New offer made to RMT by Rail Delivery Group

[Facing Back]

I’d be interested to understand how any of this can be known unless that specific driver had given a detailed account of his actions to the poster concerned - there are just too many variables at play. It’s also possible that the driver concerned was at the end of their shift and was too tired to continue driving.

Ultimately of course sometimes crew can and do refuse to help out but again, in my experience, train crew agree to help out far more than they refuse. So any implication that traincrew are awkward customers who do what they can to get out of work, while staff in other professions always “go the extra mile” is both inaccurate and unfair.

It is a single anecdote. Who knows whether its is valid or not but even if it is one swallow does not a summer make. I can tell you a story about a truck driver who stopped dead at the side of the road at the end of his shift with a barrel full of wet cement. Saying that though, it is interesting that the reputation and rumours of "Spanish practices" seems very much more prevalent in the rail industry than anywhere else I can think of - why do you think that could be?

Spectacularly missing the point (again). The RMT aren’t interested in whether you like them or not. It isn’t their job to win popularity contests with passengers. But you dislike them anyway, despite previously stating you barely use the railway and drive everywhere.

An oft repeated comment. Of course the RMT's function is to serve their members. However they are engaged in an existential battle for thir very existence with the government - and the government frequently do care about public opinion. I suspect that the RMT would be more effective with the hearts and minds of voters behind them.

Sometimes managers forget that favours can work both ways. Myself and a colleague wanted to swap jobs, a manger caused a fuss simply because he could. I reminded him that he regularly called me asking to swap jobs or hours and I generally agreed but this could change if he wouldn’t help me out with the swap I wanted to do. Maybe some mangers at that TOC aren’t very well liked and people don’t want to help them. Or maybe the driver was over their hours, due a break or felt too tired to do an extra drive.

Which is an example of p**s poor management. You can be a grumpy sod, you can not be especially liked but you need to be reasonable and equitable and should be held to account if not. If there is no proper oversight or performance management or decent training and mentoring of managers then it is not surprising some of them are not great.

 

[66701GBRF]

Saying that though, it is interesting that the reputation and rumours of "Spanish practices" seems very much more prevalent in the rail industry than anywhere else I can think of - why do you think that could be?

Because people believe anything they see or read in the media or online...or just believe what they want to believe.

 

[Facing Back]

No compulsory redundancy leads to less investment, less modernisation, lower productivity, higher costs, the wrong organisation and the wrong people doing the wrong jobs.

It has already become a slippery slope and come December 2024 no doubt will become a new red line that the RMT demand continues in perpetuity, or the trains stop running.

It is not unreasonable to agree to no mandatory redundancies with a planning horizon - in this case about 2 years - when tied with a programme of workplace change and remuneration change covering the same period.

Repeated bouts of VR or an indefinite ban on CR does indeed drive stagnation as the cream leaves. Many organisations are not looking to keep all of their high-flyers and are very productive with a cross section of staff. Those who are unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of their job can be exited by other means

 

[Bletchleyite]

For what it is worth I would vote against it on the grounds that knowing when I am due to work well in advance is very important to me, and if imposed I would leave the railway. My employer has never attempted to do that to me (admittedly hard on a 9-5 M-F type job, but still) and if they did I'd be looking for a new job.

I'm all for lots of different types of modernisation of the industry, but to me this would be a totally unacceptable T&C change, and I'd rather not have a pay rise than accept that.

I have far more of a problem with that than I do with DOO, given that DOO would for practical reasons be a very slow rollout and would probably mean most or all current guards would have a job for as long as they want, given a bit of moving around. It was only quick for Southern because DOO was already there, it was only really about 12 car trains.

 

[Facing Back]

Because people believe anything they see or read in the media or online...or just believe what they want to believe.

and some dont and still come come away with a similar view

 

[Merseysider]

It doesn’t help to compare industries.

To clarify some of the previously made arguments, as a secondary teacher, we are salaried and our hours are as follows. 1265 hours per year are “directed time” and we are told before the academic year commences how these are allocated. This means we must attend all meetings, parents evenings, training etc that falls within these hours. We can also be directed by the Headteacher to carry out duties within these hours, eg cover other classes, supervise at breaktime, invigilate exams etc.

We are also required, not requested, but required as it’s in our contracts, to carry out all other reasonable tasks related to the satisfactory performance of our jobs. It is our choice when this takes place - ie evenings, weekends, early mornings, bank holidays or during school holidays.

