LUL All Grades Strike

[Mawkie]

Worth mentioning that the RMT have announced new strike dates for a separate mandate to the Night Tube dispute on Tuesday 1st March and Thursday 3rd March.

This is an all grades dispute, so that includes CSAs, train operators, signal operators, line controllers, depot staff, trains managers, etc.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/london-transport-union-rmt-announces4222/

"LONDON TRANSPORT UNION RMT confirmed that members will be taking strike action next month over LU’s continuing refusal to give assurances on jobs, pensions and working conditions in the midst of an on-going financial crisis driven by central Government."

 

[Lewlew]

For anyone interested, this was the ballot results...

 

[bramling]

Worth mentioning that the RMT have announced new strike dates for a separate mandate to the Night Tube dispute on Tuesday 1st March and Thursday 3rd March.

This is an all grades dispute, so that includes CSAs, train operators, signal operators, line controllers, depot staff, trains managers, etc.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/london-transport-union-rmt-announces4222/

"LONDON TRANSPORT UNION RMT confirmed that members will be taking strike action next month over LU’s continuing refusal to give assurances on jobs, pensions and working conditions in the midst of an on-going financial crisis driven by central Government."

Seems a little premature to me. It seems rather injudicious to waste political capital on something speculative. Better to wait, and perhaps have other unions on board at the same time.

 

[MotCO]

refusal to give assurances on jobs, pensions and working conditions in the midst of an on-going financial crisis driven by central Government.

How can TfL give any assurance on jobs if passenger numbers are reducing? Many pension schemes have been updated or revised to reflect greater longevity so why should the tube service be any different? How have working conditions changed so that this is a new problem?

TfL has severe funding problems and some changes do need to be made. Or I am I being unfairly harsh?

Are there any tube drivers on this forum who can give the inside view?

 

[bramling]

How can TfL give any assurance on jobs if passenger numbers are reducing? Many pension schemes have been updated or revised to reflect greater longevity so why should the tube service be any different? How have working conditions changed so that this is a new problem?

TfL has severe funding problems and some changes do need to be made. Or I am I being unfairly harsh?

I'd say the bigger medium-term issue for TFL may well be retention. They are already starting to heavily lag compared to other rail operators, and being brutally honest TFL is already struggling to attract - and retain - quality people. Worth remembering this also goes further than drivers.

 

[Nym]

I'd say the bigger medium-term issue for TFL may well be retention. They are already starting to heavily lag compared to other rail operators, and being brutally honest TFL is already struggling to attract - and retain - quality people. Worth remembering this also goes further than drivers.

TfL have been bleeding people ever since the Olympics, it's just that certain roles and grades already had a recruitment oversupply and hence haven't been as screwed as others.

I remember recruiting for (well, trying to) 8 senior testers back in the mid 2010s, we had less than 5 valid applicants because the conditions and remuneration expectations of that type of higher skill technical role just could not be met by TfL.

 

[duncanp]

It raises the question of exactly what sort of assurances would satisfy the RMT in order for them to call off the strike.

 

[Andyh82]

It raises the question of exactly what sort of assurances would satisfy the RMT in order for them to call off the strike.

Existing numbers of employees in each role to be maintained forever I’d expect

So not just that the 100 people doing role X aren’t made redundant, but reassurance that there will always be 100 people doing role X in the future

 

[bramling]

TfL have been bleeding people ever since the Olympics, it's just that certain roles and grades already had a recruitment oversupply and hence haven't been as screwed as others.

I remember recruiting for (well, trying to) 8 senior testers back in the mid 2010s, we had less than 5 valid applicants because the conditions and remuneration expectations of that type of higher skill technical role just could not be met by TfL.

Certainly going to be a big issue. TFL has all the hallmarks of a sick patient.

Lots of expertise has, of course, been lost to people starting up their own consultancy roles. TFL then buys back the expertise at grossly inflated cost.

Some serious thought is going to have to be given to retention. TFL will have no problem getting people to fill roles, but a big problem with getting quality people.

 

[Mawkie]

How can TfL give any assurance on jobs if passenger numbers are reducing? Many pension schemes have been updated or revised to reflect greater longevity so why should the tube service be any different? How have working conditions changed so that this is a new problem?

TfL has severe funding problems and some changes do need to be made. Or I am I being unfairly harsh?

