• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail Industry Recovery Group

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,014
Location
Surrey
There's a lot of unknowns in this, but the positive of it does seem to be there is a focus on redeployment and upskilling where appropriate - anything which supports the development of the workforce is a good call as the industry is not in a great position currently in terms of availability of the people with the right skills.

Things on the railway need to change; but we've known that since before Covid anyway. No doubt the voluntary severance scheme will be sufficiently attractive to encourage those who were considering retirement anyway, or don't like the idea of change, to be suitably recompensed for moving on.

I think folk should give it all a fair chance before falling in assuming the naysaying headlines about massive job cuts and whatnot are accurate. We'll still need people to carry on staffing the railway, whether they're cleaning the trains, driving them, signalling them, controlling them, planning them, making sure they're fixed, making sure they run safely etc.
Absolutely but this needs the unions and management to enter into the spirit of change is necessary and the need to move quickly and get on the front foot so govt doesn't start imposing their view of what needs to happen as they are with TfL. The industry hasn't had a big voluntary severance programme for decades so there will be a good level of interest but they need to be careful they don't allow too much experience to seep away too fast. So with a combination of voluntary severance, job retraining and redeployment the industry could transform itself without redundancies but its a very narrow path unions and management will need to tread.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
On past experience, do we seriously believe that the RMT, in particular, will give an inch without a substantial pay increase?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,919
On past experience, do we seriously believe that the RMT, in particular, will give an inch without a substantial pay increase?

These aren't normal times so I guess we will find out one way or another. I suppose it depends on what the outcomes are.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,103
Location
Redcar
On past experience, do we seriously believe that the RMT, in particular, will give an inch without a substantial pay increase?

The question should surely be whether their members will or not? The RMT leadership might have their own view but it's the members who would be voting on anything, particularly strike action. It's not all that long ago that a ballot at Scotrail failed for instance.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
On past experience, do we seriously believe that the RMT, in particular, will give an inch without a substantial pay increase?

Change comes at a cost. Neither the DfT or the RIRG should expect somethng for nothing.
 

lammergeier

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2017
Messages
505
Change comes at a cost. Neither the DfT or the RIRG should expect somethng for nothing.
What have the employees of British Gas or British Airways or myriad other companies who have gone down the fire and hire route received in return for the lower pay and/or worse terms and conditions recently imposed?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
The question should surely be whether their members will or not? The RMT leadership might have their own view but it's the members who would be voting on anything, particularly strike action. It's not all that long ago that a ballot at Scotrail failed for instance.
Well, it seems that on some issues they don't get much chance of a vote:-

 

dctraindriver

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2017
Messages
616
Change comes at a cost. Neither the DfT or the RIRG should expect somethng for nothing.
With a blink of an eye an 80 seat conservative majority could easily impose new employment laws. If British Gas can reduce the terms and conditions for its engineers don't think it couldn't happen on the railway. We are not bulletproof.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
What have the employees of British Gas or British Airways or myriad other companies who have gone down the fire and hire route received in return for the lower pay and/or worse terms and conditions recently imposed?

This isn't something that should be supported or repeated. It is a disgracefull treatment of employees and an abuse of Employment law. How or why anyone would use this as a arguement to push similar action in another industry is loathesome.

With a blink of an eye an 80 seat conservative majority could easily impose new employment laws. If British Gas can reduce the terms and conditions for its engineers don't think it couldn't happen on the railway. We are not bulletproof.

No we aren't bulletproof but neither should anyone just roll over and accept it. Change needs to be meaningful. There needs to be real tangible benefits for all parties and there needs to be a benefit to the end users. Weilding the axe to your employees isnt the way forward and often has negative consequences.


In which case nor should the staff !!

I would agree.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The document speaks of a recruitment freeze in order to allow for transfers within the industry, for those whose role is made redundant (and who do not want to take voluntary redundancy).

I can't see an argument to pause hiring of the workforce for the following reasons:
  • We have an expanding network with new routes coming on-stream in the next few years. These will require new personnel.
  • I would be surprised if Covid has not caused older or more vulnerable frontline staff to bring forward retirement plans.
  • The commuters were the passengers who needed virtually no personal assistance. Leisure travellers will place greater value on visible representatives of the railway who can assist them.
As bullish as ever about the prospects for rail, I feel that this is a great opportunity for the industry to recruit motivated individuals from other industries, like the airlines, which are more affected by the pandemic. Friendly, welcoming frontline staff - able to rove about just like sales staff at the apple store rather than be stuck in a box office or train compartment - are what new passengers need to give them confidence to keep travelling, even if this is achieved by a rethink of the traditional job specifications on both trains and station platforms.
 

