RMT Industrial Action - Hull Trains

[nanstallon]

Well, Pensions is one of the main things that people WILL strike for.

If they can afford to!

 

[greyman42]

I’m quite surprised that a business established as recently as 2000 instigated a Defined Benefit pension scheme, and given that FirstGroup is a financial basket case - share price lower than it was 20 years ago - I’m surprised it’s taken them 17 years to draw a line under this ballooning liability.

I agree. If you look at large multi-nationals that make huge profits, the vast majority have changed their old pension schemes for both present workers and new starters for less favourable ones. As you say, these older style DB schemes are unsustainable. Many of the new DC schemes still represent an excellent investment.

 

[nanstallon]

I’m quite surprised that a business established as recently as 2000 instigated a Defined Benefit pension scheme, and given that FirstGroup is a financial basket case - share price lower than it was 20 years ago - I’m surprised it’s taken them 17 years to draw a line under this ballooning liability.

I hope that expectations are being set for new recruits to East Coast Trains, such that there isn’t a big dispute in 2022 because they’ve realised they’re not on the same terms as the franchised railway.

Not surprising to me. A strong and militant union such as RMT is well capable of insisting on a Defined Benefit pension scheme for its members.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Not surprising to me. A strong and militant union such as RMT is well capable of insisting on a Defined Benefit pension scheme for its members.

Good. Seeing as that is primarily what the RMT is for - gaining good terms and working conditions for its members

 

[greyman42]

Not surprising to me. A strong and militant union such as RMT is well capable of insisting on a Defined Benefit pension scheme for its members.

That would rely on a company funding a pension scheme that is unsustainable?

 

[Journeyman]

That would rely on a company funding a pension scheme that is unsustainable?

Put it this way - given that HT has to run profitably to survive at all, if it can't afford the pension contributions, or is ruined by industrial action, the end result is the same, everyone out of a job.

 

[the sniper]

Not surprising to me. A strong and militant union such as RMT is well capable of insisting on a Defined Benefit pension scheme for its members.

I hope the Management and Drivers have been grateful to the RMT for insisting upon this...

 

[greyman42]

Put it this way - given that HT has to run profitably to survive at all, if it can't afford the pension contributions, or is ruined by industrial action, the end result is the same, everyone out of a job.

I would of thought that HTs main worry regarding the pension scheme would be its ability to fulfil its future obligations to pensioners.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I’m quite surprised that a business established as recently as 2000 instigated a Defined Benefit pension scheme, and given that FirstGroup is a financial basket case - share price lower than it was 20 years ago - I’m surprised it’s taken them 17 years to draw a line under this ballooning liability.

I hope that expectations are being set for new recruits to East Coast Trains, such that there isn’t a big dispute in 2022 because they’ve realised they’re not on the same terms as the franchised railway.

It was a near copy of the Anglia Railways scheme and it was done because if you didn’t do that then, you wouldn’t have got the staff.

This scheme has been closed to new HT entrants for some years and it is the closure and transfer of the existing staff that is causing the dispute. There are some complex legalities about the staff who transferred in from other protected schemes.

The valuation of the railway pension schemes, all showing considerable deficits, has dogged the industry in recent years. For OA operations, which must stand on their feet and not be cross subsidised by anything remotely connected with franchises (a legal necessity), that means uncomfortable decisions have to be taken.

The RMT fear that the franchised operators will be next and they are probably right. The Treasury are very unhappy about the current situation of (apparently) unfunded deficits.

 

[43066]

It was a near copy of the Anglia Railways scheme and it was done because if you didn’t do that then, you wouldn’t have got the staff.

And doesn’t that speak volumes about how Ts and Cs have worsened over the last twenty odd years, across the board. Many of us who are approaching middle age and younger will have baby boomer parents who were able to retire in their 50s as asset millionaires, having enjoyed vast house price inflation.

Many working age people today have little to no retirement planning in place and are increasingly reliant upon receiving substantial inheritance in middle age as their only way of providing for their own dotage.

The valuation of the railway pension schemes, all showing considerable deficits, has dogged the industry in recent years. For OA operations, which must stand on their feet and not be cross subsidised by anything remotely connected with franchises (a legal necessity), that means uncomfortable decisions have to be taken.

I had understood they hadn’t faired as badly as pension schemes in other sectors due to lower overal numbers, but ultimately it’s a structural issue with an ageing population. There needs to be some sensible measure put in place for affordable social care, but governmental policy in this area is sadly lacking.

