RMT Industrial Action Update to members

[bleeder4]

It seems a pity if the rail union staff who are on strike then turn up outside any railway premises on that day. You would think railway premises would be the last place they would want to go to on a strike day.

Would you class a heritage railway as railway premises? I went to my local heritage railway once on a strike day, and both the driver of the steam loco and the train guard were striking TOC staff. They were spending their strike day volunteering on the heritage railway.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can think of instances when picketing has legitimately and peacefully prevented members of another union in the same grades going to work on an RMT strike day , ultimately the aim of picketing is to prevent people going into work . The effectiveness of which could then have some bearing on the employers appetite to negotiate . Picketing alone isnt aimed at resolving any dispute , ultimately negotiations are what resolve disputes .

Of course it is up to members should they wish to attend/organise a picket line at their place of work , many don't wish to . Some do its always down to personal choice nobody is censured by either union or employer for their choice in this matter in my experience .

Eventually the result was the majority of staff at the work location joined the RMT , and now even outside of a dispute the fact that the majority are in one union makes challenging management and resolving long standing issues a lot easier .

Either way this seems way off topic given that the prospect of picket lines is months away anyway , the RMT are not in dispute yet with the train operating companies , and there is still an avoidance of dispute process to be exhausted before such can happen .

Just a point of order here. Picket lines are not there to prevent other workers crossing the line to go to work, they are there to persuade them not to.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can think of instances when picketing has legitimately and peacefully prevented members of another union in the same grades going to work on an RMT strike day , ultimately the aim of picketing is to prevent people going into work . The effectiveness of which could then have some bearing on the employers appetite to negotiate . Picketing alone isnt aimed at resolving any dispute , ultimately negotiations are what resolve disputes .

I was wondering what the implications might be if picketing has persuaded members of another trades union going to work on an RMT strike day, especially if those other trades union members are not involved in the same RMT strike action, but your words "legitimately and peacefully" appear to have answered my query. Thank you for explaining matters in such a clear and concise manner.

 

[fishwomp]

Would you class a heritage railway as railway premises? I went to my local heritage railway once on a strike day, and both the driver of the steam loco and the train guard were striking TOC staff. They were spending their strike day volunteering on the heritage railway.

You would need to be picketing premises of the company that employs the strikers - it would be illegal to picket an unrelated organization!

 

[muz379]

Just a point of order here. Picket lines are not there to prevent other workers crossing the line to go to work, they are there to persuade them not to.

Fair comment , they are there to persuade not prevent . Although I guess if they have successfully persuaded someone they have prevented them from going to work .- post edited to reflect the persuade not prevent

I was wondering what the implications might be if picketing has prevented members of another trades union going to work on an RMT strike day, especially if those other trades union members are not involved in the same RMT strike action, but your words "legitimately and peacefully" appear to have answered my query. Thank you for explaining matters in such a clear and concise manner.

If the workers that are persuaded from not going into work are not in a bargaining unit that is on strike (ie different employer/grade) then they are not afforded any protection under industrial action law should they decide not to cross the picket line .

Certainly at the location I was talking about , it was members doing the same job for the same employer that the pickets were seeking to convince . Nobody was trying to persuade people doing deliveries or subcontracted workers on site carrying out building maintenance / upgrades .
That being said anecdotally I have been on some picket lines when royal mail workers (presumably CWU members) have refused to cross picket lines to deliver mail or packages , that of course is a matter then between them and their employer .

 

[dk1]

Not really, as with most things it works both ways, as I'm sure you're aware. Plenty of times staff will have had a call that benefits them for example being asked to do a shorter turn, or a refused leave day has been granted at the last minute and so on.

Exactly or come in later as your first bit is covered. We get far more than we ever give as drivers and the same goes for most guards. No point spiting the nose off your own face.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Statutory only is pretty terrible, generally offered for casual type jobs where workers have no bargaining power, and can be dispensed with easily. I certainly wouldn’t feel grateful for being paid from day one, as it really should be the minimum standard. There is a labour shortage in this country, and wages and Ts and Cs should therefore be improving not getting worse!

You’d think, right? This was a multinational IT provider, dealing with highly skilled workers… and for reasons management were never entirely clear on, a ridiculously high level of staff turnover!

Can you think of occasions where picketing has actually brought about the resolution of an industrial dispute in recent times?

Some of the recent NHS disputes?

