Is the RMT out of control?

[Robertj21a]

I agree strongly with this point of view, and not just based on the recent press release.

I've been surprised that the union hadn't done more to win the support of rail passengers - especially outside London where Guards are seen and spoken to regularly - but even in London, it's easy to win support of passengers who feel safer having a member of staff on-board (other than the driver).

Yes, the definitely do.

According to other rail staff on this forum in recent times, they feel that the Union doesn't now bother to get the public on their side nowadays as they believe that everybody hates the RMT anyway !

 

[ainsworth74]

According to other rail staff on this forum in recent times, they feel that the Union doesn't now bother to get the public on their side nowadays as they believe that everybody hates the RMT anyway !

Indeed though I'm not sure a Millwall approach of 'No one likes us, we don't care' is a wise idea.

 

[bb21]

The trains would still run without a chief executive though.

... in the immediate aftermath of such a sacking, possibly. Look forward a short period of time...

I get the feeling that you don't quite understand what the CEO/MD does.

Let's value staff of all grades, but at the same time, don't trot out nonsense like that please. It's a childish pop and nothing else.

Like all grades, some of them may not be doing a very good job, but that is more a question about the right person is in the job rather than the purpose of the role itself.

We all do have a big skills shortage in that area in this country, which partly explains why some mediocre or downright poor-performing CEOs are on a merry-go-round.

 

[43021HST]

If anyone from the RMT is reading this, you need to engage a PR consultant. Now.

I would say that the majority of RMT members are ordinary people and not the greasy, PR types, employed by the legal departments of the TOCs. Hence why the press releases are more blunt. Lets remember that Union chiefs were democratically elected to their positions by the members, who would have voted them in, more on account of their knowledge of railway unionism, rather than on PR.

It's not that the RMT is stuck in the dark ages, it's just that many people can't form their own opinions nowadays without needing the 'facts' being presented in an easy digestible way filled with buzzwords and "Blue sky thinking" crap. Anyone who dares to speak more bluntly nowadays is accused of being backward.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would say that the majority of RMT members are ordinary people and not the greasy, PR types, employed by the legal departments of the TOCs.

Hence why the press releases are more blunt.

What on earth are you trying to prove, except the description of those who perform legal work, which is couched in the phraseology of someone who appears to tar all members of the legal profession, for some personally held grudge. Can you clarify your use of the word "greasy" in relation to these legal staff"? Another matter is your intimation of a link between public relations and legal work that is also implied by your posting. Have you any examples of such a linkage that you wish to share with us?

Finally, your explanation of the reason why the RMT press releases are "more blunt" (to use your phrase) is an insult to the intelligence of any RMT member as it implies that RMT members can only comprehend such unless they are phrased in the language of the 1970's time period of industrial disputes.

 

[43021HST]

What on earth are you trying to prove, except the description of those who perform legal work, which is couched in the phraseology of someone who appears to tar all members of the legal profession, for some personally held grudge. Can you clarify your use of the word "greasy" in relation to these legal staff"? Another matter is your intimation of a link between public relations and legal work that is also implied by your posting. Have you any examples of such a linkage that you wish to share with us?

Finally, your explanation of the reason why the RMT press releases are "more blunt" (to use your phrase) is an insult to the intelligence of any RMT member as it implies that RMT members can only comprehend such unless they are phrased in the language of the 1970's time period of industrial disputes.

Yes Paul, I certainly can clarify my use of the word 'greasy': evasive, biased, and the worst and most crucial aspect, the over promotion of an 'image' rather then the promotion of any evidence. This is something that PR and legal departments in many organisations have in common.

Now I'm not saying that PR and legal depts are unnecessary, but I just think the over-attention to image that is dictated by these departments is unnecessary and even damaging.

Why is using the word 'blunt' in this current context an insult? I used the word blunt to describe when someone describes their point, free from fluff and to the point and personally I think RMTs reasoning to strike, has been more to the point than, many of the TOCs reasoning for wanting to cut staff. The likes of Southern and XC have been downright evasive and misleading.

 

[313103]

Whilst we are castigating the RMT for there press releases,we aint doing the same about the press though are we. You have been saying they are stuck in a 1970s time warp and the general public dont understand what they are saying. Yet the popular press are also stuck in 1970s time warp when it comes to reporting the disputes.

