Unite Network Rail Strikes Off

[AVK17]

That’s a very carefully stated view of events.

The opening offer was ‘at least 2%’ for this year, with more to follow depending on talks on how best to pursue the modernisation. Within a few weeks this became 4% (for this year) plus 2+2% for 2023, with the second 2% conditional on the company making the savings through the maintenance modernisation. As you know, the company has said it is implementing them, so the 2+2% became 4%.

The offer now stands at 5% + 4%, with the extra 1% in year 1 funded through additional efficiency in staff processes across the grades (not affecting rosters or jobs), and not from finding any new money.

The thing I don't understand is why each of those iterations was billed by Tim Shoveller as being NR's "final and best" offer. Clearly this wasn't the case, so why should this one be any different?

 

[Bald Rick]

The thing I don't understand is why each of those iterations was billed by Tim Shoveller as being NR's "final and best" offer.

They weren’t. Only the last one has.

 

[Facing Back]

It's pure political warfare now. Lynch has become the Scargill-esque bogeyman to the government and the right wing media and they'd sacrifice the railways to beat him, as they did the mines. They put the DOO in at the last minute purposely, they actively don't want the dispute resolved, they want to make an example out of Lynch and his union.

The government will be prepared for this to go on for years.

It seems the government has been keen on DOO (or DCO) for a very long time now. If there is going to be an all-out fist fight on this negotiation, why would they not put it on the table? Most disputes end with a resolution that neither side is happy with but both sides can live with.

 

[infobleep]

One piece of strike related legislation I'd like to see is some sort of legal consequence for telling a mistruth, embellishment or outright lie by either the employer or the Union when an industrial dispute is in progress. Answering "no comment" to a question should be allowed, though. This rhetoric and posturing from both sides, where nobody knows who's telling the truth, helps nobody.

(I'd like to see something similar in politics, too, such as a strong legal consequence for wilfully failing to directly answer a question at PMQ, though that's for another thread)

I agree with this but it ain't ever happen because I can't see politicians liking the idea.

in post 122 above, the figs for the 12th Dec vote show 3170 did not vote, why? couldn't be bothered, or the vote for strike action couldn't fail, any suggestions?

They abstained as they could see both sides of the argument. I. E. Certain things changing weren't good but others were.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with this but it ain't ever happen because I can't see politicians liking the idea.

I suppoae the precedent is something like the electoral commission, which is tasked with overseeing all sorts of ballots and votes independantly.

I think a third party should need to arbitrate all industrial talks and should be in charge of agreeing and publishing a summary of every set of talks. That way nefarious actors should find it more difficult to manipulate the talks from outside.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think a third party should need to arbitrate all industrial talks and should be in charge of agreeing and publishing a summary of every set of talks. That way nefarious actors should find it more difficult to manipulate the talks from outside.

I agree that a summary of the talks should be made available to those who are affected by them. Preferably a video

 

[yorksrob]

It seems the government has been keen on DOO (or DCO) for a very long time now. If there is going to be an all-out fist fight on this negotiation, why would they not put it on the table? Most disputes end with a resolution that neither side is happy with but both sides can live with.

But this is a dispute between the Trades Ubions and the railway companies don't y'know.

If this cretin Government want to micro-manage negotiations, they should accept responsibility for visibly engaging in them.

I agree that a summary of the talks should be made available to those who are affected by them. Preferably a video

By "those affected by them", that should also include the travelling public who are the ones affected by an ongoing industrial dispute.

 

[Bald Rick]

By "those affected by them", that should also include the travelling public who are the ones affected by an ongoing industrial dispute.

Well, most “industrial talks” are conducted outwith a dispute, so I don’t think there would be a need in those cases.

However in a dispute scenario, and one that is very public, I agree with you. Although I suspect we are in a minority!

 

[yorksrob]

Well, most “industrial talks” are conducted outwith a dispute, so I don’t think there would be a need in those cases.

However in a dispute scenario, and one that is very public, I agree with you. Although I suspect we are in a minority!

To be fair, transparancy is generally better than smoke filled rooms, but I agree, in a dispute affecting millions of people around the country, there is a particular need for scrutiny and honesty.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But this is a dispute between the Trades Unions and the railway companies don't y'know.

In the private sector, a company conducting negotiations may well have influential shareholders watching their every move, and set conditions for any changes.
On the railway, the "influential shareholder" is the DfT/government.

 

[yorksrob]

In the private sector, a company conducting negotiations may well have influential shareholders watching their every move, and set conditions for any changes.
On the railway, the "influential shareholder" is the DfT/government.

The DfT/Government shouldn't have the priveledge of behaving like a private shareholder when dealing with a public service. It should be held to scrutiny.

