Scotrail RMT strike action and possible temporary service cuts to a third of services

[dk1]

That's an average, boosted by the likes of LNER who have recovered very well. I'm sure the figure is rather less buoyant over at ScotRail; certainly passenger numbers were well below the rest of the UK based on the last figures I saw.

I suppose you could look at it that both Scotland & Wales dragged their heels compared to England when it came to relaxing Covid restrictions & therefore is expected on the railways. Routes that did well where those crossing the borders where people could take advantage of & enjoy the hospitality sector that had reopened.

 

[Dryce]

I don't really see why that should be seen as a “problem for the railways” when it’s remembered that that the railway’s raison d’etre , and the reason why it’s subsidised in the first place, is to stimulate economic growth through transport. If the ratio of leisure to business travellers is a little more skewed in favour of the former post covid, what’s the issue?

In a dilletante economy that can't build its own power stations without help from China and France then I guess that approach to public subsidy and 'investment' is entirely logical.

 

[pt_mad]

Reading this , some of it seems quite bizarre.

The cost of living is absolutely going through the roof. We keep hearing figures on the television that realtime wages have gone up over 8 percent on average since the start of the pandemic, much of that recently.

It's a fact that many rail workers have not received a rise since 2019. Many who had a rise in early 2020 at the start of the pandemic had one because it was the remainder of a multi year agreement.

Only today the BBC have been reporting on their news channel that wages in hospitality are up on average some 8 percent this year.

Offering pay freezes or rises of one or two percent just isn't going to pay people's bills when all is said and done. And they have no choice but to meet their costs of living, the people sending them the bills are not understanding to their pay freeze or only a 2 percent rise in 3 years. The workers did nothing to cause this cost of living crisis and are somehow ostracised by some for even suggesting they might be offered a rise in line with the rises in the cost of living, just so they don't fall behind. Business want to profiteer (such as the privatised rail operators), these workers just want to keep up (a bit). It's not to profiteer on like shareholders want, it's simply to keep wages in line with rising costs and inflation. We are all, or most of us, working to hopefully have some happiness in our lives and give our family some happiness and some level of future. All the time the gap between the minimum wage and many rail workers wages narrows and our standards decline further through no fault of the worker.

Station staff for example, if some havn't had a rise since 2019, the minimum wage has gone up how many times since then, at least 3 surely? And their wage has stood still. Yet some are doing work which requires months of training and a certificate to be competent at. Even if they got a 6 or 7 percent rise now, they have still lost a good load of money because of no rises in line with inflation over previous years and the fact inflation is extremely high at this time and could be likely to top 10 percent shortly and I to next year.

Inflation soaring seems to be a government issue and to a great extent a Bank of England Issue. The government was reported in the media to have accused the Bank of England of not acting soon enough to curb super inflation in the UK only a few days ago.

The real effects fall on ordinary workers who work with the public providing services. How is this their fault in any way? Are we calling them greedy for even suggesting they should not lose even more of their household budgets?

There seems to be a view among some in society that Unions are terrible and should be binned off and banned altogether. Totally contrary to how things were decades ago during the 70s and such like.
We should have a country where workers get together and aspire to be in a union to help the UK to raise their living standards and keep working conditions reasonable and raise them even further as time goes on. This is progress which goes back in history as far as time does. We should be making progress as the decades pass, not racing to the bottom.

We could offer workers in any industry 2 percent rises for years until they are basically on the minimum wage. But how reasonable is this in a rich society such as the UK? Is this what we want? It's not what I want for my children. I want them to have good quality, stable jobs, where they are treated well, enjoy their work, have a say on how their workplace operates, feel valued, make a difference, and are rewarded at a level that meets a reasonable level of living so that they can at least (try and buy a house, little hope of that) or pay all their bills, have children of their own if they want to and save a little for the future and for their own kids.

I feel it's since 2010 and the fear caused by the first financial crisis of 2008 that people have become so much harder in their feelings towards others with regards people should take their job and be grateful as the business must be able to make a profit above all else including happiness and ability to actually meet your own living and housing costs. And let's not forget, housing costs especially down in England are extortionate, around 9 times the average wage now. And the average wage we are told is nearly 30 grand.

