RDG response to RMT's recent "road map" proposal.

[Train_manager]

What makes you think that they aren't around the negotiating table? I had a chat with an Avanti RMT rep the other day who was on his way back from a meeting in London. Management could offer nothing at all, their hands are tied.

And that's the problem that people don't get. The TOCs want to offer the money and negotiate but silly Tory government has tied there hands using RDG as the pretext.

 

[irish_rail]

On the face of it, the rdg proposal does seem reasonable in terms of putting an end to the current situation, equally I can see why there will be a slice of the membership of unions who wouldn't trust it as far as they could throw it as their concerns might be the the negotiating position promised them would then be gone back on once the deal was agreed and through and the immediate threat of more industrial unrest stopped.

On the flipside however and I'm speaking purely as a passenger, do the various unions not realize that the pay rises their demanding are not going to be met in terms of actually funding them unless we can get passenger revenue back to what it was and make it better from that position? I hardly think in the final part of 2023 that we can any longer blames the pandemic for the collapse in rail revenue, okay so are there are a lot of lines whose timetable service is a pale shadow of what it was but we've had a busy year on the network and with the reports of many trains and roots being hilariously over subscribed I'm sure that if there wasn't the ever present threat of industrial action which made those of us wanting to make and keep firm plans look elsewhere for our travel needs, to the benefits of the coach air and motoring industries primarily that revenue would be back to normal and indeed exceeding normal for stop even with inflationary cost pressures faced by operators such as maintenance and fuel and cleaning plus the costs of ancillary and back office functions I still remain convinced that the current prolonged period of action regardless of which part of the country you are in has had a significant impact on revenue. Case in point, my aunt and uncle are travelling to Scotland at the end of the month and much to their reluctance have chosen to drive over three days rather than risk the train because they're sick of having plans put on hold


Something needs to be found that will simply break the deadlock and get people back round the negotiating table

This is an argument I just don't buy. The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded. For coming up to 5 years now! It just rubbishes the argument frankly. If the money can be found for others, then 4 percent no strings after 4 years of nothing can be found for rail staff. Everyone knows this is all ideology from the Tories, and nothing to do with the money.

 

[Goldfish62]

This is an argument I just don't buy. The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded. For coming up to 5 years now! It just rubbishes the argument frankly. If the money can be found for others, then 4 percent no strings after 4 years of nothing can be found for rail staff. Everyone knows this is all ideology from the Tories, and nothing to do with the money.

It should be obvious by now that the government doesn't consider the railways to be an essential part of the nation's infrastructure (something I fundamentally disagree with).

No one in their right minds would disagree that the other jobs you've listed are anything but essential.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is an argument I just don't buy. The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded. For coming up to 5 years now! It just rubbishes the argument frankly. If the money can be found for others, then 4 percent no strings after 4 years of nothing can be found for rail staff. Everyone knows this is all ideology from the Tories, and nothing to do with the money.

I may have missed something here, but where has it been said that the payrise can not be funded? There is an offer on the table, but like most of public sector ones there are demands on the departments that whilst funds for payrises are allocated, said departments must deliver future efficiencies. And this is nothing new for the public sector either, rarely do pay rises happen without any caveats. Obviously the situation is changing for staff in the rail industry as the government is handed back more control, but there's really very little difference in what's happening between the various sectors.

 

[A0]

Dont know how Steve Montgomery is allowed that post considering he’s also a senior manager in FirstGroup, total conflict of interest. He should resign.

No conflict of interest at all

Rail Delivery Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The new RDG is owned by its members, which are:

• Network Rail, the nationalised owner of the rail infrastructure
• The train operating companies that provide passenger services
• The freight operating companies
• The Rail Supply Group (RSG),[6] representing the rail supply industry
• HS2 Ltd, the company building a high-speed line

So there's nothing in there to say an employee of one of the members can't be the Chair of the RDG. It may be that the chair is held on a rotating basis for a fixed term and is always from one of the members.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

If they dropped the ‘spare’ weeks where you could be moved to cover anything and everything with little warning or opportunity to plan childcare etc. then the deal would probably be voted through.

