• 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.

NE_ABZ

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2019
Messages
8
Location
Scotland
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?
Many OAPs have not got public sector pensions, but rely on the state pension for the bulk of their income. Even the top state pension is way less than the minimum wage these days. Some OAPs pay more in council tax than they do in income tax. I would be careful about asking for parity with state pensioners if I was in a union!

I don't support the Tories, but I am always amazed at how little Labour does to go after the OAP vote.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SynthD

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
1,137
Location
UK
I am always amazed at how little Labour does to go after the OAP vote.
There is only so much you can help those who follow low quality media. I know plenty of Labour voting OAPs, many of them credit the same media sources I rely on.

It’s very expensive for either party to purchase OAP votes. It should be a disgrace to waste public money like we see currently. Pride in a well run country isn’t as appealing as it used to be when there’s cash thrown around.

This is way off topic. The point that the triple lock exists while the government says other public fundees cannot be so lucky is about as relevant as this line of argument can be.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
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.
Despite the exaggerated claims of 'our members resorting to foodbanks', it's actually agency workers such as yourself who are amongst the biggest victims of this strike - and with whom I have an enormous amount of sympathy.

Mr Lynch couldn't care less; if you put this point to him, he would no doubt glibly say that you should be joining the RMT and striking too...
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Many OAPs have not got public sector pensions, but rely on the state pension for the bulk of their income. Even the top state pension is way less than the minimum wage these days. Some OAPs pay more in council tax than they do in income tax. I would be careful about asking for parity with state pensioners if I was in a union!

I don't support the Tories, but I am always amazed at how little Labour does to go after the OAP vote.
Of course there are pensioners that are not very well off. But nowadays pensioners as a whole are no worse off than the working population. That's in stark contrast to previous decades when there definitely were a higher proportion of pensioners in poverty than people of working age. Therefore, if we want to treat everyone fairly we shouldn't be singling out pensioners for special treatment.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
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!

NHS substantive workforce, even only looking at hospital sector, is over 1 million FTE

What did you think it would be?
 

Ivor

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2019
Messages
339
Location
Originally Balham & now The West Sussex Coastway
Despite the exaggerated claims of 'our members resorting to foodbanks', it's actually agency workers such as yourself who are amongst the biggest victims of this strike - and with whom I have an enormous amount of sympathy.

Mr Lynch couldn't care less; if you put this point to him, he would no doubt glibly say that you should be joining the RMT and striking too...
I appreciate that, many thanks.

I am trying to see both sides yet now I & others are sat at home with no work at all as a consequence but in any situation as this one there will be casualties.
 
Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
There is a real irony in calling others paranoid when you describe changes to working practices as 'asset stripping'!
Well at least we're returning to the important stuff again. Can you now tell us what working practices should change and how the changes benefit the railway?
 

spyinthesky

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2021
Messages
267
Location
Bulford
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.
Hardly a good measure of polling.
It is also likely that those that disagree will typically avoid confrontation and quietly pass by.
As for the 90 odd percent of people who don’t use the train probably don’t care either way.
The government will always try to get us to think what they want us to whatever the political bias.
Good luck with your fight.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Do you know taking this to a level of insults isn’t helping this thread.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the point about pensioners being protected, especially since we know there’s underlying reasons behind governments wanting to do that - not least that pensioners are known to be more likely to vote. There’s no right or wrong answer of course, as it’s a value judgement.

My own personal view is that there’s certainly a good argument to say that if workers aren’t going to get an inflation-matching increase then it’s only fair that pensioners share some of this pain, so I’d certainly be content for the triple lock to remain on hold for the time being. But the triple lock is such political dynamite that I don’t think it will happen.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Well at least we're returning to the important stuff again. Can you now tell us what working practices should change and how the changes benefit the railway?
I am not involved in the negotiations so it is not for me to say exactly what should change. But changes which enable the same outcome to be realised with fewer roles increase productivity, and hence open the door to a bigger pay increase.

It sounds like you are fundamentally opposed to any change, and yet still want the higher pay increase that increased productivity would unlock. Surely you can see that this is not a realistic position to adopt?

At the moment it seems that the negotiations are not really progressing because both sides are refusing to enter into proper discussion without pre-conditions. Which is not good news.
 
Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
I am not involved in the negotiations so it is not for me to say exactly what should change. But changes which enable the same outcome to be realised with fewer roles increase productivity, and hence open the door to a bigger pay increase.

It sounds like you are fundamentally opposed to any change, and yet still want the higher pay increase that increased productivity would unlock. Surely you can see that this is not a realistic position to adopt?

At the moment it seems that the negotiations are not really progressing because both sides are refusing to enter into proper discussion without pre-conditions. Which is not good news.
Hang on this isn't about me. I've made plenty of statements about the nonsense claims about productivity etc and explaining the rationale behind all of them. This is about your views. You made a statement and I'd like you to explain why you think that. So over to you...
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
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?
I'm a pensioner. I did NOT ask for 11% and I'd accept 0%, if others would accept the same, because we all need to get through the effects of Covid, Ukraine etc. In fact I'd accept 0% if all workers got 5%. But not 11%.
You're suggesting the opposite, by advocating parity. So you'd give the 11% you quote, to all NHS staff, teachers, police, local authority staff, in fact everyone who works in any capacity. That's parity. But it's also a recipe for disaster.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Hang on this isn't about me. I've made plenty of statements about the nonsense claims about productivity etc and explaining the rationale behind all of them. This is about your views. You made a statement and I'd like you to explain why you think that. So over to you...
I was responding to your description of the changes as 'asset stripping':
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.

