ASLEF non-contractual overtime bans -various dates and TOCs

[Snow1964]

It was rejected as the offer did contain drastic & unrealistic changes to t&c’s. The official offer was a lot worse than the one released to the press initially & deliberately provocative to encourage refusal. Make no mistakes this dispute is being engineered & continued by this government

So if your assumption is correct, why is ASLEF telling media it is Pay dispute only.

Either ASLEF don't know what they are doing (incompetent), or they have misinformed their membership into thinking something else, or they have quietly accepted the T&Cs and only pay part is outstanding.

Edited to add link to media showing dispute is only about pay

ASLEF Announces Further Overtime Ban | ASLEF

ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has announced that members at 16 companies will refuse to work overtime from 17 - 22 July in the union’s ongoing national dispute over pay.

aslef.org.uk

 

[baz962]

So if your assumption is correct, why is ASLEF telling media it is Pay dispute only.

Either ASLEF don't know what they are doing (incompetent), or they have misinformed their membership into thinking something else, or they have quietly accepted the T&Cs and only pay part is outstanding.

They aren't. I saw one interview with Mick Whelan and he mentioned the terms and conditions.

 

[43066]

So if your assumption is correct, why is ASLEF telling media it is Pay dispute only.

Either ASLEF don't know what they are doing (incompetent), or they have misinformed their membership into thinking something else, or they have quietly accepted the T&Cs and only pay part is outstanding.

Edited to add link to media showing dispute is only about pay

ASLEF Announces Further Overtime Ban | ASLEF

ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has announced that members at 16 companies will refuse to work overtime from 17 - 22 July in the union’s ongoing national dispute over pay.

aslef.org.uk

You are being deliberately obtuse.

One badly worded press release means nothing (and nowhere on that release does it state that the dispute is only about pay).. It’s quite clear to everyone involved with this dispute, and anyone who has followed it, exactly what it’s about.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the overtime ban is so important to ASLEF as being necessary to achieve their aspirations, why is it lasting for only this week yet allowable in future weeks?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2023 ==

One badly worded press release means nothing.

I thought that badly-worded press releases were the sole media speciality of the RMT, remembering some of their more notable ones in the past. Basket-cases et al being some of their more favoured ones. You say that one badly-worded press release means nothing, so why the hell did they issue it?

 

[Snow1964]

You are being deliberately obtuse.

One badly worded press release means nothing (and nowhere on that release does it state that the dispute is only about pay).. It’s quite clear to everyone involved with this dispute, and anyone who has followed it, exactly what it’s about.

It's not those involved that are the problem, it's the fact that many others from passengers thought to MPs not involved with DfT now being informed that it is a pay dispute.

If you were trying to protect a budget in the Treasury and that was presented to you, what action would you take, misinformation has consequences, that is what some aren't realising.

 

[43066]

It's not those involved that are the problem, it's the fact that many others from passengers thought to MPs not involved with DfT now being informed that it is a pay dispute.

This is one press release, mentioning a pay dispute, supported by a year or more of clear evidence that both pay and Ts and Cs are in play. I doubt it will even be read by anyone not interested in the dispute, so it’s a non issue.

What point are you actually making, other than obviously revelling in the fact ASLEF haven’t worded something quite as well as they could have done?

If you were trying to protect a budget in the Treasury and that was presented to you, what action would you take, misinformation has consequences, that is what some aren't realising.

If I was protecting a budget in the Treasury I’d start by asking why we have spent more bankrolling a dispute (that has also cost the wider economy billions) than settling it a year ago would have cost.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If I was protecting a budget in the Treasury I’d start by asking why we have spent more bankrolling a dispute (that has also cost the wider economy billions) than settling it a year ago would have cost.

Maybe that they wanted not to be seen as the "easy touch" that would succumb to union pressure at the drop of a hat.

 

[43066]

Maybe that they wanted not to be seen as the "easy touch" that would succumb to union pressure at the drop of a hat.

You mean wasting billions, damaging the economy, and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK’s transport infrastructure, is being done purely for appearances sake, and to further anti union ideology?!

I’m glad we agree that’s what’s going on here! .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You mean wasting billions, damaging the economy, and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK’s transport infrastructure, is being done purely for appearances sake, and to further anti union ideology?!

