New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[KM1991]

It isn't that good. The legal minimum for someone working a full time job is 28 days per year in total.

But what the document doesn't define is what is considered "a week".

At the moment my leave is defined in days - I get 30 days per year.

If "a week" is considered to be 5 days then this is an increase in 3 days overall. (5 x 5 = 25 + 8 =33). However I could loose 2 of those each year because of the new arrangements for Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

However a separate section of the documeont (in respect of spare turns) says "the principle that three days’ work constitutes a week’s work." If that is the case then 3 x 5 = 15 + 8 = 23 days, which is 7 days less than now. This would be below the legal minimum of 28 days, however that is based around a 5 day week. The Gov.uk website says that someone who only works a 3 day week is only legally entitled to 16.8 days leave a year.

Oh, wow. 23 days inclusive of bank holidays is terrible - you are probably right.

In my TOC we only get 22 days, but get the bank holidays back in lieu if we work or it falls on a rest day - So works out to 30 on total.

 

[Fred26]

But you are only exempt if the Company can employ someone else to cover it. If they can't then you have to work:

"Where an existing employee (where Sundays is currently outside the working week without a contractual commitment to work) does not currently work any rostered Sundays then they could give 12-months’ notice to not work Sundays as an extra weekend shift providing extra weekend staff can be employed to cover. If cover cannot be provided, then the employee would be required to work their rostered Sundays (the ‘commitment to work’ stands)."



It isn't that good. The legal minimum for someone working a full time job is 28 days per year in total.

But what the document doesn't define is what is considered "a week".

At the moment my leave is defined in days - I get 30 days per year.

If "a week" is considered to be 5 days then this is an increase in 3 days overall. (5 x 5 = 25 + 8 =33). However I could loose 2 of those each year because of the new arrangements for Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

However a separate section of the documeont (in respect of spare turns) says "the principle that three days’ work constitutes a week’s work." If that is the case then 3 x 5 = 15 + 8 = 23 days, which is 7 days less than now. This would be below the legal minimum of 28 days, however that is based around a 5 day week. The Gov.uk website says that someone who only works a 3 day week is only legally entitled to 16.8 days leave a year.






I am open minded to modernisation and change, and was hopeful that this new proposal could lead to and end to this dispute, and that I would be able to vote yes.

When I saw the headline bullet points yesterday I considered that - being selfish - not many of the proposed changes affected me that much so would therefore be acceptable. I already have Committed Sundays for example, so there is no change there.

However the devil is in the detail. And there is plenty of detail now which I do not like.

Take Spares. The document says that TOCS *MUST* produce rosters with full weeks of spares. It also says that if you have a full week of spare then you have unlimited movement and can be given any duty no matter what time it is. That means you could be moved from earlies to lates and all over the place. Even worse is that they can change your rest days at a weeks notice. So if you thought your days off would be Wednesday and Thursday a week before they can unilaterally change them to be Friday and Saturday, for example. This makes it absolutely impossible to plan anything outside work at all. A family meal? Going to a Wedding? Going to a concert or event which you need to buy tickets for? Well you can't book the day as leave to guarantee you can attend as you are on rest day so aren't in work in the first place.... until a week before when they move your rest day to a different day.

Can someone point me to other jobs where your manager can just move your weekend days off at a weeks notice and you can't do anything about it? How on earth do you plan anything at all?

It also implies that when spare changes can be made on the day of the duty subject to you being given notice. Currently I have 72 hours posted notice - i.e. they cannot alter my hours of duty and booking on times less than 72 hours before the day. This document says this reduces to 48 hours from the start of the actual shift (not the actual day concerned) but that also "Further changes can occur up to and including on the day because of service requirements with adequate notice to staff affected.". So I am meant to start work at 1200 tomorrow for a 7 hour duty finishing at 1900. I get a phone call or email in the morning saying I must now turn up at 1500 instead for a 10 hour duty not finishing till 0100? (as they can also extend your day by up to 3 hours now) This might affect out of work commitments, travel arrangements, childcare etc etc.

