EMT bailout

[whhistle]

I am neither an RMT member nor Bob Crow but I will happily challenge you.

Even the most knuckle-dragging member of the Daily Mail fraternity would not regard living in a council house as being "on benefits" so I regard your original post as being from the Goebbels school of accuracy.

Actually, reading the article, he claims housing benefit.

 

[WatcherZero]

And you would put in such a bid ? streuth... we are talking about multi-million/billion pound companies employing brigades of commercial accountants formulating these bids.
I can assure you that they've considered all potential risks before placing their chips.They won't always get their assessments all right all of the time but that is the commercial risk to which I refer.

Youve been arguing they face no commercial risk whatsoever now you are saying they do?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'd rather have Bob Crow than not have him

Same here, at least he stands up for what he believes in, he may be a gobs***e at times but he fights for his members (the likes of myself) and does a very very good job at that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You mean like what Northern had to do last year? I don't recall hearing anything from Bob Crow about that.

they also made Millions in profit while destroying staff morale. Happy Days for the DfT and Shareholders while the MD treats his staff with utter contempt.

 

[mallard]

This is the 80s and 90s again as far as they are concerned ("Pension Payment Holidays"), when the fund ends up in trouble as a result of the reduction in contributions they will declare that the only way to fix the fund is to reduce the benefits.

It is just a way to reduce pension benefits in the opinion of the union members.

Of course, two independent audits of the pension fund (one commissioned by EMT, one by ASLEF) have found that the pensions are overfunded, so the "opinion of the union members" is pretty much proven wrong.

Last statement from ALSEF that I read (I commute via EMT, so I've been trying to keep up with this one) acknowledged that fact, but called the lowering of contributions "irresponsible" in case the economy worsens even more and the contributions need to be raised again (call me cynical, but I'd expect that to cause another round of strikes).

The whole thing just seems silly to me. A prevailing attitude of "we (the unions) don't want our employer to save money, even when it benefits us" is not good for the health of the industry.

 

[ainsworth74]

they also made Millions in profit while destroying staff morale. Happy Days for the DfT and Shareholders while the MD treats his staff with utter contempt.

How are Northern destroying morale? I'm honestly curious to hear from 'the shop floor' as it were what the issue is?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

How are Northern destroying morale? I'm honestly curious to hear from 'the shop floor' as it were what the issue is?

numerous things a just a few are

we used to get a christmas bonus (nothing massive just a few vouchers) They went last year

Family fun day, once a year they used to give out a limited amount of tickets where everyone could say have a day out at a theme park. They went 2 years ago replaced by...vouchers you can get on the internet

Uniforms, we are supposed to be getting new uniforms in sep but in case we need to order say new trousers we have to take a PHOTO of the reason (seems our word isn't good enough)

Pay Talks get dragged out more and more its not as if we are asking (or even expecting stupid pay rises just rpi), remember we are NOT making a loss but a HEALTHY profit

small things like penny pinching of stupid things like photocopy costs

Managers who have caused nothing but disaster at certain depots (ask any Lime st Traincrew) instead of being retrained or disciplined just being passed on to another depot to do it all again.

promises being made that never materialise (just ask any LDC or union rep)

G4s practically everywhere, sure the loss of commision is not good but that isnt the main problem its the amount of hassle we get sorting their numerous foul ups.

Too many jobs with just a 12 hr gap between shifts which with the shifts we do we expect some but more and more are happening.

Severe lack of security on trains at risky times (fri and sat nights for example)

Pressure put on us for sales when we have to work doors from the rear and as mentioned G4s everywhere

the list goes on and on

 

[Yew]

Severe lack of security on trains at risky times (fri and sat nights for example)

Thats really unfortunate, despite EMT having a blanket ban on alcohol on robin hood line services, they have Two 'SIC certified personell on trains after 7ish on all trains to nottingham.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, two independent audits of the pension fund (one commissioned by EMT, one by ASLEF) have found that the pensions are overfunded, so the "opinion of the union members" is pretty much proven wrong.

