HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,823
Yes it really is a "How far does the crow fly?" type of question. I would hope by the end of July though.
For myself I will be surprised if the restrictions are lifted before christmas.
Yes it really is a "How far does the crow fly?" type of question. I would hope by the end of July though.
Wow - if that is the case the damage to the economy will be nearly as bad as WW2.For myself I will be surprised if the restrictions are lifted before christmas.
I think that's likely chose how much longer it goes on.Wow - if that is the case the damage to the economy will be nearly as bad as WW2.
If SWR have furloughed any of their staff and these can be redeployed to where the volunteers will be allocated, then I do not agree with SWR's actions.
Don't worry, most other unions are completely ineffective. Take solace in that. A union wishing to defend it's members, whatever next?
I thought the type of organisations that you could volunteer for were strictly controlled under national minimum wage legislation.
All volunteers of all types are exempt from the NLW.I thought the type of organisations that you could volunteer for were strictly controlled under national minimum wage legislation.
I thought to be defined as a volunteer you had to work for a charity or other not for profit organisation. This was to stop private companies taking advantage of volunteersAll volunteers of all types are exempt from the NLW.
Voluntary workers
Workers aren’t entitled to the minimum wage if both of the following apply:
they’re working for a charity, voluntary organisation, associated fund raising body or a statutory body
they don’t get paid, except for limited benefits (eg reasonable travel or lunch expenses)
The Dft is a statutory bodyI thought to be defined as a volunteer you had to work for a charity or other not for profit organisation. This was to stop private companies taking advantage of volunteers
Employment rights and pay for interns
Rights for interns and students in the workplace; work experience; work placements; rights to the National Minimum Wage.www.gov.uk
First MTR South Western Trains limited isn't though.The Dft is a statutory body
I suspect that technically they are recruited by the Dft - need a lawyer to sort this one?First MTR South Western Trains limited isn't though.
So there's no room for community spirit or kindness. Everything has a price. Who wants that world?Quite right too. Getting unpaid staff in to do a paid staff member's job just undermines everyone.
SWR are not a charity. Their directors are not unpaid. So why should their staff be?
If the job needs doing, pay someone to do it. There's no shortage of people who'd be glad of the cash.
Covid or no Covid, it's a professional industry and should be treated as a professional industry. It's not the Titfield Thunderbolt.
I'd rather tons of public and media disapproval pour down on thr union and they are shamed into changing their attitude. That would be far more effective than legislation.I hope the Government, given the special circumstances, passes a law outlawing any such action.
Because us taxpayers are not a bottomless pit.So why can't those staff be paid?
Free support to a charity and to public sector organisations are the examples you're offering. You claim there's no difference at all between that and free support to... a TOC?Presumably the RMT feel the same way about all the volunteers in Community Rail Partnerships who help out at stations all over the network. Or the St Johns Ambulance. Or parents who help out at their kids school.
And before anyone says ‘but this is different’ - no it isn’t.
If paying people doing this job £8.72 / hour is genuinely something you have a taxpayer value issue with, I'd hate for you to see some of the stuff the Prime Minister has recently been spending your money on...Because us taxpayers are not a bottomless pit.
Because the RMT doesn't represent the many branches of commercial and non-commercial organisations. Why is any issue ever different to any other issue?
OK, a view from someone who was "inside " the industry during the Olympics in 2012.
There was considerable pressure placed on area and HQ staff to "volunteer" to be travel champions during the Olympics. For the most part higher management was met with apathy as most staff had two or three hours commuting per day in addition to a days work. Many of us had been planning changes to engineering works, services and maintenance schedules for the previous five or six years and were completely p***ed off with the Olympics.
From what I could gather there was a reasonable briefing for emergencies at the station(s) where you would volunteer but very little info on how passengers should travel to Stratford. ( And even less how to get home avoiding transport pinch points.) The failure for the first few days came with the great British public who wandered around like lost sheep and didn't ask or look at the signs. Initially no one told them to look for mauve tabards!
