Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[ComUtoR]

I'm not sure that anything that's been discussed in this thread would require a change at all.

And yet, it is being proposed and specifically highlighted as part of the agreement. Something that is already in place....

All that is being suggested is changing the amount of time it takes to learn a route - tailoring it to an individual's needs/skillset/ability to learn, rather than setting a set length of time for everyone.

As you can see from the standard. All that is already in place. What the RDG are not seeing is that the process is one where those standards are set and adhered too. The TOCs produce their own individual norms based on the standards and guidelines agreed too, they submit that as part of their individual safety case, set out the competency management locally, agree local policy and procedure, and then make sure its implemented and applied in practice.

If a TOC wanted to introduce a new route learning norm, and to essentially agree to these new proposals (that are already in place), whereby new timescales are introduced etc. they absolutley could. What exactly is the RDG proposing to introduce ? Are they proposing fundamental change in our Victorian working practice (updated in 2020) ? Are they proposing to change the existing standard to reflect this 'new' way of learning a route ? or are they just ripping up the existing TOC procedures with no clue but based on the current anti union rhetoric ?

It's all well and good parroting back what the RDG are proposing but when you start to break down the technical details and look at what would be required if fundamental changes were to be implemented. It all starts to get a little murky.

 

[dctraindriver]

I think you might have misunderstood.

I just checked, I paid nearly £30k in tax and NI last year. The government gets its money from people like me, trust me.

How much OT have you done for that? Feel free to PM if preferred.

 

[Dai Corner]

Err, that’s simple. It either prints more (or rather, gets the Bank of England to have a quantitative easing programme) or it borrows from lenders via government bonds. Occasionally it will actually have a reasonable tax policy. But normally all governments spend more than they get in taxes. That’s why we are always in a mess, the overall tax income is not high enough.

Oh, one other point. Which parts of our society spends the most money in shops and for services (I mean as a group, not individuality)?

How healthy do you think our economy would be if the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise (by this, I mean a pay rise that does not depend on trading T&Cs or on so called productivity improvements)?

If the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise, then overall spending would fall year on year, and we normally call that recession…

If the Government creates or borrows money or people are paid more without a corresponding increase in production we end up with too many pounds chasing too few goods and services and prices tend to increase. We call that inflation. It's a difficult balancing act which Governments haven't always been successful at.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The very mention of that name makes my blood boil!

Lovely man in real life

 

[dctraindriver]

Lovely man in real life

Which one are you referring too? There’s quite a few aliases….

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Which one are you referring too? There’s quite a few aliases….

Very droll. I get your meaning

 

[dctraindriver]

Very droll.

Thank you. Also true.

 

[bramling]

Lovely man in real life

Is politics not real life?

 

[JonathanH]

That’s why we are always in a mess, the overall tax income is not high enough.

Indeed, overall tax income is not high enough but the tax burden is already at its highest level since the 1940s. Some difficult decisions need to be made about which taxes have scope to be increased further.

At the moment, workers whose income is effectively set by the Treasury (therefore including rail workers) are effectively being made to pay to keep taxes lower than they could be. A question is whether, if taxes could be raised, the additional income should be spent on pay increases for those workers or to restore funding to public services.

 

[Bantamzen]

Err, that’s simple. It either prints more (or rather, gets the Bank of England to have a quantitative easing programme) or it borrows from lenders via government bonds. Occasionally it will actually have a reasonable tax policy. But normally all governments spend more than they get in taxes. That’s why we are always in a mess, the overall tax income is not high enough.

Oh, one other point. Which parts of our society spends the most money in shops and for services (I mean as a group, not individuality)?

How healthy do you think our economy would be if the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise (by this, I mean a pay rise that does not depend on trading T&Cs or on so called productivity improvements)?

