Rail strikes discussion

[Goldfish62]

They earn alot more than signallers, my friend works for NATS.
Senior ATC earn 120k easily

And probably one of the most stressful jobs out there!

 

[Thumper1127]

I'm a little surprised so few air traffic controllers were among the field of candidates but then I imagine there's greater job security in that field than there is with being a pilot since airlines have been hit heavily by the pandemic and will no doubt be making several cutbacks. I'm not sure how much stronger their job protection and unions are compared to railway workers.

Although flights were heavily hit, airspace didn’t close. So you can’t really reduce the number of air traffic controllers; there may be some margins where a lower workload may mean a temporary reduction on a daily basis (I don’t know, I’m not in that industry) but getting rid of controllers would be akin to getting rid of signallers because fewer services are running.

 

[ar10642]

More fool you.

In what sense? We're going to have to work until we're ready to drop dead.

 

[Sorcerer]

Although flights were heavily hit, airspace didn’t close. So you can’t really reduce the number of air traffic controllers; there may be some margins where a lower workload may mean a temporary reduction on a daily basis (I don’t know, I’m not in that industry) but getting rid of controllers would be akin to getting rid of signallers because fewer services are running.

Quite so which is probably why it's a more secure part of the aviation industry than something such as roles onboard the planes themselves. Even in the unlikely event of full train automation the signallers will most likely never go away completely. The role might evolve, but traffic control on both railways and airspaces will always be essential, which may just be another reason to argue in favour of these strikes. Signallers are very much the nerve centres of the railway network.

 

[Goldfish62]

In what sense? We're going to have to work until we're ready to drop dead.

You'll certainly have to if you're misguided enough not to pay into a pension scheme. But that's your choice...

 

[trebor79]

Am I right in thinking that strike dates have to be announce a minimum of 2 weeks in advance? My parents are flying from/to Stansted next Friday and coming back a few days later. I'm trying to persuade them to avoid a fortune in parking fees and just take the direct train a few minutes walk from their house.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Am I right in thinking that strike dates have to be announce a minimum of 2 weeks in advance? My parents are flying from/to Stansted next Friday and coming back a few days later. I'm trying to persuade them to avoid a fortune in parking fees and just take the direct train a few minutes walk from their house.

Yes, 2 weeks notice.

 

[ar10642]

You'll certainly have to if you're misguided enough not to pay into a pension scheme. But that's your choice...

I've been paying in and they're worth next to nothing. I'm planning to keep working for as long as possible then I dunno jump off a cliff or something. Very few are going to get to actually retire on these schemes.

 

[bleeder4]

I'm never gonna get a state pension. My pension year is 2059, by 2046 its already planned to be 68. If it even still exists by 2059 (assuming a water/climate/nuclear war/apocalypse hasn't happened) it'll be well into the 70s. Retirement for my generation will be the grave, frankly I don't really know why I bother paying into a private pension.

Yes I think the same. In 30 years time, when I'm 70, I doubt there will be a state pension. I don't pay into a private pension, I just take care of it all myself. Since I started full time time employment at the age of 18, 22 years ago, I have saved 15% of my wages every month. I will keep doing that for the next 30 years. Those savings will then be my pension pot. People need to take responsibility for saving for retirement, rather than expecting their government/employer to do it for them.

 

[Snow1964]

I've been paying in and they're worth next to nothing. I'm planning to keep working for as long as possible then I dunno jump off a cliff or something. Very few are going to get to actually retire on these schemes.

It is generally accepted that payments of at least 16% of pay are needed to get a fair pension, and more like at least 25% to get good pension.

That is both yours and employer contribution. So if your employer is paying 11% (as an example) then you need to be contributing 14% to get the 25% for good pension. Your 14% won’t reduce take home pay by 14% as it is pre-tax so lose about 8-11% of take home, depending on your tax rate. (If you earn between £50-60k and have children then the pension contributions stop the child benefit clawback so might only lose few percent of take home)

Far too many think a few percent contribution into a pension is all they need. The Government minimum of 8% is about half of a fair pension, and about third of good pension so don’t use this as a guideline.

 

[ar10642]

It is generally accepted that payments of at least 16% of pay are needed to get a fair pension, and more like at least 25% to get good pension.

That is both yours and employer contribution. So if your employer is paying 11% (as an example) then you need to be contributing 14% to get the 25% for good pension. Your 14% won’t reduce take home pay by 14% as it is pre-tax so lose about 8-11% of take home, depending on your tax rate. (If you earn between £50-60k and have children then the pension contributions stop the child benefit clawback so might only lose few percent of take home)

Far too many think a few percent contribution into a pension is all they need. The Government minimum of 8% is about half of a fair pension, and about third of good pension so don’t use this as a guideline.