A prime example of todays Daily Fail press speak starts with 'Union barons' can someone who is quite informed tell me what that means, i have found the singular version but none of the dictionaries show a plural (probably because it doesnt exist).
Further down it says 'hardline bosses' a misleading quote if ever there was one, unless they were talking about the bosses of the companies who want to drive through changes, but in this instance, they must be talking about the thousands of indivduals who voted for industrial action!
Another quote Sean Hoyle and the unions 'second in command' what is the union a army now because that is how i read second in command. 'Appearing to mock' so showing a picture of the shell sign with a finger sticking up is a insults to commuters' again the Fail have misled the public, our American friends in the offshore industry will know exactly what this picture is about.

What fascinates me is that the public read the papers and think they understand the tone of what they are saying, that are at best misleading and at worst lying yet they cant understand simple messages put out by a union. What is the difference between Union barons and scab to the general public?

 

[crehld]

I agree strongly with this point of view, and not just based on the recent press release.

I've been surprised that the union hadn't done more to win the support of rail passengers - especially outside London where Guards are seen and spoken to regularly - but even in London, it's easy to win support of passengers who feel safer having a member of staff on-board (other than the driver).

Yes, the definitely do.

I'm minded to agree too. A big part of this is how the RMT chooses to engage with the public and how it communicates with the wider world. RMT press releases read more like the rallying calls of industrial disputes that took place in the 1970s. For example, the following are extracts from the RMT's latest press release calling for strike action against VTEC:

subjected staff to a barrage of direct propaganda justifying their attempts to bulldoze through a package of cash-led measure that would decimate jobs, working conditions and threaten the safety regime that currently ensures a guard on every train

The union has also reacted furiously to news that VTEC trains are being commandeered from the current crews in order to train up a ramshackle and under-trained scab army of managers

the company are happy to cut corners to try and smash the workforce into a corner

is now on show as the company mobilises its scab army of managers

VTEC management are putting out regular propaganda messages to their employees

To behave like that is to treat the union and its members with pure contempt.

Our members will not pay the price for a crisis cooked up in the Virgin/Stagecoach boardroom

This is not how you engage in an industrial dispute, nor is it going to win over the wider public at large. The points they raise are not the issue (I support many of them) - rather its the way they are articulated. The tone is unprofessional, defensive, reactionary and unmeasured. Indeed, it's no coincidence that RMT press releases and communications were read out as evidence during the committee stages of the Trade Union Bill (now law). It played right into the hands of those who sought to undermine trade unions by arguing the unions are militant and out of control.

Compare the RMT's rhetoric and their casual and unprofessional tone and their approach to public engagement with that of the BMA's dispute with the junior doctors' contract. The BMA put calm, clear, articulate and professional spokespeople in front of the media who were able to convey critical points in their campaign in a convincing and measured way. This won most of the public over to their cause. The RMT's approach seems to be isolating them from the public, and in doing so it undermining their bargaining position, and ultimately their members' interests.

The safety message is one that should be easy to get across to the public, but the tone is putting them off. Rather than making the RMT look like a professional and credible trade union with significant bargaining strength, it makes it look like it's run by a bunch of angry amateurs. Unfortunately I think their rhetoric and failure is not only damaging their members' position and reputation, but the reputation of all trade unions. They'd benefit from hiring someone with some basic PR and public engagement experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst we are castigating the RMT for there press releases,we aint doing the same about the press though are we. You have been saying they are stuck in a 1970s time warp and the general public dont understand what they are saying. Yet the popular press are also stuck in 1970s time warp when it comes to reporting the disputes.

A prime example of todays Daily Fail press speak starts with 'Union barons' can someone who is quite informed tell me what that means, i have found the singular version but none of the dictionaries show a plural (probably because it doesnt exist).
Further down it says 'hardline bosses' a misleading quote if ever there was one, unless they were talking about the bosses of the companies who want to drive through changes, but in this instance, they must be talking about the thousands of indivduals who voted for industrial action!
Another quote Sean Hoyle and the unions 'second in command' what is the union a army now because that is how i read second in command. 'Appearing to mock' so showing a picture of the shell sign with a finger sticking up is a insults to commuters' again the Fail have misled the public, our American friends in the offshore industry will know exactly what this picture is about.