Actually, even in the private sector, I'm inclined to think that scrutiny and transparency should be the order of the day. What if you had a private company that was a vital part of the national manufacturing supply chain, but one of the major shareholders is a sovereign wealth fund owned by a dodgy foreign Government. Is it right that the dodgy foreign Government should be able to pull strings in secret over our national manufacturing chain ?

 

[Magdalia]

I think a third party should need to arbitrate all industrial talks and should be in charge of agreeing and publishing a summary of every set of talks. That way nefarious actors should find it more difficult to manipulate the talks from outside.

The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has existed for more than 100 years. But, as its name implies, it is not compulsory to use it.

 

[43066]

In the private sector, a company conducting negotiations may well have influential shareholders watching their every move, and set conditions for any changes.
On the railway, the "influential shareholder" is the DfT/government.

Albeit, unlike private shareholders, the government has a duty to act responsibly and to consider the wider economy. Instead of seeking a resolution in good faith (see Scotland and Wales for details of what could have been agreed) they have dragged this dispute on for many months and (on the TOC side) deliberately sabotaged an agreement at the 11th hour, while other parts of the economy haemorrhage money; effectively they’re forcing members of the public and business owners to bankroll their ideological fight with the railway unions.

 

[yorksrob]

The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has existed for more than 100 years. But, as its name implies, it is not compulsory to use it.

It's role probably needs to be beefed up. I'd like to see a lot more compulsory and binding arbitration in diputes as some continental countries have.

 

[zwk500]

It's role probably needs to be beefed up. I'd like to see a lot more compulsory and binding arbitration in diputes as some continental countries have.

While it may work in some examples, you can't force two sides to reach an agreement, and on something with such a fundamental difference of opinion (and a very clumsy hand of government in the background) I don't think Arbitration would have prevented the dispute.

Remember, some of the parties actively want this fight.

 

[yorksrob]

While it may work in some examples, you can't force two sides to reach an agreement, and on something with such a fundamental difference of opinion (and a very clumsy hand of government in the background) I don't think Arbitration would have prevented the dispute.

Remember, some of the parties actively want this fight.

Better to force them to try.

 

[A0wen]

In the private sector, a company conducting negotiations may well have influential shareholders watching their every move, and set conditions for any changes.
On the railway, the "influential shareholder" is the DfT/government.

No they won't.

You clearly don't understand the difference in responsibilities.

The shareholders will agree with the board the strategic objectives for the company - usually financial i.e. sales growth of x, costs of y, target profit / margin etc.

The delivery of that is entirely operational - shareholders, even institutional ones are absolutely not involved in things like pay or conditions negotiations, setting the direction of such talks or anything like it. That's entirely a management responsibility.

 

[zwk500]

Better to force them to try.

Arbitration/mediation only works if you can convince both parties that they will lose far more if they don't compromise. Talks that are never going to reach resolution are pointless and a waste of time. Once the Union is on strike, their members are losing money and the clock starts ticking. That hands the advantage to the government and train companies. Why engage with the arbitration if you're a clear favourite to win a dirty fight?

Pointless talks are just as much a waste of money as outdated working practices. Forcing two people into a room isn't going to help if one or both don't want to listen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT/Government shouldn't have the priveledge of behaving like a private shareholder when dealing with a public service. It should be held to scrutiny.
Actually, even in the private sector, I'm inclined to think that scrutiny and transparency should be the order of the day. What if you had a private company that was a vital part of the national manufacturing supply chain, but one of the major shareholders is a sovereign wealth fund owned by a dodgy foreign Government. Is it right that the dodgy foreign Government should be able to pull strings in secret over our national manufacturing chain ?

You can see some of the conflict of capital v politics in relations with China (over 5G, nuclear power etc), and with Gulf states over things like ports, not to mention property ownership in the UK.
Railway policy is a tough one for the government, but they do seem set to reduce its net cost one way or another, to whatever they had in mind in 2019.
Either operating costs come down, or the network will get smaller (ie fewer trains, and fewer people to run them).
Labour would have the same issues to deal with, they invented DfT-micromangement of the railway after all.

 

[Smidster]

I am just hoping that calmer heads prevail very soon.

Personally yesterday was blinking miserable and next three days ain't going to be any better

It is also heart-breaking to see the impact this is having on businesses at a time when people can least afford it - places that should be packed out are completely empty which is going to be very grim come January.

Just enough already!

 

[infobleep]

I suppoae the precedent is something like the electoral commission, which is tasked with overseeing all sorts of ballots and votes independantly.

I think a third party should need to arbitrate all industrial talks and should be in charge of agreeing and publishing a summary of every set of talks. That way nefarious actors should find it more difficult to manipulate the talks from outside.

