Railway Industrial Disputes Mk2

[Starmill]

So how do you get from a to b when there is no train available..... assuming you actually do use a train in the first place?

By using one of the methods pointed out in the post above.

I will admit not wishing to disrupt the thread so I will pose a question to those with a good inward understanding of trades union matters.

If during an industrial dispute a worker in conjunction with other fellow workers withdraws his labour and that causes the company to lose business. in order to keep trading before being insolvent, that worker and certain others are made redundant. Would the employer have the right to state in a reference requested that the worker in question had withdrawn his labour causing the status quo that so then exists?

In general most organisational references now just state that the person worked there between two dates and don't go into any further detail beyond that. They may add the circumstances of their leaving e.g. resigned.

 

[KM1991]

Unfortunate the TOC’s have their hands tied. Any offer they make has to be approved by the DFT. as far as I’m aware the offers have been 0%.

There was an offer of 2% unsolicited + 1% (conditional of modernisation targets being met) before the first wave of strikes in June. This was outright rejected, and rightly so. No offer since.

 

[Killingworth]

I wonder if you are confusing the 2019 General Election result with the 2017 General Election result?

The 2019 result gave the following:-
Conservative Party.....365 seats...43.6% of votes
Labour Party.............203 seats...32.2% of votes

You're right, I slipped a line, but the point is the same. In 2019 Tory 43.6%, Labour 32.1%, LibDem 11.5%, ScotNats 3.9%, Greens 2.7%, Brexit 2% on a turnout of 67.5%

About 30% of the electorate opted for Johnson for a variety of reasons, one being negatively against Corbyn. Hardly the hefty endorsement Boris has claimed.

But that's our flawed democracy and peripheral to the collection of intertwined disputes now running.

 

[Signal_Box]

Is this really the case? If so, all hope is lost (in my opinion; others may disagree).

It’s correct.

 

[Sputnik89]

I will admit not wishing to disrupt the thread so I will pose a question to those with a good inward understanding of trades union matters.

If during an industrial dispute a worker in conjunction with other fellow workers withdraws his labour and that causes the company to lose business. in order to keep trading before being insolvent, that worker and certain others are made redundant. Would the employer have the right to state in a reference requested that the worker in question had withdrawn his labour causing the status quo that so then exists?

Given a reference is not secret (and can be requested under a SAR to the receiving organisation) it is common now for references to be entirely factual. Many companies will even refuse to complete a simple tick box reference form provided by the prospective employer. Something generic like: Mr X worked for Y Inc between DDDD and DDDD. Where appropriate (education, social care etc), there might be a statement about there being no safeguarding concerns.

Certainly not going to include the kind of editorial comment you suggest.

 

[SJN]

There was an offer of 2% unsolicited + 1% (conditional of modernisation targets being met) before the first wave of strikes in June. This was outright rejected, and rightly so. No offer since.

I don’t think that any offer has been made on the drivers side.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It’s correct.

However much of it has been caused by "professionals" not being professional and Network Rail having external pressure put on it to reduce track worker casualties.

 

[NI 271]

I refer you to the two examples of past union members statements that I put in my posting, to which you have completely ignored because they do not fit into your agenda of "language is important". Or is it one rule for them and a different rule for the rest of us?

I spent thirty-five years in senior management and have been in meetings with union representatives in both Canada (where we were the project lead on a Canadian Hydro project) and the UK in that time and I am very thick-skinned and have never feigned innocence at any time. I knew my ground in these meetings and I was equally aware of the ground of those union negotiators. So don't try to intimidate me as you are fighting a losing battle.

I am 77 years of age but "all my marbles are still at home".

They're anecdotes. I could say "I've heard they just said that to wind you up" and it'd carry every bit as much weight.

No, "targeted", since the disruption is meaningless without passengers inconvenienced.

Severely inconveniencing [the decreasing number of] passengers relying on the railway is the goal of industrial action.

I'm happy to hear arguments that 'the end justifies the means', and I do not begrudge rail workers fair working conditions - but I find the suggestion that passengers are mere bystanders in this action (or worse, that they should be cheering them on) to be quite poor.

