RMT Talks

[ROCsteadycrew]

I’ve heard a suggestion that the RMT have put this out to a vote and are recommending acceptance - can anyone confirm?

This is correct and the voting has started (online - a link was provided in the 2nd RMT email). = edit : for NR

 

[Geeves]

I’ve heard a suggestion that the RMT have put this out to a vote and are recommending acceptance - can anyone confirm?

Yes Bald Rick, and through the wizardry of the internet they organised an electronic vote starting on the 16th with a closing date of (I think it was) the 27th.

 

[CoachB]

Still awaiting movement on the NR side I think?

RMT have put the network rail deal to a vote, emails were sent out yesterday and votes are to in by 11:00 on the 25th September

 

[43066]

RMT have put the network rail deal to a vote, emails were sent out yesterday and votes are to in by 11:00 on the 25th September

Thanks - good news!

 

[CFRAIL]

Yes Bald Rick, and through the wizardry of the internet they organised an electronic vote starting on the 16th with a closing date of (I think it was) the 27th.

I think it's 11:00 on 25th Sept the e-referendum closes

 

[class442]

Pointless referencing historical pay rises linked to RPI. Pretty much everyone who's a realist has accepted that those kind of increases are a thing of the past, which is why the drivers are looking likely to accept their offer which is well below inflation rates since 2022.

With RPI coming back down, currently 3.5% and was as low as 2.9% in June, why shouldn't we expect an RPI matched increase if RPI is say only 2.5% next year?

 

[DMckduck97]

With RPI coming back down, currently 3.5% and was as low as 2.9% in June, why shouldn't we expect an RPI matched increase if RPI is say only 2.5% next year?

Because OP obviously believes nobody ever again should get a fair pay increase in line with inflation.

It's hardly a rise if it's below or at inflation rate really is it anyway.

 

[12LDA28C]

With RPI coming back down, currently 3.5% and was as low as 2.9% in June, why shouldn't we expect an RPI matched increase if RPI is say only 2.5% next year?

Because if RPI was then 10% the year after, you wouldn't expect a pay rise that matched that, as we have seen with recent offers to both RMT and ASLEF. The point is that pay rises simply won't be inextricably linked to inflation going forward.

Would you expect a reduction in salary if RPI was coming in at -1%?

Because OP obviously believes nobody ever again should get a fair pay increase in line with inflation.

It's hardly a rise if it's below or at inflation rate really is it anyway.

This is nonsense. What I believe and what I expect will actually happen in reality are two very different things.

 

[Towers]

My p

Because if RPI was then 10% the year after, you wouldn't expect a pay rise that matched that, as we have seen with recent offers to both RMT and ASLEF. The point is that pay rises simply won't be inextricably linked to inflation going forward.

Would you expect a reduction in salary if RPI was coming in at -1%?



This is nonsense. What I believe and what I expect will actually happen in reality are two very different things.

Indeed - put simply, the world just doesn’t work like that!

The pitfalls of giving ever increasing payrise percentages have been well documented in recent years, it simply fuels further inflation. The percentages being awarded, without the attempted imposition of conditions and with “no strings”, are pretty decent in the grand scheme of things and the current climate. Rail staff and their unions have done well.

 

[dk1]

Indeed - put simply, the world just doesn’t work like that!

The pitfalls of giving ever increasing payrise percentages have been well documented in recent years, it simply fuels further inflation. The percentages being awarded, without the attempted imposition of conditions and with “no strings”, are pretty decent in the grand scheme of things and the current climate. Rail staff and their unions have done well.

Nothing would have been acceptable with strings attached unless the increase had been far higher but even that is debatable.

 

[DMckduck97]

My p

Indeed - put simply, the world just doesn’t work like that!

The pitfalls of giving ever increasing payrise percentages have been well documented in recent years, it simply fuels further inflation. The percentages being awarded, without the attempted imposition of conditions and with “no strings”, are pretty decent in the grand scheme of things and the current climate. Rail staff and their unions have done well.

Could you attach your fact based sources for payrises fueling further inflation?

 

[Mountain Man]

Would you expect a reduction in salary if RPI was coming in at -1%?

Given that RPI has only been negative once in the last 60 years I wouldn't think its a scenario that merits significant consideration. The UK isn't Japan which has a history of deflation

 

[officewalla]

The fixation with RPI from some members is bewildering. RPI has not been used as the basis for most economic decisions for a very long while as it is a discredited and inaccurate metric. Headline inflation is measured using the CPI not even the CPIH as they more accurately reflect rising costs.

