Bob Crow announces yet another rail strike

[Old Timer]

It was the Tories who cut funding to the schools in the 80s/90s, as stated Labour have made mistakes, the Tories have always been for the well off & rich in society, they always will be...

So shall we forget the state of the UK economy in 1979 then ?

The fact that spending cuts were a REQUIREMENT of the IMF loans that were provided to the UK when Labour finally broke the Bank in 1977, and were to be paid back from 1980 onwards ?

A little reading of the autobiographies of any of the major Labour party figures in Opposition during the 1980s will educate you to the fact that they themselves acknowledged there was no alternative.

In fact it is all rather similar to today really, years of Labour Governments spending taxpayers money without any thought until the Country's economy is totally screwed.

The Conservative Government of the 1980s led the development of small businesses on a scale not seen previously, and gave everyone the opportunity to actually own their own house and buy the two cars that you probably benefit from today.

An analysis of the last 13 years of Labour will demonstrate that whilst the gap between the lowest and highest earners actually REDUCED under the Conservatives, it actually WIDENED under Labour 1997 to 2010. If you want to really see which Party is for the well off and the rich then look at Labour's tax record 1997 to 2010 and the many, many Labour donors and supporters who persuauded Labour to leave open, and indeed open wider, the doors which allowed them to avoid paying UK tax. Maybe you would also like to look at the likes of Lord Paul, a Labour Peer and the man who stripped the Corus pension fund for private gain. What about all these Labour MPs and Peers who have defrauded the taxpayer through expenses claims and are now being Prosecuted for it ?

There is example after example if only you had simply read the newspapers.

Still why let the facts spoil a good old hatefest in its development ? Far better to have an unsubstantiated rant.

 

[tbtc]

so basically your argument is...
because other people are suffering so should everyone else???

also why do guards have the pension/security/salary? because of unions negotiating, on this occasion it has hit a brick wall (at least for now) you can not use other jobs as examples as every service/job etc etc is different with different rules/needs etc etc

btw Northern Guards are the lowest paid in the country (was TPE until they had their harmonisation go through)

The problem with your argument is that you have these two points:

1. All the recession/ job cutting/ wage freezes/ compulsory redundancies/ recruitment bans (etc) in the rest of the economy should have no bearing on wage negotiations at Northern

2. The fact that another TOC get a better deal has a significant bearing on wage negotiations at Northern

Face it, "intercity" TOCs pay better money to get better staff. Wages for Intercity TOCs are always going to be better than for "local" TOCs. That'll never change.

 

[313103]

Many passengers/customers of the rail industry will get little or no pay rise for the Xth year.
Mine is the second of a two year deal and I will lose out on the RPI factor, THATS LIFE!!!

Well you must be unhappy about it, otherwise you wouldnt of mentioned it!

 

[tbtc]

Now as we all live in the real world, what does 5.2% REALLY equate to?
What strings are attached to this pay rise.
VAT going up to 20%.
RPI currently stands at 4.7%
Food and Non Alcoholic beverages rose by record 1.6% between October and November.
The following link ay help to show that 5.2% which when said loud sounds a lot, take into consideration what is going on and you will find that in real terms it isnt even a payrise.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=19

5.2% is above inflation. Simple as that.

Some things are increasing faster than TPI, some things are increasing slower than RPI - this has always been the case.

To say that "5.2% isn't even a payrise in real terms" is not only wrong, but shows how divorced some in the railways are from their passengers (many of whom are getting no wage rise, or a token 1%, ignoring those under threat of redundancy)

 

[Flamingo]

tbtc, your objection seems to be on moral grounds, that if everyone can't have a pay rise, then no-one should. Is'nt that a bit immature?

If the TOC's involved were loosing money, there was a price freeze on fares, or shareholder dividends were not being paid due to losses, then your argument would have some weight. If they have a healthy balance sheet, why should the workers who help produce that profit not have wages that reflect that.

During the good times, I can remember 1% pay roses in the public sector, and staff being made redundant. The answer that was given then was "Go work for the private sector if you don't like it". So I did.

Now, I'm not going to refuse a pay rise to support my family, especially if my refusing that pay rise is not going to make any difference to the job prospects of somebody working for the council in Manchester.

Also, for all the "The Tories have to do it, Labour left them no choice", I would have though that this is capitalism in action, which the Tories would applaud.

