ASLEF non-contractual overtime bans -various dates and TOCs

[43066]

If you had read my posting, you would have seen the pluralised use of "rail unions", of which ASLEF are part of last time that I looked. It was you, not I, who raised the subject of "damaging the economy and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure" but then hid behind the claim that that was no fault of the rail union as "they believed that they were acting (and in accordance with the instructions) of their members.

You’ve apparently misunderstood or not read my previous posts properly.

The point I’m making is that it is the government, not ASLEF, that are responsible for running of the economy. Of course the union is aware of consequences of taking industrial action - why else do it!?

In this case the government have provoked and prolonged a damaging dispute, bankrolled entirely with public funds, which has cost more than settling it would have done simply because - as you put it - they don’t want to be seen as an “easy touch”. As a taxpayer I consider that an extremely poor use of public money, especially when the demands of the rail unions are hardly unreasonable compared to other sectors.

It has reached the stage of folk-lore in the North-West when the statement made about six years ago of describing intending rail passengers who use rail travel to travel to and from their places of work by a union member of station staff who were "piggy in the middle" in a rail dispute by a rail union with a TOC as "collateral damage"

The dispute isn’t “by the rail union”, it’s between the union and the employer who is being prevented by the government from negotiating in the usual way.

Therefore any “collateral damage” is the result of government policy as much as the union - and note that union has no responsibility to passengers unlike the company providing the service.

Why have the union now felt it was alright to allow non-contractual overtime from today onwards when it was considered wrong to allow it all last week? If it is such a bad thing, they should protect their members by banning it altogether.

Fairly obviously they aren’t withdrawing overtime because it’s a “bad thing”, but as a way to further their side of a dispute. Why is that difficult to understand?

If the service suffers as a result, that’s entirely on the TOCs for not employing enough staff.

I think this may be part of the motivation, after all if the government settled without any changes to T&Cs this will set precedent for other disputes. And I suspect there simply isn't the budget to settle all this way, so the government digs in.

This is disingenuous - and you’re as usual going into bat for this government which is a little odd when virtually nobody I know even amongst 2019 Tory voters thinks they’re doing a good job in this area.

ASLEF have never said they want no changes, just not ones that are considered unacceptable to the membership. Again - see Scotland and various entirely private sector organisations with no interference from government where the dispute has been resolved.

There is no central budget driving this (if not why haven’t we seen it) the changes are entirely politically motivated and intended to weaken union power…

it? So it's this what the RDG is offering, a general set of principles that then each TOC negotiates individually with the unions to iron out the details. Basically this seems like an attempt to bring the national pay dispute to a conclusion, whilst leaving the trickier aspect of T&Cs open to more discussions and negotiations at a more local level. Not an unreasonable position, especially within the constraints of what the Treasury will allow to be spent.

The “principles” previously publicised make clear that what the government are going for is to attack/get rid of local agreements and weaken the ability of the union to scrutinise rosters, in addition to the aforementioned changes to spare provision, Sundays brought in as enforced overtime rather than as part of the working week.

I’m sure you think the union should simply roll over and accept all of that, but it won’t, because those of us who aren’t just arguing about this online to pass the time, but actually work in the industry and are affected by these proposals, know how bad the effect on our working lives would be…

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no central budget driving this (if not why haven’t we seen it) the changes are entirely politically motivated and intended to weaken union power…

And of course, we all know that no rail unions can ever be accused of calling politically motivated strike action that will weaken an incumbent Government.

 

[infobleep]

Yet two 6-day embargoed periods in the three-week period surely does cause their members the lack of opportunity to earn some money back during the dispute.

But where is the evidence they banned this previously?

By the way, my spellchecker says the word is do and not does. I don't tend to point this out, but as you made a reference to my earlier typo, I thought I would.

 

[43066]

And of course, we all know that no rail unions can ever be accused of calling politically motivated strike action that will weaken an incumbent Government.

Ah, that old trope. I’m surprised you haven’t suggested the Russians are behind it.

