Signal_Box
Member
I was in conversation earlier with a colleague. Back in 1994 maintenance staff didn't get called out in support of striking signallers, but now consider that signallers are being used as pawns in the fight for maintenance staff. The same person has been balloted by his union, but the 'action short of a strike' has raised the question about managers acting as contingency signallers. Part of this was down to people not actually voting, and counting towards the ballot threshold.
Many aspects of the offer to signallers aren't as bad as it seems. Others have already mentioned the retirement age proposal. I work with a couple of signallers who are in their 70's, who have no interest in retirement. I've always maintained I'd not retire; I've always been used to working most of my life. However, if the job sees me ten years it would be enough - even though I'd still be short of the current statutory retirement age.
Exactly how I see it maintenance wouldn’t give two toots about us, so I’m afraid it’s look after your own as far as I’m concerned.
I’m annoyed the union is using use to add weight to the maintenance cause.