Last statement from ALSEF that I read (I commute via EMT, so I've been trying to keep up with this one) acknowledged that fact, but called the lowering of contributions "irresponsible" in case the economy worsens even more and the contributions need to be raised again (call me cynical, but I'd expect that to cause another round of strikes).

Just like numerous reviews of final salary pension schemes throughout the 80s showed that they were overfunded and contributions should be reduced.
Fast forward to the nineties/last decade and the same schemes now have to be closed to new members, and benefits to reduce, to allow the enormous deficit that these pension schemes to run up to be eliminated.

History appears to be repeating itself.

The whole thing just seems silly to me. A prevailing attitude of "we (the unions) don't want our employer to save money, even when it benefits us" is not good for the health of the industry.

The industries that don't have the "us versus them" attitude tend to be the ones that now have no terms and conditions to speak of.
I'm not sure how union members benefit from the company being able to increase its stock dividends again, since that is all that will happen otherwise.

 

[mallard]

Just like numerous reviews of final salary pension schemes throughout the 80s showed that they were overfunded and contributions should be reduced.
Fast forward to the nineties/last decade and the same schemes now have to be closed to new members, and benefits to reduce, to allow the enormous deficit that these pension schemes to run up to be eliminated.

History appears to be repeating itself.

Then why not lower the contributions now, and raise them if/when you need to in the future? Oh, I know why, because the unions will kick up so much stink at that point that it's easier to close the schemes/lower the benefits. Militant unionism shooting itself in the in the foot, as usual.

The industries that don't have the "us versus them" attitude tend to be the ones that now have no terms and conditions to speak of.

And the industries that do have the "us versus them" attitude tend to be the ones that are either in terminal decline, already virtually gone or on heavy support/subsidy from the government (as rail has been since well before 1947).

I'm not sure how union members benefit from the company being able to increase its stock dividends again, since that is all that will happen otherwise.

Really, so the staff don't benefit from a £500 per-year pay rise? :roll: Let's also not forget who owns most company stock; banks, pension funds, etc. A company paying healthy dividends is good for everyone's pensions, savings, mortgages, etc.

 

[HSTEd]

Then why not lower the contributions now, and raise them if/when you need to in the future? Oh, I know why, because the unions will kick up so much stink at that point that it's easier to close the schemes/lower the benefits. Militant unionism shooting itself in the in the foot, as usual.

Because if they put staff contributions through the roof, they will be expected to match the increase in contributions themselves, which they would rather not do.
The only way to solve the deficit issue without spending additional money is to reduce pension benefits. This way they get an excuse to reduce employer contributions and then not have to increase them again at a later date.

Really, so the staff don't benefit from a £500 per-year pay rise?

Have you accounted for the increased income tax they pay? And the money they loose when the pension fund inevitably goes into deficit and the future income they will receive from the pension drops considerably?

:roll: Let's also not forget who owns most company stock; banks, pension funds, etc. A company paying healthy dividends is good for everyone's pensions, savings, mortgages, etc.

Excluding the fact that most of these companies are owned by foreign sovereign wealth funds or enormous private equity funds that the staff will almost certainly never be members of. Why should they sacrifice their income to benefit something so nebulous as the "entire company".

Either you believe the free market gospel about triple down economics (as your post implies) and enlightened self-interest or you do not, you can't have it both ways.

 

[mallard]

Because if they put staff contributions through the roof, they will be expected to match the increase in contributions themselves, which they would rather not do.
The only way to solve the deficit issue without spending additional money is to reduce pension benefits. This way they get an excuse to reduce employer contributions and then not have to increase them again at a later date.

The contributions only go "through the roof" because they put off the rise due to the inevitable backlash from the unions. If the unions would allow them to be reasonable, e.g. reviewing the situation annually, then the rises/falls would be moderate at worst.

Have you accounted for the increased income tax they pay? And the money they loose when the pension fund inevitably goes into deficit and the future income they will receive from the pension drops considerably?

