And that's the problem that people don't get. The TOCs want to offer the money and negotiate but silly Tory government has tied there hands using RDG as the pretext.
If the DfT had listened to the TOCs, a pay rise of a much lower percentage than now being talked about would have been agreed before inflation rocketed. Probably a multi-year deal that would have tied the hands of the unions when Putin invaded Ukraine. Productivity talks could’ve been held subsequently with much less pressure. This government however is not known for its pragmatism and stonewalled. So inflation spiked and the demands grew greater.
I may have missed something here, but where has it been said that the payrise can not be funded? There is an offer on the table, but like most of public sector ones there are demands on the departments that whilst funds for payrises are allocated, said departments must deliver future efficiencies. And this is nothing new for the public sector either, rarely do pay rises happen without any caveats. Obviously the situation is changing for staff in the rail industry as the government is handed back more control, but there's really very little difference in what's happening between the various sectors.
Out of curiosity, can you provide a detailed example of what another part of the public sector have had to change in order to get a below-inflation rise? If you can show us the specifics it would shed some light rather than heat.
I wonder which department funds the PM's air travel. I know that the cost of operating the Royal Train comes out of the DfT budget, but I'm not sire whether the DfT or the MoD pay for Sunak's helicopters (presumably they're RAF pilots. That'll be a cost saving.
If they dropped the ‘spare’ weeks where you could be moved to cover anything and everything with little warning or opportunity to plan childcare etc. then the deal would probably be voted through.
A few of the other rostering changes are unpalatable too. Banning fixed rest day patterns and prohibiting the reps from any involvement in drawing up base rosters. Cost savings that would result from these are the square root of sod all but they make a big difference to work/life balance.
That may be true for you and your colleagues, but for the RMT leadership it is plainly obvious there is a significant political element, or else the offer would have been put to members formally already.
Ballots have been held every six months and all have strongly supported continuing the action. If people wanted to settle, they would have voted differently. The RMT leadership doesn't get a vote in these ballots, only the affected members. It's got nothing to do with party politics.
And the government is arguing that somehow railway staff are a drain on the economy
The government's refusal to settle has certainly been a drain on the economy. I wonder if they realise that encouraging car use just sends more wealth to the Middle East, rather than it recirculating in the UK economy.
or the army (the economy would rather struggle if there was no security)
It's not just a hypothetical thing, we're seeing it in real time. Years of neglect of defence budgets across the west have emboldened Putin and lead him to believe that we were a spent force. Obviously we supported Ukraine rather more than he thought, but it was the initial impression that encouraged the invasion. That invasion is a big part of the reason why the economy is struggling now.
i think the ordinary passenger thinks that with the strides in technology nowadays, the railways need to take advantage of them,and be updated.
Like electrifying lines so that trains are cheaper to run and maintain? Yes, the government should invest some capital into that.
Resignalling to reduce manning costs? The gains are a bit more marginal, it's only worth paying if you needed to make alterations anyway. Still needs doing.
Removing passenger-facing staff? No, you won't see any expansion of DOO beyond existing routes for the foreseeable future. Disability groups have wised up to what is going on and will fight in the courts any changes that result in a reduction in accessibility. If you want to remove onboard staff you either need to make trains 100% step-free, or provide full staffing at all stations, from first to last train.
ATO? No chance. Firstly you need to resignal (see above). Once you've done that you are still left with a "Train Operator" (as per Victoria Line) sitting in the front, ready to apply the brakes in an emergency. If you want to do away wjth them you need to make sure that no hazards can fall foul of the railway. That means sorting out the fencing, cutting back vegetation, Platform Edge Doors, closing all level crossings etc. With just the resignalling the investment required would be around £1tn, now you're talking unimaginable amounts and you still need a member of staff (a "Train Captain" on the DLR) onboard to assist passengers if an evacuation is necessary. Want to get rid of them and you need evacuation catwalks which will mean reboring tunnels. TLDR: apart from the Crossrail core it'll be never be worth getting rid of staff, you won't come close to recouping the outlay.
Also a poster says 2024 prices out of 2019 wages, but if, and i don't know, but if 2019 wages were good/very good, then the inflation upto 2024 doesn't have as much effect as on someone on a lower wage in 2019, which alot were.
Some staff will have taken out mortgages based upon their income in 2019. Wages have fallen so far behind inflation, and interest rates have risen so much that the mortgage is now unaffordable. This can affect anyone, no matter what their 2019 salary was.
Merseyrail guards are possibly the only workers in the country who had a guarantee of their jobs being secured, when there was no long term job role for them other than them being a uniformed person being on the train. There's no way a government, even a Labour one, would do that nationwide.
As above there won't be any extension of single-manning beyond its current boundaries for some time. The network is not accessible enough.
The thing to remember about a payrise is it's guaranteed. I'd much rather see my salary go up £1000 than get a one off bonus of £1000, that may or may not be given the following year.
Salary rises are pensionable too, bonuses are not.
Well, the pay offer is 8-10% over two years (can't remember which).
Passengers have already had a fare increase of 6% last year, probably similar this year.
I'd say that passengers are already paying more than their share of the proposed wage settlement. Time for the Government to cough up it's part and get the service running.
More enlightened European countries have been cutting train fares, often by introducing cheap monthly tickets. Not this one though, they pay lip service to the environment.
From experience, in my industry, branch meetings are generally only attended by the more militant types, for whom, nothing will ever be good enough, they will never gauge a true representation of how most average union members feel...
They are union echo chambers, I've been to a couple which almost made me come out of our union.
We've moved into the 21st Century now. WhatsApp group chats enable views to be shared without having to physically attend a meeting at a specific time (these are shift-workers, remember).