The RMT fear that the franchised operators will be next and they are probably right. The Treasury are very unhappy about the current situation of (apparently) unfunded deficits.

I’m sure they are. But the RMT is exactly right to use what muscle they have to resist these changes.

I hope the posters critical of the RMT on this thread are equally scathing of the approach of the NHS unions currently asking for a 10% pay rise? Many areas of the NHS have been quiet than usual over the last year or so…

 

[westv]

I’m sure they are. But the RMT is exactly right to use what muscle they have to resist these changes.

I hope the posters critical of the RMT on this thread are equally scathing of the approach of the NHS unions currently asking for a 10% pay rise? Many areas of the NHS have been quiet than usual over the last year or so…

If the RMT only considers the interests of its members why should anybody outside the union consider the interests of the RMT and its members?

 

[Starmill]

The key thing to remember is that First Group will only look to fund Hull Trains' short term operating losses for as long as they believe a viable profile business remains long term.

If they decide that long term a return to profitable operations isn't viable, they will look to sell the business or to liquidate it and take capital losses. You would in any industry. Such a decision would probably be taken at a higher level than Ms Cheesman's former role in any case.

What pension prospects might RMT members have if HT cease trading? They may even need to claim redundancy pay from the insolvency service.

 

[dk1]

If the RMT only considers the interests of its members why should anybody outside the union consider the interests of the RMT and its members?

I never thought they did.

 

[43066]

If the RMT only considers the interests of its members why should anybody outside the union consider the interests of the RMT and its members?

I expect the RMT is only too aware that a large % of the U.K. population has been conditioned to despise trade unions. Many people (including some contributors here) are irrationally triggered by a group of workers having the gumption to stand up for their working conditions, rather than just rolling over. There’s very little point trying to change closed minds.

The RMT’s job is to prevent as far as possible its members from being treated like British Gas engineers were recently (much as that would no doubt delight many on here). They are generally pretty good at it.

 

[PG]

The RMT fear that the franchised operators will be next and they are probably right. The Treasury are very unhappy about the current situation of (apparently) unfunded deficits

Stagecoach clearly believed that the risk of taking on the (apparently) unfunded deficits was too much, hence their exit from the TOCs franchise market.

 

[dk1]

Stagecoach clearly believed that the risk of taking on the (apparently) unfunded deficits was too much, hence their exit from the TOCs franchise market.

They didn’t have a choice from what I remember.

 

[Brissle Girl]

They didn’t have a choice from what I remember.

They did. They chose not to sign up to those terms when bidding for the franchise. In doing so they excluded themselves from the process, but don’t imagine they did it without knowing the likely consequences, and thus the decision they were effectively making.

I wonder how feasible it would be to divert staff from the yet to launch Edinburgh service to keep trains running, both in the short and even longer term?

 

[dk1]

They did. They chose not to sign up to those terms when bidding for the franchise. In doing so they excluded themselves from the process, but don’t imagine they did it without knowing the likely consequences, and thus the decision they were effectively making.

I wonder how feasible it would be to divert staff from the yet to launch Edinburgh service to keep trains running, both in the short and even longer term?

Back in the day it was crewed from Liverpool St but depends how far advanced training & recruitment has gone so wouldnt imagine its straightforward.

 

[Goldfish62]

Apparently she's moved to TfL as Director of Buses which personally I think is a demotion going from heading up a railway company to dealing with buses

She's gone from the frying pan into the fire there.

Its members voted for it.

Its members. The staff. No one has told them to go on strike they have had a ballot and the staff have voted for a strike.

I find it a bit bizzare they have done so but you can't just blame the 'union'. The 'union' is its members. And they voted for it

Agreed. And of course it can be argued that members can be influenced the information presented to them, which is true, but they still have their own minds. However, I strongly support the right to strike and if that's the members' choice then so be it.

I think one of the things with the railways is that there's a high degree of institutional exceptionalism throughout the industry, pervading from top to bottom. Of all public transport modes it's the most politicised despite having a fraction of passenger journeys that buses have, yet the government is always there ready to bail it out. No one gives damn or is there to bail them out if a bus operator or airline goes bust, but the government is always ready to bail out the railways, or at least has been. This engenders a sense of invulnerability when considering the negative consequences of any industrial action.

The RMT is the principal union in the bus industry in the South West due to the historic ties with the railways. However, they strike a considerably more conciliatory tone than they do on the railways despite often appalling pay and conditions because they know that no one will be there to bail out failing bus operators.

