RMT on a "war footing" to threaten a national strike

[dk1]

I would’ve thought Friday to be quite popular. What about the pub & shenanigans after work? That’s what made office life worthwhile all week.

 

[nw1]

This could well make the peak even more awkward and expensive to manage, as it's likely to become a 3 day, rather than 5 day, concentration of traffic

There will still be a need for a peak, even if people only go in three days a week. Maybe they don't need to increase (length or frequency of) services in the peak quite as much, but they still need to offer something better than the off-peak service. And in the short term, while there is still the risk of Covid, they need the peak capacity more than ever to prevent overcrowding for those that do need to go into work.

And they should still keep the peak paths, and excess stock, in place, in case the fashion for working at home has its day (no-one can predict this, what is fashionable in 2021 might be deeply unfashionable by 2026, look at how unpopular Thatcherism was by the end of the 80s/early 90s) and they need to restore the full peak service. In many ways this is similar to Beeching closures: unless a line really was literally in the middle of nowhere they should not have allowed old lines to be built on.

The peak may be expensive to operate, but it has been a fact of railway life since at least the 1950s. There is a need for it in some form and the Government (as it appears to be them, not the TOCs, calling the shots) should not be attempting to deny that.

 

[Dai Corner]

If Friday is going to be a quiet as some claim it will be for commuting, then it could be argued Friday should be entirely off-peak. This would perhaps encourage some commuters back on the railways on Fridays.

Though it's a peak time for leisure travel on some routes.

 

[Journeyman]

I would’ve thought Friday to be quite popular. What about the pub & shenanigans after work? That’s what made office life worthwhile all week.

You've got to be kidding. I hated all that nonsense! I'll be really happy if I never have to sit in a pub with a bunch of annoying work colleagues ever again.

 

[nw1]

You've got to be kidding. I hated all that nonsense! I'll be really happy if I never have to sit in a pub with a bunch of annoying work colleagues ever again.

It depends who your colleagues are - for some, socialisation with (selected) colleagues is an important part of life.

 

[Jozhua]

My experience of the Midlands was that there is virtually no peak service, just the standard service all day. Didn't commute by rail when I lived in Manchester, but my impression was very much the same. Generally seems like specific peak time service is a London thing?

I've no time for RMT and don't believe they are helping the wider cause of getting the industry back on its feet either with this approach. However, the Dept of T isn't helping matters either with a lack of clear direction for the industry and what it wants. Currently no one knows how traffic levels are going to play out so it makes eminent sense to reduce all controllable costs which I would have thought is largely overtime, rest day working etc. Also the Dept of T should be instructing operators not to remove capability be that drivers support staff, rolling stock and agreed 2019 train paths until there is absolute clarity about what it wants from each operator and that will take the creation of GBR. However, what seems a lot more certain, as it was already happening, is the high peak is likely no more but that traffic will spread out into the shoulders. Everyone knows that the peak is hugely expensive to both run and keep reliable so this a positive for the industry that can be exploited in the long run. Furthermore on many threads across this forum we here time and time again depots that can't cover the work without RDW even though number of services has been reduced so this is an opportunity to sort this out. Then we have SWR and Scotrail trailing service cutbacks at the same time as LNER was expanding its services albeit now uncertain. Other operators are silent on any long term plans so it all sounds very disjointed to me.

The dept of T would do well to engage with the unions across the board and operators to set out its stall and endeavour to carry people along rather than giving the RMT opportunity to cause chaos because its second guessing what it thinks is going on.

Just quoting to give a big like on this post.

Truth is the government wants to delay making any commitments to anything. I get the impression there are wars going on internally between different departments (basically with the Treasury). You can see the evidence of these internal fights seen as bad last minute edits on certain parts of government reports.

They won't all be working the same three days, will they?

Lmao true, but also don't underestimate the stupidity of people!

My bossman wants us in on Thursdays now, seems like that might expand to a full five days when a new office is sorted.

I still maintain most people don't work in offices, so really it shouldn't matter all that much, the system should better cater to key workers, service industry staff, etc.

 

[Journeyman]

It depends who your colleagues are - for some, socialisation with (selected) colleagues is an important part of life.

Fair enough, but I'd choose Fridays off or at home over that any time.

 

[dk1]

You've got to be kidding. I hated all that nonsense! I'll be really happy if I never have to sit in a pub with a bunch of annoying work colleagues ever again.

Best bit was ringing round next day asking where we’d been & when/how did I get home. Not a lot has changed with me even now sometimes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think most people, given the option, would work tue, wed and thur. Wednesday in particular will probably be the busiest.

I think two days will be more popular, and there is no great case then for picking anything in particular other than that nobody will pick Friday (which was quiet pre COVID).

If I was doing three and had a choice it would be Mon, Tues and Thurs, though. Nicer with a gap than three in a row.

If Friday is going to be a quiet as some claim it will be for commuting, then it could be argued Friday should be entirely off-peak. This would perhaps encourage some commuters back on the railways on Fridays.

Friday evening already is on IC services, which shows that "peak" isn't about passenger demand but about price differentiation, as it is the busiest time of the week!

