New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[43096]

Why do they have to trade things? I used to work in manufacturing and we got pay rises in line with inflation every year decided within a working group. We didn't have to actively trade our conditions away year after year until nothing was left.

Because it is clear that the Government isn’t just going to hand out pay rises to an industry where revenue is massively down. That is much the same as any other business in that situation would do. So, if you want a pay rise you have to negotiate. Negotiation means both sides will have to compromise.

 

[Class 170101]

so I expect more strikes to be announced soon and the DfT pressing ahead with imposing the changes one way or the other anyway.

I don't think it will matter in that sense. I think the Government could just instruct the TOCs to fire and rehire.

 

[pt_mad]

I cannot find anything that says current redundancy schemes are being discontinued, they stay there in the background even if no one is using them.

Two years on, and on average 6% will have retired, factor in current staff shortages and might not be any redundancies anyway (or they will be very localised).

* the 3% a year retire anyway assumes even staff age profile, but it is commonly agreed that some sections have lots due to retire in next few years.

I think the point being alluded to is where there is salary protection of 5 years for existing station staff who stay on, with new staff being brought in on new salaries, is there anything to stop the older staff being made redundant after December 2024 is up? After all, they'd then presumably be a more expensive pool of people.

 

[Whistler40145]

I don't work on the railway, I totally agree with others that the RMT have been available for talks since day one, typically those in the Government haven't got a clue about the railway system, the employees and the travelling public

 

[Sleepy]

I'm curious why ex-BR staff conditions are mentioned in this offer - can't be many of this category that aren't approaching 60 years old so many of them are actively considering retirement options ?

 

[Facing Back]

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to Tango.

It is perfectly legal for unions to coordinate industrial action so long as each union is engaged in a legal dispute with their employer. There are other hoops they need to jump through but it is not illegal

 

[pt_mad]

Because it is clear that the Government isn’t just going to hand out pay rises to an industry where revenue is massively down. That is much the same as any other business in that situation would do. So, if you want a pay rise you have to negotiate. Negotiation means both sides will have to compromise.

What is the alternative then, if people don't wish to trade away all their terms for a below the cost of living pay rise, and there is supposedly no money? Take no rises until the industry is on minimum wage? Would they find people to do it for minimum wage? And what happens if in the future there were no more terms left to trade?

I just cannot understand this notion that even to get a below inflation rise, as if that's some sort of favour, which means you're not even earning as much as you were 1, 2, 3, 6 years ago in real terms against the price of things, that has to be a massive favour and one for which you essentially have to buy with giving up terms your union fought hard for years for.

It appears when the government originally said last Summer there was no money available, that what they meant was there was no money available unless we can take away the terms and conditions your union worked for and won for you, in which case there is money available.

If that had been the model historically, then the terms would have gone belly up years and years ago in exchange for basic inflation pay rises. However the terms improved on a rolling basis since the old hands came on, and the wages kept up with prices.
Which is progress and logically what should be expected in a working society as time passes.

There's no point in the media and some by-standers continuing to encourage us ever closer and closer to casual zero hours contracts type employment everywhere. Who here could build a sustainable life upon that?

 

[Wychwood93]

I'm curious why ex-BR staff conditions are mentioned in this offer - can't be many of this category that aren't approaching 60 years old so many of them are actively considering retirement options ?

BR conditions up to 1994, I would query the exact date, but a fair chance that there are quite a few ex-BR staff who are under 50.

 

[Sleepy]

I would suggest 85% of them at my TOC are in age range 55+ (and neighbouring TOCs too) Of course Northern and Avanti etc. probably have larger numbers of them.

 

[12LDA28C]

BR conditions up to 1994, I would query the exact date, but a fair chance that there are quite a few ex-BR staff who are under 50.

I believe 'protected' staff joined the railway up until 1996 and retain a few privileges that those who joined after 1996 do not, such as free travel across the network, not just at the TOC / group they are employed by.

Although some staff who joined after that still have better Ts & Cs such as shorter notice period than those joining a few years later.

 

[Wychwood93]

I believe 'protected' staff joined the railway up until 1996 and retain a few privileges that those who joined after 1996 do not, such as free travel across the network, not just at the TOC / group they are employed by.

Although some staff who joined after that still have better Ts & Cs such as shorter notice period than those joining a few years later.

