It was and has been for years under the banner of ‘modernisation’ for GBR
-
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!
Railway Industrial Disputes Mk2
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
That’s not really a reason not to try?
Absolutely not if the deal is unpalatable for other reasons - no compulsory redundancies is just one of many objectives. There’s no obligation for them to go back to the members each and every time a counter offer is made?
When you were a union rep surely you didn’t just act as a proxy for the employer by simply rubber stamping everything they offered?
Time to set a few things right:
it is a good deal in my view, but is exactly the same deal the RMT rejected a week ago. It hasn’t changed, and won’t be changing for the better, and the RMT know that.
that’s on the fringes of being illegal. You vote within your collective bargaining unit. If you are striking because you are unhappy about someone else’s collective bargaining position, that’s a bit shaky.
It certainly appears that the NR signallers are being used by the RMT as a weapon for a battle with the TOCs.
The amount is not steadily increasing - it is exactly the same as the original pay offer.
From what I have heard talking to colleagues, many of them are quite happy with the deal. And now will be losing another day‘s pay and £600-£700 and some of the backdated pay, having already lost 3 days pay and another £600-£700. All because the RMT have an issue - rightly or wrongly - with the TOC side of the industry.
It’s really sad.
it is a good deal in my view, but is exactly the same deal the RMT rejected a week ago. It hasn’t changed, and won’t be changing for the better, and the RMT know that.
that’s on the fringes of being illegal. You vote within your collective bargaining unit. If you are striking because you are unhappy about someone else’s collective bargaining position, that’s a bit shaky.
It certainly appears that the NR signallers are being used by the RMT as a weapon for a battle with the TOCs.
The amount is not steadily increasing - it is exactly the same as the original pay offer.
From what I have heard talking to colleagues, many of them are quite happy with the deal. And now will be losing another day‘s pay and £600-£700 and some of the backdated pay, having already lost 3 days pay and another £600-£700. All because the RMT have an issue - rightly or wrongly - with the TOC side of the industry.
It’s really sad.
Well that appears to be contradicted by what RMT members upthread are saying? We might be talking at cross purposes here, but I’m sure you said yourself large offers had been made on the NR side for those whose working conditions had been radically altered? The RMT members I know remain wholeheartedly in favour of this action. Ultimately a few hundred pounds here or there is little in the grand scheme of things.
Let’s also not pretend for a second any of the arch union critics on here really give two hoots about railway staff losing pay! The “RMT is making the poor workers lose pay” line only ever comes out as a stick to beat the unions with. It is utterly disingenuous. The rest of the time the same people are making facile comparisons with the pay of nurses etc. and would dearly like to see railstaff earning less (of course I’m not suggesting @Bald Rick is in this camp).
Indeed, RMT members may be losing bits of pay, but most can cover the loses with overtime payments because the industry currently is crying out for staff. It’s certainly what I’ve been doing.
I’m much happier losing a days pay here and there than I am to have my conditions torn to shreds.
NR have a recruitment freeze at the moment, unless the actual position is 'traffic affecting'
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,749
For the sake of clarity it is always worth mentioning which particular deal and negotiations you are talking about.
The Network Rail deal seems to have improved slightly as time has gone on and there has been movement - not as much as wished for, obviously, but there has been movement none the less.
The TOC side appears not to have moved at all.
On the NR side there is TSSA involved too - and rumour from a friend there was that TSSA might put the deal so far proposed to a vote, they are, of course not affected by the maintenance cuts and at least in the office / area of work where my friend is seem not to be remotely bothered about them either.
On the TOC side there is Aslef involved, who so far have gone it alone. There has not been any mention that I can see of what they have been offered in the various TOCS and with what strings attached.
For what it is worth, on the TOC side, I would like the RMT to actually spell out what the offer is so far and what the key demands are currently from the TOCS. That way it is far easier to see what, if any, progress has been made. And also to form my own judgement on the matter. I am certainly of the opinion that the RMT shouldn't be averse to some reform of ticket offices and other roles, provided there were cast iron guarantees regarding compulsory redundancies etc.
The Network Rail deal seems to have improved slightly as time has gone on and there has been movement - not as much as wished for, obviously, but there has been movement none the less.
The TOC side appears not to have moved at all.
On the NR side there is TSSA involved too - and rumour from a friend there was that TSSA might put the deal so far proposed to a vote, they are, of course not affected by the maintenance cuts and at least in the office / area of work where my friend is seem not to be remotely bothered about them either.
On the TOC side there is Aslef involved, who so far have gone it alone. There has not been any mention that I can see of what they have been offered in the various TOCS and with what strings attached.
For what it is worth, on the TOC side, I would like the RMT to actually spell out what the offer is so far and what the key demands are currently from the TOCS. That way it is far easier to see what, if any, progress has been made. And also to form my own judgement on the matter. I am certainly of the opinion that the RMT shouldn't be averse to some reform of ticket offices and other roles, provided there were cast iron guarantees regarding compulsory redundancies etc.
