RMT vote 4 to 1 to strike over NR pay

[DarloRich]

You go on about people talking 'wibble' as you put it but I don't think I have met anyone in my life who pontificates and talks 'wibble' as much as you do. Labour lost the election, because like you they talk 'wibble'. If everyone striked because of every grievance in their workplace this country would be doomed and we would have ended up like Greece (insert any other country that has had a bailout). This country is on the right track, the unions will take us back to the dark ages if they had the chance and no before you ask I don't work for Tory central office

What on earth are you talking about? Try to do some research before you type.

The dispute has been going on since October.
The ballot was held during the course of the election when we were looking at, according to the polls, a completely different political landscape.
The RMT have not, for some time, made contributions to the Labour Party

And i agree it would be very bad if strikes occurred because of every work place grievance - it is a good job they don't isn't it! That said the railway must be a happy place as there hasn't been a national rail strike for about 20 years!

 

[alb1]

On an entirely selfish level, I really really hope they go through with it this time.

I was gutted when they called off the last one and I had to go into the office rather than work from home. There went my 2 1/2 hour lie in.

 

[pemma]

So you may strike but only if it doesn't cause any inconvenience to ME.

No I'm actually thinking of others. I don't catch the train to work but I don't think it's acceptable for people to lose a day's pay because people working for another company are involved in an industrial dispute. Neither do I think it's acceptable for people living in villages where the train is the only public transport to have to cancel appointments at doctors/hospital/dentist etc. because of an industrial dispute. Someone may not be able to make a job interview and consequently misses out on a job to someone else just because the Union thinks a 1% pay rise isn't acceptable.

is to cause maximum disruption to the employer and his customers to illustrate how vital your work is.

So in your view the Police can go on a 24 hour strike and even if an armed gang raid all the banks in a town and shoot all the bank workers the Police can do nothing until the next day?

And what if ambulance workers go on strike the same day should all the bank workers be left for dead to not interfer with the strike?

If the government wanted to restrict industrial action for your specific role then they are admitting you provide a vital role.

Do you work for Conservative central office?

No and I don't support the Conservative party. My views are generally most closely aligned with the policies of the Lib Dems. I won't begin to list all the policies the Tories have proposed that I disagree with in the form they've been proposed in as it would take too long.

The Conservatives want blanket policies for Trade Unions for all sectors (except emergency services.) I'm suggesting rules for strikes involving public transport should be different to other sectors, while which mean transport workers are seen as less essential than emergency service workers (already the case) but more essential than most other sectors (not already the case.)

 

[chris11256]

On an entirely selfish level, I really really hope they go through with it this time.

I was gutted when they called off the last one and I had to go into the office rather than work from home. There went my 2 1/2 hour lie in.

I know what you mean. I was looking forward to working from home. My employer is rather strict with remote working. So a strike is one of the few times when I can.

 

[pemma]

DfT are saying there's additional clauses to the offer which the RMT didn't mention:

2015: 1.0% increase, consolidated, with minimum £250 (So anyone earning under £25,000 gets more than 1%.)

2016: 1.4% increase, consolidated, plus up to a further 0.7% available subject to agreement on productivity measures.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-condemns-rail-strike-action

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the union felt there was actually some plus points for the union membership when they decided to put the offered package forward to their members for consideration, did they do this as the union negotiating team felt that all their previous negotiations had achieved an offer that their deep knowledge of industrial dispute negotiations would receive a favourable reception or cynically put the matter forward to the union membership in the full knowledge that this proposal would be rejected, having achieved much in the way of causing disruption without actually striking last week?

The press release makes reference to "the anger felt by the union membership" at the offer, so knowing that "the anger" would not be diminished by such a tawdry offer, why on earth did the union add flames to "the anger" by putting forward an offer that the feeling amongst the union membership would most certainly reject?

Is there some hidden undertones of mind-games being played by the union leadership at the cost of their own union membership?

 

[MadCommuter]

Not only 72 hours of strike in the space of a week, but no overtime, call outs, etc for a whole week. On the face of it, that is a big escalation.

Going by the last suspended action, similar events lead to a lot of wires being de-energised.

Thankfully I've got that week booked off work by sheer chance.

 

[Legzr1]

The day a Union calls for industrial action based on 'public support' rather than members' grievances will be a sad, sad day.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm rest day!!

Couldn't shift it a few days could ya

 

[petersi]

On an entirely selfish level, I really really hope they go through with it this time.



I was gutted when they called off the last one and I had to go into the office rather than work from home. There went my 2 1/2 hour lie in.

