RMT Industrial Action Update to members

[Nicholas Lewis]

Or the workers need to put forward a set of proposals and changes that benefits both sides.

There are 2 sides to everything, if can't make it work from top, then alternative is bottom rung needs to take the initiative.

It's the 21st Century not some 18th century feudal system where workers don't get a say. And getting a say isn't just being negative and not working, these days can be any anyone contacting the initiatives and suggestion mailbox

Well said the unions need to make counter proposals that reflect that change is needed in certain areas and better they are driving it rather than letting employers. This behaviour would also im sure find far more public support.

 

[12LDA28C]

I assume current conditions on sick pay include retirement on ill health grounds after 12 months. That would seem to be normal in government employment.

You assume wrong. After six months on full pay and six months on half pay (or whatever arrangement is in place at various TOCs) then the employee would still be off sick but unpaid. They may be able to negotiate ill health severance in extreme circumstances but usually they would remain off sick until they return to work.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If the article regarding Northern is accurate then there is next to no chance of a deal being agreed. Nearly all of those conditions are completely unacceptable.

Change of government badly needed.

Labour aren't going to change anything and probably worse is they will appeal to unions to be more helpful to the economic situation they will be inheriting from Tories saying they need to fix the NHS, education and housing as priorities.

 

[Starmill]

I assume current conditions on sick pay include retirement on ill health grounds after 12 months. That would seem to be normal in government employment.

Do you mean in civil service employment perhaps? This doesn't actually have much parallel for employees in the railway industry, as none but a tiny handful (relatively speaking) in the Department's office are civil service workers.

Labour aren't going to change anything and probably worse is they will appeal to unions to be more helpful to the economic situation they will be inheriting from Tories saying they need to fix the NHS, education and housing as priorities.

Are you saying that Labour wouldn't try to negotiate with a party-affiliated trade union, and seek to end the dispute? Bear in mind they not only receive political support but also funding from Aslef. Now sure maybe you're right maybe Aslef will pull out of the deal as RMT did many years ago. But that sounds rather unlikely to me.

 

[northwichcat]

So statutory sick pay is sufficient to live on, is that what you're saying? If you can afford your mortgage, utility bills, food costs and other outgoings from £109.40 per week, I'd be keen to understand how.

What I'm saying is you can't have unlimited sick pay. I never referred to SSP. I would say the solution is for the state support to be proportional to your salary prior to being sick, similar to how furlough worked and how parental leave works, presuming you are expected to be able to return to work in the future.

How do you propose employers would cover unlimited sick pay, since you seem to be arguing I'm wrong by saying it's not possible? Would you accept a £1500 pay cut to cover the high insurance premium?

I assume current conditions on sick pay include retirement on ill health grounds after 12 months. That would seem to be normal in government employment.

Are you sure? I know someone who graduated from university 2 years late due to illness. You couldn't exactly write him off as an employee in his early 20s when he could be capable of working for 40 years+.

Are you saying that Labour wouldn't try to negotiate with a party-affiliated trade union, and seek to end the dispute? Bear in mind they not only receive political support but also funding from Aslef. Now sure maybe you're right maybe Aslef will pull out of the deal as RMT did many years ago. But that sounds rather unlikely to me.

I thought this thread was about the RMT. The same union whose leader this week said he's backing Corbyn as an independent.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's not reasonable to expect employers to be able to pay out sick leave for an unlimited period of time.

I never said it should be unlimited, nor do I think it should be, clearly employers cannot have an open ended liability for sickness of employees. However where a strong scheme exists (such as Northern's) I also don't see why it should be eroded when the statutory scheme is so utterly pathetic. On which point...

I would say the solution is for the state support to be proportional to your salary prior to being sick, similar to how furlough worked and how parental leave works, presuming you are expected to be able to return to work in the future.

...if that was on the table I would have less concern with allowing employers to weaken their contractual schemes. As I quite agree that the statutory scheme should have some element of proportionality to the previous salary. However we don't live in that world at the moment so where strong contractual schemes exist they should be protected rather than eroded.

If I, and many others no doubt, were to have several weeks sickness all I would be receiving from my employer is £109.40pw which would be a tremendous drop in my wages. Thankfully even the current proposal at Northern isn't so extreme as to kick their staff back onto SSP only. But I see no reason they should see a reduction in their sick pay entitlement at all. Strong schemes, absent a strong state provision, should be encouraged and protected.

 

[43066]

What I'm saying is you can't have unlimited sick pay.

