New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[43096]

The question was about eroding of T&Cs, not inflation.

So what are staff prepared to trade in return for pay rises?

 

[Annetts key]

And my point was that in order to offer substantial pay rises, efficiencies are often sought. Especially when public finances are involved.

The big problem here is that word: “efficiencies”. Often what is proposed is not actually efficiencies, but rather reductions. In other words, cuts.
I’ve seen lots of changes since I joined the railway industry and to be honest, in many areas the railways have, and continue to become more inefficient. Especially when top down cost cutting occurs.

 

[12LDA28C]

Except that most railway staff (those that actually run it in the real world) were told that it was an essential service therefore they had to come in to work to keep it going no matter what.

I'm aware of that. I was one of them.

Not so essential any more though, according to the Government. How strange.

The big problem here is that word: “efficiencies”. Often what is proposed is not actually efficiencies, but rather reductions. In other words, cuts.
I’ve seen lots of changes since I joined the railway industry and to be honest, in many areas the railways have, and continue to become more inefficient. Especially when top down cost cutting occurs.

Not 'efficiences' by any accepted definition of the word.

In fact it's my belief that some of the changes to Ts & Cs outlined in the 'offer' will lead directly to an increase in fatigue-related incidents which the railway has understandably been very keen to reduce and mitigate against for many years.

 

[Confused52]

Wrong

Thanks, I copied it from the wrong news release - corrected.

 

[Buffer stop]

Do I really have to explain it? <Sigh>

You are. If you strike, you don't get paid. Now I know what your counter argument will be, you'll just work overtime to make it back. Except you are not, unless of course your TOC runs all those services cancelled on strike days on non-strike days in addition to planned ones.

I seriously hope you get my point.


Ha ha, good one

Oh you were serious?

Look, I am not anti-union, I am a union member. And I am not anti-rail, I am a regular user of the railways. But this strike is doing exactly what the government, actually no the Tories probably hoped for, undermining the value of the railways. You said earlier that this was an ideological matter, and on that I agree. There are serious financial constraints for sure, and as a result pay rises in any publicly funded sectors will seriously hampered and caveated. That's where we are with this.

But the longer this dispute goes on, the easier it will be for the Tories to push through even more cutbacks, anti-union legislation, and convince Joe Public that those workers in dispute are the real reason for all the country's ills. This dispute, along with all the others are doing more harm than good.

And that is exactly why this Government needs to grow up and sort it out.

 

[Snow1964]

The big problem here is that word: “efficiencies”. Often what is proposed is not actually efficiencies, but rather reductions. In other words, cuts.
I’ve seen lots of changes since I joined the railway industry and to be honest, in many areas the railways have, and continue to become more inefficient. Especially when top down cost cutting occurs.

Efficiencies and Reductions are different things. Anyone that muddles them or thinks they are interchangeable because they are the same is going to cause problems and confusion

Technology changes, some things are easier, some do not need doing so frequently, but other newer processes need more. If didn't have efficiency would still have people with picks and shovels and no mechanisation. No one in 1830 would have been trained on electric traction or an excavator, jobs change over time, roles need to change too.

 

[KM1991]

What’s the general feeling in stations and depots regarding this deal? It’s about 50-50 where I'm based.

Social media seems to be around 90% against.

 

[baz962]

What’s the general feeling in stations and depots regarding this deal? It’s about 50-50 where I'm based.

Social media seems to be around 90% against.

Some of the TMs at my place seem to have softened, although haven't directly said. The only thing that I really heard a couple mention was the potential to have newer staff on less and maybe causing a divide.

 

[g492p]

What’s the general feeling in stations and depots regarding this deal? It’s about 50-50 where I'm based.

Social media seems to be around 90% against.

To be honest I’ve not heard a single positive thing about it both at my depot and others.

 

[Railwayowl80]

I’ve spoke with about 10-12 people last night at work and it was a straight up no way

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I’ve heard a few say that they’d vote for it.

The spare movement and moving of rest days on an ad hoc basis are unpalatable for me, I couldn’t vote for it in those circumstances.

 

[Bantamzen]

And that is exactly why this Government needs to grow up and sort it out.

Not quite, its why all parties need to grow up and sort it out.