If the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise, then overall spending would fall year on year, and we normally call that recession…

Whilst I don't disagree on the issue that generally speaking workers should get pay rises that at least match cost of living, there are factors in play which mean at the moment not only would this risk driving inflation further but actually may not be possible at all in many circumstances (remember extra staffing costs generally feed back to the end users, and in this case said users are already being squeezed). Some of these factors we have no control over, so if we continue to try and match them we will end up borrowing more still, maybe even using quantitively easing. All of which can devalue the pound, making imported goods and services more expensive, thus driving inflation further. Carry on too far down that path and we'll need wheelbarrows just to carry enough cash to by a loaf of bread.

As for "so called" productivity, are you suggesting there is no scope to improve rail productivity to try to improve performance & recover the lost revenue? Rather than there be this Mexican standoff between DfT, the TOCs & the unions, they all need to stop this p*ssing contest & get their heads together to only resolve this dispute, but figure out ways to get both patronage and revenue levels back up to pre-covid levels. And this will involve looking at new ways to improve productivity & make the industry more efficient, without of course compromising on safety. In fact it is in the interest of all in the industry that this happens, because we've watched the private sector steadily back away as they have struggled to make their investments work & handed back responsibility to the government. So now the industry relies more than ever post-BR days on public funding, and that is a very, very finite pot. As anyone with half a brain in the public sector will tell you, continually improve or say bye bye. The alternative to this is for the industry to get private financing back in love with it. But that will also require improvements. So either way, change isn't just coming, it is needed.

 

[43066]

Lovely man in real life

An odious individual indeed. I do so hope he loses his seat.

not only would this risk driving inflation further

The fact you keep parroting the propaganda of this government speaks volumes. It’s economically illiterate fear mongering to suggest that modest pay rises in the public sector are going to lead to hyperinflation/wheelbarrows full of cash. Especially when real earnings have fallen significantly over the last 10-15 years (and notably the same government has awarded large increases to other groups with apparently no concerns about inflation).

It’s about as plausible as Sunak claiming public sector pay rises will cost every household £1000 (ignoring the increase in tax receipts), or putting his “man of the people” face on and discussing his imaginary personal experience of using the NHS.

 

[irish_rail]

If the Dft really wanted prodictivity savings they'd end this daft policy of crewing trains with 4 driver changes on route, ie Pz - Plymouth - Exeter - Reading - Paddington, or Liverpool - Manchester- Leeds - Newcastle. Its plain daft. They talk about productivity, yet it is the dft who appear to be the unproductive ones!

 

[Bantamzen]

The fact you keep parroting the propaganda of this government speaks volumes. It’s economically illiterate fear mongering to suggest that modest pay rises in the public sector are going to lead to hyperinflation/wheelbarrows full of cash. Especially when real earnings have fallen significantly over the last 10-15 years (and notably the same government has awarded large increases to other groups with apparently no concerns about inflation).

It’s about as plausible as Sunak claiming pay rises will cost every household £1000 (ignoring the increase in tax receipts), or talking about his personal experience of using the NHS.

But they are not moderate pay rises being sought, I mean do you consider the 19% being chased by nurses unions moderate? Even my own union is chasing 10-15%. And let's not kid ourselves here, when the rail unions started the industrial action, were they really going for something 4+4 or even 5+5? Please don't try to say they were, like all the other unions they went in looking for inflation level rates. If the government had / did cave on these demands, that would help drive inflation. Its not fearmongering, its sadly the way things are. As wages go up, so employers look to cut their losses, and pass them on to the punters. This drives inflation. I don't like it, I don't want it to be this way, but it is.

Now I understand you've been used to an industry where if the shareholders are happy, decent pay rises could be negotiated. And that's fair enough. But now the shareholders are taxpayers, or more accurately the bean counters at the Treasury. And they are not happy, thanks to the government p*ssing good money after bad on covid based restrictions such as forcing people to stay at home & unable to work. I agree that furlough went on for way too long, but would you have had people living off a fraction of their income on benefits instead, just so that it might be a bit easier for your union to get you a better deal? I'm sorry but it is what it is, the world is in a mess, the government is in a mess, the public sector is in a mess, and frankly so is the rail industry. You guys joined this boat when the private sector started to say "Nope!" and hand back franchises. Maybe the real question is why & what could the industry have done to prevent you being handed on a plate to the Chancellor....??