Why do you keep bringing up unlimited sick pay? Nobody has suggested that.

if that was on the table I would have less concern with allowing employers to weaken their contractual schemes. As I quite agree that the statutory scheme should have some element of proportionality to the previous salary. However we don't live in that world at the moment so where strong contractual schemes exist they should be protected rather than eroded.

If I, and many others no doubt, were to have several weeks sickness all I would be receiving from my employer is £109.40pw which would be a tremendous drop in my wages. Thankfully even the current proposal at Northern isn't so extreme as to kick their staff back onto SSP only. But I see no reason they should see a reduction in their sick pay entitlement at all. Strong schemes, absent a strong state provision, should be encouraged and protected.

Absolutely. Bizarre that certain posters seem to think rail staff should just accept a significant worsening of their sick pay entitlement. I know of several colleagues who have been in dire financial straights due to serious long running illnesses - the nature of shift work etc. can make these all the more likely. Why anyone would want to see people in this situation made worse off is extraordinary, and seems a rather unpleasant and distasteful viewpoint to hold.

 

[NI 271]

It's not reasonable to expect employers to be able to pay out sick leave for an unlimited period of time.

I see it hasn't taken long for the usual fabrication of things which exist only in a poster's mind to make it to the discussion. Every single time there's a thread about industrial action, this.

 

[whoosh]

Or the workers need to put forward a set of proposals and changes that benefits both sides.

There are 2 sides to everything, if can't make it work from top, then alternative is bottom rung needs to take the initiative.

It's the 21st Century not some 18th century feudal system where workers don't get a say. And getting a say isn't just being negative and not working, these days can be any anyone contacting the initiatives and suggestion mailbox

Like ASLEF did at South Eastern ahead of all the disputes (but didn't get anywhere because the government wanted a dispute)?

"Productivity items" are exactly the sort of thing you're talking about.

 

[NI 271]

What I'm saying is you can't have unlimited sick pay.

They don't. Please stop trying to introduce things that don't exist into the discussion, it helps nobody and provides no constructive input, which I believe is a requirement for participation on this forum.

 

[Class 170101]

From Post 1

Tucked away in the proposals is a plan to extend the 'contact out of working hours' clause, According to staff that could see staff on a rest day being called in at short notice to cover a job. As one said “What happens if you're in the supermarket shopping or the other end of the country visiting relatives?” When asked about the implications of the independent Hidden report that was produced following the Clapham crash in 1988 – where a signal engineer was found to have worked excessive hours without a day off – a guard replied “one or two managers across the industry as a whole have told me that the Hidden report is only advisory”.

This paragraph should worry staff and passengers alike, particularly the last sentence, there seems to be potential corporate ammensia here about the consequences of Clapham and the near miss just outside London Waterloo just a few short years ago.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

From Post 1


This paragraph should worry staff and passengers alike, particularly the last sentence, there seems to be potential corporate ammensia here about the consequences of Clapham and the near miss just outside London Waterloo just a few short years ago.

Fatigue management is a legal requirement The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations specifically Clause 25.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Some degree of hyperbole in there, I feel. From the article:

“Tucked away in the proposals is a plan to extend the 'contact out of working hours' clause, According to staff that could see staff on a rest day being called in at short notice to cover a job. As one said “What happens if you're in the supermarket shopping or the other end of the country visiting relatives?”

TOCs will not be summoning people to come in and work enforced overtime midway through their day off, no matter what set of plans might be adopted! But the general theme is, overall, completely as everyone expected. Pretty bleak.

A rest day is a rest day. In other words a day away from work. I seem to remember an old DRI agreement for drivers describing it as RF which I took to be roster free, or ummm a day off work. A day when the employee could plan to do stuff like go shopping, go fishing, visit aunt Mabel etc

It is only rest day volunteers who would surely be called in to work, and that would only be late notice sickness etc.

 

[Economist]

At this stage I think the strikes are very much a form of protest, the government's position in the dispute is a purely ideological one and I don't expect any progress to be made until a change of government. The most important thing to me as a driver and I presume it's the same for other grades, is that we don't give T&C's away on the cheap. That said, it's very much a necessary protest, we can't be seen to give up, not now.

I'm hoping a new government will make a sensible "no strings attached" offer to generate some goodwill before they decide the wider rail strategy which would have implications for T&C's.

 

[Ashley Hill]

could see staff on a rest day being called in at short notice to cover a job. As one said “What happens if you're in the supermarket shopping or the other end of the country visiting relatives?”

Does this include those who have made themselves not available for rest day work?

 

[Harvey B]

How many people actually spend more than 3 months on sick anyway?

Say you break your leg ? Develop cancer ? Mental health issues ?