 

[mpthomson]

I hope the posters critical of the RMT on this thread are equally scathing of the approach of the NHS unions currently asking for a 10% pay rise? Many areas of the NHS have been quiet than usual over the last year or so…

My union, the RCN was asking for 12.5%. They're living in dreamworld...

 

[centro-323]

I wonder how feasible it would be to divert staff from the yet to launch Edinburgh service to keep trains running, both in the short and even longer term?

It wouldn't, East Coast are busy trying to launch a new company and can't be giving half their staff away and have them spending time learning the route to Hull. Also from the look of the job advert, their 'Ambassadors' won't have the same duties as traditional guards anyway.

 

[43066]

My union, the RCN was asking for 12.5%. They're living in dreamworld...

They probably are, but then of course they wouldn’t be doing a very good job by you as a member if they just shrugged their shoulders and rolled over all the time. They no doubt fully expect to agree a lower settlement after negotiations. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach, albeit it would be crass in the extreme for nurses to actually walk out if they aren’t given 12.5%! Of course the teaching unions etc. will be doing similar.

It just often seems that the railway unions get a particularly tough hearing, despite their demands being a lot more modest!

 

[MCSHF007]

I think one of the things with the railways is that there's a high degree of institutional exceptionalism throughout the industry, pervading from top to bottom. Of all public transport modes it's the most politicised despite having a fraction of passenger journeys that buses have, yet the government is always there ready to bail it out. No one gives damn or is there to bail them out if a bus operator or airline goes bust, but the government is always ready to bail out the railways, or at least has been. This engenders a sense of invulnerability when considering the negative consequences of any industrial action.

The RMT is the principal union in the bus industry in the South West due to the historic ties with the railways. However, they strike a considerably more conciliatory tone than they do on the railways despite often appalling pay and conditions because they know that no one will be there to bail out failing bus operators.

Great post!

 

[gallafent]

No one gives damn or is there to bail them out if a bus operator or airline goes bust

Really?

Bailout tracker - Transport & Environment

The Covid-19 crisis has led to a new source of subsidies through bailouts provided to airlines…

www.transportenvironment.org

European airlines – some of the European Union’s biggest polluters – have sought an unprecedented €41.9 billion in government bailouts since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis, without binding environmental conditions.
This airline bailout tracker by Transport & Environment, Carbon Market Watch and Greenpeace uses publicly available data and will be regularly updated.

This is followed by a table, including two of the largest bailouts of them all being to EasyJet and IAG (British Airways) in the UK, totalling nearly €5 milliard, both agreed.

Bus and tram operators in England get second coronavirus bailout

Deal excludes London as extra £256m reflects expected slow recovery in passenger numbers

www.ft.com

Quoting is very explicitly forbidden in the FT's copy-and-paste spiel. In basic summary, over £700 million in two slices had already been provided to the bus / tram / metro industry outside London, as of August 2020, a year ago. More than 85% of the second slice (£218.4 million) was for buses.

I suggest that this indicates that airlines and bus operators are in fact bailed out to stop them from going bust.

I do agree with the sentiment that there is an impression of exceptionalism engendered by the way the railways behave. Having said that, I do also think that they are, in a sense, exceptional, in that the industry can provide a better (lower greenhouse emissions, subjectively more pleasant experience) alternative to flying (short haul), a better alternative to driving or coaches (long haul), and a better alternative to driving or buses (short haul), when the network is of a sufficiently high quality. As such in some ways it should be at the top of the priority list in terms of “important things to do” at the DfT.

 

[ainsworth74]

Really?

Bailout tracker - Transport & Environment

The Covid-19 crisis has led to a new source of subsidies through bailouts provided to airlines…

www.transportenvironment.org

This is followed by a table, including two of the largest bailouts of them all being to EasyJet and IAG (British Airways) in the UK, totalling nearly €5 milliard, both agreed.

Bus and tram operators in England get second coronavirus bailout

Deal excludes London as extra £256m reflects expected slow recovery in passenger numbers

www.ft.com

Quoting is very explicitly forbidden in the FT's copy-and-paste spiel. In basic summary, over £700 million in two slices had already been provided to the bus / tram / metro industry outside London, as of August 2020, a year ago. More than 85% of the second slice (£218.4 million) was for buses.

I suggest that this indicates that airlines and bus operators are in fact bailed out to stop them from going bust.

