Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[NI 271]

Actually it can quite easily not affect me as I'll just drive. I don't particularly like it but maybe I'll get used to it if the railway is out of action for months on end.

So it's a few days now and not months on end?

It may not happen at all, the only person who has decided it's going to close the railway for "months on end" is you. I'd be staggered to discover any of the RMT members want it to drag on for any length of time, although I do accept that there may well be political will on the part of the government to make that happen. For someone whom it can "quite easily not affect" there's been an awful lot of keyboard-mashing this afternoon, which considering nothing you say can influence any part of the upcoming negotiation (which hasn't even commenced yet), implies there's more than a hint of "the lady doth protest too much" going on, here. I've never felt compelled to turbo-post on any social media platform over matters which don't affect me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This really is just hyperbole at this stage , no strikes have been announced only the ballot result and with the clear option of meaningful talks to avoid strike action .

Heavens above, have the RMT leadership had a Damascene moment?

I'm getting out of this now, I've seen enough. The railway clearly exists as a club for its workers, damn the people who might want to use it.

Can someone say if it is true or false that an RMT personage once referred to rail passengers as being "collateral damage" in a strike situation.

 

[HSTEd]

The RMT's demands are essentially impossible for the government to meet in political terms, the political cost of a large pay increase will be enormous, and the demand for no compulsory redundancies means no meaningful reduction in the industry cost base for years to decades.

I'm not really sure how the RMT can obtain a deal that achieves even a fraction of what they want.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

[I am sure there is room for cuts in Network Rail, but as I've said, not in Ops or Maintenance front-line staff and their local management/support. Possible economies might be from looking at the Projects regimes (the big projects don't seem able to understand/manage costs compared to other utilities) and also the amount of double-staffing in areas like Track Renewals (where too often there is a NR person as well as a contractor person doing the same thing where one would do). Similarly, integrating TOCs more could/should reduce senior management without a deleterious impact on the front line- how many TOC MDs are really required when DfT is running the show for example?]

For sure the projects organisation along with the sponsorship and development teams are an expensive resource but im surmising that with enhancements having been heavily scaled back in CP6 that this has been where the recent voluntary severance has occurred. In track renewals we had very little site oversight of the contractors activities and someone needs to ensure we get what we are paying for. The bigger issue was privatisation created so much outsourcing to contractors that both sides tooled up with expensive commercial resources and loaded loads of risk premium into pricing. So whilst it would be appear to be counter intuitive to DfT actually internalising much of the routine renewals like track renewals would save overall cost. I certainly wouldn't want to see any further reduction in front line mtce resources they are already spread too thin and have to call on labour subbies to bolster resources now.

 

[startingaparty]

Why would the government concede to giving railway staff a pay rise of the magnitude they’re asking for when they gave pittance to NHS staff and the rest of the civil service? I just don’t see it happening. If they did concede then I foresee an NHS and civil service walk-out over pay too for their “fare share” (pun intended).

 

[Ivor]

The RMT's demands are essentially impossible for the government to meet, the political cost of a large pay increase will be enormous, and the demand for no compulsory redundancies means no meaningful reduction in the industry cost base for years to decades.

Equally watching the news just now they are saying that in addition to pay rises which in fairness everyone wants with the horrendous rises in the cost of living the Union is also asking for ‘job security’ how true or not this is I don’t know but who ever had or has ‘job security?’

The news reporting may not be as factual as portrayed though!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Why would the government concede to giving railway staff a pay rise of the magnitude they’re asking for when they gave pittance to NHS staff and the rest of the civil service? I just don’t see it happening. If they did concede then I foresee an NHS and civil service walk-out over pay too for their “fare share” (pun intended).

Well they can either give subsidy to lower paid for fuel bills or they could use it to fund a pay rise which would buy them more support I would suggest.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely it'd be better for them to simply increase the cap and put more scope for everyone paid through the public sector to get a pay rise?

It would be lovely wouldn't it ?

However the reality is that there's never been one single public sector pay settlement (during austerity for example council workers weren't offered the same settlement as nurses) so I don't see why a some time/never raising of the cap should be used as an excuse for the treasury to pursue it's nefarious agenda, particularly if the industry has come up with a sensible proposal that has a chance of working.

I am sure that most people involved would be happy with a fair settlement. The union and its members would like 10% with no strings. I am certain Boris and the treasury ain't going to agree to that. However, much more flexible working practices and some job lossesmight mean that a doable maybe 2% could be significantly increased to everyone's joy!