This includes marking of books, attending detentions I’ve set, preparation of lessons, assessment creation and marking, replying to email (staff and student), everything to do with homework, maintaining subject knowledge (I’m not scheduled to teach French this year, but I need to ensure my French doesn’t lapse as I could be teaching it next year), and so on.

These tasks are not optional, as one poster above claims, and are not “going above and beyond” either. They are a stipulated part of our job and need doing, and any teacher who fails to do so will find themselves on a competence review (as a minimum) before long.

This means the average day is rarely shorter than 0730-1630, with lunch worked through, but a more common working week is 50 hours during the week and 5-10 at the weekend. Add another 10 hours during Mock/GCSE exam seasons (entire months of Nov, Feb, May for me).

Yes, we are striking. Yes, we are asking for an above inflation pay rise as we’ve only been offered 5% following years of pay freezes or below inflation rises. I’m well aware that instead, we will most likely be offered something like 8%, which I’d personally vote in favour of as I want to minimise the amount of disruption to our young people, especially after the government’s chaotic series of lockdowns.

Whatever the railway industry is offered should not be used as a reference for teachers, royal mail workers, university staff, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters, civil servants, barristers, police or refuse collection, or vice versa.

Every job is different. I certainly wouldn’t begrudge railway workers or anyone else if they got a better rise than my industry.

Unfortunately, many people I know seem to think train drivers are all on 60k, have an easy life and live in mansions, and I put this down to the media.

The Tories would rather we hate our fellow worker for getting a good rise, or inconveniencing our lives via strikes, than the Tories who made it necessary to strike in the first place. Of course, these clowns will go and get voted in again come the next GE... turkeys and Christmas, and all that.

 

[O L Leigh]

That's not correct; I was not posting inaccurately. On the contrary, you made claims which are, at best, disingenuous.

Sharing what I know to be the case about teachers contracts of employment is not making claims. I corrected your misapprehension for you own benefit to give you a better understanding of what the situation is and for no other reason. This is not disingenuous.

 

[NI 271]

and some dont and still come come away with a similar view

By including the latter category in his post, he's already mentioned those.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are also required, not requested, but required as it’s in our contracts, to carry out all other reasonable tasks related to the satisfactory performance of our jobs.

I've got that in my contract too, and that a holiday booking is not final. Thing is that there's a good relationship between management and staff, and so both sides are reasonable about it (e.g. on very rare occasions they might ask if a holiday can be rescheduled, and if a cost would be incurred to do so might offer to cover that cost if raised as an issue). It seems clear from here that the railway often doesn't have that relationship, and in that context I would be very reluctant indeed to agree to something like that being in there because I'd just know it would be abused.

The length of day you mention is to me unacceptably long, though, nor am I generally willing to work my lunch (I prefer to work late than lose a decent break, and a good employer knows and encourages that because a break away from the office improves productivity).

 

[O L Leigh]

I’d be interested to understand how any of this can be known unless that specific driver had given a detailed account of his actions to the poster concerned - there are just too many variables at play.

Indeed. And yet the claim is still confidently made.

 

[Philip]

Does the lack of fixed rest days affect station staff in the proposal as well as traincrew? Also, I currently work a 4 day week because of 9hr shifts, with two consecutive rest days each week. Under the reforms, could these rest days not be consecutive even for station staff (ie. rather than rest day Mon & Tues, it becomes Mon & Thurs)?

My rest days are important and I often make use of them, so would prefer to keep working the longer shifts in return for keeping the 4 day week with rest days together.

 

[43066]

It is a single anecdote. Who knows whether its is valid or not but even if it is one swallow does not a summer make. I can tell you a story about a truck driver who stopped dead at the side of the road at the end of his shift with a barrel full of wet cement.

That massively appeals to my sense of humour, actually. If I was a cement lorry driver who wanted to resign, that’s exactly how I’d do it.

As a train driver, if I slammed it into emergency, came up in a heap, scrambled across a few fields and thumbed a lift home on the M1, I’d probably be arrested.

(Don’t give me ideas )

Saying that though, it is interesting that the reputation and rumours of "Spanish practices" seems very much more prevalent in the rail industry than anywhere else I can think of - why do you think that could be?

Probably because the railway is something of an outlier, in being one of the few heavily unionised industries left?

