Formal offer to ASLEF by RDG

[Bantamzen]

But average wage growth in the economy is more than that (currently circa 6% averaged across both public and private sector I believe), and generally for no or fewer strings. Many sectors have seen significant growth into the double digit %s.

Yeah I've seen those ONS figures, but honestly they don't match what I see in reality. Certainly in my corner of the public sector wage rises are nowhere near the 5.3% the ONS cite. I haven't yet looked at the datasets to see how they are calculated, but I firmly suspect what we are seeing is an average over a broad spectrum where are few unusually high rises are skewing the data.

No harm, but what would be the point? We don’t pay union dues because we want every decision to be made by plebiscite. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

I’ve spent most of the day talking to actual real life ASLEF members and I can reassure you the union membership are happy and fully behind the “top brass” - if anything many think we should have done more earlier. So who are we supposed to be demonstrating this to, exactly?!

Again to demonstrate the true depth of feeling, not what colleagues say to each other at work. We've seen the peer pressure demonstrated on here previously where people still firmly in favour of continuing action lament people who are not. What you hear from your colleagues might not be what they actually mean. The proof of course will be in the pudding, but don't be surprised if the action goes on some time more to see more and more of those colleagues talking the game turning up for their shifts on future strike days.

Well, we have picked this one! We’re none too happy to be offered a lower % than the RMT either .

I’ll leave it there for now!

Indeed you have, and judging by the slow cuts to services starting to take place in my neck of the woods here in Yorkshire, I'd still say you've picked the wrong one. This government doesn't give a flying fig for the railways, its workers or the punters. That much it patently clear. And moreover this is a political party with, well let's just say form of using union disputes to their advantage. Guess where that leaves the rail unions? Yep that's right, right in their sights. And with a GE looming, the Tories need a scapegoat. 2+2= ? Now had the rail unions taken the current deal, regrouped and made a further push closer to the election this would put the desired pressure on the current government without months and years of a damaging dispute that they can use against you. Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two forward!

And just on the subject of actual pay rises, remember 4% for someone on £50K is still more than £5% for someone on £30K in real terms. So it may well be fairer, especially if you really believe in "levelling up" to give higher percentage rises to lower paid staff.

 

[brick60000]

24hr movement of spares etc. How much do you think that this will actually save in practice, compared with how much it will cost to replace the staff who are moving elsewhere because the pay isn't worth the disruption to family life?

In theory:- it allows a spare to cover more turns, so you’ve got greater flexibility and less need for as many spares. In theory.

In practice I don’t dispute this one in particular is awful for work life balance. There are definitely proposals in the mix that I completely understand the rejection. I wonder if the fight should be fought on these, with grounded explanations to the media & the public, rather than the usual rhetoric?

In what way will removing the LDCs from rostering save money? Someone will still have to compile rosters and check diagrams for howlers

in theory:- TOCs save the time that the LDCs are checking the diagrams = more time to drive trains. TOCs would also have freedom to roster in the most effective way for business needs.

Again, it’s in theory. But there is the potential to improve productivity there.

Do tell me why several diagrams having staff travelling Pass, to work a train that someone else is Pass on "makes sense". And before you ask, it's all well within the maximum hours between breaks, there's no separate "continuous time in the seat" rule here or anything. Some of those silly diagrams have cost a fortune in taxis, or in spare crews being needlessly tied up when things have gone wrong.

Without knowing how the diagrams were put together, I don’t know.

But several reasons could be:

• The person travelling PASS after relief has a tight connection for said pass ride. If they were booked to work the train and missed it, then you’d delay the train.
• Are they working to the same location that the pass ride is travelling to? What then happens after relief. If the person that is working the train has other work from that location, maybe it evens out hours.
• How “well within” continuous max hours is it. Does having somebody else work the train provide an insurance policy against delay.

Of course there’s also the possibility that any software use has done a silly, and there isn’t the resource within the TPU to check through thousands of diagrams to work them all out.

At Plymouth, the LDC came up with workable diagrams so that the HSS link could retain Bristol-Taunton on their cards. This was rejected by management (for political reasons). It really didn't take long before the Berks & Hants became blocked and trains ended up stuck at Taunton waiting for a relief driver to arrive by road (yet another taxi).

As you say, there might be political reasons that are beyond the TOCs control.

In the longer term, reduced route knowledge would reduce training costs. With pressure on the TOCs to reduce costs, could this be a reason?

Anyone can argue this is right or wrong depending on viewpoint. The truth is probably a compromise.