I’m glad we agree that’s what’s going on here! .

Have you forgotten the number of strike actions that have been called by the rail unions over the last few years in which the RMT especially saw as being politically based. I take it they were mindful of "damaging the economy and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure"...to use your very own words.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe that they wanted not to be seen as the "easy touch" that would succumb to union pressure at the drop of a hat.

I think this may be part of the motivation, after all if the government settled without any changes to T&Cs this will set precedent for other disputes. And I suspect there simply isn't the budget to settle all this way, so the government digs in. Years of dealing with private companies who could absorb or pass on increasing staffing costs through pay rises has left the rail unions a little bit complacent in my opinion. When the Treasury has a say directly, or indirectly with your budgets things get tight very quickly. Its a simple reality.

Then on top of this chuck in the backwash from the catastrophic covid responses, the war in Ukraine, and subsequent inflationary pressures and there is likely to be a lot of resistance to simply going with any union's demands. And right now there are a lot. Digging out the old broken record I've been playing all through this dispute and the debate around it, but it was blindingly obvious what would happen. Unions assumed that a weak Conservative government (weak as in their polling) would not be able to withstand any sustained industrial action, and that the government would have to capitulate to their demands. They were wrong, very, very wrong.

So they have two choices, take a step back and try to negotiate a middle ground with the government, or keep the dispute going and risk strike fatigue until the next election in the hope that a potential Labour government will have a magic plan to instantly solve the issues (spoiler alert, they don't). Hopefully @43066 this answers your earlier question.

 

[43066]

Have you forgotten the number of strike actions that have been called by the rail unions over the last few years in which the RMT especially saw as being politically based. I take it they were mindful of "damaging the economy and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure"...to use your very own words.

I expect they believed they were acting in the best interests (and in accordance with the instructions) of their members. Trade unions aren’t charged with responsible running of the economy, last I checked (unfortunately the current government don’t appear to believe they are, either!).

In any case, this thread is about ASLEF.

So they have two choices, take a step back and try to negotiate a middle ground with the government, or keep the dispute going and risk strike fatigue until the next election in the hope that a potential Labour government will have a magic plan to instantly solve the issues (spoiler alert, they don't). Hopefully @43066 this answers your earlier question.

The railway unions have been trying to do exactly that for over a year, and have achieved moderate rises for in exchange for moderate changes to Ts and Cs at all employers not prevented from negotiating by this government. Doesn’t that tell you something?

No magic plan is needed, just a good faith negotiation from both sides. The good faith has been sorely missing from the government’s side; they didn’t even admit they were involved in the dispute for many months!

You’ve apparently missed (or chosen to ignore) numerous posters describing how these changes - including literally not even knowing what days of the week they’re working until the previous week - will ruin their family and social lives, which are already difficult enough with extreme railway shifts, so have to be resisted at all costs. So it’ll very much be the second option, barring any change from the government’s side.

 

[Silverlinky]

I expect they believed they were acting in the best interests (and in accordance with the instructions) of their members. Trade unions aren’t charged with responsible running of the economy, last I checked (unfortunately the current government don’t appear to believe they are, either!).

In any case, this thread is about ASLEF.



The railway unions have been trying to do exactly that for over a year, and have achieved moderate rises for in exchange for moderate changes to Ts and Cs at all employers not prevented from negotiating by this government. No magic plan is needed, just a good faith negotiation from both sides. The good faith has been missing from a government who didn’t even admit they were involved in the dispute for many months…

You’ve apparently missed (or chosen to ignore) numerous posters describing how these changes - including literally not even knowing what days of the week they’re working until the previous week, will ruin their family and social lives, so have to be resisted at all costs. So it’ll very much be the second option, barring any change from the government’s side.

Where has it been said that this is even a thing? Seems very specific there, despite the RDG offer making no such reference to such specifics? Is this ASLEF's interpretation of what could happen if, as per the RDG offer, TOC's are charged on a TOC by TOC basis to look at "Diagramming and Rostering Including Leave Arrangements o Spare Turns & Utilisation Arrangements" or is it "Working Arrangements Principles" in year 2 of the deal?