No, affected, the goal of industrial action is damage to the company [revenue/reputation]. That passengers are affected by this is not the "target", it is an aside, albeit inevitable, as with the teachers/bin men I mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter how many people deliberately ignore this, it's still how it is. Wanting railway staff to have passengers as the prime focus of their industrial action doesn't make it so, no matter how inconvenient that may be for your argument.

 

[43096]

However much of it has been caused by "professionals" not being professional and Network Rail having external pressure put on it to reduce track worker casualties.

Indeed. The number of RAIB reports that find that track workers are not following proper process is good evidence of this. And for every RAIB report there will be a whole lot more incidents and non-compliances that never get reported.

 

[ComUtoR]

How about if a strike was called before a deal was offered, and then one is offered? That should go to members for a decision, surely.

In principle I would agree. The problem really is those red lines in the sand. If a deal offered was reasonable, then yes, absolutely send out the offer. You would still have a 6 month strike mandate in place. But if that deal was just flat out stupid and those in the negotiations knew it would be rejected then it's just time wasting.

 

[SJN]

But lots of us in different professions come across that, and we generally try and respond and explain politely.

Moreover, somecof the comments I have seen have been well-informed, reasonable ones which still got a rude response e.g. Ones which highlight, in an intelligent way, that just because the railway has had a particular type of staff doing a specific role, there's no inherent reason why it needs that staff member to do it, or indeed why there could not be a different mix of roles altogether. They are perfectly reasonable issues to raise.

Well I don’t go around telling people on other professions how to do their job or that they should be mixing their roles up so I don’t really expect random people on the internet to tell me about my role.

 

[High Dyke]

TSSA withdraw ballot to members after goalposts are moved.

Referendum ballot withdrawn following last minute changes | TSSA

TSSA today withdrew a ballot put to Network Rail members this week following “bad faith” actions by Network Rail officials and the Department of Transport.

www.tssa.org.uk

TSSA today withdrew a ballot put to Network Rail members this week following “bad faith” actions by Network Rail officials and the Department of Transport which the union says changed the substance of the deal.

TSSA General Secretary Manuel Cortes said, “We presented our members with details of a pay offer, in good faith so they could let us know what they thought of it. The offer was presented to our members as we understood it at the time. We did not offer any comment for or against it.

"Network Rail then went on to present to us yesterday something that significantly different to what we understood their offer to be. We can't negotiate in good faith if Network Rail keep shifting the goalposts. How can our members accept an offer that has been changed after the fact?”

 

[yorksrob]

Again, this needs independent arbitration and verification of discussions.

 

[Bantamzen]

TSSA withdraw ballot to members after goalposts are moved.

Referendum ballot withdrawn following last minute changes | TSSA

TSSA today withdrew a ballot put to Network Rail members this week following “bad faith” actions by Network Rail officials and the Department of Transport.

www.tssa.org.uk

"What we understood their offer to be"? Were.they asleep at the negotiations? I'd expect a union to at least understand the exact details of an offer before going to the ballot, that way if the written offer differed from the one negotiated around the table they wouldn't waste their time having to withdraw a ballot.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This dispute is starting to resemble the current state of the rail industry itself. Ballots held which then have to be reballoted, offers made that aren't what they seem or at least not what they are understood to be.

All a bit of a chaotic mess.

 

[Bantamzen]

This dispute is starting to resemble the current state of the rail industry itself. Ballots held which then have to be reballoted, offers made that aren't what they seem or at least not what they are understood to be.

All a bit of a chaotic mess.

Indeed, chaos follows chaos...

"We are sorry to announce that the ballot on platform 4 has been cancelled. This is due to a lack of understanding what the deal was..."

 

[Signal_Box]

However much of it has been caused by "professionals" not being professional and Network Rail having external pressure put on it to reduce track worker casualties.

Irony being the less staff you have the more the ones left are pressured to get more work done. 5 minutes in each hour of line block access isn’t uncommon in a lot of areas.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's quite a lot of detail on the offer that was made to TSSA here and attached the Network Rail offer letter itself (also linked on the TSSA webpage).

We are now at a point where we want to put the latest offer from Network Rail to our Bands 5-8 (& equivalent) and Controller Grade members.