 

[Tractor2018]

The fixation with RPI from some members is bewildering. RPI has not been used as the basis for most economic decisions for a very long while as it is a discredited and inaccurate metric. Headline inflation is measured using the CPI not even the CPIH as they more accurately reflect rising costs.

Discredited and inaccurate.......yet it continues to be used for setting regulated fares, and by companies increasing my bills each year.

So once everybody is on the same page we can talk about CPI, or whatever alternative.

 

[43066]

The pitfalls of giving ever increasing payrise percentages have been well documented in recent years, it simply fuels further inflation.

Not in this case, to be far. The awards given are not real terms rises if you look at inflation over the period covered.

The covid period was an exception, and both unions accepted no pay rise for the 2020/21. Going forward I would expect the unions’ starting point generally to be an annual rise equal to the rate of inflation (circa. 2% in “normal” years), as anything less than that is a real terms pay cut. Anything above the rate of inflation would generally be for productivity changes, Ts and Cs being sold etc.

 

[al78]

Could you attach your fact based sources for payrises fueling further inflation?

It is logical to think that pay rises fuel inflation. The money to fund pay rises has to come from somewhere, that somewhere being increased taxation, increased costs of goods and services, or reduced profit. All of those result in a reduction in disposable income for at least a subset of the population.

Given that RPI has only been negative once in the last 60 years I wouldn't think its a scenario that merits significant consideration. The UK isn't Japan which has a history of deflation

True, but that doesn't answer the question, which is would you expect a decrease in salary IF inflation was negative?

 

[43066]

It is logical to think that pay rises fuel inflation. The money to fund pay rises has to come from somewhere, that somewhere being increased taxation, increased costs of goods and services, or reduced profit. All of those result in a reduction in disposable income for at least a subset of the population.

The last period of high inflation was not caused by wages rising. It was caused by a combination of Ukraine, fuel prices and food prices increasing, and the government largesse of the Covid years pumping money into the economy. That is AIUI the general consensus - are there any respected economists/economic publications you can cite who disagree with that?

The last government was fond of suggesting that public sector pay rises may fuel inflation, while continuing to hand out inflationary triple lock increases to pensioners, and promising equally inflationary tax cuts: ie it was political nonsense.

True, but that doesn't answer the question, which is would you expect a decrease in salary IF inflation was negative?

A decrease smaller than the rate of deflation would be a real terms increase. I’m not sure why this is being asked, though, as deflation is highly unlikely.

 

[Mountain Man]

It is logical to think that pay rises fuel inflation. The money to fund pay rises has to come from somewhere, that somewhere being increased taxation, increased costs of goods and services, or reduced profit. All of those result in a reduction in disposable income for at least a subset of the population.


True, but that doesn't answer the question, which is would you expect a decrease in salary IF inflation was negative?

I would expect the same thing as happened with student loan interest rates which were inflation linked when inflation went zero. You get a 0 or in that student loan case 0.01 percent so as not to fuel deflation.

Your logic is curious and maths bad. You are saying don't fuel inflation with wage rises.

So think that through...

Below inflation pay deal results in fall in disposable income. That's a certainty. Yet wages are only a small part of the driver of inflation so an inflation level or above pay deal does not have the same proportionate impact on inflation as the gap in the wage rise.

Your logic only holds if inflation is only driven by wages, it isn't.

Therefore the basic maths shows a wage rise at least in line inflation is the economically most beneficial outcome.

Nevermind you are ignoring the most basic question. Which is more important as a judge of the success of society? It's inflation rate or the wealth of it citizens.

 

[12LDA28C]

Given that RPI has only been negative once in the last 60 years I wouldn't think its a scenario that merits significant consideration. The UK isn't Japan which has a history of deflation

I'm aware, thankyou. That answer was in response to someone who still expects pay rises to be linked to inflation, despite the fact that both RMT and ASLEF have been offered (and accepted) increases well below RPI.

The fixation with RPI from some members is bewildering. RPI has not been used as the basis for most economic decisions for a very long while as it is a discredited and inaccurate metric. Headline inflation is measured using the CPI not even the CPIH as they more accurately reflect rising costs.

Given that pay rises in the Railway industry have historically been based on the RPI figure, the facts you claim are irrelevant. Pay rises have never been based on CPI, end of story. It's not a 'fixation', merely fact. I'm sorry if you find that 'bewildering'.