If the DfT really wanted to improve productivity, they'd reverse the fragmentation of the railway. So much duplication involved in having four different depots at one terminus. Not forgetting ECS moves running in opposite directions at the start and end of the day.

I agree with this. At the very least, increased sharing of things like welfare facilities, signing in facilities, etc.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I was planning a few days in the South West w/c 15th May, would that still be doable with an overtime ban?

 

[ChrisC]

I have a hotel booked for a holiday in Aberdeen from 22nd until 31st May. I always knew that there was a possibility of strikes and so it has been booked at a more expensive cancellable rate. The day I’m due to return home is an ASLEF strike day on Wed 31st May. I could extend my holiday until the next day 1st June or even 2nd June. Anyone any ideas what travel from Aberdeen to Nottingham could be like on 1st and 2nd June, between the strikes on 31st May and 3rd June. There’s also the prospect of the RMT being on strike on those days or even on 22nd May when I’m due to travel up to Aberdeen.

I’m beginning to think the best thing would be to cancel now and book somewhere else a little closer to home where I would be happy to drive to. Like last summer I will probably give up on holidays by train and book some holidays based around using my car.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Yeah I've seen those ONS figures, but honestly they don't match what I see in reality. Certainly in my corner of the public sector wage rises are nowhere near the 5.3% the ONS cite.

It’s funny that, railway staff have been saying for ages that the passenger number figures aren’t the same as what is being reported. Maybe somebody somewhere is fudging the numbers.

 

[jettofab]

Now had the rail unions taken the current deal, regrouped and made a further push closer to the election this would put the desired pressure on the current government without months and years of a damaging dispute that they can use against you. Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two forward!

And just on the subject of actual pay rises, remember 4% for someone on £50K is still more than £5% for someone on £30K in real terms. So it may well be fairer, especially if you really believe in "levelling up" to give higher percentage rises to lower paid staff.

But you must know why they can't do that? If they take the current deal then they accept the proposed terms and conditions, which are awful, and the crux of the problem. And then how do you propose they launch a further push? Manufacture an issue? Hope something comes up? This forum would be up in arms over that.

In terms of payrises, you're quite right on the maths. I'd be happy for my lower paid colleagues to get a pay offer that puts them where they should be in terms of inflation etc while personally I'd take something a little lower but eventually there will come a point where you need to maintain differentiation. We've heard from other posters on this forum about how they can earn almost what they do on the railway by taking a much lower stress job with less extreme hours elsewhere (although there are some caveats around pension I know) and that will ultimately filter upwards if you only ever apply pay rises to the lowest paid groups.

 

[Bantamzen]

I was planning a few days in the South West w/c 15th May, would that still be doable with an overtime ban?

Quite honestly as things stand I would always make sure you have a plan 'B' that doesn't involve the railways. With the threat of more disputes, overtime bans, stock issues, training issues and just a general baked in unreliability its going to be prudent to build in the possibility of disruption to any journey.

It’s funny that, railway staff have been saying for ages that the passenger number figures aren’t the same as what is being reported. Maybe somebody somewhere is fudging the numbers.

I have to be careful what I say here, working as I do in data for the public sector. But I am always careful when looking at ONS data, as data can be used in a number of ways depending on the requirements of those requesting it.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Quite honestly as things stand I would always make sure you have a plan 'B' that doesn't involve the railways. With the threat of more disputes, overtime bans, stock issues, training issues and just a general baked in unreliability its going to be prudent to build in the possibility of disruption to any journey.


I have to be careful what I say here, working as I do in data for the public sector. But I am always careful when looking at ONS data, as data can be used in a number of ways depending on the requirements of those requesting it.

I did actually book two weeks' annual leave with the intention of only using one (it was a contingency plan) but I'm apprehensive about the possibility of using the following week only for the RMT to announce further strike action before their current strike is spent.

 

[dangie]

…But I am always careful when looking at ONS data, as data can be used in a number of ways depending on the requirements of those requesting it.

Exactly. Just ask the questions depending on the result you want. As in this excerpt from Yes Prime Minister.
Yes Prime Minister - National Service

 

[Krokodil]

And just on the subject of actual pay rises, remember 4% for someone on £50K is still more than £5% for someone on £30K in real terms. So it may well be fairer, especially if you really believe in "levelling up" to give higher percentage rises to lower paid staff.

Which is why RMT negotiated an underpin to make the rise higher for lower earners, otherwise the cumulative effect of percentage pay rises is a widening gap.

