RDG response to RMT's recent "road map" proposal.

[Merle Haggard]

With an increasing amount of government interference. BR was largely an arms-length operation, ministers rarely got involved.

I can say (from being there) that, in the 1970s-80s at least, every level of Government, from M.P.s upwards, was involved in the management of B.R.. Micro-management is not new...

 

[HSTEd]

The RMT will continue to strike, the Government will continue to ignore them and the financial situation of the railway will continue to deteriorate.

Eventually one side will give in, and I very much doubt it will be the government.

 

[infobleep]

The RMT will continue to strike, the Government will continue to ignore them and the financial situation of the railway will continue to deteriorate.

Eventually one side will give in, and I very much doubt it will be the government.

Do you think that will be the case if we change governments? I mean Scotland and Wales have settled.

I appreciate that could mean the dispute going on for another year but if the government have the will and the RMT and ASLEF have the will then I see no reason why it shouldn't. I'm talking about both disputes now.

 

[185]

I wonder why the DfT and their clueless puppet Mr Harper (MP) are still hiding in a cupboard somewhere. Indeed (my opinion) progress could have been made if our new Shapps 2.0 aka Harper was booted and rail minister Huw Merriman given his job with free reign to take on the vulture civil servants such as Bailey et al in the ministry and find some common ground with the unions.

 

[daodao]

Half term October 24 is where my moneys at for a GE.

To be precise, 24th Oct 2024 is the most likely date of the next GE, so Sunak would probably be PM for exactly 2 years from 25/10/22-25/10/24.

On another note, the rail unions are not alone in being in a non-negotation situation with the government, or its effective representatives. The same applies to the BMA, representing both senior and junior hospital doctors. The UK (or more precisely English) government has drawn red lines with their final offers to both rail unions and doctors.

I doubt the grass will be greener the other side of a general election assuming Labour win power.

Exactly. Starmer's actions and statements (and shadow cabinet appointments) increasingly demonstrate that he is a Tory by another name, like Blair.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you think that will be the case if we change governments? I mean Scotland and Wales have settled.

I appreciate that could mean the dispute going on for another year but if the government have the will and the RMT and ASLEF have the will then I see no reason why it shouldn't. I'm talking about both disputes now.

I doubt it, the railway's financial situation is deteriorating too rapidly for any government to give the RMT what they want. The commuter lobby has been broken as a significant political force and electric car growth keeps climbing - which is going to start eating away at the railway's environmental credentials.

The reality is that for the first time since privatisation the money hose is not running.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I doubt the grass will be greener the other side of a general election assuming Labour win power.

Indeed,for all his promises whilst in opposition Blair done nothing for the railway other than carry on with Tory policies.

 

[SamYeager]

It couldn't get any worse.

Famous last words!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It couldn't get any worse.

On what basis do you think that!?

 

[brad465]

Exactly. Starmer's actions and statements (and shadow cabinet appointments) increasingly demonstrate that he is a Tory by another name, like Blair.

What do the few hundred thousand swing voters want the railways to be like and the end result of this dispute? Whatever they want that's what we will be getting, because in a FPTP system they carry the most weight of how almost all manifesto pledges and policy came about.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

If I recall correctly, when the other public sector pay disputes were settled, it was on the basis that there was no increase in budget to the relevant departments. I.e. the money to fund the pay increases had to be found from existing budgets.

This is no different to the railways. The only difference I can see is that what changes will be made or wanted to fund the pay increases are unknown elsewhere, whereas the railways have been given a list of ways where they are expected to save money.

I don't think there is any chance of a speedy resolution after an election if Labour come to power, they will have no more money than the current government and probably, by then, even less if the Tories adopt a Scortched Earth policy. There are far higher priorities in the national discussion such as hospitals and schools, as opposed to railways which aren't that important to most people.

There might be scope for movement now if:

The RMT said that they would end the current dispute and strikes if they were given a one year no strings deal;

They agreed they would accept and agree to some productivity changes in each TOC;

BUT, that these changes had to be discussed and agreed locally depending on the situations in each company and each grade and they are not agreeing at this stage to the specifics of what productivity changes they will agree to.


Such a proposal might well be accepted by both sides and would achieve progress for both sides.


The alternative is the strikes continue, the DfT close most ticket offices anyway, and then once the consultation for that has been concluded they will move on to finding ways to impose the changes they want elsewhere in other grades.

 

[Facing Back]

What do the few hundred thousand swing voters want the railways to be like and the end result of this dispute? Whatever they want that's what we will be getting, because in a FPTP system they carry the most weight of how almost all manifesto pledges and policy came about.

Normally, but it wasn't quite the case last time - the swing voters, not the manifestos. I can see better industrial relations in principle being part of a labour manifesto but not to invest more in rail.

There might be scope for movement now if:

The RMT said that they would end the current dispute and strikes if they were given a one year no strings deal;

They agreed they would accept and agree to some productivity changes in each TOC;

BUT, that these changes had to be discussed and agreed locally depending on the situations in each company and each grade and they are not agreeing at this stage to the specifics of what productivity changes they will agree to.