The few Signallers I have spoken to are 'reasonably' happy with the pay offer, they know times are tight, but they are not happy with the maintenance cut back, however some also feel like last time ( a long time ago) they are being used to give more impact for Maintenance.
It was, the employer side has simply been forced to formally reveal what they would like to do, rather than coming on to it in their own time when they're ready to proceed.
I don’t remember saying that, what I did say (I think) was that the offer made was to reflect the changes in working practices.
it’s not a few hundred pounds though. 4 days pay, less back pay and two years’ bonus is over £2k; more for some people who are taking action.
I wouldn’t say most can cover with overtime. There is a finite amount of overtime available, and of course none available on the strike days.
exactly. But I’d advise having a good read about what the maintenance proposals actually are, as they have been rather mis-presented by the RMT in their communications.
That is the other half of the negotiations. DOO is in the TOC/RDG side.
The post you responded to was the NR side
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
So, the RMT is totally opposed to further DOO/DCO and the closure of ticket offices.
Whichever side of the fence suits your personal issues, that seems an extreme position to take. Surely, even in a difficult negotiation, it's better to emphasise that these sort of issues are only possible for discussion if X,Y, Z is met?
The RMT statement is very clear about both issues and I see no way in which they can now modify their statement.
Whichever side of the fence suits your personal issues, that seems an extreme position to take. Surely, even in a difficult negotiation, it's better to emphasise that these sort of issues are only possible for discussion if X,Y, Z is met?
The RMT statement is very clear about both issues and I see no way in which they can now modify their statement.
Actually its a reason to consider what is realistic. Lets be honest here, what if the unions demanded 20%, or 30%, even 50% rises. Would you blindly follow the unions direction in the hope of getting somewhere in-between? As I have argued all along, there is a serious financial crisis emerging & unions have to be realistic with their demands, otherwise they simply strengthen the position of the employer / government.
Well the rumour upthread is 8% plus no compulsory redundancies. Whist it remains to be seen if this is anywhere near the mark, if it is which part of that would you consider unpalatable, keeping in mind that Joe Public won't see beyond those simple measures (and their opinions can help drive the employer's, i.e. the government's decision making).
No. But I also learnt that you had to read the room. For example if I were a top table rep today (which by the way I never was, so I had little say in union policy) I would be cautious about going after big pay rises in an environment where the employer, in my case the government, were looking for massive savings. It doesn't matter why they are looking for such, but chasing the big rises can, and does put your members right in the firing line. Being a union rep at whatever level isn't just about shouting for more, it is about balancing what you can achieve. Through the 10 or so years I spent as a local rep, I dealt with all manner of disputes. Some were glaringly obviously winnable ones, others not so. And for the latter I learnt to get a feel for what was feasible, and what was not.
A good union knows and understands when their ambitions might exceed what is actually possible.
What galvanises me to act is that we just spent 12 years on and off in dispute with our employer over a set of injustices and only came to a DfT approved agreement less than 6 months ago, which, amongst other things includes Sunday in the week.
Now it appears as standard they want us to also take on DCO/DOO (even if it's not implemented at this point, which it won't be) and effectively rip up everything else too.
They already have guards with Sundays inside for £31k per year, on routes which are most unlikely to see DOO trains and pretty unlikely to see DCO ones. Why should we throw everything we have left away to suit a standardising agenda?
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 13,220
Or they could actually pay strike pay. My union, Unite, pays £70 a day.
Yes this is true of course. Any decline in working conditions needs to be paid for in terms of better salary, or visa/versa.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It certainly sounds like a time to go back to the membership for its opinion.
High Dyke
Established Member
Further to an earlier post. I've attached the Network Rail (NR)document that was put forward to General Grades staff (ECRO staff, signallers, controllers, managed stations). Seemingly, some senior managers at Network Rail already think elements of this are a done deal and are being introduced. It's not the first time that management have expected staff to roll over and accept the stick, before the carrot; and then seem genuinely surprised when their over-confidence backfires on them.
The document references competence management.
Signallers already have a templated job description. Why do we need to create one? The reference about Railsmart EDS is the system that NR use to record everything about a signallers job. (medical info, courses / training received). I mentioned before we have had self-evidence submissions for years, but to link this to progression and promotion, to me, seems to be who can 'brown tongue' the most, and it's has very little to do with demonstrating how you work day-in, day-out. E.G. Two people apply for the same job. One person has submitted self-evidence, but the second person hasn't. Management have said the more 'proactive' person would be given the job. What they haven't accounted for is the quality of IT equipment or, more importantly, those that lack IT skills.
Some elements of this document make sense. However, moving onto recruitment.
So, I'm intending to leave NR, and apply for another job. The prospective new employer asks me when I would like to start. I doubt many would be prepared to wait six months for you to leave NR and commence employment with them?
The document references competence management.