The action has been overwhelmingly backed by the membership - not the union leadership - most of whom come from a broad mix of political backgrounds - including many who have previously voted Conservative! None of the members I know (do you know any) are interested in anything other than a reasonable payrise, but not in exchange for changes to Ts and Cs being demanded, that they see as making their lives untenable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah, that old trope. I’m surprised you haven’t suggested the Russians are behind it.

You don't need the Russians when there is no shortage of home-grown extreme left wing political activists in this country.....

 

[43066]

You don't need the Russians when there is no shortage of home-grown extreme left wing political activists in this country.....

There is indeed, but not amongst the ASLEF membership, in my experience!

Do you know many ASLEF members, or do you just assume that everyone who joins a trade union must be an “extreme left wing political activist”?!!

 

[Mattydo]

I'll be honest the majority of drivers I know tend to be small c conservatives. Very few militant left amongst the grade. There are the union men and a few left learners but none I know that come vaguely close to what might be described as "radical left".

 

[dk1]

I'll be honest the majority of drivers I know tend to be small c conservatives. Very few militant left amongst the grade. There are the union men and a few left learners but none I know that come vaguely close to what might be described as "radical left".

Spot on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think everyone is aware that trades union members are from a very wide range of political beliefs, but it does seem strange that the executive committees of some (not all) rail unions do attract extreme left-wing candidates when it is the occasion to join that elite band.

It might shock many on this website, but the political personage that I have always admired the most is Bessie Braddock, as she always stood by her beliefs on public health, housing and other social issues.

 

[infobleep]

You don't need the Russians when there is no shortage of home-grown extreme left wing political activists in this country.....

Have you thought about entering politics? They also try not to answer questions.

Belonging to a union doesn't make you left or right. I believe it use to be that people who joined a union were required by law to support the Labour Party but this is no longer the case and nor should it be.

Going back to this dispute. I wisf a draft of the documents being discussed would be released by the RDG in the interests of transparency so that the general public can read it if they wish.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yet two 6-day embargoed periods in the three-week period surely does cause their members the lack of opportunity to earn some money back during the dispute.

It does, but still offers a window for those so inclined to make up for lost money elsewhere. A full-on overtime ban would start to wobble over time, just as would an all-out strike.

This is disingenuous - and you’re as usual going into bat for this government which is a little odd when virtually nobody I know even amongst 2019 Tory voters thinks they’re doing a good job in this area.

Wrong, wrong, and thrice wrong. I am not batting for this government, goodness knows how many times I've stated that...

ASLEF have never said they want no changes, just not ones that are considered unacceptable to the membership. Again - see Scotland and various entirely private sector organisations with no interference from government where the dispute has been resolved.

And ASLEF will know this isn't going to be possible in England, at least until a new government is elected and gets down the list of all the more urgent priorities. So looks like you are in it for the long haul.

There is no central budget driving this (if not why haven’t we seen it) the changes are entirely politically motivated and intended to weaken union power…

Looking at the way franchises were and still are falling, I'd say there are far deeper issues than an ideological war with the unions. That's not to say it isn't a motivation for ministers, and will certainly be used as an election weapon, but the motivation here is that despite what you like to believe there isn't an infinite amount of money. Just look at all the big ticket projects being chopped back or shelved altogether. That should speak volumes.

The “principles” previously publicised make clear that what the government are going for is to attack/get rid of local agreements and weaken the ability of the union to scrutinise rosters, in addition to the aforementioned changes to spare provision, Sundays brought in as enforced overtime rather than as part of the working week.

I may have missed it in the earlier post giving details of the RDG offer, but does it really say all that?

I’m sure you think the union should simply roll over and accept all of that, but it won’t, because those of us who aren’t just arguing about this online to pass the time, but actually work in the industry and are affected by these proposals, know how bad the effect on our working lives would be…

Well like it or not, those of us who use your services also have opinions on the matter. I have said all along & I stand by it, now is not the time to be digging in for long disputes over pay (and not just the rail unions). There is a vast hole in the country's economy, and what you are seeing here is just one part of a much bigger drive to plug that hole. I am very aware of the increasing pressure from the Treasury and ministers to reduce the budget deficit, I literally work for a team that provides data to them so I can see what is being asked and why. Let's put it this way, if the Tories do lose power the next Chancellor might be in for a post-it note or two on his desk...

