RMT vote 4 to 1 to strike over NR pay

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure if this has been said but I will repeat this here. There is more to us than the money, we ain't asking for 10% rise. We are asking for what isn't a pay cut and fair.

Over the coming X years, Network Rail will be shutting signal boxes, depots and offices. This will change the signaller role, It has previously stated it wants us signallers on management style contracts and T&Cs. If we let them walk over us now,they will bulldoze through with the coming changes and we will be stuffed for a long time. If they know we will fight, then maybe they will leave us alone! Can always hope

see post #74

 

[Mark62]

It was the 10 week national rail strike in 1955 that hastened the demise of the railways. Passengers and business found they could cope without the trains and many never returned as they found viable and better alternatives to rail at that time

 

[LAX54]

It was the 10 week national rail strike in 1955 that hastened the demise of the railways. Passengers and business found they could cope without the trains and many never returned as they found viable and better alternatives to rail at that time

Try telling that to all those stuck on the M25 / A12 / M11 / A13 / A406 for hours and hours every day ! lol
Coach Colchester to London (quickest) 2 hours 45 mins. Train 48 mins

 

[Ianigsy]

Quite the opposite, Staff work are damned sight harder including Signallers during Engineering work ! anyway who says there WILL be a strike ? the main mandate was action short of a strike, so would have thought if anyhting that would come first.

Fair enough, I was thinking more of a traditionally-signalled route where you might have a series of boxes A-B-C where engineering work at A closes the route between A and C so there's nothing happening at B for the duration of the possession. Or indeed where C is a branch terminus and work at A which doesn't directly affect the branch still has the effect of closing it completely, so there are no movements at all at B or C.

 

[Bevan Price]

whats your take home pay?

(It doesn't matter what a signaler is paid really does it other than to give you or others an opportunity to say that they are paid to much and shouldn't strike.)

1. Nil pay - retired, with pension well under £ 20k.

2. It does matter what they are paid. The levels quoted seem reasonable, and they probably deserve adequate pay increases. However, if they had been paid around £40 to 50k, I might have thought they were being greedy.

 

[LAX54]

1. Nil pay - retired, with pension well under £ 20k.

2. It does matter what they are paid. The levels quoted seem reasonable, and they probably deserve adequate pay increases. However, if they had been paid around £40 to 50k, I might have thought they were being greedy.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/phil-hufton-to-replace-robin-gisby-at-network-rail

'Phil Hufton will be joining from London Underground where he is currently chief operating officer. He will be paid £425,000 a year in the new role.'


Mr Gisby rec'd £378,000 so quite a pay rise for Mr Hufton a few months ago, whio is now saying Rail Staff cannot have anything as the Company can't afford it !

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'm sure this will be the first of many strikes as the unions vent their anger at the British public democratically voting against their party. If Labour had won there would have been no extra money and yet there would have been no strike as even the unions aren't stupid enough to strike (usually) right after a Labour win.

That being said and despite me being totally opposed to unions, the offer, if it's what is being reported, is not exactly amazing so it's no wonder staff feel so aggrieved. Compared to many of the ridiculous union strike ballots this one does seem to have some merit.

What a load of wibble.

The vote was taken before polling day for one. So there would still be industrial action. I believe the RMT isn't Labour affiliated anyway (It revoked its Labour affiliation during Bob Crow's Leadership IIRC)

And you're totally opposed to unions.

Do you get holiday pay? sick pay? Thank the unions for that.

Employment law. Again, thank unions.

Don't think that any government would've introduced it had workers not united and fought for terms and conditions.

 

[matt_world2004]

While I support the unions right to strike and its members I believe that work to rule would be more disruptive in the long term. So much work done on the railways depends on the good will of the railway staff and working to rule means the members still get paid.

 

[455driver]

And as a public servant, I (and my colleagues) have had NO increase since 2010, funnily enough when the coalition came to power

Go get another job then!

Its a shame the same old 'I cant get a payrise so why should they get one' cowmanure gets rolled out just because some others are standing up for themselves and you cant!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think before posting please

Good luck with that one!

 

[Bald Rick]

average about 20 / 25K before tax and N.I.

You can easily double that for the average pay of those in the signalling grades including average overtime (voluntary), night / Sunday enhancements (not voluntary), and before tax / NI.