How about Long Covid?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I don't personally get it because I'm self-employed but the whole issue on sick pay is very relevant to any kind of travel and transportation industry and I would agree that these attempts to mess around with it are totally unacceptable and need to be challenged. The rest day working thing I could understand is roughling feathers, I suspect that it's probably come from a manager somewhere whose previously been in another industry for example retail or customer service where getting called in at short notice on your day off has been standard practice for many a long year

What I am struggling a bit to understand is why having staff trained to work more flexibly across different locations of the business is so upsetting to people, okay so I can understand why someone might not feel what they want to be forced to do it but having it as optional would surely produce enough hits in terms of those willing to do it and especially as someone else suggested if travel time to that additional location is paid, and making provision for times of disruption also seems sensible given how much disruption we actually have

Another bet that I'm struggling with is why people think that a change of government really immediately solve all of this, it could potentially solve some of it but personally speaking and without getting too much into politics I can't see any of the current offerings solving all of it or indeed being interested in doing so and some don't even seem to have a plan for what they actually want to do with the rail industry at all which again doesn't inspire confidence

 

[Jurg]

I've never worked on the railways, but I have worked in a variety of jobs and sectors over the last 20-odd years. In other sectors I've dealt with, any talk of 'modernising' terms and conditions generally gives employees more opportunity to take control over their work-life balance. The opposite seems to be the case when the government / management side use this phrase in the railway negotiations. It's an almost Orwellian subversion of language, and I can understand the frustration of the workers who are just trying to make a living and live their lives, with all the complications that entails that might not fit onto a Treasury spreadsheet or management roster.

It's pretty clear to me as an outsider that the employer strings are being pulled by a government spoiling for any high-profile and disruptive fights with unions they can provoke in order to justify more draconian anti-union legislation. It's not just the railway worker's problem, it should be concerning to anyone who has to work for a living.

Whilst I don't expect that a Starmer government would give this country anywhere near the transformative change it needs, I would at least have some hope that union negotiations would return to being an honest process between employers and employees to get the job done, rather than political pantomime to please party donors.

 

[irish_rail]

Another bet that I'm struggling with is why people think that a change of government really immediately solve all of this, it could potentially solve some of it but personally speaking and without getting too much into politics I can't see any of the current offerings solving all of it or indeed being interested in doing so and some don't even seem to have a plan for what they actually want to do with the rail industry at all which again doesn't inspire confidence

Quite simply a change of Government is the reason this dispute will be resolved and fast. Labour will make a smallish pay offer , say 3 or 4 percent, but crucially, it will be no strings attached, ie none of this daft tinkering with Ts and Cs, and that is why the dispute will be brought to an end, and we can get back to a forward thinking profitable railway. The current ideology of attempting to turn the electorate against rail staff will be a thing of the past. Have Labour got questions to answer? Yes, but I'd wager my mortgage on them resolving the dispute within a few months.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Well said the unions need to make counter proposals that reflect that change is needed in certain areas and better they are driving it rather than letting employers. This behaviour would also im sure find far more public support.

Only Northern have even had any kind of proposal to counter.

Our reps met last week, and have been told that there will not be a meeting with the company to discuss as they have nothing to go on. The TOCs have to make the first move (or at least have the meetings to discuss).

Are you seriously suggesting that you would go to your employer and say you're willing to give up certain terms for x% pay rise?

 

[Deafdoggie]

I can't work out if this is supposed to be a joke or not. Do you really think that any political party would actively campaign on extending an ongoing industrial dispute? And what is the correlation between 'the cancellation of HS2' and your town council wanting to redevelop empty premises? The two events would appear to be completely unrelated unless the buildings were vacated due to being in the path of HS2 which now isn't happening in whatever part of the country you live in.

I'm sure rather more people would like to see an end to the dispute than a few people who are feeling some kind of benefit in provincial hospitality.

The cancellation of HS2 gave council's an immediate windful from the budget to spend on local projects
Whilst political parties may not actively say they'll keep the dispute going, they might not say they'll resolve it either!
At the end of the day, they'll respond to local needs and pressures if it gets them in.

 

[yorksrob]

The cancellation of HS2 gave council's an immediate windful from the budget to spend on local projects
Whilst political parties may not actively say they'll keep the dispute going, they might not say they'll resolve it either!
At the end of the day, they'll respond to local needs and pressures if it gets them in.

I'd rather chance a Government that "might not" resolve the dispute than one that is guaranteed not to.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'd rather chance a Government that "might not" resolve the dispute than one that is guaranteed not to.