tiptoptaff

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2013
Messages
3,225
I can't see an argument to pause hiring of the workforce for the following reasons:
  • We have an expanding network with new routes coming on-stream in the next few years. These will require new personnel.
  • I would be surprised if Covid has not caused older or more vulnerable frontline staff to bring forward retirement plans.
  • The commuters were the passengers who needed virtually no personal assistance. Leisure travellers will place greater value on visible representatives of the railway who can assist them.
As bullish as ever about the prospects for rail, I feel that this is a great opportunity for the industry to recruit motivated individuals from other industries, like the airlines, which are more affected by the pandemic. Friendly, welcoming frontline staff - able to rove about just like sales staff at the apple store rather than be stuck in a box office or train compartment - are what new passengers need to give them confidence to keep travelling, even if this is achieved by a rethink of the traditional job specifications on both trains and station platforms.
I wouldn't be so sure about the airline staff.

We've had some good ones, but also quite a number fail drug tests.

Not tarring all, but it's a relatively high proportion of those staff compared to those who came from other industries
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,886
I can't see an argument to pause hiring of the workforce for the following reasons:
  • We have an expanding network with new routes coming on-stream in the next few years. These will require new personnel.
  • I would be surprised if Covid has not caused older or more vulnerable frontline staff to bring forward retirement plans.
  • The commuters were the passengers who needed virtually no personal assistance. Leisure travellers will place greater value on visible representatives of the railway who can assist them.
As bullish as ever about the prospects for rail, I feel that this is a great opportunity for the industry to recruit motivated individuals from other industries, like the airlines, which are more affected by the pandemic. Friendly, welcoming frontline staff - able to rove about rather than be stuck in a box office or train compartment as we see from sales staff at the apple store - are what new passengers need to give them confidence to keep travelling, even if this is achieved by a rethink of the traditional job specifications on both trains and station platforms.

An expanding network very much depends if people return to the railways after the pandemic. At least some people are expecting that passenger levels could take years to recover, so rather than running empty trains there would be some consolidation of services with an obvious effect on the staffing level required.

If there is going to be a shift towards for customer-focused roles, it's fairest to the existing staff to give them the first chance to switch, rather than hiring new staff and telling the existing ones that they're being made redundant because their role no longer exists.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
Not necessarily.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; interesting.

Whilst there are a few terms and conditions I would happily agree to or give away for 'free' There is still a cost attached somewhere.

If we take an example from the RIRG framework it might help; so lets take BAME. I think we can all agree that it is a topic that the industry needs to adress and also a topic in which all parties shuold seemingly fully support. On the ground this looks to be an easy win for everyone. The TOC creates a campaign of inclusivity and diversity in the workforce etc and everyone is happy. No real need to change to T&Cs needed but all parties would need to agree on a way forward and how any changes are implemented. There would still be a cost involved. Marketing costs money, increased recruitment costs money, project work takes man hours, etc etc. With some changes you will also get those who are adverse to what happend. So they will leave or simply become more unproductive etc. This will also increase costs.

The industry as a whole is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and you and I both know how far behind it is. There is a LOT of ground to catch up. You and I are also well aware of how slow and glacial the industry moves with any change. None of this is going to be resolved any time soon and certainly need before December.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,838
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; interesting.

Whilst there are a few terms and conditions I would happily agree to or give away for 'free' There is still a cost attached somewhere.

If we take an example from the RIRG framework it might help; so lets take BAME. I think we can all agree that it is a topic that the industry needs to adress and also a topic in which all parties shuold seemingly fully support. On the ground this looks to be an easy win for everyone. The TOC creates a campaign of inclusivity and diversity in the workforce etc and everyone is happy. No real need to change to T&Cs needed but all parties would need to agree on a way forward and how any changes are implemented. There would still be a cost involved. Marketing costs money, increased recruitment costs money, project work takes man hours, etc etc. With some changes you will also get those who are adverse to what happend. So they will leave or simply become more unproductive etc. This will also increase costs.

The industry as a whole is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and you and I both know how far behind it is. There is a LOT of ground to catch up. You and I are also well aware of how slow and glacial the industry moves with any change. None of this is going to be resolved any time soon and certainly need before December.

The industry is broke. It has to save money - lots of it and quickly. All changes will have cost savings as a part. Otherwise there will be no point doing them.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,919
How can the RMT Executive refuse to allow a vote - I thought it was for the members to determine ?