Train planners less. And you usually have to work in MK.

Maintenance guys - wide variation depending on grade, contract arrangements (there's dozens of different contracts as a legacy from the former maintenance contractors) and amount of overtime / weekends worked. But there's very few non-apprentices earning less than 25k before tax / NI.


Apparently, the deal put to the vote is exactly the one that the RMT negotiators agreed to and was agreed to by the RMT leadership.

It was then put to the Reps who rejected it, and thus it was (quite properly) put to the membership who have also rejected it. Democracy in action. Nevertheless, it is still one that the RMT negotiators thought would be acceptable to the membership.

 

[A-driver]

So, I'd be very keen to know if/when the strikes are planned so that I can make arrangements to see my family again in about a month's time.7 days notice is required as I've seen above, but would I be safe buying Advance tickets at the moment (i.e., can they be refunded based on strike action, even if replacement bus services operate?).



Have to say that I have limited sympathy for the staff involved. As a public sector employee in another field, I challenge anyone (public or private) to accept the conditions that I have to work under. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to take the action that you feel necessary, but considering that on my very occasional days off work I may struggle to make the best of use of my time and see family and friends, I have to say I'm not best impressed.

Yawn. They probably don't care how much sympathy you have for them...

Rather than trying to bring everyone down to your level why don't you try and better your own work conditions and accept that others are keen to keep hold of what they have and better their quality of life.

You just sound bitter and jealous.

 

[Bantamzen]

When Cameron came out with that drivel about 'The whole country needs a pay rise' were we not running up to an election? Now the Tories have a majority government able to push through their sick and disgusting policies unchallenged, I will expect to see a fresh attack on the unions. This is very relevant here. Railway workers as opposed to other employees have benefited from a strong union and a threatened strike does send out a serious warning to the country. Expect Dave and his chums to work tirelessly to erode any power the unions have. To be offered what is affectively a 0% pay rise and a further stripping back of T&C's is quite frankly just insulting. To the ' but your stopping me getting to work' and 'you get paid enough' brigade, you are just pawns in a political game of chess, always have been always will be so get over it. NR want to decimate their workforce and Mark Carne has publicly shown his full support for slashing staff numbers with his digital rail concept.

Each and every year and during every pay negotiation the workers terms and conditions get slowly erased. Very soon the rail companies will have the employees they have tirelessly striven for, workers like robots who are terrified to speak up for their rights for fear of repercussions. I challenge any 'normal' to sit staring at IECC screens for 8-12 hours a day without getting dizzy in the first 5 minutes or attend a failure, chase a complex S&T drawing of a points circuit while having the mobile going off every 30 seconds asking what the hell is going on. The big difference between railway workers and an office worker is quite clear to see. If you make a mistake in an office, you don't potentially kill hundreds of people or bring an economy to a standstill. That's why railway workers are specialists in what they do and should be paid as so. I'm not saying nurses or teachers should be paid any more or any less, that's not the argument here and is like comparing apples and oranges. Everybody should be paid for their particular responsibility they bring to the job and it's up to each and every one of us as workers to stand up for our rights and it IS our right. Rail strikes hit hard and with not much of an alternative, there's no doubt they hit harder than if Asda staff were to strike. You would have sympathy with them but would cross the road and go to Tesco for your shopping. I remember back to the fuel blockades and the truly nasty things that were being banded about by the MSM about the tanker drivers simply because it affected so many people. Expect the same if a national rail strike is to take place.

Union bashing is very easy to the ignorant but tell me this. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if your office manager was to come to you with a bona fide pay offer which you asked for and he offered you 0% and made your job that little bit more fragile, you would be happy with this and your productivity would soar? Probably the opposite and your toilet and coffee breaks would get that little bit longer. As railway, we can't do that. I can't decide that because a manager has ****ed me off that I won't change the worn brake pads on a train or not put fuel in it. I wouldn't and couldn't get away with that. We are professionals and must be professional in what we do 24/7, that's how the railway runs safely in this country with the workers at the coalface and the managers behind, (literally) pushing us on. I will fight for my rights as an employee until my retirement/death (the latter probably being correct due to another Tory policy) and this is the same for anyone else.