What fascinates me is that the public read the papers and think they understand the tone of what they are saying, that are at best misleading and at worst lying yet they cant understand simple messages put out by a union. What is the difference between Union barons and scab to the general public?

The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail. We know it prints lies. We know it prefers sensationalism over basic fact. And you'll get no argument from me (or other people) that it, along with many other elements of the press, should also face criticism. But writing press releases as if you're stuck in a 1970s time warp plays right into the right wing press' hands. The Daily Mail or whoever might say the RMT is a militant union stuck in the 1970s, and then only have to point its readers to material produced by the RMT itself to prove the point.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

... in the immediate aftermath of such a sacking, possibly. Look forward a short period of time...

I get the feeling that you don't quite understand what the CEO/MD does.

Let's value staff of all grades, but at the same time, don't trot out nonsense like that please. It's a childish pop and nothing else.

Like all grades, some of them may not be doing a very good job, but that is more a question about the right person is in the job rather than the purpose of the role itself.

We all do have a big skills shortage in that area in this country, which partly explains why some mediocre or downright poor-performing CEOs are on a merry-go-round.

Maybe the way they are appointed is the problem - either akin to a football manager who sees the role as short term or a political appointee with a party agenda. Knowing the business and learning a new role by rising through the ranks doesn't seem to be an option anymore. Hence the lack of faith, low morale and poor opinion many workforces have of those in charge. Childish pop maybe but the image and perception exists along with the reality that most MD/CEO in the rail industry all share the same aim of cutting costs and that tends to be at the expense of staff wages and equipment/resources.

 

[Bromley boy]

But writing press releases as if you're stuck in a 1970s time warp plays right into the right wing press' hands. The Daily Mail or whoever might say the RMT is a militant union stuck in the 1970s, and then only have to point its readers to material produced by the RMT itself to prove the point.

This hits the nail squarely on the head.

Re. the previous comment that RMT officials are elected based on their unionism and industry knowledge rather than their PR skills, I'm sure that is true. I would suggest that part of this skill should be having the self awareness to recognise their shortcomings in the PR area and working with people/organisations who can address them. This will ultimately benefit the members.

With the advent of social media, the Internet etc it has never be more important than now to get this stuff right.

 

[crehld]

This point hits the nail squarely on the head.

Re. the previous comment that RMT officials are elected based on their unionism and industry knowledge rather than their PR skills, I'm sure that is true. I would suggest that part of this skill should be having the self awareness to recognise their shortcomings in the PR area and working with people/organisations who can address them. This will ultimately benefit the members.

With the advent of social media, the Internet etc it has never be more important than now to get this stuff right.

All union officials are elected by their membership, and their PR experience is really not high on the list of priorities for someone wanting a leadership role in a union. It's why most reputable unions hire a well experience and well trained communications team.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I'm minded to agree too. A big part of this is how the RMT chooses to engage with the public and how it communicates with the wider world..

It isn't just how it communicates with the wider world. The attitude that pervades from Unity House towards colleagues in other unions doesn't do them any favours either.

 

[Maverick180]

Oh yes that's right, they won for me not to go in to work when the RMT strike right?? Also it's so great having unions that stop me helping out others as it is the first stage to taking their job away...Look how well more union power works in France where strikes are frequently grinding Europe to a halt. I've worked with US unions too who ultimately have cost more workers their jobs than they have saved. Look how well the NUM protected miners jobs and obviously its pure coincidence that all the unions on Southern are now balloting at once and its pure coincidence that disputes always seem to be strikeable around football tournaments and bank holidays and not the rest of the year.

DarloRich you asked that Tory guy for evidence but the RMT have yet to provide ANY evidence driver only trains are less safe (apart from being less safe for their union as most drivers aren't RMT). GWR on Monday appeared to dispatch a train at Truro unsafely with 3 platform staff, 1 guard and a driver....and only realised it as it was halfway off the platform. I have no issue with a member of staff being on the train as well as the driver but they don't need route knowledge and still no-one has provided any hard evidence that they increase safety to the point of being critical. They are striking to protect their subs and not the public. They don't give a rats ass about the public so to keep claiming otherwise is frankly insulting. The new union laws do not go even close to far enough and are full of loopholes. I don't know why GTR agreed to return some of the benefits they took away but they should not be held to ransom by the unions. It is noticeable that the RMT are seen to still be floundering so in rides the other unions to strike as well...though obviously this is unco-ordinated....We now get more bus strikes as well as unions there get more militant. The First Dorset one has destroyed trade on and off the buses in the area at peak season but the union doesn't care. First finaly gave Weymouth investment and really tried to make a go of the failing depot but that wasn't good enough for the unions and as soon as patronage picked up following the fleet investment they strike destroying it. The railway is pretty much the last bastion of the unions as they killed off mining, manufacturing and car making with their ridiculous and unrealistic demands. They are slowly killing the country and need to be stopped...Corbyn is as dangerous and deluded as Trump.