 

[Railwayowl80]

Yeah it’s a difficult one also the fact if I’ve read it right that I could be working with someone doing the same job on a lot less.
It will definitely cause issues I remember working at one depot for a good few years working along some people at East Midlands trains as it was then and they were on a lot better money and terms then me to the point where it made you approach your work differently which isn’t great way to look at work but I’m just being honest

 

[eldomtom2]

Like the government itself the rail industry is suffering because of bad timing. I have been involved in T&Cs being shredded because of harmonisation in large mergers. It is unpleasant and painful but the fragmentation has caused a great deal of disruption in the last few years. It may be that rationalisation of T&Cs is an inevitable change before GBR, taking the industry back to full re-nationalisation and the present strife will not go away any time soon. A single set of T&Cs means change for everybody in the end and I don't envy any of you in the industry.

That assumes GBR is actually happening.

 

[Buffer stop]

Not quite, its why all parties need to grow up and sort it out.

It was the Government that added DOO at the last minute before Christmas only to remove it two minutes later to try and make a poor deal look more attractive. They have failed and made themselves look very amateur in negotiations that the public can see straight through.

I can't say I have seen the TU acted in another way than they had too in response.

 

[Bantamzen]

It was the Government that added DOO at the last minute before Christmas only to remove it two minutes later to try and make a poor deal look more attractive. They have failed and made themselves look very amateur in negotiations that the public can see straight through.

I can't say I have seen the TU acted in another way than they had too in response.

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to Tango.

 

[43066]

So what are staff prepared to trade in return for pay rises?

Minor changes to Ts and Cs, in exchange for a substantial real terms pay cut - roughly in line with average private sector wage growth - would be acceptable to most.

The government would rather waste billions fighting ideological battles, though.

I’ve heard a few say that they’d vote for it.

The spare movement and moving of rest days on an ad hoc basis are unpalatable for me, I couldn’t vote for it in those circumstances.

I wonder how many have looked at the detail.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It was the Government that added DOO at the last minute before Christmas only to remove it two minutes later to try and make a poor deal look more attractive. They have failed and made themselves look very amateur in negotiations that the public can see straight through.

I can't say I have seen the TU acted in another way than they had too in response.

It is the RMT leadership that have caused this problem for its members. By concentrating on DOO and claiming a deal was close but was scuppered by the DOO clause they made a rod for their own back. ASLEF’s response to their offer was there was not a single part of it they could accept. The reality is there might be some parts they would if the carrot is large enough but that statement gave them flexibility and ammunition for future talks. By suggesting much of the deal was acceptable, implied by their statement that a deal was close, now DOO has been taken out the RMT have backed themselves into a corner they are going to struggle to get out of.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I'd play the DfT at their own game.

They are obviously desperate for reform and are using the Union demands for a pay rise as a cover. I could see this coming last year and it was inevitable it would happen if the Unions declared a "national" dispute and thus negotiated nationally.

As I've said before it is impossible to agree a standard set of ts and cs in this way. Firstly the document does not give any detail about how the proposals would affect me. I already have some of the things mentioned (eg committed Sundays) but not others. I work 35 hours a week. Some TOCS work 38 or 40 hours per week, but have different terms and conditions. Before I agreed to wholesale changes to my terms and conditions I want to know what I am agreeing to. This weighty document just provides a list of scenarios and conditions which TOCS will work towards, but that how and when and in what way they are implemented will be decided by each Company individually, and the Union has no say in that and cannot fail to agree anything associated with the "framework agreement". Thus it is inevitable that different companies will implement things in different ways depending on their local circumstances and some people could end up a lot worse off than others. How my company chooses to implement things is of interest to me. How another company chooses to implement things is not. So I want to know exactly what my Ts and Cs will be before I vote for them. If I don't know, then I don't know what I am voting for. Quite simply, while lots of the detail is unpalatable, there needs to be more detail.

Secondly, I cannot see how this document as it stands would ever be accepted by the majority of the members affected by it. However as alluded to in some of the replies here, lots of people may well vote yes because either the changes don't affect them much (because they may already have lots of those things already) or they just want the money and don't know or don't care about the consequences. A bit like a credit card or loan - get the money now and worry about the consequences later. The risk then is that some TOCS vote yes - i.e. TOC A may vote yes as they have no or very on train staff and the station based roles are already multi functional and thus don't stand to loose much. TOC B may vote yes because the on train staff outnumber ticket office staff and the on train already have all the bad things proposed as they got a hefty pay rise some years ago to sell them so are very well paid for the privilege so don't really care as the changes don't really affect them anyway. But TOC C may have comparatively low pay and very old conditions and thus has to give up a hell of a lot for a relatively low pay increase, and will still be paid significantly less than TOC B even when they terms are the same, and thus votes No, but is outvoted by TOC A and TOC B.

