RMT Extends Strike Action on Network Rail to Dec 24-27

[dk1]

EMR strike mandate is quite new as were balloted more recently than the other TOCs .

Many thanks. Thought I was losing the plot.

 

[Thirteen]

Swr got around 8% earlier this year. Some depots on 70k plus London weighting

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==



EMR strike mandate is quite new as were balloted more recently than the other TOCs .

I did notice Island Line have a strike mandate as do depot drivers at SWR so I assume if depot drivers were to strike, it'll affect SWR but not to the same extent.

 

[Glenn1969]

If the public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% payrise the dispute will go on for years. As I have said in other posts the Russian conflict won't end until 2030 if it ever does. So god help the economy and the cost of living if things do drag on that long

 

[Thirteen]

If the public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% payrise the dispute will go on for years. As I have said in other posts the Russian conflict won't end until 2030 if it ever does. So god help the economy and the cost of living if things do drag on that long

Realistically, I can't see it dragging for years simply because of the loss of pay from members cannot be sustained and also strike funds are finite. Unite has a hefty war chest but the likes of the RMT don't.

 

[dk1]

I did notice Island Line have a strike mandate as do depot drivers at SWR so I assume if depot drivers were to strike, it'll affect SWR but not to the same extent.

Wasn’t Island Lines vote 100% in favour of action?

 

[Thirteen]

Wasn’t Island Lines vote 100% in favour of action?

100% on a 90% turnout is impressive, I assume the other 10% abstained unless there really is only 9 drivers on the Island Line.

 

[dk1]

TBF they have 9 drivers so a high percentage was always likely.

Suppose it doesn’t matter whether it’s 9 or 99. Each personal opinion is different.

 

[Fred26]

If the public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% payrise the dispute will go on for years. As I have said in other posts the Russian conflict won't end until 2030 if it ever does. So god help the economy and the cost of living if things do drag on that long

A payrise is the lowest priority for RMT TOC staff.
Nobody I know expects 10%.

 

[Annetts key]

If the public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% payrise the dispute will go on for years. As I have said in other posts the Russian conflict won't end until 2030 if it ever does. So god help the economy and the cost of living if things do drag on that long

No one knows how long the Russian occupation of Ukraine will go on for. And that’s a subject that should be discussed in the relevant topic, not here.

But the countries that depended on Russian fossil fuels will adapt to cope without them. So at some point, this reason for inflation will reduce.

And who is to say that public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% pay rise? In any negotiation you always start off with your wish list. What comes out of a amicable negotiation is a completely different matter.

The problem at the moment appears to be that the current government does not want amicable negotiations to make any significant progress. You will have to ask the government why they are doing what they are doing and why they are doing it.

 

[dctraindriver]

"a resolution to the dispute is now further away"
Was that wording really necessary? That won't do them a huge number of favours, surely...

I don’t think they want favours, they want it dealt with rather than the govt playing games hiding behind the RDG, NR and TOCs…. Let them do the negotiating. Feels like the 3 are in dispute with the govt now.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I expect it will probably be more likely to get a larger pay rise than an abandonment of the demand for DOO.

DOO is such a huge prize that the government will pay more in cash now to get it - after all it would be pretty much the last renegotiation with RMT-backed guards ever.

There would be a flood of DOO schemes in the pipeline and that would be that.
Not sure about compulsory redundancies - in all likelihood that is also worth far less than DOO, so that would probably get jettisoned.

But I don't see the government giving up the DOO requirement, ever.

How long do they have to go before they can impose the agreement?

Any suggestions as to which train services which are not currently driver only operation could realistically be converted to driver only operation? How would revenue be protected on driver only train services outside London where most stations are not staffed and many staffed stations do not have ticket gates? Without a guard checking tickets on the train I see nothing to prevent someone for instance at London Waterloo buying a ticket to Woking to get through the ticket gates and travelling to Weymouth.

 

[Bald Rick]

How would revenue be protected on driver only train services outside London where most stations are not staffed and many staffed stations do not have ticket gates?

By a revenue inspector.

 

[O L Leigh]

By a revenue inspector.

Glib.

How about by putting the financial risk back onto the TOCs, taking the burden off the taxpayer, thereby incentivising revenue collection, cost savings and resolution of industrial relations.

