Rail strikes discussion

[HST274]

Or like every other page of this thread when someone new comes, shaking their dusty copy of the Serpell report and reminding us not to forget the NUM, as if that were possible here...

But remember, the NUM has less than 100 members today!!!!!!!!!!!!! This clearly means the railway will be nonexistent in 5 years!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gazzaa2]

Anecdotally, I’ve never seen so much support for a rail strike. In my circles, that’s because it’s just another excuse to WFH & people are discreetly saying that they hope the strikes continue. It’s not like a pre-covid strike.

It doesn't do much for the government's 'get back to the office' demands.

 

[KendalR]

The days of an ever-expanding railway are over. If the unions are not careful, this strike will hasten a big contraction of the system and services and could in a worse case scenario bring about its virtual demise.

The NUM now has fewer than 100 members to represent a workforce of near zero. This could easily be the future of our railways, with the only stations with any sort of service being on our voluntee-run heritage lines.

The pre-COVID world has gone and is as much a part of history as the Victorian age. The railway network needs a drastic programme of cost-reductions using as much technology as possible to reduce costs and reflect the cold economic reality of the new world.

Hahaha. What a load of absolute nonsense.

Calling for technology but forever living in the past reminiscing over the miners. What could replace the coal in steam trains - diesel and electricity. What could replace the coal in the power stations - oil, gas and nuclear. The coal mines were always going to end up redundant.

Unless you spent hundreds of billions, probably trillions (Looking at HS2) to essentially completely rebuild every line then they aren't going anywhere.

 

[pt_mad]

And in a year or two when they bring out more rubbish about the railways finances and mismanagement, they will say why should we pay railway workers any extra for a day that’s included in their working week. This door needs to remain firmly closed. No changes to Sunday working under any circumstance.

Completely untenable position. The railway is 7 days a week and the current arrangements are utterly unsustainable unless pay falls to such an extreme that people go back to wanting overtime.

Your 'best case' is it gets paid as mandatory overtime, the worst is that also disappears as the 35hr week is increased, which they could probably do by adding a couple of hours.

As most people working full time are contracted for more than 35hrs there is unlikely to be much public sympathy, although it would be a double shock to happen in one go.

A day is a long time in politics, but not as far as that lot is from 7% cost of living with no strings.

But you people always cry that railway staff knew what they signed up for when they applied for the job? Yeah, they did, Sunday not included in the working week. But now you want it both ways?? How much compensation should staff get on to the basic pay for the implementation of Sunday working?

it is very specifically ‘a commitment to bring Sundays into the working week’. That means it is happening, and Sundays will be in the 35hours. Future discussion will be around how it happens, not if.

Even the more open minded have been saying over the past few years they'd be happy having Sunday inside, because they'd get an extra day off elsewhere that week. So Sunday would be one of their 4 day 35 hour week which keeps their current contracted hours.

Odd people who suggested it could be forced as an extra day were thought to be worrying over nothing.

It's an important point that when its said a 4 day week, it's usually not actually 4 days then a day off then 4 more days and a day or two off etc.
Most of time time if a Sunday is worked it is a run of 7 days straight. Then a Wednesday and Thursday off. Followed by another 7 days work then a long weekend. (The reason for this is because the week runs from Sunday to Saturday. So it's often someone works Wednesday to Saturday then the next week Sunday to Tuesday and Friday and Saturday. If a Sunday is worked).

I actually think there would be a lot of current workers who would feel pushed to do runs of 7 shifts every time without fail.

The rostering would really need to be rejigged so that the number of shifts running into one another in one run is reduced to a maximum 5 before you get a day off.

Putting Sundays in current principles meaning everyone must do a run of 7 every time and these could be 7 very very early starts is surely going to have its effect on fatigue.

How productive is the average worker likely to be at 5am on their 7th early start when the last days they had off were 2 the week before, and before that it was 7 straight shifts too.

At least at the moment there's the option to drop a Sunday if the staff feel the toll of the shifts.

 

[Wolfie]

The fixed costs of running a ticket office (rent, electricity, computer systems, maintenance) don't increase much if it's staffed for longer, plus those were the costs for running an independent ticket office - in-house ticket offices will cost less as they will get some things (e.g. rent) at below market rate.

Ticket office staff are generally on £25k or thereabouts. Add on employer's NI and pension contributions and you have perhaps a cost of at most £35k per FTE. So staffing a ticket office for two shifts might only cost £155k a year.

So yes, into the hundreds of millions per year, perhaps. £500m though? I doubt it.


The suggestion "there was always going to be a payrise" is rather rich given that up until the strikes were announced, the TOCs' and NR's position was "the government isn't letting us talk about a payrise; we can't afford one". Still, I expect nothing less from an odious character like him.

Your per capita costings are way out. Having seen some for various employers a figure of between two and two and a half times salary would be typical.