The person travelling PASS after relief has a tight connection for said pass ride. If they were booked to work the train and missed it, then you’d delay the train.

The second person has only just booked on, so there are no railway-related reasons that they should be displaced. If people are displaced then that is what spare/standby cover is for - you don’t double-man every train just in case one of the crews fails to show.

Are they working to the same location that the pass ride is travelling to? What then happens after relief. If the person that is working the train has other work from that location, maybe it evens out hours.

The first guard (having worked other trains earlier in his shift) travels pass from C to B (on another operator's service), has a break, then works the train back to C before booking off. The second guard books on at B, travels pass to C before taking over the same train, working it to D and back to C before having a break.

How “well within” continuous max hours is it. Does having somebody else work the train provide an insurance policy against delay.

The PNB is only two hours after guard 2 has booked on. Again though, if you were likely to miss your break then the solution would be to get a spare man out of the depot at C to cover the trip to D. Double-manning trains is hopelessly inefficient.

Of course there’s also the possibility that any software use has done a silly, and there isn’t the resource within the TPU to check through thousands of diagrams to work them all out.

This is why the LDC is supposed to have oversight of them. Believe me, crews don’t actually want unproductive diagrams - spending hours sat down either in messrooms or travelling Pass bores you rigid, if I wanted to be bored rigid I'd have applied for an office job. Equally of course no one wants diagrams where you are run ragged, with minimal time to change from one train to another - those tend to fall apart at the slightest whiff of disruption.

As you say, there might be political reasons that are beyond the TOCs control.

In GWR's case it was internal politics - they want to run down the HSS link in favour of the unified GWR drivers. Obviously harmonisation needed to happen eventually but sabotaging your resilience is a bit of an extreme approach.

 

[gazzaa2]

Some may well think that what you say above about the exodus is all part of a DfT master-plan to take the proverbial axe to services.

But they'll be most likely out of government next year so the war of attrition isn't going to give them much time to do that. The unions are trying to wait it out until then.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But they'll be most likely out of government next year so the war of attrition isn't going to give them much time to do that. The unions are trying to wait it out until then.

Still many months to go before the next General Election is due to be held.

 

[whoosh]

Talking to some teachers, it appears that the government has found ways to make them more productive. In short it pisses them off enough that they end up leaving, then combines several classes together under the supervision of a cover supervisor or TA. I suppose that it keeps the kids off of the streets, even if they won't learn anything.

Schools have been known to place TAs in charge of large groups (like two classes worth) on their own, pocket the savings on not having called out a supply teacher, and place the TA in the position of being uninsured and in the Dock if something happens.
All too often.

Again to demonstrate the true depth of feeling, not what colleagues say to each other at work. We've seen the peer pressure demonstrated on here previously where people still firmly in favour of continuing action lament people who are not. What you hear from your colleagues might not be what they actually mean. The proof of course will be in the pudding, but don't be surprised if the action goes on some time more to see more and more of those colleagues talking the game turning up for their shifts on future strike days.

Most TOCs will have another strike ballot to be returned to continue the strike mandate. There is no need to waste time and money on a referendum for this deal, which is for a lower payrise and barely any strings removed. The strike ballot will gauge feeling.

And just on the subject of actual pay rises, remember 4% for someone on £50K is still more than £5% for someone on £30K in real terms. So it may well be fairer, especially if you really believe in "levelling up" to give higher percentage rises to lower paid staff.

When someone with children earns more than £50k they have to start paying back Child Benefit until by the time they earn £60k they pay back all of it.
As an example if someone has two children, then they receive £2074.8 per year in Child Benefit.

So someone who earns more than £50k with two children is effectively charged an additional 20.748% on their earnings between £50k and £60k.

So someone getting a 4% rise on £50k is getting less actual money in their pocket (to spend on increased bills!) from that rise if they have two children, than someone on £30k getting a 5% rise would get in their pocket from their rise.

If there are more than two children, then it's effectively (currently) an additional 8.268% Higher Income Child Benefit Charge per child on the earnings between £50k and £60k.

 

[ar10642]

not impossible to learn how to live reasonably comfortably on, say, £30k or less

That rather depends on how much you're paying for housing. If your household income is £30k the max the letting agents will let you rent a property for is £1,000 a month which in my area will get you a 1 bed flat at most, not great if you're looking to have a family. Any less than £30k, then... good luck with that.

You won't get a mortgage for anything at all in this area on that household income either.