Also because the right wing red top press in this country, championed by the Daily Mail (owned by a billionaire), likes to play on petty jealousies, vilify unions, and set moderately paid workers against one another. Meanwhile the Chairman of the Conservative Party fiddles his taxes while hiding in plain sight.

I honestly haven’t seen any evidence of “Spanish practices”, in the way the media describe. It’s a hard day’s graft for a honest day’s pay, in my experience. Better paid and far cruiser office based ways to earn a living are available.

Why do you think it is?

An oft repeated comment. Of course the RMT's function is to serve their members. However they are engaged in an existential battle for thir very existence with the government - and the government frequently do care about public opinion. I suspect that the RMT would be more effective with the hearts and minds of voters behind them.

The fact that a railway union acts in favour of their members, rather than as a pro passenger pressure group, seems like news to many on here!

I’m confident the RMT will be around long after this travesty of a government is long gone.

 

[yorkie]

Sharing what I know to be the case about teachers contracts of employment is not making claims. I corrected your misapprehension for you own benefit to give you a better understanding of what the situation is and for no other reason. This is not disingenuous.

Your claim that "Teachers contracts stipulate annual contracted hours that equate to a 35 hour per week" is, at best, disingenuous as this bears absolutely no relation to the actual hours worked. If that isn't what you were saying then why did you say it like that?

I maintain my view, expressed upthread, that the comment relating to teachers and nurses T&C's and comparing was not helpful and not a valid comparison.

The fact that a railway union acts in favour of their members, rather than as a pro passenger pressure group, seems like news to many on here!

It's not news but it is a perfectly valid observation that the unions aren't interested in good outcomes for passengers.

We are just going round in circles here.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I've got that in my contract too, and that a holiday booking is not final. Thing is that there's a good relationship between management and staff, and so both sides are reasonable about it (e.g. on very rare occasions they might ask if a holiday can be rescheduled, and if a cost would be incurred to do so might offer to cover that cost if raised as an issue). It seems clear from here that the railway often doesn't have that relationship, and in that context I would be very reluctant indeed to agree to something like that being in there because I'd just know it would be abused.

The length of day you mention is to me unacceptably long, though, nor am I generally willing to work my lunch (I prefer to work late than lose a decent break, and a good employer knows and encourages that because a break away from the office improves productivity).

We are also required, not requested, but required as it’s in our contracts, to carry out all other reasonable tasks related to the satisfactory performance of our jobs. It is our choice when this takes place - ie evenings, weekends, early mornings, bank holidays or during school holidays.

That's been in every contract I've had too, just normal for private sector employment. We're expected to work until the job is done.

It really isn't helpful to compare industries here though, as I can work from home to complete a task. A train drive is never going to have the same TS and C's as a teacher for example.

The only comparison I have sympathy with is train, bus and lorry drivers but even that is limited.

At the end of the day it's a case of trying to get what's best of the individual with the skills they have. Some would rather work long days, do all the overtime available if they can earn overtime others would rather work the minimum time possible to survive, hence some drive trains, some are station staff, some office staff, some managers and some not. One size doesn't fit all

 

[43066]

It's not news but it is a perfectly valid observation that the unions aren't interested in good outcomes for passengers.

The point is they aren’t supposed interested in good outcomes for passengers, and it isn’t part of their remit, so it’s hardly valid to criticise them for that?

 

[Facing Back]

We are just going round in circles here.

We go round in circles a lot on these forums. Sometimes it is the same people stating exactly the same thing word for word again and again which is slightly tiresome. But often each iteration broadens the circle, brings in more people and points of view and teases out more information.

We're not following debate rules, thats for sure

The point is they aren’t supposed interested in good outcomes for passengers, and it isn’t part of their remit, so it’s hardly valid to criticise them for that?

A point you have made on more than one occasion is that railway employees are, in the main, interested in good outcomes for passengers. As the representatives of those passenger-centric folk, the RMT could perhaps portray themselves as a little less militantly anti-passenger...

TOCs are a little “backward” in terms of this kind of thing, to say the least. It’s a million miles away from other parts of the private sector in this respect. It’s a strange industry which, to be fair, many such as myself have joined because they wanted to get away from things like 360 degree feedback and office BS. It certainly delivers in that respect, but that also comes with some downsides hence why the unions are so important.

