Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[mike57]

Great idea. seeing as you want the public to have a say in employees Ts&Cs we should charge them a subscription fee that can be used to increase the employees salary and avert industrial action.

We already pay it, its called subsidies, that are contributed to by all taxpayers, even if they never travel by train.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will the Island Line be subject to the RMT line if the rail staff there were not supportive of the options in the strike ballot there?

 

[JonathanH]

Will the Island Line be subject to the RMT line if the rail staff there were not supportive of the options in the strike ballot there?

Why is Island Line separate of the rest of South Western Railway for the purpose of pay negotiations. It has been part of the SWR franchise since 2007.

 

[320320]

We already pay it, its called subsidies, that are contributed to by all taxpayers, even if they never travel by train.

Being a tax payer doesn’t afford you the right to deny employees of their right of industrial action or right to withdraw labour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being a tax payer doesn’t afford you the right to deny employees of their right of industrial action or right to withdraw labour.

They have the right to strike. They don't have the right to the rate of pay they want, though; it's up to the TOC and the Government what to offer.

 

[XIX7007177]

Called negotiation. Ask for more, have a meet in the middle figure. Do you pay full ticket price at a car dealership?

 

[320320]

They have the right to strike. They don't have the right to the rate of pay they want, though; it's up to the TOC and the Government what to offer.

Isn’t that where the negotiations happen.

 

[Goldfish62]

Why is Island Line separate of the rest of South Western Railway for the purpose of pay negotiations. It has been part of the SWR franchise since 2007.

I assume the staff there remained on separate employment contracts after the merger.

It was the same with the SWR guards dispute.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Being a tax payer doesn’t afford you the right to deny employees of their right of industrial action or right to withdraw labour.

You, like many of the frothing tories in this thread that would like to subjugate railway employees are going to have to deal with the fact that, through democratic process, there will be industrial action if people aren’t given substantial pay rises.

Just to help clarify matters, can someone state the position if what employees right to withdraw labour means termination and what would be the phrase to use when an employer withdraws the means of work from the employees. I think what occurred eons ago when millworkers went on strike and then the employers refused to allow the millworkers to work in their premises.

 

[yorksrob]

The Telegraph is reporting that Boris Johnson is willing to cut a deal with the unions.

Or to be more precise, he is supportive of proposals from within the rail industry to settle the dispute.

I suppose the devil is in the detail, and whether the unions are prepared to accept what is offered.

Access Restricted

For once the treasury should listen to the industry and facilitate a negotiated settlement.

Hopefully Johnson will force it through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Called negotiation. Ask for more, have a meet in the middle figure.

Indeed.

Do you pay full ticket price at a car dealership?

These days you mostly do because of so much online sale meaning the only real place for negotiation is on the trade-in value. But I do get your point nonetheless.

 

[43066]

For once the treasury should listen to the industry and facilitate a negotiated settlement.

Hopefully Johnson will force it through.

Hear hear!

 

[Bantamzen]

Being a tax payer doesn’t afford you the right to deny employees of their right of industrial action or right to withdraw labour.

Perhaps you might like to consider the current economic situation and ask why people might not be supportive of industrial action that could, and probably will make the whole thing just that little bit worse. Like other parts of the nation, the rail industry got a lot of financial support throughout the pandemic restrictions. Support that ultimately has to be paid for.

Much of the public sector of which I am part of would love a nice pay rise, but the reality is that we are looking at no more, and in many case less than 2%. Wanting or expecting more is a best optimistic, and going down the line of industrial action which could harm any summer recovery is not a great look. The Tories, that is to say the people actually making the decisions, not Forum members questioning the rational, will leap on that in a moment. As I have said previously, unions need to box clever and pick their fights. This one they will almost certainly lose.

 

[Goldfish62]

Just to help clarify matters, can someone state the position if what employees right to withdraw labour means termination and what would be the phrase to use when an employer withdraws the means of work from the employees. I think what occurred eons ago when millworkers went on strike and then the employers refused to allow the millworkers to work in their premises.