Are there any tube drivers on this forum who can give the inside view?

Attached is the RMT release regarding the dispute - it outlines a number of changes that are unpalatable to staff.

LU are in a difficult situation as the pension fund is fully funded - indeed they have just reduced their contributions - however, the strings are being pulled closer to central government

Reducing the staffing on stations was so catastrophic last time (circa 2016?) it resulted in stations regularly going under minimum numbers and having to randomly close and London Travelwatch basically told LU to get more staff back in.

Remote booking on and off is simply a way for LU to transfer costs to employees and would go against all their rhetoric about improving employees work/life balance.

 

[rebmcr]

Remote booking on and off is simply a way for LU to transfer costs to employees and would go against all their rhetoric about improving employees work/life balance.

Reading the pdf, would this basically involve them not paying workers for travel time?

 

[Mawkie]

Reading the pdf, would this basically involve them not paying workers for travel time?

There are discussions initiated by one of the Head of Line Operations (HOLO) on a Yammer thread that suggest exactly that. His constant use of the phrase 'what is reasonable*' is concerning as I don't think any distance travelling for work purposes is reasonable without payment - IMO people need to to be paid for the work they do. If the Company wants to send me to the other end of the line to pick up a train then that needs to be done within my paid duty time (it's worth noting for balance that the HOLO has stated he doesn't think this would be 'reasonable').He hasn't given any concrete examples of what his definition of reasonable is.

This, of course, is totally different to (and in addition to) my normal commuting time - which I have made a conscious choice over.

Anything added to that time is for the benefit of the company and they need to pay for travel time whilst working within my duty parameters.

*For those not inside the industry, the notion of any ambiguity regarding driver hours, time on duty, etc is unheard of. LU dictate at what speed I should walk to the platforms from my depot, they dictate walking time to sidings, they dictate an amount of minutes I get to book on and familiarise myself with any late notices, and on and on and on. These are all carefully timed and included within my duty times - not one of these mention a 'reasonable walking time to the platform'.

 

[Ken H]

LU have to look at more automation and computerisation. Getting/retaining decent staff is getting harder and harder.
Bit difficult times ahead.

 

[matt_world2004]

Reading the pdf, would this basically involve them not paying workers for travel time?

A 2015 court case clarified that travel to a non regular place of work was counted as working time under the working time regulations . How would London underground have an accurate record of travel time in those circumstances to satisfy the working time regulations.

Secondly the workplace under the 1992 health ,safety and welfare act is required to have uniform changing and storage facilities that are fixed. If someone is working at a station some days of the week and depot at other days of the week with no where to store their uniform at the end of their shift and can be picked up for the begining of their next shift that is likely to fall foul of the legislation too. Unless LU plan on couriering the uniform to the working location for the employee

 

[MotCO]

There are discussions initiated by one of the Head of Line Operations (HOLO) on a Yammer thread that suggest exactly that. His constant use of the phrase 'what is reasonable*' is concerning as I don't think any distance travelling for work purposes is reasonable without payment - IMO people need to to be paid for the work they do. If the Company wants to send me to the other end of the line to pick up a train then that needs to be done within my paid duty time (it's worth noting for balance that the HOLO has stated he doesn't think this would be 'reasonable').He hasn't given any concrete examples of what his definition of reasonable is.

This, of course, is totally different to (and in addition to) my normal commuting time - which I have made a conscious choice over.

Anything added to that time is for the benefit of the company and they need to pay for travel time whilst working within my duty parameters.

*For those not inside the industry, the notion of any ambiguity regarding driver hours, time on duty, etc is unheard of. LU dictate at what speed I should walk to the platforms from my depot, they dictate walking time to sidings, they dictate an amount of minutes I get to book on and familiarise myself with any late notices, and on and on and on. These are all carefully timed and included within my duty times - not one of these mention a 'reasonable walking time to the platform'.

Do staff have a designated signing on place? If so, staff should attend this place, and any travel time to retrive a train from anywhere should be in work time.

However, I think some bus drivers have remote signing on - how does that work if the bus they are scheduled to drive is further away from their home?

The bottom line is that savings have to be made. Are there any archaic wage payments or agreements which are no longer applicable in this day and age which can be removed over time?

 

[Mawkie]

Do staff have a designated signing on place? If so, staff should attend this place, and any travel time to retrive a train from anywhere should be in work time.

