Trouble Ahead at Virgin West Coast?

[Pollo]

ASLEF have withdrawn Rest Day Working(RDW) agreement on VT effective from 25 July. This is over VTs failure to provide a satisfactory offer over pay and T&Cs. This could/will probably lead to numerous cancellations over their entire network as VT have been relying heavily on RDW for several months.

 

[320320]

New round of pay talks on Friday, it'll be sorted before a single shift is left uncovered.

 

[MrPIC]

virgin seem like the sort who would give in to most demands to ensure their reputation isn't tarnished. And even if it did come to strike action they'd wheel out beardy branson and make everyone in a union out to be some kind of greedy criminal.

 

[westv]

Is this Virgin West Coast, East Coast or both?

 

[91104]

Is this Virgin West Coast, East Coast or both?

Not the East Coast. We rolled over and accepted a 2% payrise with no change to any conditions.

 

[bb21]

Not the East Coast. We rolled over and accepted a 2% payrise with no change to any conditions.

I wouldn't call a 2% payrise with no change of conditions a "roll-over" in the current economic climate. Done pretty well I would say.

 

[ainsworth74]

Title amended to indicate which Virgin Trains we're talking about.

 

[crehld]

I wouldn't call a 2% payrise with no change of conditions a "roll-over" in the current economic climate. Done pretty well I would say.

Indeed. Take it and run before they change their mind! I'll have to make do with 0% pay rise and detrimental changes to my pension scheme which necessitate higher contributions yet reduce the overall value of the scheme!

 

[Mag_seven]

Indeed. Take it and run before they change their mind! I'll have to make do with 0% pay rise and detrimental changes to my pension scheme which necessitate higher contributions yet reduce the overall value of the scheme!

Now expect someone to tell you that you should have joined a union and gone on strike to get something better.

 

[crehld]

Now expect someone to tell you that you should have joined a union and gone on strike to get something better.

This assumes causality between striking and getting a better deal. There is not. I doubt such a confrontational approach to industrial relations by my union would have paid off and would have strengthened my employer's resolve to reduce costs through redundancies. Fortunately they acknowledge that job security for a greater number of their members is better than a nominal pay increase for some and redundancy for the others!

...I digress.

 

[theironroad]

Meanwhile, mp's at Westminster are given a 10% rise today backdated to election day.

 

[6Gman]

Meanwhile, mp's at Westminster are given a 10% rise today backdated to election day.

And the relevance of this is ... ?

 

[tbtc]

Is it confirmation bias, the effect of reading a Forum where every pay dispute seems to get at least one thread, or are there actually more disputes these days?

Hard to tell, I know, and I appreciate that the vast majority of times it's just sabre rattling, sometimes overtime bans but very seldom strikes - but I think you could be forgiven for thinking that every TOC sees the threat of strikes every time the annual salary negotiations begin.

Do other industries behave like this?

Could the rail industry function if a TOC tried to sit down with the Unions at the start of a franchise and negotiate something sensible and boring like an automatic RPI increase each year during the franchise period (with no changes to other conditions)? Or would the Unions not want to lose the power they hold?

I'm not expecting any strikes on Virgin (WC) - I hope that all parties are too sensible for that - but as a passenger I find it frustrating that the start of annual negotiations sees the threat of cancelled services on the horizon (whether that's threat of a strike, overtime bans, work-to-rule etc)

Not the East Coast. We rolled over and accepted a 2% payrise with no change to any conditions.

Given inflation is basically zero at the moment, a 2% pay rise (whilst retaining all current conditions) is a fantastic deal.

If you think that this is "rolling over" then fair enough, but there can't be many firms offering that kind of rise across the board at the moment (with no loss in any other conditions)

Meanwhile, mp's at Westminster are given a 10% rise today backdated to election day.

In fairness to MPs, they are seeing reductions to pensions/ expenses etc - the increase in basic pay will generate a lot of headlines but the move is actually cost neutral for the taxpayer.

I'm not saying it's a great move (and I accept it'll look incredibly crass when many public sector wages are frozen), but rail staff always point out the loss of conditions whenever an enthusiast refers to what looks like a generous increase in basic wages.

TBH, I'd rather we paid MPs a reasonable basic salary so that they weren't monkeying about with expenses and focussed more on dealing with governing the country effectively, but I know it's not fashionable to suggest paying them a penny more.

 

[Geezertronic]

And the relevance of this is ... ?

Maybe they work for Virgin Trains too

If you think that this is "rolling over" then fair enough, but there can't be many firms offering that kind of rise across the board at the moment (with no loss in any other conditions)

....

I'm not saying it's a great move (and I accept it'll look incredibly crass when many public sector wages are frozen), but rail staff always point out the loss of conditions whenever an enthusiast refers to what looks like a generous increase in basic wages.