See also my comments about Annual Leave above, as there is no clarity on the exact numbers of days etc. The way annual leave MUST be allocated is also significantly less flexible than my current arrangements
There is no stipulation for minimum number of rest days (in fact the document expressly says that TOCS can't have a minimum number of rest days) and also states that Sunday coverage should include spares etc like any other day. There is no stipulation for a maximum turn length.
There is no stipulation for a length of spare turn (other than that it must be flexible and based around the average turn length at the depot).
For all the above it just says that the company decides. (The document elsewhere states that the RMT can not dispute or fail to agree anything implemented as a result of this agreement being accepted).
The combination of the above means (assuming the timetable stays the same and the current diagrams remain broadly similar) I could go from doing a 4 day week with 1 committed Sunday every 3 weeks (so 13 days in work every 3 weeks) to a 5 day week with 2 committed Sundays every 3 weeks (so 17 days in work every 3 weeks). So I could loose 4 days off every 3 weeks - that could involve me working an extra 60+ days per year for little to no extra money save for some extra overtime payments for the extra committed Sundays.


The stuff in regards attendance management, sickness arrangements, etc; the type of work you can do; training principles and methods; new technology; and other such things I am not that bothered about (if anything I have often thought lots of them are a bit too generous). I could even cope with the extended range of movement on spare duties i.e +/- 3 hours with a 3 hour increase in length of day (so you could finish 6 hours later than planned for example).

However my days off are my days off. I like to plan my life, go on day trips or short breaks, go out for meals, go to events. The fact that my days off can be changed at a weeks notice making planning anything like that almost impossible for much of the year is a big no no. Much like the RMT red line on DOO - this is my red line.
For example - In April this year I've been invited to a friend's wedding. By coincidence it is on a Saturday when I am rest day. So I can go. So I will book a hotel, make travel arrangements etc. But come the new rostering arrangements I may find out a week before the wedding that the Saturday is not my rest day after all, they may move my rest day to Wednesday instead. So suddenly, at a weeks notice, I can't go. Great. Sorry, no. That is unacceptable.

I'd rather take no pay rise and just stay as I am thank you.

Excellent post, well said. I agree completely.

 

[KM1991]

Does this mean that the employee on a higher salary won't get a payrise for the next 5yrs ?

Seems open to interpretation. I read it as for the 5 years that follow the implementation of this protocol that your salary, allowances, pay awards etc will continue as normal, before real term pay cuts kick in with every pay award there after.

 

[Fred26]

Does this mean that the employee on a higher salary won't get a payrise for the next 5yrs ?

It also doesn't take into account the threat of redundancy.
There's no point accepting a pay deal with 5 years worth pay rises etc, if in December 2024 we can be made redundant and forced to sign up to the lower salary (if we want to say on the railway).

 

[the sniper]

Unless I’m missing something there isn’t much achieved from the government’s point of view apart from ticket offices closing

Appendix 5 makes for ugly reading for train crew grades, with the potential for a staggering number of changes to current practices possible to be made freely by the TOCs.

Does this mean that the employee on a higher salary won't get a payrise for the next 5yrs ?

That's how it traditionally worked, so I'm imaging that is how it should be interpreted.

 

[Tw99]

Does this mean that the employee on a higher salary won't get a payrise for the next 5yrs ?

I don't think so. My reading is the convergence process only starts after 5 years, and even then, they still get the same money, but half of it not as salary.

 

[the sniper]

The Munich S-bahn should be mandatory visiting for any DOO debate: 12-car trains, 3 doors per car per side, both sides open at some stations (eg Hbf), driver only operation. That’s 72 doors opening and closing.

I wonder if the BTP or ORR visiting would identify any cases of passenger's injury/death that would have been considered worthy of a Driver's prosecution here.

 

[jack31439]

It isn't that good. The legal minimum for someone working a full time job is 28 days per year in total.

But what the document doesn't define is what is considered "a week".

At the moment my leave is defined in days - I get 30 days per year.

If "a week" is considered to be 5 days then this is an increase in 3 days overall. (5 x 5 = 25 + 8 =33). However I could loose 2 of those each year because of the new arrangements for Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

However a separate section of the document (in respect of spare turns) says "the principle that three days’ work constitutes a week’s work." If that is the case then 3 x 5 = 15 + 8 = 23 days, which is 7 days less than now. This would be below the legal minimum of 28 days, however that is based around a 5 day week. The Gov.uk website says that someone who only works a 3 day week is only legally entitled to 16.8 days leave a year.

Oh, wow. 23 days inclusive of bank holidays is terrible - you are probably right.

In my TOC we only get 22 days, but get the bank holidays back in lieu if we work or it falls on a rest day - So works out to 30 on total.

