Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[Class83]

It’s one thing expressing a desire, but it’s quite another having a realistic plan to make it workable. Firstly how do you cream off the nice stuff for person A, without person B picking up a disproportionate amount of crap? Secondly, and especially in an industry where we are allegedly supposed to be reducing costs, how do we reconcile that a part-time driver is likely to need 100% of the training time and expense, but who by definition is only going to be partly productive compared to a full-time driver? LU tried this with the night tube, not through choice, and couldn’t get rid of it quick enough.

So the left hand wants more flexibility, yet the right hand seems to want to implement stuff which is inherently less flexible.

This is absolutely true, Train Drivers are well paid, but part of that is because the hours are not ideal, early starts and late finishes are part of the job. If you subset 'family friendly' hours for a few members of staff, everyone else is on a constant rota of rubbish shifts which is pretty unreasonable for them.

If you want a 9-5 job there are plenty in offices, even in the railway industry, but it's not driving a train, guard, platform staff or signaler.

It would also mean reworking the Salary Structure, the generally quoted Nurse or Junior Doctor Salary is the 'day rate' there is an additional allowance for rotas with evenings and weekends. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ~£60k for a train driver includes effectively a shift allowance.

 

[brad465]

This is absolutely true, Train Drivers are well paid, but part of that is because the hours are not ideal, early starts and late finishes are part of the job. If you subset 'family friendly' hours for a few members of staff, everyone else is on a constant rota of rubbish shifts which is pretty unreasonable for them.

If you want a 9-5 job there are plenty in offices, even in the railway industry, but it's not driving a train, guard, platform staff or signaler.

It would also mean reworking the Salary Structure, the generally quoted Nurse or Junior Doctor Salary is the 'day rate' there is an additional allowance for rotas with evenings and weekends. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ~£60k for a train driver includes effectively a shift allowance.

Is another reason that Drivers are well paid that there is a serious liability risk if things go wrong (i.e. you do something as a Driver in error that causes a crash/incident that puts many lives at risk). There are some positions in my organisation (not a railway one) which are graded higher than the technical skills/experience would normally warrant because they make decisions which are a matter of life and death.

 

[Class83]

The rail industry is short of people because training takes a while. Not because of a shortage of applicants, even after filtering for those who pass the aptitude tests. Though it's one of the few industries which pays people to train, rather than letting them go and get a 'BEng in Locomotive Engineering' at their own expense.

 

[ExRes]

The reason for the shortage of drivers is very simple and has been for years, the TOCs won't spend money to employ and train recruits and ASLEF have failed miserably to force recruitment by continually agreeing RDW agreements, by refusing RDW agreements recruitment would have to have taken place and sorted understaffing years ago

 

[irish_rail]

I suspect this has been deliberately leaked so the Governemnt can say we offered them 4 percent and they rejected it. The wider public don't care much for Ts and Cs so will just see it as train drivers holding out for more money. Its a pretty low tactic , but with the current lot in power I'm not at all surprised. As others have pointed out, the deal would never be acceptable to the vast majority of drivers, it frankly stinks.

 

[mandub]

I suspect this has been deliberately leaked so the Governemnt can say we offered them 4 percent and they rejected it. The wider public don't care much for Ts and Cs so will just see it as train drivers holding out for more money. Its a pretty low tactic , but with the current lot in power I'm not at all surprised. As others have pointed out, the deal would never be acceptable to the vast majority of drivers, it frankly stinks.

Yep. I've heard 2 reports on BBC at tea time and they just mentioned the 4% x2 years, nothing else at all.

 

[Phil R]

Yep. I've heard 2 reports on BBC at tea time and they just mentioned the 4% x2 years, nothing else at all.

Soundbite media. Nobody has the attention span to understand anything more. Or so they think.

 

[Fred26]

If this offer is legitimate, the drivers have been offered the same percentage as RMT TOC staff, but it with far fewer strings.
I don't know if this is a good offer or not, but I suspect that would depend on whether or not those terms are already part of their contract or not.

The government must realise the the drivers are the key to the dispute and agreeing a deal with ASLEF first will make a deal with the RMT easier.

 

[the sniper]

I don't know what they think they're achieving, but RDG do a really impressive job of stoking the flames of the dispute in the way and tone in which they address things publicly. It's funny that people think the unions need to influence their members when RDG approach things the way they do.

 

[brick60000]

Some of those conditions seem unrealistic to me.

In particular, watering down both training and route knowledge requirements. I’m not sure how this can realistically be done without a hit to safety standards. Managers driving during disruption is also a slippery slope, as the moment you get to a situation where managers are being called to take the handle during disruption they then start becoming just another de-facto spare, which means their management tasks won’t be getting done - over time this will cause problems.

