RMT Extends Strike Action on Network Rail to Dec 24-27

[HSTEd]

It would be better to try and get a handle on this by using real traincrew duty numbers rather than guesstimating using numbers of rail vehicles. I'm unsure what the number of currently operational rail passenger vehicles is, although I guess it's been slowly reducing given the amount of stock coming off-lease, nor what proportion of those are in service on any given day.

Finding those traincrew numbers is surprisingly difficult.

I've not really made any headway on this at all! I found a very left-wing website claining at least 6,000 guards at 8 TOCs, but no source for that claim.

Does anyone know where you might find that information?

 

[Philip]

I was disappointed to see such an overwhelming vote across the TOCs RMT members to continue the strike mandate for another 6 months. I have supported my union and fellow rail workers through this and I still place most of the blame with government and media outlets for the mess, but the feeling I get from the station and retail side of things is that we want this to end and that the strikes aren't really helping out cause. Do guards feel differently in that continuing the strikes will eventually force the government's hand?

 

[pt_mad]

I was disappointed to see such an overwhelming vote across the TOCs RMT members to continue the strike mandate for another 6 months. I have supported my union and fellow rail workers through this and I still place most of the blame with government and media outlets for the mess, but the feeling I get from the station and retail side of things is that we want this to end and that the strikes aren't really helping out cause. Do guards feel differently in that continuing the strikes will eventually force the government's hand?

The thing is, with an offer like was shown by the RMT, saying DOO on all passenger services, can you ever imagine a time any safety critical guard is going to vote yes for that? I personally can't at all. And I am assuming guards make up the bulk of the RMT membership on the TOC side.

 

[Moriarty01]

Regarding the strike between 24th and 27th December. Does anyone in here know the impact it will have on Eurostar services booked to run on 26th December?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I would refer anyone interested in salaries in the industry to look at the recent survey that ORR conducted with pretty current data

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...il-industry-employment-costs-06-10-2022_1.pdf

Its a rather weight tome but a very comprehensive analysis of the industries terms and conditions.

Below is the summary of TOC roles



It doesn't cut by TOC but does show regional variations of these grades as well.

 

[43066]

I was disappointed to see such an overwhelming vote across the TOCs RMT members to continue the strike mandate for another 6 months. I have supported my union and fellow rail workers through this and I still place most of the blame with government and media outlets for the mess, but the feeling I get from the station and retail side of things is that we want this to end and that the strikes aren't really helping out cause. Do guards feel differently in that continuing the strikes will eventually force the government's hand?

Well you might just find something better is negotiated regarding longer/better protection from redundancy which, sorry to say, is likely to be very relevant to you if you work in a ticket office.

 

[Chester1]

What is the situation if the strikes carry on? Will pay stay the same until an agreement is reached?

My reading of the latest offer is the government has no intention of negotiating. The only thing it could do to make situation worse would be implement an England wide ban on rest day working to squeeze employee income to make strikes harder to maintain. I wonder if their plan is to impose new contracts including DOO, the new station role and 7 day working and a 2 year below inflation pay increase and give staff a choice between signing and being made redundant. TOCs could then do the best they can with remaining staff and work towards a full service over next couple of years. If there is anytime to restructure railway staffing from scratch now is probably as good a time as any.

The obvious compromise would be something like 8% for one year, combined with some changes to working practices. I am not sure if unions would accept that and it doesn't look like its going to be offered.

 

[CFRAIL]

I was disappointed to see such an overwhelming vote across the TOCs RMT members to continue the strike mandate for another 6 months. I have supported my union and fellow rail workers through this and I still place most of the blame with government and media outlets for the mess, but the feeling I get from the station and retail side of things is that we want this to end and that the strikes aren't really helping out cause. Do guards feel differently in that continuing the strikes will eventually force the government's hand?

I didn't back the strikes this time

 

[43066]

The only thing it could do to make situation worse would be implement an England wide ban on rest day working to squeeze employee income to make strikes harder to maintain.

Hardly likely when that would likely have a worse affect on the service than the strikes, with less predictability, and for longer periods of time…

 

[Philip]

Well you might just find something better is negotiated regarding longer/better protection from redundancy which, sorry to say, is likely to be very relevant to you if you work in a ticket office.

Busy ticket offices at the busier stations will likely not be closing if a compromise is reached, it's RMT spin saying that they are all going to close. Many outstation office staff will be hoping for a voluntary redundancy package which does seem to be on the cards - those who want to stay would hopefully be integrated into ticket office roles at the bigger stations.

Surely if the strikes were going to force the hand of the government it would have happened by now?

I think there has to be some compromise here: if T&Cs are to largely remain the same and as few compulsory redundancies as possible, then we're all going to have to accept a lower pay rise than perhaps hoped for. It will not be fair if there is a big pay rise offered but with the string being a big cut of ticket office and dispatch staff to make it affordable. That's why I think something like 3 or 4% should be accepted if it means job security for all.