 

[313103]

5.2% is above inflation. Simple as that.

Some things are increasing faster than TPI, some things are increasing slower than RPI - this has always been the case.

To say that "5.2% isn't even a payrise in real terms" is not only wrong, but shows how divorced some in the railways are from their passengers (many of whom are getting no wage rise, or a token 1%, ignoring those under threat of redundancy)

Well of course its above inflation, that is because its the prefered method used by Government. RPI is always generally higher then CPI but even CPI is now tettering on the brink of 3%.

I am not divorced from the passenger on a train or any one outside the rail industry. The industry that i joined in 1980 employed something like 350,000 direct employees with probably the same figures for non direct employment. In 2010 you would be lucky to find 100,000 direct employees of the railway.

I have seen the consequencies of succesive Governments policy on Transport, with railways in particular. I also understand how people are at the moment, you musnt forget that it isnt only those outside of the railway that are affected by jobs being cut and lost, look at London Underground. I have seen what DOO does, having been directly affected by it, and still with it hanging over my head. After the olympics have gone i may not be so lucky.

 

[tbtc]

tbtc, your objection seems to be on moral grounds, that if everyone can't have a pay rise, then no-one should. Is'nt that a bit immature?

If the TOC's involved were loosing money, there was a price freeze on fares, or shareholder dividends were not being paid due to losses, then your argument would have some weight. If they have a healthy balance sheet, why should the workers who help produce that profit not have wages that reflect that.

During the good times, I can remember 1% pay roses in the public sector, and staff being made redundant. The answer that was given then was "Go work for the private sector if you don't like it". So I did.

Now, I'm not going to refuse a pay rise to support my family, especially if my refusing that pay rise is not going to make any difference to the job prospects of somebody working for the council in Manchester.

Also, for all the "The Tories have to do it, Labour left them no choice", I would have though that this is capitalism in action, which the Tories would applaud.

No, I'm just saying that pay rises have to be taken in context.

If I ask for a pay rise, then I have to do this relative to

1. How pay rises at my company are
2. How my company/ industry are doing
3. How wage rises are in the rest of the country
4. Inflation

Wage inflation and RPI are two different things. At the moment wage inflation is below RPI, with many people taking pay freezes.

Fair enough, grab what you can, but the ticket price rises are only because of Government support being withdrawn

As for me being "immature", thanks. I just can't see the logic in the "our wages shouldn't be relative to the wage conditions in the rest of the economy, apart from those at intercity TOCs who get paid more than we do"...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not divorced from the passenger on a train or any one outside the rail industry. The industry that i joined in 1980 employed something like 350,000 direct employees with probably the same figures for non direct employment. In 2010 you would be lucky to find 100,000 direct employees of the railway.

I have seen the consequencies of succesive Governments policy on Transport, with railways in particular. I also understand how people are at the moment, you musnt forget that it isnt only those outside of the railway that are affected by jobs being cut and lost, look at London Underground. I have seen what DOO does, having been directly affected by it, and still with it hanging over my head. After the olympics have gone i may not be so lucky.

That's fair enough - cheers

 

[boing_uk]

I suppose people, like myself, might have a little more sympathy if these pay rises weren't supported to some degree by the massive subsidies paid to the rail operators.

When public money is supporting these people and yet they still demand pay rises when all other public sectors are cutting pay, is there little wonder some folks may be a little aggrieved?

 

[Old Timer]

I suppose people, like myself, might have a little more sympathy if these pay rises weren't supported to some degree by the massive subsidies paid to the rail operators.

When public money is supporting these people and yet they still demand pay rises when all other public sectors are cutting pay, is there little wonder some folks may be a little aggrieved?

To be fair, it is not the staff who are getting massive pay rises based on subsidies, rather more the TOCs using them to generate profits and bonuses for themselves.

The criticsm should be firmly laid at the door of successive Governments who have allowed this to continue.

 

[boing_uk]

Oh I quite agree that the situation as it stands is not at all "right". But from the public perception, taxpayers support the railways to the tune of billions of £££'s and yet the staff are demanding better perks than most, even with increasing fares.

If the staff were striking on the issue of management creaming off tax monies to pay bonuses, then maybe there might be a little bit of support... but as it is, its just the staff wanting to be part of the same siphon on the public purse.