 

[XIX7007177]

If the Dft really wanted prodictivity savings they'd end this daft policy of crewing trains with 4 driver changes on route, ie Pz - Plymouth - Exeter - Reading - Paddington, or Liverpool - Manchester- Leeds - Newcastle. It’s plain daft. They talk about productivity, yet it is the dft who appear to be the unproductive ones!

They took away routes from drivers then have the nerve to cancel trains due to shortage of train crew.

 

[TrainSpy]

Not in the vast majority of cases, no.

Ah ok - that's not the impression I got from other posts. Thanks.

What part of my post is ‘righteous indignation’? I just stated a fact that I’ve had several pay rises over the years, both from the railway and jobs before that, where I haven’t had to trade any terms and conditions. A few years ago we turned down a large pay rise that had lots of strings attached and accepted a smaller one with fewer strings. No indignation.

It was a general comment SJN, not meant to refer to you apols

And yet, it is being proposed and specifically highlighted as part of the agreement. Something that is already in place....

The standards allowing for it doesn't necessarily mean it is in place, or in place everywhere.

As you can see from the standard. All that is already in place. What the RDG are not seeing is that the process is one where those standards are set and adhered too. The TOCs produce their own individual norms based on the standards and guidelines agreed too, they submit that as part of their individual safety case, set out the competency management locally, agree local policy and procedure, and then make sure its implemented and applied in practice.

Think that answers your first question. The TOCs produce those norms, and they want to change them. Specifically, they appear to want to remove minimum tariffs for route learning. As those tariffs are agreed with TUs, they want the changes to be part of the deal.

If a TOC wanted to introduce a new route learning norm, and to essentially agree to these new proposals (that are already in place), whereby new timescales are introduced etc. they absolutley could. What exactly is the RDG proposing to introduce ? Are they proposing fundamental change in our Victorian working practice (updated in 2020) ?

The standards were updated in 2020, they are standards by which the working practises must comply.

Fundamentally, it doesn't dictate how they are complied with. In simpler terms, a standard might require a process to be written down and stored - it might not specify whether it has to be carved in stone, handwritten, typed on a typewriter or written in Word; nor does it specify whether its stored in a scroll, a ring binder, or on a floppy disk. Any of those methods would be compliant, but some may fit the 'Victorian' description more than others.

Are they proposing to change the existing standard to reflect this 'new' way of learning a route ? or are they just ripping up the existing TOC procedures with no clue but based on the current anti union rhetoric ?

They're proposing to change the way TOCs manage those things. The ASLEF document is very clear that broad terms changes happen at a national level, which will be subject to detailed negotiations locally - where those changes aren't already in place.

It's all well and good parroting back what the RDG are proposing but when you start to break down the technical details and look at what would be required if fundamental changes were to be implemented. It all starts to get a little murky.

I'm not trying to advocate for the RDG (train operator) proposals, just trying to balance the natural initial reaction to rubbish them all.

 

[43066]

And let's not kid ourselves here, when the rail unions started the industrial action, were they really going for something 4+4 or even 5+5? Please don't try to say they were, like all the other unions they went in looking for inflation level rates.

Does it need to be pointed out (yet again) how a negotiation works? The same unions have settled for 6-and-a-bit % in Scotland and Wales.

I agree that furlough went on for way too long, but would you have had people living off a fraction of their income on benefits instead, just so that it might be a bit easier for your union to get you a better deal?

What a bizarre comment. You need to stop vilifying the railway and its unions and start looking at where the real fault lies for the mess this country is in.

You guys joined this boat when the private sector started to say "Nope!" and hand back franchises.