 

[Snow1964]

I'll be honest the majority of drivers I know tend to be small c conservatives. Very few militant left amongst the grade. There are the union men and a few left learners but none I know that come vaguely close to what might be described as "radical left".

Sounds right, most just want to get on with the job, not waste their time trying to get a Shambols Government out of power when that will almost certainly happen at next election anyway.

Regarding the overtime bans, more likely to hurt the subset of members who want to work overtime for extra money, not those who rarely worked it anyway. So to some extent more likely to affect someone they work with, than some faraway MP.

Ultimately can divide the train Operators into 3. Those properly staffed so overtime ban has negligible affect, those with bit more than just isolated trains cancelled, and those having to make big changes. Very roughly could put third of Operators in each. So they effects become regional rather than national anyway, and if not national Government probably won't care.

 

[infobleep]

I may have missed it in the earlier post giving details of the RDG offer, but does it really say all that?

There is a solution to this. RDG releases a draft of the document being discussed. The latest draft and all sides agree this is the latest draft being discussed.

Then we the general public and see what is going on.

Perhaps they could also record the meetings, like what happens at council meetings with councillors.

 

[Bantamzen]

There is a solution to this. RDG releases a draft of the document being discussed. The latest draft and all sides agree this is the latest draft being discussed.

Then we the general public and see what is going on.

Perhaps they could also record the meetings, like what happens at council meetings with councillors.

This would be preferable, but I doubt neither side would be amenable due to the sensitive nature of the discussions.

 

[infobleep]

This would be preferable, but I doubt neither side would be amenable due to the sensitive nature of the discussions.

I'm sure you are right here but they should be.

 

[43066]

Wrong, wrong, and thrice wrong. I am not batting for this government, goodness knows how many times I've stated that...

Yon say that, yet you consistently criticise the unions for taking action, and argue in support of the government’s position. You have done so in the last post I quoted and many others besides.

And ASLEF will know this isn't going to be possible in England, at least until a new government is elected and gets down the list of all the more urgent priorities. So looks like you are in it for the long haul.

It would be possible to resolve at any time if the government would simply moderate their approach. As for in it for the long haul, is that news to anyone? You’ve not noticed that the dispute has been ongoing for over a year already?!

Looking at the way franchises were and still are falling, I'd say there are far deeper issues than an ideological war with the unions. That's not to say it isn't a motivation for ministers, and will certainly be used as an election weapon, but the motivation here is that despite what you like to believe there isn't an infinite amount of money. Just look at all the big ticket projects being chopped back or shelved altogether. That should speak volumes.

Not all of them and, in any case. the fact that some areas of the railway have been mismanaged isn’t the fault of ASLEF, and isn’t relevant to my Ts and Cs. The NHS is failing to a greater extent than the railway, but that isn’t being used as a justification to attack Ts and Cs of front line staff…

As for the “infinite amount of money” argument, we’ve been over this before. A infinite amount isn’t required - just enough for a sensible settlement, as we have seen elsewhere. “There’s no money” holds absolutely no water as an argument when the government evidently has no problem wasting far more money than settling would cost prolonging the dispute.

As a taxpayer surely you should want to see this dispute resolved as per open access/freight operators? Or do you want to see it dragged on?

I get the distinct sense you want to see it to continue…

I may have missed it in the earlier post giving details of the RDG offer, but does it really say all that?

Yes it was made clear many months ago what the nature of the “general principles” is and what they’re intended to achieve. The ASLEF membership clearly understand it very well indeed, hence the dispute! Whether people on here agree is really neither here nor there.

Well like it or not, those of us who use your services also have opinions on the matter.

It’s irrelevant. I might have opinions on what nurses, doctors (and especially civil servants ) get paid. Since when did that matter a jot?

