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

[Bantamzen]

Out of curiosity, can you provide a detailed example of what another part of the public sector have had to change in order to get a below-inflation rise? If you can show us the specifics it would shed some light rather than heat.

Sigh.... Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole in order to prove that railway staff are facing the worst pay deal ever? Ok...

Further up thread you may have noticed me mention that my sector had an offer of 2% in exchange for an extended working week. That extension meant our standard working week (i.e basic hours we were expected to deliver our service) went from 9-5 Monday to Friday to 8-8 Monday to Saturday. Quite a substantial increase in a working week I'm sure even you would agree, in fact it took the hours we were expected to deliver the business from 45 hours a week to 72. And all for 2%. Not 8-9% with half backdated to the previous financial year, just yer 2%. That was it, take it or leave it, like it or lump it.

Now I realise that 8-8 might sound like the easy life compared to the hours rail staff are expected to cover, but it still represented a 62% in the hours we would be expected to cover. Pound for pound that's a lot more than is being asked of you, and for at only a quarter of the percentage rise. And frankly this probably isn't even the worst example, I'm sure others exist. And the reason for all this at the time was because our department were asked to provide a better service, one that actually better suited the people we delivered one to as well as do it more efficiently. That's the reality of working in a sector funded by public money. End of.

 

[jon0844]

Why he heck did your sector ever agree to it? And why would you think that because you got a terrible deal, everyone else should accept that being f'd over is just the way things are?

 

[Robcuk]

Sigh.... Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole in order to prove that railway staff are facing the worst pay deal ever? Ok...

Further up thread you may have noticed me mention that my sector had an offer of 2% in exchange for an extended working week. That extension meant our standard working week (i.e basic hours we were expected to deliver our service) went from 9-5 Monday to Friday to 8-8 Monday to Saturday. Quite a substantial increase in a working week I'm sure even you would agree, in fact it took the hours we were expected to deliver the business from 45 hours a week to 72. And all for 2%. Not 8-9% with half backdated to the previous financial year, just yer 2%. That was it, take it or leave it, like it or lump it.

Now I realise that 8-8 might sound like the easy life compared to the hours rail staff are expected to cover, but it still represented a 62% in the hours we would be expected to cover. Pound for pound that's a lot more than is being asked of you, and for at only a quarter of the percentage rise. And frankly this probably isn't even the worst example, I'm sure others exist. And the reason for all this at the time was because our department were asked to provide a better service, one that actually better suited the people we delivered one to as well as do it more efficiently. That's the reality of working in a sector funded by public money. End of.

So your working hours didn't change just the business hours you were expected to cover? Ok - were you given a fixed roster so you could make plans etc? I.e you worked one Saturday in 3?

At most TOCs you would work 2 out of every 3 Saturdays(a late and an early) and then plan things around the weekend off but the pay deal wants the right to be able to take that weekend away. So If I'm told I now have to work that weekend suddenly that's 5 Saturdays on the bounce.

This has been mentioned many times and no driver would vote for this. The shifts are bad enough but at least we can currently make plans as we know when our days off are.

I struggle getting home at past 01:00 and then a few days later having to wake up before 05:00

Isn't this pay deal the first since 2019? So effectively worse than 2%?

 

[Bantamzen]

Why he heck did your sector ever agree to it? And why would you think that because you got a terrible deal, everyone else should accept that being f'd over is just the way things are?

We didn't agree to it. It was imposed. And I'm not saying everyone else should have the same, just that if you work for a sector that is publicly funded it might just happen.

So your working hours didn't change just the business hours you were expected to cover? Ok - were you given a fixed roster so you could make plans etc? I.e you worked one Saturday in 3?

Depending on the role people could and still are asked to change at the drop of a hat.

At most TOCs you would work 2 out of every 3 Saturdays(a late and an early) and then plan things around the weekend off but the pay deal wants the right to be able to take that weekend away. So If I'm told I now have to work that weekend suddenly that's 5 Saturdays on the bounce.

I'm sure there are lots of people in lots of other industries being paid a lot less for the same.

This has been mentioned many times and no driver would vote for this. The shifts are bad enough but at least we can currently make plans as we know when our days off are.

Then don't vote for it. But just don't expect the government to fall to it's knees begging for forgiveness. It is obvious to everyone that the line has been drawn. Just as it was when my sector's T&Cs were changed, we did take action and it did no good. So the choice is yours, but remember your business is a customer based one. If a strike goes on for long enough, people will start to find alternatives. And if enough people do, well you probably know what that means.

