Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by The Planner, 12 May 2015.
Just seen on the BBC website.
A link to the news item ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-327053...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
EDIT: The article has been updated since I posted the quote below.
"Attacks" eh - the usual ludicrous inflammatory language from the union leadership who then immediately cast themselves in the role of helpless victims. It's the same tired old story played out in the same tired language of the 1970s by the same sour looking faces. For the record - nobody "attacked" you. You know it, everybody else knows it.
It may be inadequate but it isn't an "attack" on anything, I agree. But as the NR managers know that the unions will ask for more, isn't the standard pattern case now to offer too little then when the unions strike you end up where you wanted to be?
So the fare paying passenger like myself has to be inconvenienced because staff want more money.
What about the public that are paying extortionate prices on some journeys can they strike?
However some of Network Rail's staff do deserve a pay rise, so I can see both sides of this argument.
Bit of a coincidence it's announcement given who's just been voted in?
They are free to use alternative transport at any time if they so wish.
The dispute and ballot papers were out before the election so yes results...a coincidence.
Without knowing the specific figures the unions are demanding on behalf of their employees and what T&C the Staff were engaged on, I could not really comment.....
I note that there's also strike action occurring on German Railways too....
I hope it is resolved quickly.....and justly
Is this all NR staff or only certain groups?
Was it 2 or 3%? I can't recall. I do know they were offered 0% or a slim (something like 1%) with removal of terms and conditions. Bit bizarre really. Especially given that the PM himself said that Britain deserves a Pay rise.
When would the 'Strike' be if it was to go ahead, and would it affect the entire network or just commuter routes or the cross intercity ones.
I can see why strikes frustrate the travelling public but phrases like 'so they can have more money' are misguided at best. How did the general population get turned against people fighting for good terms and conditions? When did people start just 'accepting' what they're given rather than try themselves for something better, then go on the attack at those who are still 'fighting' for those terms everyone else threw away?
People living in some places don't have the luxury of a choice. Obviously some places don't have stations, while some places with stations have no bus services.
NR staff have been offered 0% pay rise this year, and tied only to inflation from 2016-2020. In the meantime NR managers have awarded themselves bumper bonuses worth 20% of their salary.
Interesting that the Tories are already on the attack about setting a 40% yes vote from all elgible members for a strike to go ahead, given that they themselves haven't got 40% of votes from all eligible voters since the 1950s.
In case anyone questions the mandate this time, turnout was 60% and 80% of votes were in favour of strike action, with 92% of votes being in favour of action short of a strike.
I find it interesting that people argue these staff "don't deserve more money", yet in the same breath forecast "huge disruption" when they don't turn up to work. Make up your mind folks.
No date has been announced. The RMT would have to give 7 days notice and if a strike is announced talks will likely continue to advert strike action.
Is there some direct link between this and the amount Network Rail staff are paid?
Good on them. No one wants to strike btw, it's not exactly fun losing a days wage but whats the alternative? Roll over and accept being pushed around?
For me personally my main concern is being able to get to work. I work in Westminster and live in Essex. Driving is not an option for me. I suppose I could always rent a boat and sail up the Thames.
It depends on which part strike.
I have still been driving trains whilst signalers have been on strike. Although; if I remember correct, at a reduced service. When the FBU goes on strike we get an email stating that rail services are still covered and the service goes unaffected.
It will depend on Who goes on strike, how many will still work (non union etc.) if management can cover the work, minimal numbers required to maintain the safety standard.
Probably...48% of the rail fare money goes to Network Rail.
Totally agree with this, very well said!
And there's a direct link as to how much of that goes to paying staff?
A lot of money goes from TOCs to Network Rail in track access charges.
No profitable TOC is able to afford to pay Network Rail track access charges in full alongside their premium. For instance, in the case of East Coast they paid a premium of £206.8m in 13/14 but DfT paid £186.9m of that back to Network Rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So you (and Spad) think pay should be equated and linked to your ability to collectively cause massive disruption -and not to all those boring things like ability, attitude, integrity, qualification, technical skill, competence, intelligence, ablity to work under pressure, etc. etc......
Perhaps you and Spad still can't see the irony. Never mind. We all can, and it's quite revealing.
Surely these are all the reasons why strikers cannot just be replaced with random other staff and thus we have disruption?
If you have the collective ability to cause disruption, massive or otherwise, then you have certain key skills that can't easily be replaced.
Or, to put it another way, if anyone could do the job, anyone would do the job, and there'd be no disruption from strike action.
Their finances issued for the 2013/2014 year shows their income went up, profits were up and salary and pension costs also increased: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/Annual-Report-and-accounts/2014/
It sounds like for 2014/2015 there were was a loss.
Staffing costs are around £2000m, which is about 33% of total income.
So yes, they do have a big impact.
But a 3% increase would only increase this number to 34%. Unless of course there is an increase in budget for that financial year. In which case the figure will likely stay the same or even reduce, even with a Pay increase. When you see it for what it is in the grand scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money really.
Surely as Network Rail is under European directive a state organisation Pay should be capped at a max of 1% in line with other public asector workers nurses, teachers etc?
That's a good point. What makes NR staff different from any other government employee who has had a salary increase cap?