You are protected from dismissal for the first 12 weeks after industrial action has started. After that your employer can dismiss you if they have tried to settle the dispute. BR and subsequently Railtrack threatened it, but never exercised it on a number of occasions.

Regarding the millworkers example, that's a lock-out and is perfectly legal. It's effectively closing down the business temporarily. It may be used by employers as coercion to settle a dispute.

 

[NI 271]

We already pay it, its called subsidies, that are contributed to by all taxpayers, even if they never travel by train.

Sorry to be the one who breaks this to you, but subsidies don't confer any rights to totally unconnected people to dictate the terms and conditions of anyone's employment. This really is a poor take, do better, It's no different to (or better than) the children I used to drive to school telling me I had to do what they wanted as "our parents pay your wages". Puerile.

 

[FGW_DID]

Much of the public sector of which I am part of would love a nice pay rise, but the reality is that we are looking at no more, and in many case less than 2%

Everybody, of course, would love a big pay rise but 2% is 2% more than I and my colleagues got last year and the year previous. I agree with you that the chances of anything more is unrealistic in the current climate but at least something would be nice!

 

[TPO]

How many people are getting RPI? Very few if any. Do you think that they will pay more tax to give you that? Like hell they will.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2022 ==


DfT are irrelevant. HMT are who you have to convince and you have pretty much no chance. Having worked in Whitehall for way over 30 years my expectation of the current government is that they will go full out on RMT. I expect new legislation within a couple of months.

And I think this is the bit that is easy to overlook. I only spent 5 years or so in the Civil Service (in a specialist grade), in that time I realised that pay was not about what was realistic for the job but was about how much money HMT let the department have. We had a lot of skilled specialists, then HMT cut our budget so we had both a pay freeze AND removed progression up the salary band- quite a few staff left (I was amongst them).

And that is just one particular area. Not everywhere is the same, but any reductions in maintenance staff would only increase speed restrictions or degraded working for signallers.

Don't worry. Network Rail are already hoping to reduce maintenance staff by 2,500 people.

For my own part. I've been a trade union member for over thirty years, coincidentally in the same union that is at the centre of this industrial dispute. I don't always agree with the way the union conducts itself, but at the end of the day I, like many others, are members for their own protection when at work.

In respect of the recent ballot, then I voted NO to strike action, but YES to action short of a strike. That doesn't mean I don't respect those that have voted differently. Nor does it mean I won't take any industrial action. However, personally i feel that action short of a strike can be more effective.

Yes, I get dissolusioned with the union leadership; they get carried away with bombastic rhetoric at times, but I'm more dissolusioned with management who seem to think that they can dress up "modernisation" as a way to reduce staff numbers, cut maintenance work or move it to a risk-based concept; Increase the risk to workers health and well-being by introducing more night working or introduce changes to safety critical working practices, but not have the correct resources in place when new methods of working are implemented.

I hope the whole issue of cutting Network Rail Maintenance and Ops staff doesn't get lost in the headline "it's about pay" message. There's some really worrying things proposed for Maintenance, I remember Phase 2b/c being bad but this is a whole league on from that. The difficulty is that bean-counters (including HMT?) do not understand the cost of reliability. Nor is the lack of staff in the signalling grade (vacancy level) helping.

I recall that in one particular part of Network Rail maintenance that I dealt with a few years ago, there was a cycle: reliability of S&T equipment would deteriorate, delay minutes stack up and be costly. So, more staff would be got and put on preventative maintenance. Lo and behold, over 6 months or so the reliability would improve until the delay minutes were minimal. About 6 months after that, the bean-counters would demand getting rid of a bunch of S&T preventative maintenance staff because the delay minutes were down so obviously they were not needed any more.......... The concept that in preventative maintenance, your goal is "nothing" (no failures, no delay minutes) so your success is measured in being at "nothing" seemed totally beyond their comprehension.