I struggle getting home at past 01:00 and then a few days later having to wake up before 05:00

And I'm sorry that you do struggle with it. But again many people have to do the same for a lot less.

Isn't this okay deal the first since 2019? So effectively worse than 2%?

It is, but given the circumstances do you not think that it was understandable? I mean after all a hell of a lot of people took a 20% pay cut during the pandemic restrictions. Many also lost their jobs completely. Which would you have preferred, a guaranteed job, a 20% pay cut or no job at all?

 

[Sly Old Fox]

You look at the things like committed Sundays too and the way they’ve worded it, it leaves room to be rostered for all 52 Sundays with no ability to swap or book any off (with the exception of the one that falls in the middle of two weeks summer leave). The TOCs, however, reserve the right to tell you they don’t need you to be in on any given Sunday at short notice. So basically you never know when you’ll have a Sunday off until a couple of days beforehand.

Put them inside the working week and do it properly. Most staff are amenable to that.

 

[Snow1964]

You look at the things like committed Sundays too and the way they’ve worded it, it leaves room to be rostered for all 52 Sundays with no ability to swap or book any off (with the exception of the one that falls in the middle of two weeks summer leave). The TOCs, however, reserve the right to tell you they don’t need you to be in on any given Sunday at short notice. So basically you never know when you’ll have a Sunday off until a couple of days beforehand.

Put them inside the working week and do it properly. Most staff are amenable to that.

Part of this is parts of the railway establishment haven't demanded a return to timetables being finalised 13-14 weeks ahead, so both public suffer as tickets aren't released, and other staff suffer because roster's can't be firmed up at 12 weeks ahead stage.

In a way, some of these changes such as short notice advice of not being needed are direct consequence of other railway staff actions. I know people don't like to hear blame culture, but if there was simple timetables finalised by week 13, rosters and tickets agreed 84 days ahead, and any subsequent changes are paid as if turned up.

Probably be blocked, because unions wouldn't like to give 12 weeks notice of any action, which would logically be needed for it to work cleanly.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You look at the things like committed Sundays too and the way they’ve worded it, it leaves room to be rostered for all 52 Sundays with no ability to swap or book any off (with the exception of the one that falls in the middle of two weeks summer leave). The TOCs, however, reserve the right to tell you they don’t need you to be in on any given Sunday at short notice. So basically you never know when you’ll have a Sunday off until a couple of days beforehand.

I can see why members wouldn't want that but have RMT proposed an alternative that at least demonstrates that operators need more certainty on Sunday resourcing but at the same time respects that staff are entitled to be able to plan their lives with certainty as well?

 

[yorksrob]

You look at the things like committed Sundays too and the way they’ve worded it, it leaves room to be rostered for all 52 Sundays with no ability to swap or book any off (with the exception of the one that falls in the middle of two weeks summer leave). The TOCs, however, reserve the right to tell you they don’t need you to be in on any given Sunday at short notice. So basically you never know when you’ll have a Sunday off until a couple of days beforehand.

Put them inside the working week and do it properly. Most staff are amenable to that.

Indeed. It's simply unacceptable staff not being able to plan when they'll be off.

Having Sundays in the working week is indeed the sensible way to do it but the Government doesn't want to pay for it.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I can see why members wouldn't want that but have RMT proposed an alternative that at least demonstrates that operators need more certainty on Sunday resourcing but at the same time respects that staff are entitled to be able to plan their lives with certainty as well?

Yes, both unions have. Sundays inside the working week. It would solve Sunday problems once and for all. If you’re in you’re in, if you’re not you’re not, if you need a leave day you can book it off. Treat it exactly the same as the other six days.

However it does require extra staff so ‘they’ won’t go for it coz it costs more. They’d rather force staff to work overtime instead.

 

[northwichcat]

As above there won't be any extension of single-manning beyond its current boundaries for some time. The network is not accessible enough.

Tram-train introduction around Manchester is still a possibility, as it an extension around Sheffield. That could see routes like Rose Hill Marple getting infrastructure changes to allow wheelchair passengers to board without assistance, but without Network Rail handing over the full route to Metrolink.

When will people finally realise that the government don't really need to do anything at all ?

Few of the general public (voters...) are affected by any rail issues - most use cars/WFH/retired etc.

Without any significant pressure from the general public there's little need for the government to do anything.