That seems hyperbolic and paranoid to me. I don't by any means think NR have gone about this in the right way, but to suggest that they're asset stripping is quite inaccurate, and dilutes your own argument.

What happened at P&O was asset stripping. This isn't.
 
Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
I'm a pensioner. I did NOT ask for 11% and I'd accept 0%, if others would accept the same, because we all need to get through the effects of Covid, Ukraine etc. In fact I'd accept 0% if all workers got 5%. But not 11%.
You're suggesting the opposite, by advocating parity. So you'd give the 11% you quote, to all NHS staff, teachers, police, local authority staff, in fact everyone who works in any capacity. That's parity. But it's also a recipe for disaster.
I don't know anyone that voted on Covid or the Ukraine. These are irrelevant and are both a huge drain on resources that the government decided to do. So the government should take responsibility for the financial situation that those policies have caused for us.

I was responding to your description of the changes as 'asset stripping':


That seems hyperbolic and paranoid to me. I don't by any means think NR have gone about this in the right way, but to suggest that they're asset stripping is quite inaccurate, and dilutes your own argument.

What happened at P&O was asset stripping. This isn't.
I've explained why it is asset stripping as I've said. Still waiting for anybody to argue this is wrong and why - as you're able to if you want. So I'd like you to now defend this plan and it's apparent benefits for the industry because that is what you claimed. You're not getting out of this by quoting me. Explain why you think it's good...
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
I've explained why it is asset stripping as I've said. Still waiting for anybody to argue this is wrong and why - as you're able to if you want. So I'd like you to now defend this plan and it's apparent benefits for the industry because that is what you claimed. You're not getting out of this by quoting me. Explain why you think it's good...
I don't have to defend the plan or indeed think it's good, or the right one, to know that 'asset stripping' is an inaccurate description.

Asset stripping is defined as:
the process of buying an undervalued company with the intent of selling off its assets to generate a profit for shareholders
Network Rail isn't being taken over by anyone. It doesn't generate a profit. And nothing is being sold off. So by any definition, this is not asset stripping.

I would have thought the benefits would be fairly obvious though? The industry has a lower wage bill, and some of these savings can be put towards a higher-than-usual pay award. The remainder helps to reduce subsidy, which the government has clearly indicated it's not willing to sustain at current levels.

If I were in your shoes, I would be in favour of changes that help the industry have a more politically acceptable level of subsidy. Because that is the only way of guaranteeing the long term security of the railway. Contrary to popular belief, its continued existence is by no means guaranteed.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I don't know anyone that voted on Covid or the Ukraine. These are irrelevant and are both a huge drain on resources that the government decided to do. So the government should take responsibility for the financial situation that those policies have caused for us.
With respect, changes to global markets and Russian aggression aren't things that the government 'decided to do'. There are many things that I would describe as wrong that this government has decided to do but I don't think the way you put it here is at all correct. The idea that they're irrelevant is silly. Brexit is another key cause of us becoming poorer nationally too but again that one has now been settled and it was their decision to go with it.

Yes, your slice of the pie isn't growing as it were. But also there's just less pie to go around now than there was, because of these three key factors which are limiting the productive capability of the economy.

Finally, I note that you say that the government should take responsibility for the financial situation. I'm very sorry to say that as the government doesn't actually have any of its own money, that's impossible. Everyone equally has ownership over public funds, not just the government. I'm afraid that's just how public funding works. So if there's a call for spending more public money on something, for example paying an electricity subsidy later this year, sending resources to Ukraine or public sector pay awards, that funding all comes from general public money.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the point about pensioners being protected, especially since we know there’s underlying reasons behind governments wanting to do that - not least that pensioners are known to be more likely to vote. There’s no right or wrong answer of course, as it’s a value judgement.

My own personal view is that there’s certainly a good argument to say that if workers aren’t going to get an inflation-matching increase then it’s only fair that pensioners share some of this pain, so I’d certainly be content for the triple lock to remain on hold for the time being. But the triple lock is such political dynamite that I don’t think it will happen.
Usually the argument behind protecting pensioner incomes is that they have little choice. If a worker feels they have a bad deal, they can look to change their job or possibly take on additional work. That usually isn't an option open to many pensioners, their incomes are fixed and they may no longer have the capacity to rejoin the workforce.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
With respect, changes to global markets and Russian aggression aren't things that the government 'decided to do'. There are many things that I would describe as wrong that this government has decided to do but I don't think the way you put it here is at all correct. The idea that they're irrelevant is silly. Brexit is another key cause of us becoming poorer nationally too but again that one has now been settled and it was their decision to go with it.