I'd interpret it as a week meaning 5 days per week with regards to leave, total inc BHs 33. To redefine a week completely within this would seem bizarre. The wording behind weeks rather than days just means it can be scaled to people that do not work full time, to my opinion at least.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'd interpret it as a week meaning 5 days per week with regards to leave, total inc BHs 33. To redefine a week completely within this would seem bizarre. The wording behind weeks rather than days just means it can be scaled to people that do not work full time, to my opinion at least.

That’s fine, but it does need to be clear.

We had an issue that arose from just this confusion where people in a 4 day link would work five days more per year than those in a 5 day link.

 

[jack31439]

I think I am also seeing the Christmas leave differently. I may be getting this wrong, but under existing circumstances if you are booked to work Christmas day does the day off not come from the BH entitlements anyway? Or is an additional lieu day accrued from this. I appreciate this may be different across the country.

 

[Sleepy]

One size does not fit all. We have no issues with Sunday cover at my TOC - if this goes through Sundays either end of 2 week holiday will have to be worked. With any rostered Sunday and the company decides they don't need you they don't have to pay etc. There will be serious recruitment issues with the station payscales suggested too.

 

[the sniper]

Just one of many significant potential changes casually included in Appendix 5:

Rest Day Allocation
The placement of rest days within a roster will be in line with the parameters provided by the company.

There should be no minimum rest days injected over and above the total requirement to achieve the hours of the working week with the number of allocated rest days in any week being proportionate to the working week with no requirement for fixed or rolling rest day patterns.

A life changing, fundamental change to the job for many which would probably make the job untenable for a good few I know, just one line in a 22 page document...

An almost funny thing is, after all the fuss about walking time, it's one of the few things that according to this probably wouldn't change either much or at all. I guess they realised it was necessary after all.

 

[O L Leigh]

Just one of many significant potential changes casually included in Appendix 5:



A life changing, fundamental change to the job for many which would probably make the job untenable for a good few I know, just one line in a 22 page document...

An almost funny thing is, after all the fuss about walking time, it's one of the few things that according to this probably wouldn't change either much or at all. I guess they realised it was necessary after all.

I’m not sure how to interpret that. I would guess that applies to the base roster and not to ad-hoc changes. If this is the case, I’ve worked under such arrangements at GA (although it may have changed since). It’s not a big problem because even though your rest days don’t follow a predictable pattern, they are at least fixed in the roster. If you have two rest days per week then you still have that number, but they may not be predictably placed.

I’m unsure if this will be used widely. I can’t see what advantage it would confer to the companies to have rest days dotted about the roster at random. If your requirement is for X staff per day then you’ll have Y staff on rest day. How you split the Xs and Ys really doesn’t matter, so you might as well leave it alone.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I think I am also seeing the Christmas leave differently. I may be getting this wrong, but under existing circumstances if you are booked to work Christmas day does the day off not come from the BH entitlements anyway? Or is an additional lieu day accrued from this. I appreciate this may be different across the country.

Think it depends on the TOC. At the one I work for, station staff can be booked off as not required on any public holiday and it doesn't come out of their Annual Leave entitlement. Needless to say, it's only usually done for Christmas Day and Boxing Day!

In other cases, where a public holiday falls during a period of booked Annual Leave, you only use a day's leave if you'd normally have been rostered to work that day. If it falls on what should have been a Rest Day, it's a freebie.

 

[the sniper]

I’m not sure how to interpret that. I would guess that applies to the base roster and not to ad-hoc changes. If this is the case, I’ve worked under such arrangements at GA (although it may have changed since). It’s not a big problem because even though your rest days don’t follow a predictable pattern, they are at least fixed in the roster. If you have two rest days per week then you still have that number, but they may not be predictably placed.

I’m unsure if this will be used widely. I can’t see what advantage it would confer to the companies to have rest days dotted about the roster at random. If your requirement is for X staff per day then you’ll have Y staff on rest day. How you split the Xs and Ys really doesn’t matter, so you might as well leave it alone.

I appreciate some places have it, but if you've always had the fixed pattern, it's a significant change. Combined with the 'Spare weeks', where you can inherit any line of work, there are people who are going to struggle to arrange their lives around that.

Spare weeks, as mentioned by @Solent&Wessex, from Appendix 5:

Lines comprising a week of spares will be constructed to assist with efficient rostering, such
as for the coverage of annual leave, and where so used to cover full lines of work will take the
associated rest day/s of that work. Such spares where allocated on the weekly roster, which
will be posted in accordance with company procedures, will be booked out in time order with
no restrictions on movement and will be able to be extended up to the maximum length
permitted within the diagramming arrangements in accordance with the principle that three
days’ work constitutes a week’s work.