I think it's the nighttime economy that's being affected the most. Last night Northern cancelled a number of the second-to-last trains out of Manchester Piccadilly, and the last trains weren't that crowded, compared to the levels we saw prior to COVID and industrial action.

Yes, both unions have. Sundays inside the working week. It would solve Sunday problems once and for all. If you’re in you’re in, if you’re not you’re not, if you need a leave day you can book it off. Treat it exactly the same as the other six days.

However it does require extra staff so ‘they’ won’t go for it coz it costs more. They’d rather force staff to work overtime instead.

I thought there was an issue where certain union members don't want Sunday to be included in the normal working week, and want it to continue to be optional overtime that they can opt in or out of. While the unions are against new workers having different contract terms, which would likely include higher base pay in exchange for being allocated Sunday shifts.

 

[Krokodil]

I can see why members wouldn't want that but have RMT proposed an alternative that at least demonstrates that operators need more certainty on Sunday resourcing but at the same time respects that staff are entitled to be able to plan their lives with certainty as well?

TfW have agreed Sundays inside with their drivers, and are looking at doing the same with their guards. Compulsory overtime is a fudge.

I thought there was an issue where certain union members don't want Sunday to be included in the normal working week, and want it to continue to be optional overtime that they can opt in or out of.

There are a handful of ex-BR staff who have never, ever worked a Sunday. They may have gained grandfather rights in this respect. Too few to make a difference in terms of rostering, at one TOC we're talking about just four drivers. There's no point doing anything to change this, it's easier to wait for them to retire.

 

[317 forever]

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.

Indeed, I wonder whether the government are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the subsidy they do not have to pay on the days the railway is on strike. This may help incentivise the government to keep to their current (cheaper than the unions want) offer anyway.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Indeed, I wonder whether the government are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the subsidy they do not have to pay on the days the railway is on strike. This may help incentivise the government to keep to their current (cheaper than the unions want) offer anyway.

You still have a stash of costs plus no income so strikes are worsening the financial gap and Merriman admitted to that some months ago so that deficit has only worsened. Both sides are in to far now to walk away but its down to the unions how long it goes on for and ultimately that depends on the members not renewing the mandate which seems unlikely anytime soon.

 

[Goldfish62]

Indeed, I wonder whether the government are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the subsidy they do not have to pay on the days the railway is on strike. This may help incentivise the government to keep to their current (cheaper than the unions want) offer anyway.

Seems obvious to me that the government is comfortable with the current situation. They can just keep saying, "Put the offers to the members", knowing the unions won't do that.

Mick Whelan said the other day that he expects the ASLEF dispute to still be continuing in two years time when he retires, demonstrating that the situation really is utterly hopeless.

 

[Krokodil]

Indeed, I wonder whether the government are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the subsidy they do not have to pay on the days the railway is on strike. This may help incentivise the government to keep to their current (cheaper than the unions want) offer anyway.

If you believe that saving wages on the minority of railway staff who are on strike on a given day (RMT represent 83k railwaymen and seamen, most of whom don't work for an English TOC; the industry as a whole employs 240k people) in any way comes close to the loss in income, you are deluded.

 

[Tetchytyke]

but its down to the unions how long it goes on for a

How do you explain that one? There are two parties. There’s a saying “it takes two to tango”. Unless you’re saying that our zombie government won’t negotiate and are still sitting in the corner like a sulking toddler?

I’m no fan of the RMT, but the anti-union rhetoric on here really is tiresome.

Seems obvious to me that the government is comfortable with the current situation.

Of course they are.

Our unelected failed Prime Minister flies everywhere in a private helicopter, why would he care about the chaos he’s causing?

This zombie government are very comfortable with the destruction because they know they’re a dead duck and they’re getting their retaliation in whilst they still can. Who cares that the plebs can’t get to work? Not Mark “employing illegal migrants as domestic cleaners for his multiple homes” Harper.

 

[yorksrob]

Seems obvious to me that the government is comfortable with the current situation. They can just keep saying, "Put the offers to the members", knowing the unions won't do that.

Mick Whelan said the other day that he expects the ASLEF dispute to still be continuing in two years time when he retires, demonstrating that the situation really is utterly hopeless.

It's the job of railway users to make their presence felt at the next election.

The Government clearly feels that it can screw over passengers with impunity, therefore it's passengers job to destroy them at the next election.

 

[A0wen]

Passengers have still paid more than their fair share towards the wage settlement. The deficit is due to the Governments own restrictions imposed on, and negative publicity towards rail travel, therefore they should cough up.