The feedback on the deal was so overwhelmingly negative for various reasons that the reps felt it spoke for itself, I think, for right or for wrong.

Union executives are not obliged to offer votes and referendums though they're often playing with fire if they don't - see ASLEF with the Greater Anglia pay deal that saw them take train dispatch from their guards - that was accepted without a referendum.

There were lots of issues with it.

I am broadly in favour of modernising some T&Cs for the modern era but even I wouldn't have voted in favour.

Ultimately if Stagecoach hadn't chosen to impose new terms on a collectively bargained grade on several occasions over numerous years (in a particularly clumsy and ham fisted manner that caused many further problems) we wouldn't be where we are. East Midlands senior conductors have the worst T&Cs of any of the ex Central Trains guards at Cross Country, EMR, WMR and TfW. The little they did gain from the imposition, the removal of the 12 month training salary, was reimposed by Stagecoach after **8 years** as it was "a mistake".

Funnily enough they kept writing the requirement to work Sundays into contracts though.

Ideally both union and company will stop sabre rattling and sort it out but I am intrigued as to how this latest announcement might affect negotiations - the previous offers have despite restraints on pay been signed off by the DfT.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
The feedback on the deal was so overwhelmingly negative for various reasons that the reps felt it spoke for itself, I think, for right or for wrong.

Union executives are not obliged to offer votes and referendums though they're often playing with fire if they don't - see ASLEF with the Greater Anglia pay deal that saw them take train dispatch from their guards - that was accepted without a referendum.

There were lots of issues with it.

I am broadly in favour of modernising some T&Cs for the modern era but even I wouldn't have voted in favour.

Ultimately if Stagecoach hadn't chosen to impose new terms on a collectively bargained grade on several occasions over numerous years (in a particularly clumsy and ham fisted manner that caused many further problems) we wouldn't be where we are. East Midlands senior conductors have the worst T&Cs of any of the ex Central Trains guards at Cross Country, EMR, WMR and TfW. The little they did gain from the imposition, the removal of the 12 month training salary, was reimposed by Stagecoach after **8 years** as it was "a mistake".

Funnily enough they kept writing the requirement to work Sundays into contracts though.

Ideally both union and company will stop sabre rattling and sort it out but I am intrigued as to how this latest announcement might affect negotiations - the previous offers have despite restraints on pay been signed off by the DfT.
Thanks. I had no idea that the Executive could make such decisions without going back to their members. While I understand that they might not see the need to go back for a vote where they know the proposal will be rejected outright it still seems to be a potentially dangerous approach.
 

lammergeier

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2017
Messages
505
This isn't something that should be supported or repeated. It is a disgracefull treatment of employees and an abuse of Employment law. How or why anyone would use this as a arguement to push similar action in another industry is loathesome
Where did I even hint or suggest that action such as this should be pushed? Perhaps you'd care to read my post again, properly, and reply again? It is indeed a disgraceful way to treat people but it happens and we - yes we, I am a driver as well as you - may well need to fight it. Bury your head in the sand if you like but it is a very real danger we need to be aware of.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
Bury your head in the sand if you like but it is a very real danger we need to be aware of.

How am I burying my head in the sand ? I'm generally somewhere between a pragmatist and a realist. Change is needed and I've been saying that for years. Internally I've pushed for many changes that are flat out ignored because of costs or a pig headed and sometimes arrogance against any form of culture change. This industry has been slowly moving towards self destruction and no amount of political posturing is going to change that. The Unions frustrate their members with their often outdated idealism and political motivation and are contributing to the position we are in today.

I have no wish to fight and those core principles are something we all need to work towards. However, in no way, shape or form do I support any Goverment, Union or Industry Group that constantly goes to war with its staff/members. I firmly belive in workers rights so will do everything in my power to uphold that core principle too. The realist in me just feels that this is going to get very messy and each side will dig their heels in and then fix bayonets.

I am well aware of the dangers. I have been on both sides over my career. As a Manager I have been instructed to use such abuses in employment law and enforced changes in contracts "the hard way". As an employee I also know what its like to be on the recieving end too.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
How am I burying my head in the sand ? I'm generally somewhere between a pragmatist and a realist. Change is needed and I've been saying that for years. Internally I've pushed for many changes that are flat out ignored because of costs or a pig headed and sometimes arrogance against any form of culture change. This industry has been slowly moving towards self destruction and no amount of political posturing is going to change that. The Unions frustrate their members with their often outdated idealism and political motivation and are contributing to the position we are in today.