If you want really decent public services in a developed and rich union (the UK union) you simply have to be prepared to subsidise these things. If you don't, you get poor services and people don't like it. And we all live here and we don't simply just want to live an existence. They did that in the early 20th century and during the war and it just isn't something we should wish on others.

Look at the transport alternatives, the motorways. They don't make a profit. They have to be subsidised by tax and road tax, and subsidised heavily. We could strip this subsidy right back and recruit companies to take on their operation and charge for each of their use. Tolls everywhere. But we realise some things are worth paying for and just have to be subsidised for them to even be half decent.

And as for comparing any rail wage rises to the public sector pay cap, we should as a country be demanding those in the NHS are given proper rises in line with inflation. Nothing less is acceptable. Not pointing the finger and saying I couldn't have any cake so neither should anyone else. Keep pushing this anti worker pro profit line and it's simply a race to the bottom.

I have been a member of many workforces. Some unionised some not. I've worked in a factory on minimum wage, where the sister factory in another city was Unionised. We were always jealous because they had far better terms than us and we wanted the union, but our branch was opened later and deliberately hired 80 percent part time workers so that they couldn't afford the union, and we never got it.
Having seen how a union can fight for the standards of its members, and the protection is can give Vs no union existing at all, I would 100 percent hope my children can work in a Unionised industry where they are not taken advantage of and threatened with their job at every opportunity, frightened of getting poorly and having to go sick, and earning a poor wage

 

[Falcon1200]

Business want to profiteer (such as the privatised rail operators), these workers just want to keep up (a bit). It's not to profiteer on like shareholders want, it's simply to keep wages in line with rising costs and inflation.

Scotrail is now a nationalised operator so references to profiteering and shareholders are irrelevant to the issue discussed here.

Another question (in addition to the one not yet answered, ie where would the cash to pay higher wage increases come from) is what is the effect of large pay rises on inflation; Surely they would be a major contributor themselves to further inflation ?

 

[387star]

Reading this , some of it seems quite bizarre.

The cost of living is absolutely going through the roof. We keep hearing figures on the television that realtime wages have gone up over 8 percent on average since the start of the pandemic, much of that recently.

It's a fact that many rail workers have not received a rise since 2019. Many who had a rise in early 2020 at the start of the pandemic had one because it was the remainder of a multi year agreement.

Only today the BBC have been reporting on their news channel that wages in hospitality are up on average some 8 percent this year.

Offering pay freezes or rises of one or two percent just isn't going to pay people's bills when all is said and done. And they have no choice but to meet their costs of living, the people sending them the bills are not understanding to their pay freeze or only a 2 percent rise in 3 years. The workers did nothing to cause this cost of living crisis and are somehow ostracised by some for even suggesting they might be offered a rise in line with the rises in the cost of living, just so they don't fall behind. Business want to profiteer (such as the privatised rail operators), these workers just want to keep up (a bit). It's not to profiteer on like shareholders want, it's simply to keep wages in line with rising costs and inflation. We are all, or most of us, working to hopefully have some happiness in our lives and give our family some happiness and some level of future. All the time the gap between the minimum wage and many rail workers wages narrows and our standards decline further through no fault of the worker.

Station staff for example, if some havn't had a rise since 2019, the minimum wage has gone up how many times since then, at least 3 surely? And their wage has stood still. Yet some are doing work which requires months of training and a certificate to be competent at. Even if they got a 6 or 7 percent rise now, they have still lost a good load of money because of no rises in line with inflation over previous years and the fact inflation is extremely high at this time and could be likely to top 10 percent shortly and I to next year.

Inflation soaring seems to be a government issue and to a great extent a Bank of England Issue. The government was reported in the media to have accused the Bank of England of not acting soon enough to curb super inflation in the UK only a few days ago.

The real effects fall on ordinary workers who work with the public providing services. How is this their fault in any way? Are we calling them greedy for even suggesting they should not lose even more of their household budgets?

There seems to be a view among some in society that Unions are terrible and should be binned off and banned altogether. Totally contrary to how things were decades ago during the 70s and such like.
We should have a country where workers get together and aspire to be in a union to help the UK to raise their living standards and keep working conditions reasonable and raise them even further as time goes on. This is progress which goes back in history as far as time does. We should be making progress as the decades pass, not racing to the bottom.