NR need to take a step back, as do the union and come to an agreement that will suit everyone.

I haven't read every post on this thread, but this caught my eye & I couldn't agree more.

As a public sector worker myself, I have been lambasted by others for very occasionally striking because my wage rises haven't topped 1% pa for almost a decade, whilst my pension costs have more than doubled and my T&C's worsened. And although my job is nowhere near as critical as many of those covered by the RMT (I mainly write software apps & generally support the IT in our department), a drop in productivity can still have an effect. So generally I don't allow that to happen, and instead follow the mandate of the union votes when a strike ballot is held.

Yet these very same people who have a go at us are as you say the ones who admit to having longer coffee, lunch or loo breaks, throwing more sickies, and generally giving less of a toss and thus not working as hard when their T&Cs are worsened. Yet that's OK apparently. I'm nowhere near as militant as I used to be in my younger years, but this sort of rank hypocrisy really boils my blood. And as for those in self-employment moaning about no pay rises, no sick pay etc, well work harder. After all it was your choice, and it's your business!

It sounds very much to me that this ballot isn't just about pay, it's about removing some safety measures that could result in issues in the future. If this is the case, then the members of the RMT get my full support as a daily commuter, not that they wouldn't anyway!

 

[me123]

Yawn. They probably don't care how much sympathy you have for them...

Rather than trying to bring everyone down to your level why don't you try and better your own work conditions and accept that others are keen to keep hold of what they have and better their quality of life.

You just sound bitter and jealous.

What makes you think I haven't been reasonably successful in doing so? I haven't taken part in strike action, but the small amounts that I and my colleagues have achieved are actually quite remarkable by comparison to others.

I've already stated that I have no issues about the workers involved trying to maintain and improve their quality of life. I do have great concern that this action, like most railway related industrial action, causes disruption to the travellers more than anyone else. I highlighted my own personal issues here because they are of greatest importance to me, but what about the millions who rely on the railway to get to work? The knock-on effects of this strike outwith the world of the railways will be huge.

I agree with an earlier poster. If the railway is so apparently struggling, a sustained work to rule would highlight this issue adequately, the disruption to the service would be minimised, and I suspect you'd have higher levels of public support - cancellations would be due to the ineptitude of the company/ies involved rather than the actions of rail workers. The railway's default mode of action really does appear to be "strike", and it really is getting a bit wearisome.

I'm not entirely sure why you think I sound jealous. What am I jealous of? The poor working conditions? The potential opportunity not to go to work and lose a days pay?

 

[ADRboy]

I agree with an earlier poster. If the railway is so apparently struggling, a sustainedThe railway's default mode of action really does appear to be "strike", and it really is getting a bit wearisome.

I'm not entirely sure why you think I sound jealous. What am I jealous of? The poor working conditions? The potential opportunity not to go to work and lose a days pay?

If you have a proper look at what the RMT have announced. It was 80% in favour of strike, and 92% in favour of action short of a strike. They've not announced "default" strike, the media has.

 

[thelongestroad]

I'm sure this will be the first of many strikes as the unions vent their anger at the British public democratically voting against their party

Umm, I think you'll find there are probably just as many Tory voters working on the railways as Labour voters!

Don't also assume we'd support that strike action.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Feels like a good time to roll out the advice some are given on here when complaining about their commute.

If you don't like it just get another job. Easy eh? Like the commuter being told to get another job and move house.

I am a union member and I agree the offer is poor but just remember this when you are being so judgemental in the future.

 

[chris11256]

Feels like a good time to roll out the advice some are given on here when complaining about their commute.

If you don't like it just get another job. Easy eh? Like the commuter being told to get another job and move house.

I am a union member and I agree the offer is poor but just remember this when you are being so judgemental in the future.

I'd love an IT job where I live, instead of commuting to London. Only problem is the 10-15K pay cut which makes it completely uneconomical.

 

[Domeyhead]

Huh?

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.

