Frustrated with RMT

[Signallerdave]

I'm getting really disillusioned with RMT regarding this strike. By doing joint negotiations with Maintenance staff of which there are more than Signallers it means signallers can be constantly outvoted even though practically every one I've spoken to wants to accept the latest pay deal. I feel Mick Lynch has done this deliberately to prolong the strike and is using signallers as his attack dogs as we have the most immediate effect when it comes to industrial action. It also means that maintenance staff can outvote us when they just want a pay deal and we're fighting for our terms and conditions. I don't mind fighting for signallers but I don't see why I should do it for other sections of the company. We haven't been asked if we want it this way, the RMT is looking like anything but a democratic union at the moment. What do others think?

 

[800 Driver]

I don't mind fighting for signallers but I don't see why I should do it for other sections of the company.

Because one day you'll have a dispute and the maintenance workers will be able to use their might to help out signallers. That's kind of how unions work.

 

[guard1]

Not sure how you can say network rail maintenance staff are just after a pay deal. Network rail want to completely change working practices for staff on the ground.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Not sure how you can say network rail maintenance staff are just after a pay deal. Network rail want to completely change working practices for staff on the ground.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he was saying that if the tables were turned, and it was maintenance staff primarily looking for a pay deal and signallers fighting for terms and conditions, then it would be quite easy for maintenance staff to outvote the signallers

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What about un-striking
the signallers go on strike against the RMT and just work as usual

 

[Wokingham]

What about un-striking
the signallers go on strike against the RMT and just work as usual

Would the union expell them or offer a vote?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm getting really disillusioned with RMT regarding this strike. By doing joint negotiations with Maintenance staff of which there are more than Signallers it means signallers can be constantly outvoted even though practically every one I've spoken to wants to accept the latest pay deal. I feel Mick Lynch has done this deliberately to prolong the strike and is using signallers as his attack dogs as we have the most immediate effect when it comes to industrial action. It also means that maintenance staff can outvote us when they just want a pay deal and we're fighting for our terms and conditions. I don't mind fighting for signallers but I don't see why I should do it for other sections of the company. We haven't been asked if we want it this way, the RMT is looking like anything but a democratic union at the moment. What do others think?

I hate the disruption this is causing as its genuinely harming the industry and the front line staff are going to lose more than they gain. However, the mandate from members is very strong so you have to respect them and just work around the action as best you can. If signallers really don't like being dragged into the maintenance dispute they should be making representations to their local branch secretaries.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'm a Guard. Do I want the best deal for myself? Absolutely? Do I also want the best for the other grades? Of course. This is what being in a union kinda is, isn't it? We stand as a collective for the overall benefit of all.

 

[PGAT]

Striking is a headache for pretty much all the parties involved.

 

[guard1]

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think he was saying that if the tables were turned, and it was maintenance staff primarily looking for a pay deal and signallers fighting for terms and conditions, then it would be quite easy for maintenance staff to outvote the signallers

But he'll take the benefits of collective bargaining when it suits though.

 

[CE142]

But he'll take the benefits of collective bargaining when it suits though.

Exactly!

 

[danm14]

Would the union expell them or offer a vote?

I don't doubt that it happens, but it appears to be illegal for a union to expel or otherwise sanction members for refusing to strike.

Taking part in industrial action and strikes

How legal industrial action is organised, picketing and the law and what your employment rights when you are on strike

www.gov.uk

If you’re a trade union member, you have the right to vote before your union asks you to take industrial action. You don’t have to take part in industrial action and can’t be disciplined by your union if you don’t. If you do get excluded or expelled from your union, you can complain to an employment tribunal.

In a sense, despite being a major proponent of trade unions, I must say that I agree with this being the case. Expelling members who disagree could easily be used to manipulate votes on accepting deals to end strike action.