We could offer workers in any industry 2 percent rises for years until they are basically on the minimum wage. But how reasonable is this in a rich society such as the UK? Is this what we want? It's not what I want for my children. I want them to have good quality, stable jobs, where they are treated well, enjoy their work, have a say on how their workplace operates, feel valued, make a difference, and are rewarded at a level that meets a reasonable level of living so that they can at least (try and buy a house, little hope of that) or pay all their bills, have children of their own if they want to and save a little for the future and for their own kids.

I feel it's since 2010 and the fear caused by the first financial crisis of 2008 that people have become so much harder in their feelings towards others with regards people should take their job and be grateful as the business must be able to make a profit above all else including happiness and ability to actually meet your own living and housing costs. And let's not forget, housing costs especially down in England are extortionate, around 9 times the average wage now. And the average wage we are told is nearly 30 grand.

If you want really decent public services in a developed and rich union (the UK union) you simply have to be prepared to subsidise these things. If you don't, you get poor services and people don't like it. And we all live here and we don't simply just want to live an existence. They did that in the early 20th century and during the war and it just isn't something we should wish on others.

Look at the transport alternatives, the motorways. They don't make a profit. They have to be subsidised by tax and road tax, and subsidised heavily. We could strip this subsidy right back and recruit companies to take on their operation and charge for each of their use. Tolls everywhere. But we realise some things are worth paying for and just have to be subsidised for them to even be half decent.

And as for comparing any rail wage rises to the public sector pay cap, we should as a country be demanding those in the NHS are given proper rises in line with inflation. Nothing less is acceptable. Not pointing the finger and saying I couldn't have any cake so neither should anyone else. Keep pushing this anti worker pro profit line and it's simply a race to the bottom.

I have been a member of many workforces. Some unionised some not. I've worked in a factory on minimum wage, where the sister factory in another city was Unionised. We were always jealous because they had far better terms than us and we wanted the union, but our branch was opened later and deliberately hired 80 percent part time workers so that they couldn't afford the union, and we never got it.
Having seen how a union can fight for the standards of its members, and the protection is can give Vs no union existing at all, I would 100 percent hope my children can work in a Unionised industry where they are not taken advantage of and threatened with their job at every opportunity, frightened of getting poorly and having to go sick, and earning a poor wage

This is a very well written post completely agree

 

[pt_mad]

Scotrail is now a nationalised operator so references to profiteering and shareholders are irrelevant to the issue discussed here.

Another question (in addition to the one not yet answered, ie where would the cash to pay higher wage increases come from) is what is the effect of large pay rises on inflation; Surely they would be a major contributor themselves to further inflation ?

I felt it was relevent to the wider issue here as action is also being balloted for in parts of England. And besides that, ScotRail has only just been nationalised. Up until very recently it will have been run in the aim of making money for the business. Presumably that business model will still largely be in place to some extent.

There have been general criticisms made throughout the thread about the role of unions within the industry as a whole. The point of most operators running to make a profit first and foremost, probably above addressing workers living costs is fully valid within the industry as a whole.

If we are saying not here, because ScotRail is nationalised, then surely we can apply the rationale that a rise with inflation should be given to workers at operators which are still making a profit then.

 

[Watershed]

I felt it was relevent to the wider issue here as action is also being balloted for in parts of England. And besides that, ScotRail has only just been nationalised. Up until very recently it will have been run in the aim of making money for the business. Presumably that business model will still largely be in place to some extent.

There have been general criticisms made throughout the thread about the role of unions within the industry as a whole. The point of most operators running to make a profit first and foremost, probably above addressing workers living costs is fully valid within the industry as a whole.

Since the pandemic, all operators have been under contracts whereby their level of costs has made little difference (if any) to the profit they made. The nationalisation of ScotRail has only really changed things insofar as a slightly smaller management fee is now paid to consultants rather than a 'franchise' owning group.

Workers' pay hasn't had any impact on profitability for years now, and even prior to the pandemic major deals still had to be signed off by the DfT (or devolved equivalent).

 

[43096]

Not apocalyptic but 20% is a big number.

When you add in that the railway has a major problem with cost management, it is a big problem. Going against all normal business logic, the railway has somehow managed to need more subsidy in recent pre-pandemic years despite growing passenger numbers - normal business behaviour is that as you grow revenue the profit increases/level of subsidy decreases. Now the music has stopped, that is a big problem - they're saddled with the extra costs that are out of proportion not just of an 80% railway but of a 100% railway.