 

[weeklycommuter]

By a revenue inspector.

If they have a second member of staff onboard the train to check tickets and railcards, whether that person is called a guard, conductor or revenue inspector it is not driver only operation and the TOC/Government still has the cost of the second member of staff on the train. It is driver controlled operation if the driver opens and closes the doors but it is not driver only operation and does not achieve the cost savings of driver only operation.

 

[JonathanH]

How about by putting the financial risk back onto the TOCs, taking the burden off the taxpayer, thereby incentivising revenue collection, cost savings and resolution of industrial relations.

Huh? The group of people who would come out the worst in that situation would be the workers, as the taxpayer currently supports their employment and wages. The primary cost saving in a truly commercial operation would be staff costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

If they have a second member of staff onboard the train to check tickets and railcards, whether that person is called a guard, conductor or revenue inspector it is not driver only operation and the TOC/Government still has the cost of the second member of staff on the train. It is driver controlled operation if the driver opens and closes the doors but it is not driver only operation and does not achieve the cost savings of driver only operation.

I‘ve commuted on DOO trains for 20 years, and get my ticket checked on board by RPIs about once a week on average.…

 

[O L Leigh]

Huh? The group of people who would come out the worst in that situation would be the workers, as the taxpayer currently supports their employment and wages. The primary cost saving in a truly commercial operation would be staff costs.

I’m talking about a return to the situation that existed pre-covid, where a TOC would pay the DfT it’s agreed premium and then could trouser the rest as profit.

The issue with this dispute is that the government has it’s foot on the industry’s throat and preventing any movement while disincentivising the TOCs from doing much of anything in the way of simply running the railway. We need the TOCs to be unshackled from government in order for either side to make any sort of progress.

 

[30907]

The RMT statement quoted earlier said 'DOO on all operators', not all trains! And has the DfT/Government actually said they intend to have DOO operation everywhere?

"Driver-Only Operation of trains in all companies and on all passenger services" is what the RMT said - that doesn't leave very many non-DOO.

Apologies - ca5ching up with the thread, others have made the point.

 

[Bald Rick]

We need the TOCs to be unshackled from government in order for either side to make any sort of progress.

But who bears the risk on the revenue forecasts?

 

[O L Leigh]

But who bears the risk on the revenue forecasts?

Pardon me, but I don’t understand the question. I’m only a driver.

 

[Starmill]

If they have a second member of staff onboard the train to check tickets and railcards, whether that person is called a guard, conductor or revenue inspector it is not driver only operation and the TOC/Government still has the cost of the second member of staff on the train. It is driver controlled operation if the driver opens and closes the doors but it is not driver only operation and does not achieve the cost savings of driver only operation.

Checking tickets isn't really operating the train though is it? A trained RPI can work on any train they're authorised to (usually any train of their own operator and occasionally also the services of another operator in defined areas) without knowledge of how its operated or even what kind of train it is. They're also likely to work at a station at least occasionally.

It's not really a similar role to that of the BR era Conductor, or the more modern incarnation of onboard host by a variety of names (e.g. Southeastern Highspeed, Lumo).

 

[weeklycommuter]

I‘ve commuted on DOO trains for 20 years, and get my ticket checked on board by RPIs about once a week on average.…

I have once or twice had my ticket checked on a Thameslink train but only on a small percentage of journeys. Unless tickets and railcards are checked on every journey and passengers know their ticket is certain to be checked there could be a potential risk to revenue especially on journeys covering much longer distances and therefore with much higher fares and than Thameslink and other current driver only operated services. Current driver only operated services are mainly shorter distance services in through and around London and many or most and in some cases all of the stations, especially stations with the big footfalls, have ticket gates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

Checking tickets isn't really operating the train though is it? A trained RPI can work on any train they're authorised to (usually any train of their own operator and occasionally also the services of another operator in defined areas) without knowledge of how its operated or even what kind of train it is. They're also likely to work at a station at least occasionally.

It's not really a similar role to that of the BR era Conductor, or the more modern incarnation of onboard host by a variety of names (e.g. Southeastern Highspeed, Lumo).