THat is garbage, it barely even qualifies as sophistry. Just about everyone has "key skills that can't easily be replaced" on a national scale. An individual milkman could cause localised disruption by abandoning his milkfloat in the middle of a street, though the amount of disruption has no bearing on his skill or his job. However if all milkmen were part of a union which coordinated all milkmen to abandon their milkfloats simultaneously to cause widespread gridlock - has the milkman's job suddenly and mysteriously become more skilled or more deserving simply because they belong to a union? And how does that have any bearing on the job remuneration? You are telling us that a person's wages should be directly proportional to the blackmail they can exert, which is itself entirely related to the degree of coordinated industrial action they can call. You are mouthing the sort of argument that goes down unchallenged in the messroom but when aired to the travelling public (who in many cases perform jobs far more skilled and qualified than yours) your argument is facile and immature.

 

[pemma]

But of course the Railways are not in decline / trouble, they keep saying that income / passengers / amount of trains running are increasing ata fair old rate, year in, year out !

Agreed the railways are not in decline. However, if you're a rail employee you're working for a company which is given financial support unless you work for East Coast or Govia Thameslink. Normally when that happens your employer is making cuts not giving pay rises.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But of course the Railways are not in decline / trouble, they keep saying that income / passengers / amount of trains running are increasing ata fair old rate, year in, year out !

Agreed the railways are not in decline. However, if you're a rail employee you're working for a company which is given financial support unless you work for East Coast or Govia Thameslink. Normally when that happens your employer is making cuts opposed to giving pay rises.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps at the top level!

Yeah, I'm talking about the top level managers and execs, who are as greedy as they've always been.

Go get another job then!

Its a shame the same old 'I cant get a payrise so why should they get one' cowmanure gets rolled out just because some others are standing up for themselves and you cant!

The Tory Trolls don't like trade unions and don't like trade unionism, but wibble when they don't get treated nicely by their bosses. It's quite amusing really.

In my sector, we've not had a pay rise at all until last year. What happened last year? My trade union went on strike. It's a shame that our trade union management got cold feet and left the members high and dry- so we're back to a 0.9% pay award this year and a lot of bad feeling in the union- but that's an argument for another day.

It's the same in the NHS. Nurses get treated with contempt because they won't go on strike and their trade body is in the pocket of Government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However if all milkmen were part of a union which coordinated all milkmen to abandon their milkfloats simultaneously to cause widespread gridlock - has the milkman's job suddenly and mysteriously become more skilled or more deserving simply because they belong to a union?

Again: huh?

Someone whose skills are immediately replaceable do not have power in strike action. If they can be replaced, they will be replaced, and the strike will be subverted. Murdoch proved that much in 1986 when he fired all the printers from News International, and nothing much has changed since then.

If signallers do a job that a trained monkey could do, as you seem to be arguing, then Network Rail would get a trained monkey to do it instead of the trade unionist.

 

[Iron Girder]

--- 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.

Conservative governments are well known for going on at some length about "market forces".

Well, this is market forces at work - presumably the rail unions (and their members) are sufficiently confident that NR is not in a position to suddenly go "OK, fine, then - there's loads of unemployed people who'll do your job on workfare, so away with you".

I have noticed an uncomfortable hardening of employers' attitudes towards staff throughout this recession: while they have had the whip hand and been in a position of being able to say "take it or leave it" to staff, they've been only too happy to do so.

Why should it be any different in a situation where staff feel they have a position of strength from which to bargain, particularly when they are being forced to accept a pay settlement that represents a real-terms pay CUT, and all the time seeing more senior staff really doing rather nicely?

I don't want to see a return to the 1970s, with labour relations characterised by conflict and blackmail, but I think that we have seen the pendulum swing too far the wrong way already, and there is nothing wrong in my mind with the idea of it swinging back at least some of the way.

 

[carriageline]

highlighted my own personal issues here because they are of greatest importance to me, but what about the millions who rely on the railway to get to work? The knock-on effects of this strike outwith the world of the railways will be huge.

Not to be condescending, but that's entirely the point. We/the union want the threat of mass disruption and chaos to force the company into action. Whilst we don't want to hold them to random, or be greedy and ask for 14% payrises (ahem Mr Hufton) we are only asking for what's fair.

I agree with an earlier poster. If the railway is so apparently struggling, a sustained work to rule would highlight this issue adequately, the disruption to the service would be minimised, and I suspect you'd have higher levels of public support - cancellations would be due to the ineptitude of the company/ies involved rather than the actions of rail workers. The railway's default mode of action really does appear to be "strike", and it really is getting a bit wearisome.