The latest offer from Network Rail, made on 25 July, has a number of improvements from the offer made on the 12th of July.

The offer letter in full can be viewed here.

Please read the letter in full. The key improvements/clarifications are found on pages 1 and 2, but please read in conjunction with Appendix E for the full offer and Appendix A, B, C & D for the key milestones and productivity items Network Rail want you to agree to.

Key Details​

For 2022 Pay:​

• A 4% increase to annual base pay, shift pay and overtime, backdated to January 1st, 2022.
• Minimum and maximum pay range scales will be lifted by 4%.
• The distribution of the pay award will not be dependent on any performance ratings – i.e., everyone will get 4%.
• Staff receiving £24,000, or below, salary will receive an uplift of £250.

Staff receiving between £24,000 and £24,250 will also have their salaries increased to £24,250.

I.E. Current salary = £23,500 – will increase to £23,750

Current salary = £24,100 – will increase to £24,250

This uplift will be applied before the % increase is applied and will be back dated to January 1st, 2021.

For 2023 Pay:​

• A 4% increase will be applied to all base salaries from January 1st 2023.
• The distribution of the pay award will not be dependent on any performance ratings – i.e., everyone will get 4%.

Please note that the 2% increase and 2% cash element noted in Appendix E has been superseded by the offer of 4% detailed on pages 1 and 2 of the letter.

Staff Travel​

• Season ticket subsidy cap of £2,750 will be removed, and the 75% discount will be applicable to all season tickets regardless of cost.
• Privileged staff travel will be introduced with a 75% discount available to staff and their families on all leisure travel. (This will be the same scheme as offered to non-safeguarded staff working in TOCs).

Milestones and Productivity Items​

Network Rail wish to achieve the milestones and implement the productivity items detailed in appendices A, B, C and D. What has changed since the letter issued on the 12 July 2022 is that the pay award of 4% for 2022 and 4% for 2023 are no longer conditional on these milestones being achieved.

Network Rail are looking for in principal agreements on all productivity items. But there will still need to be discussions with TSSA on how these will be agreed, phased in and implemented.

Have Your Say On Your Pay​

Members need to be clear that presenting this offer to you does not constitute any form of acceptance of the offer or any part thereof on behalf of TSSA or our members.

We are sharing the latest offer in full with members so you can take a view and have your say on your pay.

We ask that you take the time to read the offer letter in full and let us know if you want to accept or reject the offer.

Members are reminded that the 2% increase and 2% cash element noted in appendix E have been superseded by the offer of 4% detailed in the letter of the 25th July.

An electronic referendum will be sent via email to all members tomorrow (Thursday 28th July). The referendum will close at 12 noon on Thursday August 4th.

If the majority of members tell us they wish to accept the offer, we will inform Network Rail and proceed accordingly.

If the majority of members reject the offer, we will inform Network Rail and at the same time serve official notification that we will be taking industrial action on the 18th and 20th of August, aligning with your fellow members in the 11 TOCs where we have already served notice.

In solidarity,

Your TSSA Organising Team

Obviously this has been overtaken by events sadly but for the sake of posterity and also to give an idea where the parties are I thought it might still be of interest.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

So presumably after that offer, NR removed the wording 'no longer' from the milestones being conditional. It's the only thing that's surprising in that offer given what the offer to RMT is

 

[TUC]

Well I don’t go around telling people on other professions how to do their job or that they should be mixing their roles up so I don’t really expect random people on the internet to tell me about my role.

What makes rail staff any more immune than any other group to the public expressing their opinions? It's just a job like any other and, when any pay award will need to be funded either through fares or tax, the public will have to pay that and have every right to express their views.

 

[43066]

What makes rail staff any more immune than any other group to the public expressing their opinions? It's just a job like any other and, when any pay award will need to be funded either through fares or tax, the public will have to pay that and have every right to express their views.

I think you’ll find the public aren’t generally consulted on setting pay levels in any job, so their opinion is largely irrelevant (and often based on ignorance). It’s also notable that certain members on here are quick to give their views on rail staff earnings but are unwilling to divulge their own.

