The real facts behind the ATW potential strike please

[1V53]

because most of the time pay rises depend on true productivity, else companies simply go bust.

Why do all pay rises depend on productivity? Prices of things go up every year, the wages of many people also go up over the years. If the only way of getting a rise (and I'm talking cost of living, I'm not one who believes we should all have a greater than costof living increase) is to sell conditions to in real terms stand still, then what happens when the conditions have all been sold?! The fact it has become almost the norm to sell conditions to get even a below cost of living rise is not something that normal workers should be advocating. I'm assuming therefore we either have some of these high paid consultants at large on the thread or people who have been shafted who actually think because they have, everyone else should be too?

 

[Metroland]

Maybe it's just a matter of perception, but this really isn't a cartel of labour.

Having been involved in a strike myself I was amazed and appalled at some of the tricks that were pulled by the TOC during the so-called negotiations. I won't discuss them openly here (or anywhere else, for that matter), but it wouldn't have been too great a leap of logic to interpret their actions as an attempt to exacerbate the dispute rather than resolve it.

Needless to say, no matter what had been reported by the media, the main thrust of the dispute was not pay but conditions and the TOC's record at following working agreements. The pay offer was modest but came with strings, and we ended up settling for a lower pay award and our conditions unchanged. However, if we hadn't taken action the company would almost certainly have continued to take liberties and would eventually ground us down to a position where we would have been working to the lowest common denominator. We had already repulsed such a situation when harmonisation was offered.

This isn't because of any cartel but because of a strong staff-side representation, which is something I feel is very important. Without this we would soon be working in a situation where the lowest common denominator applied and where staff turnover would be high, ultimately to the detriment of the TOC's as well as the staff themselves.

The right to legally withdraw labour is something that is not unusual to rail staff and is available to everyone irrespective of their employer or the industry they work in. It is a "last resort" option that unfortunately has to be taken where a workforce is in dispute with an employer.

O L Leigh

It may well be TOCs are incompetent as well, but we cannot easily remove them either, or someone else can come in to compete (not withstanding from other transport modes).

I'm actually not taking sides, just pointing out the chief reason many staff can command rises in pay, is not really related to productivity, rather because they are in a position to do so, which many, many other workers are not. We can make good and bad judgements about this, but my overriding concern is the unsustainable nature of the industries finances and who will ultimately pay, and it may be some staff with jobs, the general public with higher fares or even less services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do all pay rises depend on productivity?

Well if you don't know why wages should be related to productivity then I politely suggest you learn some basic economics.

Let's say I run a company producing 1000 widgets per year, each one costing £100, with a revenue of 100,000. After other costs I can employ 3 people, with a wage bill of £60k.

The following year I sell exactly the same amount of widgets, yet staff demand a pay rise of 10%. The only way to fund that pay rise is to 1) put prices up 2) cut costs elsewhere 3) increase productivity 4) increase sales

As an example, If I put prices up, in a competitive market it may reduce sales. Increasing sales may cost money in advertising. I cannot cut costs elsewhere because of employment law and H&S demands. So the only way I can give a pay rise is to increase productivity and get more for less. If I cannot increase productivity, I cannot give a pay rise, or the company cannot pay its way and goes bust.

In the cost of the railways, government support has been increasing year on year, as have fares. Yet costs continue to rise. In most other industries this would mean closure and bankruptcy, yet some companies simply run to the government for more or hike the fares, and staff demand more and more pay, and the latter is the issue in poor economic times.

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh, but pay IS linked to productivity. And that is what this (and so many other) disputes seems to be about.

Almost the only way that TOC's can get more out of their workforce is to attempt to buy their conditions of service off them. Things like 24 hour signing-on is now common, though not universal. This effectively removes the need to have a separate night shift where lots of drivers are sitting around for hours doing nothing. Some companies have this where some do not. However, it is only right and proper that the workforce is compensated for giving up their terms and conditions in return for increased productivity.