I do agree with the sentiment that there is an impression of exceptionalism engendered by the way the railways behave. Having said that, I do also think that they are, in a sense, exceptional, in that the industry can provide a better (lower greenhouse emissions, subjectively more pleasant experience) alternative to flying (short haul), a better alternative to driving or coaches (long haul), and a better alternative to driving or buses (short haul), when the network is of a sufficiently high quality. As such in some ways it should be at the top of the priority list in terms of “important things to do” at the DfT.

Two things do occur though. One the actions of Government to secure an industries position during a global catastrophe are, I would suggest, different to what has happened absent that. You don't have to go looking to far to find airlines which collapsed without a government bailout with staff made redundant and often passengers stranded. See Flybmi, Thomas Cook or Monarch for instance (the latter two requiring large rescue operations). All three failed and no government bailout was forthcoming to rescue the operation.

The second thing that occurs is that whilst airlines have benefited in the current crisis from Government bailout the staff on the ground might not feel quite so charitable. There are a lot of pilots, flight attendants and other roles who have been made redundant or on long term furlough (something that HT staff should be very sympathetic with considering what their operator has been through). I'm not aware, though open to correction, of any TOC (not OAO) having made any staff redundant or even having put any staff on furlough. All funded by Government. Eurostar, HT and GC would have bitten your arm off if you'd offered them similar terms to what franchised TOCs received. The Intercity East Coast franchise failed twice in a decade (yes the reasons are complex and some of the failure in reality was self-induced by both bidder and DfT over-estimating what was affordable). Each time the Government stepped in to start running services.

So I do think it's fair to point out that the railway (or more accurately the franchised railway) seems to benefit from far from financial support than airlines or even other sectors of the railway industry could dream of. Therefore perhaps a charge that some railway staff perhaps feel more invulnerable to the consequences of harming their employers business than perhaps they should (certainly now) is not wholly without merit. Though, that can't be said to apply to HT staff, you'd have thought, considering what they've been through the last 18 months.

 

[gallafent]

So I do think it's fair to point out that the railway (or more accurately the franchised railway) seems to benefit from far from financial support than airlines or even other sectors of the railway industry could dream of. Therefore perhaps a charge that some railway staff perhaps feel more invulnerable to the consequences of harming their employers business than perhaps they should (certainly now) is not wholly without merit.

I agree, I guess I was reacting to hyperbole “no one […] is there to bail them out”

In the end it feels to me like yet another example of socialising the losses while privatising the profits. It's fine for a TOC to make a profit when the contract's loaded in their favour and/or things are going well, but heaven forfend their investors' capital (or even their dividend payments) might be put at risk when things aren't going so well. There's a big asymmetry there, in the rail industry and indeed elsewhere. And as for the hidden subsidy in terms of Network Rail's government grants leading to artificially low track access charges which allow TOCs to make a profit … but of course all this is drifting well away from the topic of RMT action on Hull Trains, for which I apologise!

 

[BrokenSam]

I expect the RMT is only too aware that a large % of the U.K. population has been conditioned to despise trade unions. Many people (including some contributors here) are irrationally triggered by a group of workers having the gumption to stand up for their working conditions, rather than just rolling over. There’s very little point trying to change closed minds.

The RMT’s job is to prevent as far as possible its members from being treated like British Gas engineers were recently (much as that would no doubt delight many on here). They are generally pretty good at it.

This is spot on by the way.

 

[mpthomson]

They probably are, but then of course they wouldn’t be doing a very good job by you as a member if they just shrugged their shoulders and rolled over all the time. They no doubt fully expect to agree a lower settlement after negotiations. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach, albeit it would be crass in the extreme for nurses to actually walk out if they aren’t given 12.5%! Of course the teaching unions etc. will be doing similar.

It just often seems that the railway unions get a particularly tough hearing, despite their demands being a lot more modest!

I don't want 12.5% as I understand that there isn't the money to pay for it. 3% as offered is more than reasonable given current financial pressures and what lots of other public sector workers have got (ie nothing).

Their position is pure political posturing and to be blunt makes them look like idiots.

 

[BrokenSam]

I don't want 12.5% as I understand that there isn't the money to pay for it. 3% as offered is more than reasonable given current financial pressures and what lots of other public sector workers have got (ie nothing).

Their position is pure political posturing and to be blunt makes them look like idiots.

What makes you think there isn't money to pay for it?

 

[43096]

What makes you think there isn't money to pay for it?

In case you hadn’t noticed, the Givernment has borrowed the thick end of £500 billion during the pandemic. That has to be paid back.