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.
Talks started eleven months ago. The whole point of the bargaining agreements between the unions and the companies is to try to prevent a dispute getting to industrial action. However when the employer refuses to negotiate (due to interference from the government) it will become an us and them situation.
You would think so, but the people in charge of unions often seem to have their own agendas which are not always aligned with the views of ordinary members.
Do you have any evidence of this? May I remind you that industrial action can only be called if enough members vote, and there is a majority in favour of taking action. In all cases where industrial action is taking place, the requirements were met and in the vast majority of cases, exceeded by a considerable margin.
- plus union leaders and their staff are just doing their job - on full pay.
The representatives don’t get paid during strikes. Only the small number of the full time staff employed by the RMT get paid, as they would expect, being employees of the RMT. And Mick Lynch is not a ‘union leader’, but a General Secretary. He carries out the instructions of the National Executive Committee.
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.
Technology can’t do everything. Hence is not always safer. The best use of technology is to combine it with the skills of the employees.
Historically more accidents happen to employees within T3 engineering occupations than other methods of working. And line blocks are far from being completely safe.
The RMT are not opposed to the use of technology. And definitely not opposed to safer methods of working. But modernisation in the context of this dispute actually means less money being spent on the railways. And getting employees to do jobs that they are currently not trained or skilled to do. All while having worse terms and conditions and worse working practices.
Long term health effects of shift working, especially where sleep patterns are continuously disturbed are not fully understood. The likelihood is however that it will have effects on the employees health. Meanwhile, it completely screws up any chance of a normal social life or family life.
More and more employees are leaving the industry. Already Network Rail are having difficulty keeping the apprentices that they take on.
And as I’ve told you before, there have been numerous changes since BR. For Network Rail employees, the last one was in 2010.
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.
Could you please get Network Rail to remove the clause that enables them to give a minimum of 48 hours notice of a change to the start and/or finish time of a shift then? Also the other changes to T&Cs that they want. All of which currently don’t apply, but will under modernising maintenance.
Unsocial hours are already remunerated.
Yeah, some employees get a whopping 10% extra for nights or weekends. And under modernising maintenance, all new employees will get this.
Would you work nights and weekends for just 10% extra?
Rosters are already subject to negotiation as part of the existing structure.
As I’ve said before, not all staff are on 35 hour weeks. Some are on 40 hour weeks. Even BR was not on 40 weeks (most BR staff were on 39 hour weeks).
If you did increase the working week, employees would expect to get paid more. Which would cost the companies more money.
The whole reason that the companies have overtime working and Rest Day Working (RDW) is because it’s considerably cheaper.
Where Sundays are already part of the working week, the end result is often staff being asked to work overtime midweek. This despite it being the long term aim to reduce overtime and RDW since the Hidden report into the Clapham rail disaster.