Consider a scenario where a decision to strike was particularly controversial among workers - with perhaps 51% in favour and 49% against - but heavily supported by trade union leadership. If just 1 in 10 of those voting against striking refused to strike, expelling them would result in a fairly comfortable majority of 56% supporting strike action - which could easily be enough to see a deal rejected that would have passed otherwise.

 

[Chester1]

What about joining Unite or TSSA? They have a reputation for being weaker but I think they have correctly assessed that the government is looking for a fight with RMT now that many office workers can WFH.

My (non rail) union has "attack dogs" that have much more leverage than most of us but they are on the same grades as the rest of us. The union has increased our subscription to help cover strike pay. The small proportion of staff with significant leverage strike with good strike pay and the rest of us fund it. We have the same pay grades so if their strike is successful we benefit too. Its a clever strategy. The striking staff are happy to have days off on almost full pay, the union can support much longer and more damaging strikes and it gives office staff the best chance of a good pay deal.

 

[Andyh82]

I’d like to predict that out of all the strikes in various industries, the RMT one will be the last strike standing that is left unresolved, and will probably still be ongoing in some form this time next year

 

[185]

The response (from DfT) read out by Mark Harper strengthened my resolve. They were inches from settling on the 4% + 4% (derisory) pay deal. No-one in their right mind would accept the derisory 4% plus next year 4% with additional conditions of mass redundancy attached.

You'd have to be really stupid and/or a Daily Mail reader to think that was a good deal.

I don't entirely blame the Tories. I do blame two idiot DfT Directors for stirring this up and escalating the dispute to a nuclear level, bringing misery to all.

 

[kristiang85]

I’d like to predict that out of all the strikes in various industries, the RMT one will be the last strike standing that is left unresolved, and will probably still be ongoing in some form this time next year

But even if it is resolved, the RMT will strike over something else in due course. Maybe a Labour government will slow that rate down, though.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I’d like to predict that out of all the strikes in various industries, the RMT one will be the last strike standing that is left unresolved, and will probably still be ongoing in some form this time next year

I think I’d rather it continue until they give up rather than see them basically rewarded for the chaos they’ve ensued. Sorry, but that’s how I feel - “Well done for bringing the railway to its knees for a year, here’s an extra X%” doesn’t sit right with me. Same goes for ASLEF.

 

[SynthD]

I don't entirely blame the Tories. I do blame two idiot DfT Directors for stirring this up and escalating the dispute to a nuclear level, bringing misery to all.

Are the directors civil servants? We’ve heard that deals have been scuppered by those above civil servants.

 

[the sniper]

I think I’d rather it continue until they give up rather than see them basically rewarded for the chaos they’ve ensued. Sorry, but that’s how I feel - “Well done for bringing the railway to its knees for a year, here’s an extra X%” doesn’t sit right with me. Same goes for ASLEF.

If they get a sensible offer think of it as what they should have been offered in the first place, if it makes you feel better...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

what they should have been offered in the first place

With respect, according to who?

 

[the sniper]

With respect, according to who?

I just trying to make you more comfortable.

The response (from DfT) read out by Mark Harper strengthened my resolve. They were inches from settling on the 4% + 4% (derisory) pay deal. No-one in their right mind would accept the derisory 4% plus next year 4% with additional conditions of mass redundancy attached.

You'd have to be really stupid and/or a Daily Mail reader to think that was a good deal.

That most of the usual suspects on here couldn't even bring themselves to question the dubious nature of the latest offer essentially made me give up on taking any of these threads too seriously.

 

[Scott1]

I don't bother to comment on these threads anymore, they just go around I circles. That said, am I the only one who wonders where the PM has vanished to on all of this? Do we need to start checking fridges? It's like the government has forgot how this works. Unions say give us 10 percent, they offer 2, then you end up with 5. They almost had it with the 4 and 4 until they decided to attach foolish conditions they knew no one would accept.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I just trying to make you more comfortable.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood

 

[zwk500]

I think I’d rather it continue until they give up rather than see them basically rewarded for the chaos they’ve ensued. Sorry, but that’s how I feel - “Well done for bringing the railway to its knees for a year, here’s an extra X%” doesn’t sit right with me. Same goes for ASLEF.