 

[NI 271]

Well for an official picket the law, as I'm sure you're aware, is quite restrictive as to what they can and cannot do and where and when they can do it. I note that RMT have also undertaken other protests at various times outside of official strike action in London and other places. It is also, of course, difficult for all RMT members to attend those sorts of events so a picket at their place of employment remains a good way of advocating for their position.

However why don't you cut to the chase of what you're driving at rather than what appears to be an attempt at using the Socratic method to reach a conclusion you're attempting to draw?

*chef's kiss*

Just a point of order here. Picket lines are not there to prevent other workers crossing the line to go to work, they are there to persuade them not to.

If the picket was civil and respectful, I'm not really sure why anyone who works for somebody else, no matter who the employer may be, would pass it and go in to work. Of course, I'm not of the opinion that someone paying me for MY labour is in some way someone I'm beholden to. They NEED that labour, after all, either because they can't be bothered to provide it themselves, or they aren't able to. By employing me they are explicitly stating they are beholden to me, not the other way around. They aren't paying me for altruistic reasons, on that you can be 100% assured.

When I wash my face/clean my teeth/shave, I still have to have some respect for the face looking at me in the mirror. I'd have none if I saw someone who was happy to bow and scrape to anybody in the reflection. Some people, of course, may feel they should be grateful that they are allowed to make money for someone else. Different strokes for different folks, an' that. That doesn't make them right, nor those who view things differently wrong.

 

[DJP78]

It's not reasonable to expect employers to be able to pay out sick leave for an unlimited period of time. If they do they'll have a huge insurance bill, which will go under their payroll costs. At some point state support has to take over. All full time employees pay National Insurance, so it's not unreasonable to expect something back from it before you retire.

It’s not unlimited. Clearly says 6 months full / 6 months half. Then statutory. I don’t think this arrangement is excessive.

It’s up to other employees in other areas of the economy to campaign for better employment conditions.

 

[Krokodil]

You’d think, right? This was a multinational IT provider, dealing with highly skilled workers… and for reasons management were never entirely clear on, a ridiculously high level of staff turnover!

Was it an American company by any chance?

 

[Bantamzen]

If the picket was civil and respectful, I'm not really sure why anyone who works for somebody else, no matter who the employer may be, would pass it and go in to work.

Well a simple answer would be that someone not involved in an industrial dispute would likely not get paid by their employer, maybe even get sacked. And for a lot of people that would be a problem when it came to paying the bills, mortgage or rent, buying food etc etc. I would have thought that would be obvious.

Of course, I'm not of the opinion that someone paying me for MY labour is in some way someone I'm beholden to. They NEED that labour, after all, either because they can't be bothered to provide it themselves, or they aren't able to. By employing me they are explicitly stating they are beholden to me, not the other way around. They aren't paying me for altruistic reasons, on that you can be 100% assured.

When I wash my face/clean my teeth/shave, I still have to have some respect for the face looking at me in the mirror. I'd have none if I saw someone who was happy to bow and scrape to anybody in the reflection. Some people, of course, may feel they should be grateful that they are allowed to make money for someone else. Different strokes for different folks, an' that. That doesn't make them right, nor those who view things differently wrong.

Conversely you also need your employment to pay your bills, so its closer to a symbiotic relationship. Without the workers, there is no business. But without business there are no workers. Well there would be, but it would back breaking around the clock work just to grow enough food to keep on living, something most of us have traded off in the form of capitalism to give ourselves a slight chance at a decent life. But this is all for another thread.

 

[NI 271]

Ah, the forum's favourite shut down. "This is off topic, so although I've said my piece, nobody else should". I wonder how many examples there are across the forums? Hundreds? Thousands? Always makes my teeth itch, that.

 

[northwichcat]

It’s not unlimited. Clearly says 6 months full / 6 months half. Then statutory. I don’t think this arrangement is excessive.

It’s up to other employees in other areas of the economy to campaign for better employment conditions.

As previously stated there was no indication in the thread (without clicking to an external source) what the current arrangement was, so it sounded like the RMT and employees wanted a better deal. So I pointed out there has to be a limit, otherwise employees end up paying indirectly for the benefit and in most cases getting nothing out of it. Having sick pay instead of £30 extra on your pay each month might be deemed acceptable, but would having very lengthy sick pay over £100 per month extra pay?

 

[43066]

You’d think, right? This was a multinational IT provider, dealing with highly skilled workers… and for reasons management were never entirely clear on, a ridiculously high level of staff turnover!