I think the RMT is in a tricky situation here.

If it doesn't put it out for members to vote on then it will be pilloried in the Media and will find it very difficult to explain why - mentioning DOO is easy, but trying to explain the minutiae of why they don't agree with the changes to spare shift rostering rules (which will only affect some people) or Sunday working arrangements (which will only affect some people) to the media and public will be completely hopeless and thus nobody will understand, which will make arguing their case a lot harder. The RDG will say "we have removed your stated red lines, given a larger % increase, offered a new larger increase for the lower paid workers of up to 13% in year one and still you won't offer it to a vote of your members. They should have the say on this".

If the RMT does offer it out for a vote then the risk of some areas accepting it exists, as stated above, or it might be more marginal than hoped i.e. the more 50/50 view outlined above in some areas of the country, and thus will not deliver a strong mandate for much further change or prolonged action.

There is another approach though.

The RMT could offer an opinion on whether it thinks further discussions are possible and then offer it out to a referendum with 3 answers : Yes / No, continue with industrial action / I'd rather have no pay rise at all and stay as I am than entertain these changes.

I suspect in many cases people may vote for option 3, especially where strike fatigue is taking effect.

The RMT could then pull a blinder.

If it said "we've concluded that following extensive negotiations it is not possible to negotiate a pay increase for 2022 and 2023 on terms that are acceptable to our members and thus they are quite happy to stay as they are thank you, we therefore withdraw our claim for a pay increase for 2022 and 2023 and therefore the dispute has ended as we no longer are seeking a pay increase."

The dispute then ends.

The DfT and RDG will be unable to get any of the reforms they are quite obviously desperate for unless they come to the Unions and want to start negotiations the other way round.

The RMT would then have the upper hand.

There are some risks with this approach, but overall I think it is less risky for the RMT and members than carrying on with the dispute.

Firstly I suspect the DfT is holding back on announcing the various service cuts that are proposed to save money until later in the year or after the RMT has continued with the industrial action longer. The cuts will be blamed on the "greedy unions and staff costing us so much money we are having to make these cuts which we don't want to do but have no option as we have run out of money due to the greedy unions wrecking the industry by being on strike all the time". If the RMT says we don't want a pay rise after all then the DfT won't be able to use this approach.

Secondly the DfT and RDG won't be able to get any of these changes unless they open negotiations, which the RMT could say "ok, we'll talk, but it's not tied in to an annual pay rise, and is nothing to do with inflation". Suddenly the terms change - it's no longer the RMT begging the employer for more money and the employer saying "ok, but only if....", it's the other way round - the Employer is begging for more flexibility and the RMT can say "ok, but only if.....".

Thirdly if the RMT does reject this offer and carries on with action of one sort or another then it is easier for the DfT to impose the changes one way or the other in due course - especially as they have said "this is our best and final offer". Imposing changes would be even worse for staff than accepting them. The DfT could use the approach of "we did everything we could to negotiate the end of the dispute and still the RMT rejected our best and final offer and have carried on with this action. We cannot allow this essential public service to carry on like this so today we are announcing that we will be making the proposed changes anyway to bring this dispute to an end and restore order and stability to the industry". If the RMT pulled out and stopped asking for a pay rise then the DfT would find it very difficult if not impossible to impose anything - it would be a P&O Mark II situation where the RMT would have the upper hand "We are no longer asking for a pay rise, we have considered the public finances and consider that we will have another year or two pay freeze which will not cost any money to taxpayers and restore order to the industry, so as far as we are concerned there is no need for any changes as we are not asking for anything at all, and thus there is no dispute to settle or end. Our members aren't being greedy at all, we haven;t had a pay rise in 5 years and yet they still impose changes on us without consultation etc".


Personally, I'd rather stay as I am with my current £30,400 salary, but keep my terms and conditions as they are.

