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!
I mean that’s about as relevant to anything that matters as union badges, really, which can be bought on eBay!
The fact something so utterly trifling has been brought into the negotiations is extraordinary, and is indeed perhaps a sign the government has sensed weakness, or at least dissension in the ranks.
The 5% pay rise in the second year would still have been a loss in real terms of 23p in every £100. That may sound insignificant but for someone on £30,000 it's about £68 less.
That's probably affordable as a one off, but with the next pay increase being 4% it then results in the total out of pocket for someone on £30,000 being £1,744 over those 3 years.
If there's been further erosion in previous years, especially given that there's currently a shortage of working aged people, it's not going to be enough for many (especially if, and there'sa fair chance of this, inflation the following year is higher than the agreed rate) and the government could find themselves with a railway with too few to run it effectively but too many wishing to use it to be able to shut it down without it being political suicide.
The problem is, that by not dealing with the rail unions, there's likely to have been others who have gone on strike. If they had offered (say) 5.5% they could have resolved the strikes early (which by the way according to some reports has cost them more in payments to TOC's than the total pay offer - whilst that is a one off cost, unlike pay which is locked into future part rises, some of that cost is going to be there if pay goes up by, say, 4%) and set a (lowish) benchmark for other unions who may have not gone on strike for the extra (say) 0.75% between their offer and the RMT offer.
I don’t think the public will have much sympathy for drivers rejecting a £5k+ pay offer. (Yes I know T’s and Cs are also an issue, but the public won’t see / care about that).
And I also know ASLEF doesn’t care what the public think!
And the public just assume we can automate the whole network in a flash because it exists on the DLR and in other countries, even though, as has been the subject of discussion on this forum, there is a great expense and certain challenges to overcome. But that seems to be the way of the average idiot, just wish for something and not think through the details of how it has to be delivered.
I'm not NR but it was points to use to buy a gift(voucher style) for m a catalogue and the 'meal' was to go to the Company presentation night(if you wanted to).
As you say, let's not forget thats 28 years ago now, and people who started pre-1995 and many who are still employed in the railway will be approaching retirement.
The cut off date is 1/4/96. So it is approaching 27 years continuous service. The recent round of voluntary redundancies in management has certainly reduced the number of people in NR who have the safeguarded facilities - I know very few people who have them. I know quite a few managers who handed them back to take the car allowance / subsidised season ticket option.
For 25 years service it’s £250 (in a voucher of your choice from a wide selection of options) plus a meal out to the value of around £100 for you and whoever you want to go with you.
That has been the case for a number of years, no doubt because CPI is usually lower and makes the figures look better. It doesn't mean that CPI is the more accurate measurement of inflation.
CPI is more accurate than RPI. CPI is a National Statistic and RPI is not. All the details are on the Office for National Statistics website.
It all comes down to the history. RPI was devised not long after World War 2, when there were no computers. The methodology is rudimentary, especially how the prices are weighted together, because there were no computers then. It was literally calculated by clerks using pencil and paper.
The CPI was introduced in the 1980s, when computer power had advanced to the stage where it became feasible to calculate a price index using better methodology without delaying publication.
I expect that the Office for National Statistics would prefer to not produce the RPI at all. But its use is embedded into lots of legislation, including uprating of benefits and interest on index linked government debt.
Ignoring all the other issues, that sounds better than your manager deigning to take you out for a meal sometime; I'm still waiting for my 25 years service treat (which became due in October 2003.......)
CPI is more accurate than RPI. CPI is a National Statistic and RPI is not. All the details are on the Office for National Statistics website.
It all comes down to the history. RPI was devised not long after World War 2, when there were no computers. The methodology is rudimentary, especially how the prices are weighted together, because there were no computers then. It was literally calculated by clerks using pencil and paper.
The CPI was introduced in the 1980s, when computer power had advanced to the stage where it became feasible to calculate a price index using better methodology without delaying publication.
I expect that the Office for National Statistics would prefer to not produce the RPI at all. But its use is embedded into lots of legislation, including uprating of benefits and interest on index linked government debt.
The ONS currently produces three price indices, namely RPI, CPI and Consumer Prices Index with Housing (CPIH). By February 2030, RPI will be reformed in line with the CPIH approach, following an announcement by HM Treasury in November 2020. So the existing RPI methodology will no longer be used.
This blog looks at how inflation was affected over the pandemic and the outcome of a consultation to reform the UK’s longest standing measure of inflation, the Retail Price Index.
actuaries.blog.gov.uk
Trustees of some pension schemes obtained a judicial review of that decision but that review found against the trustees and the trustees decided not to pursue an application to the Court of Appeal.