So selfish my mums haveing treatment for cancer at UCH. The strike makes this time just more stressful

 

[carriageline]

People will moan that we are being selfish and asking too much?

But yet, Southern, a TOC paid by the government to run trains, are offering their drivers a raise which is more than what we have been offered, that's has been turned down and now they are balloting for strike. Yet only NR gets raised, there's a surprise!'

 

[pemma]

But yet, Southern, a TOC paid by the government to run trains, are offering their drivers a raise which is more than what we have been offered, that's has been turned down and now they are balloting for strike. Yet only NR gets raised, there's a surprise!'

Just looking at Southern's subsidy level they were profitable in 12/13 returning 0.6p per passenger mile to DfT. In 13/14 they costed DfT 0.6p per passenger mile. The change seemed to be mainly down to a 10% increase in what Southern had to pay Network Rail. Your point being?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are the TSSA involved in this one?

 

[ainsworth74]

But yet, Southern, a TOC paid by the government to run trains, are offering their drivers a raise which is more than what we have been offered, that's has been turned down and now they are balloting for strike. Yet only NR gets raised, there's a surprise!'

But this is a thread about the Network Rail dispute so surely it's hardly surprising that the dispute between Southern and their drivers isn't really referenced here but on it's own thread elsewhere on the forum?

 

[pemma]

Are the TSSA involved in this one?

No. TSSA are only starting a referendum today: http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/tssa-member-referendum-on-network-rail-offer They are basically telling members to report for work as usual on the RMT strike days, unless it's impossible for them to get to work but to not work overtime or do tasks outside their job roles on those days.

 

[Andyh82]

Of course a 24 hour strike is 48 hours disruption and a 48 hour strike is 72 hours disruption.

People won't know what to do, as they may be out of pocket from last time, as they cancelled plans or rebooked things unnecessarily so I expect nobody will cancel anything as they will assume the strike won't happen. The crying wolf scenario.

 

[nuneatonmark]

The revised offer seems reasonable, so my previous sympathy has gone.

 

[carriageline]

Sorry my post came out the wrong way! Network Rail also made a profit last year (although I don't know how that stacks up against Southern, NR returned 1.4 billion profit) but the point I was making is they are similarly a "public sector" subsidised company. Yet they are getting a bigger pay rise, and I haven't seen that much in the press compared to when we was balloted for strike?

I'm not argueing that Southern don't deserve it, of course they do! But we get a lot of slate from all angles, when we are asking for a menial amount.

I don't believe the previous offer was a serious one, more one to call off the strike over the BH. It was a poor offer, and not much off an improvement. Also, It doesn't stack up to what similar jobs (IE drivers) are getting

 

[bb21]

Sorry my post came out the wrong way! Network Rail also made a profit last year (although I don't know how that stacks up against Southern, NR returned 1.4 billion profit) but the point I was making is they are similarly a "public sector" subsidised company. Yet they are getting a bigger pay rise, and I haven't seen that much in the press compared to when we was balloted for strike?

I'm not argueing that Southern don't deserve it, of course they do! But we get a lot of slate from all angles, when we are asking for a menial amount.

I guess it would have something to do with the fact that the Network Rail strikes will impact the whole network rather than the limited consequences Southern strikes will have.

 

[spongsdad]

I've always believed that the phrase "Industrial Action" should constitute a breach of the Trades Description Act. Essentially what you're all talking about is Industrial INACTION.
These strikes, if they take place, will do so because the participants have enough muscle to impose their wishes on others. Call it what you will; I call it for what it is- bullying. Not bullying Network Rail, mind you, but bullying the long suffering travelling public.
I guess what I say won't be well received; the truth often isn't welcome.
Fortunately I'm not a frequent user of rail services. Any sympathy I have is reserved for those who are.

 

[Essexman]

Don't know enough of the detail as to who to blame (but my default blame for everything is Thatcher) but I'm not impressed.

Had to change trip to Newcastle this week.
Next week I'm booked on Inverness - Euston sleeper on 4th so assume that won't run. Have to decide whether to curtail trip and come back on 3rd or hope strike called off.

 

[DarloRich]

I've always believed that the phrase "Industrial Action" should constitute a breach of the Trades Description Act. Essentially what you're all talking about is Industrial INACTION.
These strikes, if they take place, will do so because the participants have enough muscle to impose their wishes on others. Call it what you will; I call it for what it is- bullying. Not bullying Network Rail, mind you, but bullying the long suffering travelling public.
I guess what I say won't be well received; the truth often isn't welcome.
Fortunately I'm not a frequent user of rail services. Any sympathy I have is reserved for those who are.

How will "bullying" the general public achieve a sensible outcome for the union members who take action?