The whole idea of "remote monitoring" as a staff cost-cutter has been kicking around for over a decade now. It suffers from some practical flaws: (1) You still need staff to attend the pending failure before the item fails; (2) the technology is simple on one level- the comms and sensors. But the challenge is what the sensors measure- what is the "about to fail" signal in the equipment? How long do you get after the signal starts before it fails? What is the lead-time of the possibly-obsolete part to fix the kit? And with a variety of equipment, you need to establish that for all the different types of kit. This is currently in the heads of skilled staff who over time build up this knowledge, but replacing the slowly-built "local knowledge" in the heads of staff isn't that simple. Then you have to somehow manage the big data output and convert it into a work regime.... and do all this whilst running trains. To (slightly mis)quote Ben Goldacre, "I think you'll find it's not as simple as you thought."

[I am sure there is room for cuts in Network Rail, but as I've said, not in Ops or Maintenance front-line staff and their local management/support. Possible economies might be from looking at the Projects regimes (the big projects don't seem able to understand/manage costs compared to other utilities) and also the amount of double-staffing in areas like Track Renewals (where too often there is a NR person as well as a contractor person doing the same thing where one would do). Similarly, integrating TOCs more could/should reduce senior management without a deleterious impact on the front line- how many TOC MDs are really required when DfT is running the show for example?]

I wasn't surprised by the result, but I do feel that the RMT are walking into a huge 'bear trap' set by the government.

My (cynical) scenario:

RMT have long and bitter dispute with the TOCs, the TOCs cannot negotiate even if they wanted to because the DfT are pulling strings behind the scenes

Public sympathy even if there is any currently completely evaporates, particularly if inflation continues and other workers have to accept below inflation pay rises

Government uses dispute to undermine power of RMT and push through changes, possibly even going as far as 'fire and rehire' using the TOCs as a shield, and to carry out their (government) agenda

Government then completely abandons TOCs in their current format, and we look at renationalisation by stealth, but with the major changes which could have caused a 'national' rail strike/dispute already pushed through.

Government claim to 'have sorted out the railways'

Railway workers have lost income and have nothing to show for it.

I am not trying to make a political statement with this, or look at the rights and wrong, its just how I see it playing out

Unfortunately, I fear you may be correct.

That isn't how public finances work, there is a finite amount of cash knocking about & once its gone its gone. If you are publicly financed, you are competing with all the other departments for the money, some will gain and some will lose. So unless there is a massive tax rise or Sunak finds the magic money tree, this is how its going to be for some time. And as such expectations should match reality, especially where your area is ripe for cuts to generate savings.


And what would have happened to you guys if the TOCs weren't propped up? Yep, you would have been furloughed like the people you seem to want to tax more to pay for your wage increases.


You know the worst way to gain support is to play the victim card. Of course people are going to get angry, some (like me) will find it more difficult to get around, some will see their businesses taking a knock just when they were hoping to start recovering from the last two years. But most of all a lot of don't even have a prospect of a pay rise under current circumstances, and perhaps couldn't even afford to strike even if the option were there.

Quite a few in favour of action on here seem to be lapping up the prospect of taking on the government, and making potential strikes sound like some kind of ideological battle that we should be all bleary eyed and grateful for. The public I'm sorry to say don't see it that way, and you'd better learn to deal with that when the disruption starts to bite.

Indeed. At the start of my career, I spent a number of years in Local Government (in a rural local authority) before getting a Civil Service post. I worked in a Highways department- dealt with roads and transport including bus subsidies. Watching how budget decisions were made by the Elected Members was instructive. All departments competed for the fixed amount of funds from that years settlement- cash from council tax, business rates and the govt Revenue Support Grant (RSG). Council tax was capped and the RSG was whatever HMT decided we could have (in accordance with applicable formulae of the day for local govt funding).