Performance management has become something of a cottage industry and is chock full of experts and BS. At its core however was a desire to make managers better - it was developed to counter the old American style of command and control management and that is something I think is very valuable when done well. Management - as opposed to leadership - is a skill in itself which needs to be learned, most of us are not born knowing how to do it well and just because you drive a train well or programme a computer well does not mean that you will manage well.

I can see how it comes across like that, to be fair. Unfortunately the culture on the railway is somewhat adversarial but, in my experience, people still tend to go the extra mile to help out where they can - I certainly do and so do the vast majority of my colleagues. That is something that is never really discussed on here. I don’t think the adversarial nature of the industry is down to the unions, per se, if anything they’re a by product of it.

Understood and I'm pleased to hear it

 

[Annetts key]

Well it shouldn't be a surprise that passengers don't have a lot of time for the unions then.

Maybe said passengers should look into what is actually going on and think things through. The RMT as well as protecting members T&Cs, wanting reasonable rates of pay for their members, also want both the safety of their members and that of the passengers to be good. I would have thought that a passengers number one priority would be their own safety.

We can vote out governments, but we're stuck with the RMT.

So are you going to vote Conservative or vote out this government by voting for another party? As it is this Conservative government that is stoking the fire and causing these disputes.

No, passengers don’t get to decide on RMT matters, but the members of the RMT do get to vote on who their representatives are, who sits on the RMT NEC, and on the RMT full time officer positions, including the General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary.

But neither passengers or employees get any say in the management of the railway companies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe said passengers should look into what is actually going on and think things through. The RMT as well as protecting members T&Cs, wanting reasonable rates of pay for their members, also want both the safety of their members and that of the passengers to be good. I would have thought that a passengers number one priority would be their own safety.

Anyone who ever drives a car or rides a bicycle on the road does not have safety as their number one priority, so why would they when going by train? Trains are safe enough and have been for years. DOO is safe enough. Spending lots more money on making an incredibly safe mode of transport safer isn't good spending when that money could sort out thousands of dangerous road junctions or cut fares so fewer people drive, and more lives would be saved overall.

Be careful of that argument. The railway's safety culture is almost a matter of religious level "brainwashing" (for good reason) but non-staff don't think in this way at all.

 

[Facing Back]

That could be said about many if not most industries, to be fair. The concepts of trade unions and workers standing up for themselves at all seem “old fashioned” in an era of zero hours contracts and the “gig economy”. I’m not at all sure that’s a good thing. People who regard unions with suspicion would do well to consider why the right leaning media is so quick to vilify them, and who really benefits from this attitude.

I would say "most" industries are not in such an extreme bubble. A clerical worker can move from a clearing bank to a headoffice role in a supermarket chain or a shipping company and find that there are differences in each company and terminology but many of the basics are much the same. The railway seems to be somewhat outside of this norm - in the same way that investment banks and city law firms are but in the opposite direction

 

[Harbon 1]

You can't infer that.

More fatal accidents make a railway safer then?

Bringing this incident into the discussion was disingenuous and irrelevant

Why is it? The thread was opened on 5th August 2020. Which other incident would have been relevant to "Is the UK 'overdue' a serious rail accident?" considering it happened 7 days later?

Are you suggesting the railways were safer in the 1950s when we had more workers? Modern systems have actually improved safety and we no longer rely so much on manual methods of work.

Fewer safety sytems, poorer signalling, dreadful crashworthiness etc why would anyone sane think the 50's were safer than today? We have built an extremely safe railway over the two decades and the current working pactices has delivered that.

I therefore take it you believe that removing maintenance staff will make the railway safer.

Is this just more speculation or do you have any evidence?

Its a question. I'm asking your opinion.

Having staff at stations (which is not currently the case at most stations) does not necessarily mean that correct or more accurate information is given; there have been numerous instances where staff have had no more, or even less information than was available through industry systems. The reality is we are on a much better position now, with modern technology, than we were in the bygone era of loads of staff at each station.

Having technology does not necessarily mean you will recieve correct information 100% of the time, should we get rid of that too?

The last time I was given the wrong message, it was from a member of station staff. Had I checked Traksy I would have realised their information was wrong.

Ah of course! Have you ever been given the correct information or ticket?

IF we "need" staff at stations, how do trains manage to operate at the majority of stations in the UK?

Staff at stations help passengers, not the trains. How do we help people who don't know what to do? Who do they ask which part of the train is the "front" part, for example. Or "does this train go to x?".