 

[ac6000cw]

No conflict of interest at all

Rail Delivery Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So there's nothing in there to say an employee of one of the members can't be the Chair of the RDG. It may be that the chair is held on a rotating basis for a fixed term and is always from one of the members.

Also see posts #80 & #81 - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-recent-road-map-proposal.254155/post-6398349

 

[mandub]

I would go as far as saying the goal, or at least the primary goal, has always been to give the Conservative government a black-eye.

Rubbish mate.
No one at my depot strikes over party politics, we don't care about that. Even the depot union reps are apolitical.
We are only concerned with our job conditions and cost of living/pay

 

[james_the_xv]

Rubbish mate.
No one at my depot strikes over party politics, we don't care about that. Even the depot union reps are apolitical.
We are only concerned with our job conditions and cost of living/pay

That may be true for you and your colleagues, but for the RMT leadership it is plainly obvious there is a significant political element, or else the offer would have been put to members formally already.

 

[Goldfish62]

If they dropped the ‘spare’ weeks where you could be moved to cover anything and everything with little warning or opportunity to plan childcare etc. then the deal would probably be voted through.

There's a thing. It's clearly too late for the RMT after several months and several strikes to put exactly the same offer to members that they've previously refused to. They'd lose too much face.

A small tweaking of the offer, as happened with NR, could give the RMT an excuse to put it to members and unlock the stalemate.

 

[mandub]

If they dropped the ‘spare’ weeks where you could be moved to cover anything and everything with little warning or opportunity to plan childcare etc. then the deal would probably be voted through.

Yep.....from drivers perspective anyway (dunno re RMT).
The fact they insist on having this option and complete freedom in rostering makes me sure they don't want any deal at all

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2023 ==

That may be true for you and your colleagues, but for the RMT leadership it is plainly obvious there is a significant political element, or else the offer would have been put to members formally already.

Maybe for leadership, I've no idea on that.
And dunno if it's needed for RMT to put the offer to a vote if the votes for strike action are continually passed by its members.
Certainly for Aslef drivers at my depot any vote on the offered deal is an irrelevance, we've had 2 votes on continuing the strike since the offer and both have 90%+ in favour and turnout.

 

[jon0844]

I may have missed something here, but where has it been said that the payrise can not be funded? There is an offer on the table, but like most of public sector ones there are demands on the departments that whilst funds for payrises are allocated, said departments must deliver future efficiencies. And this is nothing new for the public sector either, rarely do pay rises happen without any caveats. Obviously the situation is changing for staff in the rail industry as the government is handed back more control, but there's really very little difference in what's happening between the various sectors.

In most cases, especially the private sector*, you would earn a pay rise beyond inflation in order to accept changes to your job/conditions. If you were getting a pay rise in line with inflation, you might be expected to negotiate such changes. For a below-inflation pay rise, there should really be no expectations that people will accept worse conditions. You'd actually expect that in lieu of a pay rise, you might get given more annual leave or something seen as a benefit.

* Obvious exceptions will include certain sectors where staff are treated with contempt a lot of the time, such as Amazon, supermarkets, hospitality etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2023 ==

That's what some Labour voters don't realise, the Conservative Government will use the we are tough on inflation and cost of living

Then will then talk about bad days of unions disrupting everything and how Labour will support the bad unions with the aim of getting the middle swing vote back on Conservative side.

Tactic is bound to make Labour and unions seem bad because the work together to disrupt people's lives. Bound to be way is presented.

Of course they will, but I would hope that by now nobody is going to be fooled. The difference now is that everyone has been suffering, even the middle classes, so I suspect time has run out. People have seen the contempt from many MPs of late, the blatant profiteering with PPE etc (which seems set to repeat itself with contracts to repair schools etc), and a party that seems to only want to trigger culture wars (now they're blaming the fire service for daring to say a boat for migrants is a death-trap, which means another attack on unions).