Getting £1750 in 2022 and an extra £1286 in 2023 - so roughly £3000 in total - for getting rid of all of those conditions and agreeing they can change my days off around at 7 days notice and loosing around 60 days off per year simply isn't worth it to me. What they want isn't worth the money.

So I'll quite happily stay as we are.

As I suspect from conversations so would many others.


Sadly I don't think the RMT is that clever, so I expect more strikes to be announced soon and the DfT pressing ahead with imposing the changes one way or the other anyway.

 

[66701GBRF]

It is the RMT leadership that have caused this problem for its members. By concentrating on DOO and claiming a deal was close but was scuppered by the DOO clause they made a rod for their own back. ASLEF’s response to their offer was there was not a single part of it they could accept. The reality is there might be some parts they would if the carrot is large enough but that statement gave them flexibility and ammunition for future talks. By suggesting much of the deal was acceptable, implied by their statement that a deal was close, now DOO has been taken out the RMT have backed themselves into a corner they are going to struggle to get out of.

Were the current facts of the changes to T&Cs part of the last offer or made abundantly clear what was/is involved?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The spare movement and moving of rest days on an ad hoc basis are unpalatable for me, I couldn’t vote for it in those circumstances.

Agreed. If truth be told I could live with some, if not most, of the proposals including spare movement - although I would still want more detail on how they would be implemented in my TOC.

However I am absolutely not accepting that they can unilaterally change my days off with a weeks notice. It makes planning anything outside work almost completely impossible.

It was the Government that added DOO at the last minute before Christmas only to remove it two minutes later to try and make a poor deal look more attractive. They have failed and made themselves look very amateur in negotiations that the public can see straight through.

I don't think so. The majority of the public will just see the headlines "RMT didn't like DOO and now the Government have backed down and removed DOO and still the RMT aren't happy". Most non railway people will see the Government as being flexible and backing down and giving in to the RMT, but the RMT being inflexible and not moving from their positions.

Minor changes to Ts and Cs, in exchange for a substantial real terms pay cut - roughly in line with average private sector wage growth - would be acceptable to most.

I agree.

It is the RMT leadership that have caused this problem for its members. By concentrating on DOO and claiming a deal was close but was scuppered by the DOO clause they made a rod for their own back. ......By suggesting much of the deal was acceptable, implied by their statement that a deal was close, now DOO has been taken out the RMT have backed themselves into a corner they are going to struggle to get out of.

Sadly I would concur. I think it could regain the upper hand however as I stated above.

 

[pt_mad]

I believe these new CSA levels will only be in place where ticket offices have closed, and therefore a station reorganisation is then done. Ticket office closures will be subject to public consultations, after this time it will down to the TOCs (probably the DFT in all honesty) to decide which closures to push ahead with.

That wouldn't leave many places where it wouldn't be done then. How many stations have dispatch staff but not ticket offices? A minority I would assume.
Edit: I thought that the document said this would affect all station workers?

I hate to disappoint you but large swathes of the public sector (including me) have had to swallow changes to T&C's, pay and even job security. And then there's the private sector....

Does that make it right? That's the whole point of the trade union movement and why we have mass action across the UK at the moment.

If we were to apply some of this stuff as reasonable to other industries, could the government demand that permanent teachers work as part of teams between a group of multiple schools? Working in one school one day, another for the next two days, another for Thursday and Friday?
My sister works for a large retailer. If they suddenly said to her you're working at Glasgow East store on Monday, Falkirk Tuesday, and Motherwell Weds to Friday I think she's leave the job together with the most of the rest of her colleagues. This stuff is not really reasonable as a permanent base to build a life around imo.

If this sort of stuff is endorsed, who's to stop this sort of model being attempted to be rolled out across all of society and affect all of those who are demanding the offer should be accepted as well?

So what are staff prepared to trade in return for pay rises?

Why do they have to trade things? I used to work in manufacturing and we got pay rises in line with inflation every year decided within a working group. We didn't have to actively trade our conditions away year after year until nothing was left.

Yeah it’s a difficult one also the fact if I’ve read it right that I could be working with someone doing the same job on a lot less.
It will definitely cause issues I remember working at one depot for a good few years working along some people at East Midlands trains as it was then and they were on a lot better money and terms then me to the point where it made you approach your work differently which isn’t great way to look at work but I’m just being honest

The elephant in the room being there would technically be no protection from redundancy after end of December 2024. So would the old staff still be working alongside the new salaried staff indefinitely into the future?