Then there’s the idea of a more diverse workforce - whoever thought this was a good idea just doesn’t really get the fact that shifts and unsocial hours are an inherent part of the driving role, the moment you cherry pick particular arrangements to suit certain people someone else has to cover the crap stuff, and this simply doesn’t work. Likewise do we really think it’s a good idea to encourage people into a heavily shift-oriented role who have a string of commitments which will limit their flexibility? It’s all very well saying people sign a contract, but reality is if they can’t get what they want off then they simply go sick. There is already a problem with certain people being attracted by the pound sign, and then once they get to the point of having to work shifts suddenly find they either can’t hack it or do everything possible to treat it as a MF 9-5 holidays off job.

Seems like political meddling rather than anything serious. Haven’t the politicians screwed up enough over the last 3 years?…

I don’t read it as watering down RK training requirements, rather getting rid of the practice of learning a route being allocated x amount of days which ignores that some people learn more quickly than others.

Agree that it is a difficult balance to strike between managers not becoming a default spare and also being permitted to drive trains during disruption. One that will be down to the TOCs to manage, as ultimately they will suffer if management activities aren’t being completed.

There’s definitely circumstances where DMs driving would be beneficial, but you don’t want to have it all the time.

For instance - DM is catching a train home, train cancelled due to no driver. DM signs the route/traction, and can get the train to the next relief point. My understanding is that under current arrangements the DM would not be permitted to drive at all TOCs, and so the train would be cancelled.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

It's clear that many commentees have clocked what seems to be going on here. The RDG press release reads more like a submission to the Williams review a few years go, but does not seem to offer any kind of practical way forward when inflation is c.10% per annum. The Governments plan now seems to be to imply that there may be more money for next year's settlement if only ASLEF accepts this year's one . But neither part of that is at all likely. Since ASLEF hasn't yet had any negotiation with any one, it is hardly likely that they would accept this.... !

 

[Sly Sloth]

You never accept the 1st offer. They speak Monday and offer 5% 5% in the knowledge that 6% 6% is potentially agreeable with a few ”additional” conditions attached

 

[irish_rail]

You never accept the 1st offer. They speak Monday and offer 5% 5% in the knowledge that 6% 6% is potentially agreeable with a few ”additional” conditions attached

Most drivers you speak to (myself included) are more bothered about conditions than money. Even if 10 percent where offered, this deal would still be shot down. Offer us 4 percent with no strings and dispute would be over, just like that. The railway can start to grow again and the 2 billion the hospitality industry has lost due to the strikes over past 6 months can begin to be recouped. Instead the Dft and Tories dig their heels in and in the process continue to wreck the economy and the lives of the travelling public.

 

[jamieP]

Most drivers you speak to (myself included) are more bothered about conditions than money. Even if 10 percent where offered, this deal would still be shot down. Offer us 4 percent with no strings and dispute would be over, just like that. The railway can start to grow again and the 2 billion the hospitality industry has lost due to the strikes over past 6 months can begin to be recouped. Instead the Dft and Tories dig their heels in and in the process continue to wreck the economy and the lives of the travelling public.

Still the RMT workers to sort out before that can happen

 

[dk1]

The reason for the shortage of drivers is very simple and has been for years, the TOCs won't spend money to employ and train recruits and ASLEF have failed miserably to force recruitment by continually agreeing RDW agreements, by refusing RDW agreements recruitment would have to have taken place and sorted understaffing years ago

That is not true across the board. At my TOC training was always good & even excelled during the pandemic. Even now continual courses are planned throughout 2023 to keep establishments filled & unions pleased.

 

[fishwomp]

Is another reason that Drivers are well paid that there is a serious liability risk if things go wrong (i.e. you do something as a Driver in error that causes a crash/incident that puts many lives at risk). There are some positions in my organisation (not a railway one) which are graded higher than the technical skills/experience would normally warrant because they make decisions which are a matter of life and death.

No. The reason for higher salaries is the limited number of drivers and the long time to it takes to train them - which led to shortages and competition across the operators and freight companies for ready-trained drivers.

Many (most?) railway jobs are safety critical - and done badly could be fatal and could lead to prosecutions. The lookout (risk to team), the track-walker (don't know the name), the person who tightens the nut or hits the clip with a hammer, the signalman (signal-person), driver, guard, the signal engineer, the tester..

 

[ComUtoR]

The rail industry is short of people because training takes a while.

It's a resourcing and infrastructure issue. It's also a planning issue. HR teams are overstretched, 'training schools' are under manned and lack resources, some TOCs don't recruit trainees, DIs are thin in the ground, and these wonderful things like simulators and "technology" just doesn't exist in such a way to facilitate training on the scale it requires.

Chuck in the insane costs and lack of incentive to hire staff.

The reason for the shortage of drivers is very simple and has been for years, the TOCs won't spend money to employ and train recruits and ASLEF have failed miserably to force recruitment by continually agreeing RDW agreements, by refusing RDW agreements recruitment would have to have taken place and sorted understaffing years

Lol !

 

[gazzaa2]

Why are a government that will be voted out next year so concerned about changing the working conditions of train drivers?

You'd think they'd just put the pay offer in and without all the conditions attached it'd likely be accepted, or wouldn't be far off.

