Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

^ If they aren't union members and every union member is kept in employment on their existing grade, then why should a union have any right other than to invite the new drivers to join the union?

 

[Bromley boy]

^ If they aren't union members and every union member is kept in employment on their existing grade, then why should a union have any right other than to invite the new drivers to join the union?

That rather goes against the principle of collective bargaining which the TOC has entered into with the union.

In just the same way, as a driver I can’t ring up a rival TOC and ask for £10k more than my current salary for them to take me on.

 

[Carlisle]

Following this argument to its logical conclusion, supposing a TOC found drivers willing to work for less than the current drivers’ salary. Surely you aren’t suggesting this wouldn’t be any of the union’s business?!

Itn simple terms its called the free market , if your union disapprove and want communism there’s always the option of relocating to North Korea, Cuba or China etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

Following this argument to its logical conclusion, supposing a TOC found drivers willing to work for less than the current drivers’ salary. Surely you aren’t suggesting this wouldn’t be any of the union’s business?!

If the TOC wishes to employ new drivers on a lower wage (or driving DOO, or picking up litter while changing ends, or whatever), that's up to them - you know what the job on offer is when you decide to take it, and if you don't like it you don't take it. What the Union should ensure is that the existing drivers - their membership - do not see a cut (or a long-term freeze).

Though collective bargaining (which is counter to this) is near unknown in the commercial sector, where I work, so perhaps that's just one of those differences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In just the same way, as a driver I can’t ring up a rival TOC and ask for £10k more than my current salary for them to take me on.

Whereas in the commercial sector that's exactly what happens in a lot of cases when you get to the kind of pay levels of train drivers.

It would genuinely be interesting to see what staff pay would have been like were there no unions.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Itn simple terms its called the free market , if your union disapprove and want communism there’s always the option of recommendation of relocating to North Korea, Cuba or China etc

Hmmm... I'm trying to work out whether this post is meant to be taken seriously or not. The reality is that we live in a democracy governed by rules and laws laid down by Parliament some of which are concerned with inhibiting certain aspects of "The Free Market" due to their negative consequences for ordinary people. Trade unions also have certain laws by which they must abide but in spite of the views of extreme right wingers there has been no serious suggestion that trade unions should be barred from their current activities, nor do I believe that there would be sufficient support for such a draconian measure if it were to be proposed. Many people are proud of the fact that this country is often called the Mother of Democracies: I'm guessing you do not subscribe to this view.

We all know how much you detest trade unions but to suggest that your preferred solution is to exile a whole group of people just because they hold a different opinion to your own is almost unbelievably intolerant. It's no wonder that extremist groups are able to find supporters when there people expressing such appalling ideas. [/shakes head]

 

[Bromley boy]

Itn simple terms its called the free market , if your union disapprove and want communism there’s always the option of recommendation of relocating to North Korea, Cuba or China etc

I’m afraid that’s a silly (and extremely ignorant) comment. The labour market in the U.K. is far from “free” and hasn’t been for a very long time. There are myriad legal protections for employees in place, including the ability to belong to trades unions.

Nothing to do with “communism”. Unless you’d like to go back to world where employers put signs in the window saying “no blacks, no Irish” and children are sent up chimneys?!

 

[Bromley boy]

If the TOC wishes to employ new drivers on a lower wage (or driving DOO, or picking up litter while changing ends, or whatever), that's up to them - you know what the job on offer is when you decide to take it, and if you don't like it you don't take it. What the Union should ensure is that the existing drivers - their membership - do not see a cut (or a long-term freeze).

Though collective bargaining (which is counter to this) is near unknown in the commercial sector, where I work, so perhaps that's just one of those differences.

The argument would be that employing people to do the same job on lower terms and conditions would undermine the job in the long term.

Collective bargaining of this type is only really possible where the industry is heavily unionised and the union can genuinely claim to represent the majority of staff. I doubt that is the case in many other industries these days.

It probably seems very archaic but is arguably very necessary in an industry where employers’ attitudes towards their employees is unfortunately equally archaic!

 

[Bromley boy]

Whereas in the commercial sector that's exactly what happens in a lot of cases when you get to the kind of pay levels of train drivers.

It would genuinely be interesting to see what staff pay would have been like were there no unions.

Yes indeed.

Without the heavily unionised nature of the U.K. driver pool I wonder if the pay would be so similar irrespective of where in the country the TOC was located, for example.

By the same token you’d probably find a wider disparity in salaries of drivers within particular TOCs based on their individual negotiation skills and how desperate the TOC was for drivers when they were recruited.

In the post privatisation era with TOCs competing for drivers it’s not difficult to imagine that average driver wages may actually be a lot higher than they are now.

On the other hand the railway grades which are not essential for trains to run may well have seen much bigger diminutions in T’s and C’s (if they were to still exist at all).

 

[Carlisle]

Hmmm... I'm trying to work out whether this post is meant to be taken seriously or not.

Trying to be humorous and I don’t hate unions, Im just not of the opinion that industrial relations on our railways need to evolve into something akin to a watered down version of player power in elite sport in order to be successful, it’s a public srervice after all,

 

[B&I]

Itn simple terms its called the free market , if your union disapprove and want communism there’s always the option of relocating to North Korea, Cuba or China etc

Yes, because any sort of limitation whatsoever on the abilities of employers to do what they like is obviously the same as living in Cuba or North Korea.