 

[Bald Rick]

Discredited and inaccurate.......yet it continues to be used for setting regulated fares, and by companies increasing my bills each year.

Its a bit chicken and egg. Personally, I think faes should be linked to CPI, and wages similarly.

Having personally studied the differences between RPI and CPI, my official (and exclusive to this forum) opinion is that RPI is s**te.

The last period of high inflation was not caused by wages rising. It was caused by a combination of Ukraine, fuel prices and food prices increasing, and the government largesse of the Covid years pumping money into the economy. That is AIUI the general consensus - are there any respected economists/economic publications you can cite who disagree with that?

Entirely correct. Also, food orices rose largely because fuel (energy) prices rose.

What is also correct is that fuel prices are now almost exactly the same in cash terms as they were in 2019, yet CPI index is 25% higher than 1/1/19.

What happens (in very, very broad terms) is that with a price ‘shock’ of fuel, inflation rises, therefore pay rises, but when fuel drops back pay doesn‘t.

 

[greatkingrat]

In 2030 they will stop producing RPI figures, so there won't be any choice.

 

[12LDA28C]

In 2030 they will stop producing RPI figures, so there won't be any choice.

I guess from 2031 my mobile phone service provider will have to decide on a different way to calculate my annual rate of tariff increase then!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I guess from 2031 my mobile phone service provider will have to decide on a different way to calculate my annual rate of tariff increase then!

If CPI is consistent low, they'll all probably say prices will rise by x% every April. Same with internet providers

 

[JamesT]

If CPI is consistent low, they'll all probably say prices will rise by x% every April. Same with internet providers

Ofcom have introduced rules that from January mid-contract price rises have to be explicitly enumerated in money value rather than percentage and can’t be linked to an unknown such as inflation. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and...mid-contract-price-rises-linked-to-inflation/

Under new Ofcom rules announced today, any price rise written into a customer’s contract from January 2025 will need to be set out in pounds and pence, prominently and transparently, at the point of sale; and providers will need to be clear about when any changes to prices will occur.

I guess stopping them saying it would rise by a percentage avoids it compounding over multiple years.

 

[Tractor2018]

Its a bit chicken and egg. Personally, I think faes should be linked to CPI, and wages similarly.

Having personally studied the differences between RPI and CPI, my official (and exclusive to this forum) opinion is that RPI is s**te.

I will trust your well researched opinion on RPI

Yes. Whatever function is used to calculate increases to things or income in general for business, then the same one should be used to calculate charges or income for citizens.

Whichever method is chosen, it should be fair to all people. I don't know - if anybody disagrees with that they really need to wake up.

So until that happens I don't think we (anybody) should be getting told how old and tired RPI is and we should forget it in relation to wage increases..........when it seems to be alive and well with business demands.

 

[officewalla]

I'm aware, thankyou. That answer was in response to someone who still expects pay rises to be linked to inflation, despite the fact that both RMT and ASLEF have been offered (and accepted) increases well below RPI.



Given that pay rises in the Railway industry have historically been based on the RPI figure, the facts you claim are irrelevant. Pay rises have never been based on CPI, end of story. It's not a 'fixation', merely fact. I'm sorry if you find that 'bewildering'.

Move on. RPI is no longer relevant in the rail industry and is just one of many reforms that need to be introduced sooner rather than later if the railways are to remain at the heart of UK plc.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I agree - the sooner RPI is removed, the better!

However, pure CPI is not as good for setting wages because it ignores housing costs and such things as Council Tax. Which is why people negotiating wage increases still like RPI because it includes those items and is regarded by those negotiators as still reflecting the workers experience of total cost increases better than pure CPI.

That is why CPIH is probably the best measure to use in future as a negotiating comparator as it does include those missing items and, because it is calculated like CPI, it is a far more accurate measure than RPI.

 

[Tractor2018]

RPI is no longer relevant in the rail industry

Isn't it considered by the industry when setting increases for regulated fares?

 

[dk1]

Isn't it considered by the industry when setting increases for regulated fares?

Yes usually something like July's figure is used as a guide for the following years increase or that's how I have understood it.

I can't see RPI disappearing from railway pay awards any time soon.

 

[Tractor2018]

Yes usually something like July's figure is used as a guide for the following years increase or that's how I have understood it.

I can't see RPI disappearing from railway pay awards any time soon.

You understand that. I understand that. OP seems oblivious to the imbalance he suggests.