• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail strikes discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
But isn't this exactly what led to the Hatfield train crash & the collapse of Railtrack? ( And Potter's Bar ?)
Yes.

I think both sides agree on modernisation here. I would go as far as to say both want modernisation. The problem is the two very different perspectives on what modernisation is.

Is it:

(1) Let's identify what areas can be improved, consult on implementation, agree a time period that allows for transition without forced redundancies and split the financial gain of each improvement equally between the employer requesting the change and the employees who will be changing their working practices to everyone's benefit.

or is it:

(2) This is what's changing, your quality of life will be worse, some of you will be forcibly unemployed, there will be financial benefit from your sacrifice, but the employer is keeping all of that and you will get a real terms cut to both pay and conditions, just be happy most of you still have a job.

I know which of these sounds like a modern approach, and which sounds like it belongs in the Victorian era to me, but as this thread shows, many disagree and no progress will be made until both sides can agree on what modernisation actually means.

I also think both sides need to put more thought into what modernising a workforce actually entails. With a modern workforce come demands for improved work/life balance, flexible shifts, flexible part time hours, better maternity/paternity provision, allowing the less able to undertake / remain in roles with reasonable adjustments, better cab ergonomics, access to sanitary facilities, protection from working in extreme environments and temperatures etc. The list of things that could ultimately end up reducing productivity further is endless and whilst staff are busy protecting their old working practices, there is less focus on demanding new modern protections. I've seen first hand in another public sector environment how overhaling working practices (very much in line with the second approach) can bring with it a whole raft of unforeseen circumstances that can drag down productivity that the railway is still very much in the dark ages on.
Calling it 'modernisation' I think is a trap too. We should not frame their intent by using their language. We should call it what it is: Asset stripping.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
Out of interest - does anyone have a figure of what a "cost per 1%" pay award, ideally including on-costs, would be for these staff?

Just to help understand the magnitude of the financial decision people are asking for

For context for NHS staff 1% is around £900m so you can see how that becomes very big very quickly.
 

HORNIMANS

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2009
Messages
112
Why are people running down pensioners?
we get our pension. we have worked hard all our lives.
We pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else.
i hope that when you all reach your retirement age you enjoy it to the full.
so please stop bashing pensioners its not helpful we need money to live as well.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Why are people running down pensioners?
we get our pension. we have worked hard all our lives.
We pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else.
i hope that when you all reach your retirement age you enjoy it to the full.
so please stop bashing pensioners its not helpful we need money to live as well.
Completely agree. But state pensions have to be funded from somewhere, and "triple lock" rises that are out of kilter with pay settlements create an imbalance.
 

7031

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
40
Why are people running down pensioners?
we get our pension. we have worked hard all our lives.
We pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else.
i hope that when you all reach your retirement age you enjoy it to the full.
so please stop bashing pensioners its not helpful we need money to live as well.

I agree that people absolutely should not be bashing pensioners, but the rationale is simple - state pensions that pensioners receive today are being paid with tax revenue from working age people. The amount that you (or anyone else for that matter) paid into your state pension doesn't come close to actually covering the cost of operating the scheme, and with a declining birth rate it's clear that for many people, by the time that they reach state pension age they are unlikely to benefit from it as the system is unlikely to raise enough income to be viable, hence the government's recent push for people to enter into private pension schemes which instead rely on money that you yourself (and of course, your employer) invest into.

Now, with the high rates of inflation that we're now seeing, some people are understandably frustrated that more tax revenue is being diverted to give pensioners a 10% increase to their income when other people whose incomes depend on public funding are seeing a minimal or indeed no increase. Add in the fact that pensioners are more likely to have lower outgoings than the working population as they are more likely to have mortgages paid off etc. Obviously I'm aware that this doesn't apply to all - there's plenty of pensioners who do legitimately struggle financially.

I'm admittedly here primarily for railway discussions but I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether state pensions should be means-tested (though obviously I can see how that doesn't feel fair if you've paid into a system your entire working life!). Personally I've met a reasonable mix of pensioners who are entirely dependent on their state pensions for any kind of reasonable existence and also some to whom it's largely irrelevant as they have a reasonable amount of income from anything ranging from private pension schemes to rental income.