When someone with children earns more than £50k they have to start paying back Child Benefit until by the time they earn £60k they pay back all of it.
As an example if someone has two children, then they receive £2074.8 per year in Child Benefit.

So someone who earns more than £50k with two children is effectively charged an additional 20.748% on their earnings between £50k and £60k.

So someone getting a 4% rise on £50k is getting less actual money in their pocket (to spend on increased bills!) from that rise if they have two children, than someone on £30k getting a 5% rise would get in their pocket from their rise.

If there are more than two children, then it's effectively (currently) an additional 8.268% Higher Income Child Benefit Charge per child on the earnings between £50k and £60k.

They really should look at the £50k threshold on this. If 50k was the right number when it was introduced 13 years ago it sure as hell isn't now. In fact the 40% income threshold is actually now higher than 50k, so we are applying a "high income Child Benefit charge" on people who might not even be in the 40% bracket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That rather depends on how much you're paying for housing. If your household income is £30k the max the letting agents will let you rent a property for is £1,000 a month which in my area will get you a 1 bed flat at most, not great if you're looking to have a family. Any less than £30k, then... good luck with that.

Two full rate minimum wage jobs, 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year, brings in slightly more than £30K after tax (it's about £31K).

The system is set up now for both people in a couple to work. We can debate that, but most households have an income far in excess of £30K, but if a couple does only have that a one-bed flat is what you'll need to rent, and now won't be the right time for kids. And you might even want to consider moving somewhere cheaper; you don't have a specific right to live in a more expensive area.

Sure, single parents can get caught out when a relationship breaks down or contraception fails, but that's a different debate regarding benefits etc, and most households aren't single parents.

 

[ar10642]

Two full rate minimum wage jobs, 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year, brings in slightly more than £30K after tax (it's about £31K).

The system is set up now for both people in a couple to work. We can debate that, but most households have an income far in excess of £30K, but if a couple does only have that a one-bed flat is what you'll need to rent, and now won't be the right time for kids. And you might even want to consider moving somewhere cheaper; you don't have a specific right to live in a more expensive area.

Sure, single parents can get caught out when a relationship breaks down or contraception fails, but that's a different debate regarding benefits etc, and most households aren't single parents.

If you do have a child you'll very quickly find out the economics of paying for childcare do not work out at all so you'll either need free childcare from family or the second income will be either drastically reduced or gone even if the parents are together.

As for the specific right to live in an expensive area, fair enough, but I get the feeling that a lot of older people think this means moving to a different part of town. It now might mean moving hundreds of miles away, which itself could mean moving jobs and losing any support networks you might have had for the children. And everywhere needs these lower paid jobs to be done, you can't simply tell everyone to leave for somewhere else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you do have a child you'll very quickly find out the economics of paying for childcare do not work out at all so you'll either need free childcare from family or the second income will be either drastically reduced or gone even if the parents are together.

Of course that's part of the choice of whether now's the right time to have kids or not.

As for the specific right to live in an expensive area, fair enough, but I get the feeling that a lot of older people think this means moving to a different part of town. It now might mean moving hundreds of miles away, which itself could mean moving jobs and losing any support networks you might have had for the children. And everywhere needs these lower paid jobs to be done, you can't simply tell everyone to leave for somewhere else.

Again, all part of the consideration, and part of the economy as a whole. If people can't live in e.g. London and do minimum wage jobs, then that means the wages have to go up so they can afford it.

 

[scrapy]

I think it was 2019 that Grant Shapps and Peter Wilkinson were banging on that railway wages should increase each year by CPI (instead of RPI). Maybe they should repeat these proposals, I'm sure they would be acceptable to trade unions.

 

[ar10642]

Of course that's part of the choice of whether now's the right time to have kids or not.

Yes, so this is where the whole "£30k is more than enough" comes into question for me. It might be if your kids have grown up and you're paying peanuts on a mortgage, or have no mortgage. £30k gross is £1,956 a month take home not including pension. If you have a child, paying £1,000 rent and your partner cannot work full time I think that's going to be a pretty tough life when you consider council tax, energy bills, travel, food shopping on top of that.

 

[Topological]

Of course that's part of the choice of whether now's the right time to have kids or not.



Again, all part of the consideration, and part of the economy as a whole. If people can't live in e.g. London and do minimum wage jobs, then that means the wages have to go up so they can afford it.