Picture the scenario.... We have two DOO passenger trains, each with a customer focused representative on board who do not have the route knowledge or training for safety critical duties..... Due to a technical or even man made error these two trains collide head on killing both drivers, we now have two crippled trains on a live network with NOBODY to carry out emergency protection or able to evacuate the people to a position of safety, it's highly possible that another train possibly freight could be a few mins away from ploughing through the wreckage killing even more people!

The above scenario could happen if a guard was on and remains able bodied his first action is to apply emergency protection , due to his route knowledge he knows how to apply it and where to apply it, GTR want to water down these duties to save a few quid on training, it would mean that 30 customer reps could work over any route rather routes they have knowledge about.

But please feel free to enjoy your journey despite increased risk to your safety, but don't be fooled that this dispute is about "who opens the doors" because that is clap trap of the highest order.

 

[Howardh]

Listening to the rail unions, I keep hearing one of the excuses/reasons (delete as appropriate!) for strikes is "concerns about passenger safety".

Now, I can fully understand unions having concerns about their worker's safety, but devil's advocate what's the general public got to do with them? Surely it can be said our safety is down to the management of the trains and infrastructure; and if above fails, it's management who carry the can and pay off the compensation?

Or is it a case of it's only the workforce/unions that can identify safety issues - and if that's the case, what the dickens are management doing?

 

[ComUtoR]

Now, I can fully understand unions having concerns about their worker's safety, but devil's advocate what's the general public got to do with them?

Because their members are responsible for passenger safety. In this wonderful modern world, nobody is responsible for themselves and anything that happens is somebody else's fault.

Surely it can be said our safety is down to the management of the trains and infrastructure;

Staffing is part of that.

and if above fails, it's management who carry the can and pay off the compensation?

The liability falls to the front line staff. Pretty much anything that happens on my train is 100% my fault. Thanks to liability and blame culture, everything has been shifted downwards.

Or is it a case of it's only the workforce/unions that can identify safety issues - and if that's the case, what the dickens are management doing?

I'd agree that. We are often the final arbiters of safety and we do see policy and procedure in action on a day to day basis. Management do not see the problems with the DOO monitors or the poor quality in-cab CCTV. It is down to us who work the system to highlight the issue and kick it upwards. Sadly, much too often Management turn a blind eye.

I rarely ever hear anything about passengers. It's almost like they don't exist.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes Paul, I certainly can clarify my use of the word 'greasy': evasive, biased, and the worst and most crucial aspect, the over promotion of an 'image' rather then the promotion of any evidence. This is something that PR and legal departments in many organisations have in common.

It has always been this way for as long as companies have ever existed.

Now I'm not saying that PR and legal depts are unnecessary, but I just think the over-attention to image that is dictated by these departments is unnecessary and even damaging.

Do you think the RMT's under-attention to image is unnecessary and damaging?

Why is using the word 'blunt' in this current context an insult? I used the word blunt to describe when someone describes their point, free from fluff and to the point and personally I think RMTs reasoning to strike, has been more to the point than, many of the TOCs reasoning for wanting to cut staff. The likes of Southern and XC have been downright evasive and misleading.

Because as long as the RMT are "blunt", they come across as backward tossers; militant, aggressive, and uncooperative. They gain no allies.

This is why the RMT are losing the war. They're not clever. They're one-dimensional. They have moral arguments which they articulate poorly. They don't consider their audience. They're fatally introspective. They alienate the public.

They're dying - very slowly. And some members on the board can't see why.

You don't have to like PR, but to fail to see its value is really short-sighted.

 

[Robertj21a]

It has always been this way for as long as companies have ever existed.