In an ideal world we'd see an increase to public spending in general - I'm very much of the opinion that our current government seem to lack economic competence, in particular lacking a basic understanding of the concept that you have to spend money to make money - i.e. it's worth investing in infrastructure because that infrastructure will lead to long-term economic prosperity, and it's worth investing in people (including, yes, pensioners) because a healthy, happy population are more likely to contribute to society and spend money in local businesses creating job opportunities for others. People sat in their freezing cold homes in winter because they can't afford to run the central heating doesn't benefit anyone.
 
Last edited:

Tomp94

Member
Joined
9 May 2019
Messages
179
From what I can judge, by reading rags like the Daily Mail is this:

1. Pensioners gleefully accept their 10% increase in pension, because according to them 10% of peanuts is peanuts
2. Train Drivers are overpaid, should be sacked, and rehired on lower salaries. (Even though they're not on strike)
3. The RMT are communists, even though those on strike comes from all political angles
4. The railways should be automated
5. Teachers (who're also threatening strikes) are overpaid and have 10 weeks holiday a year
6. Benefit claimants should not receive the 10% increase pensions are getting
7. No one else in the public sector should get the 10% increase pensions are getting
8. Nurses should be the highest paid industry.

Obviously not tarring pensioners all with the same DM brush here, but those are my observations. The DM seems to be leading the way with the anti strike propaganda, not surprising considering it's a 'Conservative' Party 'News'paper.

Good luck to those on the picket lines today! And I hope for the sake off all parties, this dispute is resolved ASAP, although I can't see that happening at the moment, it seems the government want the fight to pick up some points in the opinion polls.
 

Ivor

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2019
Messages
339
Location
Originally Balham & now The West Sussex Coastway
I agree that people absolutely should not be bashing pensioners, but the rationale is simple - state pensions that pensioners receive today are being paid with tax revenue from working age people.
Yes & for decades we paid with tax revenue for the pensioners that came before us & some of us pensioners to this day contribute whilst still working.
I walked into a restaurant this morning and I heard a group of 4 pensioners gassing on about the strikes being terrible, so I put the argument to them that I have to others on here to stunned silence. However, they have at least now heard both sides.
God forbid pensioners should be entitled to a point of view.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Good luck to those on the picket lines today! And I hope for the sake off all parties, this dispute is resolved ASAP, although I can't see that happening at the moment, it seems the government want the fight to pick up some points in the opinion polls.

I've just spent several hours on a picket line and the ratio of people calling us w*****s to those in support would suggest to me public opinion is not what the DM and Government would want you to think it is.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
One of the sticking points appears to be " no compulsory redundancy". I must admit the amount of employees in the queue for a VS package would mean that there would be no need for compulsory redundancy anyway.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
No it was a one year deal, no strings.

Obviously with the line about to open across the city after years of delay, it was thought best not to mess about and just make a reasonable offer.

Believe the driver one was though, but I may be mistaken (or part of an agreed larger rise after previously no years of improvement).

Did you miss the ones all at Selhurst, 2 trains apart both offered wrong routes, there's plenty on there that haven't been shown either.
Constantly stop start at virtually every stop signal, it was a nightmare out there.

The screenshot had 6-7 incidents across the whole railway network. Two at one panel isn’t great obviously, but I wouldn’t say 6-7 would be unheard for a whole day in normal service, although obviously on the higher side (especially with reduced service).

Pretty sure it was a new deal. It was lul and south western that got RPI deals, because they were pre agreed .

Ah yes LUL was pre-agreed, my mistake.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
One of the sticking points appears to be " no compulsory redundancy". I must admit the amount of employees in the queue for a VS package would mean that there would be no need for compulsory redundancy anyway.

It depends what compulsory redundancy means. I suspect many mean "I want to be able to do the same job on the same terms for life", which is nonsensical. If we consider redeployment (reasonable* relocation and change of roles**) to be OK, then compulsory redundancy, i.e. someone having to leave railway employment entirely without a choice in the matter, should indeed be fairly easily avoidable.

