ScotRail Industrial Relations issues (including conductor strike action)

[InOban]

I would have thought that Transport Scotland should be looking at the various T&Cs operated by comparable TOCs and drafting a modern package which could be applied to all new entrants. Well paid staff performing tasks which add real value to the business.

 

[Watershed]

Well can someone please post a summary in plain English so those following the thread can decide if it's a legitimate dispute or not?

Scotrail had a shortage of traincrew, both drivers and guards, due to factors including under-recruitment as well as outstanding training.

They reached an agreement with the RMT & ASLEF whereby members would be paid 'time and a half' (rather than just 'time') for Rest Day Work, i.e. working on their 'days off'. This was to incentivise people to volunteer, to ensure the service was fully covered.

That agreement stipulated that it would only last so long as there was a shortage of traincrew in the relevant grade.

To a lot of people's surprise, Scotrail recruited and trained enough guards that it was no longer necessary to have lots of RDW to cover the service. As a result, Scotrail have stopped paying guards time and a half for RDW.

However they are still paying drivers time and a half, because there still aren't enough fully trained drivers (as the training takes longer and has been more heavily affected by Covid).

The RMT are undertaking this industrial action, involving the withdrawal of labour on Sundays (which are contractually committed RDW), because they are unhappy that guards are receiving time whilst drivers are receiving time and a half.

Is that a "legitimate dispute"? Well, that's ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

 

[320320]

Scotrail had a shortage of traincrew, both drivers and guards, due to factors including under-recruitment as well as outstanding training.

They reached an agreement with the RMT & ASLEF whereby members would be paid 'time and a half' (rather than just 'time') for Rest Day Work, i.e. working on their 'days off'. This was to incentivise people to volunteer, to ensure the service was fully covered.

That agreement stipulated that it would only last so long as there was a shortage of traincrew in the relevant grade.

To a lot of people's surprise, Scotrail recruited and trained enough guards that it was no longer necessary to have lots of RDW to cover the service. As a result, Scotrail have stopped paying guards time and a half for RDW.

However they are still paying drivers time and a half, because there still aren't enough fully trained drivers (as the training takes longer and has been more heavily affected by Covid).

The RMT are undertaking this industrial action, involving the withdrawal of labour on Sundays (which are contractually committed RDW), because they are unhappy that guards are receiving time whilst drivers are receiving time and a half.

Is that a "legitimate dispute"? Well, that's ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Scotrail haven’t recruited enough ticket examiners to cover the roster, there are plenty of trains running daily with no T.E. or an RTM covering the role, and if they’re claiming that’s the case why not agree to pay them an enhancement, because if all the positions are filled they won’t have any need to offer overtime to anybody and there would be no dispute.

You‘ll probably find a big part of the problem is that RMT members haven’t had pay rises in 2020 or 2021 and that’s why they’re digging in.

 

[wobman]

I would have thought that Transport Scotland should be looking at the various T&Cs operated by comparable TOCs and drafting a modern package which could be applied to all new entrants. Well paid staff performing tasks which add real value to the business.

Could you elaborate on this please ? ScotRail Having new entrants on different T&C's just makes rostering much more complicated, plus unions would be very much against this happening.
I think conductors add a great deal to the railway, ask most passengers and they want conductors on the trains. Especially for safety reasons which is the most important part of their role, then there's revenue they gain for the TOC.
Like I've said previously ScotRail need to either get parity for the grades regarding this issue or go for Sundays in the working week to solve the dispute.

 

[Deltic1961]

A company I worked for in the oil industry had a similar situation. Workshop guys demanding more money for extra shifts even though the company wasn't in great shape. Result of it was that with the strike and work to rule, jobs couldn't be completed or invoiced and it just made the financials a whole lot worse. The company was bought out and asset stripped and many lost their jobs.

I know it's a different situation here but you'd think with revenue being down people would want to protect the business and keep their jobs. But then many see public (sort of privatised) services as a cash cow that will never run out.

Can't help thinking that unions dream up these disagreements to justify their existence to get staff to bite the hand that feeds them it seems.

 

[the sniper]

Scotrail had a shortage of traincrew, both drivers and guards, due to factors including under-recruitment as well as outstanding training.

They reached an agreement with the RMT & ASLEF whereby members would be paid 'time and a half' (rather than just 'time') for Rest Day Work, i.e. working on their 'days off'. This was to incentivise people to volunteer, to ensure the service was fully covered.

That agreement stipulated that it would only last so long as there was a shortage of traincrew in the relevant grade.

To a lot of people's surprise, Scotrail recruited and trained enough guards that it was no longer necessary to have lots of RDW to cover the service. As a result, Scotrail have stopped paying guards time and a half for RDW.

However they are still paying drivers time and a half, because there still aren't enough fully trained drivers (as the training takes longer and has been more heavily affected by Covid).

The RMT are undertaking this industrial action, involving the withdrawal of labour on Sundays (which are contractually committed RDW), because they are unhappy that guards are receiving time whilst drivers are receiving time and a half.