Actually that was because the DfT screwed up the forecasts for passenger growth.

 

[Bantamzen]

Does it need to be pointed out (yet again) how a negotiation works? The same unions have settled for 6-and-a-bit % in Scotland and Wales.

Yes I know, I was a rep for many years. But my point in all this is that this was never the time to go for unrealistic targets. All they have achieved is to help delay the process.

What a bizarre comment. You need to stop vilifying the railway and its unions and start looking at where the real fault lies for the mess this country is in.

Coming from someone who vilified people who were furloughed, a point I was trying to subtly address. I do agree the government are crap, but as a passenger I can safely say the same about the railways. And that perception isn't helped by the constant stream of blaming someone else from all sides. All sides need to stop posturing, go into a room and not come out until they have a plan to sort all of this out & give us paying punters a service where don't need a mystic as part of a journey planner.

Actually that was because the DfT screwed up the forecasts for passenger growth.

That may have been the reason for NXEC, although the crap service might have been a factor in the punters not showing up. But for Arriva Rail North, that was a whole host of cluster-you-know-whats. And as an outsider looking in, this seems to run through the industry. Sorry but that's just how it looks, and nothing I've read on any of these threads changes my mind right now.

 

[43066]

Yes I know, I was a rep for many years. But my point in all this is that this was never the time to go for unrealistic targets. All they have achieved is to help delay the process.

Well then you should understand how a negotiation works, and perhaps you shouldn’t simply swallow the propaganda out out by this incompetent and unpleasant government. The unions are pragmatic and have settled for less than the rate of inflation. As people have continually pointed out the issue isn’t the figures on the table it’s the government playing politics and trying to force through unacceptable changes to Ts and Cs.

Coming from someone who vilified people who were furloughed, a point I was trying to subtly address. I do agree the government are crap, but as a passenger I can safely say the same about the railways. And that perception isn't helped by the constant stream of blaming someone else from all sides. All sides need to stop posturing, go into a room and not come out until they have a plan to sort all of this out & give us paying punters a service where don't need a mystic as part of a journey planner.

I find it rich that many of those people who were paid by the government to do nothing now - seemingly without any sense of irony - begrudge those who worked throughout a pay rise, absolutely.

Whichever side of the dispute you’re on, it’s clear that the government have chosen to drag this out. There’s no reason I can see why the current “offers” couldn’t have been tabled a lot sooner and the negotiation happened last summer, without hundreds of millions of pounds lost in fare revenue and billions lost to the wider economy.

The bits of the railway I use work very well and have done throughout (other than on strike days).

Sorry but that's just how it looks, and nothing I've read on any of these threads changes my mind right now.

I can think of other industries that are far worse in just about every respect (cough NHS cough) yet don’t come in for anything like as much criticism. As a union member I’m really not interested in what people think of the industry I work in (most around my way think it’s fine) and I certainly can’t change it - that’s way above pay grade!! I’m just there to drive trains, drink tea and get paid (in no particular order).

 

[12LDA28C]

I see the RMT/RDG meeting has just broken up. Super short statement from Lynch, which suggests no one is rocking the boat. Sounds like endgame edging closer


You can say it, but by definition if you've got allotted time set for a whole workforce some should do it quicker than that!


So if it can be done now, why is including it in the offer causing such a push back?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding, or just playing devil's advocate?

If you're a driver and you're given 15 days to learn a new route, you have been released from driving duties for that amount of time.

You may well feel confident enough to sign the route after say 12 days, but why should you? You can have 3 more days away from driving duties, as allowed for in your company's Route Learning Norms document. So you take your full 15 days and sign the route on the last day, subject to passing the written and practical assessment.

If that 15 days' guide is taken away, a driver can feign incompetence for pretty much as long as they like, claiming they need more time to learn the route because there is no set timeframe for doing so.

Can you really not see how this would be counterproductive and very unlikely to result in any savings?

