Mark Harper will be on Laura Kuenssberg's programme today (27/11/2022 BBC1 09:00)

[Snow1964]

The whole negotiation is a shambles. "Agree to these reforms before we talk about pay."

You must have watched a different interview

The wording was carefully chosen and he said, need to have reforms to release funds which can be shared with employees, also said both talks need to be done in parallel

No where was it said got to agree the reforms before we even start talking about pay. Although some operators might be incorrectly taking that approach.

 

[43066]

A lot of damage will be done to ridership in that time, if either side think waiting that long is a good idea. When the election does come, there's no reason to think that railway staff will be more important than teachers, nurses, NHS, defence, social care, etc. - neither party can print enough money for everyone.

The last two years have show the money is there where it’s deemed politically necessary. The “there’s no money” line is trotted out when it suits, along with the spurious idea that pay rises are inflationary so must be resisted, yet unfunded tax cuts to 50% tax payers somehow aren’t, and nobody seems remotely interested in tackling rolling stock costs. It also isn’t a zero sum game of nurses versus teachers v. train drivers (funny how these same groups were all being told they were “key workers” and “heroes” a couple of years back - hasn’t that aged badly!).

In the railway’s case no doubt revenues would have risen further by now if this ideological dispute (which we keep being told has cost the wider economy many hundreds of millions) hadn’t been created in the first place. If the government was really concerned about costs, a simple offer along the lines of those accepted in Wales and Scotland (both well below inflation!) would have sorted things months ago and allowed the industry to return to growth.

Similarly the DfTs penny wise pound foolish approach to day to day management eg refusing to renew rest day work agreements resulting in mass train cancellations and appalling unreliability (which has caused way more disruption than strike action) , is also undoubtedly suppressing demand and actively preventing revenue coming through the door. So it’s hard to see the government’s stance as anything other than ideological. It certainly isn’t about finances!

I don’t see how anyone who isn’t biased to the point of delusional could seriously disagree with any of that, at this point.

 

[dk1]

I dont know about your TOC, but I can certainly see a whole host of efficiencies that could be made at mine - and, to be honest, if they targeted the right ones they would very much be win:win for all parties.

There was some messroom gumph about not allowing walking time & not being paid for meal breaks & PNBs like that’s ever going to happen or be agreed.

 

[43066]

But generally, resistance to reforms will only lead to bigger resource cutbacks when they are mandated to reduce railway costs.

That suggestion rather flies in the face of a century or more of collective action*, both on the railway and elsewhere. Generally the principle of resisting wholesale “reforms”, which often have a political motivation, and negotiating a compromise means ending up in a better position than you would if you just rolled over (And before anyone trots out the example of 1980s miners - that industry was in terminal decline and would have closed down one way or another - the railway in 2022 very much isn’t in that situation.)

Of course this needs to be tempered with realism and a willingness to embrace inevitable technological change. The railway unions as a whole have a pretty good track record of doing this, albeit some elements of the union leadership appear to still want to fight what really are pointless battles nowadays, such as retaining ticket offices.

*a bit like that other old chestnut “if you go on strike, the passengers won’t come back”.

There was some messroom gumph about not allowing walking time & not being paid for meal breaks & PNBs like that’s ever going to happen or be agreed.

And like that would represent a significant saving. That’s probably just based on the repeated Daily Mail harrumphing on the subject.

 

[DanNCL]

Rather than using reforms not being agreed as an excuse to put off pay talks, they should make a combined pay and reforms offer. If the offer is sensible, let the RMT and ASLEF vote on it, approve it, and get this nightmare over with.

Public sympathy for these strikes is dropping, the longer it takes to resolve this the more likely yet more people will stop using the railway for good.

 

[43066]

Rather than using reforms not being agreed as an excuse to put off pay talks, they should make a combined pay and reforms offer. If the offer is sensible, let the RMT and ASLEF vote on it, approve it, and get this nightmare over with.

Well, yes and until the Treasury vetoed it that was close to happening last week (and has already happened in Scotland and Ireland).

Public sympathy for these strikes is dropping

I’m not sure that’s true - that’s certainly not what my colleagues on a picket line reported yesterday. In any case, it isn’t about public sympathy. You’ll also note that public sympathy for the government (across many, many areas) is also dropping.

it takes to resolve this the more likely yet more people will stop using the railway for good.

Yet people have said that about every single strike in history, and it hasn’t once been true. That’s a pretty good indication it won’t be true this time either.

I suggest for passengers the longer term unreliability on certain operators is a far bigger issue than strikes, which are known about in advance and can be planned for.