It's hard to see how pay rises can be afforded in that scenario - again in any normal business it would be pay freeze and job cuts in a scenario where revenue was 20% down. Just because this is taxpayer funded, I don't see why it should be any different. I'd rather the industry was growing so that pay rises could be afforded, but that's not the case.

 

[pt_mad]

Since the pandemic, all operators have been under contracts whereby their level of costs has made little difference (if any) to the profit they made. The nationalisation of ScotRail has only really changed things insofar as a slightly smaller management fee is now paid to consultants rather than a 'franchise' owning group.

Workers' pay hasn't had any impact on profitability for years now, and even prior to the pandemic major deals still had to be signed off by the DfT (or devolved equivalent).

This arguement rather goes FOR ScotRail having a decent pay rise then. It says workers pay hasn't had any impact on profitability. Can't they have a rise in line with the cost of living increase then if money can still be made? If its not profit it will go back to the government coffers.

On a general note, I challenge anyone to find someone who would be truly happy and sincere in saying that they themselves earn a modest or low household wage, and would volunteer and be glad to take pay freezes or low pay rises for years to come while minimum wage goes up yearly and inflation is running sky high on principal that they should; who doesn't moan about it, chooses not to join a union in a Unionised industry or goes against the union advice where there is one and doesn't want better conditions, or deliberately works in a non Unionised workforce for the reason of they don't believe in collective worker bargaining and believe the employer should have all the power. I don't believe there would be many people earning less than the average wage who could sincerely say that's them, unless they are in management in some industry, or accounting. Wealthy directors and Boses maybe. They can be creative in their roles and shop around and negotiate their agreements, and they're not earning 2 pounds 50 above minimum wage, they can afford pay freezes just like the MPs. It's always someone else, who'd be prepared to say yes I'd take that on a low wage as it's truly all we deserve and we are lucky at that?

And like I said before, who would admit wanting that for their kids? It'd take a strange person.

There's poor people working 40 hours a week for minimum wage in heavy industries who have to pay all their bills themselves and many of who are in debt or using food banks. We can't simply start saying because others are being forced to do that through no worker protection, that rail workers should ignore the unions and thank themselves lucky they earn 2 pounds fifty more an hour on the station (at the moment, the gap is shrinking) and they should give up their protections by the industry losing its Unionised status.

Let's support worker bargaining and rights for workers across all industries. That's the future I want for my family and future generations.

 

[Watershed]

This arguement rather goes FOR ScotRail having a decent pay rise then. It says workers pay hasn't had any impact on profitability. Can't they have a rise in line with the cost of living increase then if money can still be made? If its not profit it will go back to the government coffers.

It hasn't had any direct impact on the profitability of the TOCs - so it nullifies any argument about TOCs being profit hungry or anything in that vein.

Instead it comes at the expense of the taxpayer. And having campaigned for ScotRail to be nationalised for years, suddenly the unions are not so happy that this makes them subject to public sector pay policy...

I'm not against unions but I do think they need to pick their battles, and whilst a pay freeze (or marginal increase) makes for a very uncomfortable position amidst the highest inflation in decades, the reality is that high inflation is the economy's way of saying to people that they need to cut back.

It is a fallacy to imagine that everyone can maintain their living standards when there are shortages of grain due to the war in Ukraine, for example. Something has to give.

 

[pt_mad]

It hasn't had any direct impact on the profitability of the TOCs - so it nullifies any argument about TOCs being profit hungry or anything in that vein.

Instead it comes at the expense of the taxpayer. And having campaigned for ScotRail to be nationalised for years, suddenly the unions are not so happy that this makes them subject to public sector pay policy...

I'm not against unions but I do think they need to pick their battles, and whilst a pay freeze (or marginal increase) makes for a very uncomfortable position amidst the highest inflation in decades, the reality is that high inflation is the economy's way of saying to people that they need to cut back.

It is a fallacy to imagine that everyone can maintain their living standards when there are shortages of grain due to the war in Ukraine, for example. Something has to give.

But the whole point is if we want decent public services, we must subsidise them to a level that makes them satisfactory or preferably above satisfactory to use.