They are still a second member of onboard staff which costs the Government/TOC money. To achieve the cost saving it has to be possible to operate the train without a second member of onboard staff as in Transport for London services relying on all stations having ticket gates. Perhaps this would be possible for SWR metro services, the current agreement is that the new Arterios when they eventually start operating will be driver controlled operation but that could be changed to driver only operation like other London metro train services. However this would only work for London metro train services, not for long distance SWR services. It is also an exceptional case in which a London metro train service has not already been converted to driver only operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the public sector unions are hell bent on a 10% payrise the dispute will go on for years. As I have said in other posts the Russian conflict won't end until 2030 if it ever does. So god help the economy and the cost of living if things do drag on that long

5+5 has been accepted in both Scotland and Wales so I see no reason it wouldn't be in England. The issue seems to be primarily DOO plus a couple of the other conditions related things (though I think there could be a better way of handling the Sunday thing, e.g allowing staff to choose if they opt in for them in the week or not with all new recruits having it in, and some sort of one off sweetener for opting in). I think even though there's lots of noise over booking offices the RMT know that's a lost battle and it's more about securing decent terms for redeployment and voluntary redundancy.

 

[Towers]

Deleted as we're leading the thread OT!

 

[Thirteen]

5+5 has been accepted in both Scotland and Wales so I see no reason it wouldn't be in England. The issue seems to be primarily DOO plus a couple of the other conditions related things (though I think there could be a better way of handling the Sunday thing, e.g allowing staff to choose if they opt in for them in the week or not with all new recruits having it in). I think even though there's lots of noise over booking offices the RMT know that's a lost battle and it's more about securing decent terms for redeployment and voluntary redundancy.

Didn't the RMT reject a 5+5 deal that Arriva Rail London offered back in the summer?

 

[Starmill]

5+5 has been accepted in both Scotland and Wales so I see no reason it wouldn't be in England.

I get what you're trying to say here, but it appears to me that the implicit offer from the DfT is 0+0 without any of the wholesale changes to conditions proposed.

One wonders if there's really any point in continuing negotiations at this juncture to be honest.

 

[43066]

Then the next message is there's no further offer coming. What kind of negotiation is that?

A deeply duplicitous and dishonest one.

Presumably with a logical next step of putting out messaging along the lines of: “we negotiated for months, but the RMT refused to accept the best possible deal etc.” and then using that as a pretext to force the changes through…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

whether that person is called a guard, conductor or revenue inspector it is not driver only operation

It is in the rule book sense, which is the relevant meaning for the purposes of what the disputes are about.

 

[diffident]

A deeply duplicitous and dishonest one.

Presumably with a logical next step of putting out messaging along the lines of: “we negotiated for months, but the RMT refused to accept the best possible deal etc.” and then using that as a pretext to force the changes through…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==



It is in the rule book sense, which is the relevant meaning for the purposes of what the disputes are about.

The risk here, is that the Government/DfT/TOC's could now determine that talks are at a stalemate, and implement their offer anyway. I support rail staff, but the RMT do risk going off a cliff edge here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The risk here, is that the Government/DfT/TOC's could now determine that talks are at a stalemate, and implement their offer anyway. I support rail staff, but the RMT do risk going off a cliff edge here.

At what point can they do that?

I do very much wonder if the idea was to poison the deal with DOO (knowing full well that it wouldn't be agreed, and ASLEF probably wouldn't either) to stall it all while blaming the RMT to gain time to get their planned anti strike law through and then the RMT would be seriously weakened and perhaps have to capitulate to a much lower deal (I doubt 0+0, but maybe 2+2 or something).

 

[diffident]

At what point can they do that?

I do very much wonder if the idea was to poison the deal with DOO (knowing full well that it wouldn't be agreed, and ASLEF probably wouldn't either) to stall it all while blaming the RMT to gain time to get their planned anti strike law through and then the RMT would be seriously weakened and perhaps have to capitulate to a much lower deal (I doubt 0+0, but maybe 2+2 or something).

They could do it now, because Trade Unions operate under "collective bargaining". The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) - (I'm sure I'm not teaching anyone to suck eggs here). But what has never been tried, is when collective bargaining collapses and it becomes a legal fight under the said act. It's never been tried, so no one currently knows what would happen.

The Government and/or the Unions could chance it and go all the way to the Supreme Court for a judgement on the matter, but that is both extremely costly and time-consuming on both sides.