 

[O L Leigh]

Rather than using reforms not being agreed as an excuse to put off pay talks, they should make a combined pay and reforms offer. If the offer is sensible, let the RMT and ASLEF vote on it, approve it, and get this nightmare over with.

Yes they should, as they have done for years and years and years. This is the normal process by which pay and conditions are set.

But, and this is the crucial fact that bears repeating, no-one is talking to us. We're sitting here waiting to hear what our employers are proposing so that we can begin negotiation, but this has yet to happen.

 

[dctraindriver]

Just seems to be bloody mindedness from the DfT to me. We are all just caught up in the drama.

Treasury are the decision makers.

 

[LAX54]

Again much of this lays with Network Rail. Like you I’ve heard nothing of reforms working for a TOC.

It reminds me of 89, it went weeks and weeks with neither side (NUR/BR) not talking to each other !

 

[class 9]

There was some messroom gumph about not allowing walking time & not being paid for meal breaks & PNBs like that’s ever going to happen or be agreed.

I think the main focus particularly on the Traincrew side will looking at the TOCs that don't have Sundays inside the working week, at the very least making them 'committed'.

 

[dk1]

I think the main focus particularly on the Traincrew side will looking at the TOCs that don't have Sundays inside the working week, at the very least making them 'committed'.

I can see that being a major stumbling block with many. We work to committed Sundays which rarely seems a problem for cover.

 

[Starmill]

Unfortunately there is an end to this and it’s not a good one, waves after wave of damaging strikes, no response from the government and a spiral of decline, much to the delight of most in the conservatives party.

You could argue that the self-sustaining decline has already started, we've already seen permanent cuts all over England and Scotland. First and foremost this is driven by the choice to go after operating cost cuts.

 

[class 9]

I can see that being a major stumbling block with many. We work to committed Sundays which rarely seems a problem for cover.

Ours are too, nobody is going to accept 'committed Sunday's' in exchange for a below inflation payrise though.
I don't know how many TOCs have non committed Sundays, Drivers on the West Side of Northern and XC TMs are the only 2 I know of.

 

[Christmas]

DfT need to butt out of the day to day running of the railway in general. Efficiencies could certainly be made by removing civil servants from an industry they appear to know very little about, and let railway managers manage!

 

[O L Leigh]

So what issues is Mick Lynch talking about during these various discussions?
From earlier comments it must have included 'reforms' because I can recall RDW and Sundays being listed.

I presume he’s talking about NR rather than the TOCs.

I think the main focus particularly on the Traincrew side will looking at the TOCs that don't have Sundays inside the working week, at the very least making them 'committed'.

Sundays inside wouldn’t save money.

 

[AVK17]

The last two years have show the money is there where it’s deemed politically necessary. The “there’s no money” line is trotted out when it suits, along with the spurious idea that pay rises are inflationary so must be resisted, yet unfunded tax cuts to 50% tax payers somehow aren’t, and nobody seems remotely interested in tackling rolling stock costs. It also isn’t a zero sum game of nurses versus teachers v. train drivers

Exactly this. The government talks about money as if it arrives here from outer space in a cardboard box at irregular intervals. Ultimately the government controls the supply of money in our economy, whether that’s through borrowing, issuing bonds and gilts or ’quantitive easing’. They produced trillions of pounds from nothing to pay for dodgy unusable PPE, covid business loans, furlough and test & trace. If the government wishes to increase rail industry budgets then it is as simple as adding a few zeros to a number on an Excel spreadsheet somewhere.

 

[slowroad]

Exactly this. The government talks about money as if it arrives here from outer space in a cardboard box at irregular intervals. Ultimately the government controls the supply of money in our economy, whether that’s through borrowing, issuing bonds and gilts or ’quantitive easing’. They produced trillions of pounds from nothing to pay for dodgy unusable PPE, covid business loans, furlough and test & trace. If the government wishes to increase rail industry budgets then it is as simple as adding a few zeros to a number on an Excel spreadsheet somewhere.

So why not just double everyone’s pay then? Doh.

 

[AVK17]

So why not just double everyone’s pay then? Doh.

My point is that it’s completely disingenuous of the goverment to pretend they have no control at all over the supply of money in the economy.

I’m not advocating hyperinflation in the 1920s Germany style.

 

[XIX7007177]

There is a rough idea of what it would take to settle the disputes judging by the Scotrail and TfW settlements.

So, what it is the bloody hold up?

Government making themselves look very incompetent.

 

[Starmill]

My point is that it’s completely disingenuous of the goverment to pretend they have no control at all over the supply of money in the economy.

I’m not advocating hyperinflation in the 1920s Germany style.

To be fair, while the government aren't habitually truthful about anything, they do face three important constraints. One is how much tax revenue they can extract from people, one is how much they can borrow on international markets, and one is how much money they can create without it being inflationary.

