RMT rejects latest offer from both Network Rail and RDG (TOCs)

[SirAlf]

The top brass at the RMT are convening on the 15th… so expect strike dates to be announced then. Most likely to start the first Saturday in March I reckon….

Well that's me travelling a different route on that date. Football in the North-east. So I could travel out Fri and back Sun but that'd cost me 2 nights in a hotel. Or instead I could go on the supporters bus. Bit of a no-brainer isn't it?

WFH I think is a big reason why the dispute is still ongoing, as it means it is less disruptive to the economy. Five years ago, the government would have had little choice but to find an agreement as a long running dispute would have been to disruptive to the economy.

The RMT do seem to be aware of this and hence are hence targeting leisure travellers by striking on Saturdays. The risk here is this ends driving leisure passengers away from the railways whom I suspect are able to shift to other modes of transport more easily than commuters are. At the moment it is just about tolerable for leisure travellers as most Saturdays are not impacted, but if the RMT were to strike every Saturday then I think the equation would change significantly for those passengers.

Targeting leisure travellers? What a truly brilliant idea, I commend you. It'd kill two birds with one stone because it'd get rid of virtually all those pesky football supporters (aka paying customers) that many on this forum would like to permanently ban from travelling

 

[JonathanH]

Lynch should be proactive and say we will recommend the offer but offer alternative conditions that meet RDG half way for example

It is all very well to say that but what if the half way position isn't acceptable to RMT members? Are any of the negative changes to Terms and Conditions that come with the pay increase actually acceptable?

 

[weeklycommuter]

The RMT are not bothered about people turning up as they will get paid and the strike will still cause the disruption they want to achieve. The operators and NR wont risk planning anything extra as they can't be sure whose going to come in. Until Lynch accepts that the industry is in a difficult place and that vast amounts of money are being expended to support it but they need to provide a contribution this wont move forward. He needs to get the exec to move the red lines so they can demonstrate they will engage with meaningful workplace changes but i suspect the likes of Dempsey and others on the nat exec wont budge.

So if Network Rail knew in advance the number of staff who would be at work in each workplace on a strike day the RMT's industrial action at Network Rail would be a lot less effective?

 

[scrapy]

The MPs rise is 2.9%. If the unions were prepared to accept the same percentage then they might also be offered a no conditions attached deal. But would staff be prepared to accept this?

MPs pay has risen by over 10k a year since 2019 when rail workers last had a payrise. I don't think they've had any drastic changes to ts&cs. I'm sure RMT members would accept such a deal, especially if back dated.

 

[43066]

Ever heard the phrase "echo chamber" with those having views not following the loudest voices keeping quiet or risk getting bullied or cast to one side as unmutual.

Those not agreeing simply staying quiet or lying when it comes to agreeing to things. What people say in public doesn't always reflect what they would do in the privacy of their own home/voting booth. How many people will say they will vote labour/lib dem but secretly vote for the tories when it comes to putting that cross on the paper?

How many reps simply discarded any feedback which didn't fit their own personal views when it came to feeding back to the main council about the deal?

I’ll ask you again, do you actually know any RMT members? I love how people on his forum know more than actual union members.

Giving public sector employees a no-strings inflationary payrise would simply deepen the budget deficit and thus require more cutbacks elsewhere - and more to the point, not only would it do so this year, but it would also do so for every year going forwards, with future increases compounded.

This is an argument against ever giving anyone a pay rise. Isn’t it funny how giving millions of pensioners and benefits claimants a rise isn’t inflationary, yet giving a rise to less than 100,000 rail staff is.

The government is also spending more money bankrolling this dispute than they would by just settling it…

Do the organisations which those public sector employees work for also require far more subsidy than pre-Covid?

The NHS budget goes up year on year, last I checked. I don’t see doctors and nurses having their Ts and Cs attacked.