 

[Old Timer]

Oh I quite agree that the situation as it stands is not at all "right". But from the public perception, taxpayers support the railways to the tune of billions of £££'s and yet the staff are demanding better perks than most, even with increasing fares.

If the staff were striking on the issue of management creaming off tax monies to pay bonuses, then maybe there might be a little bit of support... but as it is, its just the staff wanting to be part of the same siphon on the public purse.

Well to turn that back at you, I didn't recall the good old Private sector employees having much sympathy for us Railwaymen when OUR wages were being restrained under the Labour Governments from 1974 to 1979 in order to impose a rigid pay restraint.

I seem to recall the Private sector renaming jobs to get around legislation and they did pretty well out of that in comparison to us.

So I am afraid I have no sympathy, as the private sector employees are always the first to bleat when THEY are affected but couldn't give a toss when public sector workers suffer.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So shall we forget the state of the UK economy in 1979 then ?

The fact that spending cuts were a REQUIREMENT of the IMF loans that were provided to the UK when Labour finally broke the Bank in 1977, and were to be paid back from 1980 onwards ?

A little reading of the autobiographies of any of the major Labour party figures in Opposition during the 1980s will educate you to the fact that they themselves acknowledged there was no alternative.

In fact it is all rather similar to today really, years of Labour Governments spending taxpayers money without any thought until the Country's economy is totally screwed.

The Conservative Government of the 1980s led the development of small businesses on a scale not seen previously, and gave everyone the opportunity to actually own their own house and buy the two cars that you probably benefit from today.

An analysis of the last 13 years of Labour will demonstrate that whilst the gap between the lowest and highest earners actually REDUCED under the Conservatives, it actually WIDENED under Labour 1997 to 2010. If you want to really see which Party is for the well off and the rich then look at Labour's tax record 1997 to 2010 and the many, many Labour donors and supporters who persuauded Labour to leave open, and indeed open wider, the doors which allowed them to avoid paying UK tax. Maybe you would also like to look at the likes of Lord Paul, a Labour Peer and the man who stripped the Corus pension fund for private gain. What about all these Labour MPs and Peers who have defrauded the taxpayer through expenses claims and are now being Prosecuted for it ?

There is example after example if only you had simply read the newspapers.

Still why let the facts spoil a good old hatefest in its development ? Far better to have an unsubstantiated rant.

2 sides of the coin, 2 opposing views, which we will never agree on, however I do hope ANY MP who defrauds the taxpayer gets exactly what they deserve regardless of party.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

They're not opposing views, they're facts.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

They're not opposing views, they're facts.

if you would like to continue this ahem "discussion" in pm,s pls do so or if you want to keep baiting pls do so in this forum, as i really have nothing better to do

 

[Old Timer]

2 sides of the coin, 2 opposing views, which we will never agree on,....

And on that note, may I wish you a very good Christmas and New Year.

 

[Legzr1]

Well to turn that back at you, I didn't recall the good old Private sector employees having much sympathy for us Railwaymen when OUR wages were being restrained under the Labour Governments from 1974 to 1979 in order to impose a rigid pay restraint.

I seem to recall the Private sector renaming jobs to get around legislation and they did pretty well out of that in comparison to us.

So I am afraid I have no sympathy, as the private sector employees are always the first to bleat when THEY are affected but couldn't give a toss when public sector workers suffer.

Well said.

tbtc, your objection seems to be on moral grounds, that if everyone can't have a pay rise, then no-one should. Is'nt that a bit immature?

Sounds like he's describing communism!

 

[tbtc]

tbtc, your objection seems to be on moral grounds, that if everyone can't have a pay rise, then no-one should. Is'nt that a bit immature?

If the TOC's involved were loosing money, there was a price freeze on fares, or shareholder dividends were not being paid due to losses, then your argument would have some weight. If they have a healthy balance sheet, why should the workers who help produce that profit not have wages that reflect that.

Out of interest, can you show the Unions who didn't ask for staff wage rises, when TOCs were losing money?

If your logic is "staff deserve a pay rise if their TOC is making profits, regardless of actual inflation etc" then surely any loss making TOC is entitled to freeze pay/ impose pay cuts?

 

[Flamingo]

A loss-making TOC would have better grounds for refusing a pay rise, I would be happy with that. I don't think it is the case here, however.