Will people be fooled and turned against the unions? How many people are in a job where they're relying on their union to ensure they can get even a modest pay increase?

And, also, Jeremy Corbyn became quite toxic and almost unelectable. I don't think Labour has the same baggage this time around, and even if someone hates Labour I think they're willing to give them a go just to get rid of the Tories.

I do think Rishi will seek to settle this dispute and others before the election.

 

[irish_rail]

In most cases, especially the private sector*, you would earn a pay rise beyond inflation in order to accept changes to your job/conditions. If you were getting a pay rise in line with inflation, you might be expected to negotiate such changes. For a below-inflation pay rise, there should really be no expectations that people will accept worse conditions. You'd actually expect that in lieu of a pay rise, you might get given more annual leave or something seen as a benefit.

* Obvious exceptions will include certain sectors where staff are treated with contempt a lot of the time, such as Amazon, supermarkets, hospitality etc.

Exactly. Expecting lots of conditions to be lost for a way below inflationary pay rise, which over 5 years really really is appalling its hardly comparable with the other industries mentioned. And not one industry that recently got a payrise have had to give up anything like what the government is expecting rail staff to give up for the measly 4 percent offered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2023 ==

No one in their right minds would disagree that the other jobs you've listed are anything but essential.

They are of course absolutely essential, but I'm pointing out that they do not generate wealth the way the railways can and do. And the government is arguing that somehow railway staff are a drain on the economy, and therefore a payrise is impossible without major changes to Ts and Cs, but i would argue otherwise.

 

[Bantamzen]

In most cases, especially the private sector*, you would earn a pay rise beyond inflation in order to accept changes to your job/conditions. If you were getting a pay rise in line with inflation, you might be expected to negotiate such changes. For a below-inflation pay rise, there should really be no expectations that people will accept worse conditions. You'd actually expect that in lieu of a pay rise, you might get given more annual leave or something seen as a benefit.

* Obvious exceptions will include certain sectors where staff are treated with contempt a lot of the time, such as Amazon, supermarkets, hospitality etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2023 ==

I'm afraid that isn't how things go in the public sector, departments are allocated annual budgets often with instructions on what percentage can be used for pure pay rises, incentives etc, and these can rarely be exceeded without very long, and slow moving negotiations. Its exceedingly rare to get an above-inflation rise, but not so rare to get below. That's why many parts of the public sector have high turnarounds, and I'll say this very quietly, less motivated and skilled workforces.

If the rail unions want a return to private sector negotiating, they need to convince the private sector to get back on board with franchising, something they don't seem very keen on save a few outliers.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

This is an argument I just don't buy. The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded. For coming up to 5 years now! It just rubbishes the argument frankly. If the money can be found for others, then 4 percent no strings after 4 years of nothing can be found for rail staff. Everyone knows this is all ideology from the Tories, and nothing to do with the money.

They are not able to afford those payrises - in so far as they haven't just given away extra cash. Those departments have been told that there is no increase in their budgets and they need to find money to pay the payrise from existing budgets - i.e. they need to make cuts or efficiencies elsewhere to be able to re-allocate cash to pay for the pay rises.

The exact same thing is happening on the railways except that the cuts and changes are being discussed now rather than kicked down the road and are being aimed directly at the staff involved.

 

[ainsworth74]

The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded.

I would not attempt to run that argument outside of this Forum if I were you. I'm not sure suggesting that nurses (who ensure people are health and can work), teachers (who train up the next generation of people who will work), barristers (criminal legal aid helps to protect everyone by ensuring that only those who should be in jail are in jail), or the army (the economy would rather struggle if there was no security) are somehow less deserving that railway staff because they don't "generate actual income for the economy" (which, as I've alluded to is dubious) is a wise argument to make.