Yes, your slice of the pie isn't growing as it were. But also there's just less pie to go around now than there was, because of these three key factors which are limiting the productive capability of the economy.

Finally, I note that you say that the government should take responsibility for the financial situation. I'm very sorry to say that as the government doesn't actually have any of its own money, that's impossible. Everyone equally has ownership over public funds, not just the government. I'm afraid that's just how public funding works.

In some ways as a population we were unlucky where Covid occurred relative to the electoral cycle. The government were able to put through a load of short-term measures aimed at keeping people happy, with pretty much zero scrutiny. Unfortunately a representative democracy entrusts such decisions to the government, but equally one can turn round and say we never voted for the various Covid measures - especially the length of time they lasted for.

I think we all knew and know that we were going to take a hit for March 2020, that was going to be a hit no matter what happened because of the unknown nature of what was happening. But there was insufficient focus on getting things going again.
 
Joined
12 Jun 2022
Messages
91
Location
Kent
I don't have to defend the plan or indeed think it's good, or the right one, to know that 'asset stripping' is an inaccurate description.

Asset stripping is defined as:

Network Rail isn't being taken over by anyone. It doesn't generate a profit. And nothing is being sold off. So by any definition, this is not asset stripping.

I would have thought the benefits would be fairly obvious though? The industry has a lower wage bill, and some of these savings can be put towards a higher-than-usual pay award. The remainder helps to reduce subsidy, which the government has clearly indicated it's not willing to sustain at current levels.

If I were in your shoes, I would be in favour of changes that help the industry have a more politically acceptable level of subsidy. Because that is the only way of guaranteeing the long term security of the railway. Contrary to popular belief, its continued existence is by no means guaranteed.
So this lower wage bill, do you not think this will compromise safety? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut these jobs for a supposed higher pay award? Should passengers be concerned?

You've now added a new plateau of thought justifying these changes because it might improve politics for the railway and some notion of subsidy which has forever been there. I care about safety, shouldn't politicians? I think that's a very strange justification for what is proposed, but at least you try. NR just lie, they haven't even tried to justify it. It's Shapps calling the tune and the tune is cuts and to hell with the consequences of that
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Usually the argument behind protecting pensioner incomes is that they have little choice. If a worker feels they have a bad deal, they can look to change their job or possibly take on additional work. That usually isn't an option open to many pensioners, their incomes are fixed and they may no longer have the capacity to rejoin the workforce.

Which is reasonable to a point in my view, however we have reached a position where many pensioners are in quite healthy positions, especially relative to elements of the working population. It’s just as reasonable to say that a pensioner who feels they have a poor deal in retirement should have focussed more on taking steps to improve their savings and/or pension earlier in life. I know plenty of people now in early and middle adult life who don’t give the slightest thought to planning for their retirement, which to be honest is pretty remiss.

No easy answers unfortunately.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
So this lower wage bill, do you not think this will compromise safety? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut these jobs for a supposed higher pay award? Should passengers be concerned?
I think there are ways of lowering the wage bill without compromising safety, yes. Though generally it will involve a tradeoff with performance/punctuality, e.g. through more TSRs.

The railway has, overall, become much safer over the last 20 years and the level of controls now in place means that a repeat of Hatfield etc. is very unlikely. So as a passenger I would not be concerned. People happily take on much higher levels of risk on railways abroad, let alone when they are driving.

Job cuts and changes to roles are inevitable; compulsory redundancies aren't.
 

exbrel

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2018
Messages
170
Well at least we're returning to the important stuff again. Can you now tell us what working practices should change and how the changes benefit the railway?
as i mentioned in a earlier post, tech. is advancing in leaps and bounds, you can buy tickets from a number of apps, so why keep booking offices?. S&T is tech. now and go more so in the near future, so if there is a little box somewhere out in the sticks where a lone signalman is pulling levers, he wont for much longer. All industries are advancing, in robotics, NHS, most engineering companies, i used to be a turret lathe operator but 50 odd years ago that went automatic, so we lost 30 operators, and 2-3 setters remained, "progress"?... there's automatic-trains now in other countries they will bound to come here, there's no job for life.
So is it going to be the case of the Luddite movement re-emerging?
 

jettofab

Member
Joined
2 May 2020
Messages
46
Location
North West
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.

I don't disagree that retirement ages need to change but do you honestly not see a need to review whether people can be doing certain roles at certain ages?
 

Drogba11CFC

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2009
Messages
868
I was hoping to go to the Fenchurch Gala at the Bluebell Railway on 29th July; should I start looking at Premier Inns?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
£1.6bn pre tax profit last year according to Network Rail's own accounts.

Network Rail 2021 statement

That misses the point. The profit isn't generated for shareholders.

I was hoping to go to the Fenchurch Gala at the Bluebell Railway on 29th July; should I start looking at Premier Inns?

Nobody knows when the next round of strikes will be, if any. It's certainly worth having a back up plan though.
 

SynthD

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
1,137
Location
UK
I don't disagree that retirement ages need to change but do you honestly not see a need to review whether people can be doing certain roles at certain ages?
That exists in some roles, eg firefighters. Expand that list, find them desk jobs like training.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top