Nope; ticket offices are becoming redundant because times are changing.

The same way platform staff are redundant because they gave you the wrong information?

It is surprisingly common; I'm guessing you don't read the fares section of the forum much!

No confirmation bias there at all then!

Good luck with that; as a general rule the knowledge of ticket office staff is quite poor, based on the experience of not just myself but many others.

So what you're saying is ticket office staff know less than, say, my younger brother with no interest in railways, about tickets? Quite a claim to make.

Perhaps e tickets aren't yet enabled for those journeys? or perhaps people need showing how to use the technology; moving staff out of an office and into a public area would help with this.

Seems coincidental that every time I go to the station there are several e-ticket journeys that aren't enabled then, no? You can buy direct from the trainline, everyone does it, so it isn't that. They just want to buy a ticket. Maybe they don't trust e-tickets, or have a smart phone, or know how to use one, or know which ticket to buy? The ticket office at Doncaster was busy yesterday when I passed through, what were they all doing in there?

 

[Facing Back]

The same way platform staff are redundant because they gave you the wrong information?

Don't make them redundant. A good flogging should be sufficient for a first offence

 

[Harbon 1]

Don't make them redundant. A good flogging should be sufficient for a first offence

maybe that should be put in with the next deal????

 

[Facing Back]

So are you going to vote Conservative or vote out this government by voting for another party? As it is this Conservative government that is stoking the fire and causing these disputes.

No, passengers don’t get to decide on RMT matters, but the members of the RMT do get to vote on who their representatives are, who sits on the RMT NEC, and on the RMT full time officer positions, including the General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary.

But neither passengers or employees get any say in the management of the railway companies.

I enjoy reading your posts and your obvious passion and knowledge of the subject so thank you. However, whilst the government carries a fair shame of the blame for all of this then it takes two to tango. If I'm being one sided I could say the following:

That the historical jingoistic belligerence and intransigence of the unions made a confrontation inevitable when the government advanced an agenda or overdue and much needed reform.

The rhetoric doesn't help either side of course. Generally both sides leave a negotiation feeling slightly disgruntled but with something that they can accept and I'm hoping that this will end that way.

Passengers do not and should not get a say on who sits in the inner circle of the RMT and no, neither party gets a vote on the management of the companies. As stakeholder however they could get involved in championing the upskilling and professionalisation of the management function - if they feel that would be to the advantage of the profession and their members. Or they can continue to not trust management, take as much responsibility onto their own shoulders and continue to emasculate the industry through lack of responsiveness and flexibility.

maybe that should be put in with the next deal????

if it breaks the deadlock then I'm up for it!

 

[12LDA28C]

Now add in public sector wage rises......

Sure, why not? ONS data shows that public sector pay rose by almost 8% between January 2020 and July 2022. Railway staff pay rose during the same period by zero.

What was your point again?

 

[O L Leigh]

Your claim that "Teachers contracts stipulate annual contracted hours that equate to a 35 hour per week" is, at best, disingenuous as this bears absolutely no relation to the actual hours worked. If that isn't what you were saying then why did you say it like that?

Thank you for finally explaining the root of your misunderstanding. It would have been easier if you had done so sooner rather than berating me for being disingenuous, as I would have happily explained, which I will do now.

As has already been said, teachers contracts have annual contracted hours rather than weekly. However, if you work a full-time 35 hour per week job (any job) and totted up how many hours you work per annum (once you’d allowed for annual leave) you would find that the total number of annual hours will be roughly the same as that stipulated in teachers’ contracts.

And that was simply my point. You claimed that teachers are required to work as long as necessary to get the job done. This is wrong. Just like everyone else, they have contracted hours of employment. That they regularly have to work in excess of this is down to them and not due to any requirement of their contract.

 

[ar10642]

Spectacularly missing the point (again). The RMT aren’t interested in whether you like them or not. It isn’t their job to win popularity contests with passengers.

Yes, we're all quite aware the RMT don't care about anything but their ability to stop trains running. Oh sorry, "safety".

But you dislike them anyway, despite previously stating you barely use the railway and drive everywhere.

Not by choice, I'd rather the service advertised and that we all pay for was delivered.

Are you similarly irritated that the BMA don’t consult with you for your opinion on them when you visit your GP?