O L Leigh

 

[rodders133]

Your dead wrong about that when

1) People have season tickets or those who depend on the railways expect a service
2) We have some of the most expensive train fares in Europe
3) A very large percentage of the cost of the network in Wales is paid for by all our taxes
4) Unsustainable railway finances where it has publicly been stated it threatens the size of the network

We have absolutely every right to question where the money is going, hold the people responsible to account, even lobby our MPs about it.

It seems that virtually everyone 'backing the cause' has some sort of vested interest, not only do they fail to actually convince any reasonable person their actions are little more than feathering their own nests and even admitting 'we don't know how we get away with it and are grabbing what we can', we have silly comments about wanting to reduce people to sweat shop conditions on the minimum wage or less.

Many have no concept of where the money comes from and why actually people might object to constant strike action in difficult economic conditions, responding with childish comments such as 'you're just jealous', never stopping to think for one minute some people are actually concerned where their actions might end, either if having to pay yet every higher fares or not having any sort of service at all. Instead it's all about me, me, me and what I can grab and milk from the rest of you and anyone that dares to question it is a troll.

You have quoted me out of context. You missed out my second sentance which should really have cleared things up.

1) The people who have season tickets and the like, bought those from ATW, not the drivers. ATW train drivers are not a charitable organisation, they work for their employer, which is ATW.

2) Maybe you should take a look at where the vast majority of the `fare` goes to. Although ATW make immense profits, the vast majority by a long long way goes to network rail.

3)What isnt?

4) Not too sure what that means.

Seems there are some people who are very charitable that post on here. What are you expecting?? that people will sacrifice their standard of living so a random member of the public can save a quid on their train fare???? Get real. Would you do it?, would the members of public who knew the facts do it?, I very much doubt it, unless they were running a charitable organisation.

Its all well and good the public and ppl like yourself making ill informed observations and having opinions with little substance but the fact is, they and you expect a service from ATW, not a particular grade they employ

 

[Metroland]

Oh, but pay IS linked to productivity. And that is what this (and so many other) disputes seems to be about.

Almost the only way that TOC's can get more out of their workforce is to attempt to buy their conditions of service off them.

Yes, but that's just it, things aren't getting more productive, I quote:

Tom Smith, chairman of the Association of Train Operating Companies, told the Financial Times that a tendency to give in to wage demands was part of the reason train operating companies had barely cut costs since their mid-1990s privatisation.

Mr Smith said cost control must become the industry’s focus after years of effort directed towards improving safety and punctuality after the Hatfield rail crash in October 2000.

Taxpayers meet around half the rail industry’s costs, while passenger fares, payments from freight customers and other revenue contribute the other half.

“We need to get into a virtuous circle where costs are sustainably contained and falling but the revenue is rising,” Mr Smith said. Past government policies had given train operators more incentive to keep workers happy with big pay rises than keep costs down.

I read railway finances all the time, the fact of the matter is despite more passengers and higher fares, the industry demands more subsidy not less. Therefore, overall, productivity is getting less.

The railway industry cannot keep paying itself more and more and expect either passengers to keep on paying higher fares, or the government keep paying more in when there are other spending priorities.

The net result will be complete collapse of the industry, end of.

Only self interested people in noddy land cannot see this, for everyone else, with NRs £23 billion debt and rising, and other cost hikes, it's looking us all in the face.

 

[rodders133]

Let's say I run a company producing 1000 widgets per year, each one costing £100, with a revenue of 100,000. After other costs I can employ 3 people, with a wage bill of £60k.

Nice, but lets say your revenue is 200k+ per year, with a wage bill of £30k? are you going to take it to a ballot? sit it out? annoy your customers who need this widget?

Why not sit it out and blame the widget makers when the widget addicts dont get their widgets

 

[O L Leigh]

Ah, ATOC. The trade body and official spokeman for the TOC's. I have no idea if the statement you quote is correct or not, though I suspect not. At the time of the NXEA dispute, NX Group were posting healthy profits for it's rail division.