 

[irish_rail]

You don't need the Russians when there is no shortage of home-grown extreme left wing political activists in this country.....

Oh jeez, really.

 

[Mattydo]

I think everyone is aware that trades union members are from a very wide range of political beliefs, but it does seem strange that the executive committees of some (not all) rail unions do attract extreme left-wing candidates when it is the occasion to join that elite band

I think it's easy to confuse a generally left leaning political stand point with someone who is left leaning in terms of their views on workers rights. I'm not sure an NEC composed of neolib free marketeers would make for a very effective labour union. The over arching policies of the Union should represent the views of their highest decision making body though, such as a conference of delegates, which generally means these days you don't have unions running massively militant political campaigns. Except perhaps the NUS.

I'm probably the most left wing on my shift and even as a student I doubt the SWSS would have considered my membership.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yon say that, yet you consistently criticise the unions for taking action, and argue in support of the government’s position. You have done so in the last post I quoted and many others besides.

Being critical of a union's action does not make me anti-union.

It would be possible to resolve at any time if the government would simply moderate their approach. As for in it for the long haul, is that news to anyone? You’ve not noticed that the dispute has been ongoing for over a year already?!

By long haul I mean long into the next Parliament.

Not all of them and, in any case. the fact that some areas of the railway have been mismanaged isn’t the fault of ASLEF, and isn’t relevant to my Ts and Cs. The NHS is failing to a greater extent than the railway, but that isn’t being used as a justification to attack Ts and Cs of front line staff…

You will find that often in times of economic downturn governments look to the public sector & publicly funded sectors to make efficiency savings. This will, and indeed does include the NHS, education, the civil service, even the No.10 cat might be looking at a downgrade in cat food....

This is what happens, regardless of the reasons why sectors are failing.

As for the “infinite amount of money” argument, we’ve been over this before. A infinite amount isn’t required - just enough for a sensible settlement, as we have seen elsewhere. “There’s no money” holds absolutely no water as an argument when the government evidently has no problem wasting far more money than settling would cost prolonging the dispute.

And as I've said a settlement in one area sets precedent elsewhere. So for example if the government settled with ASLEF for 4% backdated to 2022, and 4% for 2023 with no T&C changes and/or efficiency savings, then unions across the board will want similar. Therefore rather than the 2-4.5% for 2023 increase alongside a non-consolidated, taxable payment of £1500 the civil service unions would want at least 6% (as 2022 saw a 2% average rise). Then the health unions would want matching, as would the education unions, and so on. This is how the Treasury think in terms of, and thus how ministers agree to what areas get what budgets. Occasionally there are outliers, but these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. And they almost always get other unions angry.

As a taxpayer surely you should want to see this dispute resolved as per open access/freight operators? Or do you want to see it dragged on?

I get the distinct sense you want to see it to continue…

I don't want to see it to continue.

Yes it was made clear many months ago what the nature of the “general principles” is and what they’re intended to achieve. The ASLEF membership clearly understand it very well indeed, hence the dispute! Whether people on here agree is really neither here nor there.

Made clear where? Is there something we can see, because all we have right now is the RDG offer and people's opinions on what it may, or may not mean.

It’s irrelevant. I might have opinions on what nurses, doctors (and especially civil servants ) get paid. Since when did that matter a jot?

You are a voter right? Then it matters. I shouldn't have to explain why. The same is true for passengers.

 

[whoosh]

I may have missed it in the earlier post giving details of the RDG offer, but does it really say all that?

The offer to the RMT does, and includes:

•NO set rest day patterns anymore (where these currently exist), so being able to plan beyond the next roster change becomes impossible - bear in mind there are to be three or four timetable changes per year in future instead of the current two.
You are only entitled to seven days notice of a new base roster (that runs for a timetable period) by the way.

•Management drawing up the base rosters. Supposedly to "take back control of the rostering" but this is a nonsense as all rosters are agreed by and signed off by Management. At the moment where Unions are involved it is with apportioning work throughout a roster to make it as palatable as possible.