Terrible - and as you say a high staff turnover is inevitable, so also short sighted for a highly skilled role. There may well be an element of local conditions allowing them to get away with it.

Some of Labour’s proposed reforms of the UK employment law regime are overdue, quite frankly. This country is going too far in the direction of the USA.

When I wash my face/clean my teeth/shave, I still have to have some respect for the face looking at me in the mirror. I'd have none if I saw someone who was happy to bow and scrape to anybody in the reflection. Some people, of course, may feel they should be grateful that they are allowed to make money for someone else. Different strokes for different folks, an' that. That doesn't make them right, nor those who view things differently wrong.

Very well said. It’s odd how unions standing up for their members seems to trigger some people.

As previously stated there was no indication in the thread (without clicking to an external source) what the current arrangement was, so it sounded like the RMT and employees wanted a better deal. So I pointed out there has to be a limit, otherwise employees end up paying indirectly for the benefit and in most cases getting nothing out of it. Having sick pay instead of £30 extra on your pay each month might be deemed acceptable, but would having very lengthy sick pay over £100 per month extra pay?

It’s clear from the article that the current arrangements are six months pay, six months half (that matches the position at other TOCs), and that the government is trying to reduce that.

 

[northwichcat]

It’s clear from the article that the current arrangements are six months pay, six months half (that matches the position at other TOCs), and that the government is trying to reduce that.

I don't know why someone decided to quote post 75 of this thread when post 77 responded to it. At the time of posting it wasn't clear that the current arrangement included 6 months sick pay, without clicking on an external source.

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.

Wanting to settle is not the same as resolving. For example, I want to buy a house but I'm not going to get into a bidding war to achieve that.

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?

Which may actually escalate the disputes. No government is going to want to offer the best of every contract in a nationalised rail employee's contract, but the unions are going to push for that.

 

[yorksrob]

Wanting to settle is not the same as resolving. For example, I want to buy a house but I'm not going to get into a bidding war to achieve that.

Long term industrial relations problems are not a good look for a Government.

 

[43066]

I don't know why someone decided to quote post 75 of this thread when post 77 responded to it. At the time of posting it wasn't clear that the current arrangement included 6 months sick pay, without clicking on an external source.

But nobody other than you has ever mentioned sick pay being unlimited, so I don’t understand why you kept coming back to that point? The issue is the government trying to change long-standing industry arrangements.

Wanting to settle is not the same as resolving. For example, I want to buy a house but I'm not going to get into a bidding war to achieve that.

But the evidence suggests that the government still doesn’t want to settle, hence preventing proper negotiations, and continuing to insist on unnecessary changes the unions will never accept and that provoke a reaction amongst the workforce as described in the article.

Which may actually escalate the disputes. No government is going to want to offer the best of every contract in a nationalised rail employee's contract, but the unions are going to push for that.

Indeed it may, but that isn’t actually on the table, so why argue about hypotheticals? The path to a resolution has been shown in Wales and Scotland and by TfL amongst others; moderate changes in exchange for moderate pay rise.

Until that happens, things will simply continue as they are!

Long term industrial relations problems are not a good look for a Government.

Indeed. You’d think that penny would have dropped by now, but the current cabinet is too ideologically stubborn to acknowledge reality.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. You’d think that penny would have dropped by now, but the current cabinet is too ideologically stubborn to acknowledge reality.

They're stuck in 1984.

 

[northwichcat]

But nobody other than you has ever suggested sick pay should be unlimited, so I don’t understand why you kept coming back to that point?

I was replying to posts arguing that the sick pay is inadequate, with some posters mentioning about long term illnesses and going onto SSP not being adequate. I didn't bring up SSP, so posed the question where the limit would be drawn as unlimited employee sick isn't unrealistic.

I haven't seen one post yet where someone has said what they think is the optimum level of company sick pay, when taking into consideration sick pay adds to payroll costs, so limits funds for pay increases. I think only one person, who isn't a rail employee, has said he would keep the sick pay over taking any incentive the employer offered.

The path to a resolution has been shown in Wales and Scotland and by TfL amongst others; moderate changes in exchange for moderate pay rise.

Which isn't how Labour (or anyone else) could get one nationalised rail contract, with full union support. The Welsh and Scottish governments have only suceeded with one franchise each. They haven't tried to create one standard set of terms for everyone who works for any train operator serving either Wales or Scotland. Even if they had, their mission would have been significantly easier to achieve.