It would be odd if any rail worker didn't. But I'm saying it shouldn't be a given (which some people think it is) that this will happen. As a political thing, resolving a rail dispute doesn't feature on most people's radar. And if someone said "we'll use the money instead to regenerate the town centre" then people will vote for that.

Obviously some people are now reaching for their keyboards to type "they'll promise that but they won't do it" without realising the exact same argument applies to those potential MPs who say "we will solve the rail strikes"

 

[manmikey]

Sick pay. It is in most companies interest to retain highly trained and experienced staff over medium/long term sickness. In simple terms it is cheaper to pay the sick pay than to recruit and train a replacement. It's in the companies financial interest to have a decent sick pay scheme.

Depot establishments have cover factored in to cover staff absence through sickness.

In reality every few individuals are off work for more than a year, even then they still continue employment so can return to work, be redeployed or leave the industry.

The present Industry standard of 6months full and 6 months half works well for both company & employee.

 

[yorksrob]

It would be odd if any rail worker didn't. But I'm saying it shouldn't be a given (which some people think it is) that this will happen. As a political thing, resolving a rail dispute doesn't feature on most people's radar. And if someone said "we'll use the money instead to regenerate the town centre" then people will vote for that.

Obviously some people are now reaching for their keyboards to type "they'll promise that but they won't do it" without realising the exact same argument applies to those potential MPs who say "we will solve the rail strikes"

I'm not a rail worker and never have been. I need a functioning railway system to go about my business.

However, I dispute the notion that it shouldn't be a given that an incoming government should want to settle industrial disputes. Having public services in long term industrial relations turmoil is not something a responsible government should countenance, let alone aspire to.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Quite simply a change of Government is the reason this dispute will be resolved and fast. Labour will make a smallish pay offer , say 3 or 4 percent, but crucially, it will be no strings attached, ie none of this daft tinkering with Ts and Cs, and that is why the dispute will be brought to an end, and we can get back to a forward thinking profitable railway. The current ideology of attempting to turn the electorate against rail staff will be a thing of the past. Have Labour got questions to answer? Yes, but I'd wager my mortgage on them resolving the dispute within a few months.

I thought the Labour government was all for going for T&Cs as part of its ‘nationalised’ railway to bring everyone on the same T&Cs and costs down under a simplified railway?

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm not a rail worker and never have been. I need a functioning railway system to go about my business.

However, I dispute the notion that it shouldn't be a given that an incoming government should want to settle industrial disputes. Having public services in long term industrial relations turmoil is not something a responsible government should countenance, let alone aspire to.

It might be what you need. It doesn't mean it's what everyone needs.

Any good incoming government would want to do what they claimed they would-this may, or may not, involve settling disputes.

Some places rely on-and need-railways more than others. I think this will be a local issue for many.

 

[Towers]

Does this include those who have made themselves not available for rest day work?

I’ve no idea what Northern’s current Ts & Cs say around this, but it isn’t unusual at other TOCs to have phonecalls go out to those not working to ask if they want overtime on their day off. I don’t really see a major issue with that, you can always say no!

 

[43066]

I've never worked on the railways, but I have worked in a variety of jobs and sectors over the last 20-odd years. In other sectors I've dealt with, any talk of 'modernising' terms and conditions generally gives employees more opportunity to take control over their work-life balance. The opposite seems to be the case when the government / management side use this phrase in the railway negotiations. It's an almost Orwellian subversion of language, and I can understand the frustration of the workers who are just trying to make a living and live their lives, with all the complications that entails that might not fit onto a Treasury spreadsheet or management roster.

Well said, the biggest irony is that some of the “modernisation” is actually the government wanting to bring back things that existed under BR, but were negotiated away to improve work life balance - entire weeks where you won’t even know which days off you have, for example.

It would be odd if any rail worker didn't. But I'm saying it shouldn't be a given (which some people think it is) that this will happen. As a political thing, resolving a rail dispute doesn't feature on most people's radar. And if someone said "we'll use the money instead to regenerate the town centre" then people will vote for that.

Obviously some people are now reaching for their keyboards to type "they'll promise that but they won't do it" without realising the exact same argument applies to those potential MPs who say "we will solve the rail strikes"

So from your posts on this thread you’re saying you actively want an industrial dispute costing the wider economy huge amounts to continue? Thankfully most people have rather more sense.

Can you point to any politicians who are actually saying “let’s keep the dispute going and use the money to regenerate the town centre” - it’s a completely nonsensical suggestion and I suspect you’re only making it to be provocative.

 

[Smidster]

As usual the one sure fire way to get into a horrible tailspin is to visit this forum.

Tomorrow is going to be horrible enough to be trapped at home given the cold.