•Three days of 'spare' are to be classed as a 'week'. A 'week' of spare is to have unlimited movement - so if you are spare on the base roster currently, you can be moved +/-2 hours or 3 hours (depending on your TOC) with your start time when you are allocated a job. Unlimited movement means you will start work sometime between 00:01 and 23:59.

•Blank weeks of 'spare' where the rest day/rest days (who knows how many you'll get - see below) won't be known until the roster gets posted the previous week.

•No guaranteed number of Rest Days. If the computer spits out short jobs for your depot, instead of working 35 hours over four days,
you'll be working it over five days a week, with the associated loss of evenings to spend with your loved ones, as you'll either be at work if on lates, or in bed before them if on earlies.


Now you're going to say, "But that's the offer to RMT - the Guards."

Yes it is. And very detailed it is too.
The offer to ASLEF is a lot more vague. So anyone saying there should be a vote amongst the members, should question why a union would use it's members money to pay for a ballot process on a deal that's lacking details.
Because it would either be voted in (unlikely as there is a continued mandate for industrial action), complete with wishy-washy grey areas about all this being brought in after discussion with the TOCs within three months for a 4% year two rise. Or it gets a 'No', as there isn't enough detail. Either way it's a waste of money.

By the way, all that added reduced horizon of knowing what shift and when, is somehow supposed to make the railway be appealing to more women, who are more likely to be the primary carers of children. I'm sure they'll relish all the uncertainty.

"Ooh, a blank week during Christmas week, that I only found out I had at the start of the month when they changed the timetable. I literally can't wait to see what jobs I have on what days when the daily alteration sheets for next week come out on Thursday so I can begin to plan Christmas - which is next week!"

And as I've said a settlement in one area sets precedent elsewhere. So for example if the government settled with ASLEF for 4% backdated to 2022, and 4% for 2023 with no T&C changes and/or efficiency savings, then unions across the board will want similar.

What like the Fire Brigade's 7% 2022, 5% 2023 two year deal? With no strings. Amazing what the government can come up with when it wants to. A two year below inflation deal with no strings, and it all gets settled quickly. Imagine!

 

[Bantamzen]

What like the Fire Brigade's 7% 2022, 5% 2023 two year deal? With no strings. Amazing what the government can come up with when it wants to. A two year below inflation deal with no strings, and it all gets settled quickly. Imagine!

Like I said, there are always outliers. But I've been in the public sector for 36 years, many years as a TU rep, so trust me when I say the government will not be offering anything like to across the board. Generally the rule of thumb is, the less productive, more expensive sectors tend to get the worse deals unless major changes are accepted.

 

[westv]

Ultimately can divide the train Operators into 3. Those properly staffed so overtime ban has negligible affect, those with bit more than just isolated trains cancelled, and those having to make big changes. Very roughly could put third of Operators in each. So they effects become regional rather than national anyway, and if not national Government probably won't care.

Where do LNER fit in there. I was planning to use them 19/7

 

[Adrian1980uk]

My problem with all this (and all strikes), you see interviews along picket lines etc. That they all say it's about t&C's or 'saving the industry' but no Union ever has called industrial action without it being mainly about pay. I get in this case it's about Ts&C's but to pretend it's not about pay is disingenuous. If the genuine reason now is the changes to shift patterns then the unions should come out and say we accept the offer on pay and the sticking point is... then actually they might get a better result as I suggest the pressure to remove the changes would be so much they might drop them.

I don't just apply this thinking to the rail industry either, the NHS, education is all the same, teachers hide behind School budgets - so if the government increased the school budgets without increasing pay would that resolve the dispute?

I do get that certain professions can't exactly change jobs easily, I'm lucky I'm in IT so I'm industry agnostic to a certain extent.

 

[CAF397]

In the ASLEF dispute invariably it is about pay AND T&Cs. They are trying to drastically change T&Cs at several TOCs for a below inflation payrise.

