Frustrated with RMT

[jayah]

Network rail want to completely change working practices for staff on the ground.

Yes - they want to use technology to monitor which is safer and more effective and they want to maintain only when the tracks are closed, which is safer.

The RMT are opposed to modernisation, productivity and even safety when it means more working at night and weekends.

 

[Facing Back]

I googled it and it's about. 4h20 by train and 4h15 car. But you should have a rest stop if driving over 2 hours, so the train would win. Plus £65 by train, so. probably cheaper unless you have a very very fuel efficient car.

If you lived in Three Bridges Station are your final destination was Paignton station, you had an inefficient car and you were travelling by yourself then fair enough. If you are 20 minutes by taxi from Three Bridges and want to give yourself a buffer for traffic, taxi problems and getting a coffee and still catching your advance ticket train then add 40 minutes at the beginning plus the 20 minutes at the other end to get to your actual destination.

Saying that, if the trains were reliable then I'd still prefer to get one rather than drive - but at the moment they are not.

 

[jayah]

I thought unions were there to represent the collective views of their members. It seems to me that, in the case of the signallers, they are not doing this, because they are conflating very different job roles together.

I really wish the unions and employers would all grow up and talk about these issues before they become issues. Some years ago, I was a Unite union rep at a Government agency ('Quango' used to be the term). We worked with the management team to resolve potential disputes before they even surfaced. This was a mature way of working. No 'us and them'. Union members came from all levels - right up to Directors: we all worked for the same organisation and we collaborated to make that organisation a better and more effective place to work. I appreciate that this is different - we often joked about striking when our pay was held back by the Govt (which of course affected everyone, including the senior managers), but concluded the only people that would be inconvenienced (or would even notice) would be the very people we were working to support.

The unions are political as well as industrial. The idea of mass strikes undermining a Conservative government has long appealed and is one of the reasons they want large bargaining groups that can bring out thousands of workers at once, despite 20 companies hiring train drivers having inflated wages since privatisation.

 

[Facing Back]

The problem is it's become personal. The government want to hurt Lynch and his union and aren't interested on resolving the dispute. It's like Scargill and the mines all over again.

Whilst I don't completely disagree, you can equally make the point the other way round. Reading the rhetoric is appears that Mick Lynch (or the NEC) is equally uninterested on the resolving the dispute - unless it results in a resounding victory for "their" side of course.

 

[jayah]

we've played ball no less than three times by cancelling action, wishing to demonstrate that we want to resolve this.

Once was the death of QE2 you would have been reviled for striking during that.

Another time was when you cancelled hours before a strike knowing the reduced timetables would operate but you would all get paid. How heroic.

There should be a registration to strike at employee level so the TOCs can plan the service based on who will be turning up expecting to be paid and the right to refuse a week out if someone changes their mind.

 

[MotCO]

Change the ticket structure so that you make money from the passengers that are travelling. Rather than relying on business and 5 day a week commuter traffic that is in free fall.

Unfortunately, this does not follow the rules of Economics. Firstly, the pre-Covid costs of running the railway v ticket income requied a subsidy from the Government to make it balance. If income from ticket sales fall, does the Government have the capacity to make up the shortfall - probably not.

Secondly. if you change the ticket structure, then the inference is that you will increase ticket prices which could reduce demand and ticket income.*

The upshot of both of these is that economies would have to be made, be that line closures, staff efficiences (a euphanism for just about anything) or other reductions.

(I accept that the strike is not the only factor behind reduced passenger numbers; Covid and staff shortages affecting performance have also had an impact. However, the end result is the same.)

* A braver option is to permanently reduce fares in the hope of attracting more custom and hence more ticket income, but that does require some careful analysis and a brave Government, and also that the raiways have the capacity to deliver, whether peak or leisure /off-peak flows.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not so sure the industrial disputes are the only thing putting passengers off, look at Avanti, TPE among others. Frequent cancellations and high unreliability and people are paying thousands of pounds a year for these services.