As I said to you at the time, the problem is that any savings would ultimately be offset against the bottom line rather than being passed back to Government/the passenger. The issue is that the TOC's see a subsidy as a revenue stream and will maximise it for their own benefit. Until the way that the rail industry as a whole is organised and funded, and the relationship the TOC's have with Government and the passenger is reformed this is a situation that will simply be perpetuated.

O L Leigh

 

[1V53]

It may well be TOCs are incompetent as well, but we cannot easily remove them either, or someone else can come in to compete (not withstanding from other transport modes).

I'm actually not taking sides, just pointing out the chief reason many staff can command rises in pay, is not really related to productivity, rather because they are in a position to do so, which many, many other workers are not. We can make good and bad judgements about this, but my overriding concern is the unsustainable nature of the industries finances and who will ultimately pay, and it may be some staff with jobs, the general public with higher fares or even less services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well if you don't know why wages should be related to productivity then I politely suggest you learn some basic economics.

Let's say I run a company producing 1000 widgets per year, each one costing £100, with a revenue of 100,000. After other costs I can employ 3 people, with a wage bill of £60k.

The following year I sell exactly the same amount of widgets, yet staff demand a pay rise of 10%. The only way to fund that pay rise is to 1) put prices up 2) cut costs elsewhere 3) increase productivity 4) increase sales

As an example, If I put prices up, in a competitive market it may reduce sales. Increasing sales may cost money in advertising. I cannot cut costs elsewhere because of employment law and H&S demands. So the only way I can give a pay rise is to increase productivity and get more for less. If I cannot increase productivity, I cannot give a pay rise, or the company cannot pay its way and goes bust.

In the cost of the railways, government support has been increasing year on year, as have fares. Yet costs continue to rise. In most other industries this would mean closure and bankruptcy, yet some companies simply run to the government for more or hike the fares, and staff demand more and more pay, and the latter is the issue in poor economic times.

I think rather than lecture me on widgets, you should have a look and see where the money spent on the railways really goes. It might really surprise you! Fares rose between 6-10% this year and similar last year. Yet the drivers and conductors haven't had a pay rise since June 2009. Have a look at Network Rail costs, and rosco charges.

The railways isn't and never can be a free for all everyone to have a go at. There is limited capacity, a growing Market and huge costs involved. There is need for reform and change and there has been. That is all largely irrelevant. The company are trying to enforce overtime rather than employ more staff or work with staff to solve the problem. If you have other issues about how much we are paid or shouldnt be paid it is irrelevant to this thread. But hey why let facts get in the way?

 

[Metroland]

Ah, ATOC. The trade body and official spokeman for the TOC's. I have no idea if the statement you quote is correct or not, though I suspect not. At the time of the NXEA dispute, NX Group were posting healthy profits for it's rail division.

As I said to you at the time, the problem is that any savings would ultimately be offset against the bottom line rather than being passed back to Government/the passenger. The issue is that the TOC's see a subsidy as a revenue stream and will maximise it for their own benefit. Until the way that the rail industry as a whole is organised and funded, and the relationship the TOC's have with Government and the passenger is reformed this is a situation that will simply be perpetuated.

O L Leigh

The companies post profits because of the pretend capitalism the operate in.

If government support was withdrawn (and it cannot be by law until the next financial settlement) none of the companies would make profits, in fact they would all, without fail, go to the wall.

Ill say again, productivity isn't rising, its been falling, that's why more and more government money goes in and fare rise nearly every year. Fundamentally, this is unsustainable and costs have to be brought back under control and I'm afraid pay rises are part of that.

Some people will refuse to acknowledge this, either because they don't really understand finance or they are too self interested, but those are the facts take it or leave it.

 

[1V53]

The companies post profits because of the pretend capitalism the operate in.