Thats not acceptable. We all admit that that there is the scope for changing T&Cs, but these should be negotiated directly between the individual TOCs and the unions. By offering a below inflation payrise - the first for 4 years for many, in exchange for T&C changes is not an increase in pay.

That is why the two need to be seperated.

Offer a payrise with no strings - and it probably would get accepted, then pass T&C modernisation talks onto the TOCs who employ the drivers, and there would be progress.

As long as RDG/DfT keep their obsession about liking a pay deal to T&Cs then there will be stalemate.

 

[12LDA28C]

Do DCC (Drivers Company Council) drive too?

Yes, although their release from driving duties varies from TOC to TOC.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

In the ASLEF dispute invariably it is about pay AND T&Cs. They are trying to drastically change T&Cs at several TOCs for a below inflation payrise.

Thats not acceptable. We all admit that that there is the scope for changing T&Cs, but these should be negotiated directly between the individual TOCs and the unions. By offering a below inflation payrise - the first for 4 years for many, in exchange for T&C changes is not an increase in pay.

That is why the two need to be seperated.

Offer a payrise with no strings - and it probably would get accepted, then pass T&C modernisation talks onto the TOCs who employ the drivers, and there would be progress.

As long as RDG/DfT keep their obsession about liking a pay deal to T&Cs then there will be stalemate.

But that is the point though, has anyone got pay rises in line with current inflation without changing jobs, very very few, average is between 4 and 6 percent. I know the government is trying to keep the 2 together but that's where the union could separate them in the press releases by suggesting they accept the payrise offered (i.e. put to members) but not the changes to Ts & C's and therefore moving the public opinion on and pushing the government in a corner that the depute is down to Ts & C's.

 

[exbrel]

i'm not a union basher as 43066 is bound to say, i don't like them, but that is my right, the union membership on the whole is not political, but we cannot say that about the leadership. A point we keep hearing " there has been no movement on our demands" from the unions, so a serious question what movement have the unions made in this dispute?.
Also where are the union leadership? earlier you could not keep them off the tv, in one such interview mr lynch said a very telling remark " a re-distribution of wealth" which sounds very ify...
The torys have lost the next election, but i hope the union leaders realise that the next govt. be that labour or greens or whoever will not be at their beck and call...however much they think it will.

 

[whoosh]

A point we keep hearing " there has been no movement on our demands" from the unions, so a serious question what movement have the unions made in this dispute?

In the RMT Network Rail dispute, for Maintenance Staff, RMT gave ground over the 'time + 25%' night rate, and 'time + 50%' weekend rate being replaced with 'time +10%' for both, along with the maximum number of weeks of nights increasing from 26 to 39, and the maximum number of weekends being worked increasing from 26 to 39.

In the case of ASLEF, for the entirety of 2022, they were denied any talks. Then in January 2023 an offer was made, via the media, still with no talks taking place.
Talks then did take place, which appeared to be going well.
The second offer was then made, which was worse in percentage terms, and as far as changes to terms and conditions go, looks identical. It did not bear resemblance to the talks which took place.

What movement would you like them to give?

 

[43066]

Being critical of a union's action does not make me anti-union.

But you only ever seem to criticise the union’s position, seemingly without any interest in understanding why the strength of feeling is at it is, and have described the government’s position as reasonable.

Others will form their own views of your stance based on your postings.

By long haul I mean long into the next Parliament.

Not knowing when it will be resolved isn’t an argument for not taking action.

Neither of us know how long it will go on for. I suspect it will be resolved in the autumn or the new year once the NHS dispute has been dealt with as we get closer to election season.

If not, likely by the next parliament, which will hopefully be led by a more grown up government.

You will find that often in times of economic downturn governments look to the public sector & publicly funded sectors to make efficiency savings. This will, and indeed does include the NHS, education, the civil service, even the No.10 cat might be looking at a downgrade in cat food....

This is what happens, regardless of the reasons why sectors are failing.

And efficiency savings can be negotiated for and adopted. What this government has done is completely paralyse the negotiation process for over a year, and is now attempting to impose its own idea of what it thinks the changes should be, in a way that it knows the unions won’t accept. Hence the mess over the last year and a bit.