I didn't back the strikes this time

Me neither.

 

[66701GBRF]

The only thing it could do to make situation worse would be implement an England wide ban on rest day working to squeeze employee income to make strikes harder to maintain.

That was touted very early on in the debacle. Next to impossible to do let alone maintain.

 

[pt_mad]

9. Flexible working contracts, working and rosters;
10. Mandatory adoption of new technology with no payment;
11. New Attendance Management scheme;
12. Review of Stood Off arrangements;
13. New annual leave and sick pay arrangements

Above: from the RMT publication of the offer.

Is any of that likely to be an improvement to working conditions or practises?

Shouldn't we aim for progress for workers in the 21st century? Is a new attendance management scheme likely to be better or worse for staff than the previous? Why would they agree to what could end up worse terms re holidays, sick pay etc than they've had up until now?

And 'flexible contracts'? Is that flexible as in gig economy style flexible?

 

[CFRAIL]

Above: from the RMT publication of the offer.

Is any of that likely to be an improvement to working conditions or practises?

Shouldn't we aim for progress for workers in the 21st century? Why would they agree to what could end up worse terms re holidays, sick pay etc than they've had up until now?

I'm not saying it's right, but those of us in the industry are fortunate to receive the sick pay that we do, many others don't received sick pay. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that, but we'd be wise to realise how much more fortunate we are at times.

 

[43066]

but those of us in the industry are fortunate to receive the sick pay that we do,

You might not be soon…

 

[pt_mad]

I'm not saying it's right, but those of us in the industry are fortunate to receive the sick pay that we do, many others don't received sick pay. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that, but we'd be wise to realise how much more fortunate we are at times.

No doubt. But that's because it's a heavily unionised industry and in guessing the many others work in industries that aren't. If they all got together they could aim for better terms too.

What some of the public seem to believe, at what seems like the pleasure of this current government, is that because that person doesn't have it neither should anyone else. Or because a friend down at the food distribution centre has poor terms so should everyone else.

This is simply advocating and arguing for a race to the bottom for all but the rich and those who own all the assets or shares, or who have power.

Go down that road and we could all end up near to minimum wage for anything other than degree status work, earning for the few who own everything or run the top management of organisations in the economy.

 

[Chester1]

Hardly likely when that would likely have a worse affect on the service than the strikes, with less predictability, and for longer periods of time…

That was touted very early on in the debacle. Next to impossible to do let alone maintain.

It depends what you think the goal of the government is. If the aim is to cut costs then running a skeleton service for 2-3 years would do it. The governments offer doesn't make sense if it wants a negoiated deal.

 

[pt_mad]

With the current state of government and the way they are pushing certain themes and ideas, I do wonder how anyone has ended up with any terms at all which are more favourable than the statutory minimum.

I mean the bulk of the railway has over the statutory minimum, but people including across TV and paper media, are getting involved in the dispute arguing that because a percentage of society, who are usually the lowest paid, have next to no terms other than the legal minimum, have had a poor or no rise, then the rail workers should think themselves lucky and sign up for all and any possible suggestion the government wishes to demand of them.

Despite the terms they are already working on, which were at sometime in the recent past deemed fair and reasonable enough to employ them on.

 

[LAX54]

Pay in the rail industry:

Train strike: How much are rail workers paid?

There have been different claims made about how much rail workers get paid.

www.bbc.co.uk

Well the bit Rail Transport Operatives including Signallers is a load of tosh for a start ! almost 48k, LOL

 

[Bevan Price]

As a fairly prosperous old age pensioner, I can assure you that some of us believe the Government should have been more selective in to whom they gave inflation-matching pension increases. I see no reason why I and people like me should not have to participate in the national belt tightening that is so obviously necessary. Being older, we've had more practice!

Any pension increase for many this year will probably barely cover the increased energy bill, plus the likely increases in council tax to 5% that councils will be allowed to make.

 

[43066]

Busy ticket offices at the busier stations will likely not be closing if a compromise is reached, it's RMT spin saying that they are all going to close.

A favourable compromise is not made more likely by not taking action. The compromise will be reached because the government will want to avoid disruption.

It depends what you think the goal of the government is. If the aim is to cut costs then running a skeleton service for 2-3 years would do it. The governments offer doesn't make sense if it wants a negoiated deal.

I doubt this would be feasible given how understaffed the railway is, and again seems to be taking a worse possible outcome approach. The idea is to achieve a compromise; rolling over will guarantee a worse outcome.

 

[yorksrob]

Those who use the arguement that the railways are used less than pre-covid, how does current combined footfall compare to that of say 2010 or 2012 or 2015 etc?

If it's the case that today's passenger levels still exceed the levels of say 2010, and in some cases staffing levels were actually higher in some areas then than they are now, then how can a 15% (example) reduction in footfall be used as an argument to reduce staffing levels?

