Unite Network Rail Strikes Off

[Bald Rick]

Given Unite have accepted and TSSA are likely to accept, where does this leave their members in regards to receiving the accepted pay rise? Do they have to wait for the RMT to accept before they get it?

Yep. NR doesn’t know who is in which union (In theory at least). And there’s legal considerations about potential ‘blacklisting’ if you split out one group of people from another to treat them differently if they have the same contracts and collective bargaining rights.

Which grades are they representing ?

All of them.

I suppose NR could split the offer and try to settle with one group of staff on different contracts, say station staff, but I’m not sure if that is a possibility.

 

[HST274]

I have just listened to Mick lynch on the radio who for some reason didn't come up for an answer as to the conditions network rail were changing. The interviewer was saying no working conditions were being changed and I just wondered what the changes were except for pay?

 

[Thirteen]

I have just listened to Mick lynch on the radio who for some reason didn't come up for an answer as to the conditions network rail were changing. The interviewer was saying no working conditions were being changed and I just wondered what the changes were except for pay?

Did Lynch mention why he thought Unite had accepted the offer?

 

[43066]

I have just listened to Mick lynch on the radio who for some reason didn't come up for an answer as to the conditions network rail were changing. The interviewer was saying no working conditions were being changed and I just wondered what the changes were except for pay?

On the maintenance side a lot of work formally done during the day is now going to be done at night when nothing is running, ostensibly for safety reasons, hence people used to working day shifts will be moving to nights. This is an absolutely massive change to Ts and Cs of front line maintenance, as anyone who has ever done any kind of shift work will confirm.

 

[Thirteen]

I do think the RMT's 'Government is blocking a deal' isn't going to hold water with the media if the TSSA result ends up being accept the proposed deal. That might be true for the TOCs but not so much with NR.

 

[Bantamzen]

Did Lynch mention why he thought Unite had accepted the offer?

I would imagine one possible reason would be that it's members might be indicating that they simple cannot afford to lose much more money through strikes. This certainly becoming visible with the RMT.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Did Lynch mention why he thought Unite had accepted the offer?

If you mean the R4 Today interview, he dismissed the Unite acceptance as irrelevant.
In a testy exchange with Michal Husein he increasingly went on a rant about the right wing media and government oppression of the working class...
He also seemed to say that new terms and conditions would be imposed by Network Rail "from today".

During the interview with Mark Harper a few minutes later, he cleverly avoided answering a repeated question about whether the government had added DOO to the TOC demands: essentially, he said modernisation had always been on the agenda, and DOO has been in use since the 1980s.

 

[AM9]

I have just listened to Mick lynch on the radio who for some reason didn't come up for an answer as to the conditions network rail were changing. The interviewer was saying no working conditions were being changed and I just wondered what the changes were except for pay?

As a lay person with no stake either way, I listened to most of the interview this morning, and despite the fact that I don't partularly like Michal Husain's style, I thought that towards the end when Lynch went into a rant about why didn't she ask him about millionaires and 'the working class' and why the questions were all government questions 'through a BBC filter', that he has rather run out of arguments. His responses were not measured and just relied on talking over Husain.
He was also very touchy on the subject of the narrowing majority for continued industrial action.

 

[43066]

During the interview with Mark Harper a few minutes later, he cleverly avoided answering a repeated question about whether the government had added DOO to the TOC demands: essentially, he said modernisation had always been on the agenda, and DOO has been in use since the 1980s.

“Cleverly”?

It was made crystal clear by Harper’s previous obfuscation and failure to answer the question that, on the TOC side, DOO wasn’t on the agenda until the government “cleverly” inserted it at the last minute, thus scuppering the deal that the RDG and unions were close to agreeing.

 

[carriageline]

All the unions are having the same discussion. It is true that more RMT members are affected by the maintenance modernisation than members of the other unions; but it is also true that more RMT members are not affected than in members of the other unions.

Sorry, I stupidly assumed only the RMT would be affected by the MM stuff.. I do wonder what the next stage is, NR are evidently determined to get MM done. RMT are evidently thoroughly opposed to it. It seems NR are going to ‘bulldoze’ it through regardless? Which means if the RMT are not very careful now, they risk losing a lot.

 

[yorksrob]

During the interview with Mark Harper a few minutes later, he cleverly avoided answering a repeated question about whether the government had added DOO to the TOC demands: essentially, he said modernisation had always been on the agenda, and DOO has been in use since the 1980s.

He should have done a Jeremy Paxman on him, it would have been as good an admission as admitting it.

 

[footprints]

“Cleverly”?