Employees of the privatised railway are only now classified as “public sector” because it suits the government…

 

[Enthusiast]

Employees of the privatised railway are only now classified as “public sector” because it suits the government…

I think that's possibly more a function of the railways being in receipt of massive taxpayer subsidies, which increased considerably during the pandemic. In that respect, though, the railways have never really been "private sector" concerns.

 

[Sleepy]

Right, so that doesn't work then. The odds are unfairly stacked too heavily against the workers in this.

Perhaps a no booking on from Friday 12.00 noon until 11.59 am Saturday type action would cause far more issues for less cost to staff ?

 

[Watershed]

This is an argument against ever giving anyone a pay rise. Isn’t it funny how giving millions of pensioners and benefits claimants a rise isn’t inflationary, yet giving a rise to less than 100,000 rail staff is.

Nobody is arguing there shouldn't be an increase; it's an argument against unrestrained pay rises matching inflation. My post was responding to @ashkeba's claim that there always seems to be money for bankers but not for workers, which as I explained, is not the right comparison. It's like suggesting that since you can afford a £500 a month mortgage, you can afford to borrow £500 a month on a credit card. It just doesn't work that way unfortunately.

The government is also spending more money bankrolling this dispute than they would by just settling it…

The loss of revenue so far has been more than one year's worth of pay increases. But that completely ignores the fact that this increase needs to be paid next year, and every year after that (as future increases will compound on whatever increase happens this year) - as well as the fact that any increase awarded in the rail industry will set a benchmark for the minimum that people will expect in other industries. So the financial consequences are far wider than just the cash cost of the increase this year.

The NHS budget goes up year on year, last I checked. I don’t see doctors and nurses having their Ts and Cs attacked.

The NHS budget hasn't increased by ~30%; rail subsidy has, and that's with zero increase (for most TOCs). And though we may find it unpalatable, public support for the doctors' and nurses' dispute is also far higher than that for the rail dispute - so the government has far more incentive to make a generous offer in relation to the former dispute.

Employees of the privatised railway are only now classified as “public sector” because it suits the government…

They're classified as "public sector" because the government has almost complete control of what happens on a day-to-day basis. The Minister (or one of their deputies) has to sign off on almost every £ of expenditure.

Something tells me you'd probably not like the look of a railway that could stand on its own two feet so as to justify private sector classification... didn't Serpell propose to close the MML? The reality is, the industry is going to be subject to considerable political interference for as long as it relies on public subsidy to exist.

 

[Sleepy]

I'm wondering if people on here actually realise some of these conditions the government wants. some of them are appalling.

Quite honestly no - if railway people want some kind of certainty of working hours they might as well go and work for Tesco, the pay isn't going to be that far behind the way things are going. Is this why "apprenticeships" roles are being pushed now ? TOCs have realised they're going to have a serious recruitment and retention problem soon (drivers excluded) EMR seem to be constantly advertising for guards near me (£31K Sundays inside and it's a smaller depot so high turnover of staff)

 

[12LDA28C]

I think there are elements in the RMT who do want to use it to damage the Government.

And can you blame them, bearing in mind that previously in this dispute the Government was claiming that it was for employers and unions to sort out, despite the TOCs being prevented from entering pay negotiations by Government? Shapps deliberately misled the public and the house by claiming it 'wasn't his job to get involved' whilst personally blocking talks.

 

[66701GBRF]

Nobody is arguing there shouldn't be an increase; it's an argument against unrestrained pay rises matching inflation.

Nobody, from what I have seen or heard, have demanded an inflation matching payrise.

 

[12LDA28C]

The loss of revenue so far has been more than one year's worth of pay increases. But that completely ignores the fact that this increase needs to be paid next year, and every year after that (as future increases will compound on whatever increase happens this year) - as well as the fact that any increase awarded in the rail industry will set a benchmark for the minimum that people will expect in other industries. So the financial consequences are far wider than just the cash cost of the increase this year.