There's a lot of discussion here about inflation. But it's not actually the duty of employers to maintain the standard of living of the workforce*. * Slightly different considerations apply for the low paid
And an employer's ability to pay higher wages is linked to its ability to increase income (or reduce profits) to afford that. Given the state of the public finances, most public and para-public sector employers can't afford 10% and in the private sector, businesses don't think they can pass on 10% higher salary costs to customers. Finally, there is the "self-fulfillng prophecy" angle: if everyone gets 10% then high inflation may be here to stay which is unlikely to be socially or economically helpful overall.
In general wages will run ahead of inflation over the medium term. But there will be considerable variation between industries and job types and from year-to-year - for example they were mostly ahead in the low inflation years and are now behind.
The Government says so. They moved from RPI to CPI years ago for the public sector, and by proxy any other sector that is publicly funded. Did they do it to save money? Yes.
But also keep in mind that RPI or CPI is not a line in the sand for governments. Pay rises are funded by the Treasury, and there is always only so much to go around and is tightly controlled. If the Treasury doesn't have inflation matching budgets, they won't offer inflation matching rises. This is not opinion on whether that is bad or good by the way, just how it is. Occasionally it might be possible to spook some governments into caving in a bit, but its no guarantee and frankly this government has dug in way too deep now.
Agreed, everyone seems to forget the railways are somewhat less important than they used to be with quite widespread ability to work from home the impact of the strikes is far less.
There's a lot of discussion here about inflation. But it's not actually the duty of employers to maintain the standard of living of the workforce*. * Slightly different considerations apply for the low paid
And an employer's ability to pay higher wages is linked to its ability to increase income (or reduce profits) to afford that. Given the state of the public finances, most public and para-public sector employers can't afford 10% and in the private sector, businesses don't think they can pass on 10% higher salary costs to customers. Finally, there is the "self-fulfillng prophecy" angle: if everyone gets 10% then high inflation may be here to stay which is unlikely to be socially or economically helpful overall.
In general wages will run ahead of inflation over the medium term. But there will be considerable variation between industries and job types and from year-to-year - for example they were mostly ahead in the low inflation years and are now behind.
How many more times does it need to be pointed out that:
1. Most people in paid employment don’t expect to see their standard of living falling year on year, so inflation is absolutely relevant;
2. Ts and Cs are a far bigger concern for most than the amount (in this respect inflation is merely a gauge of how little is actually being given in exchange for what’s being sacrificed). The dispute could have been settled months ago with no major Ts and Cs changes for an amount well below inflation (as per Scotland and Wales).
3. The “state of the public finances” is a red herring when the government would be in a better financial position had it simply settled these disputes, rather than stringing then out for months and lying about their own involvement. The government has also found money to reward pensioners etc. so the money clearly can be found if politically desirable - many Tory backbenchers (and the last PM) seem to believe the country can afford significant tax cuts, so the “there’s no money” excuse is selectively used…
How many more times does it need to be pointed out that:
1. Most people in paid employment don’t expect to see their standard of living falling year on year, so inflation is absolutely relevant;
2. Ts and Cs are a far bigger concern for most than the amount (in this respect inflation is merely a gauge of how little is actually being given in exchange for what’s being sacrificed). The dispute could have been settled months ago with no major Ts and Cs changes for an amount well below inflation (as per Scotland and Wales).
3. The “state of the public finances” is a red herring when the government would be in a better financial position had it simply settled these disputes, rather than stringing then out for months and lying about their own involvement. The government has also found money to reward pensioners etc. so the money clearly can be found if politically desirable - many Tory backbenchers (and the last PM) seem to believe the country can afford significant tax cuts, so the “there’s no money” excuse is selectively used…
I have no specific opinion on what the offer to rail workers should be (or what their terms and conditions should be). But what you seem to be saying is that taxpayers/passengers should prioritise finding the money as rail workers don't expect to see their standard of living falling even though a) that's what's happened to pretty much everyone in employment right accross Europe this year; b) that in past years their standard of living increased; and c) the tax burden is shooting up due to fiscal drag. Oh, and terms and conditions should never change even if they're outdated and don't suit today's railway.
I have no specific opinion on what the offer to rail workers should be (or what their terms and conditions should be). But what you seem to be saying is that taxpayers/passengers should prioritise finding the money as rail workers don't expect to see their standard of living falling even though a) that's what's happened to pretty much everyone in employment right accross Europe this year; b) that in past years their standard of living increased; and c) the tax burden is shooting up due to fiscal drag. Oh, and terms and conditions should never change even if they're outdated and don't suit today's railway.
The government already admitted that they have spent more money fighting the unions then the pay rises would have cost, so I think this is entirely more ideological fo the government than whether or they are able to afford it. This deal also does not match inflation, so would still see workers getting pooper.