Trust me, if we had a work to rule the disruption would be worse, over a longer period of time, and more random. Just imagine your trains coming to a stand at 6AM/2PM as no relief has turned up to take over, and the panel then closes. This could then happen all week, for a month. But I do agree, if you want to keep the public onside that could work rather well. And maybe the company would realise how much we do do!

Agreed the railways are not in decline. However, if you're a rail employee you're working for a company which is given financial support unless you work for East Coast or Govia Thameslink. Normally when that happens your employer is making cuts not giving pay rises.

.

Yep, and you are more than right. But tell me, why have the TOCs been given 2-4% payrises this year? Network Rail made a profit of 1.4 billion last year. Whilst that has to be put back into the infrastructure, IMO that also included the staff because we delivered the train plan and the infrastructure maintenance and repairs that made them every penny of that 1.4 billion. If the company can afford to give its top honchos payrises and bonuses, then every single member of the company deserves it too.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Go get another job then!

Its a shame the same old 'I cant get a payrise so why should they get one' cowmanure gets rolled out just because some others are standing up for themselves and you cant!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Good luck with that one!

I'm not the one complaining.

I'm just stating a fact that some of us aren't as "lucky" as others in terms of bargaining power. And I enjoy my job, I don't just do it for the money.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yeah, I'm talking about the top level managers and execs, who are as greedy as they've always been.

How do the salaries of those at the top of each of the railway unions compare to those of the members that they represent?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't want to see a return to the 1970s, with labour relations characterised by conflict and blackmail, but I think that we have seen the pendulum swing too far the wrong way already, and there is nothing wrong in my mind with the idea of it swinging back at least some of the way.

Indeed, a case of "reaping and sowing" with one side emulating the other to the extreme parameters.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Getting back on topic, what is really wrong with a £500 one-off payment and a 3-year pay rise in line with inflation? What am I missing and why have the union rejected this offer?

It would be rather nice to have this offer to all staff in my line of work...and much of my work is safety critical....

 

[carriageline]

Getting back on topic, what is really wrong with a £500 one-off payment and a 3-year pay rise in line with inflation? What am I missing and why have the union rejected this offer?



It would be rather nice to have this offer to all staff in my line of work...and much of my work is safety critical....

Yes it's better than nothing, but it's not acceptable.
If they put the 500 into our pay, then I suspected it would of been accepted. A one off payment means nothing, it equates to 300-400 after tax, it won't affect our hourly rate or pension. It means next year we are back to the same rate as this year, and essentially still catching up as we are below inflation by then.

We deserve more.

 

[Marklund]

Getting back on topic, what is really wrong with a £500 one-off payment and a 3-year pay rise in line with inflation? What am I missing and why have the union rejected this offer?

The £500 is less than RPI, and not consolidated, so it is a real terms cut.
The 3 further years RPI only just accentuates the pay cut, and with a lot of signal boxes closing, a 2 year non-compulsory redundancy agreement for a 4 year deal is short.

Keep in mind that all this comes at a time where the first offer contained an attack on conditions, which set the tone, the second offer contained a railcard useless to many staff, all while the very senior management were given lavish increases over their predecessors.

We've been told in propaganda sent to our homes to compare ourselves to Nurses, and NHS staff.
Data point. Top NR management are remunerated far, far higher than the chief executive of the NHS. (4-5 times as much, ISTR)

Put those insulting offers together while running more trains, with less staff, all when costs are being cut throughout maintenance, the lack of dignity when dealing with closing boxes, the lack of re-training for Signallers who would want to stay in the industry, the workforce are thoroughly fed up with the ever increasing vastly paid management who do not practice what they preach when it comes to pay and conditions.

It's become a perfect storm for a vote for industrial action.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

How much would it cost NR to give every worker a £500 bonus? And surely, this would have to be tax-free?

 

[GB]

Bonuses incur income tax and NI contributions so a one off £500 is certainly not great and certainly not tax free.

 

[Deerfold]

How do the salaries of those at the top of each of the railway unions compare to those of the members that they represent?

Or, perhaps more appropriately, how do they compare to jobs of similar responsibility within NR and the TOCs?