There are also strong arguments for the fact that the employment reward package has to differentiate according to locations in the UK. Whilst, we may not be talking about many rewards for low paid workers, there are issues such as childcare provision which can be brought into packages. Some large employers do well on offering additional benefits as part of the package beyond the headline pay rate. In essence employment negotiations are about a lot more than headline percentages.

Whether this is then an argument against a national position from ASLEF (or equally the RMT on the other thread) is open to others to determine, but there is a compelling case to say that offers should differ by local labour market conditions.

IF it is taken that there are differentials in labour markets that the deal needs to reflect then the necessary productivity savings need to also reflect those differentials. Then we come back to the TOC by TOC phase 2 negotiations.

Either way, it looks like we are going to see a long period of strikes and it does not seem to me that Labour will have much success changing the fundamental economic principles of the DfT. We will find out in 18 months time (Presuming the fixed term parliament 5 years is used in full from December 2019).

 

[Annetts key]

I have to be careful what I say here, working as I do in data for the public sector. But I am always careful when looking at ONS data, as data can be used in a number of ways depending on the requirements of those requesting it.

Ahh, you mean statistics can be, “formed” depending on what data is included and what data is excluded. Or what questions were asked, or not asked.

Or… “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

 

[DC1989]

This all comes back to the 'housing theory of everything' if there was enough housing supply so that people on average wages could afford to rent and buy their homes then there wouldn't be such a need to increase wages (see nurses etc)

 

[railfan99]

While it'll vary between train operators and grades, what's a typical figure (for say a station assistant or guard) in GBP that a unionist may have lost thus far from all these continuing strikes?

(I gather some unions have a 'strike fund' that may reduce the salary/wages lost).

 

[Bantamzen]

Ahh, you mean statistics can be, “formed” depending on what data is included and what data is excluded. Or what questions were asked, or not asked.

Or… “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Exactly. Take the public sector average wage rises, cited at 5.3% by the ONS:

Average weekly earnings in Great Britain - Office for National Statistics

Estimates of growth in earnings for employees before tax and other deductions from pay.

www.ons.gov.uk

Now I am very certain nobody in my sector / grades have had average wage rises anywhere near to this. So understanding how this figure was arrived at rather than just taking it at face value is vital.

 

[ar10642]

This all comes back to the 'housing theory of everything' if there was enough housing supply so that people on average wages could afford to rent and buy their homes then there wouldn't be such a need to increase wages (see nurses etc)

Exactly this. It's really coming to a head now and is a major source of friction between the different generations.

 

[asw22]

Exactly. Take the public sector average wage rises, cited at 5.3% by the ONS:

Average weekly earnings in Great Britain - Office for National Statistics

Estimates of growth in earnings for employees before tax and other deductions from pay.

www.ons.gov.uk

Now I am very certain nobody in my sector / grades have had average wage rises anywhere near to this. So understanding how this figure was arrived at rather than just taking it at face value is vital.

It would be interesting to see how it breaks down by location (eg London / regionally), job type and sector. Also the median increase as that would reduce skewing to some extent.

Then there is also the actual disposable side.
If your rent has gone up 15% in each of the last two years then even a 5% pay rise would not cover the loss of disposable income (as it is only 3.5% after tax and NI) as most rents cost more than 30% of income.

And large amounts of housing that is used as a commodity and lays empty (funded by the capital growth that has occurred in the last 25+ years).

 

[Dan G]

Regards the strikes, and now knowing that the RMT is targeting the Eurovision Song Contest while ASLEF goes after the cup final in order to annoy the traveling public, just consider that without public support for strikes there is no incentive for the government to compromise (there's no votes in it).

 

[778]

Is there any chance at all that the ASLEF strikes could be called off, or is that unlikely? It would be a shame to have to cancel a trip, only to find out the strikes will not be happening.

Also do you think ASLEF could strike on June 2nd?

 

[Goldfish62]

While it'll vary between train operators and grades, what's a typical figure (for say a station assistant or guard) in GBP that a unionist may have lost thus far from all these continuing strikes?

(I gather some unions have a 'strike fund' that may reduce the salary/wages lost).

Unite pays £70 per day strike pay, which is around the take home pay of many of its members. But it's also the UK's richest union, despite a modest subscription rate, so can afford to. This is especially so given that only a small part of its membership is on strike at any one time.

Clearly ASLEF paying strike pay at the equivalent of a day's net pay to almost its entire membership would ensure the union went bust very quickly.

 

[Annetts key]

Exactly.

A bit like the passenger numbers percentages that get waved about. In the real world, these are likely partly making use of assumptions.