 

[O L Leigh]

I appreciate some places have it, but if you've always had the fixed pattern, it's a significant change. Combined with the 'Spare weeks', where you can inherit any line of work, there are people who are going to struggle to arrange their lives around that.

Spare weeks, as mentioned by @Solent&Wessex, from Appendix 5:

Yes, I did read the post by @Solent&Wessex addressing those points and don’t disagree with what was said.

My observation was not to suggest that it’s not a change but simply in response to the point you emphasised about rest day patterns. As long you know when your rest days fall, you can still plan your life no matter what your rest day pattern is. Spare weeks are, of course, a different matter.

 

[matt_world2004]

If station staff and train crew are going to be no longer working at a fixed working location . How would TOCs implement the Tyco vs Spanish government ECJ ruling?

This ruling requires home to work and work to home travel time to be recorded as working time for the purposes of breaks,rest periods and maximum working hours . If you do not have a fixed working location. Are TOCs going to ask employees to keep a record of what time they leave and arrive home .

 

[KM1991]

If station staff and train crew are going to be no longer working at a fixed working location . How would TOCs implement the Tyco vs Spanish government ECJ ruling?

This ruling requires home to work and work to home travel time to be recorded as working time for the purposes of breaks,rest periods and maximum working hours . If you do not have a fixed working location. Are TOCs going to ask employees to keep a record of what time they leave and arrive home .

Is that a thing?? I’ve never been asked that once.

Edit: Nevermind. I’ve read up on the case and understand what you meant now. Interesting point

 

[matt_world2004]

Is that a thing?? I’ve never been asked that once.

EU level: ECJ rules that travel time is treated as working time | European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

www.eurofound.europa.eu

Here's details of the ruling. It applies to any non fixed location. You do not have to be paid for the travel time in the UK as at the time of the ruling the EU had no jurisdiction over when you got paid. The ruling still applies to UK law after we have left the EU

 

[Harbon 1]

Are you suggesting the railways are more dangerous now than previously and are becoming less safe?

We had a passenger death for the first time in 13 years, so yes they are less safe than they were.

I think you need to look at what actually caused that incident; it's not relevant to this thread.

I never mentioned a cause of that derailment. I used it to put a rough date on the thread I mentioned, and the importance of the question the thread raised after the crash. The question I subsequently asked was in relation to your question about whether I thought that a move away from labour intensive methods would compromise safety.

Do you believe that removing maintenance staff and stretching the remaining ones thinner will improve safety? Did we, as a railway, increase or decrease the maintenance provisions after the spate of infrastructure related derailments under Railtrack?

Firstly is it proposed that there will be many more unstaffed stations than currently is the case?

Do you really, seriously think they will stop at ticket office closures?

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here. Can you quote what exactly is proposed to happen that you object to, or is this just speculation?

I replied to your statement "I would expect announcements and/or online information to be available, rather than have to go to a ticket window to ask about a delay." Machines can only regurgitate the information given to them. In my example that I gave of this, the machine provided the correct information. It was told a train has been cancelled, and then told passengers the next service. What a staff member did was tell them (the bemused looking passenmgers on the platform) to ignore that announcement as it was running as normal. Joe public arent as profficient as members of this forum are at understanding train operations.

Once public facing staff start to be removed from our stations (moving ticket office staff into other roles won't save any money) there will be nobody to explain what is happening to the public in case the computer gives out the wrong message. Why do we need a staff member just in case something happens? The same reason we have a red flag and detonators on every train. Just in case.

The last time I had to use a ticket office for this situation, they sold me an invalid ticket; had the journey been available online I would have easily got a valid e-ticket. I don't therefore see the benefits to your argument.

So you had a bad experience and now all ticket offices are redundant. Is your experience more common than being sold the correct ticket, or would you say it's a rare occurance?

While you may prefer a traditional ticket office, the reality is times are changing and the railway needs to move with those times.

What I prefer is someone there who knows what they're doing when I don't know which ticket to purchase. And so do the queue of people in front of me the majority of times I use it, it seems.

Its funny that you mention that the railway needs to change with the times. Why is it that there seems to be loads of ticket offices and platform staff when you go abroad? Are they existing in a different timescale?

This is being driven by government simply to try to cut costs. Spoiler: they’ve already failed with this, firstly because the cost of servicing the debts of the railways is far higher than any savings excluding the costs to the government and the country of the industrial action. And secondly, the costs to the government and the country of the industrial action outweighs the costs of any savings in the short term at least.

