SkinnyDave
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1,242
Scotrail take to Twitter to advise Drivers have rejected an increase in Salary therefore there may be issues with services tomorrow in West
Last edited:
Looks like a very cheap propaganda dig from scotrail-publishing that drivers rejected 6.4% rise but not giving any info on the strings which are attached to that deal or the actual reasons drivers have cited against the pay offer.
Mixed reactions on their twitter feeds, usual idiots tweeting back without a clue what they are on about describing the drivers as greedy etc but to be fair quite a few replies from people pointing out that it's just drivers not volunteering to do overtime and that scotrail arnt actually giving the full picture or explaining the reasons the offer was rejected.
A rather poor and shameless tactic from scotrail if you ask me and one that is only going to inflame the dispute and push a 'peaceful' resolution further away...
Is it the 'increase in salary' the drivers have supposedly rejected or is it all the strings attached to it?
Plus, as far as I'm aware, a number of existing disputes between union and management which have led to this breakdown in relations.
So the rejection is actually sweet FA to do with the money on offer then, what a surprise! :roll:
Cheers A-driver.
They're not interested in more money because they're going to hit the 40% tax rate. They want something along the lines of more days off and 100% sick pay for a year.
Erm - what a load of tosh. The pay deal was rejected purely on the number of strings attached to it. Everyone knows a 6.4% over 2 years (3.2%pa) was a decent offer had it been simply that. However there were all sorts of things which I'm not going into on here attached to it that the actual rise was nowhere near that. Since most train drivers in other TOC's are well into the 40% tax band I've no idea where you came up with that from.
Looks like a very cheap propaganda dig from scotrail-publishing that drivers rejected 6.4% rise but not giving any info on the strings which are attached to that deal or the actual reasons drivers have cited against the pay offer.
Mixed reactions on their twitter feeds, usual idiots tweeting back without a clue what they are on about describing the drivers as greedy etc but to be fair quite a few replies from people pointing out that it's just drivers not volunteering to do overtime and that scotrail arnt actually giving the full picture or explaining the reasons the offer was rejected.
A rather poor and shameless tactic from scotrail if you ask me and one that is only going to inflame the dispute and push a 'peaceful' resolution further away...
You only have 140 characters in a tweet and so Scotrail providing a full explanation is impossible. I don't know the detail but I use twitter to follow NR and TOCs for information and I would rather be told of a potential disruption then left in the dark - speaking as a rail passenger and not an employee in the rail industry.
I'm only summarising what I was told by a union rep.
Would you care to elaborate on what these "strings" are?
They're not interested in more money because they're going to hit the 40% tax rate. They want something along the lines of more days off and 100% sick pay for a year.
Probably best that he dosnt elaborate on these strings at this stage as it's still in ongoing negotiation and so publishing such details into the public domain would be irresponsible and could jeopardise negotiations. I have spoken to a friend who drives in Scotland though and I can assure you it wasn't a 6.4% pay rise for nothing!
And your proof for this 100% sickpay for a year is?
PS the bloke down the pub, at the station told me doesnt count! :roll:
I tend not to reply to these kind of posts due to it often becoming a massive argument between those on the forums who are passengers and those who are staff... but I feel quite strongly about some of the comments that have been made here.
(Feeling a bit like David Dimbleby here)... back to the original topic from post 1 - re: ScotRail taking to Twitter to vent their side of the argument.
With regards to the many, many of you who have replied expressing displeasure (to put it politely) at this happening... may I ask why? Taking all emotion, and personal feelings out of this what we have at the core of this is a dispute. It's not a resolution (yet), it's a dispute. Meaning no side has 'won'. Therefore, why can't both sides publicise their points?
Whenever there's industrial action, I have found that it's the unions (Aslef, RMT etc.) who shout about it the loudest. In fact, until recently, I never heard any of the other side of the story. In fact, the unions are always the ones on the TV/radio shouting the loudest whenever there's industrial action.
At the moment, I don't know who is more 'right', and I'm not going to attempt to present any argument because I do not have enough information to do so. But what I am glad of, is that now I can at least start to see both sides of the case, rather than simply watching (for example) Bob Crow shout on the 6 O'Clock news about his side of the story only without gaining any further insight to the problem.
I'd say I have a fairly neutral point of view. And from that point I'd say that there's no problem with ScotRail doing what they've done on Twitter today. Why? If they were being pro-active, being the ones attacking, then it'd be wrong. But they're not, they're being reactive - starting to tell the other side of the story that none of us have really had access to until recently.
Passengers deserve to be able to see both sides of the argument, and I'm all for ScotRail simply t doing what the union has been doing for years. And until the dispute is resolved, I think we all need to appreciate that both sides deserve equal spotlight in the media.
I don't understand opposition to revealing the cause of disruption. If ScotRail were simply to say "Nae trains th'morra.", would the critics still be silent?
And to those of you defending drivers collectively agreeing to take rest days with the purpose of essentially, damaging operations on Sunday like to know what those same drivers would say to the suggestion of "increasing staffing levels"? They'd turn the bothy air blue, because for so many of them, 42k plus per year still isn't enough, and they're dependant on those rest day workings.
I don't understand opposition to revealing the cause of disruption. If ScotRail were simply to say "Nae trains th'morra.", would the critics still be silent?
And to those of you defending drivers collectively agreeing to take rest days with the purpose of essentially, damaging operations on Sunday like to know what those same drivers would say to the suggestion of "increasing staffing levels"? They'd turn the bothy air blue, because for so many of them, 42k plus per year still isn't enough, and they're dependant on those rest day workings.
The pay talks havent really started yet, the dispute (or withdrawal of rest day working) is because of ongoing diciplinary disaggreements and has nothing to do with the pay talks.I don't understand opposition to revealing the cause of disruption. If ScotRail were simply to say "Nae trains th'morra.", would the critics still be silent?
And to those of you defending drivers collectively agreeing to take rest days with the purpose of essentially, damaging operations on Sunday like to know what those same drivers would say to the suggestion of "increasing staffing levels"? They'd turn the bothy air blue, because for so many of them, 42k plus per year still isn't enough, and they're dependant on those rest day workings.
Sadsmileyface said:And to those of you defending drivers collectively agreeing to take rest days with the purpose of essentially, damaging operations on Sunday like to know what those same drivers would say to the suggestion of "increasing staffing levels"? They'd turn the bothy air blue, because for so many of them, 42k plus per year still isn't enough, and they're dependant on those rest day workings.
Of course what Sadsmileyface is saying is that drivers should not be allowed to have a day off and if the company needs them to work they should be forced to, you know like slavery, just well paid slaves!
Simple fact of the matter is one side of the argument is having a cheap shot at the Drivers taking a day off when they are rostered to do so. That's all that's happening here.