I can't afford to put that much in so that's that really.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I am not involved in the negotiations so it is not for me to say exactly what should change. But changes which enable the same outcome to be realised with fewer roles increase productivity, and hence open the door to a bigger pay increase.

It sounds like you are fundamentally opposed to any change, and yet still want the higher pay increase that increased productivity would unlock. Surely you can see that this is not a realistic position to adopt?

At the moment it seems that the negotiations are not really progressing because both sides are refusing to enter into proper discussion without pre-conditions. Which is not good news.

Just asking like.
What kind of increased productivity has been realised in parliament in order for the MPs to justify their salary increase this year ?

 

[SJN]

Just asking like.
What kind of increased productivity has been realised in parliament in order for the MPs to justify their salary increase this year ?

Probably none. It makes me laugh how they say the railway needs to modernise. This coming from a place where they have rules dating back to 13th century!

 

[greyman42]

Yes I think the same. In 30 years time, when I'm 70, I doubt there will be a state pension. I don't pay into a private pension, I just take care of it all myself. Since I started full time time employment at the age of 18, 22 years ago, I have saved 15% of my wages every month. I will keep doing that for the next 30 years. Those savings will then be my pension pot. People need to take responsibility for saving for retirement, rather than expecting their government/employer to do it for them.

Out of interest, do you invest the money you save in something that is tax efficient such as a stocks and shares ISA?

 

[Thumper1127]

Just asking like.
What kind of increased productivity has been realised in parliament in order for the MPs to justify their salary increase this year ?

Presumably none. And they got 2.7%. So assuming no strings attached would you be happy to settle for 2.7%? I’m not saying the current dispute should be settled for that amount but beware of making comparisons.

 

[nanstallon]

It is generally accepted that payments of at least 16% of pay are needed to get a fair pension, and more like at least 25% to get good pension.

That is both yours and employer contribution. So if your employer is paying 11% (as an example) then you need to be contributing 14% to get the 25% for good pension. Your 14% won’t reduce take home pay by 14% as it is pre-tax so lose about 8-11% of take home, depending on your tax rate. (If you earn between £50-60k and have children then the pension contributions stop the child benefit clawback so might only lose few percent of take home)

Far too many think a few percent contribution into a pension is all they need. The Government minimum of 8% is about half of a fair pension, and about third of good pension so don’t use this as a guideline.

How much of your private pension scheme contributions get snaffled by salesman's commission and management fees? Good old British rip-off, I dare say.

 

[Thermal]

Presumably none. And they got 2.7%. So assuming no strings attached would you be happy to settle for 2.7%? I’m not saying the current dispute should be settled for that amount but beware of making comparisons.

Agree on the risks of making comparisons, and believe MPs are still underpaid (probably a minority view), but in the interest of fairness, 2.7% was just for this year alone. Since my last rise, MPs have had a rise 8.4%.

So whilst still below inflation, yes I would accept a no strings increase of 8.4% to match MPs.

 

[TravelDream]

And probably one of the most stressful jobs out there!

I think very few ATC controllers will be earning 120k TBH.

But you're right. With trains, you can just stop them. You can't stop a plane until it's on the ground.

 

[baz962]

Presumably none. And they got 2.7%. So assuming no strings attached would you be happy to settle for 2.7%? I’m not saying the current dispute should be settled for that amount but beware of making comparisons.

I will settle for their salary before the rise with their expenses.

 

[Thumper1127]

Agree on the risks of making comparisons, and believe MPs are still underpaid (probably a minority view), but in the interest of fairness, 2.7% was just for this year alone. Since my last rise, MPs have had a rise 8.4%.

So whilst still below inflation, yes I would accept a no strings increase of 8.4% to match MPs.

Very fair point, I fall on my sword!

 

[Wolfie]

Local agreements have very little standing for this sort of thing.

I always thought at the time that the crews at WMR's "victory" over DOO was far from time to be resting on laurels - much of their routes appear to be prime pickings and the tech is there to match, like it or not - and I very much don't.

As for elsewhere, it does say specified routes and traction so I suppose individual TOCs will have to see what they have in mind. Hopefully it's not intended to be a divide and rule tactic.

WMT and LNWR guards hardly help themselves if they are never actually seen out of the back can. That, sadly, must make them being targeted more likely.

 

[Mag_seven]

Would those who are moaning about MPs pay be happy to reapply for their job every five years?

 

[baz962]

Would those who are moaning about MPs pay be happy to reapply for their job every five years?

I would

 

[Watershed]

It is generally accepted that payments of at least 16% of pay are needed to get a fair pension, and more like at least 25% to get good pension.