 

[Robertj21a]

I reckon they (the current government) will settle the dispute a few months before the next general election and use it as a "we solved it" vote gaining tatic.

I would guess the opposite, partly because there's few votes likely to result for them.

The current government could well take the view that only a minority of the UK population use trains and that the Unions are often viewed as outdated/increasingly irrelevant anyway. There's probably a good many voters who would support that view.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I would not attempt to run that argument outside of this Forum if I were you. I'm not sure suggesting that nurses (who ensure people are health and can work), teachers (who train up the next generation of people who will work), barristers (criminal legal aid helps to protect everyone by ensuring that only those who should be in jail are in jail), or the army (the economy would rather struggle if there was no security) are somehow less deserving that railway staff because they don't "generate actual income for the economy" (which, as I've alluded to is dubious) is a wise argument to make.

I’m struggling to see where irish_rail suggested they were less deserving?

 

[yorksrob]

I would not attempt to run that argument outside of this Forum if I were you. I'm not sure suggesting that nurses (who ensure people are health and can work), teachers (who train up the next generation of people who will work), barristers (criminal legal aid helps to protect everyone by ensuring that only those who should be in jail are in jail), or the army (the economy would rather struggle if there was no security) are somehow less deserving that railway staff because they don't "generate actual income for the economy" (which, as I've alluded to is dubious) is a wise argument to make.

Although it's possibly worth making the point that the railway does, at least recover substantially more of its costs directly from its users (except maybe the barristers).

A less incendiary angle perhaps.

 

[thedbdiboy]

A defining moment came early in their existence when the TOC members wanted to put out a statement which wasn’t exactly DfT friendly. The NR people said everyone had to be co-operative now and they couldn’t agree to anything unless the DfT agreed to it. That rather set the tone for what followed.

I asked DfT colleagues about whether they intended RDG to have the same independent outlook as ATOC. They replied, “Of course not, why do you think it was in McNulty?!” They knew what was going to happen, even before COVID accelerated their direct control over TOCs.

The DfT never liked independent though from the TOCs, but even after ATOC became RDG there was scope to deviate from the DfT line - the trick was to issue the statement or policy first and then wait for DfT to get on the blower. The step change was COVID/EMAs/ERMAs etc - once the TOCs were bound to DfT like that, they pretty much had RDG in a headlock

 

[Ashley Hill]

Expecting lots of conditions to be lost for a way below inflationary pay rise, which over 5 years really really is appalling

The problem with giving up terms and conditions often means losing additional payments and bonuses. Therefore for example being paid £50 a day,accepting a £25 pay rise but losing £25 in the process! It looks like you’ve had a pay rise but in reality you’ve gained nothing.

 

[exbrel]

from the outside looking in, thank goodness, i think the ordinary passenger thinks that with the strides in technology nowadays, the railways need to take advantage of them,and be updated. Also a poster says 2024 prices out of 2019 wages, but if, and i don't know, but if 2019 wages were good/very good, then the inflation upto 2024 doesn't have as much effect as on someone on a lower wage in 2019, which alot were.
To be honest until reading these posts on driver working hours, i did not how tough and demanding they are, but joe public doesn't either all he wants is a train, on time, when he wants to use it. Most people have cars but might not want to use them on long journeys because of traffic etc...
Lastly it does look as if the RMT has locked horns with the govt. and now has to find how to end these strikes with out looseing face, cause the govt, looks firm, with a election due. Also lynchs comment about
" a redistribution of wealth" does not sit well...

 

[northwichcat]

They should offer what has been accepted in Scotland, on Merseyrail and elsewhere. Then we'll see if they accept it.

Merseyrail guards are possibly the only workers in the country who had a guarantee of their jobs being secured, when there was no long term job role for them other than them being a uniformed person being on the train. There's no way a government, even a Labour one, would do that nationwide.