* Reasonable relocation = relocation within a commutable distance. For instance, if a progressive ticket office closure programme means keeping Manchester Piccadilly open until fairly late on, and there's a slot there due to a retirement, it'd be reasonable to close the office at, say, Marple, and relocate that member of staff to work at Piccadilly instead, subject to a small pay rise to cover the cost of the additional commute on a case by case basis based on actual costs plus tax.

** Reasonable change of roles might include things like a member of booking office staff changing to a role of supervising and assisting passengers using TVMs. Of course, if they didn't like that they could be encouraged to apply for any other railway role, e.g. if they fancied driving or guarding.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
It isn't as such because it doesn't require the working population to grow.

It is however an issue if the working population shrinks. As that may well start to happen, it's important that we shift to investment based pension funding instead, as almost all private sector businesses have.

Yes demographics are going to be a major issue. It need not even shrink absolutely, just if there’s a higher economically inactive population in ratio to working age population, there may be issues.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The problem with VS is that it isn't particularly selective.

Yes, that's true. With booking offices, for instance, there's a huge variation of staff performance, and it'd be a shame to keep the dross. (I think it's fair to call some of them dross, some really are grossly incompetent; the one at City Thameslink who didn't know, and refused to look up, the restrictions for a simple single ticket for a direct journey on his TOC from that station really took the biscuit for gross incompetence and sheer laziness, and I've lost count of the number of times I've heard "you'll need to go to Lime St for that" on Merseyside over the years).

Yes demographics are going to be a major issue. It need not even shrink absolutely, just if there’s a higher economically inactive population in ratio to working age population, there may be issues.

Also people living longer after retirement. That's why I don't object to pensionable ages moving up with life expectancy - why wouldn't you do that? Sometimes "the workers" need to understand what position "the elite" are actually in, it isn't always milk and honey.
 

KM1991

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
165
Talk again that a law change is being pushed through that will allow agency staff to cover industrial action.

Excuse my ignorance but agency staff like myself already cover rail work but is there something ‘written’ somewhere that agency workers can’t cover industrial action? I assume there is?

I appreciate any cover will only be for CSA, Gateline & Dispatch.
The only universal law is to not scab.
 

Hellzapoppin

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
222
I was made redundant from NR last year and the redeployment team were brilliant. As I was the only one of my particular skills in the country nothing really fitted so I took the money and retired. Think people need to remember that redundancy is the post going and not the person doing it.
 

Exscrew

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2021
Messages
106
Location
Hereford
]


Also people living longer after retirement. That's why I don't object to pensionable ages moving up with life expectancy - why wouldn't you do that? Sometimes "the workers" need to understand what position "the elite" are actually in, it isn't always milk and honey.
At what point does it settle, life expectancy for a male in UK is 78.7

And the issue is the "elite" have absolutely no interest in the position of the "workers"

The same as the pensioners lecturing the youth of today is ridiculous.

We live is a weird society where people idolise company bosses who have so much money they are able to fly to space but do not allow the employees toilet breaks and sick pay.
 

colchesterken

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
764
No one has answered my question on page 107!. as a non railway worker I want to understand both sides of the issue, can anyone give us some examples of what are "the out of date practices" they want to reform?.. Grant Shaps used the illustration of a manager speaking to someone on a break the person then having to restart their break, people here said a greeting would not cause a restart, but work would, of course that would apply in other industries if a lorry driver had to move his vehicle THE LAW would require a break to re start, it would seem Shaps is stretching the point. Are they doing this in other areas?
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
If you’re not backing the RMT in this strike you’re basically saying that working class people should accept less pay and ultimately less share of wealth, whilst doing nothing to try and prevent it. It’s that simple.
Got it in one. Far too many working people have been conditioned to meekly accept it when the wealthy tell them they can't possibly be paid more, or that they should be the ones that absorb the pain of inflation.