They just want to wage a culture war on the RMT, they've no interest in resolving it.

 

[Silverlinky]

That is not true across the board. At my TOC training was always good & even excelled during the pandemic. Even now continual courses are planned throughout 2023 to keep establishments filled & unions pleased.

At my TOC too, the RDW agreement is only signed and renewed to facilitate training, if there was no training going on there would be no RDW agreement.

I believe it is in ASLEF's charter to seek an end to the need for "institutionalised overtime".

 

[Goldfish62]

This is absolutely true, Train Drivers are well paid, but part of that is because the hours are not ideal, early starts and late finishes are part of the job. If you subset 'family friendly' hours for a few members of staff, everyone else is on a constant rota of rubbish shifts which is pretty unreasonable for them.

If you want a 9-5 job there are plenty in offices, even in the railway industry, but it's not driving a train, guard, platform staff or signaler.

It would also mean reworking the Salary Structure, the generally quoted Nurse or Junior Doctor Salary is the 'day rate' there is an additional allowance for rotas with evenings and weekends. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ~£60k for a train driver includes effectively a shift allowance.

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

 

[whoosh]

It’s an awful lot more than most people are getting, including people who are in much less handsomely paid jobs. We are all struggling with the cost of living crisis. They should take this and run, as the next offer might be nothing or a pay cut

As of today, Friday January 6th 2023, there has been NO offer.

Also, depending on the TOC depends on when the pay anniversary is. East Midlands Railway has a pay anniversary of January. So January 2022's pay anniversary is already a year late, and this is the first time an offer has been made. Only it hasn't actually been made.
EMR have Sundays in the working week and an already flexible three hour spare movement.

Other TOC's have pay anniversaries in April (mostly of them), May (Cross Country I believe), and GTR are in October.

This is all complete BS. EMR with Sundays already in the working week are to have the same pay rise as GTR even though GTR would be giving up terms related to Sundays (possibly more flexible spare movement than their current two hours either side) and that RPI was higher later in the year when their payrise was due?

It's all nonsense, and smacks of a government who literally couldn't give less of a care in the world about the economic recovery of the country and it's railway system, just as ridership was recovering.

 

[ExRes]

Lol !

What's so funny, ASLEF have been signing RDW agreements for years, if they'd put their foot down 20 years ago the TOCS would've had no choice but to agree to a proper recruitment campaign and these historic vacancies would have been filled

 

[bramling]

Why are a government that will be voted out next year so concerned about changing the working conditions of train drivers?

You'd think they'd just put the pay offer in and without all the conditions attached it'd likely be accepted, or wouldn't be far off.

They just want to wage a culture war on the RMT, they've no interest in resolving it.

Johnson in particular seems to have always had a thing about train drivers, goodness knows for what reason. I remember reading an article he wrote two decades ago slagging off the driver of the Turbo involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2023 ==

It's all nonsense, and smacks of a government who literally couldn't give less of a care in the world about the economic recovery of the country and it's railway system, just as ridership was recovering.

And this seems to be the real problem. The government has made a hash of pretty much everything it has touched, including imploding itself firstly over Brexit but then with its behaviour over Covid. They seem to have no viable solutions to problems, and don’t even seem to care. It isn’t just the railway system which is a mess, the NHS is even worse.

It does seem like elements of the government seem to treat high office with about the same level of respect as the Bullingdon Club.

 

[theageofthetra]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

Don't we have this already with the 'old man's link'? More agreeable start/finish times based on length of service.

 

[Starmill]

The comparison over the median salary of nurses is extremely weird. As if most nurses aren't also in dispute over pay with the same Minsters. Reality surpasses fiction in the tone of communication here. Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[brad465]

The comparison over the median salary of nurses is extremely weird. As if most nurses aren't also in dispute over pay with the same Minsters. Reality surpasses fiction in the tone of communication here. Absolutely ludicrous.

Yes my thought regarding this argument that train drivers get paid more than nurses, etc., but apparently have it easier is that those other roles should be being paid more than they are currently, rather than train drivers accepting less/no increase.

 

[Thirteen]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

At the risk of sounding dumb but why would the RMT be involved with the buses when they're a rail and maritime union, I always assume the bus drivers were part of Unite or GMB.

 

[Starmill]

Yes my thought regarding this argument that train drivers get paid more than nurses, etc., but apparently have it easier is that those other roles should be being paid more than they are currently, rather than train drivers accepting less/no increase.

Seems abundantly clear that that's how both most train drivers and nurses would see it to me too. Why do the government think they can play these groups off against one another so readily, when both are already in dispute with them?

 

[the sniper]

At the risk of sounding dumb but why would the RMT be involved with the buses when they're a rail and maritime union, I always assume the bus drivers were part of Unite or GMB.

Clue's in the name, they're not called the RM.

 

[Carlisle]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

I remember when privatisation was being introduced one of ASLEFs published red lines was to resist the introduction of part time drivers, perhaps someone better informed can explain why .