Try and make a leisure centre bring a profit. But is the answer just to close the leisure centre or sack some of the staff and give the rest pay freezes? Perhaps just employ on zero hours contracts in minimum wage. This government (UK government, not Scottish) in a lot of scenarios would shut the leisure centre regardless of the impact it may have in the community or for young people.
And yet, taxes in the whole have gone up. The temporary rise in VAT still hadn't been reduced (will it ever?) and national insurance has gone up now.

We have a large country park a few miles from where we live, and there's a cafe there. The cafe makes a loss, but the council subsidises it as part of their country parks provisions as they recognise the wellbeing it brings to the community. They don't tell the staff they can't pay them and need volunteers, they subsidise it nearly in full.

We must as a society avoid this general casualisation and deterioration of working standards and the way we treat the working class

 

[Mat17]

Teaching runs on overtime - invariably unpaid for support staff. All those school trips that go past the end of the usual school day are worked gratis.

It’s hardly the RMT’s fault Scotrail doesn’t employ enough staff to run the basic service. But as usual railway staff are cast as greedy when they work overtime, lazy/militant when they don’t.



If you think that’s what a trade union is supposed to do you fundamentally misunderstand what they are and what their purpose is…



The usual insulting nonsense. Not everyone who works for the NHS does a frontline role. The NHS positively dwarfs the railway in terms of cost, waste and inefficiency, so maybe start criticising that before you moan about railway staff wanting a modest pay rise.



As a taxpayer who continued working throughout the pandemic I think it was outrageous that able bodied people were paid £30k per year of taxpayers’ to sit at home. I wonder how many of those criticising railway staff have benefited from furlough…

£5bn isn’t it that the government can afford to simply being write off due to fraudulent claims for Covid support, yet there’s no money to give railway staff a pay rise? Don’t make me laugh…

Politicians got a pay rise.

 

[Starmill]

The temporary rise in VAT still hadn't been reduced (will it ever?) and national insurance has gone up now.

What temporary rise? When has a VAT reduction been mentioned?

Also, while the rate of NICs has gone up, from July the allowance is increasing so much that this produces a significant net tax bill reduction for almost everyone.

Let's support worker bargaining and rights for workers across all industries. That's the future I want for my family and future generations.

I think that everyone who comments regularly here is in firm agreement that public sector pay should be fair, and that nearly everyone who works in the public sector (and certainly everyone who is not an additional rate taxpayer) deserves at minimum inflationary rises every year. Unfortunately, lots of those same people who comment here are also the usual type of fiscal hawk who argue against tax increases or complain about spending on public services as wasteful. It is well established that you should not borrow to fund current spending (though we do) except in times of emergency.

 

[pt_mad]

What temporary rise? When has a VAT reduction been mentioned?

Also, while the rate of NICs has gone up, from July the allowance is increasing so much that this produces a significant net tax bill reduction for almost everyone.

My point is things are being cut in general, while taxes on working people are rising, not falling, and not staying the same. It's been widely reported that we are being taxed at the highest levels for well over 50 years. You'd expect supreme public services as good value for that.

And that rise in thresholds was a last minute change due to the uproar regarding the lack of help over the cost of living and the answer being a £150 energy loan when prices rise again in October to a yet to be announced rate.

At any rate, there don't seem to be many UK government supporters my way which was seen in the latest election results locally in my neck of the woods.

 

[TUC]

But the whole point is if we want decent public services, we must subsidise them to a level that makes them satisfactory or preferably above satisfactory to use.

Try and make a leisure centre bring a profit. But is the answer just to close the leisure centre or sack some of the staff and give the rest pay freezes? Perhaps just employ on zero hours contracts in minimum wage. This government (UK government, not Scottish) in a lot of scenarios would shut the leisure centre regardless of the impact it may have in the community or for young people.
And yet, taxes in the whole have gone up. The temporary rise in VAT still hadn't been reduced (will it ever?) and national insurance has gone up now.

We have a large country park a few miles from where we live, and there's a cafe there. The cafe makes a loss, but the council subsidises it as part of their country parks provisions as they recognise the wellbeing it brings to the community. They don't tell the staff they can't pay them and need volunteers, they subsidise it nearly in full.