Is that a "legitimate dispute"? Well, that's ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

The oh so big bad RMT facilitated getting training back up and running faster than some argued they should have, members took on the risk and got the backlog cleared. Their reward? As per the poorly devised deal, most of their members lost out financially. Meanwhile on the drivers side...

There may well be grounds to criticise the way RMT played the situation, but the usual moans of belligerence on their part are rather ironic. It's situations like the ones that we're seeing on Scotrail that make rail industry 'industrial relations' such a high stakes game.

 

[InOban]

1. The fact that they had no difficulty in re recruiting to the RMT grades suggests that the wages are seen as acceptable, to say the least.

2. It's possible that the missing TE's etc are due to illness or required isolation?

 

[Bald Rick]

The oh so big bad RMT facilitated getting training back up and running faster than some argued they should have

Who argued that?

 

[the sniper]

Who argued that?

Nobody here, that's for sure!

Even without this deal in other TOCs, there were people surprised by how (relatively) quickly the RMT and its members widely facilitated Guards training reintroduced having two people in a cab together, or at least in very close proximity, while there was no end in sight on the Drivers side. With this deal, why would you be in any rush to get the trainees back in? Looks like another case of goodwill by the RMT and its members to me, as the situation could easily have been played differently for financial gain.

 

[Starmill]

1. The fact that they had no difficulty in re recruiting to the RMT grades suggests that the wages are seen as acceptable, to say the least.

Indeed, has there ever been a case where a conductor or driver role has been advertised and not received a very high ratio of applications to positions? The salary is of course not responsible for all of that, but still.

 

[John Bishop]

The oh so big bad RMT facilitated getting training back up and running faster than some argued they should have, members took on the risk and got the backlog cleared. Their reward? As per the poorly devised deal, most of their members lost out financially. Meanwhile on the drivers side...

There may well be grounds to criticise the way RMT played the situation, but the usual moans of belligerence on their part are rather ironic. It's situations like the ones that we're seeing on Scotrail that make rail industry 'industrial relations' such a high stakes game.

Wasn’t it the union that agreed to the deal? If they did, then they can’t then turn round later on and complain about it!

 

[Starmill]

most of their members lost out financially

Also, it's difficult to see how being paid 100% of usual salary, and overtime payments, is "losing out financially". Certainly at the rates of pay in question.

It sounds like an excellent result for members to me. Zero job losses and zero pay cuts.

 

[the sniper]

Also, it's difficult to say how being paid 100% of usual salary, and overtime payments, is "losing out financially". Certainly at the rates of pay in question.

They gained, they lost. If there is no financial loss by the ending of the deal, can we equally not say that many Guards or Drivers gained financially from the deal and the latter continue to do so? Seems like quibbling over semantics?

 

[PR1Berske]

Scotrail had a shortage of traincrew, both drivers and guards, due to factors including under-recruitment as well as outstanding training.

They reached an agreement with the RMT & ASLEF whereby members would be paid 'time and a half' (rather than just 'time') for Rest Day Work, i.e. working on their 'days off'. This was to incentivise people to volunteer, to ensure the service was fully covered.

That agreement stipulated that it would only last so long as there was a shortage of traincrew in the relevant grade.

To a lot of people's surprise, Scotrail recruited and trained enough guards that it was no longer necessary to have lots of RDW to cover the service. As a result, Scotrail have stopped paying guards time and a half for RDW.

However they are still paying drivers time and a half, because there still aren't enough fully trained drivers (as the training takes longer and has been more heavily affected by Covid).

The RMT are undertaking this industrial action, involving the withdrawal of labour on Sundays (which are contractually committed RDW), because they are unhappy that guards are receiving time whilst drivers are receiving time and a half.

Is that a "legitimate dispute"? Well, that's ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Forgive me here but the RMT really are wrong here aren't they?!

"...so long as there was a shortage of traincrew *in the relevant grade*"

Which means that there is a valid distinction between guards (enough now trained/recruited) and drivers (not enough). Which means the RMT is hoping to make their case on a flawed perspective. In my reading of your summary, at least.

 

[the sniper]

Forgive me here but the RMT really are wrong here aren't they?!

"...so long as there was a shortage of traincrew *in the relevant grade*"

Which means that there is a valid distinction between guards (enough now trained/recruited) and drivers (not enough). Which means the RMT is hoping to make their case on a flawed perspective. In my reading of your summary, at least.

Which is presumably where there is a difference in interpretation with the actual deal. It's pretty critical to know the exact wording of the deal rather than a summary posted on a forum before being so sure. That's not to say you're wrong, but if it is so clear cut, why have Scotrail not just shown the evidence?

 

[Starmill]

They gained, they lost. If there is no financial loss by the ending of the deal, can we equally not say that many Guards or Drivers gained financially from the deal and the latter continue to do so? Seems like quibbling over semantics?