1996 may well be the case - and thus even more under 50's! I just remember being part of Railtrack at Waterloo from late spring 1994.

 

[158801]

The document makes reference to a "link" structure for rosters.

You can't have a link if the days off aren't predetermined.

Then, on the next line, it makes reference to "no fixed rest days"

There's so many ambiguities. There needs to be a Q&A session at each TOC to clear up any misunderstandings

 

[Bantamzen]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

 

[12LDA28C]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

Again, would you be prepared to put up with these kinds of changes to your working life? Your days off next week moved on a whim with a few days notice? Starting work as spare at 0800 then being told you have to start at 1500 instead and finish at 0100?

Yes or no?

 

[fodphil]

.....and the Government really covered themselves in glory too.

 

[pt_mad]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

I don't think anyone thinks they're untouchable. Hence the RMT has been campaigning tooth and nail.

They fear this government could attempt to try and impose a gig economy type structure on the railways yes absolutely.

Are you for such a model?

 

[Facing Back]

Again, would you be prepared to put up with these kinds of changes to your working life? Your days off next week moved on a whim with a few days notice? Starting work as spare at 0800 then being told you have to start at 1500 instead and finish at 0100?

Yes or no?

Are you expecting management to act like this? Or are you more objecting to the principle of management setting rosters which in their view alone provide the best outcome?

I can understand the concern if trust doesn't exist - and clearly it doesn't here.

In pretty much every company that I have worked with operating shift/extended day/weekend hours, rosters (although they tend not to be called that) are set by management and they are generally carefully balanced - goodwill and flexibility of a skilled team are extremely valuable to a company. Not every decision pleases everyone and staff with particularly onerous requests are often the most disappointed.

Good planning just remove most of the uncertainty of schedules and give people a few week's notice. None of this is typically enshrined in terms and conditions, it is merely good practice and effective for both management and staff. Late alterations happen but should be rare and respect leave booked in advance and if that is not what is proposed here then I get the concern of people.

I don't think anyone thinks they're untouchable. Hence the RMT has been campaigning tooth and nail.

They fear this government could attempt to try and impose a gig economy type structure on the railways yes absolutely.

Are you for such a model?

I'm sorry but the impression I have been getting for some time is that the RMT and ASLEF both feel that they are untouchable. It could merely be an impression.

I don't sense from reading the material that there is an attempt to impose a gig economy here. An attempt to force through a significant shift in flexibility for sure. An attempt to re-introduce a common framework across all of the TOCs yes - perhaps too belatedly.

For the record I am very much against the mainstream use of gig economy type contracts. They are very much preferred by very small number of people and it is great if those 2 can align and be used to plug small, short term gaps without having permanent staff underutilised - but I recognise that is open to abuse and is often seem as the thin end of the wedge so is controversial.

 

[SJN]

Are you expecting management to act like this? Or are you more objecting to the principle of management setting rosters which in their view alone provide the best outcome?

I can understand the concern if trust doesn't exist - and clearly it doesn't here.

In pretty much every company that I have worked with operating shift/extended day/weekend hours, rosters (although they tend not to be called that) are set by management and they are generally carefully balanced - goodwill and flexibility of a skilled team are extremely valuable to a company. Not every decision pleases everyone and staff with particularly onerous requests are often the most disappointed.

Good planning just remove most of the uncertainty of schedules and give people a few week's notice. None of this is typically enshrined in terms and conditions, it is merely good practice and effective for both management and staff. Late alterations happen but should be rare and respect leave booked in advance and if that is not what is proposed here then I get the concern of people.


I'm sorry but the impression I have been getting for some time is that the RMT and ASLEF both feel that they are untouchable. It could merely be an impression.

I don't sense from reading the material that there is an attempt to impose a gig economy here. An attempt to force through a significant shift in flexibility for sure. An attempt to re-introduce a common framework across all of the TOCs yes - perhaps too belatedly.

For the record I am very much against the mainstream use of gig economy type contracts. They are very much preferred by very small number of people and it is great if those 2 can align and be used to plug small, short term gaps without having permanent staff underutilised - but I recognise that is open to abuse and is often seem as the thin end of the wedge so is controversial.