Indeed. I doubt the PM would be willing to back a pie in the sky proposal, so they ought to be able to get on with it.

 

[SignallerJohn]

I have a strict policy these days about not commenting on something that I know little about, so I won’t get too involved. All I’ll say is, it appears the railway is becoming less and less of a passenger service these days, and more all about pacifying the unions. The ironic thing being, if the unions continue to drive customers away, they’ll then want to strike again when cuts are made due to the inevitable fall in passengers.

That’s how it appears anyway. I won’t comment further as it would be unwise to without more context.

????. 90-95% of people who use the train have got no idea who the RMT are. They are more bothered about the rising price of tickets and how it’s pricing people out.

Do you actually know anyone who doesn’t use the train anymore because of the rmt? Lool

Actually it can quite easily not affect me as I'll just drive. I don't particularly like it but maybe I'll get used to it if the railway is out of action for months on end.

I’m not allowed to travel 100 miles for work.

 

[43096]

????. 90-95% of people who use the train have got no idea who the RMT are.

Evidence? Have you done a survey that confirms that?

They are more bothered about the rising price of tickets and how it’s pricing people out.

Do you actually know anyone who doesn’t use the train anymore because of the rmt? Lool

You have spectacularly missed the point. Strikes = no service = people find another way to travel = not going back to using the train. So, yes, the RMT's actions will quite possibly result in fewer passengers.

 

[Efini92]

I'll tell you what it ISN'T; somewhere employee rights must be ignored at the behest of bitter people outwith it purely because it might inconvenience them for a few days. This is remarkably melodramatic.

Spot on.
In answer to his question they were built for freight not passengers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

????. 90-95% of people who use the train have got no idea who the RMT are.

I am sure that over the coming weeks, more and more people will be informed by the media exactly who the RMT are.

 

[Horizon22]

I hope the whole issue of cutting Network Rail Maintenance and Ops staff doesn't get lost in the headline "it's about pay" message. There's some really worrying things proposed for Maintenance, I remember Phase 2b/c being bad but this is a whole league on from that. The difficulty is that bean-counters (including HMT?) do not understand the cost of reliability. Nor is the lack of staff in the signalling grade (vacancy level) helping.

I recall that in one particular part of Network Rail maintenance that I dealt with a few years ago, there was a cycle: reliability of S&T equipment would deteriorate, delay minutes stack up and be costly. So, more staff would be got and put on preventative maintenance. Lo and behold, over 6 months or so the reliability would improve until the delay minutes were minimal. About 6 months after that, the bean-counters would demand getting rid of a bunch of S&T preventative maintenance staff because the delay minutes were down so obviously they were not needed any more.......... The concept that in preventative maintenance, your goal is "nothing" (no failures, no delay minutes) so your success is measured in being at "nothing" seemed totally beyond their comprehension.

The whole idea of "remote monitoring" as a staff cost-cutter has been kicking around for over a decade now. It suffers from some practical flaws: (1) You still need staff to attend the pending failure before the item fails; (2) the technology is simple on one level- the comms and sensors. But the challenge is what the sensors measure- what is the "about to fail" signal in the equipment? How long do you get after the signal starts before it fails? What is the lead-time of the possibly-obsolete part to fix the kit? And with a variety of equipment, you need to establish that for all the different types of kit. This is currently in the heads of skilled staff who over time build up this knowledge, but replacing the slowly-built "local knowledge" in the heads of staff isn't that simple. Then you have to somehow manage the big data output and convert it into a work regime.... and do all this whilst running trains. To (slightly mis)quote Ben Goldacre, "I think you'll find it's not as simple as you thought."

[I am sure there is room for cuts in Network Rail, but as I've said, not in Ops or Maintenance front-line staff and their local management/support. Possible economies might be from looking at the Projects regimes (the big projects don't seem able to understand/manage costs compared to other utilities) and also the amount of double-staffing in areas like Track Renewals (where too often there is a NR person as well as a contractor person doing the same thing where one would do). Similarly, integrating TOCs more could/should reduce senior management without a deleterious impact on the front line- how many TOC MDs are really required when DfT is running the show for example?]

This is a very good point - "the cost of everything and the value of nothing". In many areas of the railway, when outsiders see people doing nothing they fit they are not required - in fact many roles are there to ensure that a reliable service is running, and actually you don't want these individuals busy all time time and is endemic of a wider problem.

 

[nanstallon]

Why would the government concede to giving railway staff a pay rise of the magnitude they’re asking for when they gave pittance to NHS staff and the rest of the civil service? I just don’t see it happening. If they did concede then I foresee an NHS and civil service walk-out over pay too for their “fare share” (pun intended).