It seems inconceivable that after years of reducing working hours from 39 when I joined the railway in 1984 to 37 in the 90s & eventually to 35 that NR want to go backwards.

That has happened elsewhere in the public sector.

 

[dk1]

That has happened elsewhere in the public sector.

That’s crazy. Would be like going backwards.

 

[nottsnurse]

It was mostly the "less well off", as you put it, who voted for Brexit in their millions...many of them former Labour voters.

Indeed. Many stoked up to resent 'foreigners/EU' by a MSM controlled by those with an interest in seeing the UK outside of the EU.

'Disaster Capitalism' at its most odious.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It was mostly the "less well off", as you put it, who voted for Brexit in their millions...many of them former Labour voters.

Indeed they did because they thought Boris and Nigel were their friends.

Now they are beginning to find out how wrong they were.

 

[nottsnurse]

A nightmare in itself having to deal with 4 different unions.

Do you know how many unions represent NHS workers?

It makes dealing with the four that cover the railways appear easy.

 

[tommy2215]

Interestingly a ComRes poll released today says 58% of people surveyed think the rail strikes are justified, with 34% saying unjustified. Only 55% of Tory 2019 voters say the strikes are unjustified. The Tories strategy of attacking the RMT may not win them as much support as they think.

https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1539277133352259584

 

[LAX54]

Lies, damned lies and so on.

Under the cover of Covid, Greater Anglia seem to have been able to massively pad the timetables at least on the Stansted Express. About 10% slower than it used to be.

and of course if the Gov get their way and cut the maintainance jobs, they will get slower still with more ESR's !

 

[Wolfie]

So I might be going on somewhat of a tangent here, especially seeing as I've not really kept up with the discussion that much, but does anyone else find the level of ignorance surrounding these strikes frustrating? If you were to go into a typical YouTube comment section you will find a lot of people suggesting that all railway workers striking either get sacked or that they can't wait for automation to make them redundant. I think it's been made clear that drivers aren't the ones striking (at least not all of them) so even though automation of the National Rail network is an irrelevant and unrealistic idea point anyway it kind of shows a great deal of ignorance on the issue itself.

Besides which, why is the fact drivers get highly paid somehow a bad thing and not the fact everyone else is grossly underpaid? I've seen comments suggesting the money go to the NHS staff instead even though firstly, it's not a zero sum game nor is it a race to the bottom, and secondly that they didn't seem to care that much when the junior doctors went on strike a few years ago. The fact is most railway workers aren't so highly paid and the fact some of them are shouldn't make it a race to the bottom and that they should just be quiet about it. The idea of striking is kind of easier said than done for some industries but it's sometimes the only way for workers to get their fair dues.

I know it sounds like I'm just pointlessly ranting but I wanted to know what those who worked on the railway actually made of such ignorance that even Piers Morgan is rambling about it on his show (on a side note, that's how you decide a stance on this issue. See where he stands and take the opposite side ). Does the ignorance surrounding the current strikes and the idea of striking frustrate you as an industry insider as much as it does an outsider like myself?

While the railway is massively subsidised by taxpayers you better expect the population to have a view.

 

[moleman212]

Indeed they did because they thought Boris and Nigel were their friends.

Now they are beginning to find out how wrong they were.

Actually the RMT recommended people to vote for Brexit....

 

[Wolfie]

Not really, but that said if I wanted only chat from qualified experienced subject matter experts with only inside knowledge and no chit chat, assumptions or banter-esque responses I wouldn't be picking to have the conversation on here

It's a big thing that is impacting a lot of people and there's going to be a lot of opinions those at the center are going to think are a bit ignorant. People will generally see it from their angle

Very balanced.

 

[moleman212]

Indeed. Many stoked up to resent 'foreigners/EU' by a MSM controlled by those with an interest in seeing the UK outside of the EU.

'Disaster Capitalism' at its most odious.

What about the RMT which recommended people to vote for Brexit?

 

[Wolfie]

This is genuinely horrific. There is no way in a million years this offer could ever even come close to being accepted.

Welcome to the public sector. Pretty much all of those have happened elsewhere since 2010.

 

[the sniper]

That’s crazy. Would be like going backwards.

No, that's progress, supposedly.

 

[windingroad]

It's true that many other areas of the public sector have worse pay and conditions, on average, than people who work on the railway. Why on earth would that be an argument for worsening conditions for railway staff? It's an argument for fighting to improve conditions elsewhere!

 

[KendalR]

It's true that many other areas of the public sector have worse pay and conditions, on average, than people who work on the railway. Why on earth would that be an argument for worsening conditions for railway staff? It's an argument for fighting to improve conditions elsewhere!

Well said.

 

[deltic]

That has happened elsewhere in the public sector.