They certainly aren't willing to flex these constraints in favour of the railway industry. My personal view is that we should pay more tax in order to fund decent public transport. I've advocated for that in my personal and professional life for years, though lots would go to freight, light rail and bus services rather than the passenger services using Network Rail infrastructure. However, the general idea of being willing to pay more tax seems to be pretty foreign to most people who live in this country. The second constraint we are hard up against thanks to the foolishness of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. The third constraint has been given away to the Bank of England to decide independently of the government, and they've decided we've got too much money supply so they'll reduce it, not increase it.

Does anyone seriously think that they can make a convincing argument which will be popular with British voters that the railway industry, as currently constituted, should receive more money by flexing one of those three constraints? I'd love to believe that someone's capable of making that argument.

 

[43066]

Sundays inside wouldn’t save money.

They will want committed Sundays rather than Sundays inside, for this reason.

So why not just double everyone’s pay then? Doh.

Nobody is asking for that, or even suggesting it? The point being made is that it’s disingenuous to use “there’s no money” or “inflation” to argue against modest pay settlements of the type agreed in Scotland and Wales, when the same government self evidently doesn’t care about either costs or inflation when it comes to other areas.

Does anyone seriously think that they can make a convincing argument which will be popular with British voters that the railway industry, as currently constituted, should receive more money by flexing one of those three constraints? I'd love to believe that someone's capable of making that argument.

Remembering that “more money” in this context actually means less money in real terms if cash funding increases at less than the rate of inflation. Money being made available to award front line staff a below inflation pay rise, commensurate with that awarded in other areas, might well be welcomed to remove the current paralysis. This could be at least partly funded by efficiency savings - neither major railway union has rejected those out of hand - and would benefit the wider economy by ending the current disputes which, as we keep being told, have cost the wider economy many hundreds of millions.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, while the government aren't habitually truthful about anything, they do face three important constraints. One is how much tax revenue they can extract from people, one is how much they can borrow on international markets, and one is how much money they can create without it being inflationary.

They certainly aren't willing to flex these constraints in favour of the railway industry. My personal view is that we should pay more tax in order to fund decent public transport. I've advocated for that in my personal and professional life for years, though lots would go to freight, light rail and bus services rather than the passenger services using Network Rail infrastructure. However, the general idea of being willing to pay more tax seems to be pretty foreign to most people who live in this country. The second constraint we are hard up against thanks to the foolishness of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. The third constraint has been given away to the Bank of England to decide independently of the government, and they've decided we've got too much money supply so they'll reduce it, not increase it.

Does anyone seriously think that they can make a convincing argument which will be popular with British voters that the railway industry, as currently constituted, should receive more money by flexing one of those three constraints? I'd love to believe that someone's capable of making that argument.

In case of getting the railway running again, printing money is probably the best option.

The reason being that printing money only causes inflation if you end up with too much sloshing around the economy chasing too few goods and services. I don't believe that this is actually the case for the following reasons:

The furlough money only replaced wealth that wasn't being generated due to the economy being shut down, so there probably isn't much more money sloshing around compared to the size of the economy. The PPE money has gone off to the manufacturers and probably to the City, so won't be chasing goods and services.

We know where inflation is coming from - abroad - due to the weak pound and geopolitical factors.

Therefore what money there is sloshing around is better off being channelled towards domestic, preferably labour intensive industries and services that are less likely to lose wealth to imported inflation. Public transport is not only a domestic, labour intensive industry itself, which will help to retain wealth within the economy, it also facilitates people spending their money in other domestic labour intensive industries.

Whichever way you look at it, in the current circumstances, public transport is one of the better things to be spending money on.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Exactly this. The government talks about money as if it arrives here from outer space in a cardboard box at irregular intervals. Ultimately the government controls the supply of money in our economy, whether that’s through borrowing, issuing bonds and gilts or ’quantitive easing’. They produced trillions of pounds from nothing to pay for dodgy unusable PPE, covid business loans, furlough and test & trace. If the government wishes to increase rail industry budgets then it is as simple as adding a few zeros to a number on an Excel spreadsheet somewhere.

There's always a day of reckoning.
Part of the current financial problem is exactly the actions taken during Covid, plus Ukraine and a dose of Brexit.
The government paid to keep the railway at full employment during Covid, and now it has to balance the books.
If Labour were in power, the noises would be very similar, despite their pretence otherwise today.
Just as they bailed the banks out in 2008, which caused the 2010s austerity.
The railway is so detached from the real world it doesn't understand where its money comes from.

 

[Starmill]

In case of getting the railway running again, printing money is probably the best option.