The winners of the argument were inevitably those with (a) Statutory Duties to discharge and (b) the most emotive argument. Which meant that if it was a bit more money for schools vs enough to maintain the Highway in a good state/subsidise a rural bus service, I can assure you the the Highways dept lost out every time, we always got the absolute bare minimum. See, there's more votes in books for schools than there is in fixing potholes (or subsidising rural bus services). We tried every which way to argue our case. We tried to explain the role of transport as a social enabler. We mostly failed to get that message across.

And that's the situation the railway is now in. It's reliant on govt subsidy- which is not of itself a problem because transport infrastructure is a massive enabler of social mobility and access to services for all. However, when competing for funding out of a limited pot (and the pot is always limited) against the NHS, schools, defence and social care (etc), the railways will lose. BR had this same problem. (Roads tend to to a bit better on the national scale because the government takes so much tax from fuel- 75% or so of a litre of petrol/diesel being tax- and because some 90% or so journeys are by car). Where there is an uplift, too often it is earmarked for a vanity project or covering cost over-runs on existing projects.

Like others I am not trying to make political statements, just looking at where we are on a practical level. I believe that railway staff have a bunch of genuine grievances which need addressing, and that the picture is much more nuanced and complex than "merely" wanting a pay-rise. Whether or not RMT tactics address the grievances remains to be seen. Nor am I convinced it would be much different with Labour in govt as I suspect the way this will play out will be driven in large part by HMT. Also take into account those persons at the top with careers to build in GBR (can't imagine you will get promoted by openly defying HMT.....).

It is with a deep sorrow that I follow this thread, it's difficult to see an outcome that won't hurt a lot of people both within the industry and outwith it.

TPO

 

[Starmill]

Everybody, of course, would love a big pay rise but 2% is 2% more than I and my colleagues got last year and the year previous. I agree with you that the chances of anything more is unrealistic in the current climate but at least something would be nice!

The Civil Service Remit Guidance does allow for awards up to 3% in certain areas with conditions attached so really going for anything less than that isn't very realistic. 2% no conditions or 3% with conditions is still too low but it's a lot better than last year.

It's also worth noting that in addition to the Remit Guidance, there are pay review bodies for most of the rest of the public sector workforce. These are independent bodies who consider evidence from all stakeholders and make a recommendation on pay to Ministers. The railway does not have one as such.

 

[Siggy1980s]

I’d be really interested in anybody’s thoughts or advice on what action to take after this strike announcement. I’m really torn about what to do.

I joined Network Rail 4 years ago and decided to join the RMT as it seemed to be widely recommended by sensible people as the correct decision to make to protect me should anything happen with the company. I’d not been in a unionised industry before, or been a member of a union and so my only exposure to the RMT was Bob Crow and the Tube Strikes from the news.

We’re now clearly in the situation that the membership has overwhelmingly voted for strike action that I believe (possibly erroneously) will be massively counterproductive and lead to a ruinous confrontation with a government who are desperate for a bogeyman to be able to pin things on. Obviously the members want to go on strike and it’s a valid ballot so they shall go on strike. I just can’t see it ending well and my conscience is telling me that it would be wrong to go on strike, both for me personally and for most employees of the company.

So my options as I see it are to stay in the union and go on a strike that I think is wrong, or leave the union now and do not participate in this industrial action. I understand that if I leave the union I will be unable to rejoin at a later date in my railway career. What I am concerned about is the reputation that unions have for ugly behaviour towards people that don’t go along with strikes and the like and also whether I will come to regret not having the protection of the union at a later date. So I have a couple of questions:

How true are the rumours of victimisation of those not participating in industrial action, with respect to the RMT? Or is that some fantasy 1970s thing that I have stuck in my head?

What am I truly giving up if I leave the union? The policies of Network Rail seem quite robust and I don’t see my immediate management as being particularly antagonistic from my admittedly short time on the railway. I am aware that these strong HR policies may only be there because of the existence of a strong union and that’s one of the reasons I’m struggling with this decision.