If the union felt there was actually some plus points for the union membership when they decided to put the offered package forward to their members for consideration, did they do this as the union negotiating team felt that all their previous negotiations had achieved an offer that their deep knowledge of industrial dispute negotiations would receive a favourable reception or cynically put the matter forward to the union membership in the full knowledge that this proposal would be rejected, having achieved much in the way of causing disruption without actually striking last week?

The press release makes reference to "the anger felt by the union membership" at the offer, so knowing that "the anger" would not be diminished by such a tawdry offer, why on earth did the union add flames to "the anger" by putting forward an offer that the feeling amongst the union membership would most certainly reject?

Is there some hidden undertones of mind-games being played by the union leadership at the cost of their own union membership?

Paul - the union is a democratic entity so can only act on the instructions of the majority of members or local representatives.

In this case the union negotiating team must have felt they had achieved an offer that they could present to the members with a view to acceptance. The members, through their local reps, rejected the offer. I know you hope for some form of Machiavellian skullduggery but i am not sure any exists here!

 

[wensley]

My default blame for everything is Thatcher

Well said that man
I knew there was someone I should be blaming for my overtime count over the next few days...

On a serious note, I don't agree with disrupting the travelling public where it can be avoided, but I fully sympathise and support the NR staff affected by this action. Strike action is a last resort - I'm sure none of those involved want to lose pay, but sometimes that's what it takes.

Hopefully the RMT and NR will get back round the table and stand a chance of resolving this.

In the meantime it's a case of planning for the worst-case scenario, which ain't very pretty at all!

 

[westv]

How was the revised offer rejected? Was there another secret ballot of all the members?

 

[carriageline]

Nope. The area reps had a meeting with the union top dogs, and the area reps voted based on what we told them (ie it wasn't acceptable)

 

[bb21]

How will "bullying" the general public achieve a sensible outcome for the union members who take action?

I suppose the perception about "bullying" is more a side-effect of industrial action on a public transport network.

Most naturally the aim of industrial action is to cause as much disruption to the employer as possible, which unfortunately in this industry means passengers, too. It would be absurd to suggest that the fundamental purpose of the strikes is to cause as much inconvenience to the travelling public as possible, but that was an inevitable consequence. Hence those who are not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the system could reasonably see this as the travelling public being held to ransom, or being "bullied" by the workforce, while we, of course, know that it is not really true.

 

[westv]

Nope. The area reps had a meeting with the union top dogs, and the area reps voted based on what we told them (ie it wasn't acceptable)

But how were the reps told then? A quick ring round by Joe Bloggs of his pals or something a bit more reliable?

 

[spongsdad]

I suppose the perception about "bullying" is more a side-effect of industrial action on a public transport network.

Most naturally the aim of industrial action is to cause as much disruption to the employer as possible, which unfortunately in this industry means passengers, too. It would be absurd to suggest that the fundamental purpose of the strikes is to cause as much inconvenience to the travelling public as possible, but that was an inevitable consequence. Hence those who are not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the system could reasonably see this as the travelling public being held to ransom, or being "bullied" by the workforce, while we, of course, know that it is not really true.

It seems to me that you can only hurt an employer by destroying or disrupting his revenue stream, so of course the primary intention may not be to inconvenience the travelling public. It is nonetheless, a very real secondary effect.
I would have suggested that instead of closing down the network, the public could be allowed to travel for free. That would avoid alienating them. However, given that the TOCs are not party to this dispute, I wouldn't expect them to be too keen on this suggestion.

 

[Ianigsy]

Our representatives have today rejected the pay package offered by Network Rail and in the absence of any further movement from the company that has left us with no option but to move to a rolling programme of industrial action which will begin next Thursday.

It may be just the way I'm reading that statement, but it doesn't exactly sound as if Network Rail have exactly been given much of an opportunity to respond there- it's not as if I would expect the bosses to come straight out and say "OK, we'll double our offer"! Presumably the escalation is intended to dissuade NR from just offering a marginally better deal time after time so as to keep just staving off strike action.

 

[Wilt]

It may be just the way I'm reading that statement, but it doesn't exactly sound as if Network Rail have exactly been given much of an opportunity to respond there- it's not as if I would expect the bosses to come straight out and say "OK, we'll double our offer"! Presumably the escalation is intended to dissuade NR from just offering a marginally better deal time after time so as to keep just staving off strike action.

Well they have been negotiating since October and there is a time limit on how long after a ballot the unions can announce industrial action. If they were to hold off for a reply from NR without calling for strike action I suspect NR might not be in a rush to come back with a counter offer.