Your argument is that because firms outside the rail industry are losing money, then workers in the rail industry should not seek a pay rise. That I do not follow.

 

[Greenback]

Out of interest, can you show the Unions who didn't ask for staff wage rises, when TOCs were losing money?

If your logic is "staff deserve a pay rise if their TOC is making profits, regardless of actual inflation etc" then surely any loss making TOC is entitled to freeze pay/ impose pay cuts?

It is a quite different situation not to ask for a pay rise, compared to asking for one and agreeing subsequently that pay can be frozen! I think anyone would accept that it is entirely reasonable to ask for a rise, and also, if the company is losing money, that it's reasonable to agree not to receive a rise as a result!

Of course, most pay negotiations and deals are not just about a % rise, but one example is TSSA and Freightliner in 2009. IIRC, TSSA accepted that pay should be frozen for some staff, with a very small increase for the lowest grade, because of the economic conditions of the time and the effect that had on the company's finances.

Issues surrounding pay are seldom clear cut, and many other things can help to muddy the waters. This is one of the reasons I object to a lot of the reporting of pay deals, which seek to overly simplify a lot of the elements involved and rely heavily on a mythical 'average worker'.

As an example, the recent ATW station staff harmonisation will result in an increase in basic pay for the vast majority of staff involved, but many of the historical allowances and payments have been drastically cut or abolished, and some duties have bene cut to keep the changes cost neutral. Furthermore, a few employees will have their pay frozen until the new pay rates catch up with whatever salary they are currently paid. In effect, this is a permanent pay cut offset slightly by a one off payment to those affected.

 

[tbtc]

A loss-making TOC would have better grounds for refusing a pay rise, I would be happy with that. I don't think it is the case here, however.

Your argument is that because firms outside the rail industry are losing money, then workers in the rail industry should not seek a pay rise. That I do not follow.

I don't remember the RMT (etc) saying "we'll not ask for a pay rise this year, as the TOC isn't making a profit"...

My argument is that as people in the rest of the economy are having pay freezes/ pay cuts/ compulsory redundancies, a Union asking for above-inflation pay rises (and non-contractual bank holiday bonuses etc) needs to consider the context.

I can sympathise where Unions are striking over a safety issue (or, I have in the past), but striking over the things currently discussed is very hard to sympathise with.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm not making the case for the union, I'm just concerned at the illogicality of your argument.

As regards the rest of the economy, whilst the bigger picture has to be taken into account, there are always firms in trouble, redundancies, and pay freezes. What does a call centre in Carlisle being outsourced to India have to do with pay rises on the railway?

I can remember in 1994 (when the economy was doing OK) nurses being made redundant. Which private firms passed up their pay rise that year because of that?

Anyway, the strike hasn't happened yet. As I have said, balloting for strike action is part of the dance in pay negotiations.

 

[tbtc]

One big flaw in your logic is that staff performance doesn't really make the difference between profit/loss on the railways.

Most of the time the profit/loss is a result of how the TOC has bid to run the franchise. For example, whilst Cross Country have some very hard working staff, Arriva bid far too much to run the franchise, so it's not making profits (as I understand it).

Sadly you are right that "balloting for strike action is part of the dance in pay negotiations". However, the constant crying of "wolf" from Unions means their genuine greivances will be ignored when they chose to raise them (I could be sympathetic if a Union is complaining that DOO will lead to safety problems as well as fewer staff, but if that Union has threatened to go on strike every six months about other issues then it gets harder to appreciate the real problems they may have).

 

[Greenback]

That is the big problem that the RMT have. Although they, and Mr Crow, have been very successful in improving pay and T&C's for staff, they are far more likely to seek confrontation, unlike ASLEF or TSSA. This means that the travelling public and the media are often only aware of the strike action being taken or threatened. Undoubtedly this colours reactions to both the RMT and towards other unions.

Still, I'm sure that Bob Crow is more concerned about hsi duties to his memebrs than winning friends at the BBC

 

[Flamingo]

One big flaw in your logic is that staff performance doesn't really make the difference between profit/loss on the railways.

I'm glad to hear that. I'll quote you to my manager the next time he mentions the revenue targets in our depots, or how much delay minutes cost

 

[TDK]

ATW drivers suspended their industrial action last month to allow for further negotiation. Clearly these negotiations have been unsuccessful in settling an ongoing dispute.

