If this turns out to be the second offer in a row that goes that way (Northern being the other) then you have to ask whether the RMT negotiators and National Executive are getting out of touch with the feelings of their members.
Interesting!
I suppose you could call it a dead duck offer.
They were just playing chicken...
Though if the strings have indeed been cut then the answer to a poor RD rate is just not to volunteer.
Absolutely. They obviously value the time of a manager working a train more than that of a TM. No way will they be able to deliver the new timetable without rest day work and very few TMs will now make themselves available.
Surely questions need to be asked of the RMT. This is the second consecutive deal they've negotiated and put to ballot which has been overwhelmingly rejected, thus wasting everyone's time. Are they out of touch with their members on such issues?
Impossible.
Genuine question - why is this such a no-no in rail? Temp staff in every other industry (supply teachers, temp doctors/nurses) get paid a lot more per day than the 'normal' staff.
It is very common in rail, when considering overtime, for staff to earn a lot more than their managers. In some areas even without overtime it can happen but that is rarer.
You're mistaken. That is, in fact, precisely how the allocation of funding to different departments works.
I am referring to a manager getting paid £300 overtime payment to work as a TM. At the moment if a TM volunteers to work a rest day they get paid at the normal rate.
A temporary member of staff would need to learn the route knowledge, pass the rules, and PTS, fire saftey and first aid. Pass dispatch assessment and learn 2 types of traction. Emergency coupling and revenue.Depending on which depot they are at it would take a minimum of 5 months and a maximum of 8 months.
So in your own post you make reference to the strike action from the RMT that has either been threatened or carried out at some point every year for the last 3 or 4 years. I don't really know how you can't accept that that means its very common.
Should it? Or is the issue that the Dft doesn't want them to? Why would the Dft want to fund a large amount of additional capacity at a time when the railway is hemorrhaging cash if its possible and cheaper to just get managers to cover the small amount of excess work ad-hoc?
How many new roles have you secured funding for and recruited for personally in the last 6 months since the present government took over the DfT?
The limiting factor in long-term industrial action is usually people's long-term commitments to pay bills that can't be renegotiated without great difficulty, like rents, mortgages, car finance and so on. If action only takes place on Sundays, or nearly always on Sundays, the staff will still be getting their full basic pay. Generally that means the above isn't a huge problem.
Plus the knock on effect of early Saturday night finishes and late Monday morning starts.