PS China has been in the process of abandoning communism as an econonic model for nearly 40 years.

 

[B&I]

I’m afraid that’s a silly (and extremely ignorant) comment. The labour market in the U.K. is far from “free” and hasn’t been for a very long time. There are myriad legal protections for employees in place, including the ability to belong to trades unions.

Nothing to do with “communism”. Unless you’d like to go back to world where employers put signs in the window saying “no blacks, no Irish” and children are sent up chimneys?!

Don't tempt him.

 

[a_c_skinner]

All this seems beside the point, which is that the employers seem content to put up with the current level of industrial action presumably with a view to winning by simply ignoring it. I assume they have been told that is acceptable to the DfT. The RMT is costing its members money with (to me at least) little likelihood of success. Following a solid but futile and costly course of action isn't the hallmark of a good trades union. I may be wrong, but it seems to me all the TOCs involved are following a similar course.

 

[Moonshot]

All this seems beside the point, which is that the employers seem content to put up with the current level of industrial action presumably with a view to winning by simply ignoring it. I assume they have been told that is acceptable to the DfT. The RMT is costing its members money with (to me at least) little likelihood of success. Following a solid but futile and costly course of action isn't the hallmark of a good trades union. I may be wrong, but it seems to me all the TOCs involved are following a similar course.

No its not, and the reality is that the RMT will likely lose a good number of sub paying members. The way this franchise is developing for the public means that guards are going to have to accept the fact that change is on the way ( including Sundays inside the working week ).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Trying to be humorous and I don’t hate unions, Im just not of the opinion that industrial relations on our railways need to evolve into something akin to a watered down version of player power in elite sport in order to be successful, it’s a public srervice after all,

And it takes two to tango. The DfT is equally deserving of your criticism and scorn. Indeed the current disputes around the network are all due to the DfT's actions. Industrial Relations are best left to the parties directly concerned; government has almost no useful role to play, we have seen this in the past and on both sides of the argument. That would also be the logical way to proceed within your beloved Free Market!

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Indeed it is, I rather suspect judging by the chat in the messroom that an increasing number of guards will ignore it and work

Which is why the RMT have now decided to bankroll those on strike at a rate of £200 per person.

 

[Moonshot]

And it takes two to tango. The DfT is equally deserving of your criticism and scorn. Indeed the current disputes around the network are all due to the DfT's actions. Industrial Relations are best left to the parties directly concerned; government has almost no useful role to play, we have seen this in the past and on both sides of the argument. That would also be the logical way to proceed within your beloved Free Market!

So if Network Rail was privatised and the industry frees itself from the micromanaging hand of the DFT , would these disputes still happen?

 

[Moonshot]

Which is why the RMT have now decided to bankroll those on strike at a rate of £200 per person.

I ve not heard that one I must admit

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I ve not heard that one I must admit

I got that from a Northern guard this afternoon. Not someone who is in the habit of spreading rumours so I’m confident that it is accurate.

 

[Moonshot]

I got that from a Northern guard this afternoon. Not someone who is in the habit of spreading rumours so I’m confident that it is accurate.

I am one myself

 

[a_c_skinner]

bankroll those on strike at a rate of £200 per person

That only changes it from can members afford it to can the union afford it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So if Network Rail was privatised and the industry frees itself from the micromanaging hand of the DFT , would these disputes still happen?

The disputes might very well still happen but they would be resolved very much more quickly to the benefit of all concerned including the poor passengers who are stuck in the middle of it all.

 

[Moonshot]

The disputes might very well still happen but they would be resolved very much more quickly to the benefit of all concerned including the poor passengers who are stuck in the middle of it all.

The reason being that the RMT would have no political axe to grind?

 

[Moonshot]

That only changes it from can members afford it to can the union afford it.

I suspect they can, they do get some significant funds from share dividends.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The reason being that the RMT would have no political axe to grind?

The reason being that a genuinely private sector railway would see no commercial benefit from unnecessarily prolonging a dispute. Even Ryanair is now moving towards union recognition, something it has previously insisted would never happen, rather than suffer disruption. "Jaw jaw, not war war".

 

[Moonshot]

The reason being that a genuinely private sector railway would see no commercial benefit from unnecessarily prolonging a dispute. Even Ryanair is now moving towards union recognition, something it has previously insisted would never happen, rather than suffer disruption. "Jaw jaw, not war war".

Surely privatisng the rail industry in its entirety would at least kill off disruption by stike action then ? Certainly train drivers have done very well in terms of pay when ASLEF negotiate with the private sector.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Well of course they do...They hold all the cards

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Itn simple terms its called the free market , if your union disapprove and want communism there’s always the option of relocating to North Korea, Cuba or China etc

What a load of cobblers - there is absolutely no such thing as a "free" market. Every aspect of it is controlled. If it isn't state communism then it is the 'corporate communism' we have here - whereby a few small conglomerates call all the shots. Are you REALLY that naive that you believe there is such a thing as a "free" market ?

 

[Moonshot]

Which is why the RMT have now decided to bankroll those on strike at a rate of £200 per person.

Just to confirm you are indeed correct. I have had a letter about it this morning.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Despite the RMT offer of £200 per person, how long can they bankroll that for nationwide? That will soon start to add up with all the strikes going on.

Sorry if this has been discussed before but are Northern one of the franchises were the government bankrolls costs of strikes anyway?