They don't strike every 5 minutes over minor changes to working practices though do they?

What an odd statement. The RMT isn’t in government and isn’t a political party, last I checked.

It's the unions' choice to deny passengers a service, nobody else. Even if we get a new government, they will want more.

 

[Facing Back]

Maybe said passengers should look into what is actually going on and think things through. The RMT as well as protecting members T&Cs, wanting reasonable rates of pay for their members, also want both the safety of their members and that of the passengers to be good. I would have thought that a passengers number one priority would be their own safety.

lol and just to irritate you further... I am sorry but I'm not convinced by the RMT's safety agenda. It started to gain prominence during the Northern guards dispute and is trotted out for each and every argument about every subject since then. It is too convenient and feels like the boy crying wolf.

I am convinced on their agenda to protect their members - and that is all well and good. That includes the safety of their members.

There are a number of bodies responsible for safety of passengers, not least the TOCs and NR themselves. By all means participate in those bodies but dont assume the final decision on these matters is yours. We have the safest form of transport in the world and that is great and there is a balancing act between keeping it like that and gold plating it for no additional value and to make the correct judgement call on that needs a balanced and non-partisan view.

In my humble and non-expect opinion.

They don't strike every 5 minutes over minor changes to working practices though do they?

No they don't. We are going to see how they respond to the coming changes in the way GPs operate though

 

[12LDA28C]

It’s just notable that there is a strong bias against railway unions on here, which appears to be based on an inherent dislike of unions and/or a misunderstanding of the role they are supposed to perform. Unions are criticised far more than the government, which speaks volumes for anyone who has actually followed politics over the last couple of years or understands the current railway dispute (which is about Ts and Cs far more than it’s about money).

I'm sure the various union-haters on here make a habit of posting regularly on nursing forums / postal worker forums / barrister forums, telling workers in those sectors to 'go back to work' and that they have no right to expect a reasonable pay rise, should put up with any erosion of Ts & Cs / threat of redundancies and generally be grateful that they have a job at all... right?

 

[yorkie]

@Harbon 1 as stated earlier, I refer you to what I said in my previous post and that if you wish to discuss any of those issues on any more.l detail to create a relevant thread.

Thank you for finally explaining the root of your misunderstanding. It would have been easier if you had done so sooner rather than berating me for being disingenuous, as I would have happily explained, which I will do now.

As has already been said, teachers contracts have annual contracted hours rather than weekly. However, if you work a full-time 35 hour per week job (any job) and totted up how many hours you work per annum (once you’d allowed for annual leave) you would find that the total number of annual hours will be roughly the same as that stipulated in teachers’ contracts.

And that was simply my point. You claimed that teachers are required to work as long as necessary to get the job done. This is wrong. Just like everyone else, they have contracted hours of employment. That they regularly have to work in excess of this is down to them and not due to any requirement of their contract.

You are being disingenuous; any teacher that attempted to stick to 35 hours per week and not do anything extra wouldn't last long. I don't understand why you brought this up. My point absolutely still stands.

The point is they aren’t supposed interested in good outcomes for passengers, and it isn’t part of their remit, so it’s hardly valid to criticise them for that?

It's perfectly valid to point out this fact.

 

[Fred26]

Does the lack of fixed rest days affect station staff in the proposal as well as traincrew? Also, I currently work a 4 day week because of 9hr shifts, with two consecutive rest days each week. Under the reforms, could these rest days not be consecutive even for station staff (ie. rather than rest day Mon & Tues, it becomes Mon & Thurs)?

My rest days are important and I often make use of them, so would prefer to keep working the longer shifts in return for keeping the 4 day week with rest days together.

My understanding is yes, we'll all be working five days a week, with no guarantee of when our rest days will be, or if they'll be together.
My reading of it suggests the roster clerk will have their pick of all staff to fill each position.
Writing rosters will be a walk in the park if this happens.

They don't strike every 5 minutes over minor changes to working practices though do they?

We don't strike every five minutes. I've got almost two decades of experience and have been on strike for one dispute.

They're also not minor changes. These are enormous changes to a whole industry. The government are trying to start from the beginning.

It's the unions' choice to deny passengers a service, nobody else. Even if we get a new government, they will want more.

That's not how it works.
We don't want to strike, but if the government are intent on destroying our Ts&Cs we have to stand up for ourselves. Since they were refusing to negotiate, that has left us with only one option.