The reason being that printing money only causes inflation if you end up with too much sloshing around the economy chasing too few goods and services. I don't believe that this is actually the case for the following reasons:

The furlough money only replaced wealth that wasn't being generated due to the economy being shut down, so there probably isn't much more money sloshing around compared to the size of the economy. The PPE money has gone off to the manufacturers and probably to the City, so won't be chasing goods and services.

We know where inflation is coming from - abroad - due to the weak pound and geopolitical factors.

Therefore what money there is sloshing around is better off being channelled towards domestic, preferably labour intensive industries and services that are less likely to lose wealth to imported inflation. Public transport is not only a domestic, labour intensive industry itself, which will help to retain wealth within the economy, it also facilitates people spending their money in other domestic labour intensive industries.

Whichever way you look at it, in the current circumstances, public transport is one of the better things to be spending money on.

I'm not sure I can argue against any of this; I don't really disagree with any of it. Unfortunately, the issue is that I don't see the Bank of England buying it.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure I can argue against any of this; I don't really disagree with any of it. Unfortunately, the issue is that I don't see the Bank of England buying it.

True, they see inflation as an issue with one text book "cure", and don't look at alleviating the underlying issues causing it.

 

[deltic]

In case of getting the railway running again, printing money is probably the best option.

The reason being that printing money only causes inflation if you end up with too much sloshing around the economy chasing too few goods and services. I don't believe that this is actually the case for the following reasons:

The furlough money only replaced wealth that wasn't being generated due to the economy being shut down, so there probably isn't much more money sloshing around compared to the size of the economy. The PPE money has gone off to the manufacturers and probably to the City, so won't be chasing goods and services.

We know where inflation is coming from - abroad - due to the weak pound and geopolitical factors.

Therefore what money there is sloshing around is better off being channelled towards domestic, preferably labour intensive industries and services that are less likely to lose wealth to imported inflation. Public transport is not only a domestic, labour intensive industry itself, which will help to retain wealth within the economy, it also facilitates people spending their money in other domestic labour intensive industries.

Whichever way you look at it, in the current circumstances, public transport is one of the better things to be spending money on.

There is way too much money sloshing around the system which is why we have had massive house price inflation, and partly the reason why inflation is high - its not all imported as the Bank of England made clear when putting up interest rates. Interest payments on government debt is now rising significantly

 

[robert thomas]

That suggestion rather flies in the face of a century or more of collective action*, both on the railway and elsewhere. Generally the principle of resisting wholesale “reforms”, which often have a political motivation, and negotiating a compromise means ending up in a better position than you would if you just rolled over (And before anyone trots out the example of 1980s miners - that industry was in terminal decline and would have closed down one way or another - the railway in 2022 very much isn’t in that situation.)

Of course this needs to be tempered with realism and a willingness to embrace inevitable technological change. The railway unions as a whole have a pretty good track record of doing this, albeit some elements of the union leadership appear to still want to fight what really are pointless battles nowadays, such as retaining ticket offices.

*a bit like that other old chestnut “if you go on strike, the passengers won’t come back”.



And like that would represent a significant saving. That’s probably just based on the repeated Daily Mail harrumphing on the subject.

As a rail user rather than an employee I'd consider that closing ticket offices would be a seriously retrograde step and would certainly make travel more difficult for a not inconsidersble proportion of the population if my local station is anything to go by.

 

[zwk500]

From a discussion POV, yes. But from an electoral perspective...? When it comes to casting a ballot, are voters likely to make that distinction...?

There are a number of MPs who do have significant local respect, as well as local election seats where the tories are still likely to hold on.

They're looking at a total pasting even in a best case scenario for the Commons whatever happens.

 

[class 9]

The government paid to keep the railway at full employment during Covid, and now it has to balance the books.

They made that choice to keep keyworkers moving, although in hindsight not many did.
They also payed millions of people 80% of their wages to sit at home tossing it off, their pay and conditions aren't now paying the consequences now.

 

[Horizon22]

I think the main focus particularly on the Traincrew side will looking at the TOCs that don't have Sundays inside the working week, at the very least making them 'committed'.

The issue with this being it probably wont save money; in fact the likely increase in establishment - unless they reduce M-F rostered diagrams fairly considerable - will probably cost more. I agree it should be formalised into a 7-day week everywhere but you can’t have your cake and eat it.

As a rail user rather than an employee I'd consider that closing ticket offices would be a seriously retrograde step and would certainly make travel more difficult for a not inconsidersble proportion of the population if my local station is anything to go by.

I think it’s only a matter of time before ticket offices at many stations either a) disappear completely or b) are changed to a multi-disciplinary role. This is one change, that, certainly in the long-run, is only going to go one way due to the change in demographics and technology.