Why is this deficit "inevitable"? Two independent audits (including one commissioned by ASLEF) have agreed that the fund is healthy. It seems to me that the dispute is only ongoing because ASLEF don't want to admit that they were wrong. This "us vs. them" attitude does you no favours; there is such thing as a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Excluding the fact that most of these companies are owned by foreign sovereign wealth funds or enormous private equity funds that the staff will almost certainly never be members of. Why should they sacrifice their income to benefit something so nebulous as the "entire company".

Not sure where you get the idea that "foreign sovereign wealth funds or enormous private equity funds" are major shareholders from. From what I can tell, around 50% of all shares (in established businesses) are owned by pensions of one sort or another. Banks own about 20%. It's highly likely that EMT's pension fund owns some of their own shares.

Additionally, nobody is being asked to sacrifice any income. The staff are to receive and effective pay rise in the short-term and no change in pension benefits in the long-term. Leaving things the way they are means that money is wasted, surely you can't thing that's a good thing!

Besides, there's no reason why the staff can't just invest their £500 in a private pension scheme if they're so worried about the company one failing.

Either you believe the free market gospel about triple down economics (as your post implies) and enlightened self-interest or you do not, you can't have it both ways.

At least I can spell "trickle-down economics"! And no, I have no real belief in the "free market gospel", I just think that militant unionism and extreme scepticism of your employer aren't in the long-term interest of anyone. I wonder how many ticket offices would never have closed/limited opening hours if the unions hadn't insisted on raising the cost of employment so much above inflation...

 

[BestWestern]

numerous things a just a few are

...Uniforms, we are supposed to be getting new uniforms in sep but in case we need to order say new trousers we have to take a PHOTO of the reason (seems our word isn't good enough)...

That really is poor :roll:

 

[notadriver]

The contributions only go "through the roof" because they put off the rise due to the inevitable backlash from the unions. If the unions would allow them to be reasonable, e.g. reviewing the situation annually, then the rises/falls would be moderate at worst.



Why is this deficit "inevitable"? Two independent audits (including one commissioned by ASLEF) have agreed that the fund is healthy. It seems to me that the dispute is only ongoing because ASLEF don't want to admit that they were wrong. This "us vs. them" attitude does you no favours; there is such thing as a mutually beneficial arrangement.



Not sure where you get the idea that "foreign sovereign wealth funds or enormous private equity funds" are major shareholders from. From what I can tell, around 50% of all shares (in established businesses) are owned by pensions of one sort or another. Banks own about 20%. It's highly likely that EMT's pension fund owns some of their own shares.

Additionally, nobody is being asked to sacrifice any income. The staff are to receive and effective pay rise in the short-term and no change in pension benefits in the long-term. Leaving things the way they are means that money is wasted, surely you can't thing that's a good thing!

Besides, there's no reason why the staff can't just invest their £500 in a private pension scheme if they're so worried about the company one failing.



At least I can spell "trickle-down economics"! And no, I have no real belief in the "free market gospel", I just think that militant unionism and extreme scepticism of your employer aren't in the long-term interest of anyone. I wonder how many ticket offices would never have closed/limited opening hours if the unions hadn't insisted on raising the cost of employment so much above inflation...

The cost of employment is low compared with the cost of access charges to network rail and other costs. Ticket office staff aren't paid that much anyway.

 

[IanXC]

Uniforms, we are supposed to be getting new uniforms in sep but in case we need to order say new trousers we have to take a PHOTO of the reason (seems our word isn't good enough)

Having seen similar levels of craziness in my workplace (and having had the opportunity to challenge it with senior management), its not beyond the realms of possibility that the supplier of the uniform is guaranteeing the durability of the uniform. So Northern could be getting free replacement uniform for these items, but only on production of a photo. Sounds like a great deal from the boardroom but it is of course is loopy when you're dealing with it on the front line.

 

[jon0844]

But yet he still doesnt get voted out because those who are frustrated at him dont bother voting anyway so its the hardcore group of people within the union who always vote always keep him in. If the silent majority stay silent, nowt will change.