But what you seem to be saying is that taxpayers/passengers should prioritise finding the money as rail workers don't expect to see their standard of living falling even though a) that's what's happened to pretty much everyone in employment right accross Europe this year; b) that in past years their standard of living increased; and c) the tax burden is shooting up due to fiscal drag.
A. You’ve missed the bit where I said the dispute could have been settled for less than the rate of inflation - nobody I know is seriously expecting above inflation rises. What they also aren’t expecting is to sell hard won Ts and Cs for next to nothing;
B. The standard of living increased due to things being sold previously, it wasn’t handed over on a plate;
C. You’re still (selectively?) ignoring the fact tax payers would actually be better off if the disputes had been settled. As a tax payer myself I don’t consider the government’s actions in prolonging this dispute acceptable.
Reported by Sky news and others, comments made by Mick Whelan on LBC radio that ASLEF strikes could go on 3 more years until 2026
Strikes by train drivers could continue for another three years, a union boss has warned.
Train driver members of Aslef and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) have walked out today in a long-running dispute over pay and conditions.
This has left large parts of the country with no services, as operators such as Avanti West Coast, CrossCountry, Northern and Southern are not running any trains.
Aslef general secretary Mick Whelan told LBC radio that train drivers have not had a pay rise in four years.
Asked how much longer union members can financially sustain striking, he said: "I think we're in this for the long haul. How long is a piece of string?
"If we don't get a pay rise for four years will it be five, will it be six, will it be seven?
"Will it be stupid to stop this now then restart it some time in the future, because you'd lose any impetus that you've gained?"
He told LBC that Aslef has made no progress in negotiations with the Rail Delivery Group, which represents train operators, during six months of strikes.
Asked about the prospect of a deal being struck during further talks on 7 February, he said: "We want a resolution. My people don't want to be losing money, they don't want to be standing out in the cold."
There's a lot of discussion here about inflation. But it's not actually the duty of employers to maintain the standard of living of the workforce*. * Slightly different considerations apply for the low paid
And an employer's ability to pay higher wages is linked to its ability to increase income (or reduce profits) to afford that. Given the state of the public finances, most public and para-public sector employers can't afford 10% and in the private sector, businesses don't think they can pass on 10% higher salary costs to customers. Finally, there is the "self-fulfillng prophecy" angle: if everyone gets 10% then high inflation may be here to stay which is unlikely to be socially or economically helpful overall.
In general wages will run ahead of inflation over the medium term. But there will be considerable variation between industries and job types and from year-to-year - for example they were mostly ahead in the low inflation years and are now behind.
You say all that, but don’t forget, inflation reduces the effective value of any debt (ignoring the cost of servicing the interests payments). For government debt especially, this can and does make a big difference.
If the government/state did not have any debts, then a very low (but above zero) inflation rate is preferred.
However, in the real world, lots of different things can drive inflation. At the moment, the biggest cause of inflation is due to lack of supply or perceived lack of supply of natural gas, crude oil, plus various parts and products. All of which are external to our economy and largely out of our control. The reason for these commodities having increased in price is due to the Russian war in Ukraine and lack of production due to COVID19.
The effects of not paying your employees enough money is that they leave the industry. It costs considerably more to attract new staff and then have to train them up, especially if there is already a shortage of staff to carry out day to day operations, let alone instruct new staff. Plus, loss of experience reduces efficiency until the new staff gain enough experience.
With the railways, there is the additional pain in that when a train is delayed by a significant amount, or cancelled/part cancelled, there is both a financial payment involved plus reputational damage.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How many more times does it need to be pointed out that:
1. Most people in paid employment don’t expect to see their standard of living falling year on year, so inflation is absolutely relevant;
2. Ts and Cs are a far bigger concern for most than the amount (in this respect inflation is merely a gauge of how little is actually being given in exchange for what’s being sacrificed). The dispute could have been settled months ago with no major Ts and Cs changes for an amount well below inflation (as per Scotland and Wales).
3. The “state of the public finances” is a red herring when the government would be in a better financial position had it simply settled these disputes, rather than stringing then out for months and lying about their own involvement. The government has also found money to reward pensioners etc. so the money clearly can be found if politically desirable - many Tory backbenchers (and the last PM) seem to believe the country can afford significant tax cuts, so the “there’s no money” excuse is selectively used…
The RMT now have a slightly better offer than they started with. ASLEF haven’t don’t much as yet and more pressure can be applied.
Based on the text you’ve quoted that isn’t exactly what he said; he has said members are in it for the “long haul”, but also clearly indicated that there is a strong desire to reach a resolution.
Equally it’s true that there’s a strong mandate for greater action amongst the membership.
The government has also found money to reward pensioners etc. so the money clearly can be found if politically desirable - many Tory backbenchers (and the last PM) seem to believe the country can afford significant tax cuts, so the “there’s no money” excuse is selectively used…
The highlighted bit is the important bit. There’s no political desire for paying train drivers more. The public will never see someone earning £55-60k or more as being a more deserving case over nurses, teachers or indeed anyone else. And that is what drives the political will.