I had thought that that was more of less the offer the RDG had made. I could be mis-remembering...

 

[Applepie356]

I wonder if an all-out strike is on the cards for RMT?

Granted it’s a bit of a gamble as it could be expensive for the workers if the government still doesn’t cave in.

 

[Horizon22]

What do the few hundred thousand swing voters want the railways to be like and the end result of this dispute? Whatever they want that's what we will be getting, because in a FPTP system they carry the most weight of how almost all manifesto pledges and policy came about.

If you’d asked them, the fares would probably end up cheaper and less crowded but that would not necessarily solve the real financial issue.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I had thought that that was more of less the offer the RDG had made. I could be mis-remembering...

Ish.

But the RDG offer stipulated what the productivity changes must be without recognition that the circumstances in each TOC are different.

I think for any agreement to be credible to the RMT and the members it must recognise that circumstances are different in each TOC and what suits one doesn't suit the other, but local teams may make productivity changes which are not on the RDG list but make the necessary savings.

 

[Hundorp]

From a recent BBC article:

Its general secretary, Mick Lynch, told the BBC that union members were targeting Saturdays.
"The strike has to be effective," he said. "We haven't got a plan to disrupt anybody's particular activities but that is the busiest day for the railway and members have decided that's the way they want to go."

Seems the RMT will probably only strike on Saturday's from now on, probably 2 per month and ASLEF taking the other 2, a perpetual Saturday strike until either the next election or a major development feels inevitable.

 

[Facing Back]

Ish.

But the RDG offer stipulated what the productivity changes must be without recognition that the circumstances in each TOC are different.

I think for any agreement to be credible to the RMT and the members it must recognise that circumstances are different in each TOC and what suits one doesn't suit the other, but local teams may make productivity changes which are not on the RDG list but make the necessary savings.

At a very high level yes I think that they did set out policy. The implementation of that is where all of the details and much of the impact come from. They didn't specify the dollar value or number of headcount changes expected did they (I need to go back and read it again to have this debate), more that grades would align across the business and that scheduling would move to become totally within the remit of the TOC (and I understand why that is unacceptable). All of the details however were to be negotiated with each TOC.

 

[Purple Train]

If the Shadow Transport Secretary is anything to go by it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. She seems incapable of saying anything of any substance. The Shadow Rail Minister clearly grasped the issues, but it seems he was too good so has been moved on to bigger things.

Agreed, I'm not at all confident that Louise Haigh would be the drastic improvement as Transport Secretary that is required when (if) the Tories have been shown the door.

Interesting you should say that about the now-former Shadow Rail Minister, even as a constituent of his, and a definite supporter, I've never heard him speak about the railways. Which is rather a shame, as he speaks very well.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

At a very high level yes I think that they did set out policy. The implementation of that is where all of the details and much of the impact come from. They didn't specify the dollar value or number of headcount changes expected did they (I need to go back and read it again to have this debate), more that grades would align across the business and that scheduling would move to become totally within the remit of the TOC (and I understand why that is unacceptable). All of the details however were to be negotiated with each TOC.

If I recall the only "detail" to be discussed at each TOC was how the changes they had put on the list would be implemented.

Some TOCS would of course have those things in place already, and some not. My TOC for example already has Committed Sundays, so that would be no change for us.

And some of the changes may not be practical or desirable at certain TOCS with certain grades.

And what makes them unpalatable to members was that because there was no financial calculations involved in what was proposed, at some TOCS you would be forced to give away loads and loads of things and make loads of changes in exchange for the pay rise, whilst some TOCS would be giving away virtually nothing and get the same pay rise. That is fundamentally unfair.

However if the RDG merely said the pay rise must be self funding, and the RMT committed to agreeing productivity changes at each TOC which achieved that, but not agreeing the detail of the changes, then local discussions within each company can take place and agree changes which suit each company's individual circumstances.

 

[Krokodil]

I can say (from being there) that, in the 1970s-80s at least, every level of Government, from M.P.s upwards, was involved in the management of B.R.. Micro-management is not new...

To the extent that we are seeing now? Every piece of expenditure over £500 having to be individually rubber-stamped by Whitehall?

the railway's financial situation is deteriorating too rapidly

The government have admitted that it has cost them (i.e. us) more to fight the dispute than it would have cost to settle. The unreliability of the service in certain areas won't have helped finances either, the government are to blame for that as well (not just because of the recent dispute but also because of decisions made over the last 10 years).

Famous last words!

Granted we said that Shapps couldn't be worse than the halfwit Grayling. I bet that the Russians are delighted that he's now in charge of our defence.

On what basis do you think that!?

Well assuming that any prospective Labour government is not likely to bring back Serpell, there's really not anything they can do that would be worse than the current shambles.

 

[1D54]

From a recent BBC article:

Its general secretary, Mick Lynch, told the BBC that union members were targeting Saturdays.
"The strike has to be effective," he said. "We haven't got a plan to disrupt anybody's particular activities but that is the busiest day for the railway and members have decided that's the way they want to go."

Seems the RMT will probably only strike on Saturday's from now on, probably 2 per month and ASLEF taking the other 2, a perpetual Saturday strike until either the next election or a major development feels inevitable.