We must as a society avoid this general casualisation and deterioration of working standards and the way we treat the working class

The difference is that many country parks and leisure centres have opened in recent decades so there is at least an opportunity to determine what staffing models, wages etc are needed for the modern world. The rail industry consistently fails to look radically at how to deliver services differently and how many staff they do or don't need. We should not subside the costs which arise from a failure to do this.

 

[pt_mad]

I think that everyone who comments regularly here is in firm agreement that public sector pay should be fair, and that nearly everyone who works in the public sector (and certainly everyone who is not an additional rate taxpayer) deserves at minimum inflationary rises every year. Unfortunately, lots of those same people who comment here are also the usual type of fiscal hawk who argue against tax increases or complain about spending on public services as wasteful. It is well established that you should not borrow to fund current spending (though we do) except in times of emergency.

And that is exactly the point I was getting at. Those on the lower incomes should have an inflationary rise. You've said every year, most havnt had one at all since 2019, some had a couple of percent and the like ore agreed for early 2020.

I feel that many do not feel these workers should get a rise with inflation.

To be honest, as soon as it started hitting the news about this super inflation, when they were saying it could possibly hit 6 percent before settling towards the end if the year, I thought, this smells like trouble. Because the unions will naturally want to start from a base of the inflation rate. And rail operators aren't likely to want to even start talking about anything above say 3 and a half percent and if the DFT aren't interested then forget it all together.

The government and bank of England not even trying to get an early hold on this has not helped at all, and it was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Because the government seems to expect the worker to take the burden, to accept they shouldn't expect a rose anything like their costs are going up, and should absorb all the pain themselves until they're told anything changes. On what world was that ever going to work?

 

[181]

If passenger numbers are 80% and business/season ticket revenue is down, revenue will be far lower than 80%. Leisure travellers typically travel on lower priced tickets.

I'm sure that we're all delighted to hear this. I think that some were sceptical because the published graphs were for passengers, not revenue. I guess that the move to longer distance leisure journeys cancels out the loss of full fare traffic over shorter distances.

Loss of business travel no doubt causes a disproprtionate loss in revenue, but I'm not convinced about commuters -- if the London fares from my local (Great Western) station are typical (and I've no reason to think they're not), commuters and off-peak leisure travellers pay roughly the same amount per journey. (Figures here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/post-covid-passenger-rebound.229889/#post-5598601).

 

[pt_mad]

The difference is that many country parks and leisure centres have opened in recent decades so there is at least an opportunity to determine what staffing models, wages etc are needed for the modern world. The rail industry consistently fails to look radically at how to deliver services differently and how many staff they do or don't need. We should not subside the costs which arise from a failure to do this.

These models however, if implemented recently, will often be pro business/profits and low on worker rights. That is not an ethical way to operate really in a society as civilised and wealthy as ours. There are rich business people setting up these arrangements and deciding it's ok to hire a workforce who are all under 21 on the lower end of minimum wage on zero hours contracts who if they complain, will simply stop being offered any work. This is not good.

The second part, it sounds like what you are perhaps suggesting is restructuring to make efficiencies. This kind of thing would inevitably carry a big cost in a Unionised industry, as if it faces resistance, the cost of action would have to be weighed up against the benefits of change. Plus the hit to customer confidence would have to be factored in, and whether the customer might feel the business should side with the workers or not.

Restructuring though, would also need to include changes from the top of any organisation. Salaries add up quickly there. And when all is said and done, customers anywhere do want to see staff out and about, and want them available and with a motivated attitude so they are happy to be helping ideally, particularly those who have accessibility needs.

Also, the suggestions in some posts of passenger numbers being down meaning staffing costs should be cut, if we look historically across the UK, we should look at some of the passenger figures through the mid 2000s. Many many locations have doubled their patronage since then, and yet they had the same staffing levels or even more staff back then.

If overall use is averaging peaks of 75 percent and rising, and leisure is often topping pre pandemic level, then I think these rates will still be above where they were in the mid 2000s where many places had more staff or the same as today. It was for some reason felt fine at that time.

 

[Buffer stop]

Government are out to break the Unions and are happy to sit back and let them eat them selfs alive.

No rest day working, just cut the service to a manageable level without it and move on.

XC and other have done this and many more will do the same.