And in the private sector - I have gone from working 35hr week to a 40hr week over the last few decades which has been a common situation in the industry I work for

 

[DarloRich]

A nightmare in itself having to deal with 4 different unions.

for whom? Each deals with a different section of the workforce.

 

[lineclear]

Some posters in this thread have claimed that awarding public sector workers pay rises approaching those seen in the private sector would lead to a wage-price spiral and therefore be an economic disaster.

This is not correct. 65 economists wrote to the Prime Minister on Thursday to affirm this.

Economists blast Boris Johnson for 'suppressing' Brits' wages as inflation soars

Economists from a host of universities and think tanks have written to the Prime Minister dismissing his claims over pay hikes fuelling inflation

www.mirror.co.uk

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing following your recent speech in Blackpool in which you warned of the dangers of a ‘wage-price spiral’ and argued that wages should therefore not rise to keep up with rising prices.

As economists and economic policy experts, we believe that suppressing wages is the exact opposite of what is needed in response to this current wave of inflation, and risks fuelling dramatic increases in poverty and hardship, and ultimately a recession.

Inflation today comes from huge external factors, including the aftershocks of lockdowns, war in Ukraine, and extreme weather events across the globe.

It is not the product of domestic wage demands.

The Bank of England has made it clear that labour market pressures account for only a fraction of the price increases we have experienced in recent months.

There is no ‘wage-price spiral’ in the UK. In fact, wage growth has lagged far below the increase in prices.

By taking aim at workers asking for pay rises in the face of big hikes in food and fuel costs, the government is fighting the wrong battle.

Workers have experienced over a decade of stagnant real wages, which have suppressed living standards and led to a huge growth in in-work poverty.

Steep price rises for essentials today, from food to energy to rent for housing, are coming on top of a decade of exceptionally low wage growth.

In this scenario, it is perverse to lay the blame for rising inflation at the door of the workers.

In fact, the greater risk is that incomes rise too slowly, entrenching poverty and pushing more families over the edge into destitution, whilst also further undermining demand in the economy and plunging the country into a recession.

We therefore urge you to take urgent, additional action to support living standards, by committing to substantial increases in the minimum wage, public sector pay, and social security payments.

Instead of asking ordinary people to bear the cost of tackling the inflation crisis, the government should focus on tackling the real causes of the crisis, using all the tools at its disposal to hold down energy costs, clamp down on excess profits, and unblock global supply chains.

Making ordinary families poorer is a strategy that will only lead to more misery and accentuate the impacts of the current crisis.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Cramer, Professor of the Political Economy of Development, SOAS University of London
Barbara Hariss-White, Emeritus Professor and Fellow, University of Oxford
Judith Heyer, Emeritus Fellow, University of Oxford
Susan Himmelweit, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Open University
Suzanne J Konzelmann, Professor of Economics, Birkbeck, University of London
Simon Mohun, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy, Queen Mary University of London
Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice, Sheffield University Management School
Ozlem Onaran, Professor of Economics, University of Greenwich
Carlos Oya, Professor of Political Economy of Development, SOAS University of London
Kate Pickett, Professor of Epidemiology, University of York
Sergio Rossi, Professor of Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics, University of Fribourg
Diego Sanchez-Ancochea, Professor of the Political Economy of Development, University of Oxford
Pritam Singh, Professor Emeritus, Oxford Brookes Business School
Guy Standing, Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London
Cyrus Bina, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota
Mark Blyth, Professor of International Economics, Brown University
Guglielmo Forges Davanzati, Professor of Political Economy, University of Salento
Jean Luc de Meulemeester, Professor of Economics and History of Economic Thought, Université Libre de Bruxelles
David Tyfield, Professor in Sustainable Transitions and Political Economy, Lancaster University
Mehmet Ugur, Professor of Economics and Institutions, University of Greenwich
Carolina Alves, Joan Robinson Research Fellow in Heterodox Economics, University of Cambridge
Mary-Paz Arrieta-Paredes, Senior Lecturer, University of Greenwich
Hannah Bargawi, Joint Head of Economics, SOAS University of London
David Barlow, Lecturer in Economics, Newcastle University Business School
Alberto Botta, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Greenwich
Christine Cooper, Chair in Accounting and Director of Research, University of Edinburgh
Sara Gorgoni, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Greenwich
Alexander Guschanski, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Jason Hickel, Visiting Senior Fellow, London School of Economics
Leslie Huckfield, Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University
Neil Lancastle, Senior Lecurer, De Montfort University
Stewart Lansley, Visiting Fellow, University of Bristol
Jane Lethbridge, Associate Professor in Public Policy, University of Greenwich
Sara Maioli, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Newcastle University
Imko Meyenburg, Senior Lecturer in Economics and International Business, Anglia Ruskin University
Jo Michell, Associate Professor of Economics, University of West England Bristol
Maria Nikolaidi, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Greenwich
Cem Oyvat, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Jeff Powell, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Lucia Pradella, Senior Lecturer in International Political Economy, King's College London
Kobil Ruziev, Associate Head of Department, University of West England Bristol
Josh Ryan-Collins, Associate Professor in Economics and Finance, University College London
Navjot Sangwan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Luca Tasciotti, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Elisa Van Waeyenberge, Senior Lecturer, SOAS University of London
Rafael Wildauer, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Greenwich
Yuliya Yurchenko, Political Economist, University of Greenwich
Patrick Allen, Chair, Progressive Economy Forum
Christine Berry, Independent Researcher,
Fran Boait, Executive Director, Positive Money
Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Executive Director, Economic Change Unit
Miatta Fahnbulleh, Chief Executive, New Economics Foundation
Lucy Findlay, Managing Director, Social Enterprice Mark Company CIC
Katie Gallogly-Swan, Economic Affairs Officer, UNCTAD
Níall Glynn, Founder, Working Class Economists Group
Joe Guinan, Vice President, The Democracy Collaborative
Lukas Hardt, Policy and Engagement Lead, Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland
Paul Hebden, Acting Executive Director, Tax Justice UK
Luke Hildyard, Director, High Pay Centre
Mathew Lawrence, Director, Common Wealth
James Meadway, Director, Progressive Economy Forum
Howard Reed, Director, Landman Economics
Sara Reis, Deputy Director and Head of Research and Policy, UK Women's Budget Group
Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director, Women's Budget Group
Gary Stephenson, Independent Economist,
Will Stronge, Director, Autonomy
Geoff Tily, Senior Economist, Trades Union Congress