Yes, a defined depot with lockers and facilities.

However, I think some bus drivers have remote signing on - how does that work if the bus they are scheduled to drive is further away from their home?

Not sure how that works. However, if it's fair to compare train drivers to bus drivers, then it's fair the other way around too - why don't bus drivers have proper provisions anymore? I long remember getting dumped in Wood Green at 2000hrs for my meal relief with the only shelter being a public bus stop (complete with a half full cash tray)!

The bottom line is that savings have to be made. Are there any archaic wage payments or agreements which are no longer applicable in this day and age which can be removed over time?

Nope, for train ops that all went in 1992 with the 'Company Plan'. No increments for weekends, lates, earlies. A flat rate of pay for hours worked (and no elective overtime).

The current agenda is that LU need 'rescuing' with a bailout - but that agenda is no more true than the oil and gas subsidies, or the subsidies given to national rail TOCs. Why doesn't the Daily Fail et al write about the endless 'bailouts' that those organisations require on an ongoing basis, in some cases, decades long.

 

[rebmcr]

Nope, for train ops that all went in 1992 with the 'Company Plan'.

Does that also mean all lines have the same Ts&Cs?

 

[Mawkie]

Does that also mean all lines have the same Ts&Cs?

As far as I know yes, the substantive parts of the Framework Agreement cover all lines. However, they may be some local agreements regarding things other than pay and conditions. There will be someone more knowledgeable than me, and if they could chip-in that would be good.

Edited for autocorrect error.

 

[Lewlew]

As far as I know yes, the substantive parts of the Framework Agreement cover all lines. However, they may be some local agreements regarding things other than pay and conditions. There will be someone more knowledgeable than me, and if they could chip-in that would be good.

Edited for autocorrect error.

The only differences that I can think of are extra payments for Night Tube duties on NT lines, no extra for nights on other lines.

And also the meal vouchers (for the staff canteen) on the Jubilee line for working on a Wembley event day (because outside Wembley Park station is busy so it's supposedly difficult to go elsewhere).

 

[bramling]

The only differences that I can think of are extra payments for Night Tube duties on NT lines, no extra for nights on other lines.

And also the meal vouchers (for the staff canteen) on the Jubilee line for working on a Wembley event day (because outside Wembley Park station is busy so it's supposedly difficult to go elsewhere).

Goodness knows how the latter was ever agreed to…

 

[Kite159]

It raises the question of exactly what sort of assurances would satisfy the RMT in order for them to call off the strike.

Probably a cast iron guarantee that no jobs will be lost in the future, a massive pay rise, no changes to any benefits/T&Cs unless it is a large positive change (such as getting the same pay for less hours worked).

Remember the RMT live in the 1970s, and it hasn't dawned on them the world has changed in the last 2 years due to Covid.

 

[bramling]

Probably a cast iron guarantee that no jobs will be lost in the future, a massive pay rise, no changes to any benefits/T&Cs unless it is a large positive change (such as getting the same pay for less hours worked).

Remember the RMT live in the 1970s, and it hasn't dawned on them the world has changed in the last 2 years due to Covid.

For many front-line railway staff, the world hasn’t really changed. They turn up, do their work, and go home. In the case of LU drivers, they’re probably doing more work than pre-Covid due to the general shortage of drivers. Train management and control staff will have been working even harder, all political due to the political insistence of attempting to run a 100% service with <100% resources, something not required of mainline operators.

The real things which have got backs up are the way Covid has been used as a justification for reviewing LU’s pension provisions, and the change to driver rostering in order to facilitate restarting Night Tube.

Add in to the mix LU’s usual bull-in-china-shop ER, and it’s easy to see why trouble is brewing.

The RMT are premature in their actions, but the root cause of the bad atmosphere is the way we are currently living in Peppa Pig world.

 

[Lewlew]

Probably a cast iron guarantee that no jobs will be lost in the future, a massive pay rise, no changes to any benefits/T&Cs unless it is a large positive change (such as getting the same pay for less hours worked).

Remember the RMT live in the 1970s, and it hasn't dawned on them the world has changed in the last 2 years due to Covid.

We already have a pay deal in place for another year so any strikes now definitely won't be about pay rises.