 

[Frankfurt]

After 18 months the proposals put forward by the RDG/Government are ridiculous. As Mick Whelan said not 1 line of it is acceptable.
The document is vague and many of the suggestions are unworkable. Let's say it came in the railway would be in even more of an unworkable mess than it is now.
Seriously 18 month + to produce that! It's effectively fire and rehire but without the firing bit.

Pleased it will get kicked in to touch on Monday.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well then you should understand how a negotiation works, and perhaps you shouldn’t simply swallow the propaganda out out by this incompetent and unpleasant government. The unions are pragmatic and have settled for less than the rate of inflation. As people have continually pointed out the issue isn’t the figures on the table it’s the government playing politics and trying to force through unacceptable changes to Ts and Cs.

I don't swallow it though. The simple reality is if staffing costs go up (and they should do within reason), those costs either get passed onto end users. And the higher the cost, the higher the price to the end user.

I find it rich that many of those people who were paid by the government to do nothing now - seemingly without any sense of irony - begrudge those who worked throughout a pay rise, absolutely.

Has it occurred to you that many were paid 20% less to stay at home? That's a pay cut!! As for the rail industry not getting a rise during the pandemic, well get to the back of the queue. The same is true of a lot of people, and a lot of them weren't getting reasonable pay rises before it.

Whichever side of the dispute you’re on, it’s clear that the government have chosen to drag this out. There’s no reason I can see why the current “offers” couldn’t have been tabled a lot sooner and the negotiation happened last summer, without hundreds of millions of pounds lost in fare revenue and billions lost to the wider economy.

Negotiations go two ways, maybe if the unions had stepped up and said "We'd like 10% now, but realise that the country is in an economic mess so we'll take 4+4 (for example) and we'll try to sell that to the members"?

The bits of the railway I use work very well and have done throughout (other than on strike days).

Some of the bits of mine work well too, and some bits are a horror story. Can you get which TransP erm bit I mean?

I can think of other industries that are far worse in just about every respect (cough NHS cough) yet don’t come in for anything like as much criticism. As a union member I’m really not interested in what people think of the industry I work in (most around my way think it’s fine) and I certainly can’t change it - that’s way above pay grade!! I’m just there to drive trains, drink tea and get paid (in no particular order).

Oh believe me it irks to see people snivelling to the NHS, I work in the same building as some of the Dept of Health. And, well let's just say I wouldn't trust them with my loose change let alone my health.

 

[12LDA28C]

Has it occurred to you that many were paid 20% less to stay at home? That's a pay cut!! As for the rail industry not getting a rise during the pandemic, well get to the back of the queue. The same is true of a lot of people, and a lot of them weren't getting reasonable pay rises before it.

Many people were paid 80% of their salary to NOT work. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Where do I sign?

 

[eldomtom2]

Who We Are

RSSB is a not-for-profit company owned by major industry stakeholders. The company is limited by guarantee and is governed by its members and a Board.

www.rssb.co.uk

The RSSB is core to our everyday working across the industry. It sets agreed standards and principles across pretty much everything. IF you need to know the exact distance the lettering is on a signal plate... Visit the group standards. What to know about the latest research into PTI incidents and reduction and mitigation thereof, visit the RSSB. What the RDG are proposing with this new code of practice is already exactly what the RSSB do. Those changes and proposals for route learning are already agreed and in place and has recently been updated. Use of technology etc is already there. No Government rhetoric is needed.

The RSSB manages the Rule Book and Railway Group standards.

They also chair the Traffic Operation and Management Standards Committee (TOMSC) which basically amends the standards and rule books, or agrees deviations to practices.

Yes, I know what the RSSB does. My point is that IIRC there's nothing stopping TOCs from diverging from its rules and standards.

 

[Mag_seven]

We will draw this one to a close now as there appears to have been little progress in Aslef reaching a deal and we are starting to go off topic anyway.

As soon as there have been any significant developments we will look to reopen the thread or start a new one as appropriate.