With respect, this completely ignores the reality that most track workers feel the job (ts and Cs and pay) is no longer viable in the long term. The pay doesn't cover their costs as it used to and the conditions mean they have a low quality of life.

If the strikes are beaten down with a minimal pay increase and the new conditions imposed then people will leave the jobs and it will be harder to recruit replacements.
If there are less maintenance staff, then there will be more problems on the tracks. If there are more problems on the tracks, then there will be an increase in delays and incidents.
If there is an increase in incidents the law of large numbers says at some point there will be a serious one.

There are definitely more efficient ways to do maintenance work, but refusing to raise pay is not part of that.

 

[Snow1964]

Are the directors civil servants? We’ve heard that deals have been scuppered by those above civil servants.

Unfortunately its not clear which company we are talking about

Network Rail Ltd has 13 officers, (Secretary and 12 Directors) only 1 (Michael Harrison) is recorded as Public Servant

NETWORK RAIL LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

NETWORK RAIL LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd also has 13 officers (Secretary and 12 Directors), only 1 (Michael Harrison) is recorded as a Public Servant

NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

As I can only find one civil servant, I don’t know what @SynthD is talking about when they refer to civil servants (plural) as Directors.

You would hope that employees are not misinformed and don’t even know who runs their company.

 

[zwk500]

As I can only find one civil servant, I don’t know what @SynthD and @185 are talking about when they refer to civil servants (plural)

@185 didn't say anything about Civil Servants. @SynthD has slightly jumped the gun by leaping from 'DfT Directors' to Civil Servants working for NR. 'DfT Director' could just as easily mean the Sec of State or Permanent Sec of the Department, one of whom is a Civil Servant, as it could the NR Chair or Chief Exec, who are Public sector employees but not CS.

 

[LowLevel]

Disputes are always frustrating. I think I've spent most of the last 10 years stuck in one or another and it drives me potty. Let's keep fingers crossed for a sensible compromise in the New Year.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I'm getting really disillusioned with RMT regarding this strike. By doing joint negotiations with Maintenance staff of which there are more than Signallers it means signallers can be constantly outvoted even though practically every one I've spoken to wants to accept the latest pay deal. I feel Mick Lynch has done this deliberately to prolong the strike and is using signallers as his attack dogs as we have the most immediate effect when it comes to industrial action. It also means that maintenance staff can outvote us when they just want a pay deal and we're fighting for our terms and conditions. I don't mind fighting for signallers but I don't see why I should do it for other sections of the company. We haven't been asked if we want it this way, the RMT is looking like anything but a democratic union at the moment. What do others think?

Isn’t this how collective bargaining works though!!

 

[SynthD]

@185 didn't say anything about Civil Servants. @SynthD has slightly jumped the gun by leaping from 'DfT Directors' to Civil Servants working for NR. 'DfT Director' could just as easily mean the Sec of State or Permanent Sec of the Department, one of whom is a Civil Servant, as it could the NR Chair or Chief Exec, who are Public sector employees but not CS.

I was politely probing what 185 meant by directors, as it was unclear. I think that excluding the Tories from blame is wrong.

 

[Ashley Hill]

It’s a shame the Government and the RDG are pulling the strings. I feel that if the RMT was allowed to negotiate directly with the TOCs a lot of this could be over now. As I tell people,I’m not striking against my TOC,I’ve no beef with them and it’s a shame they are suffering too. I’m striking against the RDG and the government who wish to interfere with my terms and conditions and threaten me with DOO.
The RDG want one thing for everyone and it won’t work as each company has its own foibles that may not work elsewhere. Until the TOCs are fully nationalised the RDGs one size fits all package will not work.