If government support was withdrawn (and it cannot be by law until the next financial settlement) none of the companies would make profits, in fact they would all, without fail, go to the wall.

Ill say again, productivity isn't rising, its been falling, that's why more and more government money goes in and fare rise nearly every year. Fundamentally, this is unsustainable and costs have to be brought back under control and I'm afraid pay rises are part of that.

Some people will refuse to acknowledge this, either because they don't really understand finance or they are too self interested, but those are the facts take it or leave it.

I will keep saying it until you listen. We haven't had a rise since 2009. We arent after above inflation rises. Drivers are in dispute over enforced Sunday working rather than a constructive way forward to cover the work amicably.

All this talk of widgets and economics is therefore completely irrelevent

Governments support transport in most countries because it needs subsidy. Also despite these higher fares passenger numbers are rising.

 

[Metroland]

All this talk of widgets and economics is therefore completely irrelevent

It's very relevant, it's called the real world. Most people haven't had pay rises for years, or at inflation rises at best, or even lost their jobs.

Your answer to that is we all go out on strike.

The net result of that would be complete economic collapse of the country and social breakdown. But keep living in your fantasy world were we all get pay rises every year, because the money grows on trees and it's rather nice to have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Governments support transport in most countries because it needs subsidy. Also despite these higher fares passenger numbers are rising.

Yes for the moment, but government policy is to shift more of the burden toward the fare payer, and if passenger numbers fall, the house of cards goes with it.

Governments will pay subsidy provided its good value. The problem is, instead of rail reopenings, were now either getting bus-ways or the road transport industry says spend the money on highways or buses instead.

Projects like HS2, among others, are far from a done deal. With the McNaulty report, we don't know what we might end up with, possibly a lot less network.

 

[O L Leigh]

The companies post profits because of the pretend capitalism the operate in.

But those posted profits are real, otherwise their would be shareholders beating a path to their door pretty darn quickly.

Whether these profits reflect good performance in the rail sector or are artificial as a result of Government subsidy, they still exist. I'm perfectly well aware that the railways operate in a pretend world somewhat divorced from real capitalism and that subsidy forms part of their revenue stream. That is, in fact, part of the reason why I would welcome a "root and branch" reform of the way that the railways are run and funded.

If government support was withdrawn (and it cannot be by law until the next financial settlement) none of the companies would make profits, in fact they would all, without fail, go to the wall.

I quite agree and am again perfectly well aware of this. In fact I have previously gone on record to say that a profitable railway is an oxymoron and that part of the reason why our European neighbours have such good rail connections is because they understand that you can have a successful rail network in spite of the losses it incurs and that subsidising the industry is the only way to provide the transport infrastructure that underpins the rest of their economy.

However, some of the subsidy that the TOC's receive is counter-productive. For example, TOC's can receive revenue support that effectively underwrites any losses incurred due to fare evasion. This has the effect of a disincentive to proper revenue protection measures. Likewise (and most pertinent to this thread) any losses as a consequence of industrial action are similarly underwritten by the Government, again acting as a disincentive to TOC's quickly reaching a negotiated settlement. These are subsidies that I would like to see removed.

Ill say again, productivity isn't rising, its been falling, that's why more and more government money goes in and fare rise nearly every year. Fundamentally, this is unsustainable and costs have to be brought back under control and I'm afraid pay rises are part of that.

Yes the wage bill does form part of the overall cost of operating the railway, but just because the wage bill as a whole is rising it doesn't mean we're all minting it. I joined the railways almost 6 years ago as part of an expansion in driver numbers. Since then the number of drivers at my location has risen by a further 20%, with the obvious impact on the wage bill and the cost of training and equipping these additional drivers.

But I'd like to know how you're measuring productivity. Within the driving grade there is more work being done as a consequence of more services entering the timetable. We're carrying more passengers than ever before, but the total productivity of the network is constrained by it's capacity. If we're not already operating at capacity on the lines I work then we're pretty damn close. Without investment in the infrastructure there really isn't much more that we can do.