 

[Goldfish62]

Not necessarily. My employer usually hires staff from anywhere in the UK and just makes them 'remote workers' who work from home nearly 100% of the time and just visit an office or client site when required and claim travel expenses.
That way the talent pool isn't limited to people near enough to the office to commute regularly.

Not all work can be done remotely but the majority can be.

Indeed - and I'm sure that employers will in time realise that "remotely" includes other parts of the world where labour is cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - and I'm sure that employers will in time realise that "remotely" includes other parts of the world where labour is cheaper.

The IT industry has tried this and largely found that it doesn't, because language barriers and cultural understandings make it far less effective and thus not actually cheaper.

 

[Phlip]

Its odd, because my local station, Fitzwilliam, is just about back to normal with the car park. There really is no pattern what so ever.

Garforth is gradually getting busier and busier with each passing day.

 

[Goldfish62]

The IT industry has tried this and largely found that it doesn't, because language barriers and cultural understandings make it far less effective and thus not actually cheaper.

But that doesn't mean that others won't try.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that doesn't mean that others won't try.

Generally well-run companies do their research and due diligence before making that sort of change.

Badly run companies might not, but being made redundant from a badly run company may well prove a blessing in the long term.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A question that those well-versed in Trades Union history could answer.

Has there ever been the use of "war footing" by any other Trades Union in a pre-announcement of possible industrial action?

 

[Goldfish62]

Generally well-run companies do their research and due diligence before making that sort of change.

Badly run companies might not, but being made redundant from a badly run company may well prove a blessing in the long term.

It depends what you classify as badly run. Amazon is clearly a very well run and successful company, but treats its staff like dirt.

Companies will look for novel ways of addressing labour shortages given that migrating workers are no longer welcome in Fortress UK.

 

[Darandio]

A question that those well-versed in Trades Union history could answer.

Has there ever been the use of "war footing" by any other Trades Union in a pre-announcement of possible industrial action?

I'm unsure about other unions but this certainly isn't the first time the RMT have used such language. In fact it's a go to rhetoric for them.

 

[Master29]

Which is precisely what will happen if they go out on strike. Look back to what happened at southern to see the end result.



If this is the government's agenda (which it clearly was, though usage is on the rise at present) it will happen anyway. A union isn't going to be able to stop cuts, all it will do by striking is make them more painful.

As our union rep explained, cuts are coming. You can either be sat at the table and listened to, or stood outside the conference room stamping your feet and banging at the door, being an irritation to the people making the decisions. You tell me who's more likely to be have a meaningful influence.

Indeed but what if they're not listened to? Just because it's the governments agenda, doesn't mean it has to happen.

 

[Western Sunset]

I think that RMT (and indeed all unions) need to be on a "War Footing" to try to get back as many customers/passengers as quickly as possible. Not the other way round...

 

[Dai Corner]

It depends what you classify as badly run. Amazon is clearly a very well run and successful company, but treats its staff like dirt.

Companies will look for novel ways of addressing labour shortages given that migrating workers are no longer welcome in Fortress UK.

Remember the fashion for offshoring call centres?

Many companies found that wasn't a good idea, onshored (is that the word?) and now use their UK call centres as a selling point.

 

[whoosh]

This won’t be a popular opinion on here, and I’m far from a traditional “Union man”, actually quite the opposite, I have come to admire the RMT.

They don’t take any prisoners and their militant approach has paid dividends for their members over the last few decades. They certainly aren’t interested in winning popularity contests - but that isn’t their purpose. They certainly won’t be taking a shafting a la British Gas engineers anytime soon. They’ll punch back, or die trying. Good on them I say!

ASLEF are smarter, but it’s easier for them to be: they walk more quietly, yet wield a far bigger stick.

I take your point. Paid dividends, yes, but remember that certainly for all of this century, the railway has experienced growth - so if the railway and the companies running it are successful then that should be spread out amongst the workers; that's a fair enough stance to take.
Into the future though, we may see a retraction of passenger numbers and a less successful railway.

Securing the best it can for it's members is very union's job, and it isn't a popularity contest. I just believe that sometimes a more reasonable looking stance - a less bolshy one, might work better.

 

[Goldfish62]

Remember the fashion for offshoring call centres?

Many companies found that wasn't a good idea, onshored (is that the word?) and now use their UK call centres as a selling point.

Yes, that was alluded to in post #131.

 

[cactustwirly]

Comedy timing really - all they are going to do is hurt the railway industry and the current anti-rail government will be more than happy to facilitate the shrinking of the industry.

I also oppose cutting of service, with the caveat that operational patterns should change for a better spread of service throughout the day and on weekends.

Let's also be realistic here though, if the government is sensible, cuts will be made mostly to peak services in to London - most TOCs in the rest of the country don't really run a very peak-y service anyway as often times there is not station capacity to do so. Having the entire country's rail staff go on strike over what is essentially mostly a London issue seems a bit ridiculous and highly counterproductive.

Also isn't RMT essentially just cutting service for the government anyway here?

That is a misunderstanding of how the railways are funded.
The money that is used to subsidise services in the North, comes from profitable commuter ToCs like SWR, GTR and C2C (the intercity and Thames Valley part of GWR cross subsidises the South West services to a degree also).
If the revenue from these ToCs is reduced then there is less money to go round for Northern rail etc. So service cuts will be widespread across the country.