 

[Wolfie]

They will go up, but will it be by RPI, RPI-1, RPI+1? Who knows. That increment has always varied over the years, depending on how generous the government of the day was feeling.


That the company has no open ended liability for those who leave within the first 2 years, which for some roles is a lot of people. And with each TOC (presumably) counting separately you'll restart the clock if you move TOCs.

It also serves as an incentive to stay, a long service bonus of sorts. To be honest, for low to lower medium earners (say up to £30k or so), the 1.5x state pension deduction means it's actually not as attractive as it's made out to sound. But for upper medium to high earners it's a very generous scheme.


Yes, but that's not much use if you have already reached the maximum 40 years' contributions before you turn 65! That said I don't think many people will be affected by that particular issue.

The bigger issue is that it means you're likely to get back a lot less in terms of your pension in the future. With most sections of the RPS being in a healthy position AFAIK, this looks like a cost-cutting measure dressed up as "the horrible Pensions Regulator forcing us to do this".

When they changed the civil service pension schemes they removed the maximum contribution number of years for those who continued working.

One rule that should change regarding strikes in any sector is that staying at home shouldn't be permitted. If you're on strike, you should be compelled to attend a picket line for the duration of your shift.

Given that there is legislation with respect to the maximum number of individuals there can be on a picket line that is an utterly asinine suggestion.

 

[moleman212]

Some posters in this thread have claimed that awarding public sector workers pay rises approaching those seen in the private sector would lead to a wage-price spiral and therefore be an economic disaster.

This is not correct. 65 economists wrote to the Prime Minister on Thursday to affirm this.

The "65 economists" you quote are only surmising that wage hikes wouldn't cause a wage-price spiral. Nobody can say this with certainty so you cannot say the posters saying otherwise are not correct.

 

[Wolfie]

In how many industries, when a contract of employment is drawn up, does it state that "withdrawal of labour" is seen as a statement that would then require the employer to consider the implications of accepting the employee who had "withdrawn their labour" back into the workforce under the terms of "withdrawn their employment offer"?

Given that taking legal industrial action is protected not very many l imagine - attempts to drive a coach and horses through the ECHR and HRA.

 

[eldomtom2]

Some posters in this thread have claimed that awarding public sector workers pay rises approaching those seen in the private sector would lead to a wage-price spiral and therefore be an economic disaster.

This is not correct. 65 economists wrote to the Prime Minister on Thursday to affirm this.

I suspect you could find a different set of 65 economists to say the exact opposite...

 

[dk1]

No, that's progress, supposedly.

You’d think they’d be aiming for 34 or 33.

 

[Bald Rick]

Didn't that productivity clause have an extra five hours a week. Am I doing my math wrong , as I was thinking say a lower grade signaller is on 30k and gets 3%. That is £900 a year and that works out at £3.50 an hour for each of the extra five hours.

That’s crazy. Would be like going backwards.

I need to make this clear. There are NO plans to change the 35h working week in Network Rail.
Anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed at best.

 

[ComUtoR]

The incident lists have started making their way around social media.

 

[moleman212]

I suspect you could find a different set of 65 economists to say the exact opposite...

Undoubtedly so