I have no specific opinion on what the offer to rail workers should be (or what their terms and conditions should be). But what you seem to be saying is that taxpayers/passengers should prioritise finding the money as rail workers don't expect to see their standard of living falling even though a) that's what's happened to pretty much everyone in employment right accross Europe this year; b) that in past years their standard of living increased; and c) the tax burden is shooting up due to fiscal drag. Oh, and terms and conditions should never change even if they're outdated and don't suit today's railway.
And I’m guessing that you have not been paying attention. For the vast majority of railway employees, T&Cs have changed over time. By proper negotiation. For Network Rail infrastructure workers, last time was only twelve years ago for example.
The problem with government finances is that politicians consistently do not get enough in taxes and prefer to borrow. The U.K. already had a rather large debt before anyone had heard of COVID19. The U.K. is the fifth or sixth wealthiest country in the world, so there is enough wealth for the tax income to exceed the current spending plans plus give state employees (including railway employees) a reasonable rise (and by reasonable I mean greater that what is currently on offer).
What is currently happening is that the rich and powerful in this country are doing what they can to keep hold of ‘their’ own wealth (look at who would have benefited from the tax cuts under Liz Truss) at the expense of the public workers.
It’s also perfectly possible that the government are deliberately trying manipulate events to get through laws to cripple unions and worsen workers rights. Already there is the requirement to show identification when voting even though there were hardly any problems with impersonation. Currently going through Parliament is the minimum service legislation. Plus already passed are laws that restrict protests that are too noisy or which cause disruption. Bit by bit this government are starting to head in the direction of an authoritarian state. These are all things that put more power in the hands of the powerful and wealthy people.
3. The “state of the public finances” is a red herring when the government would be in a better financial position had it simply settled these disputes, rather than stringing then out for months and lying about their own involvement.
This isn't true though in anything other than the short term.
If you earn £100 and get a 10% rise this year instead of 5% , then £110 not £105 is what all future negotiations will be based on. Effectively, that extra £5 carries on forever, until the next crisis.
So, it is not the £5 this year, where I am sure everything has probably cost the government, £10 and the employees £10... . The actual comparison is the extra £5 per year forever for the government, versus the one year of pain in this fight to change T&C's and keep that £5.
The government has also found money to reward pensioners etc. so the money clearly can be found if politically desirable - many Tory backbenchers (and the last PM) seem to believe the country can afford significant tax cuts, so the “there’s no money” excuse is selectively used….
With the level the Conservatives are at in the current polls, you could counter argue that they need every vote they can get to save themselves from being at risk of being close to wiped out. Hence you would have thought that they would be doing their best to not upset any voters…
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you are not rostered/booked for duty, it makes no difference if there is a strike on the same turn of duty/shift (day is not a good description as some staff work nights).
If annual leave was booked before the strike was announced, then the company should honour this, hence the employee should get paid as normal.
It’s not me ‘saying’ anything. It’s just the facts. All I was pointing out was that the current deal is not going to be RPI; in other words it used to be, and now it isn’t.
out of interest, why? It’s more generous, and more frequent. Previously you had to wait until 25 years, now there’s awards at 10, 20, 30 and 40 years. Each with a decent value of gift (which you can choose in vouchers) and you are able to go out for a decent meal on the company, with family or friends, something which hasn’t been permitted for a long time. I agree it’s hardly earth shattering, but an extra couple of hundred quid every 10 years is definitely better than nothing, so why is it ‘pointless’.
The last picket line I stood on the general feeling was the next offer was probably going to be 0+5+5 and if it was , we would probably have a referendum and it would end up being accepted.
The reason I describe it as pointless is it feels like rather than add a single percentage point (or anything) to a consolidated pay deal we are "reforming" the long service awards? I can't imagine the union asking for that so it feels like a ridiculous carrot to offer?
While we are on about inflation, as CPI and RPI are rates of change, rather than absolute values, can anyone give an example of the last time we had negative inflation in this country?
This isn't true though in anything other than the short term.
If you earn £100 and get a 10% rise this year instead of 5% , then £110 not £105 is what all future negotiations will be based on. Effectively, that extra £5 carries on forever, until the next crisis.
So, it is not the £5 this year, where I am sure everything has probably cost the government, £10 and the employees £10... . The actual comparison is the extra £5 per year forever for the government, versus the one year of pain in this fight to change T&C's and keep that £5.
But that’s an argument for nobody ever getting a pay rise, and overlooks that the higher amount longer term is also reduced by inflation. The alternative is perpetually declining real incomes!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
actuaries.blog.gov.uk