Signallers already have a templated job description. Why do we need to create one? The reference about Railsmart EDS is the system that NR use to record everything about a signallers job. (medical info, courses / training received). I mentioned before we have had self-evidence submissions for years, but to link this to progression and promotion, to me, seems to be who can 'brown tongue' the most, and it's has very little to do with demonstrating how you work day-in, day-out. E.G. Two people apply for the same job. One person has submitted self-evidence, but the second person hasn't. Management have said the more 'proactive' person would be given the job. What they haven't accounted for is the quality of IT equipment or, more importantly, those that lack IT skills.
Some elements of this document make sense. However, moving onto recruitment.
So, I'm intending to leave NR, and apply for another job. The prospective new employer asks me when I would like to start. I doubt many would be prepared to wait six months for you to leave NR and commence employment with them?
Last edited:
Wyrleybart
Established Member
The WMR and LNR franchise was awarded on the basis of DOO / DCO and that is why the class 196s were built for it. The fact that the franchise subsequently changed to crew operation whilst CAF were still building the 196s for DOO / DCO means the 196s have had to be retro modified I believe.
I daresay the class 730s were specced and built similarly.
Bizarrely, DfT are the body that approved of franchising before Covid converted franchises into service agreements, of which DfT have even more micro management, but also the body in charge of overseeing rolling stock acquisition.
Can you see where this is leading ?
Ultimately a few hundred pounds here or there is little in the grand scheme of things.
as the man on the street earning a lot less than some rail staff would say, it would mean a great deal to me, smaller unions could not even dream of 8% and no compulsory redundancies, and not every one can work a few days o/t and make it up... The traveling public and other workers wi, if not already done so stop giving railworkers support.
as the man on the street earning a lot less than some rail staff would say, it would mean a great deal to me, smaller unions could not even dream of 8% and no compulsory redundancies, and not every one can work a few days o/t and make it up... The traveling public and other workers wi, if not already done so stop giving railworkers support.
Right, but how long does that second person remain a requirement? Whenever the agreement runs out, compulsory redundancies happen. It is a far stronger position for the guards to remain safety critical. The issue is that trains that are already run with only one member of staff aren't going to start having two again.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Has it been clearly stated what duties this referred-to second person will be expected to perform?
At what point did it change from 5% in 2022 and 2% in 2023 for Network Rail and 2% in 2022 for TOCs?
I see that. I just see that as a passenger, we have DOO trains already, and they seem to be far better when there is another member of staff on board.
Personally I think that this second member should have a higher status than just staff. Perhaps a required "train manager" of some sort.
Pay and benefits would be equivalent to a guard of course.
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
I’ll say it again, the latest offer from this week is not an 8% pay rise. The 4% for this year still stands as before.
A lot of the issues remain around the reduction in maintenance, maintenance tasks etc, (how often points are looked at etc). there is very little on what is proposed for that (from both sides)
A lot of the issues remain around the reduction in maintenance, maintenance tasks etc, (how often points are looked at etc). there is very little on what is proposed for that (from both sides)
Reluctant to post in this thread!
However, I remember a conversation with a lawyer in a previous job I did which discussed notice period, and his view was that it is almost entirely to the benefit of the employee.
If the employee is given notice, they will be paid for the next six months (or an equivalent lump sum) and that will always be paid.
On the other hand, if someone walks out of a job, what is the employer going to do? If they sue the ex-employee, firstly it looks absurd (maybe won't stop our governments) but they will be suing for their damages, which, unless one is a vital part of the company's business, will effectively be nothing.
Wyrleybart
Established Member
As a TOC shift Controller don't know. All I have had from my union is one letter enclosing guff and a ballot paper. I have heard from word of mouth that the DfT are proposing increasing my weekly contract from 35 to 40 hours. That is an expectation that I will work 5 hours a week or 20 hours a month for free if it is true, and is not a pay increase by any stretch of the the imagination.
This dispute is not wholly about a pay increase. It is about people at the coal face finding it increasingly difficult to do their jobs. TOC crew and stock diagrams are designed around covering a carefully constructed timetable and optimized. Cancel 30% of the trains in the timetable and it saves very little because the crew still have their base rosters to work to and the upheaval is apparent. Even though DfT have cancelled a few diagrams, you cannot magic a 1252 driver at depot B to cover an 0430 driver vacancy at depot A. It simply doesn't work, and I have been doing it since 1994.
It would be quite easy to prove the damages if a member of frontline staff fails to work their notice period. At the very least there would be the additional cost of e.g. time and a half overtime from getting someone else to cover.
Whether companies actually do enforce the notice period is a different matter.
As posted, that's a little one sided. The employers clause doesn't kick in unless you have 5 yrs service. When does the employees clause start ?
For me, it's clauses like that which make me vote no. If that was employee/employer with even terms I would overlook it. It's a reasonable clause for both parties and if it gained a reasonable uplift in pay then why not.
That's the kind of crap which breaks negotiations.
High Dyke
Established Member
Exactly. It's the detail like this that people are overlooking. You have a disgruntled workforce that are expected to accept such changes, without protest.
- Status