Where to start with this......

Passengers *are also* taxpayers (well most of them are) so for the government to "cough up" means increasing taxes to cover the cost. So the passengers get hit twice by your logic......

 

[Tetchytyke]

However it does require extra staff so ‘they’ won’t go for it coz it costs more. They’d rather force staff to work overtime instead.

Exactly.

“Modernisation” should be bringing Sunday inside the working week and recruiting enough staff to accommodate this.

But overtime is cheaper, so of course Steve Montgomery (the brilliant genius that gave us *checks notes* Avanti WC and TPE) is all for “modernising” by having too few staff and forcing compulsory overtime on them.

Passengers *are also* taxpayers (well most of them are) so for the government to "cough up" means increasing taxes to cover the cost. So the passengers get hit twice by your logic

The “deficit” is largely the continuing drag effect of our zombie government forcing the railways to continue to operate normally despite nobody being allowed to travel anywhere.

“There’s no money” because our failed zombie government gave it all away to Michelle Mone and Serco.

The railways have been destroyed by this failed government’s decision to lock everyone up in their own homes for no reason.

But the unions are the unreasonable ones. Aye right.

It’s telling that settling the dispute would have cost the country less than prolonging it. But Mark Harper, as Immigration Minister, “didn’t realise” the cleaners he personally employed were exploited illegal migrants. Clearly details aren’t his thing.

 

[yorksrob]

Where to start with this......

Passengers *are also* taxpayers (well most of them are) so for the government to "cough up" means increasing taxes to cover the cost. So the passengers get hit twice by your logic......

Yes, we are also taxpayers, which is why we expect a service for our money.

As I've already explained, the fare payer has already paid its part of the wage settlement. The government has not.

 

[A0wen]

The “deficit” is largely the continuing drag effect of our zombie government forcing the railways to continue to operate normally despite nobody being allowed to travel anywhere.

“There’s no money” because our failed zombie government gave it all away to Michelle Mone and Serco.

But the unions are the unreasonable ones. Aye right.

Again, where to start with this.

Anything "lost" on the Covid response is peanuts quite frankly.

The Covid *budget* was £37bn over 2 years of which £25.7 billion had actually been spent on the entire Test and Trace programme - which included all the contact tracing, the vaccines, the test centres, all those "free" testing kits everybody used etc etc.

The cost of resolving the strikes - albeit per year - is estimated to be £0.5bn but that results in a higher and higher cost in every future year.

Yes, we are also taxpayers, which is why we expect a service for our money.

As I've already explained, the fare payer has already paid its part of the wage settlement. The government has not.

Fine, but you have to accept not all taxpayers are rail passengers, and the judgement of what is best for taxpayers is not the same as what is best for rail users. You choose to be a rail user, you don't have a choice about being a taxpayer.

 

[Facing Back]

Yes, we are also taxpayers, which is why we expect a service for our money.

This part I agree with.

As I've already explained, the fare payer has already paid its part of the wage settlement. The government has not.

This part I do not. The government doesn't have any money. It is all ours. Sure they can borrow more - or even print more. But lets assume we all know why that is a bad idea, they either increase spending on the railway by increasing fares or taxes, or by decreasing spending somewhere else. Where do they target? The non-doms and petrochem companies can only be taxed so many times.

 

[STINT47]

I am curious as to why the unions won't put the offer to members?

I haven't followed this in great detail and don't wish to get involved with the arguments but if an offer has been made what is the harm I'm voting on it?

As an outsider it dies seem that the government is justified in saying that they're not prepared to talk till the latest offer has been voted on.

 

[yorksrob]

Again, where to start with this.

Anything "lost" on the Covid response is peanuts quite frankly.

The Covid *budget* was £37bn over 2 years of which £25.7 billion had actually been spent on the entire Test and Trace programme - which included all the contact tracing, the vaccines, the test centres, all those "free" testing kits everybody used etc etc.

The cost of resolving the strikes - albeit per year - is estimated to be £0.5bn but that results in a higher and higher cost in every future year.



Fine, but you have to accept not all taxpayers are rail passengers, and the judgement of what is best for taxpayers is not the same as what is best for rail users. You choose to be a rail user, you don't have a choice about being a taxpayer.

We're not all primary school users or prison service users.

Government must pay for its treatment of rail passengers. Make your MP unelected.

 

[A0wen]

Seems obvious to me that the government is comfortable with the current situation. They can just keep saying, "Put the offers to the members", knowing the unions won't do that.

