Yes, but if there aren't any trains to run, they can just spend the shift drinking tea. The railway can't just start running trains because a signaller reports for work. Therefore, they get the desired disruption without losing pay, which is win-win from their point of view.It is reasonable to assume that some of them will come to work during the strikes, especially on the signalling side.
It would appear that, in the RMT's view there is not an acceptable compromise on offer. It is all very well suggesting that the RMT compromise but why should they have to if it isn't what they are seeking.Indeed, the RMT are showing their inability to negotiate or reach a sensible compromise!
Will this strike being called off change the situation for passengers at all?
NoWill this strike being called off change the situation for passengers at all?
This is part of the RMT's problem, unfortunately! Negotiation, by its very nature, involves compromise. In this case it appears to be particularly relevant, seeing as the 'other side' are seemingly holding all of the cards, having done deals with other unions. The 'hard line' approach fails incredibly quickly when the membership get fed up and start coming to work.It would appear that, in the RMT's view there is not an acceptable compromise on offer. It is all very well suggesting that the RMT compromise but why should they have to if it isn't what they are seeking.
DOO is nothing to do with Network Rail and irrelevant to this dispute.But to be fair we all now know that a deal acceptable to both the RDG and the RMT was on the point of being agreed a couple of weeks ago, only for the government to torpedo it by insisting on a universal DOO clause. So how exactly is that the RMT’s fault?!
DOO is nothing to do with Network Rail and irrelevant to this dispute.
Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to the DOO stuff - as you've acknowledged.But to be fair we all now know that a deal acceptable to both the RDG and the RMT was on the point of being agreed a couple of weeks ago, only for the government to deliberately torpedo it by insisting on a universal DOO clause. So how exactly is that the RMT’s fault?!
It feels sometimes like certain posters will always default to an anti union (and especially anti RMT) stance, and refuse to accept anything to suggest they may have a point, or that other parties may be at fault.
You say that but in part at least, RMT signallers are effectively on strike to protect the jobs of guards.DOO is nothing to do with Network Rail and irrelevant to this dispute.
From a PR point of view, the fact other unions have done deals with Network Rail isn't great for the RMT. I can imagine the media and politicians will use this to their advantage to say that they're being greedy, stubborn etc may not be the case in reality but it's going to be harder for Mick Lynch to defend strike action on the NR side of things if his union is the outlier.This is part of the RMT's problem, unfortunately! Negotiation, by its very nature, involves compromise. In this case it appears to be particularly relevant, seeing as the 'other side' are seemingly holding all of the cards, having done deals with other unions. The 'hard line' approach fails incredibly quickly when the membership get fed up and start coming to work.
Signallers are effectively on strike to protect P way jobs possibly, the TOC dispute really has very little to do with it.You say that but in part at least, RMT signallers are effectively on strike to protect the jobs of guards.
While they will desire a better pay settlement, ultimately it seems that their bargaining power isn't enough to get it, and consequently the loss of pay striking will mean that they give up. It could be argued that the RMT is holding out on the Network Rail action to keep the TOC action effective.
Clearly the RMT needs to be very careful not to be seen to be taking secondary action.
I clearly can't do maths, it's meant to be 63/37.
Yes, but if there aren't any trains to run, they can just spend the shift drinking tea. The railway can't just start running trains because a signaller reports for work. Therefore, they get the desired disruption without losing pay, which is win-win from their point of view.
Dumb question - are these basically the same jobs with people choosing between unions? If so surely there can't be another offer as then we are into equal pay territory
Also the RMT leadership recommended that RMT members vote to reject to Network Rail offer so RMT members voting to accept were voting against the recommendation of the RMT leadership.Eligible to vote:18540DEFEND JOBS, PAY AND CONDITIONS - NETWORK RAIL
www.rmt.org.uk
Votes cast:15370 (83%)
Voting to Accept:5598 (36%)
Voting to Reject:9772 (64%)
Rejected by 52.7% of RMT members eligible to vote. Not really big enough to be comfortable, a lot of RMT members voted to accept the offer. Unite members accepted. TSSA recommends acceptance result due Thursday 15 December. Even if Unite and TSSA have far fewer members at Network Rail than the RMT it still shows that the unions are not united on this, the RMT is starting to look isolated.
Eligible to vote:18540DEFEND JOBS, PAY AND CONDITIONS - NETWORK RAIL
www.rmt.org.uk
Votes cast:15370 (83%)
Voting to Accept:5598 (36%)
Voting to Reject:9772 (64%)
Rejected by 52.7% of RMT members eligible to vote. Not really big enough to be comfortable, a lot of RMT members voted to accept the offer. Unite members accepted. TSSA recommends acceptance result due Thursday 15 December. Even if Unite and TSSA have far fewer members at Network Rail than the RMT it still shows that the unions are not united on this, the RMT is starting to look isolated.
Also the RMT leadership recommended that RMT members vote to reject to Network Rail offer so RMT members voting to accept were voting against the recommendation of the RMT leadership.
A union is only as strong as its membership, solidarity is strengthBut we’ve been told repeatedly on threads about this dispute that it’s a free vote and the membership decide what to do for themselves…
It would be interesting to see if the remaining 17% had voted if it would changed the results somewhat.
Remember, RMT are also fighting the “Modernising Maintenance” cuts which most of the other unions (as far as I can see, are not and it’s a ‘straight forward’ pay talk)
You have to consider though that the RMT take the approach of very much lumping everything in together at each company, rather than settling different grades' disputes individually. It makes things slightly opaque for their membership, but presumably the idea is that no one particular issue is left still outstanding when others have been resolved. The same is also happening at the TOCs, where there is presumably wide acceptance that certain grades' strike action is helping to prop up other aspects of the dispute.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.
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?
Which grades are they representing ?