Do you think the RMT's under-attention to image is unnecessary and damaging?



Because as long as the RMT are "blunt", they come across as backward tossers; militant, aggressive, and uncooperative. They gain no allies.

This is why the RMT are losing the war. They're not clever. They're one-dimensional. They have moral arguments which they articulate poorly. They don't consider their audience. They're fatally introspective. They alienate the public.

They're dying - very slowly. And some members on the board can't see why.

You don't have to like PR, but to fail to see its value is really short-sighted.

Very well explained !. That's an excellent summary. Perhaps the RMT reps on this forum might like to pass it on up their chain.....

 

[43021HST]

Personally I think the passengers have a poor opinion of both RMT and Southern.

Southern press releases have not exactly been an exercise in good public relations either.

 

[David Burrows]

Am I right in thinking that you've refused every benefit ever given to you (via your employer) by unions?
I hope you enjoy that 4 hours a week you are allowed to rest, I hope you didn't miss seeing your children grow up too much because you were busy working, I suppose you enjoy bowing and doffing your cap and never looking your employer in the eye because you're just grateful to have a job.

I wouldn't exactly say that people should doff their caps, but should people not be grateful to their employers for giving them a job, for which, on the railways, they are generally well paid. How can people get a job, knowing the shift work involved, then want to change it because they don't like shift work?
As regards unions generally, the whole thing is illogical. Your employer pays you umpteen thousand a year for doing your job, for which I think you should be grateful, along comes the union, to who you pay a lot of money, and who give you precious little (other than a free! diary every year) and tell you that you must go on strike, thus losing a lot of money. Far too many fear that they will be frowned upon by others if they don't go on strike and that they must strike if the union tells them to.
If enough decided that they wouldn't do as they were told by the people they pay, then the railways and other similarly inflicted would be far better. Those who chose to go on strike seem to conveniently forget that it is the travelling public who pay their vast wages - no travelling public=no wages so don't drive them to other means of transport or you won't have a job.
I did shift work for over forty years on the railway and had to put up with trying to get to work by other means when others had decided to go on strike because they were told to, many not because they wanted to.
If you don't like the job, get another one.

 

[DT611]

I wouldn't exactly say that people should doff their caps, but should people not be grateful to their employers for giving them a job, for which, on the railways, they are generally well paid. How can people get a job, knowing the shift work involved, then want to change it because they don't like shift work?
As regards unions generally, the whole thing is illogical. Your employer pays you umpteen thousand a year for doing your job, for which I think you should be grateful, along comes the union, to who you pay a lot of money, and who give you precious little (other than a free! diary every year) and tell you that you must go on strike, thus losing a lot of money. Far too many fear that they will be frowned upon by others if they don't go on strike and that they must strike if the union tells them to.
If enough decided that they wouldn't do as they were told by the people they pay, then the railways and other similarly inflicted would be far better. Those who chose to go on strike seem to conveniently forget that it is the travelling public who pay their vast wages - no travelling public=no wages so don't drive them to other means of transport or you won't have a job.
I did shift work for over forty years on the railway and had to put up with trying to get to work by other means when others had decided to go on strike because they were told to, many not because they wanted to.
If you don't like the job, get another one.

The union can't tell you to go on strike. You must vote for a strike and you have no obligation to vote yes. I can bet they're have been plenty of times where a majority have voted no to strike action. If you don't like aspects of the job and you can change them to make the job a better one, then do so. Future employees will be greatful.

 

[ComUtoR]

How can people get a job, knowing the shift work involved, then want to change it because they don't like shift work?

It's very easy to understand. Those that chose not to understand are doing so out of ignorance or deliberately avoiding the reality of long term employment.

In a nutshell :

I get a job. The terms are amicable and I enjoy the role immensely. I do the job day in, day out with no complaints. I'm happy.

Some time later... The job changes. My "work/life balance" becomes skewed. I'm working more and more unsociable hours and my family is suffering. Inflation is going up and I'm finding my wages are a bit more of a squeeze. My savings are in the toilet and my Mortgage is going up. More changes at work means I'm below the industry average remuneration and I'm working a higher ATL. What was, is no longer. My job has changed. What I signed up for is a long way from what I get now and after a few years of putting up with it I now say enough is enough. I want better pay, I want the conditions I had when I started, I'm happy to progress and take some but not another condition sacrificed to "productivity"

The role you applied and worked happily for has changed.