Let's be honest, passenger numbers are likely to exceed pre covid levels at some point. Might be next year, might be in 3 years, or 5, but they are likely to rise and keep rising imo. Hence HS2 hasn't been scrapped.

Same indeed regarding service levels. It's the staff's turn now, but by the sounds of it, passengers will have to face cuts next May justified by the Government's fuzzy logic

 

[Bald Rick]

If it's the case that today's passenger levels still exceed the levels of say 2010, and in some cases staffing levels were actually higher in some areas then than they are now, then how can a 15% (example) reduction in footfall be used as an argument to reduce staffing levels?

Fare income now is roughly the same in cash terms as it was in 2012/13 (£8bn)

Industry costs in 2012/13 were £12bn.

Now they are £21bn. That’s a 75% increase in cost, for no increase in revenue.

 

[Watershed]

Honestly, I'd personally accept the 4+4, IF the subject of DOO is removed or at least clarified. Compulsory redundancies could be changed to voluntary and would (I suspect) be over subscribed.
Those advocating for DOO do realise that ticket prices wouldn't decrease if the second member of staff was removed don't they?

The Treasury treats railway costs and revenues as completely separate to each other; prices are increased each by a certain amount each year (RPI plus or minus whatever percentage is politically convenient) regardless of what happens to costs.

There are three main benefits to DOO, depending on the way it is implemented.

Firstly, if the driver releases and closes the doors, there is a time saving at each stop, as there is no need for wait for the guard to undertake these tasks and give two on the buzzer before the train can depart. Some operators already have driver release and/or allow guards to release doors as soon as the train comes to a stop, but there are still many operators/traction types where this is not the case.

Secondly, if the guard is no longer safety critical, then the train can run without them. This is, for example, the case with ScotRail Ticket Examiners and Southern OBSs. This means that during periods of disruption, or if a guard calls in sick, trains don't have to be cancelled for want of a guard, so reliability is increased. This also means that spare coverage for guards can be reduced or even eliminated entirely, and that staff don't have to receive as much initial or ongoing training; these both present moderate savings.

Finally, if guards are abolished entirely, there is clearly a much larger saving to be had - even if you don't have any compulsory redundancies. However, it seems very unlikely that this will happen.

Whilst the biggest financial savings come from the second and third changes as described above, driver release/close would mean significant benefits for dwell times, increasing reliability across the country without needing to change the timetable. Even just driver release would have an appreciable benefit.

I think the most that can realistically be expected is for driver release, and possibly driver close, to be introduced. The former is something which almost all traction types are already capable of doing, and generally doesn't require any additional infrastructure (lighting/CCTV monitors etc.). At some stations (such as where local door operation is used), guard release would need to be kept - but this represents a minority of stations.

 

[Tw99]

Has anyone seen what the RDG actually offered, rather than the RMT's summary of it ?

If I were the RMT I'd certainly be looking to paint the offer in the worst light possible.

 

[Confused52]

A favourable compromise is not made more likely by not taking action. The compromise will be reached because the government will want to avoid disruption.


I doubt this would be feasible given how understaffed the railway is, and again seems to be taking a worse possible outcome approach. The idea is to achieve a compromise; rolling over will guarantee a worse outcome.

I find it difficult to believe that people haven't understood that the Government has tried to get changes via the franchises and failed. Now it sees no way of avoiding disruption but it wants to blame it on the political nature of the RMT aims. It may be members aim to reach a compromise but I wouldn't guarantee that the Government would see that as a success. In my view the DCO thing is overblown, a rational objective would be that when the RMT tries to stop trains services by reducing the availabilty of guards in extremis they can run trains without them. The RMT have been giving out the impression that they run the railways for the last few years. That overreach is the problem that can not be accepted by the Government as it becomes the sole employer in GBR. The battle has to be now.

 

[LoogaBarooga]

Assuming for arguments sake the network rail gets accepted through the ballot, is there any chance of a normal service next week in areas where TOCs aren't striking? Eg. Scotland

 

[yorksrob]

High Speed 2.

Pointless if they're going to run down the existing railway network.

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming for arguments sake the network rail gets accepted through the ballot, is there any chance of a normal service next week in areas where TOCs aren't striking? Eg. Scotland

No chance next week.

 

[N0G83]

Fare income now is roughly the same in cash terms as it was in 2012/13 (£8bn)

Industry costs in 2012/13 were £12bn.

Now they are £21bn. That’s a 75% increase in cost, for no increase in revenue.

Something has to break!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now they are £21bn. That’s a 75% increase in cost, for no increase in revenue.

What has been the biggest cause of that? That'd be where to start.

I venture it's not small branch lines (and furthermore that even a major closure programme wouldn't easily save you £9bn a year in the long term, though obviously the rails would have scrap value).

I also assume it doesn't include capex (e.g. electrification projects) as it's a bit unfair if it does; those projects can be scaled back or dragged out if you need to reduce that.