Agreed but that was the majority drivers union ASLEF, this is the RMT, different union different strike, this is what ever ASLEF do Bob Crow can do better and the drivers are taking it hook line and sinker, I would at a guess say thet ATW have no more than 20% RMT drivers in their employment so not a huge impact to the service.

Anyone know any different or I have mis understood the thread please let me know.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I posted this in another thread sources from one of the "other" forums, this guy has said exactly how alot of us feel and maybe explaint to some why the strike has gone ahead.

http://www.railforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=39452&page=7

 

[Invincibles]

I'm not making the case for the union, I'm just concerned at the illogicality of your argument.

As regards the rest of the economy, whilst the bigger picture has to be taken into account, there are always firms in trouble, redundancies, and pay freezes. What does a call centre in Carlisle being outsourced to India have to do with pay rises on the railway?

I can remember in 1994 (when the economy was doing OK) nurses being made redundant. Which private firms passed up their pay rise that year because of that?

Anyway, the strike hasn't happened yet. As I have said, balloting for strike action is part of the dance in pay negotiations.

Which 1994 was this?

The one that followed closely after the ERM exit and the realisation we could not harmonise the UK economy with that of the EU sufficiently to join the Euro (not a topic for discussion here, but certainly the background to the year 1994 was a major economic shock that changed government policy and did huge damage to the economy)

I think that you can always find someone who is doing "better" and someone who is doing "worse". You will always find someone who is "struggling" and someone who has more than they can ever know what to do with. However what does not change is that the UK as a whole is not plagued by problems of real poverty, resources are sufficient and there is ample opportunity to be mobile (whether we like it or not jobs move and structural unemployment does not have to mean generations on the dole like it seems to when you ask some people).

In everything we do we can always make someone "better off" but that will have an impact on someone who becomes "worse off". So you can make subjective judgements about "big business" or "lazy unions" or whatever, but really these things need to be thought about as objectively as possible.

I just do not see at this moment that the "better off" comes close to, never mind outweighs, the "worse off". In turn this does not justify a strike to me and the deal that was offered appears to be fair.

I am not completely sure Bob Crow is very good at the difference between happiness and money, because both demand and supply are defined by the former and not the latter. Money is not the driver of the markets, never has been and never will be.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

I constantly see letters in papers like the Daily Mail from people who say things like "I haven't had a pay rise for two years" when commenting on industrial disputes,particularly those involving the RMT.These letters come from people who lack the guts and gumption to stand up for themselves and then build up a resentment of those that do.A favourite word of these correspondants when commenting on unions is "outdated".A touch ironic when you consider that their main complaint is often that their salary is "outdated".Nobody really wants to go on strike but from time to time it is necessary to communicate your sense of grievence.In my experience TOCs often do not negotiate meaningfully and force unions into holding ballots.If the ballot goes,say,60-40 in favour of industrial action then the company will probably tough the dispute out but if the vote is,say,over 80% in favour they will return to the negotiating table and take part in meaningful discussions,resulting in a settlement that doesn't inconvenience the travelling public.

 

[WatcherZero]

I constantly see letters in papers like the Daily Mail from people who say things like "I haven't had a pay rise for two years" when commenting on industrial disputes,particularly those involving the RMT.These letters come from people who lack the guts and gumption to stand up for themselves and then build up a resentment of those that do.A favourite word of these correspondants when commenting on unions is "outdated".A touch ironic when you consider that their main complaint is often that their salary is "outdated".Nobody really wants to go on strike but from time to time it is necessary to communicate your sense of grievence.In my experience TOCs often do not negotiate meaningfully and force unions into holding ballots.If the ballot goes,say,60-40 in favour of industrial action then the company will probably tough the dispute out but if the vote is,say,over 80% in favour they will return to the negotiating table and take part in meaningful discussions,resulting in a settlement that doesn't inconvenience the travelling public.

Or they could you know work in the public sector which has had a wage freeze for two years and will have another next year?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Or they could you know work in the public sector which has had a wage freeze for two years and will have another next year?

but that isn't the RMT of ASLEF members fault now is it? no one likes to strike I didn't but hopefully it will make a difference in the long run, I lost well over £200
when Northern Guards had strike action, I voted for it (just) as Northern Guards have been treated very poorly for a few years now but every dispute is different and will have different resolutions.