RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[northwichcat]

I'm sure those on zero hours contracts who are supposed to be working in and around Aintree won't be impresed!

 

[Gareth]

Maybe some will simply decide it's not worth the bother.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Merseyrail's financial case for new rolling stock would be destroyed.

As I've said countless times, if you keep the same head count on the same pay then you save no money.

In which case, Merseyrail and Merseyside PTE need to be honest about their motivation: it is either to break the power of the RMT or it is to cut staffing costs by cutting headcount and/or salary. None of this shilly-shallying about how "nobody will lose their job", because by your logic they will: the savings from "efficiency" won't even pay Stadler's biscuit bill.

I predict this one will be long and painful but the TOCs will win and the guards will lose - with far less accommodation than they would get if it was just accepted.

The power here doesn't rest with the RMT, it rests with ASLEF.

As long as Northern and Merseyrail drivers don't want DOO put in their contracts, then DOO won't be put in their contracts. If ASLEF members are persuaded of the benefits of DOO, then the RMT are in a very very weak position.

FWIW I'm opposed to DOO and always have been. I don't see how the financial savings justify the increased safety risks. But then I'm not an accountant and don't just look at the pounds and pence.

 

[JamesTT]

Strike called on day of Grand National. That'll go down well.

Absolute genius the bonfire strike on Southern really helped stop the extension of DOO didn't it. This just makes the RMT look like vindictive bullies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've said countless times, if you keep the same head count on the same pay then you save no money.

In which case, Merseyrail and Merseyside PTE need to be honest about their motivation: it is either to break the power of the RMT or it is to cut staffing costs by cutting headcount and/or salary. None of this shilly-shallying about how "nobody will lose their job", because by your logic they will: the savings from "efficiency" won't even pay Stadler's biscuit bill.

The savings are from headcount, but most will be achieved by natural attrition coupled by the fact that Merseyrail are presently recruiting new guards on 3 year contracts (so those will be first to go).

The unions are effectively mostly attempting to protect the rights of theoretical future employees.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This just makes the RMT look like vindictive bullies.

Only if you're the sort of person who thinks that any strike action is "vindictive bullying". But I'm sure employers' forcing through job changes against the will of the workforce is merely "good business sense".

If you're going to lose a day's pay, you may as well get some bang for your buck. And if Liverpool grinds to a halt well, guess what, those guards aren't quite so dispensable after all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The savings are from headcount, but most will be achieved by natural attrition coupled by the fact that Merseyrail are presently recruiting new guards on 3 year contracts (so those will be first to go).

So Merseyrail are lying when they say that nobody will lose their job.

This is what I mean. If they intend to get rid of people- "natural wastage" being a lovely euphemism for "making someone's position untenable and forcing them out"- then they should bloomin' well come out and say so. Same for Arriva Northern.

But they know that if they tell the truth they will lose the PR war. Shameful, really.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So Merseyrail are lying when they say that nobody will lose their job.

This is what I mean. If they intend to get rid of people- "natural wastage" being a lovely euphemism for "making someone's position untenable and forcing them out"- then they should bloomin' well come out and say so. Same for Arriva Northern.

Natural wastage is retirement, people who leave etc. There will be a long phase-in period for the new units during which guards, progressively reducing in numbers, will be required.

I genuinely do not believe anyone will be forced out of Merseyrail's employment as a result of the plans, which are rather different in their scope and need than other TOCs, particularly as guards are being recruited now on fixed term contracts so that those contracts end after the specified period of time is fine and I can't see why anyone could complain about that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

guards are being recruited now on fixed term contracts so that those contracts end after the specified period of time

If someone is on a fixed-term contract for more than two years then they gain most of the rights of a full time employee, including redundancy rights.

 

[Robertj21a]

So Merseyrail are lying when they say that nobody will lose their job.

This is what I mean. If they intend to get rid of people- "natural wastage" being a lovely euphemism for "making someone's position untenable and forcing them out"- then they should bloomin' well come out and say so. Same for Arriva Northern.

But they know that if they tell the truth they will lose the PR war. Shameful, really.

Isn't it just a play on words ?

I've always read those sort of statements as '......nobody who is currently employed will lose their job'. I don't think they really mean it to be interpreted in any other way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If someone is on a fixed-term contract for more than two years then they gain most of the rights of a full time employee, including redundancy rights.

If someone is on a fixed-term three year contract their role ends at the end of those three years without any such rights.

There would be such rights for ending it early, but they are not going to do that. They are making sensible plans.

It is not like GTR. It is not like Northern. It is different in just about every single possible way.

 

[oldman]

If the work ends after two years service the employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, and will be entitled to the same redundancy rights as a permanent employee.

Source: ACAS

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the point of a fixed term contract then?

Mind you, they may well, in that case, have costed in and made clear at the start the statutory redundancy pay.

But in any case, trying to defend the supposed right of someone on a fixed term contract to have continuous employment is I'm afraid utterly laughable and I cannot possibly support that in any way. The contract length was clear at the point of the job being offered. If you don't like the terms of the job offered, don't take it.

 

[oldman]

What is the point of a fixed term contract then?

To protect employees who are employed on consecutive fixed-term contracts. It was a particular problem for university researchers who could be on such contracts, project by project, for decades, but no doubt it happened in other sectors.

Given the way some employers have used zero-hours contracts, these protections are very necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it is not relevant here.

These new guards have been employed with the expectation of being employed by Merseyrail for three years. At no point has that expectation been in any way different.

Misuse of contracts is one thing, but this is not misuse. Merseyrail require some guards for three years, so they are going to market to obtain some guards for three years. There is nothing whatsoever underhand about that, and in my view anyone saying otherwise is completely wrong.