The plan is to put the gun to head firmly back in the holster.

 

[Furrball]

ScotRail now tweeting and putting onto CIS that alternative transport cannot be guaranteed

https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/1526646485311442945

Securing rail replacement transport is much harder compared to pre-pandemic times so we can't guarantee alternative transport during disruption.

A fall in the number of available bus & taxi drivers coinciding with greater demand as the economy opens up means less availability. https://t.co/QOG9ps3bqS

 

[pt_mad]

Government are out to break the Unions and are happy to sit back and let them eat them selfs alive.

No rest day working, just cut the service to a manageable level without it and move on.

XC and other have done this and many more will do the same.

The plan is to put the gun to head firmly back in the holster.

We are I guess getting off topic but according to a friend at NWR, some of the XC Turbo routes are now very nearly back at the pre pandemic timetable.

Some places now have a recruitment freeze if it's not maintainance staff or essential train crew. So they're bound to struggle in areas if good will for overtime is gone. Recruitment freezes themselves will bring automatic efficiencies, but inevitably lead to loss in level of service which can be provided in the part of the organist affected and could de-motivate remaining staff if they're left feeling they are having to do the work of more than one person because of it.

A wise director somewhere once told me the best piece of advice he ever heard was keep your staff onside, you never know when you might need them. He later departed this organisation (non railway) by choice. The next person took a different view and ended up getting pushed out.

 

[Carlisle]

A wise director somewhere once told me the best piece of advice he ever heard was keep your staff inside, you never know when you night need them.

There appeared to be around 15 years of post privatisation honeymoon period where that was a relatively simple task for all concerned given the long hours/ low wage culture of much of its predecessor BR, alongside emerging high passenger growth, but little consensus or easy solutions since then .

 

[muz379]

Government are out to break the Unions and are happy to sit back and let them eat them selfs alive.

No rest day working, just cut the service to a manageable level without it and move on.

XC and other have done this and many more will do the same.

The plan is to put the gun to head firmly back in the holster.

RDW isn't just about running the job today though . It's also about training and over a long period of time being unable to do any training could have drastic consequences for keeping the job going.

 

[pt_mad]

There was around 15 years of post privatisation honeymoon period where that was a relatively easy task for all sides given how low BR wages were alongside several years of very impressive growth .but little consensus since then .

Oh totally.

And the operators have made billions after costs have been paid, which is why they operate as businesses and are in the transport game. And it seems reasonable that staff could expect a small slice of the cake for their contribution.

I think that's what the RMT are talking about when they talk about nationalisation. They envisage the profit which has historically been made, being pumped back into the system and used to improve services, facilities for all, maintain good staffing levels, offer career opportunities and rewarding staff at a level where they can live a reasonable life and be happy in their work. Unfortunately depending on who's in charge, it is possible nationalisation could lead to the desire for cost cutting in every possible area, where the profit once enjoyed is long forgotten and all focus goes on reducing cost to as low as is possible.

Many organisations were restructured around the millennium. Bizarrely though, many areas were given allocation of more staff than they have today, even though the growth we have since seen was not foreseen at that time. As I say, a lot of the reduced passenger levels are the moment well above those of the millennium. The 1990s conservatives appeared to think the railways had had their day. Restructuring after privatisation (under a Labour government) still often lead to reasonable staffing levels, particularly on stations, and acceptable terms, terms which today, it seems some feel are far too generous given the decline in customer service working conditions across society more generally. Some feel that the low level conditions should be rolled out nationally to reflect wider society. That at some point would hit those people themselves, unless they are in high status jobs, and then they'd need to make sure their families were taken care of in other ways too, otherwise poor conditions would trickle down to them too in time.

 

[Frankfurt]

All part of their workforce reform plan no doubt

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

We are I guess getting off topic but according to a friend at NWR, some of the XC Turbo routes are now very nearly back at the pre pandemic timetable.

Some places now have a recruitment freeze if it's not maintainance staff or essential train crew. So they're bound to struggle in areas if good will for overtime is gone. Recruitment freezes themselves will bring automatic efficiencies, but inevitably lead to loss in level of service which can be provided in the part of the organist affected and could de-motivate remaining staff if they're left feeling they are having to do the work of more than one person because of it.