Clearly there is no definitive answer to either of those questions but I’m interested to hear the opinions of people on these boards. I’m trying to make the most pragmatic decision for me and my family whilst also not shafting myself for years into the future. Thanks.

Happy to take the pay rise and job security IF the RMT does win though.... Thought so.

 

[Howardh]

Not sure how much they are asking for, if it's around 10% they should be offered that as I feel inflation will be higher in the coming months, noting the 40% increase in the energy cap! So cynically it would probably save in the long run if they were given 10% now.

 

[Starmill]

For once the treasury should listen to the industry and facilitate a negotiated settlement.

Hopefully Johnson will force it through.

Surely it'd be better for them to simply increase the cap and put more scope for everyone paid through the public sector to get a pay rise?

 

[muz379]

My final comment: does the RMT have the resources to negotiate concurrently with 16 separate employers in the same industry?

Yes , pay negotiations normally all start at all tocs concurrently around april anyway it is just that they do not normally result in so many disputes .

 

[43066]

Now that fare revenues are back up to circa 80% of pre pandemic levels perhaps there’s scope for removing railway staff from the definition of “public sector”. That would be a quick and easy way of avoiding any arbitrary pay cap.

 

[muz379]

The Telegraph is reporting that Boris Johnson is willing to cut a deal with the unions.

Or to be more precise, he is supportive of proposals from within the rail industry to settle the dispute.

I suppose the devil is in the detail, and whether the unions are prepared to accept what is offered.

Access Restricted

So not the apocalyptic close all booking offices , mothball the branchlines and implement DOO approach that the rhetoric from some on this forums suggests would be the case then .

 

[Drogba11CFC]

So what happens if the majority of members accept this deal, Boris forces it through the treasury, but Mick Lynch refuses to allow them to take it?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not sure how much they are asking for, if it's around 10% they should be offered that as I feel inflation will be higher in the coming months, noting the 40% increase in the energy cap! So cynically it would probably save in the long run if they were given 10% now.

With regards to your mention of the 40% increase in the energy cap, I wonder when the Treasury statement will be forthcoming that the media mention that will be supposed to ameliorate that particular matter and the form that it will so take.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2022 ==

So what happens if the majority of members accept this deal, Boris forces it through the treasury, but Mick Lynch refuses to allow them to take it?

Can Lynch do that without balloting the RMT membership re acceptance or not?

 

[Hellzapoppin]

Projects have already been hit and quite savagely. I'd be interested in seeing the details of the planned mtce cuts.

 

[320320]

So what happens if the majority of members accept this deal, Boris forces it through the treasury, but Mick Lynch refuses to allow them to take it?

How can the members accept a deal without it being put to ballot and how could Mick Lynch then refuse to allow them to accept?

 

[muz379]

So what happens if the majority of members accept this deal, Boris forces it through the treasury, but Mick Lynch refuses to allow them to take it?

It is important to remember that the mandate from yesterdays ballot result only lasts for 6 months .

If a deal did become available and the unions leadership (Mick Lynch doesnt soley make decisions) did not put it to the members but instead kept calling them out on strike and then when the mandate run out attempted to reballot , the members might indicate their feelings through that ballot .

As much as it pains me to admit I really think the government could have cut accross yesterdays ballot with such an offer.

 

[class ep-09]

O

So not the apocalyptic close all booking offices , mothball the branchlines and implement DOO approach that the rhetoric from some on this forums suggests would be the case then .

Indeed .

I think it would be fairly reasonable for unions and HMG to agree multiyear pay deal, that for example spans for 3-4 years , where every year the pay would increase by say 4-6 %.

It would look good for HMG that could say : “we have not bent to the demands of the unions for 10% increase “ , and it would look good for the unions ( and their members ) as the increase would be substantial year on year , even when the inflation gets much lower in the future .

I very much doubt inflation will stay 9%+ for many years so 5% increase in 3-4 years time would bring the wages back whee they ought to be .