I worked for one week finalising a CPPP and preparing the next DPPP and then hid somewhere beyond Fort William for the other week
Free support to a charity and to public sector organisations are the examples you're offering. You claim there's no difference at all between that and free support to... a TOC?
The problem is that as desirable as you might think that is, the government doesn't see it that way. They've spent a decade trying to force the railway to become self-funding, doing a great deal of harm to the public interest in the process, and operate as a business not as a public service. They haven't yet abandoned this policy. The BBC, NHS and services and school services are, like the railway, now, publicly funded. Those organisations only mission is to serve the public - and to spend public money only in their interest. The railway industry, even now, funded almost entirely by public money, isn't in anything like this position. The government also haven't made any indication that they will change the model yet either. There are hundreds of ways in which this manifests itself. The NHS does not abuse the law by threatening to prosecute its service users because that's a very easy way to generate cash, for example.SWR is part of a £20bn public service called the railway system.
I don’t see the difference, if the railway is a public service, which I believe it is.
Glib comments aren't exactly helpful are they? You've still got this wrong, anyway.I’m not sure if you missed it, but the railway has been a public sector organisation for 3 months.
Nevertheless, personally I find their corporate status irrelevant.
I meant this current situation has cost us more than enough. No more.If paying people doing this job £8.72 / hour is genuinely something you have a taxpayer value issue with, I'd hate for you to see some of the stuff the Prime Minister has recently been spending your money on...
That would be my solution too. Let them ballot and let them strike. Lets see how it all pans out.Fine, let them strike if they want. There's vast over-provision of train services currently anyway and I can't see a situation any time soon when the pre-Covid timetable will be needed.
I agree.That would be my solution too. Let them ballot and let them strike. Lets see how it all pans out.
I didn’t say ‘why is this different for the RMT’. I know who they represent.
What I mean is that for those who are agreeing with the RMT, why is it any different.
1) The RMT say that volunteers on the railway is unsafe and dangerous. I strongly disagree. Some posters here may agree with the RMT. But Let’s say I’m wrong, then by definition volunteers on any railway must be dangerous, and therefore we should close down all heritage lines, and stop any community rail partnerships, etc.
2) Alternatively the RMT position might be that having volunteers is wrong because they are working without pay. Again, I strongly disagree. But some posters on here do agree. Let’s say, again, that I’m wrong; therefore by definition any volunteers working without pay is wrong, and we should all stop volunteering.
My question for those agreeing with the RMT is, is it 1) or 2) or both? Either way I strongly disagree with you, and think you should have a good think about it.
If the position is volunteering is wrong on the railway, and other volunteering is irrelevant, my question is therefore: why is the railway different?
It doesn't seem to bother the RMT what the public and media think given past performances.I'd rather tons of public and media disapproval pour down on thr union and they are shamed into changing their attitude. That would be far more effective than legislation.
Although 1) might have some merit, in some circumstances, I will just talk about 2). It is clear to me that if there is a requirement for people to direct passengers at stations that role should be performed by paid staff. Such work is completely different to, say, volunteeers who maintain the flower beds at Hindley who (i) do not direct passengers and (ii) perform a role which has not been specified as a requirement, it is just a 'nice to have' {whether it should be a requirement is another discussion altogether}.
Standard RMT though.Nevertheless, it still seems extraordinarily gun-jumping of the RMT to head straight to a ballot when the facts are evidently not clear, and there seems to have been no attempt to seek clarification from SWR or the DfT. Of course it may well be the case that the facts may not have been made clear by the latter parties; but that doesn’t detract from the need to act reasonably and request clarification before deciding on next steps.
Ok fair enough. That’s your opinion.
I think the issue is that it hasn’t been made clear what these roles actually are, and whether they are fulfilling a role that has been specified as a requirement in the contract between the procurer and the supplier. It is my understanding that they are not. I might be wrong.
Nevertheless, it still seems extraordinarily gun-jumping of the RMT to head straight to a ballot when the facts are evidently not clear, and there seems to have been no attempt to seek clarification from SWR or the DfT. Of course it may well be the case that the facts may not have been made clear by the latter parties; but that doesn’t detract from the need to act reasonably and request clarification before deciding on next steps.