 

[43066]

I was replying to posts arguing that the sick pay is inadequate, with some posters mentioning about long term illnesses and going onto SSP not being adequate.

You appear to be conflating different threads of discussion. Nobody has suggested any problem with the current arrangements at Northern (six months full pay, six months half), which are largely standard throughout the industry. The issue is that the government is trying to change them in a way that they know won’t be acceptable to the unions, with no evidence this is necessary, or even that it will lead to significant savings. A couple of people have pointed out that the lack of proper state support via SSP makes this area more significant than it might be if more help was available.

I’m not sure what’s unclear about the above?

Which isn't how Labour (or anyone else) could get one nationalised rail contract, with full union support. The Welsh and Scottish governments have only suceeded with one franchise each. They haven't tried to create one standard set of terms for everyone who works for any train operator serving either Wales or Scotland. Even if they had, their mission would have been significantly easier to achieve.

“One nationalised rail contract” would be virtually impossible to achieve, and wouldn’t be necessary to end the dispute. More to the point, nobody anywhere has actually suggested it as a policy objective, so what’s the point in discussing it?

 

[muz379]

Wanting to settle is not the same as resolving. For example, I want to buy a house but I'm not going to get into a bidding war to achieve that.

I don't think anybody in the indusry really thinks that a Labour government is a silver bullet that is going to resolve all the issues currently at play

But its clear that there is now a significant amount of bad faith and distrust on both sides , and an unwillingness for serious negotiations . Of course some of the issues are caused by officials within the DFT who wont be changed with a change of government . But its clear people think that a change in government might at least allow a proper reset in relations to take place and for some negotiations to take place in good faith .

Which may actually escalate the disputes. No government is going to want to offer the best of every contract in a nationalised rail employee's contract, but the unions are going to push for that.

It isn't going to escalate any current disputes because current disputes are not about that , it may at some point in the future cause a dispute , but I think we are years away from any realistic talks with the unions about single sets of terms and conditions for grades they represent if indeed it ever comes to that .
My understanding was that the plan for GBR was to change from "Train operating companies " to "Train operating units" but still with passenger service contracts so its not clear how or what this will look like in terms of the staff on the ground other than them supposedly all wearing one uniform .

And to be honest if it does ever come to that its going to be fraught with its own difficulties anyway , its a struggle as it is to harmonise terms for people in the same grade at the same toc . Let alone those over vastly different operations .

 

[skyhigh]

Which isn't how Labour (or anyone else) could get one nationalised rail contract, with full union support.

That's not going to happen any time soon.

For example, Northern crew are on 3 separate sets of conditions/contracts depending if they're on the East, West or ex-TPE. Ex-FNW and Northern Spirit were merged in 2004. Staff on ex-TPE conditions were added in 2016.

If in 20 years a single company can't manage to merge relatively similar conditions and pay it's next to impossible that it can be done over the entire country in any reasonable timescale.

 

[winks]

I was listening to Hugh Merriman MP at the Transport Select Cttee and his understanding is that the RMT can no longer call a national strike in respect of phase 2 of the pay negotiations. Any dispute whereby the RMT cannot agree locally with the TOC changes to working practices for 2024 will be put into local area dispute so any potential strike action will become fragmented.

 

[skyhigh]

Any dispute whereby the RMT cannot agree locally with the TOC changes to working practices for 2024 will be put into local area dispute so any potential strike action will become fragmented.

But if every TOC votes for strike action then there's no reason why RMT can't call them all out on the same day. Different disputes, just striking at the same time.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I was listening to Hugh Merriman MP at the Transport Select Cttee and his understanding is that the RMT can no longer call a national strike in respect of phase 2 of the pay negotiations. Any dispute whereby the RMT cannot agree locally with the TOC changes to working practices for 2024 will be put into local area dispute so any potential strike action will become fragmented.

The previous strikes were ballotted and called individually albiet co ordinated, if all the tocs fail to agree then its simply a few months of following the process for disagreement then back to the tocs calling strikes in the same manner, the only way it would get fragmented is if several tocs manage to come to agreement but it doesn't seem any are willing to at the moment going by the rmt

 

[Bantamzen]

Ah, the forum's favourite shut down. "This is off topic, so although I've said my piece, nobody else should". I wonder how many examples there are across the forums? Hundreds? Thousands? Always makes my teeth itch, that.