Well there is nothing this Saturday or next and no more announced yet but that will no doubt change in the coming days unless of course the 'road map' is a possibility but reading what has been posted on this thread and elsewhere on the forum it ain't gonna happen so disruption and a major loss of money all round for the next 13 months and beyond looks a certainty unfortunately.

 

[HSTEd]

The government have admitted that it has cost them (i.e. us) more to fight the dispute than it would have cost to settle. The unreliability of the service in certain areas won't have helped finances either, the government are to blame for that as well (not just because of the recent dispute but also because of decisions made over the last 10 years).

No, they admitted that it would cost them more than one years worth of the pay increase to fight these strikes.

But the government will have to pay the pay increase every year from now until the end of time, they only have to fight once!

And it's highly likely that in many cases the strikes will have improved the railway's finances by (partially and temporarily) staunching the bleeding.

EDIT:
Every year the strike continues the real pay bill for the railway gets smaller due to inflation.

 

[Krokodil]

And it's highly likely that in many cases the strikes will have improved the railway's finances by (partially and temporarily) staunching the bleeding.

Cobblers. All of that income lost, while you still have to pay the fixed costs and the wages of whichever group of staff aren't on strike on a given day.

 

[island]

Financial cost putting it to their members when it’s expected to be voted down by the members. Maybe they should bite the bullet and let the members vote it down? Half term October 24 is where my moneys at for a GE.

There's no material cost of putting pay deals to members, they can be done online. It's only strike votes that have to be by post.

 

[yorksrob]

To be precise, 24th Oct 2024 is the most likely date of the next GE, so Sunak would probably be PM for exactly 2 years from 25/10/22-25/10/24.

On another note, the rail unions are not alone in being in a non-negotation situation with the government, or its effective representatives. The same applies to the BMA, representing both senior and junior hospital doctors. The UK (or more precisely English) government has drawn red lines with their final offers to both rail unions and doctors.


Exactly. Starmer's actions and statements (and shadow cabinet appointments) increasingly demonstrate that he is a Tory by another name, like Blair.

To be fair to Blair, with the exception of the meltdown resulting from sold-off Railtrack, he largely kept the trains running and didn't court continual industrial action.

 

[Russel]

From a recent BBC article:

Its general secretary, Mick Lynch, told the BBC that union members were targeting Saturdays.
"The strike has to be effective," he said. "We haven't got a plan to disrupt anybody's particular activities but that is the busiest day for the railway and members have decided that's the way they want to go."

Seems the RMT will probably only strike on Saturday's from now on, probably 2 per month and ASLEF taking the other 2, a perpetual Saturday strike until either the next election or a major development feels inevitable.

But the strikes aren't effective, in over 12 months, what have they genuinely achieved apart from lost pay for union members?

Nothing.

 

[Ianigsy]

I wonder if an all-out strike is on the cards for RMT?

Granted it’s a bit of a gamble as it could be expensive for the workers if the government still doesn’t cave in.

I think you probably have to hold that card back in case of an attempt to force the changes through or a fire and rehire exercise.

The RMT members who are still trying to live on their 2019 salaries in 2023 evidently think it’s still worth fighting.

 

[footprints]

See also the brief threat to impose nationwide DOO.

I think that was never really serious, just something to throw into the mix and withdraw so the RDG could say they'd made concessions. It may be the same with the proposals to shut ticket offices at the busiest stations. Announce the likes of Euston ticket office will remain open so some movement has been shown following the consultation but the vast majority of closures go ahead.

The problem for the RMT is that they could have been playing an active role in discussions on future changes. All they've succeeded in doing is deny their members a pay rise and cost them a fortune in lost wages, while excluding themselves from negotiations for changes which will now be imposed regardless. They've acted like they hold all the cards and the Government has played them like a fiddle.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In 1964 (though I was too young to vote then - had to be 21) , 1974 and 1997 I was elated at the prospect of a Labour government being more favourable to the railways than the previous Tory one.

That's 3 times I've been bitterly disappointed how things actually turned out but, who knows, maybe 4th time lucky

I have always leaned Conservative. This is a very insightful post. I was sure in 1997 with Prescott given a big role, railways were really going to benefit and there would be a rolling programme of electrification etc. I was bitterly disappointed like you. Any available cash is NOT going to the railways under Labour. It might be unpalatable to some but that is the way it is. You can actually make the case (apart from the last 5 years or so) that railways have done better under the Conservatives.

Indeed,for all his promises whilst in opposition Blair done nothing for the railway other than carry on with Tory policies.

Exactly.

 

[Goldfish62]

But the strikes aren't effective, in over 12 months, what have they genuinely achieved apart from lost pay for union members?

Nothing.

The strikes are just a protest now. Does anyone taking part seriously think that they are going to achieve anything apart from displaying anger with the government/RDG?

Don't get me wrong, if I was affected I'd still be striking, but I'd be under no illusion that it's achieving anything.

The people who are really losing out big time are those who retire or otherwise leave the industry. As well as a loss of back-pay they are suffering a permanent reduction in their pensions compared with if there had been a settlement by now.