It is the industrial disputes that is causing the cancellations at Avanti & TPE.

Just remember that we've played ball no less than three times by cancelling action, wishing to demonstrate that we want to resolve this.

Once for the funeral of the Queen, once 3 days later than could have been done, so that the maximum disruption still occurred, when was the third time?

1. All ticket offices to close. 2. All train guards removed.

This is not true. And neither does it mean widespread compulsory redundancies. The line of thought that changing the roles of those who work in ticket offices, or those who work as ‘guards’ is going to a) lead to widespread redundancies and b) happen overnight is an absolute fallacy.

Rather than striking, why don’t you encourage your reps to find out more about what is actually proposed?

 

[jayah]

It's also worth remembering that the RMT would be happy to do a "Fares Strike" - and it is the government who has made those illegal.

If they don't do the work they shouldn't get paid.

It's either a breach of contract or a disciplinary issue though it is noted many routes have had a fare collection strike for as long as anyone can remember.

 

[Skiddaw]

It is the industrial disputes that is causing the cancellations at Avanti & TPE.



Once for the funeral of the Queen, once 3 days later than could have been done, so that the maximum disruption still occurred, when was the third time?



This is not true. And neither does it mean widespread compulsory redundancies. The line of thought that changing the roles of those who work in ticket offices, or those who work as ‘guards’ is going to a) lead to widespread redundancies and b) happen overnight is an absolute fallacy.

Rather than striking, why don’t you encourage your reps to find out more about what is actually proposed?

Re the Avanti & TPE cancellations, that's been ongoing for the past couple of years (and getting progressively worse). The industrial disputes may have exacerbated the situation but it hasn't caused it.

 

[Facing Back]

We've entirely stopped the monthly meetings we used to have in London that required me and my peers to travel there from all over the country, the vast majority doing so by rail, and that state of affairs is the same at all grades of the very large employer that I work for. It's all done via Teams now and won't revert except for once a year.

I suspect that's the same for most large nationwide companies.

As has been said rail has no form of monopoly for business travellers, and especially not against Zoom and Teams. Not to understand this is very naive.

Many of the large companies - but far from all - are much the same.

Discretionary travel has fallen through the floor. Customer's used to expect our presence on their site for a huge variety of reasons but not so much now by a great margin. Teams and just better remote working disciplines and experience has made a difference. When people are travelling, in many cases they will start from home, the travel off-peak for the things they need to be face-to-face for. The concept of core hours for many has been turbo charged. A number of functions such as call centres which have to be staffed for particular hours are now done remotely.

I am sure there will always be a large number of businesses and professions where face to face is the only practical way but we really have seen a noticable difference in ways of working in many companies.

For balance, of course there are many who are also saying - back to business as usual, you need to be in the office in the city centre at 9am - but fewer than I was expecting

 

[jayah]

* A braver option is to permanently reduce fares in the hope of attracting more custom and hence more ticket income, but that does require some careful analysis and a brave Government, and also that the raiways have the capacity to deliver, whether peak or leisure /off-peak flows.

Even if this works it takes years to come through in behaviour change. That is why the current unpredictable mess is so unhelpful.

The railway is financially unsustainable now, as it was before the strikes.

The railway is also unable to run a reliable Sunday service when demand has been increasing for years.

The taxpayer and the travelling public require a positive outcome from all this not the can kicking down the road until next April.

 

[Scott1]

If they don't do the work they shouldn't get paid.

It's either a breach of contract or a disciplinary issue though it is noted many routes have had a fare collection strike for as long as anyone can remember.

They don't get paid if carrying out a 'fare strike'.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes - they want to use technology to monitor which is safer and more effective and they want to maintain only when the tracks are closed, which is safer.

Agreed but the staffs T&Cs aren't organised around this way of working. They are moving to hours of the day when they would have received enhanced pay and basically onto roster of unsocial hours so that needs to remunerated if they want to retain staff

 

[jayah]

They don't get paid if carrying out a 'fare strike'.