I'm going to guess this was aimed at me. So to retort, where did I actually say that?

What I said was the wider discussion about socialist values was not for this topic. But if you'd like to start one, I'd more more than happy to discuss it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm going to guess this was aimed at me. So to retort, where did I actually say that?

What I said was the wider discussion about socialist values was not for this topic. But if you'd like to start one, I'd more more than happy to discuss it.

Well said. Such matters could form the basis of a new thread on the General Discussion forum of this website.

 

[Krokodil]

If in 20 years a single company can't manage to merge relatively similar conditions and pay it's next to impossible that it can be done over the entire country in any reasonable timescale.

Though GWR did manage to buy out their "West" (former Wessex Trains) and "LTV" (former Thames Trains) drivers and harmonise them into the "GWR Driver" umbrella. Leaving only the "HSS" (ex-Great Western Trains) drivers who were on too good a deal to be bought out and whose numbers will steadily be whittled down through natural wastage. What helps there though is that there is enough overlap between the three former franchises that you had existing depots to start with. Trying to bring in a "new starter, new contract" policy when you are starting from scratch is much more difficult.

 

[northwichcat]

The previous strikes were ballotted and called individually albiet co ordinated, if all the tocs fail to agree then its simply a few months of following the process for disagreement then back to the tocs calling strikes in the same manner, the only way it would get fragmented is if several tocs manage to come to agreement but it doesn't seem any are willing to at the moment going by the rmt

Or if the RMT meetings with the TOCs can't all be arranged in the same weeks. Of course, if say GWR offered a meeting on 9 March and the one with LNER wasn't until 21 March, they could wait until the 21 March before annoucing any further strikes at GWR if the talks go badly.

 

[DJP78]

As previously stated there was no indication in the thread (without clicking to an external source) what the current arrangement was, so it sounded like the RMT and employees wanted a better deal. So I pointed out there has to be a limit, otherwise employees end up paying indirectly for the benefit and in most cases getting nothing out of it. Having sick pay instead of £30 extra on your pay each month might be deemed acceptable, but would having very lengthy sick pay over £100 per month extra pay?

Doesn’t matter what link we’re talking about or where the information came from; your post equates to misinformation.

The facts are, you made reference to employers not being being able to pay unlimited sick pay.

No one has, to my knowledge, posted anything about arguing for unlimited sick pay. Nor has it ever been reported anywhere in the media that railway staff are paid ‘unlimited’ sick pay, because this isn’t the case. I think everyone understands there has to be a limit on sick pay, hence the current policy of 6 months 100% / 6 months 50% then statutory. Of vital importance if you are facing treatment for cancer, major operations or some other longterm condition.

YOU are the only person that mentioned it which is why several of us have pulled you up on on this.

And, no one that I’m speaking to wants money in their pocket over the existing sick pay arrangements. Nor is anyone, to my knowledge, asking for enhanced sick pay.

It’s simply that the RMT, and this will apply to ASLEF also, won’t accept an attack on their sick pay i.e., diminished T’s & C’s

I don't think anybody in the indusry really thinks that a Labour government is a silver bullet that is going to resolve all the issues currently at play

But it’s clear that there is now a significant amount of bad faith and distrust on both sides , and an unwillingness for serious negotiations . Of course some of the issues are caused by officials within the DFT who wont be changed with a change of government . But it’s clear people think that a change in government might at least allow a proper reset in relations to take place and for some negotiations to take place in good faith .

I’d second that

Labour won’t have a magic wand to sprinkle magic dust over the railways

But, I’m inclined to think that a Labour Gov will be more conducive to discussions taking place, whereby both teams of negotiators can at least trust one another to act in good faith

Can you think of occasions where picketing has actually brought about the resolution of an industrial dispute in recent times?

Yep. Barristers who went out on strike in 2023 and forced the Gov into increasing their pay by 15% on legal aid fees for Crown cases

+£3m for case preparation

+4m prerecorded cross-examinations

Women’s equal pay act 1970 introduced after the 1968 Ford Dagenham sewing machinist strike.

1880 gas workers & dockers went on protracted strike after doing 16hr days, winning an eight hour working day which was passed in parliament and became the new norm.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation research finds that heavily unionised workplaces in the private sector achieve higher pay awards through collective bargaining. They report a direct correlation between fewer hours lost to strikes and lower wage rises.

History tells us that strikes can bring about positive change provided there is a collective willingness for negotiation….. wink wink Tories