The government does not care about the passenger experience at all. I don’t have a crystal ball, but it would not surprise me if we end up with more unstaffed stations (with less facilities like waiting rooms and toilets), more part time staffed stations, less staff to help passengers even if the station is a staffed station. Stations becoming less well kept (a member of staff can only do one thing at a time, so if they are kept busy, the least important jobs just won’t get done). Expect more graffiti for example.

Indeed, for certain people, an unkept, unstaffed station, with no facilities may be enough to put them off using the railway. They are then likely to use their car.

Do I have evidence for the above? No. But as others have said, this is what has happened in the past.
You don’t cut costs just by moving staff out from a ticket office unless you cut the number of staff.

Exactly this.

 

[66701GBRF]

I don't know why such talk is being made about practicalities of what is effectively cross depot cover. This has existed many years on the railway in other grades. The simple solution is you have one "home station" and if you are required to work at another location then travelling time is either already within the original rostered hours (so you will be at the other location shorter) or travel time is added by the company. On the subject of getting to another location then that should be upto the company to put in provisions, not the employee. So either train, taxi, hire car at the companies expense...or use your own car if agreeable and suitable. This is exactly how it works on freight and I don't see why that wouldn't work on stations.

 

[the sniper]

Yes, I did read the post by @Solent&Wessex addressing those points and don’t disagree with what was said.

My observation was not to suggest that it’s not a change but simply in response to the point you emphasised about rest day patterns. As long you know when your rest days fall, you can still plan your life no matter what your rest day pattern is. Spare weeks are, of course, a different matter.

Really depends on how the company use their freedom, I have no faith in them not abusing it. I can see a reduced regularity of Saturday rest days being a potential issue, particularly for those with kids.

 

[HL7]

However the devil is in the detail. And there is plenty of detail now which I do not like.

Take Spares. The document says that TOCS *MUST* produce rosters with full weeks of spares. It also says that if you have a full week of spare then you have unlimited movement and can be given any duty no matter what time it is. That means you could be moved from earlies to lates and all over the place. Even worse is that they can change your rest days at a weeks notice. So if you thought your days off would be Wednesday and Thursday a week before they can unilaterally change them to be Friday and Saturday, for example. This makes it absolutely impossible to plan anything outside work at all. A family meal? Going to a Wedding? Going to a concert or event which you need to buy tickets for? Well you can't book the day as leave to guarantee you can attend as you are on rest day so aren't in work in the first place.... until a week before when they move your rest day to a different day.

Can someone point me to other jobs where your manager can just move your weekend days off at a weeks notice and you can't do anything about it? How on earth do you plan anything at all?

It also implies that when spare changes can be made on the day of the duty subject to you being given notice. Currently I have 72 hours posted notice - i.e. they cannot alter my hours of duty and booking on times less than 72 hours before the day. This document says this reduces to 48 hours from the start of the actual shift (not the actual day concerned) but that also "Further changes can occur up to and including on the day because of service requirements with adequate notice to staff affected.". So I am meant to start work at 1200 tomorrow for a 7 hour duty finishing at 1900. I get a phone call or email in the morning saying I must now turn up at 1500 instead for a 10 hour duty not finishing till 0100? (as they can also extend your day by up to 3 hours now) This might affect out of work commitments, travel arrangements, childcare etc etc.

See also my comments about Annual Leave above, as there is no clarity on the exact numbers of days etc. The way annual leave MUST be allocated is also significantly less flexible than my current arrangements
There is no stipulation for minimum number of rest days (in fact the document expressly says that TOCS can't have a minimum number of rest days) and also states that Sunday coverage should include spares etc like any other day. There is no stipulation for a maximum turn length.
There is no stipulation for a length of spare turn (other than that it must be flexible and based around the average turn length at the depot).
For all the above it just says that the company decides. (The document elsewhere states that the RMT can not dispute or fail to agree anything implemented as a result of this agreement being accepted).
The combination of the above means (assuming the timetable stays the same and the current diagrams remain broadly similar) I could go from doing a 4 day week with 1 committed Sunday every 3 weeks (so 13 days in work every 3 weeks) to a 5 day week with 2 committed Sundays every 3 weeks (so 17 days in work every 3 weeks). So I could loose 4 days off every 3 weeks - that could involve me working an extra 60+ days per year for little to no extra money save for some extra overtime payments for the extra committed Sundays.