 

[jon0844]

I do love it when people dive in an make daft assumptions. No I am not happy about it. And what am I going to do about it? About rampant inflation, soaring fuel prices, a rapidly growing budget deficit? I don't know, what are you going to do about it?

I'd strike and take a stand, rather than get walked all over. But that's just me.

 

[Scott1]

One big thing that has been felt at my TOC is that gayrds on £34k a year are not feeling this strike nearly as much as station staff on £23k a year, and there is a but of an attitude that the union never cares much about station staff before, now suddenly we're 'all in it together'.

I suspect for many station staff the reality is they can't afford to carry on striking.

 

[pt_mad]

One big thing that has been felt at my TOC is that gayrds on £34k a year are not feeling this strike nearly as much as station staff on £23k a year, and there is a but of an attitude that the union never cares much about station staff before, now suddenly we're 'all in it together'.

I suspect for many station staff the reality is they can't afford to carry on striking.

However if the bulk of those happened to work in ticket offices then how do they know what their future could remotely look like whatsoever, or where and on which days?

 

[Buffer stop]

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to Tango.

Yes really

 

[Annetts key]

Technology changes, some things are easier, some do not need doing so frequently, but other newer processes need more. If didn't have efficiency would still have people with picks and shovels and no mechanisation. No one in 1830 would have been trained on electric traction or an excavator, jobs change over time, roles need to change too.

Yes, technology changes things. But a lot of the changes that the DfT/the employers want has absolutely nothing to do with new or existing technology.

Not quite, its why all parties need to grow up and sort it out.

The RMT has been available for talks since the beginning. Where were the ministers or the employers? Refusing to meet the unions sounds more childish to me.

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to Tango.

It’s not illegal for unions to coordinate industrial action if each union has a legitimate dispute and has met the legal requirements.
Maybe your union did things differently. Not all unions are the same.

It is the RMT leadership that have caused this problem for its members. By concentrating on DOO and claiming a deal was close but was scuppered by the DOO clause they made a rod for their own back. ASLEF’s response to their offer was there was not a single part of it they could accept. The reality is there might be some parts they would if the carrot is large enough but that statement gave them flexibility and ammunition for future talks. By suggesting much of the deal was acceptable, implied by their statement that a deal was close, now DOO has been taken out the RMT have backed themselves into a corner they are going to struggle to get out of.

So can you point to a written communication where the RMT said that a deal was close?
Because I don’t think there has been any time since the first talks where the RMT has had a written offer that has been even slightly acceptable.

 

[Buffer stop]

Yes, technology changes things. But a lot of the changes that the DfT/the employers want has absolutely nothing to do with new or existing technology.


The RMT has been available for talks since the beginning. Where were the ministers or the employers? Refusing to meet the unions sounds more childish to me.


It’s not illegal for unions to coordinate industrial action if each union has a legitimate dispute and has met the legal requirements.
Maybe your union did things differently. Not all unions are the same.


So can you point to a written communication where the RMT said that a deal was close?
Because I don’t think there has been any time since the first talks where the RMT has had a written offer that has been even slightly acceptable.

Correct on every point.

 

[pt_mad]

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to Tango.

Would you expect any union not to fight on behalf of their members against some of the proposals we have seen so far?
It appears that some of the proposals here are taking terms from being reasonable and hard won over decades to less than gig economy (where shifts may not necessarily be known in advance and staff may have to work different days at different locations, despite them not being relief staff).
Even many of those in industries on zero hours contracts aren't contracted to work multiple locations on different days with no compensation. And how could they if they take public transport, walk or cycle? (Which the Government have said they would rather people do in the future).

It seems the arguement at the start of the action and during the ballot that the action was 'premature' and that rumours of any possible ticket office closures were false have gone quiet.

 

[Snow1964]

The elephant in the room being there would technically be no protection from redundancy after end of December 2024. So would the old staff still be working alongside the new salaried staff indefinitely into the future?

I cannot find anything that says current redundancy schemes are being discontinued, they stay there in the background even if no one is using them.

Two years on, and on average 6% will have retired, factor in current staff shortages and might not be any redundancies anyway (or they will be very localised).

* the 3% a year retire anyway assumes even staff age profile, but it is commonly agreed that some sections have lots due to retire in next few years.