Mick Whelan said the other day that he expects the ASLEF dispute to still be continuing in two years time when he retires, demonstrating that the situation really is utterly hopeless.

Well it is pretty silly of the union leadership *not* to do that. It's repeating the mistake Scargill made when he refused to hold a strike ballot in the mid 80s - his reasons were he wasn't sure he could win because "moderate" areas like Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire weren't sold on strike action.

If Whelan, Lynch et al are "representing" their members as they claim then having a ballot on the proposal would surely be a shoo in ? And they'd be able to go back to the DFT and say "sorry matey, no dice" - but that they won't hold a ballot says they aren't confident of winning.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cost of resolving the strikes - albeit per year - is estimated to be £0.5bn but that results in a higher and higher cost in every future year

The cost of settling is half a billion, the cost to the country of not settling was estimated by the zombie government to be £700m just for the six months June to December 2022. So I reckon that, given our government’s unique usage of mathematics, you can probably double that cost.

We’re now in September 2023.

But let’s assume they’re right. Cost of settling: £0.5bn a year. Cost of not settling: £1.4bn a year.

Yes, I can see how that’s given the taxpayer cracking value for money. Michelle Mone’s snidey PPE looks a bargain in comparison.

The Covid *budget* was £37bn over 2 years of which £25.7 billion had actually been spent on the entire Test and Trace programme

That was the cost of the test and trace- all of it, including the (massively overpriced) tests themselves, in fairness. It doesn’t include the cost of furlough or the rampant fraud in Covid business loans.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, you’ve just proved my point. This failed zombie government chucked enough money up the wall to have funded the railways’ pay claims for 75 years. “But there’s no money left”.

 

[A0wen]

We're not all primary school users or prison service users.

Government must pay for its treatment of rail passengers. Make your MP unelected.

Bit in bold - silly example - indirectly you *are* because you expect it to be there to incarcerate those who commit serious crimes which would affect you.

 

[yorksrob]

[

Bit in bold - silly example - indirectly you *are* because you expect it to be there to incarcerate those who commit serious crimes which would affect you.

Not silly at all. I use the railway every day, just as I use the prison service.

The problem is silly motorists who imagine their journeys arent affected by rail.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am curious as to why the unions won't put the offer to members?

Because it’s just a delaying tactic from the government. It takes two or three weeks to present an offer and get a vote and, of course, it would be “unfair” and “unreasonable” to continue to strike whilst an offer is being considered.

So every time the government stick in an insulting offer that the members won’t accept they buy four weeks of no-striking.

It’s staggeringly mendacious, but people buy into it because it superficially sounds reasonable.

 

[A0wen]

The cost of settling is half a billion, the cost to the country of not settling was estimated by the zombie government to be £700m just for the six months June to December 2022. So I reckon that, given our government’s unique usage of mathematics, you can probably double that cost.

We’re now in September 2023.

But let’s assume they’re right. Cost of settling: £0.5bn a year. Cost of not settling: £1.4bn a year.

Yes, I can see how that’s given the taxpayer cracking value for money. Michelle Mone’s snidey PPE looks a bargain in comparison.


That was the cost of the test and trace- all of it, including the (massively overpriced) tests themselves, in fairness. It doesn’t include the cost of furlough or the rampant fraud in Covid business loans.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, you’ve just proved my point. This failed zombie government chucked enough money up the wall to have funded the railways’ pay claims for 75 years. “But there’s no money left”.

Bit in bold - 97% weren't fraudulent (by value) - I hardly think 3% is "rampant fraud".

£1.1bn of COVID small business loans identified as fraud, claims government source

The eye watering figure could only be the start, says Reuters, after £47bn was handed out to firms during the pandemic.

news.sky.com

A total of £1.1bn of government loans given to small businesses during the pandemic have been classified as fraud so far, according to Reuters.

The figure is due to be published as part of new data from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), a government source told the news agency, giving a firmer indication of how widespread the issue could be.

Around £47bn of COVID bounce back loans were handed out to smaller firms to support them during UK lockdowns.

[

Not silly at all. I use the railway every day, just as I use the prison service.

It's about *choice* you *don't have to* use the rail service, *you choose* to go gallivanting around the country on lightly used services heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. You could use a bus or car, for example.

However in every society there is an expectation that there will be a criminal justice system which includes jails, to protect people from criminals, which is paid for from tax revenues.

Not all countries have a rail network, all countries have state run prisons.