The fact is that nobody knows yet what changes would be brought about by TOC's in order to get them some way towards fulfilling the requirements laid down by the RDG/DfT. It is pure speculation to say "that this will happen" or "that will happen".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I expect they believed they were acting in the best interests (and in accordance with the instructions) of their members. Trade unions aren’t charged with responsible running of the economy, last I checked (unfortunately the current government don’t appear to believe they are, either!).

In any case, this thread is about ASLEF.

If you had read my posting, you would have seen the pluralised use of "rail unions", of which ASLEF are part of last time that I looked. It was you, not I, who raised the subject of "damaging the economy and stunting the recovery of an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure" but then hid behind the claim that that was no fault of the rail union as "they believed that they were acting (and in accordance with the instructions) of their members. You then end saying "Trade unions aren't charged with the responsible running of the economy" in the vain hope that people will believe the executive committees of the rail trades unions are not fully aware to the implications to the economy caused by strike action. Give website members some credit for cognisance on that matter.

It has reached the stage of folk-lore in the North-West when the statement made about six years ago of describing intending rail passengers who use rail travel to travel to and from their places of work by a union member of station staff who were "piggy in the middle" in a rail dispute by a rail union with a TOC as "collateral damage"

 

[newtownmgr]

So if your assumption is correct, why is ASLEF telling media it is Pay dispute only.

Either ASLEF don't know what they are doing (incompetent), or they have misinformed their membership into thinking something else, or they have quietly accepted the T&Cs and only pay part is outstanding.

Edited to add link to media showing dispute is only about pay

ASLEF Announces Further Overtime Ban | ASLEF

ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has announced that members at 16 companies will refuse to work overtime from 17 - 22 July in the union’s ongoing national dispute over pay.

aslef.org.uk

The dispute started about pay but the RDG
put in massive changes to t&c’s which aslef released to the public & to the membership.

They are not incompetent & they have not misinformed the membership. They certainly haven’t agreed to any changes to the t&c’s especially as each company has differing t&c’s making a national deal unworkable unless it’s purely on pay alone.
Same as the RMT dispute. Only pay can be sorted nationally, t&c’s will have to be sorted company by company.

All your assumptions are very wrong. I’m a member of ASLEF. I won’t accept any offer whilst those conditions are attached & from talking to colleagues none of them will. The 97% yes vote on the last ballot proves that. The voting took place after the last offer & changes to t&c’s were released to the membership

 

[Confused52]

The dispute started about pay but the RDG
put in massive changes to t&c’s which aslef released to the public & to the membership.

Please tell us where this public information can be found.

 

[Silverlinky]

Please tell us where this public information can be found.

This was the "offer".......

Mr. M. Whelan General Secretary ASLEF
Sent by email.
27th April 2023
Dear Mick,
PAY & REFORMS PROPOSAL
I refer to our meeting yesterday and I am setting out in this letter a pay and reforms proposal.
This proposal seeks to reflect the discussions that have taken place at industry‐wide level since mid‐February between representatives of the passenger train operators (TOCs) and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineman and Fireman (ASLEF) arising from the dispute on pay between the TOCs & ASLEF.
This proposal seeks to balance a fair pay deal for employees with the need for workforce reforms to help put the industry finances on a sustainable footing for the future, recognising that whilst off peak leisure travel has recovered to above pre‐Covid levels overall passenger revenue has plateaued at circa 80% of pre‐covid levels due to lower demand for peak and business travel.
This proposal seeks to resolve the current disputes that exist between ASLEF and TOCs on pay and the associated cessation of further industrial action in this dispute.
PAY OFFER
The proposal comprises a two‐year pay offer which provides for a 4% increase in year one (including retrospective pay) and a further increase of 4% in year two to be based on the successful outcome of reform discussions.
Year one will apply from the respective 2022 TOC pay anniversary date and year two will apply from the respective 2023 TOC pay anniversary date. The exceptions to this are C2C and South‐ West Railway who will receive the year two increase only from 2023 TOC pay anniversary date to reflect they have both received a 2022 pay increase under previously agreed multi‐year deals.
Annual TOC pay negotiations will resume in 2024 reflecting the respective TOC anniversary dates.
Rail Delivery Group Limited Registered Office, 2nd Floor, 200 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A 4HD www.raildeliverygroup.com 020 7841 8000 Registered in England and Wales No. 08176197