If you don't like the job, get another one.

Disgusting attitude. Treating people like they are nothing but a number on a spreadsheet, easily replaced for the next number, degrade T&C's to almost nothing and expect everyone to be grateful to be employed.

I'm of an age where Loyalty and Respect went a long way. I used to be treated well as an employee and my relationship with my company was phenomenal. I gave as much as I took and everyone benefited. Now I feel like I'm just ticking time. The company I work for means nothing to me and I have zero relationship with them. I come to work, do my best, and go home.

Staff morale is at an all time low because of the attitude :

If you don't like the job, get another one.

If you don't like travelling by train, then get a ****ing bus.

 

[Smudger105e]

I have been on an Engineering Company Council, I was the sole TSSA Rep.

If a Company makes proposals to change T&Cs or offers a small wage rise, or whatever, this is then fed back to the staff to see if they are able to accept the Company's proposals.

If they are acceptable to staff then all well and good. If not then the Council goes back to the Company and advises them that the members are not willing to accept the proposals, and see what the Company is prepared to do to make them acceptable to the staff. Say the Company are offering a 0.25% wage rise wjile the cost of living is risng by 3% for example. This would, in real terms, mean a wage decrease of 2.75%.

If the Company will try to convince staff that that their proposals (or modified proposals) are now acceptable or unlikely to be changed.

So now the Council go back to the membership and see if they are prepared to accept. If not, then a decision has to be made as to how to go forward. The Council members may, in conjunction with the TU, decide to ballot the members for strike action or industrial action short of a strike.

If the members feel strongly enough to vote for strike action, then this is advised to the Company, who then make the decision whether to alter the offer or to call the staff's bluff.

The staff must, however, be preparedto back up their vote with actions, or the strike ballot would be pointless.

At this time it is likely that ACAS would get involved to mediate.

This process would only end when one party or the other (or both) made concessions.


I have read this entire thread, and it boils my... really annoys me when people make suggestions like "if you don't like it get another job" or that certain people are under skilled and overpaid.You clearly fail to understand the finer detail of some of the jobs on here. This dispute is NOT about who pushes the buttons.

Unionised workplaces are proven to have better T&Cs and rates of pay than non unionised workplaces, and are also proven to be safer places to work, which reduces costs to the employer as every lost time accident has a cost

Human Cost Lost Output
Major Injury £18,400 £16,200
Other Reportable Injury £2,700 £2,600
Minor Injury £200 £100
Average case of ill health £5,800 £2,300 (source HSE)

But in answer to the original question by the OP, Is the RMT out of Control? The answer is quite clearly no, as it is not the RMT that makes the decision to take industrial action.

 

[6Gman]

I wouldn't exactly say that people should doff their caps, but should people not be grateful to their employers for giving them a job, for which, on the railways, they are generally well paid. How can people get a job, knowing the shift work involved, then want to change it because they don't like shift work?
As regards unions generally, the whole thing is illogical. Your employer pays you umpteen thousand a year for doing your job, for which I think you should be grateful, along comes the union, to who you pay a lot of money, and who give you precious little (other than a free! diary every year) and tell you that you must go on strike, thus losing a lot of money. Far too many fear that they will be frowned upon by others if they don't go on strike and that they must strike if the union tells them to.
If enough decided that they wouldn't do as they were told by the people they pay, then the railways and other similarly inflicted would be far better. Those who chose to go on strike seem to conveniently forget that it is the travelling public who pay their vast wages - no travelling public=no wages so don't drive them to other means of transport or you won't have a job.
I did shift work for over forty years on the railway and had to put up with trying to get to work by other means when others had decided to go on strike because they were told to, many not because they wanted to.
If you don't like the job, get another one.

So who is paying them?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's very easy to understand. Those that chose not to understand are doing so out of ignorance or deliberately avoiding the reality of long term employment.

In a nutshell :

I get a job. The terms are amicable and I enjoy the role immensely. I do the job day in, day out with no complaints. I'm happy.