It was made crystal clear by Harper’s previous obfuscation and failure to answer the question that, on the TOC side, DOO wasn’t on the agenda until the government “cleverly” inserted it at the last minute, thus scuppering the deal that the RDG and unions were close to agreeing.

Based on the outright rejection of the NR deal by the RMT leadership, there's no evidence they would have accepted a similar deal for the TOCs if only DOO/DCO hadn't been mentioned. The DOO talk obviously doomed it to rejection regardless but there's no real indication that other than that a deal was all but done.

 

[mpthomson]

If you mean the R4 Today interview, he dismissed the Unite acceptance as irrelevant.
In a testy exchange with Michal Husein he increasingly went on a rant about the right wing media and government oppression of the working class...
He also seemed to say that new terms and conditions would be imposed by Network Rail "from today".

During the interview with Mark Harper a few minutes later, he cleverly avoided answering a repeated question about whether the government had added DOO to the TOC demands: essentially, he said modernisation had always been on the agenda, and DOO has been in use since the 1980s.

That was a car crash of an interview from Lynch, he's clearly rattled about what's happened.

 

[Dougal2345]

As a lay person with no stake either way, I listened to most of the interview this morning, and despite the fact that I don't partularly like Michal Husain's style, I thought that towards the end when Lynch went into a rant about why didn't she ask him about millionaires and 'the working class' and why the questions were all government questions 'through a BBC filter', that he has rather run out of arguments. His responses were not measured and just relied on talking over Husain.

But I did wonder at the motivation behind Husain's repeated question about the average amount of pay lost by RMT members during the strike. To the outsider it's of no relevance, and the RMT members affected will already know how much they have lost. So it was hardly a question at all, just a way of saying "Mick Lynch, RMT members should hate you for costing them money". I can understand why he found that annoying.

 

[43066]

Based on the outright rejection of the NR deal by the RMT leadership, there's no evidence they would have accepted a similar deal for the TOCs if only DOO/DCO hadn't been mentioned.

To be fair the NR deal was rejected by the membership, not the leadership. The membership were entirely free to accept the deal if they wished.

On the TOC side, where the majority of members are guards, you seriously think DOO didn’t poison it ? It would have been a hell of a lot closer, and most guard RMT members I speak to would have been quite happy (or at least accepting) of a figure of 8% over two years, similar to that settled on elsewhere. Clearly that was the also feeling of the RMT leadership given that positive movement was acknowledged to be taking place towards something agreeable to both the unions and the industry.

DOO was inserted at the last minute by the government, to deliberately scupper any chance of a deal, Mark Harper has not even denied this. But you are of course free to pretend this wasn’t the government’s deliberate action, and that they’re completely blameless in all this, if it makes you feel better…

 

[footprints]

DOO was inserted at the last minute by the government, to deliberately scupper any chance of a deal, Mark Harper has not even denied this. But you are of course free to pretend this wasn’t the government’s deliberate action, and that they’re completely blameless in all this, if it makes you feel better…

I haven't said the Government are blameless. I've said given the RMT leadership recommended their members reject the NR deal, there's no indication they'd have settled for a similar deal without DOO for the TOCs. For what it's worth, I think the blame lies with both sides in this dispute.

 

[Tw99]

We should be careful about continuing any DOO discussion in this thread about the NR dispute, or it’ll just get locked like all the others.

 

[43066]

I haven't said the Government are blameless. I've said given the RMT leadership recommended their members reject the NR deal, there's no indication they'd have settled for a similar deal without DOO for the TOCs. For what it's worth, I think the blame lies with both sides in this dispute.

The deals were not entirely similar given the changes to maintenance working hours on the NR side.

Can I ask, do you actually work in the railway industry, and actually speak to any RMT members? I notice since joining the forum some years ago you only ever seem to post in relation to industrial disputes, and always from an anti union standpoint.

 

[Silverlinky]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

One piece of strike related legislation I'd like to see is some sort of legal consequence for telling a mistruth, embellishment or outright lie by either the employer or the Union when an industrial dispute is in progress. Answering "no comment" to a question should be allowed, though. This rhetoric and posturing from both sides, where nobody knows who's telling the truth, helps nobody.

(I'd like to see something similar in politics, too, such as a strong legal consequence for wilfully failing to directly answer a question at PMQ, though that's for another thread)

 

[43066]

by either the employer or the Union

In this case, and in many of the “public sector” disputes currently taking place, you’d also need to include the DfT and government in that for a complete picture. Hiding behind the employers and pretending to wash their hands of the whole thing has become a fairly standard tactic!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this case, and in many of the “public sector” disputes currently taking place, you’d also need to include the DfT and government in that for a complete picture. Hiding behind the employers and pretending to wash their hands of the whole thing has become a fairly standard tactic!