In the proposal it states that there will be weeks of spare shifts in the week that will have unlimited movement and also people on a spare week can be moved to cover a person’s week who is on AL or off sick. They will then take on the other persons rest days instead of their own. This isn’t a small thing. If my rest day pattern days I’m off next Friday and Saturday then I plan stuff. If I’m then told I’m covering a different week and my rest day is Monday/Tuesday l, then I wouldn’t be happy to have to cancel my plans. It’s hard enough to make plans with the shifts times we do anyway.

 

[Buffer stop]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

I'm sure the railway staff who's T@C would be eradicated feel the same despair along with fear for their future.

 

[pt_mad]

I don't sense from reading the material that there is an attempt to impose a gig economy here. An attempt to force through a significant shift in flexibility for sure. An attempt to re-introduce a common framework across all of the TOCs yes - perhaps too belatedly.

By significant flexibility you probably mean there being no requirement for fixed rest day patterns? Or the requirement for station staff to work between a range of locations? Even most hospitality staff don't do that, and that's an industry slated by many commentators for poor terms. If they work as a barista at Costo Coffee in Berwick then that's where they work. They aren't expected to work the coffee shop at Dunbar, Morpeth and Ashington too on different days.

That is far more than flexibility.

How can you book an appointment for something months in advance if you have no idea which days of the week might be rest days? Or perish the though book a social engagement or an evening out. Or organise child care? Or book accomodation to do anything?

And then on the other hand it says they want more flexible working to attract a more diverse workforce. Does that mean some people would get accommodated and know their patterns whilst others wouldn't?

 

[LowLevel]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

An hours enforced overtime? Fine, I always say yes anyway. Longer spare movement - OK, if I have to. I already have committed Sundays. I don't object to taking medical appointments during work time either and I'm always happy to undertake new training and use new kit as long as it isn't going to put me out of work. I moan endlessly about time wasted negotiating new technology payments for things which make the job easier. All of the above is efficiency and helpful. I don't want anything to do with rail replacement buses, they make me travel sick, I avoid at all costs.

Will I get a higher wage if I work another train operators train in place of their usual staff? I doubt it very much.

Taking thousands of pounds off new starters over 4 years? No.

Losing my fixed rest days in place of having them here, there and everywhere and some weeks at short notice - no. My weeks align with my partner. It would cost a lot to get me to give that up, it would wreck my home life and significantly increase my expenses.

I don't see what is so belligerent about saying some of this is a step too far. None of those documents mention staff wellbeing and work life balance anywhere. They're all efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.

To prove a point, as I mentioned before - my grade *was* restructured last year in a move that saved them several grand a year per guard. They still want anything that is left.

 

[the sniper]

Reading through many of the responses to my posts I honestly despair for the railway industry. So many believe that they are untouchable, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly it seems that it is still stuck in the 1980s. And that is a decade that was not a shining example for the trade union movement.

You haven't engaged in what is actually being proposed, because by your own admission you don't "know enough about how these things work to make an informed comment". As such, how you can have the audacity to lecture us the way you do, I don't know. You've given nobody a reason to respect your opinion, so please spare us the theatrics.

 

[jayah]

It just wouldn’t work they can’t do away with safety critical guards who are fully trained in emergencies especially on 11 carriage trains. That will never ever happen unless the Tories force it through illegally

There are already 12 carriage trains running on long distance trips across Thameslink with no guards, safety critical or otherwise and have been for years.

It did, it just comes under a different arrangement, so was never called that.


No, that’s all incorrect. No compulsory redundancy does not mean that posts do not go. When combined with a voluntary severance or voluntary redundancy scheme, you can actually give employees a chance to up skill themselves.


How soon before AI expert systems are brought in to deal with the lack of GPs? Or indeed, the same thing in other areas? There will always be some people who prefer to use technology/automation. But there will also be some people who prefer to have interactions with another person. Why shouldn’t the customer have a choice and decide which they prefer?


Taking this further, if you have unstaffed stations, no barriers and trains with only a driver on board, how many passengers will chance not buying a ticket?
Also if there are no station staff, no ticket office, who will deal with any incidents?


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.

Someone mentioned inflation. The inflation rate that gets banded about is just the rate of change. And that is typically a figure for the last 12 months. Even if inflation dropped to zero, it does not mean that prices go back down, or that the cost of living is no longer a problem. So regardless of the current headline inflation figure, employees are still going to be wanting a pay rise so that they are not getting poorer compared to the increase in the cost of living that has already occurred.