Good points there. That would be good. Now the nurses are striking I keep wanting Grant Shapps to be interviewed and for someone to ask him a question comparing nurses' pay to that of rail workers. I do accept his previous arguments weren't entirely accurate hence why I'd like him to be asked now?

 

[yorksrob]

Arbitration/mediation only works if you can convince both parties that they will lose far more if they don't compromise. Talks that are never going to reach resolution are pointless and a waste of time. Once the Union is on strike, their members are losing money and the clock starts ticking. That hands the advantage to the government and train companies. Why engage with the arbitration if you're a clear favourite to win a dirty fight?

Pointless talks are just as much a waste of money as outdated working practices. Forcing two people into a room isn't going to help if one or both don't want to listen.

Not at all. It's easier for the main combatants to sit in their office and ignore the situation if they're not forced to negotiate.

You can see some of the conflict of capital v politics in relations with China (over 5G, nuclear power etc), and with Gulf states over things like ports, not to mention property ownership in the UK.
Railway policy is a tough one for the government, but they do seem set to reduce its net cost one way or another, to whatever they had in mind in 2019.
Either operating costs come down, or the network will get smaller (ie fewer trains, and fewer people to run them).
Labour would have the same issues to deal with, they invented DfT-micromangement of the railway after all.

Yes, it's good to see the government making some moves in favour of national strategy against international capital, albeit not enough in my opinion

In terms of the railway, Labour would have the same issues, but they might have a differently nuanced approach. For example, they might not be so obsessed with forcing the railway to die on the hill of DOO, which the current government is

Good points there. That would be good. Now the nurses are striking I keep wanting Grant Shapps to be interviewed and for someone to ask him a question comparing nurses' pay to that of rail workers. I do accept his previous arguments weren't entirely accurate hence why I'd like him to be asked now?

That would be interesting, but it seems that a settlement on the pay issue was already agreed by the companies !

 

[Starmill]

Why did the RMT see fit to put the offer to their members if they were going to recommend rejecting it? And if they don't mind putting offers to their members that they don't think are worthy of acceptance, why didn't they do the same with the TOC offer? It just seems like they're going through the motions.

It seems to me that the NEC are trying to persuade members to continue in dispute for longer than they might otherwise have wished. Which is a bit rich given it is members' pay being sacrificed, not the NEC's.

 

[Annetts key]

It seems to me that the NEC are trying to persuade members to continue in dispute for longer than they might otherwise have wished. Which is a bit rich given it is members' pay being sacrificed, not the NEC's.

You do know that the RMT NEC are elected by the members, don’t you? If the NEC were to go against the will of the members, they will be voted out. The NEC are themselves workers.

 

[AVK17]

They weren’t. Only the last one has.

What you have written there is incorrect; it may be that you're mistaken or misremembering the contents of the emails about previous offers.

 

[Bantamzen]

You do know that the RMT NEC are elected by the members, don’t you? If the NEC were to go against the will of the members, they will be voted out. The NEC are themselves workers.

Don't be so sure. In the final years before merging with another union, the CPSA (Civil & Public Services Association) NEC went very rogue, including at conferences when they would quite literally refuse to acknowledge the results of shows of hands from reps on motions where they wanted a different result. 1994 (Blackpool) & 1995 (Bournemouth) were particularly notorious occasions for this at conference, with both turning into utter chaos. Just as with politicians, union executives get very comfortable at their top tables and the wants / needs of the membership sometimes play second fiddle, or just completely ignored.

Yes they can be voted out, but for most times most members just couldn't give a stuff who runs the union. Its actually a lot harder than you'd image to vote for a new NEC, and bit like getting rid of Johnson proved. Its often a Judas moment from within that shoves them out of power sadly.

 

[Bald Rick]

What you have written there is incorrect; it may be that you're mistaken or misremembering the contents of the emails about previous offers.

Fortunately I checked all the emails before I wrote the post.

 

[exbrel]

It seems to me that the NEC are trying to persuade members to continue in dispute for longer than they might otherwise have wished. Which is a bit rich given it is members' pay being sacrificed, not the NEC's.

a few weeks ago, didn't the union negotiator recommend to the union leaders that the offer he had had qualified to be put to the vote, but the leadership declined too? which to me a bystander, seemed a bit strange...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In terms of the railway, Labour would have the same issues, but they might have a differently nuanced approach. For example, they might not be so obsessed with forcing the railway to die on the hill of DOO, which the current government is

Arthur Scargill led his troops up a hill demanding that "no pits shall close unless life expired".
He is still protesting he was right, but his industry has vanished, to be replaced mostly by off-shore wind farms.

 

[AVK17]

Fortunately I checked all the emails before I wrote the post.

As did I, how very strange.