A fare strike is when they go to work, do the shift but don't collect any revenue from passengers.

The idea is they get paid, but the company gets less money.

 

[Bald Rick]

Re the Avanti & TPE cancellations, that's been ongoing for the past couple of years (and getting progressively worse). The industrial disputes may have exacerbated the situation but it hasn't caused it.

Not at the level seen since the drivers stopped working RDW though (over a year for TPE, 4 months for Avanti). The dispute has exacerbated it from ‘barely an issue’ to ‘the whole issue’

Agreed but the staffs T&Cs aren't organised around this way of working. They are moving to hours of the day when they would have received enhanced pay and basically onto roster of unsocial hours so that needs to remunerated if they want to retain staff

Some are organised the right way. It is up to the individuals to choose if they wish to move to the new TS & Cs, no one is being forced to. Clearly, people who will be better off will do so.

 

[Yew]

If they don't do the work they shouldn't get paid.

It's either a breach of contract or a disciplinary issue though it is noted many routes have had a fare collection strike for as long as anyone can remember.

I never said anything about whether they should be paid or not?

It is a common and uncontroversial process, here's an example of Japanese Bus drivers doing one in 2018

It's either a breach of contract or a disciplinary issue.

Engaging in legal industrial action is not.

 

[jayah]

Agreed but the staffs T&Cs aren't organised around this way of working. They are moving to hours of the day when they would have received enhanced pay and basically onto roster of unsocial hours so that needs to remunerated if they want to retain staff

Unsocial hours are already remunerated. They have to change the rosters to reflect reality. Despite being safer, this isn't popular.

To simultaneously oppose compulsory redundancy, while demanding further increases in hourly rates to avoid turnover, in the same workforce is clearly absurd.

Engaging in legal industrial action is not.

You take industrial action, you don't get paid.

Not at the level seen since the drivers stopped working RDW though (over a year for TPE, 4 months for Avanti). The dispute has exacerbated it from ‘barely an issue’ to ‘the whole issue’

35hr week needs to go. We need reliable Sunday services inside the roster and an end to half the service being run outside the contracted hours.

It's a win, win as a longer contracted week means higher nominal and pensionable salaries.

The only alternative is massive and permanent service reductions.

 

[Scott1]

A fare strike is when they go to work, do the shift but don't collect any revenue from passengers.

The idea is they get paid, but the company gets less money.

Workers do not get paid on a fare strike usually, unless the union has decided to provide them with pay from their own hardship fund. The employer doesn't pay them as they are not fulfilling their duties. It is common practice in some countries, but illegal here.

Unless your referring to the kind of fare strike where passengers simply don't pay and the staff don't do anything about it, but that isn't the same as a staff lead fare strike, such as that carried out by bus drivers in Japan.

 

[nedchester]

Unsocial hours are already remunerated. They have to change the rosters to reflect reality. Despite being safer, this isn't popular.

To simultaneously oppose compulsory redundancy, while demanding further increases in hourly rates to avoid turnover, in the same workforce is clearly absurd.


You take industrial action, you don't get paid.


35hr week needs to go. We need reliable Sunday services inside the roster and an end to half the service being run outside the contracted hours.

It's a win, win as a longer contracted week means higher nominal and pensionable salaries.

The only alternative is massive and permanent service reductions.

The 35 hr does not need to go but Sundays inside needs to be part of contracts. That will need more staff to be employed (I think it’s about 17%) but savings to pay for this could come from elsewhere.

I think this is where ticket office closures come from which I think are inevitable as more purchase their tickets online. I’d like to see ALL tickets available on line first though. As for DOO I do think it’ll be introduced on more lines over time.

 

[jayah]

Workers do not get paid on a fare strike usually, unless the union has decided to provide them with pay from their own hardship fund. The employer doesn't pay them as they are not fulfilling their duties. It is common practice in some countries, but illegal here.