A wise director somewhere once told me the best piece of advice he ever heard was keep your staff onside, you never know when you might need them. He later departed this organisation (non railway) by choice. The next person took a different view and ended up getting pushed out.

Thing is loads of posts above refer to cost of living issues which is very real so if workers are under pressure to pay bills they ought to want the overtime and that keeps the job going. Its not the way the industry should be run but it will only ever be rectified by an a wholesale rethink to the way staff are rostered and the starting point has to be a recognition by unions that its starts with 7 day working. It will cost more but it will be funded in part by offering a reliable service 7 days a week that will ensure patronage increases but it will also need efficiencies in working methods by not only staff but the whole structure of running the railway. The operators are being pressurised to make all the savings whilst NR is being funded for a railway that isn't moving the level of traffic anymore so they need to cut there cloth as well.

 

[43066]

Its not the way the industry should be run but it will only ever be rectified by an a wholesale rethink to the way staff are rostered and the starting point has to be a recognition by unions that its starts with 7 day working.

Why is it posters on here seem incapable of acknowledging that not everything they see as bad about the railway is the fault of the unions?

Once again, it’s not the unions that are opposed to bringing Sundays inside on principle (indeed many TOCs have this for new starters). The reason it has been resisted is because TOCs find it cheaper to rely on overtime for Sundays. There are also good reasons for it - Sundays are still quieter than week days and engineering works has to be done at some point. If you’ve got a full complement of staff rostered to sit around spare when nothing is running anyway because there are blocks on, they won’t be available to you another day during the week.

Thing is loads of posts above refer to cost of living issues which is very real so if workers are under pressure to pay bills they ought to want the overtime and that keeps the job going.

Or they might simply want an increase in their basic pay, commensurate with the fact they’ve continued working throughout the pandemic etc. Or they might simply choose to economise. It certainly doesn’t follow that people will feel they have no choice but to spend more time at work doing overtime (clearly sweeteners such as paying time and a half can be very effective at attracting people).

Government are out to break the Unions and are happy to sit back and let them eat them selfs alive.

No rest day working, just cut the service to a manageable level without it and move on.

Not sure this is necessarily true - the RDW withdrawal has only taken place at XC who are (for reasons I can’t remember but I think have been explained on other threads) about the only TOC not short of operational staff. Possibly also at Northern?

It seems doubtful that reducing RDW, or bringing Sundays inside for that matter, will be attractive at a time when costs are being scrutinised. Especially as it seems revenue is bouncing back rather better than many had expected.

 

[ComUtoR]

rectified by an a wholesale rethink to the way staff are rostered and the starting point has to be a recognition by unions that its starts with 7 day working. It will cost more but it will be funded in part by offering a reliable service 7 days a week

We are currently in a time where both sides are desperate and change is vital to the overall health of the industry. Productivity needs to increase and efficiency needs to be gained.

TOCs should be taking this opportunity to put those demands to the Unions. 8% wage rise for a 7 day working week should be on the table, but it isn't.

I'd be interested to know what the revenue share option was. Linking bonuses and pay to some form of KPI can benefit both staff and employer.

 

[John Bishop]

We are currently in a time where both sides are desperate and change is vital to the overall health of the industry. Productivity needs to increase and efficiency needs to be gained.

TOCs should be taking this opportunity to put those demands to the Unions. 8% wage rise for a 7 day working week should be on the table, but it isn't.

I'd be interested to know what the revenue share option was. Linking bonuses and pay to some form of KPI can benefit both staff and employer.

As would we! Scotrail provided no details to ASLEF about the scheme, yet expected us to agree to it.

From the BBC this morning- Public Sector Teachers in Scotland are calling for a 10% pay rise due to the rise in the cost of living. The STUC is warning of a “summer of industrial action” in Scotland if no higher pay deals are offered.

Personally I can see most Public Sectors getting in on the action, especially when they see other industries rolling up their sleeves ready for a pay fight.

 

[ScotsRail]

If it was adequately staffed there would not even be a concept of rest day working, it doesn’t exist in most businesses

If running your business is dependent on your staff working on their day off then clearly you are not properly running said business.

To me this isn't Covid related, there were the self same issues pre pandemic, Scotrail no matter who is running it seems unable for some reason to be able to recruit enough staff to cover a 7 day operation.