The quote from the Rail Minister Huw Merriman was quite clear: the cost of the national rail dispute has been far more than it would have taken to meet the demands of rail workers over pay, job security and conditions. Seems quite unequivocal to me.

It is not just loss of revenue that needs to be considered. The wider damage to the economy has also been huge.

 

[ssray]

Personally I was asked twice for my views on rejecting the offer, once was a in formal WhatsApp request and the second was a teams type RMT meeting,

I cannot see how the transport minister can say it's a kick in the teeth when the government have spent more on continuing the strikes then it would have cost to implement a pay rise, the new terms and conditions, they must have known that they would be rejected

 

[londonmidland]

I’m planning to travel on the Saturday the 25th of Feb. Am I safe to book tickets now for that date or shall I wait for strike days to be announced first? Thanks.

 

[The Planner]

I’m planning to travel on the Saturday the 25th of Feb. Am I safe to book tickets now for that date or shall I wait for strike days to be announced first? Thanks.

Unless they declare in the next few hours then the 25th is less than 14 days away, so they can't.

 

[Silver Cobra]

I’m planning to travel on the Saturday the 25th of Feb. Am I safe to book tickets now for that date or shall I wait for strike days to be announced first? Thanks.

If there are no strikes announced by the end of today the 25th should be fine. The unions have to give a minimum 2 weeks notice for strike action, which means they have to announce them today to strike on the 25th.

**EDIT: The Planner beat me to it

I'm booked to travel with LNER on the 4th and 8th of March, both of which are dates right in the firing line for potential strike action as it stands. If I was a betting person, I would say strikes will be called on at least one of those dates (the 4th most likely of the two), and more than likely both. So cue a nervous wait over the next 11 days for me.

 

[londonmidland]

Thank you both.

 

[12LDA28C]

I’m planning to travel on the Saturday the 25th of Feb. Am I safe to book tickets now for that date or shall I wait for strike days to be announced first? Thanks.

I wouldn't expect any further strikes to be announced until after the RMT exec has convened on February 15th which would put the next strike date as 1st March at the earliest, although I hear rumours of Cheltenham Gold Cup weekend being targeted.

 

[43066]

I think that's possibly more a function of the railways being in receipt of massive taxpayer subsidies, which increased considerably during the pandemic. In that respect, though, the railways have never really been "private sector" concerns.

It’s private sector when it comes to rolling stock leasing, public sector when it comes to denying pay rises.

It’s whatever suits the government at the time…

Nobody is arguing there shouldn't be an increase; it's an argument against unrestrained pay rises matching inflation. My post was responding to @ashkeba's claim that there always seems to be money for bankers but not for workers, which as I explained, is not the right comparison. It's like suggesting that since you can afford a £500 a month mortgage, you can afford to borrow £500 a month on a credit card. It just doesn't work that way unfortunately.

Nobody has seriously argued for above
inflation increases on the railway, either. The issue is unreasonable changes to Ts and Cs which will make the life of staff pretty unbearable - again if you don’t actually work railway shifts it’s easy to dismiss these concerns. I realise you consider operational railway roles to be some kind of cushy number, but I can assure you the reality is rather different, and Ts and Cs really matter…

The loss of revenue so far has been more than one year's worth of pay increases. But that completely ignores the fact that this increase needs to be paid next year, and every year after that (as future increases will compound on whatever increase happens this year) - as well as the fact that any increase awarded in the rail industry will set a benchmark for the minimum that people will expect in other industries. So the financial consequences are far wider than just the cash cost of the increase this year.

Again, this appears to be an argument for never giving pay rises to anyone in the public sector! It also isn’t true that it sets a minimum bench mark - indeed the figures already tabled are enough to resolve the dispute - the sticking point is Ts and Cs.

You’re also conveniently ignoring the fact that many staff have already gone several years without pay rises, and will continue to cost less in real terms if a below inflation pay rise is awarded.