YEAR ONE ‐ 2022
Year one will become payable on ASLEF endorsing this proposal through a referendum of its members and subsequent receipt of formal acceptance under the respective TOC collective bargaining arrangements. This proposal includes the industry‐wide reform elements set out below: ‐
o Driver Training Competence Review & Driver Training Complimentary Certificate (Part B) *
o Rolling Stock Procurement*
o Train Driver Career Progression
o New Entrants Driver Salary Progression
o New Improving Attendance Policy
o Rolling Sick Pay Year and New Entrants Sick Pay Qualification Periods o Notice Periods
Each of these elements will be brought forward for discussion in accordance with the respective recognised TOC collective bargaining procedures.
* Driver Training Competence Review & Complimentary Certificate and Rolling Stock Procurement elements will continue to have industry‐wide oversight which will include the setting up of an Industry Joint Committee for Rolling Stock Procurement.
YEAR TWO ‐ 2023
Year two will be payable upon successful conclusion of meaningful discussions on reform elements contained within individual TOC proposals which will be held in accordance with the respective recognised TOC collective bargaining procedural arrangements.
The scope of these TOC level discussions is to be based on the Bespoke Framework Reform Elements listed below. This will require each TOC to undertake a scoping exercise to determine which elements are appropriate, recognising these will vary by each TOC.
o WorkingArrangementsPrinciples
o Sunday Working (7‐Day Railway) Arrangements
o Diagramming and Rostering Including Leave Arrangements o Spare Turns & Utilisation Arrangements
o Annual Leave Entitlement Arrangements
o NewSMARTTechnologyEquipment
TOCs will bring forward proposals based upon the outcome of the scoping exercise for discussion under the respective collective bargaining procedures. These discussions are on the understanding that progress is concluded in each TOC within an expected three‐month period following any endorsement of this proposal.

I believe the discussions leading up to this proposal have been undertaken in good faith by both parties in order to try and seek a resolution to the current industrial dispute over pay which exists between ASLEF and TOCs. I understand this proposal will be considered by your Executive Committee at the earliest opportunity and you will advise me of the outcome after their due consideration.
Your sincerely,
Steve Montgomery
Chair of Rail Delivery Group (RDG)

 

[Confused52]

This was the "offer".......

Mr. M. Whelan General Secretary ASLEF
Sent by email.
27th April 2023

Thanks, yes that is all I have seen too. However as you said it is a wooly heads of negotiation. There must be more detail to cause the antagonistic reaction based on specific issues seen on the forum. I have asked for the greater detail before but none was forthcoming. The are claims about lack of notice for roster changes and annual leave that seem to be exercising people but no concrete evidence that the RDG are making such specific and unreasonable demands. If these detailed requirements exist why have they not been produced as evidence of the RDG's unreasonableness in order to convince sceptics, which common sense suggests must exist in the membership? If they don't exist why haven't the RDG refuted the allegations? It all bears little resemblance to a negotiation in a trade dispute.

 

[newtownmgr]

Can’t be many sceptics considering the overwhelming yes vote for strike action that was returned in the ballot,after the above was released by the union.

 

[LCC106]

Thanks, yes that is all I have seen too. However as you said it is a wooly heads of negotiation. There must be more detail to cause the antagonistic reaction based on specific issues seen on the forum. I have asked for the greater detail before but none was forthcoming. The are claims about lack of notice for roster changes and annual leave that seem to be exercising people but no concrete evidence that the RDG are making such specific and unreasonable demands. If these detailed requirements exist why have they not been produced as evidence of the RDG's unreasonableness in order to convince sceptics, which common sense suggests must exist in the membership? If they don't exist why haven't the RDG refuted the allegations? It all bears little resemblance to a negotiation in a trade dispute.

The specifics as I understand it are to be negotiated AFTER acceptance of the offer. No-one in their right minds would say yes to the unknown. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why have the union now felt it was alright to allow non-contractual overtime from today onwards when it was considered wrong to allow it all last week? If it is such a bad thing, they should protect their members by banning it altogether.

