dk1
Veteran Member
No worries mate. I was scratching my head for the tenuous link.Sorry
No worries mate. I was scratching my head for the tenuous link.Sorry
Yes.But isn't this exactly what led to the Hatfield train crash & the collapse of Railtrack? ( And Potter's Bar ?)
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
God forbid pensioners should be entitled to a point of view.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.
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.
Not quite; people who have reached their state pension age don't have to pay National Insurance Contributions.We pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else.
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.
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.
Pretty sure it was a new deal. It was lul and south western that got RPI deals, because they were pre agreed .
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 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.
The problem with VS is that it isn't particularly selective.
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.
The only universal law is to not scab.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.
At what point does it settle, life expectancy for a male in UK is 78.7]
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.
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.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.
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).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.
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"
I didn’t really understand the word scab as I’m not in a rail Union but googling it’s obviously derogatory.The only universal law is to not scab.
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?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.
What are you talking about? When has asking for parity been an attack on pensioners?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.
Indeed. This is very true.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.
Why does it seem wrong? It sounds about right to me.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!
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.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.