The NHS budget hasn't increased by ~30%; rail subsidy has, and that's with zero increase (for most TOCs). And though we may find it unpalatable, public support for the doctors' and nurses' dispute is also far higher than that for the rail dispute - so the government has far more incentive to make a generous offer in relation to the former dispute

The NHS budget is increasing rapidly, and has indeed increased by a third over the last ten years or so. The cost of subsidising the railway pales onto insignificance compared to spending on the NHS. Unfortunately the current government is ideologically opposed to subsidising public services which is part of the reason they’re so poor in this country - it’s odd that you seem to want to go into bat for them.

They're classified as "public sector" because the government has almost complete control of what happens on a day-to-day basis. The Minister (or one of their deputies) has to sign off on almost every £ of expenditure.

Well the sooner that position changes the better - unless you think the current state of some parts of the industry is desirable.

Something tells me you'd probably not like the look of a railway that could stand on its own two feet so as to justify private sector classification... didn't Serpell propose to close the MML? The reality is, the industry is going to be subject to considerable political interference for as long as it relies on public subsidy to exist.

That’s funny, it was classified as private sector for many years despite being subsidised (at least TOCs were, I think NR has always been public sector?)!

Some political interference is inevitable but that doesn’t change the fact that the government’s approach throughout this dispute has been totally unreasonable
on any objective analysis. They spent months refusing to allow negotiations to take place, while lying about it, and have then tabled “offers” that are designed to be rejected. It’s extraordinary that people on here are so biased against railway unions that they appear unable to acknowledge what is going on.

 

[JonathanH]

Unfortunately the current government is ideologically opposed to subsidising public services which is part of the reason they’re so poor in this country - it’s odd that you seem to want to go into bat for them.

Yet, at the same time, people think the tax burden is higher than it should be. That kind of suggests again that money is tight. Which taxes do you want to see increased to meet the pay demands?

Indeed, which taxes are the unions suggesting get increased to pay for the pay increases and retention of current terms and conditions? No doubt they would want to target 'fat cats', and there is some sense in that but increasing the higher rate of tax to 50% would bring in comparatively little money.

A fully structured plan from the Union on how to afford what they are seeking might be a good intervention.

 

[43066]

Yet, at the same time, people think the tax burden is higher than it should be. That kind of suggests again that money is tight. Which taxes do you want to see increased to meet the pay demands?

Indeed, which taxes are the unions suggesting get increased to pay for the pay increases and retention of current terms and conditions? No doubt they would want to target 'fat cats', and there is some sense in that but increasing the higher rate of tax to 50% would bring in comparatively little money.

A fully structured plan from the Union on how to afford what they are seeking might be a good intervention.

Some people think the tax burden is too high . I agree just raising taxes is a pretty poor way of increasing tax revenue! Ultimately I’m generally in favour of a simpler tax system, albeit perhaps more could have been done with windfall taxes on energy companies.

The amounts of money aren’t really the issue when it comes to the railway. Again if you look at how much is spent on the triple lock, non means tested winter fuel allowance etc. It’s worth pointing out again that a below inflation rise such as that which has been tabled means staff costs are going down in real terms!

 

[the sniper]

Just to remind you what the union's own rules say, as evidently you can't remember:


It makes the union a really, really easy target.

Late to reply to this as I presume your post was held up in moderation... [EDIT] I pointed that out myself subsequently, having not even seen your post, I wouldn't have thought anybody here was unaware of it. But the idea that is the basis for the dispute is clearly ridiculous or at least naïve.

 

[LowLevel]

Yet, at the same time, people think the tax burden is higher than it should be. That kind of suggests again that money is tight. Which taxes do you want to see increased to meet the pay demands?

Indeed, which taxes are the unions suggesting get increased to pay for the pay increases and retention of current terms and conditions? No doubt they would want to target 'fat cats', and there is some sense in that but increasing the higher rate of tax to 50% would bring in comparatively little money.

A fully structured plan from the Union on how to afford what they are seeking might be a good intervention.