Maybe those silent members should create a new union to stand up to Bob!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd rather have Bob Crow than not have him

If it was a case of having the RMT or not, I'd go along with it.. but does anyone know if another person could do an equally effective job by still fighting the genuine fights, and also engaging fair discussion on other things - as well as ensuring a bit more positive PR that would ultimately get the public on the side of the union, not the train companies?

I guess we can't know unless someone has been to a parallel dimension, but I do think Bob Crow doesn't do the RMT any favours from an outsiders point of view.

I don't dispute he gets results, but can't be totally convinced that he's so special that nobody else could.

 

[tbtc]

You are not allowed to overfund a final salary pension arrangement. Any surplus (over a small margin for error) would have to be used to enhance the benefit structure or to cut future contributions.

Normally when contributions are cut, the employer takes a reduction but the employees maintain their percentage rate (with the understanding that the employer would take up the strain when costs rise in the future).

In the circumstances, I'm not sure what Stagecoach have done wrong here - they cannot overfund a final salary pension scheme!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it was a case of having the RMT or not, I'd go along with it.. but does anyone know if another person could do an equally effective job by still fighting the genuine fights, and also engaging fair discussion on other things - as well as ensuring a bit more positive PR that would ultimately get the public on the side of the union, not the train companies?

I guess we can't know unless someone has been to a parallel dimension, but I do think Bob Crow doesn't do the RMT any favours from an outsiders point of view.

I don't dispute he gets results, but can't be totally convinced that he's so special that nobody else could.

If you asked a thousand people who the leader of ASLEF was, or the NASUWT or the British Medical Association or various other national Trades Unions (which do a lot of good work behind the scenes to protect their members) then I think they'd struggle.

Everyone seems to know who Bob is though - he seems to love the attention (which may explain his willingness for a soundbite even when talking about things that are nothing to do with him).

I really don't think he helps himself.

 

[WillPS]

It is entirely for the membership of the unions to decide what is and isn't a good deal for them. The suggestion that the unions are demanding Stagecoach do something which they legally cannot does not seem plausible to me.

As for the new story at the start of the thread, nothing about it seems fair to me. Contract or no, privatisation shouldn't mean a win/win deal whereby companies actually cannot make a loss. Where's the entrepreneurship in such a deal?

 

[Wolfie]

Actually, reading the article, he claims housing benefit.

ACTUALLY it says no such thing. It does say he doesn't pay "market" rent though....

 

[WatcherZero]

He's in a rent controlled council home thats supposed to be for emergency housing or people in genuine need who cant afford market rates, he refuses to buy the house from the council or vacate it. Theres nothing legally forcing him to leave but it would be the moral thing to do, or to purchase the house from the council so they can provide a new council home. Purchasing the house at the 20% discount for council home owners would only be two years wages for him.

 

[142094]

Even if he did buy the house from the council, most councils have stopped building social housing anyway, so no real gain there.

 

[IanXC]

Even if he did buy the house from the council, most councils have stopped building social housing anyway, so no real gain there.

The only current decline in construction of social housing is in line withg the general market. Even if councils are not putting their own funds to it funds from the sale of existing stock is ring fenced, and any new developments will be subject to Section 106 agreements.

The social housing built might not look like social housing; it could be rent to buy, discounted sale, or any number of other schemes, but it will be there!

 

[BestWestern]

He's in a rent controlled council home thats supposed to be for emergency housing or people in genuine need who cant afford market rates, he refuses to buy the house from the council or vacate it. Theres nothing legally forcing him to leave but it would be the moral thing to do, or to purchase the house from the council so they can provide a new council home. Purchasing the house at the 20% discount for council home owners would only be two years wages for him.

I completely agree. It is disgraceful that somebody who is clearly not short of money can have the arrogance to continue to pay pittance for a home when most local authorities have substantial waiting lists for such housing made up of people in genuine need. But then there are also clear issues with any legislation which allows a person to do that, which also needs to be addressed.