Some people will refuse to acknowledge this, either because they don't really understand finance or they are too self interested, but those are the facts take it or leave it.

Yes, there are folk on both sides of the argument who refuse to be told. But talking in broad terms without proper reference to definitions and unbiased figures leaves it open to opinion and interpretation.

The problem with this particular thread and the direction it's taken is that we're talking about just one aspect of a much wider problem, and something that is fundamentally wrong with the way that railways have been run. Asking staff to be more reasonable under the current climate won't change anything because there is no mechanism by which any savings on the wage bill can be passed back. Fundamentally there needs to be reform, at which point the role of the wage bill needs to be looked at. If it means that staff within the industry go through some manner of pay and grading exercise, then so be it. But I will repeat it again, it has to be part of a wider reform otherwise it's impact will be lost into the balance sheets of the companies that currently hold rail franchises.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

Well yes, of course I am not against rail subsidy and good pay and conditions. This is not some right wing rant because there are much wider issues as you have pointed out.

I support subsidy where it's good value. The trouble is all to often is schemes are struggling to get off the drawing board because it's poor value. Moreover we are hit with reports such as the one below, this one in the staff newspaper

THE man who has been given the task of assessing rail's value for money for the government has warned that continued taxpayer support of more than £5 billion a year cannot be sustained, and that closures are inevitable unless the industry can trim its costs.

Sir Roy McNulty was speaking at the annual conference of the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum, whose delegates were told that costs must come down. If not, there will be less investment and a 'smaller network'.

He also questioned whether the industry was perhaps too obsessed with 'standards', and whether there are too many bodies responsible for developing and maintaining them.

He revealed that his research this year had uncovered more issues than had been expected, and these were now being investigated in detail.

He had found that the industry was suffering from poor control of its costs, and was being hindered by a lack of clear objectives from government.

"There is also very little innovation," he added, "which surprised me in an industry where a substantial part is run by the private sector. We are investigating whether the present structure of the industry is stifling new ideas."

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/04-mcnulty-warns-costs-must-drop.html


Fundamentally though, there does seem some divorce from reality. I do not, and cannot, hold individual staff members responsible, but it is alarming to see the basic lack of recognition of the potential serious problem ahead, which affects everyone with an interest in the railways, from staff, to passengers, yes even enthusiasts.

Stubborn denial of the realities, especially when passengers are being asked to pay yet more, and have it tough themselves with declining living standards, doesn't help anyone's cause. Yes, I have been very critical of the constant disputes, because the railways do have a golden opportunity right now, and strikes never helped anyone in the longer term.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think we're so very far apart on our views.

I do think that reform is long overdue and had been concerned for a while that the franchising system was broken and needed replacing with something better, though I think that should really be just the start. The problem is that there is too much money sloshing about and no-one with enough interest to do anything about stemming the flow. Successive Governments have been happy to just pour more and more into the industry with no idea how it's being spent or whether it's worth the input.

But I will again try to impress on you the role that the TOC's and, to a lesser degree, the Government play in these disputes. If there was a proper incentive to quickly resolve disputes before industrial action was taken there would be fewer strikes. Most staff members just want a sensible pay increase each year and to be left alone, but the TOC's always seem set on rattling the cage. I'm sure the boys and girls over at ATW wouldn't be in dispute if the company had offered them a "no strings" deal of something around RPI.

But lets see what the future brings. I certainly don't want to see rail diminished, and not just because it's what puts food on my table. I just hope that whoever gets the job of sorting this all out doesn't make the same mistakes of trying to make the railways pay and doesn't rush it through without making sure that it will work properly and deliver a working transport network for an acceptable price.

O L Leigh

 

[Tom B]

Let's say I run a company producing 1000 widgets per year, each one costing £100, with a revenue of 100,000. After other costs I can employ 3 people, with a wage bill of £60k.