I'd love a 2% pay rise in the private sector job I work at not having a pay rise for 5 years, although I'm in a trade where they could replace me with a monkey paying peanuts (regardless of whether the monkey can do 1/4 of the job that I do)

The rail industry is in quite a privileged place where they can remove services or strike to improve their position in negotiations given the difficulty in replacing staff

 

[BRblue]

Why are people mentioning strikes? Deciding against working your rest day is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
In fact if anything it shows that VT do not employ enough staff to cover all the shifts that need to be covered, but of course if that was the case certain posters wouldn't be able to union bash which they enjoy doing so much on here... :roll:

 

[ComUtoR]

The rail industry is in quite a privileged place where they can remove services or strike to improve their position in negotiations given the difficulty in replacing staff

In all the industries I have worked in. I have never seen such a high staff turnover than "the railway"

I'll admit that the driving grade is hard to replace staff but we are told on numerous occasions that there is a queue a mile long waiting to get in. As a Driver I feel like i can be replaced at any moment.

I also wouldn't say its privileged. The diversity of people that work for us is wonderful to behold. Add the fact that you can walk in the door with no qualifications and end up in a £50k pa job is just incredible.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Isn't this and all railway pay disputes basically following the law of supply and demand. Where the railway industry itself has elevated most positions to a god like status where you have to pass ever increasing difficult recruitment processes just obtain a job. Because of this they end up paying through the nose to retain the saff they have, as they've now created a situation where staff can't be easily replaced due to a self inflicted restricted supply.

Now I'm a union man and have been in the industry a many good few years and have seen that it can take up to a year to get new staff into my location let alone passed out, useful and productive. All of this adds to the specialist nature of the job along with the really anti social shifts and all the safety caritical nature of the work and for that I would like an reasonable wage with conditions that mean I get to see my family. They can't take that away easily as I will fight for them and they can't replace on mass without shutting the railway down for a year. So we now have the endless charade every pay negotiation time as both company and union puff out their chests. But in the end nothing really changes as we can't be replaced as their recruitment and training process takes to long to introduce new staff into the industry and they have to pay to retain.

Now whether this right or wrong or even fair compared to private sector workers or other public sector workers excluding MPs is for others far greater than me to debate. I've gone from really appalling wages under British Rail to thanks to privatisation a salary I'm happy on, but attack our condition and pension will get my colleagues and myself quite grumpy and even our union has had a many a shot fired across its bows if it tried to steer a course of action that shop floor doesn't like. The union is its members not the other way round and they would do well to remember that. Just as company needs its workers as much as the workers need the company for a job.

 

[HH]

Rail Unions usually start from an RPI plus position. Elsewhere, even for those lucky enough not be on 0% or 1%, they generally use a lower measure like CPI, usually without any plus.

It doesn't matter whether the TOC is making money or not, or whether it's an income generator or a subsidy hole, the expectation is the same.

 

[Carlisle]

virgin seem like the sort who would give in to most demands to ensure their reputation isn't tarnished. And even if it did come to strike action they'd wheel out beardy branson and make everyone in a union out to be some kind of greedy criminal.

I think you've summed up Virgin Trains likely position perfectly there

 

[DarloRich]

virgin seem like the sort who would give in to most demands to ensure their reputation isn't tarnished. And even if it did come to strike action they'd wheel out beardy branson and make everyone in a union out to be some kind of greedy criminal.

Whilst I am sure Virgin wont want their brand tarnishing i do wonder if they take a more pragmatic approach to industrial relations than some other compnaies

 

[MichaelAMW]

Why are people mentioning strikes? Deciding against working your rest day is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
In fact if anything it shows that VT do not employ enough staff to cover all the shifts that need to be covered, but of course if that was the case certain posters wouldn't be able to union bash which they enjoy doing so much on here... :roll:

Attempting to make a point neutrally, although it may not appear that way, isn't it slightly cynical to not work rest days? I appreciate it is a "lever" to sharpen up the discussions but, in truth, don't most drivers and guards rather like the opportunity to work rest days? In other words, when things are ticking along nicely the shifts, including Sundays where appropriate, largely get covered and the people involved get a hike in their pay, so in fact full staffing is *not* what most people want. I'm not saying it's perfect and I am aware that some TOCs pay as little as plain time for Sundays and other rest days, but it's still not without its benefit.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm glad that somebody has made this point:

Why are people mentioning strikes? Deciding against working your rest day is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
In fact if anything it shows that VT do not employ enough staff to cover all the shifts that need to be covered, . . . . .

. . . . but of course if that was the case certain posters wouldn't be able to union bash which they enjoy doing so much on here... :roll:

that may be so. But the real significance is that we're talking about the presumption that rest-days will be worked to such a substantial level that service delivery depends on it, and that recruitment and training of staff can remain below the level to achieve operational requirements as a consequence.