BR did not have agreement for no compulsory redundancy. There were lots of redundancies, many of them compulsory.

No compulsory redundancy doesn't mean no redundancy, but it is extremely limiting and inevitably means either less investment, less progress, outdated organisation, the wrong jobs or the wrong people doing them.

 

[g492p]

Really? So despite it not being legal for unions to coordinate industrial action, somehow they managed to? Honestly I know how unions work, I was a rep for many years until the shenanigans made me realise that sadly unions can be as bad, sometimes worse than the employer. As the saying goes, it takes two to personal gripe with unions is not relevant to this dispute.

You haven't engaged in what is actually being proposed, because by your own admission you don't "know enough about how these things work to make an informed comment". As such, how you can have the audacity to lecture us the way you do, I don't know. You've given nobody a reason to respect your opinion, so please spare us the theatrics.

Very well said.

 

[jayah]

As for the idea that you can counter inflation by inflating wages by the same amount, that's fanciful but has been debunked in other threads previously.

The god given right to pay rises that must match living costs is one of the more infantile arguments in the whole debate.

Firstly some of the costs have been defrayed by government payouts not captured by inflation measures.

Second is the bare reality that the cost of living crisis is caused by the country spending around £100bn a year extra on energy, most of which is leaving the country due to moronic energy policies that continue to enjoy almost universal political and public support.

The money has literally been exported to the likes of Qatar, Norway and the US and is not available to pay anyone's wages.

Another question might be, at stations which only have TVMs available and are not barriered, how many people don't like them and walk past the TVMs and pay onboard (or online if they feel they may be imminently challenged)?

For most station staff it's not about money.
A payrise is always nice, but there are far bigger issues in this dispute.

You are absolutely obsessed with DOO and that's fine, if you feel that strongly, but as it's been taken off the table, can you refrain from turning this thread into another DOO row?

It hasn't been completely taken off the table, it has likely moved into the next phase of the dispute. The railway remains financially unsustainable, DOO remains an existential crisis for the RMT whose primary means of expression is to stop the trains by calling safety critical staff out on strike, the TOCs still have no money and the government is still close to a monopoly buyer of their labour. A TOC level dispute (or a dozen of them) has more deniability for government who have not done a great job convincing anyone this dispute is between the TOC employers and their employees.

It is very different from privatisation when every problem could and usually was solved using shareholders and farebox revenue - winning a franchise based on cost savings from DOO and then not actually doing it, or paying £600 a day for drivers to work outside their 35hr/week contracts.

 

[Harbon 1]

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.

What a strange leap you’ve made there.

Compared to Europe I’d (and everyone else would) say we have an extremely safe network. Is it as safe as it has been over the last decade? No, else we wouldn’t have had a deadly derailment. Have we taken steps to improve ourselves as a result? Yes. So let’s not take ourselves back to Railtrack days in terms of maintenance and undo all the good work and improvements we’ve made since the early 2000s. Because Hatfields, Potters Bars and Greyriggs are results of insufficient maintenance.

 

[142blue]

Seriously can't wait to get out of this toxic industry

 

[jayah]

What a strange leap you’ve made there.

Compared to Europe I’d (and everyone else would) say we have an extremely safe network. Is it as safe as it has been over the last decade? No, else we wouldn’t have had a deadly derailment. Have we taken steps to improve ourselves as a result? Yes. So let’s not take ourselves back to Railtrack days in terms of maintenance and undo all the good work and improvements we’ve made since the early 2000s. Because Hatfields, Potters Bars and Greyriggs are results of insufficient maintenance.

Let us also not forget the Bretigny derailment in 2013. Many of the hallmarks of the ones above, but in a relatively stable, nationalised structure.

 

[Pacerpilot]

These really do seem like a horrendous attack on the conditions of grades represented by the RMT for such a paltry payrise. It's the same amount offered to Teachers and Nurses yet they don't seem to have to been subjected to any changes to conditions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or even better, call a general election and get a new government in place, a fresh start with a governemnt who actually want to resolve this, as opposed to the current lot who are merely kicking the can down the road and hoping the small remaining support they have will continue to be enraged by rail staff.

Someone has pointed this posting to me, as I don't watch this thread. Who exactly do you refer to as the caller of a general election in the posting above?