OK well in that case you agree that it's equally accurate to describe it as they 'didn't gain financially' in that they are being paid 100% of salary for 100% of hours, plus overtime pay? And that that's a reasonable rationale for breaching your contract of service?

That's not to say you're wrong, but if it is so clear cut, why have Scotrail not just shown the evidence?

Presumably because technically speaking it's not a matter of public record.

 

[the sniper]

OK well in that case you agree that it's equally accurate to describe it as they 'didn't gain financially' in that they are being paid 100% of salary for 100% of hours, plus overtime pay? And that that's a reasonable rationale for breaching your contract of service?

You're saying they didn't financially gain from the deal?

 

[Watershed]

Which is presumably where there is a difference in interpretation with the actual deal. It's pretty critical to know the exact wording of the deal rather than a summary posted on a forum before being so sure. That's not to say you're wrong, but if it is so clear cut, why have Scotrail not just shown the evidence?

I don't see how Scotrail airing its dirty laundry in public would change anything. The RMT aren't going to change their position just because Scotrail release evidence to suggest the RMT are going back on what they agreed. If anything it would only serve to aggravate the dispute.

 

[Robertj21a]

Nobody here, that's for sure!

Even without this deal in other TOCs, there were people surprised by how (relatively) quickly the RMT and its members widely facilitated Guards training reintroduced having two people in a cab together, or at least in very close proximity, while there was no end in sight on the Drivers side. With this deal, why would you be in any rush to get the trainees back in? Looks like another case of goodwill by the RMT and its members to me, as the situation could easily have been played differently for financial gain.

This '....another case of goodwill by the RMT...'
Is this a new initiative on their part ?

 

[the sniper]

This '....another case of goodwill by the RMT...'
Is this a new initiative on their part ?

There's always give and take in the real world, too boring to put in the press releases.

 

[Unstoppable]

They need to man up, accept they have it good and do what their job entails. They're only doing themselves out a job with everyone turning to other modes of transport

 

[Robertj21a]

They need to man up, accept they have it good and do what their job entails. They're only doing themselves out a job with everyone turning to other modes of transport

None of which they will probably ever accept.

 

[GALLANTON]

They need to man up, accept they have it good and do what their job entails. They're only doing themselves out a job with everyone turning to other modes of transport

The RMT needs to realize that there's plenty of people out there who have lost jobs due to the pandemic and would more than likely jump at the chance of getting a job with Scotrail on the pre-deal rates. IIRC Scotrail guards get over £30k per year and I personally would quite happily work Sundays for a normal time at that rate.

 

[Deltic1961]

That is probably part of the reason train fares are still prohibitively expensive. Bus drivers used to be really well paid with good pensions and benefits. Now they're just above minimum wage.

Most other industries have cut their cloth to suit but the railways are living in the last century (or the one before that).

 

[Wolfie]

Wouldn't it be great if Union representatives and long suffering passengers were able to officially meet face to face and express their views.

What would that achieve? The two groups sometimes have divergent interests.

Scotrail haven’t recruited enough ticket examiners to cover the roster, there are plenty of trains running daily with no T.E. or an RTM covering the role, and if they’re claiming that’s the case why not agree to pay them an enhancement, because if all the positions are filled they won’t have any need to offer overtime to anybody and there would be no dispute.

You‘ll probably find a big part of the problem is that RMT members haven’t had pay rises in 2020 or 2021 and that’s why they’re digging in.

Lots of people haven't had payrises for way longer than that. I fear that RMT and it's members are due a very, very rude shock as they are dragged, doubtless screaming and kicking, into the real world.

 

[Deltic1961]

Will Scottish Government (or whichever quango they appoint) to run the railway take on the unions or just give more money away?

Saying that long term damage to Scotrail and Scottish Government public transport strategy will have taken place long before April.

As Covid has proven, people can change their behaviour and not go back to what was there before. Scotrail may be a casualty of this in the longer term.

 

[the sniper]

That is probably part of the reason train fares are still prohibitively expensive. Bus drivers used to be really well paid with good pensions and benefits. Now they're just above minimum wage.

Most other industries have cut their cloth to suit but the railways are living in the last century (or the one before that).

If only rail staff would embrace the same race to the bottom as the bus drivers, some bitter enthusiasts could be content... Even though the fares would likely be no lower.

Do any bus passengers appreciate or even notice everything most bus drivers have given up over the years?

 

[Starmill]

Price levels are fairly irrelevant really, especially at the moment. It's actually a question of public subsidy.

Real staff costs are going one way - down. Turn it around - how would RMT best want this to be achieved? Who would have to lose out to fund premium overtime?

 

[jopsuk]

That is probably part of the reason train fares are still prohibitively expensive. Bus drivers used to be really well paid with good pensions and benefits. Now they're just above minimum wage.

during the period over which bus driver wages and conditions have got much worse, services have been slashed and tickets have inflated in price far more than trains. What even is your argument here?

 

[Deltic1961]

Would disagree with that. When we moved to Dyce 20 years ago the train was cheaper than the bus and now it's more expensive.