The stuff in regards attendance management, sickness arrangements, etc; the type of work you can do; training principles and methods; new technology; and other such things I am not that bothered about (if anything I have often thought lots of them are a bit too generous). I could even cope with the extended range of movement on spare duties i.e +/- 3 hours with a 3 hour increase in length of day (so you could finish 6 hours later than planned for example).

However my days off are my days off. I like to plan my life, go on day trips or short breaks, go out for meals, go to events. The fact that my days off can be changed at a weeks notice making planning anything like that almost impossible for much of the year is a big no no. Much like the RMT red line on DOO - this is my red line.
For example - In April this year I've been invited to a friend's wedding. By coincidence it is on a Saturday when I am rest day. So I can go. So I will book a hotel, make travel arrangements etc. But come the new rostering arrangements I may find out a week before the wedding that the Saturday is not my rest day after all, they may move my rest day to Wednesday instead. So suddenly, at a weeks notice, I can't go. Great. Sorry, no. That is unacceptable.

I'd rather take no pay rise and just stay as I am thank you.

I don’t see how anyone would vote to accept this deal with those sort of changes to Ts&Cs.

With inflation as high as it is I’d only accept the 9% over 2 years if it was front loaded with no changes to Ts&Cs as a gesture of goodwill in the current economic climate.

Accepting this is only lining yourself up for, at this point, an unspecified shafting at some point down the road and it looks like the right to fight against it has been removed.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

What lots of comments show is that one size certainly doesn't fit all.

I already have committed Sundays and don't have a fixed rest day pattern (although we have had a semi permanent one for many years, that is not guaranteed, It has just suited both parties, but the company could change it. They just have never needed to.

So those changes don't really affect me.

But other people will be greatly affected by those changes.

What one person sees as "nothing major" will be a big problem for somebody else, and vice versa.

 

[O L Leigh]

Really depends on how the company use their freedom, I have no faith in them not abusing it.

Of course. I’m aware that once you’ve opened the door to something you can’t then close it later.

I can see a reduced regularity of Saturday rest days being a potential issue, particularly for those with kids.

But how would that happen? The only way that the number of Saturday rest days goes down is either through an increase in service requirements, a reduction in establishment or someone else getting more Saturday rest days.

 

[Goldfish62]

We had a passenger death for the first time in 13 years, so yes they are less safe than they were.

What absolute nonsense coming to that conclusion based on a single (very sad) fatality over an arbitrary period.

We may as well decide that the whole concept of running wheeled passenger wagons on steel rails at high speed is unsafe and get rid of the whole lot.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The other problem with this proposal is that, even if there were to be a vote, I would want to see the FULL detail on how it affected me before I could vote either way.

That's the EXACT changes to my ts and cs and my annual leave and my rostering agreements.

Not a load of wishy washy waffle about what a TOC may or may not decide to do, or lots of vague comments referring to documents and agreements which don't yet exist.

Unless I know exactly how it will affect me how can I vote either way?

 

[Captain Chaos]

A thought: isn't it theoretically possible under this deal that Sundays could be loaded onto the Part time jobs and included as part of their hours instead and thus taking away Sunday work entirely from current staff and thus pay? They have a strange and consistent emphasis on this whenever mentioning it throughout and I wonder if that is actually the plan and thus everyone ends up (myself and example), £250 per 4 weeks poorer, which, funnily enough, would be the exact sum my base pay will increase by. Is their a bait and switch being played here that nobody seems to be able to notice?

 

[Goldfish62]

The other problem with this proposal is that, even if there were to be a vote, I would want to see the FULL detail on how it affected me before I could vote either way.































































That's the EXACT changes to my ts and cs and my annual leave and my rostering agreements.

Not a load of wishy washy waffle about what a TOC may or may not decide to do, or lots of vague comments referring to documents and agreements which don't yet exist.

Unless I know exactly how it will affect me how can I vote either way?

Exactly that. You need the EXACT detail, not what either side what might wish to interpret it as.

 

[12LDA28C]

Of course. I’m aware that once you’ve opened the door to something you can’t then close it later.



But how would that happen? The only way that the number of Saturday rest days goes down is either through an increase in service requirements, a reduction in establishment or someone else getting more Saturday rest days.

Perhaps a TOC currently has a guaranteed Saturday RD agreement, let's say 50%. This means that staff are guaranteed 26 Saturdays off per year. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that agreement could be revoked with a Saturday RD moved to a Tuesday or Wednesday instead, with the number of rostered turns on a Saturday increased, even if they are only Spare turns. Hence, less Saturdays off.