Some time later... The job changes. My "work/life balance" becomes skewed. I'm working more and more unsociable hours and my family is suffering. Inflation is going up and I'm finding my wages are a bit more of a squeeze. My savings are in the toilet and my Mortgage is going up. More changes at work means I'm below the industry average remuneration and I'm working a higher ATL. What was, is no longer. My job has changed. What I signed up for is a long way from what I get now and after a few years of putting up with it I now say enough is enough. I want better pay, I want the conditions I had when I started, I'm happy to progress and take some but not another condition sacrificed to "productivity"

The role you applied and worked happily for has changed.



Disgusting attitude. Treating people like they are nothing but a number on a spreadsheet, easily replaced for the next number, degrade T&C's to almost nothing and expect everyone to be grateful to be employed.

I'm of an age where Loyalty and Respect went a long way. I used to be treated well as an employee and my relationship with my company was phenomenal. I gave as much as I took and everyone benefited. Now I feel like I'm just ticking time. The company I work for means nothing to me and I have zero relationship with them. I come to work, do my best, and go home.

Staff morale is at an all time low because of the attitude :



If you don't like travelling by train, then get a ****ing bus.

What he says.

 

[al78]

Disgusting attitude. Treating people like they are nothing but a number on a spreadsheet, easily replaced for the next number, degrade T&C's to almost nothing and expect everyone to be grateful to be employed.

That is neo-liberal capitalist militants for you, they make ISIS look rational :roll:.

 

[ComUtoR]

That is neo-liberal capitalist militants for you, they make ISIS look rational :roll:.

So it's ok to be a capitalist when your in charge and you want to beat the workers into submission but not when your a worker grabbing high wages and gobbling up rest day working and living the gravy train on the railway.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: (ya'know 'cause smilies are awesome)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(other than a free! diary every year)

Not forgetting free pens, badges and beer. You might even get a contribution towards an OU degree. ('cause degrees are awesome)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Those who chose to go on strike seem to conveniently forget that it is the travelling public who pay their vast wages - no travelling public=no wages so don't drive them to other means of transport or you won't have a job.

Yet when people are on strike they don't get paid.

Did you see GTR offering full refunds to passengers for the days they weren't having to pay their staff? I didn't...

If you don't like travelling by train, then get a ****ing bus.

Spot on. Don't like "paying the vast wages" of "militant" RMT members? Unfurl your legs and take a walk.

We all have choices don't we.

 

[Deepgreen]

The concept of respect of management for employees and vice versa is probably unquantifiable in financial terms, but I am convinced it is the cornerstone of a prosperous business, especially one such as the railway in which training so many types of staff for their roles takes such a long time relative to many other businesses. High turnover of staff is usually a bad thing for a business, and more so when the lag time for training is so high.

Unions have been a vital part of securing better pay and conditions for employees but must always maintain a sensible balance between demands and concessions. The only thing I'm going to say regarding the current dispute (apart from the fact that I favour the retention of guards and their re-instatement where they have gone already) is that consistency is key when taking a stance and I don't think the current partial use of DOO has given RMT a firm enough footing for the argument to be won easily.

 

[ComUtoR]

Unions have been a vital part of securing better pay and conditions for employees but must always maintain a sensible balance between demands and concessions.

Which is why Unions are so important. They, in the most part, do maintain that balance. I remember a past employment where I had to negotiate my own pay rise each year. I dreaded that day and I always came out feeling screwed, worse so when I spoke to other Managers. Unions can help prevent disparity of pay and conditions.

 

[Carlisle]

The union can't tell you to go on strike. You must vote for a strike and you have no obligation to vote yes. I can bet they're have been plenty of times where a majority have voted no to strike action.

Well going by the RMT websites published ballot results would suggest there's been hardly any majority no votes to strike action in recent times

 

[Wolfie]

Well going by the RMTs own published ballot results suggests there have been hardly any majority no votes to strike action in recent times

Unsurprising really. Any sensible TU will have taken informal soundings of the relevant members before going near a ballot. Only if such sounding indicate a majority for action would a ballot be held. A TU that kept balloting and losing would be laughed at by management (not to mention that ballots don't come cheap).

You might, therefore, think about the implications about the number of disputes resolved by means short of industrial action.

Therefore, based on what you say above, you seem to infer that the press releases of the RMT are couched in the language of what the members want, not what the union wants.

Do I read you correctly?

You do not and whats more to the point I am pretty sure that you know that you do not! My own previous post which you commented on decried RMT's woeful PR. What I was talking about was industrial action and TU policy.