Nice, but lets say your revenue is 200k+ per year, with a wage bill of £30k? are you going to take it to a ballot? sit it out? annoy your customers who need this widget?

Why not sit it out and blame the widget makers when the widget addicts dont get their widgets

If your staff go on strike and there's a competing company who also provide widgets, then the customers will go and buy their widgets from there. Your company, therefore, loses revenue and quite possibly goes out of business.

If your staff go on strike and you are the only company who provides widgets, they will grumble and moan and complain about how bad the widget-company-staff are, but once the strike is over go back to buying widgets again.

 

[notadriver]

Thinking about the open market for jobs, what do people think would happen if the train driving role was no longer a 'closed shop'? Despite the economic recession pilots can rightly earn salaries well in excess of 70k. With rising fuel prices and less people flying, there doesn't seem to have been an influx of unemployed people applying for positions and doing the job for half the Market rate. Of course the barrier is the cost in getting and keeping the licence.

30 to 40 years ago bus/coach drivers earned a similar wage to train drivers. Since privitisation the situation is that train drivers earn roughly double what bus drivers do with eye watering conditions at work compared to their bus driving colleagues. The fact is it's relatively easy to get and keep your bus/coach driving licence. Some companies can get away with effectively paying the minimum wage and making their drivers carry out all manner of roles including cleaning. Any refusal or strike will result in drivers being shipped in from elsewhere, such as Polish who whilst are hard working cannot speak a reasonable standard of English.

So would/should train drivers be seen as more like bus drivers or alternatively like pilots? Would standards and wages remain high as they do in the aviation industry or drop radically as they have in the bus industry if train driving role was no longer closed to outsiders?

 

[chuckles1066]

Your dead wrong about that when

1) People have season tickets or those who depend on the railways expect a service

I agree.

My brief experience of rail use cost me £135 a month for a season ticket.

If I belonged to a club or a gym where I was paying that sort of fee per month, how long do you think the said club/gym would stay in business if

(a) I was frequently not allowed in because the place was full
(b) I could never find a seat
(c) the club was frequently late opening

People don't use the rail network through choice, its necessity and I suspect the protaganists know that.

 

[1V53]

So much 'if' 'if' 'if' throughout this thread. If it was an open Market. It isn't and never will be unless we have 10 sets of running lines open to all, paid for by? If drivers were paid the same as bus drivers.. They aren't and the only way they will be would see such reform that we'd see doctors on 15k a year and airline pilots on same. "Wake up and smell the coffee" I was told. Well no, YOU wake up and smell it.

We are in a bubble on the railways, yes. Some don't see the real world at all and do believe they are owed a living, deserve rises at and above cost of living and that 'they can't touch us'. Just because my grade (I am not a driver so please stop giving me one size fits all answers) is possibly approaching being in dispute simply because we don't want enforced overtime on Sundays, and because Management appear to be totally uninterested in ways to manage the situation at nil cost, I'm getting tarred as greedy, removed from the real world, etc etc.

I expect such tripe from the public but not those who I would expect to have a bit of insight. The problem is I think one or two people on here (Metroland and Captain Speaking) are too busy writing and don't spend enough time reading.

What you both say may well be correct, and if we were being greedy or asking for more money regardless then would be relevant. But going on about widgets when we are simply asking for a way of working Sundays that works for us and works for them which needn't cost a bean extra, is just wasting space on this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The problem is despite having pointed this out several times, we still have selected quoting and ignoring the key fact that this isn't, or doesn't have to be, about money.

 

[GB]

If I belonged to a club or a gym where I was paying that sort of fee per month, how long do you think the said club/gym would stay in business if

(a) I was frequently not allowed in because the place was full

If the place was always full then I'd say that gym or club is doing very well and will be in buisness for a good while longer. Where the railways are concerned, there is only a finite amount of space available. In my experience, if the train you want is full, there is usually space on the next service 10 minutes later.