That is both yours and employer contribution. So if your employer is paying 11% (as an example) then you need to be contributing 14% to get the 25% for good pension. Your 14% won’t reduce take home pay by 14% as it is pre-tax so lose about 8-11% of take home, depending on your tax rate. (If you earn between £50-60k and have children then the pension contributions stop the child benefit clawback so might only lose few percent of take home)

Far too many think a few percent contribution into a pension is all they need. The Government minimum of 8% is about half of a fair pension, and about third of good pension so don’t use this as a guideline.

The general rule of thumb is (for those who start contributing to their pension before their 40s) to pay in half your age, as a percentage of your income, into your pension. So if you start at 24, try to pay in 12% of your gross income. If you start at 40, try to pay in 20%. But a significant proportion of people don't come anywhere close to matching that and are hence reliant on the State Pension.

Just asking like.
What kind of increased productivity has been realised in parliament in order for the MPs to justify their salary increase this year ?

They have received an increase of 2.7%, which is almost exactly the same as the 2% being offered here on a "no strings attached" basis.

And it's best not to try and make historical comparisons... as a comparison over the last 10 or 20 years would show that railway wages have increased far more than MPs' salaries.

Many civil servants are paid more than MPs. It's a unique role that can't really be compared very easily.

 

[Wolfie]

The general rule of thumb is (for those who start contributing to their pension before their 40s) to pay in half your age, as a percentage of your income, into your pension. So if you start at 24, try to pay in 12% of your gross income. If you start at 40, try to pay in 20%. But a significant proportion of people don't come anywhere close to matching that and are hence reliant on the State Pension.


They have received an increase of 2.7%, which is almost exactly the same as the 2% being offered here on a "no strings attached" basis.

And it's best not to try and make historical comparisons... as a comparison over the last 10 or 20 years would show that railway wages have increased far more than MPs' salaries.

Many civil servants are paid more than MPs. It's a unique role that can't really be compared very easily.

Many civil servants are paid more than MPs? I can assure you that only Senior Civil Service members (approx 4,000, average pay about £85k) or those on specific allowances (e.g. some people in Border Force working shifts) come anywhere near MPs pay without even thinking about their allowances (employing family members is not uncommon).

 

[bramling]

Quite so which is probably why it's a more secure part of the aviation industry than something such as roles onboard the planes themselves. Even in the unlikely event of full train automation the signallers will most likely never go away completely. The role might evolve, but traffic control on both railways and airspaces will always be essential, which may just be another reason to argue in favour of these strikes. Signallers are very much the nerve centres of the railway network.

If anything an automated railway will increase job security for signallers. On the LU lines which have gone automatic, especially the latest generation of systems, the signallers are central to operating the whole thing, as is the technician who sits in the room and acts as the interface to the computers. During the last round of strikes at least one LU line was closed down due to *one* person in the control room going on strike.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Completely agree. But state pensions have to be funded from somewhere, and "triple lock" rises that are out of kilter with pay settlements create an imbalance.

Much is being made of 10%-ish rises in pensions from the triple lock.
What non-pensioners may not realise is that state pensions are divided into years of contributions and the applicable pensions legislation.
So the triple lock only really applies to the most recent slice of pensions, and increases on earlier contributions may be lower and subject to various caps.
The same is true for most private pensions - for instance most of mine is subject to a 3% cap, whatever the level of inflation.
I still get a benefit from paying graduated pension contribution in the 1960s - but it only goes up in pennies per year.
It's one of the reasons the government can't easily modify the pensions formula (though it did force a lower cap last year during covid).

 

[Signal_Box]

If anything an automated railway will increase job security for signallers. On the LU lines which have gone automatic, especially the latest generation of systems, the signallers are central to operating the whole thing, as is the technician who sits in the room and acts as the interface to the computers. During the last round of strikes at least one LU line was closed down due to *one* person in the control room going on strike.

There’s signallers, and controllers two very different thighs with very different skills and competencies.

Line controllers have more control than signallers on LU I believe, the opposite as is the case on Network Rail.

 

[Falcon1200]

We're going to have to work until we're ready to drop dead.

Surely the reason that pension age entitlement has been raised is exactly the opposite ? ie life expectancy has increased meaning people are drawing a pension for 30 years or more, not the more usual 5 or so when pensions first started !

 

[Shrop]

Surely the reason that pension age entitlement has been raised is exactly the opposite ? ie life expectancy has increased meaning people are drawing a pension for 30 years or more, not the more usual 5 or so when pensions first started !

Exactly. It's amazing the amount of people on this thread who don't understand pensions. Or pensioners.