Attempting to make a point neutrally, although it may not appear that way, isn't it slightly cynical to not work rest days?

. . . . so in fact full staffing is *not* what most people want.

Surely the appropriate balance is somewhere between the two extremes (under-staffed or lack of available additional shifts)?

 

[plastictaffy]

Not true. Some (like myself) do rest day working sometimes, some do so much they almost come to rely on it, and others don't do it, ever.

By the drivers at VTWC removing RDW, it WILL cause the company problems.

At my place, I tend to find the overtime comes and goes. I can go a couple of months and not be able to get anything, yet so far this month I've had one restday, scored a buckshee Sunday for this week, and may be able to work another restday on Tuesday. (if I can be bothered)

 

[DeeGee]

I'm not in the railways (I'm in the public sector, though) and even though I'm not paid for it, I like a bit of official overtime, as the Time off in Lieu comes in very nicely thank you very much for missing the rush some Fridays.

 

[hello]

I'm not in the railways (I'm in the public sector, though) and even though I'm not paid for it, I like a bit of official overtime, as the Time off in Lieu comes in very nicely thank you very much for missing the rush some Fridays.

are the railways not private sector nowadays then? as it seems to me that it is big private companies that operate the various tocs, and take as much money out of it as they can, without investing any of it in the railway

 

[BanburyBlue]

It always seems a bit strange to me that 24x7 industries rely on workers coming in on overtime and rest days.

There was something similar a few years ago with London Midland when I'm sure it was reported that all Sunday services were manned by staff on overtime and RDW. I may have got some of the detail wrong but I'm sure the general principle is correct.

Is this a historical thing with the railways?

 

[Hellfire]

It always seems a bit strange to me that 24x7 industries rely on workers coming in on overtime and rest days.

There was something similar a few years ago with London Midland when I'm sure it was reported that all Sunday services were manned by staff on overtime and RDW. I may have got some of the detail wrong but I'm sure the general principle is correct.

Is this a historical thing with the railways?

I stand to be corrected but I think the railways must be one of the last 24/7 industries that need to use overtime and RDW to provide the service required.

I work in an industry that is 24/7 and the concept of extra money for weekends disappeared years ago. Everyone, while working a standard week, expects that to include weekends and early/late shifts as part of the deal. The only extra payment now made is for working overnight, and that's to reflect the well known health issues that can bring.

I am now placing my tin hat on my head and will say that if you choose to work in an industry that provides a seven day service, then you have to accept that you will need to work weekends from time to time. It's part of the job. That doesn't mean people work any more hours than their agreed ones, and those weekend shifts should be rostered fairly, just as earlies and lates are.

My guess it it suits a lot of people to see the current system continuing because it enhances their salary. That's fine, but it does mean a much higher chance that passengers will be inconvenienced when TOCs who rely on it to keep things going, suddenly find their staff withdrawing it over some industrial dispute.

One way to begin this reform would be for all new entrants to the rail industry to be employed on the basis that they should expect to be rostered across seven days.

 

[dk1]

As a driver on the Anglia conditions of AGA ( nobody has managed to harmonise us yet) we get no enhancement for night shifts. There is a great reliance on Free Day working to cover all diagrams. Sunday's are not in the working week however we are expected to work our booked Sunday's. Many refuse to work & they can usually be covered by asking for volunteers or making it "worth your while" to come off roster.

 

[fandroid]

It seems to me that a TOC that relies on rest-day working to run a normal service and to cover predictable occasional staff shortages, knows full well that in a unionised situation it is running the risk of being under pressure in any pay negotiations. I loathe strikes, but feel that threatened withdrawal of rest day working is a perfectly civilised negotiating ploy. It's up to the TOC to ensure it has enough staff (pandemics aside!).

 

[FordFocus]

Can we have a subforum for HR and industrial relations as these threads have the same posts all.

If you've not had a pay rise in years, does this mean the rest of the country shouldn't have one? Blah blah blah.

No strikes have been called nor am I aware of any ballot for strike action has even been suggested. This is early days and will probably get sorted without any hint of strike action.


Rest Day Working gets sanctioned by ASLEF normally on an annual basis, this is to ensure that companies don't leave vacancies are unfilled and rely on overtime to cover the daily service and have a training plan in place. Overtime is useful for the short term as it can help cover long term sickness, annual leave and training e.g. new routes, traction or resignalling projects. TOCs like overtime as it's cheaper than full time staff so it's getting the careful balance. Sometimes there are special agreements that set out of the terms of use of RDW.

I believe there is an issue with Virgin as there is a suggestion that RDW has been misused for training reasons, don't got quote me as I don't have a source. If the agreement is broken then RDW will be withdrawn. If trains are getting cancelled because of it then I'd place a wager that the company became too reliant on it and left vacancies unfilled for too long. That sounds like what's happened here.