I’ve asked @Carlisle several times what he or she does and what they earn but they refuse to answer the question.

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding Starmer not allowing Labour shadow ministers to attend the pickets it makes sense. He doesn't want to return to the days when Labour was seen as the party of strikes as he knows how that worked for the party in the 1980s.

Also Labour has a realistic chance of of winning the next election and he knows there will be strikes in the next Labour government as let's not forget the regular Royal Mail strikes during the Blair years. When Labour is in government he doesn't want Labour MPs supporting strikes as that would be odd having Labour MPs supporting strikes against a Labour government. Back in the 1970s when Red Robbo was constantly taking British Leyland workers on strike it was odd that Tony Benn was supporting them.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think you’ll find the public aren’t generally consulted on setting pay levels in any job, so their opinion is largely irrelevant (and often based on ignorance). It’s also notable that certain members on here are quick to give their views on rail staff earnings but are unwilling to divulge their own.

I’ve asked @Carlisle several times what he or she does and what they earn but they refuse to answer the question.

But the public do pay money for their train fares & their taxes. So you know, they are always going to have their say one way or another....

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I will admit not wishing to disrupt the thread so I will pose a question to those with a good inward understanding of trades union matters.

If during an industrial dispute a worker in conjunction with other fellow workers withdraws his labour and that causes the company to lose business. in order to keep trading before being insolvent, that worker and certain others are made redundant. Would the employer have the right to state in a reference requested that the worker in question had withdrawn his labour causing the status quo that so then exists?

I don't think you can give a "bad" reference these days...

 

[Need2]

I don't think you can give a "bad" reference these days...

Why do people persist with this urban myth?

But the public do pay money for their train fares & their taxes. So you know, they are always going to have their say one way or another....

They can have there say if they want to but the only meaningful say they have is at an election. (Even that’s up for debate)

 

[Bantamzen]

They can have there say if they want to but the only meaningful say they have is at an election. (Even that’s up for debate)

They can also have their by not using the railways. Just saying like.

 

[Vespa]

Regarding Starmer not allowing Labour shadow ministers to attend the pickets it makes sense. He doesn't want to return to the days when Labour was seen as the party of strikes as he knows how that worked for the party in the 1980s.

Also Labour has a realistic chance of of winning the next election and he knows there will be strikes in the next Labour government as let's not forget the regular Royal Mail strikes during the Blair years. When Labour is in government he doesn't want Labour MPs supporting strikes as that would be odd having Labour MPs supporting strikes against a Labour government. Back in the 1970s when Red Robbo was constantly taking British Leyland workers on strike it was odd that Tony Benn was supporting them.

The Winter of Discontent 1978-1979 is often brought up regarding Labour.

 

[SJN]

What makes rail staff any more immune than any other group to the public expressing their opinions? It's just a job like any other and, when any pay award will need to be funded either through fares or tax, the public will have to pay that and have every right to express their views.

I haven’t said that rail staff should be immune to anything. I do understand though why some staff might be rude to some people making comments that belittle our jobs.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps someone like ACAS ought to be able to verify such claims and counter-claims about what has actually been offered.

Those involved in the negotiations know exactly what has been offered. Granted, it’s taking some of the people involved a little while to comprehend it, hence several clarifications.

Hopefully won’t come to that, but agreed that kind of thing is very effective.

“Do us a favour and split this train”?
“It’s not on my diagram, so no.”

Etc.

Genuine question (and no hidden agenda!) - do train crew contracts say, effectively “you will work your diagrams exactly as specified”, or do they effectively say “you will do the work required within your rostered times”

In principle I would agree. The problem really is those red lines in the sand. If a deal offered was reasonable, then yes, absolutely send out the offer. You would still have a 6 month strike mandate in place. But if that deal was just flat out stupid and those in the negotiations knew it would be rejected then it's just time wasting.

ah, but let’s say the deal isn’t stupid, and the union reps in the negotiations say it is acceptable, subject to checking back at their head office?

 

[Bantamzen]

I haven’t said that rail staff should be immune to anything. I do understand though why some staff might be rude to some people making comments that belittle our jobs.

There is no excuse for being rude back to passengers, no matter who rude they are to you.