Unless your referring to the kind of fare strike where passengers simply don't pay and the staff don't do anything about it, but that isn't the same as a staff lead fare strike, such as that carried out by bus drivers in Japan.

Nobody turns up to work a service all day for no pay.

Perhaps you are referring to lost sales commission? Or perhaps rather disinegenuously the idea that guards won't make any attempt to collect revenue from passengers on pay trains, on the basis they are the ones who didn't pay before boarding?

I am not. You do all of the duties required or you take industrial action but don't get paid.

Alternatively not performing your duties outside industrial action is breach of contract / disciplinary action.

Nobody should tolerate the idea employees can choose which duties they are going to do and still get paid.

 

[43096]

It is the industrial disputes that is causing the cancellations at Avanti & TPE.

That is only part of the story. Utterly incompetent management is also a huge part of it. If that’s not the case a) why are other TOCs less affected and b) why were the MDs of both companies booted out?

 

[Yew]

You take industrial action, you don't get paid.

Depending on the exact agreement between the Union and Employer and the nature of the industrial action, that is usually the case. Though I'm bewildered as to how that response is relevant to the passage of mine you quoted.

 

[43096]

The 35 hr does not need to go but Sundays inside needs to be part of contracts. That will need more staff to be employed (I think it’s about 17%) but savings to pay for this could come from elsewhere.

Going from 35hrs to 40hrs a week is a 14% increase. With Sundays inside that would solve much of the issue.

 

[jayah]

The 35 hr does not need to go but Sundays inside needs to be part of contracts. That will need more staff to be employed (I think it’s about 17%) but savings to pay for this could come from elsewhere.

This is fantasy. The railway is already financially unsustainable without spending £bn protecting full time pay for part time work. A normal working week is 37-40hrs with breaks unpaid.

They cannot run the weekday service without large amount of working above 35hrs and that is before you get a timetable or stock change involving the dreaded 'learning' which inevitably causes months of disruption.

The only alternative is massive and permanent service reductions.

 

[Scott1]

Nobody should tolerate the idea employees can choose which duties they are going to do and still get paid.

In which case your in favour of traditional strikes. Fair enough.

 

[jayah]

Depending on the exact agreement between the Union and Employer and the nature of the industrial action, that is usually the case. Though I'm bewildered as to how that response is relevant to the passage of mine you quoted.

You suggested in post 33 the RMT would be happy to have a fare strike.

I bet they would if it means less work for the same pay, give or take a bit of lost commission.

Has anybody ever had a fare strike that involved working trains and not getting paid - not lost commission, no pay?

 

[geoffk]

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

Can we "name and shame" them?

 

[jayah]

In which case your in favour of traditional strikes. Fair enough.

I wouldn't pay someone to work on a checkout unless they were going to use the till and collect the money. If they want to take industrial action over the use of the till, they can stay at home and get zero pay.

If they want to start industrial action over their roster, also involving not using the till, they can also politely get stuffed. How magnanimous to suggest the RMT would be happy to do this!

Nobody would tolerate them coming, getting paid, but not taking the money.

Equally the idea Guards will come in, work trains, not collect fares, but not get paid for the entire shift is equally absurd.

 

[nedchester]

This is fantasy. The railway is already financially unsustainable without spending £bn protecting full time pay for part time work. A normal working week is 37-40hrs with breaks unpaid.

They cannot run the weekday service without large amount of working above 35hrs and that is before you get a timetable or stock change involving the dreaded 'learning' which inevitably causes months of disruption.

The only alternative is massive and permanent service reductions.

It isn’t fantasy but would take time to implement. Savings could be made from elsewhere by closing some ticket offices, introducing DOO, having more flexible working and reducing competing management structures (there needs an acceptance that the franchise / concession system has failed)

 

[66701GBRF]

The police can't strike the armed forces can't why should teachers and hospital staff be different

Teachers et al are not responsible for the nations law and order or domestic and international security.