(b) I could never find a seat

Unless you actively reserve a seat, you are paying to travel, not to sit.

(c) the club was frequently late opening

Fair point.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So much 'if' 'if' 'if' throughout this thread. If it was an open Market. It isn't and never will be unless we have 10 sets of running lines open to all, paid for by? If drivers were paid the same as bus drivers.. They aren't and the only way they will be would see such reform that we'd see doctors on 15k a year and airline pilots on same. "Wake up and smell the coffee" I was told. Well no, YOU wake up and smell it.

We are in a bubble on the railways, yes. Some don't see the real world at all and do believe they are owed a living, deserve rises at and above cost of living and that 'they can't touch us'. Just because my grade (I am not a driver so please stop giving me one size fits all answers) is possibly approaching being in dispute simply because we don't want enforced overtime on Sundays, and because Management appear to be totally uninterested in ways to manage the situation at nil cost, I'm getting tarred as greedy, removed from the real world, etc etc.

I expect such tripe from the public but not those who I would expect to have a bit of insight. The problem is I think one or two people on here (Metroland and Captain Speaking) are too busy writing and don't spend enough time reading.

What you both say may well be correct, and if we were being greedy or asking for more money regardless then would be relevant. But going on about widgets when we are simply asking for a way of working Sundays that works for us and works for them which needn't cost a bean extra, is just wasting space on this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The problem is despite having pointed this out several times, we still have selected quoting and ignoring the key fact that this isn't, or doesn't have to be, about money.

this topic keeps going around in circles, so whats the point, you get the I hate train crew brigade (luckily a small minority) who believe we are all greedy, selfish etc etc (get over yourself), you get the reasonable arguments from the people who read and are willing to look at the argument from both sides and then you get some Traincrew/staff who won't see other peoples points of view, just because I don't agree in "some" arguments it does not mean I don't value their opinion, I agree modernisation needs to take place, but some of the arguments are petty if not ridiculous so from now on I will just read the thread until it either gets locked or people get bored, personally I couldn't really care less now as some people have gone past what is acceptable and nowt seems to get done about it!

 

[Flamingo]

People don't use the rail network through choice, its necessity and I suspect the protaganists know that.

People do use the rail network through choice. If you'd had a cheaper or more convenient way to travel, you would have used it. Patchway has a good bus link to Bristol, but considerably slower. Driving at peak time is also slower and there is the expense of parking all day in Bristol. Alternatives are there, it's just that you chose not to use them.

 

[chuckles1066]

In my experience, if the train you want is full, there is usually space on the next service 10 minutes later.

You mean 60 minutes later - remember we're talking services from Patchway.

But I may have drifted off-topic, this thread is about a potential strike and, as I said, I have experience of being both in and out of work in the past six months so can offer an impartial view.

If drivers really feel strongly enough about this to strike then that is, of course, their prerogative.

It's also the employers prerogative to advertise for train drivers at a reduced salary and dismiss drivers who refuse to sign new terms and conditions.

I just think the drivers shouldn't lose sight of that - no-one is indispensable (I found that out) and jobs aren't two-a-penny in UK 2011 (I found that out also).

Just my 2 Euros worth.

 

[Flamingo]

You mean 60 minutes later - remember we're talking services from Patchway.

But I may have drifted off-topic, this thread is about a potential strike and, as I said, I have experience of being both in and out of work in the past six months so can offer an impartial view.

If drivers really feel strongly enough about this to strike then that is, of course, their prerogative.

It's also the employers prerogative to advertise for train drivers at a reduced salary and dismiss drivers who refuse to sign new terms and conditions.

I just think the drivers shouldn't lose sight of that - no-one is indispensable (I found that out) and jobs aren't two-a-penny in UK 2011 (I found that out also).

Just my 2 Euros worth.

I was under the impression that changing T&C without the employees consent was not allowed under employment law, and termination of employment for failing to accept worse T&C than previously enjoyed would come under the heading of constructive dismissal.