There will be a lot of 'me, too' if the RMT's demands are conceded. Why are railway workers so special?

Although I want to see railways prosper, for environmental reasons, as the best means of transport, we may be at a crossroads. No responsible government can underwrite a blank cheque for any industry.

 

[Siggy1980s]

For context. On Look North, Arriva Bus Drivers have turned down offer of 4.1%.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'll tell you what it ISN'T; somewhere employee rights must be ignored at the behest of bitter people outwith it purely because it might inconvenience them for a few days.

Indeed, but the point is that there seems to be a new issue to strike over every week. The more the RMT call strikes over things, the less seriously people will start to take the reason behind the strikes.

 

[Siggy1980s]

????. 90-95% of people who use the train have got no idea who the RMT are. They are more bothered about the rising price of tickets and how it’s pricing people out.

Do you actually know anyone who doesn’t use the train anymore because of the rmt? Lool


I’m not allowed to travel 100 miles for work.

Yep. Ironically, as a Railway worker, I'm not allowed to travel 100 miles for work, fatigue index and all that.

 

[NI 271]

I am sure that over the coming weeks, more and more people will be informed by the media exactly who the RMT are.

They'll certainly be informed by the media exactly what the government want the public to think the RMT are.

 

[yorkie]

For context. On Look North, Arriva Bus Drivers have turned down offer of 4.1%.

For context, from what base level, and how did their increments (if any) compare to rail jobs in the past few years? Also if you can add a link and quote to your post that would be great, thanks.

 

[Envy123]

Actually it can quite easily not affect me as I'll just drive. I don't particularly like it but maybe I'll get used to it if the railway is out of action for months on end.

For me, driving from Huntingdon (and soon, Peterborough) to London would be hell.

I think Thameslink should still work, still, on the day of the strikes?

 

[XIX7007177]

For me, driving from Huntingdon (and soon, Peterborough) to London would be hell.

I think Thameslink should still work, still, on the day of the strikes?

Not if signallers strike they won’t be.

 

[mmh]

They don’t ever talk publicly about :
Going the extra mile to help passengers, trying to work with management to decrease fares or increase capacity

How strange, because I listened to Lynch on the radio today talking publicly about exactly that.

I think, sorry know, some people hear what they want to hear.

 

[Envy123]

Not if signallers strike they won’t be.

Then I guess I'll drive. Will double or triple the journey time, though.

If only the UK economy wasn't so London centric and the government didn't encourage long-distance commuting...

 

[Darandio]

How strange, because I listened to Lynch on the radio today talking publicly about exactly that.

I think, sorry know, some people hear what they want to hear.

Maybe that's the point that was being made. Has he talked publicly in the past about it or is he in charm offensive mode?

 

[Bald Rick]

For me, driving from Huntingdon (and soon, Peterborough) to London would be hell.

I think Thameslink should still work, still, on the day of the strikes?

Not if signallers strike they won’t be.

if the signallers strike, there will be a service from Huntingdon. Not a normal service by any stretch, but a service for these who really need it.

 

[Envy123]

if the signallers strike, there will be a service from Huntingdon. Not a normal service by any stretch, but a service for these who really need it.

I hope so. And from Peterborough too.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hope so. And from Peterborough too.

yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep. Ironically, as a Railway worker, I'm not allowed to travel 100 miles for work, fatigue index and all that.

It'll become more normal for people to travel 100+ miles and stay in a hotel for a couple of days every couple of weeks rather than daily commuting to London. If you don't want that business, well, I guess you could look for another job

Not suitable for traincrew, definitely suitable for professional office work.

 

[Siggy1980s]

For context, from what base level, and how did their increments (if any) compare to rail jobs in the past few years? Also if you can add a link and quote to your post that would be great, thanks.

It was on TV.

 

[matacaster]

Just ensure you don't join an industry that has ever historically advanced its pay and/or conditions as a result of an organised workforce/collective bargaining, as you wouldn't wish to take take advantage of such 'rubbish', not that I recognise veracity of your claim.

The IT industry isn't, and has never been to my knowledge unionised in any significant way. I never felt I was suffering as a result in either pay or conditions and I was in it for many years.

For context. On Look North, Arriva Bus Drivers have turned down offer of 4.1%.

... and what is the kind of salary they are on? 4.1% of a low wage may not be much in cash terms. What increments have they had over last few years? Arrives may just cancel services, buses often don't turn up without any explanation anyway.