Two offences perhaps:

- The wilful publication of inaccurate or misleading information with regard to an ongoing or potential industrial dispute
- The failure to publically retract within a reasonable period of evidence being provided, by way of the same media as the inaccurate information was published, unintentionally inaccurate or misleading information which was published with regard to an ongoing or potential industrial dispute

I reckon that would do it. Probably wouldn't justify prison time but a substantial fine would be an idea.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair the NR deal was rejected by the membership, not the leadership. The membership were entirely free to accept the deal if they wished.

People, for better or worse, generally do what they're advised to do. This wasn't an open vote - the RMT leadership advised members to vote against the deal. Imagine receiving a referendum ballot paper but being advised by the polling station staff to vote "no" to the question! It's not exactly what I'd expect of a party negotiating in good faith.

Of course, exactly the same accusation could be levelled at the government with the highly dubious way they have handled these negotiations. Frankly, there's not going to be a resolution until both sides start accepting they're going to have to compromise and agree to things they don't like. There seems to be no sign of this so far.

One piece of strike related legislation I'd like to see is some sort of legal consequence for telling a mistruth, embellishment or outright lie by either the employer or the Union when an industrial dispute is in progress. Answering "no comment" to a question should be allowed, though. This rhetoric and posturing from both sides, where nobody knows who's telling the truth, helps nobody.

(I'd like to see something similar in politics, too, such as a strong legal consequence for wilfully failing to directly answer a question at PMQ, though that's for another thread)

Whilst this might sound like a good idea on paper, how would this really work in practice? Who would decide what a "mistruth" is? If it's to be the courts, surely you can see that this is just going to make any industrial dispute even more acrimonious and legalistic. You would have accusations flying all over the shop, threats to report comments to the police, and so on. It's just not going to help.

 

[Bantamzen]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

I know he won't have meant it as an insult, but what a silly thing to say, definitely something someone starting to feel the pressure might blurt out. The dispute isn't going as well as some union execs would have liked, and clearly the memberships are starting to get twitchy. And the government will know this, in fact it is probably what they have been hoping for.

 

[Thirteen]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

Jeez, Mick Lynch just fell into a trap by dismissing both Unite and the TSSA because that can be used against him and the RMT in future interviews. It makes him look like a hypocrite saying all unions should be united against the employers and Government but then dismiss unions who have be able to reach an agreement.

 

[43066]

This wasn't an open vote - the RMT leadership advised members to vote against the deal. Imagine receiving a referendum ballot paper but being advised by the polling station staff to vote "no" to the question! It's not exactly what I'd expect of a party negotiating in good faith.

But the ballot is anonymous, and nobody is put under any duress*, as is often implied on here. It’s an entirely free vote and people just need to start to accept the RMT’s members are not idiots making their own decisions, not blindly following whatever they’re being told to do by “union barons”, or being beaten up in the messroom if they don’t vote a certain way…

*Unlike the embarrassing scenes in Parliament of MPs being manhandled by the whips over the summer, speaking of the government!

 

[Thirteen]

I know he won't have meant it as an insult, but what a silly thing to say, definitely something someone starting to feel the pressure might blurt out. The dispute isn't going as well as some union execs would have liked, and clearly the memberships are starting to get twitchy. And the government will know this, in fact it is probably what they have been hoping for.

If I was Unite, I'd be a bit insulted that the largest trade union in the country was being dismissed by another union as miniscule.

 

[Parjon]

If it's true that they want to sack half the staff, and half the staff voted to strike and the other half didn't, then why don't they just say "turn up to work tomorrow or you're sacked for unauthorised absence"?

Who is really pulling this guy's strings.

 

[mpthomson]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

He was close to losing it in two interviews on the radio and did when questioned by Richard Madeley on GMB. He's been ok on the media before this but he really does need to dial back the rhetoric at the moment.

 

[12LDA28C]

I heard Mr Lynch interviewed on 5Live this morning and when asked about the acceptance of the Unite union and the suspension of TSSA action to consider the offer he dismissed both unions as "minuscule".

He did sound less composed than in recent times, more left-wing rhetoric than in recent interviews, and there is still a big difference between what he says (conditions being imposed, half the staff being made redundant) and what the other side were saying (no changes to conditions, no compulsory redundancies)

The conditions imposed as part of the deal have been discussed at length on this forum and are available elsewhere online with a quick Google search. More nightshift and weekend working and a reduction in maintenance regimes for a start. Feel free to look for yourself if you believe the NR propaganda and think no strings are attached.