 

[Bantamzen]

The specifics as I understand it are to be negotiated AFTER acceptance of the offer. No-one in their right minds would say yes to the unknown. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

But its been argued elsewhere that T&Cs are specific to each TOC and that they should / could not be negotiated at national level hasn't it? So it's this what the RDG is offering, a general set of principles that then each TOC negotiates individually with the unions to iron out the details. Basically this seems like an attempt to bring the national pay dispute to a conclusion, whilst leaving the trickier aspect of T&Cs open to more discussions and negotiations at a more local level. Not an unreasonable position, especially within the constraints of what the Treasury will allow to be spent.

I think the ASLEF know this too, and are perhaps hoping to use T&Cs as cover to pressure for higher pay awards. Basically what they seem to be aiming for, based on all that's been debated is either the current offer with no changes to T&Cs, or (and I suspect this one will be the aim) higher pay awards but with the ability to further negotiate individual T&Cs at a later date.

 

[dk1]

Why have the union now felt it was alright to allow non-contractual overtime from today onwards when it was considered wrong to allow it all last week? If it is such a bad thing, they should protect their members by banning it altogether.

It was purely Monday to Saturday 3rd-8th. We start this again Monday 17th for another six days.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was purely Monday to Saturday 3rd-8th. We start this again Monday 17th for another six days.

Yes, I was aware of the forthcoming 17th July embargo, but as I said in my last posting, if it is so wrong, the union should protect their members by banning it altogether.

 

[dk1]

Yes, I was aware of the forthcoming 17th July embargo, but as I said in my last posting, if it is so wrong, the union should protect their members by banning it altogether.

I can’t ever remember Sundays being included even when we have had local action over the years. I suppose it’s to continue to allow members to make the money up if they want to. We have recently had a FDW agreement signed for the next year at my TOC for example.

 

[infobleep]

Why have the union now felt it was alright to allow non-contractual overtime from today onwards when it was considered wrong to allow it all last week? If it is such a bad thing, they should protect their members by banning it altogether.

Where is the evidence they considered it to be wrong?

I also note Grant Shapps hasn't compared train drivers' pay to nurses' pay in a long time but was doing so last year. Would that be because nurses went on strike too?

As for timetable reductions. It's been stated in other threads, planning staff don't have time to rewrite timetables, along situ all the other work they are doing, so they just put out what they can't.

When talking about this dispute I try not to use the term industrial action and just say staff have decided they don't want to work any overtime this week. After all, overtime is a reason it's called overtime, it's optional. They aren't fully withdrawing their labour, just the goodwill to do extra work in their otherwise downtime.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where is the evidence they considered it to be wrong?

I also note Grant Shapps hasn't copsrrd train drivers pay to nurses pay in a long time but was doing so last year. Would that be because nurses went on strike too?

The evidence surely tells its own tale by the union banning it for 6-day periods. If it is not wrong, why ban it?

I bow to your knowledge of the use of arcane English as I confess never to have heard of the word "copsrrd" in my 78 years on this planet..

 

[infobleep]

The evidence surely tells its own tale by the union banning it for 6-day periods. If it is not wrong, why ban it?

Where is the evidence they banned it?

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, I was aware of the forthcoming 17th July embargo, but as I said in my last posting, if it is so wrong, the union should protect their members by banning it altogether.

They are doing it this way so that their members don't lose to much opportunity to earn some money back during the dispute. Its the same reason that actual strike days are limited, but sometimes strangely align alongside other union's strike days. They are going for maximum impact without risking members starting to lose too much money that causes them rethink their position.

 

[infobleep]

The evidence surely tells its own tale by the union banning it for 6-day periods. If it is not wrong, why ban it?

I bow to your knowledge of the use of arcane English as I confess never to have heard of the word "copsrrd" in my 78 years on this planet..

I have of course corrected my typo, whilst you were replying so if you re-read my post, you will no longer need to rely on arcane English because there wasn't any intended.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They are doing it this way so that their members don't lose to much opportunity to earn some money back during the dispute. Its the same reason that actual strike days are limited, but sometimes strangely align alongside other union's strike days. They are going for maximum impact without risking members starting to lose too much money that causes them rethink their position.

Yet two 6-day embargoed periods in the three-week period surely does cause their members the lack of opportunity to earn some money back during the dispute.