 

[Mawkie]

Probably a cast iron guarantee that no jobs will be lost in the future, a massive pay rise, no changes to any benefits/T&Cs unless it is a large positive change (such as getting the same pay for less hours worked).

You're saying that like it's not exactly the point of a union....

We already have a pay deal in place for another year so any strikes now definitely won't be about pay rises.

And once the Daily Fail discovers that deal I can only imagine the headlines!

The only differences that I can think of are extra payments for Night Tube duties on NT lines, no extra for nights on other lines.

Indeed, there were no extra payments for the first 3 years of NT operation - and Train Ops didn't (and don't) want the extra £110ish a shift

And also the meal vouchers (for the staff canteen) on the Jubilee line for working on a Wembley event day

I don't suppose a £3 (?) voucher for a handful of staff a few times a year will break the bank of a £1bn railway.

 

[3rd rail land]

For anyone interested, this was the ballot results...

Why did so few people vote? Over 10,000 people eligible but only around half voted on such an important topic?

Seems to me, as a non railway worker, that RMT are living in their own little fantasy world. TFL/LUL are in very significant financial trouble at the moment. Passengers numbers are way down on what they used to be pre-pandemic to the point where they have to ask central government for large amounts of money just to survive. In that situation how can anyone expect them to be able to give any assurances that there will be no redundancies? Personally I can't see how TFL/LUL can give the assurances RMT want, regardless of whether staff strike or not. They simply don't have the funds to guarantee no job losses.

One issue that the RMT should probably be going after is the fact that some staff have to do even more work than they use to, potentially to the point of burnout, due to staff shortages. Of course some people like the overtime as they can increase their take home earnings but others won't like it at all.

 

[duncanp]

Why did so few people vote? Over 10,000 people eligible but only around half voted on such an important topic?

Seems to me, as a non railway worker, that RMT are living in their own little fantasy world. TFL/LUL are in very significant financial trouble at the moment. Passengers numbers are way down on what they used to be pre-pandemic to the point where they have to ask central government for large amounts of money just to survive. In that situation how can anyone expect them to be able to give any assurances that there will be no redundancies? Personally I can't see how TFL/LUL can give the assurances RMT want, regardless of whether staff strike or not. They simply don't have the funds to guarantee no job losses.

One issue that the RMT should probably be going after is the fact that some staff have to do even more work than they use to, potentially to the point of burnout, due to staff shortages. Of course some people like the overtime as they can increase their take home earnings but others won't like it at all.

If there are a prolonged series of strikes, then people will be forced to use alternatives to the tube, which will in the long term make things worse, as it will permanently reduce demand, and consequently fares revenue.

I believe the prolonged bus strike in London in 1958 led to a permanent decrease in traffic of the order of 10%, coming as it did at a time of increasing post war prosperity and easy availability of cheap fuel for cars and motor bikes.

Now then, what is the betting that the RMT will threaten a series of strikes over the long weekend to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee? (June 2nd - June 5th) I am sure those dates on the calendar at RMT headquarters have been circled with a big red pen for quite some time now.

 

[3rd rail land]

If there are a prolonged series of strikes, then people will be forced to use alternatives to the tube, which will in the long term make things worse, as it will permanently reduce demand, and consequently fares revenue.

Surely if the strikes cause a reduction in fare revenue then it will be even harder for TFL/LUL to guarantee no job losses? Not that they are in any position to promise no job losses as it is.

The way I see it is staff would be losing out on pay for absolutely no benefit. If the money isn't their to protect jobs then you can't guarantee no redundancies. It's that simple really.

 

[Tube driver]

We already have a pay deal in place for another year so any strikes now definitely won't be about pay rises.

Provided they honour it of course. How high is RPI at the moment?? Bet they didn’t figure on it being so high when they basically imposed it on us when covid hit.

 

[43096]

Provided they honour it of course. How high is RPI at the moment?? Bet they didn’t figure on it being so high when they basically imposed it on us when covid hit.

And provided the unions honour it. I certainly wouldn't put it past them to use the cost of living rises and that they want to renegotiate.

 

[Lewlew]

Provided they honour it of course. How high is RPI at the moment?? Bet they didn’t figure on it being so high when they basically imposed it on us when covid hit.

TfL has already said it'll be honoured but it will be delayed until the summer. It will be based on February RPI (plus a small percentage so will be above inflation).