If, however, they are legally liable for redundancy pay at the end of the three years, I'm sure they have costed statutory redundancy pay into the salary etc offered.

 

[northwichcat]

This if off-topic but I get the impression these days universities are offering fixed term contracts just under two years in length e.g. September 2016 to July 2018. If they are kept on they would get a new contract starting in September 2018 and consequently it would not be continuous employment.

 

[coppercapped]

As I've said countless times, if you keep the same head count on the same pay then you save no money.

As George Gershwin wrote:

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Repetition does not make your statement accurate.

There are costs involved in running trains which are cancelled for all or part of their journey, there are direct costs involved in getting stock back to the right places if running is disrupted because, for example, a member of staff is unavailable, there are indirect costs involved in planning special moves, there is loss of income and reputational costs if schedules are disrupted over a period.

So, yes, costs can be saved by running a more reliable service even if the headcount is not reduced. You write you are not an accountant and don't have to look at the pounds and the pence - but a moment's reflection on the way any business has to organise itself would show the fallacy of your argument.

 

[Kite159]

The Grand National this year will be fun for anybody wishing to spend their money on backing some horses attending the big race. All those potential passengers lost to the railway, using more dangerous road transport for the race and for future events.

But it all helps in bringing down this working class hating government

 

[shakey1961]

What a wunch of bankers!!!!!!!

RMT would have more respect by not striking on Grand National Day.

Pathetic!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But it all helps in bringing down this working class hating government

I thought there was no political agenda in either the RMT or ASLEF positions, but just an honest to goodness looking after their members in these current matters.

Have I been labouring under a most severe misapprehension?

 

[northwichcat]

I wonder what the media will make of this as an opportunity to get as much "news" out of it.

Liverpool is a bastion of the Labour Party and Joe Anderson is always trying to raise the profile of the city, so having the racing "Jewel in the Crown" affected transport-wise to a horse racing event which is known world-wide will cause him some angst. I wonder if he will make a media statement?

Merseytravel isn't run by Liverpool city council but by all councils in Merseyside. Surely the worst council in recent times in Merseyside was Wirral council when no party had enough seats to lead the party - Labour and Conservative councillors trying to work together resulted in the equivalent of them withdrawing all the council's money in £1 coins, then going to Rome and throwing them all in the Trevi Fountain.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Merseytravel isn't run by Liverpool city council but by all councils in Merseyside. Surely the worst council in recent times in Merseyside was Wirral council when no party had enough seats to lead the party - Labour and Conservative councillors trying to work together resulted in the equivalent of them withdrawing all the council's money in £1 coins, then going to Rome and throwing them all in the Trevi Fountain.

That matter of what Wirral council did does not, I should imagine, be a concern that will be in the thoughts of Joe Anderson in this moment in time when a fait accompli strike disruption to the rail services that were expected to take racegoers from all destinations to Aintree racecourse to watch the Grand National, will be a matter of great concern, as he is always trying his best to raise the profile of Liverpool.

 

[northwichcat]

RMT rep on Granada Reports has just said that their members demanded to strike on Grand National Day to show how angry they are.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They can show how angry they are until the cows come home but nobody is going to care. Merseyrail and Northern aren’t Southern and the North isn’t as dependant on public transport as London so most people are just going to shrug and drive instead. They’ll have to make the most of their Grand National strike publicity because subsequent ones will barely make the local news never mind the national.

 

[Tetchytyke]

.

There are costs involved in running trains which are cancelled for all or part of their journey, there are direct costs involved in getting stock back to the right places if running is disrupted because, for example, a member of staff is unavailable, there are indirect costs involved in planning special moves, there is loss of income and reputational costs if schedules are disrupted over a period..

Those costs are negligible, even before one factors in the Schedule 8 payments that are allegedly in compensation for most of the above things. And on a self-contained urban closed system such as Merseyrail they become even more negligible.

There are small savings to be made through operational efficiency. The idea that these will, by themselves, fund new trains is, quite frankly, laughable.

The saving is in headcount.

 

[Robertj21a]

RMT rep on Granada Reports has just said that their members demanded to strike on Grand National Day to show how angry they are.

That just confirms why the public refuse to treat the RMT as a credible union. It's like some 3-5 year old kids who haven't got their way and are going to shout and scream until they do.

Pathetic, when are they going to mature ?

 

[dk1]

Ive been to Aintree almost every year for the Grand National & have only once known there to be Industrial Action on MerseyRail. It spoilt the day as the majority of punters arrive by train as it is so convenient & moves tens of thousands to the race so effitiently. Add the Northern dispute & it makes for a miserable day this year. Thankfully we gave it a miss this year as would've purchased tickets & booked hotels last Summer to get the best deals.

 

[furnessvale]

RMT rep on Granada Reports has just said that their members demanded to strike on Grand National Day to show how angry they are.

I saw that and immediately thought just how did they consult the membership?

 

[HH]

I saw that and immediately thought just how did they consult the membership?

Mick got out his Ouija board and consulted Wor Bob.

 

[Mag_seven]

I wonder what the media will make of this as an opportunity to get as much "news" out of it.

Liverpool is a bastion of the Labour Party and Joe Anderson is always trying to raise the profile of the city, so having the racing "Jewel in the Crown" affected transport-wise to a horse racing event which is known world-wide will cause him some angst. I wonder if he will make a media statement?

The RMT aren't affiliated to Labour so I doubt they'll care. They are slowly becoming the Millwall FC of trade unions - "no-body likes us, we don't care". Trouble is high profile and disruptive action like this will just give the Tories more ammunition to justify more austere anti trade union legislation then we will all suffer.