Again as someone who claims to have been a union rep you should understand why that’s totally unacceptable and will be resisted.

And as I've said a settlement in one area sets precedent elsewhere. So for example if the government settled with ASLEF for 4% backdated to 2022, and 4% for 2023 with no T&C changes and/or efficiency savings, then unions across the board will want similar. Therefore rather than the 2-4.5% for 2023 increase alongside a non-consolidated, taxable payment of £1500 the civil service unions would want at least 6% (as 2022 saw a 2% average rise). Then the health unions would want matching, as would the education unions, and so on. This is how the Treasury think in terms of, and thus how ministers agree to what areas get what budgets. Occasionally there are outliers, but these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. And they almost always get other unions angry.

You’re describing the process of negotiation and compromise that has been successfully managed by both Conservatives and Labour governments for the last forty years without any period of such sustained industrial action as we are now seeing. Why can’t this government manage it?

I don't want to see it to continue.

Neither do I, nor anyone else I know. But that isn’t answering the question I asked you.

Made clear where? Is there something we can see, because all we have right now is the RDG offer and people's opinions on what it may, or may not mean.

This was all discussed at the time and the document specifying the principles in detail is publicly available (there are threads from
January discussing it). What is there to discuss? All you need to know is that the membership find the proposals totally unacceptable, for all the reasons outlined upthread. It isn’t really something that’s up for debate!

You are a voter right? Then it matters. I shouldn't have to explain why. The same is true for passengers.

Yes I am. A long-standing Tory voter, in fact, and one reason (of many) that former Conservative voters including myself won’t vote for this government is the way they’re approaching the various industrial disputes.

Most passengers probably aren’t interested in the minutiae and just want the dispute resolved in a fair and reasonable way.

i'm not a union basher as 43066 is bound to say, i don't like them, but that is my right,

“Not a union basher … but I don’t like them.” That sounds like one of those statements that begins with the phrase “I’m not a racist/homophobic, but…” and goes downhill from there.

Whether you like them isn’t particularly relevant to anything, is it? And the feeling might well be mutual!

the union membership on the whole is not political, but we cannot say that about the leadership.

But the apolitical membership is overwhelmingly in favour of the action being taken…

 

[exbrel]

TH

In the RMT Network Rail dispute, for Maintenance Staff, RMT gave ground over the 'time + 25%' night rate, and 'time + 50%' weekend rate being replaced with 'time +10%' for both, along with the maximum number of weeks of nights increasing from 26 to 39, and the maximum number of weekends being worked increasing from 26 to 39.

In the case of ASLEF, for the entirety of 2022, they were denied any talks. Then in January 2023 an offer was made, via the media, still with no talks taking place.
Talks then did take place, which appeared to be going well.
The second offer was then made, which was worse in percentage terms, and as far as changes to terms and conditions go, looks identical. It did not bear resemblance to the talks which took place.

What movement would you like them to give?

thank you for clearing that up for me, i did ask pages ago but did not get a answer...

“Not a union basher … but I don’t like them.” That sounds like one of those statements that begins with the phrase “I’m not a racist/homophobic, but…” and goes downhill from there.

Whether you like them isn’t particularly relevant to anything, is it? And the feeling might well be mutual!



But the apolitical membership is overwhelmingly in favour of the action being taken…

no, you can be a member of something and not like it, in my working life i've been a member of 2 unions, the first and longest was a closed shop membership, which you did what you were told by your rep. that one i did'nt like...
The second was out of that period of closed shops, and more "friendly" to its members, in fact i once had a problem with a vote on a pay offer, i phoned my local branch and was put ion touch with the assistant general sec. who listened and it was settled to my satisfaction, and to his, or so he said, but he listened.

You mentioned the membership was in favour of the action being taken, was not the last vote taken on giving the leadership the mandate to call for action for the next 6 months, and not on the proposals on the table?... i'm not sure but thats how i understood it.
Regarding the thought that they did'nt like me, now that as made my day............