I have no wish to fight and those core principles are something we all need to work towards. However, in no way, shape or form do I support any Goverment, Union or Industry Group that constantly goes to war with its staff/members. I firmly belive in workers rights so will do everything in my power to uphold that core principle too. The realist in me just feels that this is going to get very messy and each side will dig their heels in and then fix bayonets.

I am well aware of the dangers. I have been on both sides over my career. As a Manager I have been instructed to use such abuses in employment law and enforced changes in contracts "the hard way". As an employee I also know what its like to be on the recieving end too.
Good post, thanks.
 

lammergeier

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2017
Messages
505
How am I burying my head in the sand ? I'm generally somewhere between a pragmatist and a realist. Change is needed and I've been saying that for years. Internally I've pushed for many changes that are flat out ignored because of costs or a pig headed and sometimes arrogance against any form of culture change. This industry has been slowly moving towards self destruction and no amount of political posturing is going to change that. The Unions frustrate their members with their often outdated idealism and political motivation and are contributing to the position we are in today.

I have no wish to fight and those core principles are something we all need to work towards. However, in no way, shape or form do I support any Goverment, Union or Industry Group that constantly goes to war with its staff/members. I firmly belive in workers rights so will do everything in my power to uphold that core principle too. The realist in me just feels that this is going to get very messy and each side will dig their heels in and then fix bayonets.

I am well aware of the dangers. I have been on both sides over my career. As a Manager I have been instructed to use such abuses in employment law and enforced changes in contracts "the hard way". As an employee I also know what its like to be on the recieving end too.
I fully agree with you here. It's just your first post seemed to attack even the merest suggestion that this is potentially a real possibility. I hope pragmatism will win the day and the inclusion of the unions in these talks is a good start. It will certainly be an interesting if not worrying 6 months or so ahead.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,892
It does have precedent on the railway, though, for example (well, the Tube) the Night Tube having a totally separate set of part-time, permanent nights drivers.

The Night Tube Drivers are being integrated as regular drivers now, so will be on same T&Cs. When Night Tube did run, regular Train Operators could not cover Night Tube turns of duty or vice-versa - work was kept completely separate.

Another example of modern working practices. The HUGE elephant in the room is that it has always been the TOCs that have been averse to these changes. Staff want more flexible working and the Union has a strong desire for Sundays being inside. For as long as its cheaper and easier to maintain the status quo then there is no incentive to change. All these desired changes will increase costs. I'm stunned the RIRG doesn't see this. Looks real pretty on paper and when making public statements. Just far removed from reality.

Would you believe, that there has been a change from the 'Draft' document, which read:
Establishing a modern 7-day railway to support growth in leisure travel with the removal of voluntary Sunday working.

To, in the 'Final' version:
Establishing a modern 7-day railway to support growth in leisure travel with robust working arrangements for Sundays.

So it looks like someone has realised.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
I fully agree with you here. It's just your first post seemed to attack even the merest suggestion that this is potentially a real possibility. I hope pragmatism will win the day and the inclusion of the unions in these talks is a good start. It will certainly be an interesting if not worrying 6 months or so ahead.


I Apologise if it came across as an atack (not intended) . I am constantly frustrated by the continual barrage of "this happens in X industry" so it should happen to you and crap like "nobody else is getting so why should you" Your post also felt like another "threat" "As in, if you don't agree, we can do this.." It's how this industry works. Everyone starts negotiations from inside the bunker. Even the document feel like a 'threat' to agree or we take it all back and press the big red redundancy button.

I think we are all on edge and a little nervous, especially in grades where cuts are most likely to happen. Wizards third rule for sure.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,289
Location
Bolton
We know for sure that the two big lucrative sources of industry revenue aren't coming back in the short term: long-distance daily commuting from the East and South East of England into London, much of it on very costly longer than monthly season tickets, and high yield business travel, much of it corporately funded and much of it First Class.

Set against this, the provision of passenger railway services is simply far too expensive, especially on routes where trains are short or diesel powered (or, of course, both). Obviously there are lots of different long-term reasons why, but we don't really have a long term plan or a long term governance process. The immediate concern is that their real cost is reduced. If it cannot be reduced, it's then a question over which services we can do without. That's the fundamental question here. Unfortunately I think many people still haven't quite accepted that, although I do sympathise because it's difficult to imagine that after so many years it's going to change.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,364
Location
Yorks
Perhaps the loss of the "expense account" market might prompt the industry to do something about very expensive walk-on fares that, in the words of the industry "hardly anyone ever buys" and replace them with more flexible fares that people will actually buy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top