Just my two yen worth.

 

[GB]

According to the government website you are correct.

 

[1V53]

The company could, in theory, implement the Sunday working commitment without agreement. It could also in theory recruit hundreds of train drivers on a reduced salary. The problem then is you'd have many months whilst training them and complete chaos in the meantime. Subsequently you'd have train drivers on even more of a differential than other TOC's wanting parity. Again: "if, if, if". It ain't going to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also can we get this into context. Arriva Trains Wales staff have never held official strike action until now. Staff are not always going on strike as some would have you believe. They have indeed grudgingly accepted less than inflation several times before. Perhaps it is the highest paid drivers elsewhere, and their paymasters, who should be getting the flack, not the lowest paid ones who have finally said 'enough'.

 

[chuckles1066]

I was under the impression that changing T&C without the employees consent was not allowed under employment law, and termination of employment for failing to accept worse T&C than previously enjoyed would come under the heading of constructive dismissal.

Just my two yen worth.

I think you'll find as long as they give due notice (usually 90 days) and stick to the "it's essential for the changing needs of the business" line, they can do it.

DirectGov states "If you don't accept the new contract - or if you've accepted the new one but feel there was no good reason for ending the old one - you have the right to make an unfair dismissal claim provided you've at least one year of continuous service with your employer. You may also be able to claim redundancy if you have at least two years service.

If there is a sound business reason for the change, and your employer has properly consulted you and looked into any alternatives, you could find it difficult to win your claim"

There's this misguided belief that an employment contract is actually worth the paper it's written on

 

[Flamingo]

Mind you, a lot of ATW staff, including those with safety-critical responsibilities, are on "minimum wage plus a bit". ATW do seem to pay significantly lower wages to their front-line staff compared to FGW.

 

[GB]

There's this misguided belief that an employment contract is actually worth the paper it's written on

There is also the misguided belief that employers can do what they wan't when they want without consequence

 

[chuckles1066]

There is also the misguided belief that employers can do what they wan't when they want without consequence

I'll give you some free advice given to me by my solicitor when I was made redundant in August - the company I was employed by used compromise agreements to get around any possible subsequent claims for unfair dismissal.

A condition of using compromise agreements is that the employee *must* take legal advice otherwise the agreement is null and void. My solicitor told me the dismissal was patently unfair but I could only win an unfair dismissal claim if I could demonstrate financial loss to a tribunal.

Ahhh, I'd walked straight into a temporary job on a self-employed basis paying me 50% more than I was on.

"Then you can't consider an unfair dismissal claim, sign the agreement" I was told.

"What if I didn't have a job to walk into?" I asked.

I was told that a tribunal will expect the person bringing the claim to have done everything in their power to have "mitigated their losses".

In other words, if you pitch up at an employment tribunal eight months down the road as an unemployed person, the first question you will be asked is "couldn't you have got a job stacking shelves at Tesco?"

And, to apply that to the current scenario, the question would be "hang on, you're driving trains for a living but couldn't even get a job stacking shelves?"

Reply with "pah, stacking shelves is beneath me" will see your claim dismissed pretty much straight away.

Now I don't agree with any of it, unfair dismissal is unfair dismissal irrespective of whether I'm now earning £200k a year or not.

But that's the way the cards are stacked I'm afraid........

 

[Greenback]

That is not true. It's only when a tribunal is considering the level of compensation due that they will consider such things as mitigation of losses. The law is the law is the law, and a dismissal is unfair or fair. The waters are muddied a little by other factors, such as where an employee contributed to their own dismissal, but an ability to get anothe rjob quickly is never taken into account by an employment tribunal that is solely considered with findings of fact and how these facts operate in a legal sense.

Of course, no one wants to get involved in a legal battle if they can help, which is why people join unions to fight these sort of situations in the first place. If it was simple and legal to get rid of people who refuse to agree to new T&C's, the rail companies would have been doing it a long time ago.