A frank explanation from the Government on why each and every point is essential (not just opportunist grabbing) and any safeguarding to ensure they don't have excessive impacts on people's personal lives would be helpful (for example, why is it crucial to potentially to cause my rest day patterns carefully matched over many years with my partner and friends to be totally disrupted). Literally everything is Efficient Efficient Efficient. It isn't written in a way that appeals to people or makes a case for acceptance of change.

The second thing would be a useful explanation as to precisely why the Government/TOCs feel the Scottish/Welsh approach is impossible rather than just undesirable for their side. It rankles that I could work at Shrewsbury for TfW and have none of this to worry about it, whereas people in the next building over on the station at the WMR depot are being treated entirely differently.

 

[deltic]

But if the deal is accepted, Lynch won't earn so much from media appearance fees

You dont get paid for media interviews (at least I never have!) - if you are lucky you get a taxi to get you to a TV studio for a 6am slot

 

[MP33]

I work for a Public Sector organisation, which was the Civil Service. At a recent Q&A with the Board and the CEO, we were advised that both the Board and the Unions agreed that the demand by the Civil Service unions for 10% was having a laugh.

All staff earning less than £50k have been given a £1000 cost of living payment.

 

[Snow1964]

Employees of the privatised railway are only now classified as “public sector” because it suits the government…

Probably suits the employees too, knowing their pension scheme will be topped up by the Government. I doubt that many would like their pension cut down to a share of the current privatised pension pot.

Quite frankly striking every saturday would play straight into the hands of government, who are desperate to downplay current rail usage and set the network on a path of long term stagnation and cost-stripping, and would no doubt relish the idea of the currently very healthy weekend leisure travel market dwindling away. The unions need to be very careful here; perhaps for the first time ever there is a real possibility of doing lasting damage to the industry, which is in a position of fragility not seen for generations. Let's hope they realise this.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A frank explanation from the Government on why each and every point is essential (not just opportunist grabbing) and any safeguarding to ensure they don't have excessive impacts on people's personal lives would be helpful (for example, why is it crucial to potentially to cause my rest day patterns carefully matched over many years with my partner and friends to be totally disrupted). Literally everything is Efficient Efficient Efficient. It isn't written in a way that appeals to people or makes a case for acceptance of change.

This is why the unions need to be proactive at the moment they are letting operators (yes as directed by DfT) make all the running - flip the tables and at least show a willingness to engage in how the industry adjusts to the situation it finds itself in.

The second thing would be a useful explanation as to precisely why the Government/TOCs feel the Scottish/Welsh approach is impossible rather than just undesirable for their side. It rankles that I could work at Shrewsbury for TfW and have none of this to worry about it, whereas people in the next building over on the station at the WMR depot are being treated entirely differently.

Thats a fair view but the devolved govts are going to come up against a brick wall when they find Westminster doesn't send them anymore money. In the case of Scotland they are proposing to add another 1% to the tax rates to help raise funds. Wales doesn't have this luxury.

 

[Snow1964]

The RMT do seem to be aware of this and hence are hence targeting leisure travellers by striking on Saturdays. The risk here is this ends driving leisure passengers away from the railways whom I suspect are able to shift to other modes of transport more easily than commuters are.

Oh great a 6 day railway without Saturdays

Thats playing straight into hands of those who want to cut staff by 1/7th

 

[the sniper]

Nobody is arguing there shouldn't be an increase; it's an argument against unrestrained pay rises matching inflation.

I don't know know anybody who realistically expects that to happen, yet there always seems to be people here who wish to just participate in an argument against that. It isn't really relevant.

 

[Watershed]

I don't know know anybody who realistically expects that to happen, yet there always seems to be people here who wish to just participate in an argument against that. It isn't really relevant.

I didn't bring it up - I was responding to a comment that said:

there always seems to be ludicrous money for this government to waste on bankers but rarely sensible money to pay the workers in line with inflation