 

[Goldfish62]

I take your point. Paid dividends, yes, but remember that certainly for all of this century, the railway has experienced growth - so if the railway and the companies running it are successful then that should be spread out amongst the workers; that's a fair enough stance to take.
Into the future though, we may see a retraction of passenger numbers and a less successful railway.

Securing the best it can for it's members is very union's job, and it isn't a popularity contest. I just believe that sometimes a more reasonable looking stance - a less bolshy one, might work better.

The RMT haven't done anything clever. They've just exploited the exceptionalism and sense of invulnerability that seems to persist throughout the rail industry. The railways have always been highly politicised, have oodles of public money thrown at them and strike action is extremely unlike to result in anyone losing their jobs. The government has always been there to bail out the railways. If staff went on strike at bus companies frequently the companies simply wouldn't exist anymore - no government handouts there to keep them afloat.

The RMT has a significant representation inn the bus industry, where pay and conditions compare extremely poorly to the railways, yet there is not the degree of bolshiness from the RMT because they know how damaging industrial action can be to their members' prospects.

 

[A0wen]

The RMT need to grow up.

Everyone is gradually figuring out how much the world has changed, but changed it has. The railways can play an important part in the 'new world', but the RMT's apparent desire to cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and pretend nothing has changed and nothing needs to change means they'll just end up getting left behind.

It's time to engage constructively in shaping the future.

Whilst I agree, the union membership also needs to start taking a stand and ensuring that sensible people are elected as their General Secretaries and reps.

The recent Unite election saw only about 10% of its members actually voting - it's no wonder unions end up with such poor leadership. Look back 40 years to the EETPU where the likes of Frank Chapple or Eric Hammond led their union sensibly and for the benefit of their members - and IIRC both were elected by a majority of their membership. I have the same discussion with my wife who's a teacher and is a member of the NEU yet despairs at most of their pronouncements - if she's not prepared to start voting for better leadership in her union, it won't get better - simples.

 

[Aictos]

The railways have always been highly politicised, have oodles of public money thrown at them and strike action is extremely unlike to result in anyone losing their jobs. The government has always been there to bail out the railways.

The same applies to the NHS, heavily political with unlimited money thrown at it and never has to worry about any debt as the Govt of the day will always bail it out.

 

[ComUtoR]

Whilst I agree, the union membership also needs to start taking a stand and ensuring that sensible people are elected as their General Secretaries and reps.
(...) - if she's not prepared to start voting for better leadership in her union, it won't get better - simples.

Without speaking for all Unions, I have found that my Unions election system to be pretty corrupt and not fit for purpose.

 

[DorkingMain]

I find that the RMT has a much worse reputation than ASLEF.

The RMT represents a much greater number of workers than ASLEF. Also ASLEF have shown to be more willing to accept destaffing of trains (DOO) etc. in return for pay rises. I hardly think ASLEF's "give our drivers some more pay and we'll keep quiet" approach is something to be commended.

The RMT haven't done anything clever. They've just exploited the exceptionalism and sense of invulnerability that seems to persist throughout the rail industry. The railways have always been highly politicised, have oodles of public money thrown at them and strike action is extremely unlike to result in anyone losing their jobs. The government has always been there to bail out the railways. If staff went on strike at bus companies frequently the companies simply wouldn't exist anymore - no government handouts there to keep them afloat.

The RMT has a significant representation inn the bus industry, where pay and conditions compare extremely poorly to the railways, yet there is not the degree of bolshiness from the RMT because they know how damaging industrial action can be to their members' prospects.

Having worked on both, the attitude towards unions is also very different on the railways compared to buses. When I was doing London bus work, union representation was patchy, there were different unions vying for membership and not talking to each other, and the union reps seemed to be more in it to get the odd day off than to actually work as a union rep. As such when strikes came round, many more people were willing to turn up and work vs. they would be on the railway.

Also important to note how fragmented the bus industry is compared to the railway, where the number of companies actually involved is in the double figures.

 

[Goldfish62]

The RMT represents a much greater number of workers than ASLEF. Also ASLEF have shown to be more willing to accept destaffing of trains (DOO) etc. in return for pay rises. I hardly think ASLEF's "give our drivers some more pay and we'll keep quiet" approach is something to be commended.


Having worked on both, the attitude towards unions is also very different on the railways compared to buses. When I was doing London bus work, union representation was patchy, there were different unions vying for membership and not talking to each other, and the union reps seemed to be more in it to get the odd day off than to actually work as a union rep. As such when strikes came round, many more people were willing to turn up and work vs. they would be on the railway.

Also important to note how fragmented the bus industry is compared to the railway, where the number of companies actually involved is in the double figures.

Agreed on all that, but really the London bus industry is more akin to the railways than buses outside London, in that it too is highly politicised and has a certain amount of job security. It's a different world on the buses outside London!

 

[Robertj21a]

As people mention, very regularly, any RMT members unhappy with their leaders need to do something about it themselves. Nobody else can change the top tier.