT takes the mick, ASLEF are a lot better; rail staff are well privileged and drivers most so.

A pay rise for most grades to bring them towards driver type pay, with a 7-day working week is where the railways should be headed. Strike all you like, you still provide a public service on behalf of the state as a private company.

As far as i'm aware (and bar a few notable exceptions) it is perfectly legal for any worker to join a union and that union can negotiate better pay & conditions (or swap one for another) - If the 'rest of the country' as you put it are unable or unwilling to join a union (and vote in someone who will serve them well) then that's hardly my fault is it?

As for your second paragraph :

I'm not in RMT,I won't be striking,I don't provide a public service.

However,I do see the big picture and this hatred of Mr Crow that seeps into most threads on this forum is a little unwarranted.

He's there to do a job for his members.

I don't think he's there to create soundbites attempting to keep up with public 'opinion'.

That's what a GS should be doing.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That's a very narrow view which if persisted with will lead to rail in UK being seriously sidelined in favour of road and air.

The public are getting seriously pi55ed off with the RMT, the public vote for the politicians, and the politicians want to be voted for so will follow public opinion in their transport descison making.

What value your pay and conditions when you're out of a job?

The trouble with the majority of your statements about the publuc being pi55ed off with the RMT etc etc seems to go against the fact that Rail has not been this popular for about 80 years, the public don't hate the RMT anywhere near as much as you Captain, yes people get fed up with industrial action, BUT when they got told the facts and not just company propaganda they tend to actually understand the reasons and not (like yourself) stamp your feet and blame the Railway workers and the RMT/ASLEF