Working class people,
why do people keep using this phrase from last century, so makes it sound as those who work hard are not entitled to better themselves. Can we please show those who work hard some respect.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has to work for a living is working class, and that includes many people who would consider themselves middle class. The term doesn't imply anything about how hard someone works (although it's certainly true that the poorest often work much harder than anyone else in society).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
At what point does it settle, life expectancy for a male in UK is 78.7

If life expectancy settles, it should stop going up. If life expectancy reduces (which complications of COVID may make happen), it should go down.

And the issue is the "elite" have absolutely no interest in the position of the "workers"

I don't think that's universally true.
 

Ivor

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2019
Messages
339
Location
Originally Balham & now The West Sussex Coastway
The only universal law is to not scab.
I didn’t really understand the word scab as I’m not in a rail Union but googling it’s obviously derogatory.

‘Universal Law’ something else I’m not aware of but anyway, so agency staff if they currently have a shift is not to cross the picket line?

Mister Lynch on the evening news yesterday said he/they would ask agency staff not to cross the picket & ask them not to work.

Agency staff have zero TOC benefits obviously, would have go home with no pay because they’ve not worked & probably would be sacked for refusing to work & yet again I’ve posted a few times current agency staff had this week’s shifts cancelled because of the strike as not required.

And again I’ll say nobody should have their T&Cs eroded but there are casualties in this.

When the RMT secure TOC staff a satisfactory deal then zero hour agency staff won’t be given a second though but never mind that’s life.
 

Attachments

  • DA39C431-C2FF-4FAB-A273-43AB786B5382.jpeg
    DA39C431-C2FF-4FAB-A273-43AB786B5382.jpeg
    155.5 KB · Views: 42

Need2

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
595
Out of interest - does anyone have a figure of what a "cost per 1%" pay award, ideally including on-costs, would be for these staff?

Just to help understand the magnitude of the financial decision people are asking for

For context for NHS staff 1% is around £900m so you can see how that becomes very big very quickly.
Now I don’t have the figures and I’m not good at maths but, are you saying a 1% rise in the NHS will cost an extra £900 million?
That seems to me to be totally wrong!
 
Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
Why are people running down pensioners?
we get our pension. we have worked hard all our lives.
We pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else.
i hope that when you all reach your retirement age you enjoy it to the full.
so please stop bashing pensioners its not helpful we need money to live as well.
What are you talking about? When has asking for parity been an attack on pensioners?

If pensioners get 11% workers should get 11%. When did that become controversial?
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
I was made redundant from NR last year and the redeployment team were brilliant. As I was the only one of my particular skills in the country nothing really fitted so I took the money and retired. Think people need to remember that redundancy is the post going and not the person doing it.
Indeed. This is very true.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Now I don’t have the figures and I’m not good at maths but, are you saying a 1% rise in the NHS will cost an extra £900 million?
That seems to me to be totally wrong!
Why does it seem wrong? It sounds about right to me.
 

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
490
Location
UK
I understand the aversion to compulsory redundancies but they shouldn't be off the table completely. Whilst they would (in an ideal world) be kept to a minimum, they are a perfectly legitimate tool where a role is no longer needed and redeployment is not practical from the perspective of either the employer or individual.

Work has always evolved in large (no firemen on diesel trains) and small (ticket staff walking about rather than behind glass) way. Ideally that is tackled by retraining and redeployment but that doesn't always work
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Yes & for decades we paid with tax revenue for the pensioners that came before us & some of us pensioners to this day contribute whilst still working.
And that worked fine when life expectancy was lower and the large baby boomer generation were working, with their taxes supporting a smaller number of pensioners receiving less generous state pensions.

The problem we're facing is that there are:
1. more pensioners with the baby boomer generation moving into retirement age,
2. people living longer thanks to better health services (which also cost) and
3. more generous state pensions compared to previous decades.

As previously this will still be funded by today's working population, which is smaller relative to the number of pensioners (the "potential support ratio"). Critically, working people are no longer receiving the sort of year-on-year pay increases. Real pay levels have barely increased in a decade. The only possible solutions are:

1. Make today's working age population work for longer - i.e. increase the retirement age
2. Increase taxes
3. Increase immigration levels to grow the working age population.
4. Get economic growth back again - meaning solving the productivity gap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top