My understanding is that Scotland hasn't offered the moon on a stick. Merely similar pay without the silly T's & C's.

Scotland does have the highest transport subsidy per passenger in the UK and because of some silly Barnet formula rule that's unlikely to change. If the government increases the subsidy for England, then Scotland will demand more, then the unions will demand a better deal for their Scottish workers, then the unions will want more for English workers and so on.

 

[ainsworth74]

I’m struggling to see where irish_rail suggested they were less deserving?

That's how the phrase: "generate actual income for the economy" reads to me in the context of the post. Perhaps it wasn't their intention. In which case whilst I still consider it an unwise comparison to be made in those terms, I apologise for the misunderstanding of their meaning.

Although it's possibly worth making the point that the railway does, at least recover substantially more of its costs directly from its users (except maybe the barristers).

A less incendiary angle perhaps.

Indeed, though that might then open the can of worms of increasing wages by raising fares...

 

[northwichcat]

The problem with giving up terms and conditions often means losing additional payments and bonuses. Therefore for example being paid £50 a day,accepting a £25 pay rise but losing £25 in the process! It looks like you’ve had a pay rise but in reality you’ve gained nothing.

The thing to remember about a payrise is it's guaranteed. I'd much rather see my salary go up £1000 than get a one off bonus of £1000, that may or may not be given the following year.

 

[yorksrob]

Scotland does have the highest transport subsidy per passenger in the UK and because of some silly Barnet formula rule that's unlikely to change. If the government increases the subsidy for England, then Scotland will demand more, then the unions will demand a better deal for their Scottish workers, then the unions will want more for English workers and so on.

The silly thing about the Barnett formula is that it doesn't cover the English regions as well !

Indeed, though that might then open the can of worms of increasing wages by raising fares...

Well, the pay offer is 8-10% over two years (can't remember which).

Passengers have already had a fare increase of 6% last year, probably similar this year.

I'd say that passengers are already paying more than their share of the proposed wage settlement. Time for the Government to cough up it's part and get the service running.

 

[irish_rail]

I would not attempt to run that argument outside of this Forum if I were you. I'm not sure suggesting that nurses (who ensure people are health and can work), teachers (who train up the next generation of people who will work), barristers (criminal legal aid helps to protect everyone by ensuring that only those who should be in jail are in jail), or the army (the economy would rather struggle if there was no security) are somehow less deserving that railway staff because they don't "generate actual income for the economy" (which, as I've alluded to is dubious) is a wise argument to make.

I've never said these roles are not justified of a payrise. I'm very much supportive of higher pay for ALL public sector roles . My issue is the government line that they can't afford a payrise for rail without (frankly ridiculous) changes to terms and conditions. I very much doubt that say, teachers have been asked to work an extra day every two weeks as a reward for their 5 percent payrise. And rightly so. But rail staff shouldn't be asked to make ridiculous compromises such as a compulsion to have to work every other Sunday on top of the working week, for a below inflation rise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2023 ==

Passengers have already had a fare increase of 6% last year, probably similar this year.

I'd say that passengers are already paying more than their share of the proposed wage settlement. Time for the Government to cough up it's part and get the service rurunning.

Spot on. Passengers annual fare increases have always played a part in allowing a payrise for staff as well. Why should that be different all of a sudden. Where is that 6 percent being swallowed up? Additonal management roles id suggest.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's how the phrase: "generate actual income for the economy" reads to me in the context of the post. Perhaps it wasn't their intention. In which case whilst I still consider it an unwise comparison to be made in those terms, I apologise for the misunderstanding of their meaning.

Yeah I'm sure they didn't mean that, I took it that they thought that public sector pay deals were not subject to the same changes in T&C's that are part of the current offer.

Sadly this perception, if I have interpreted it correctly, is way off the mark. Public sector deals have often come with caveats, some pretty stark if the truth be known. Many years back in my sector we were offered a pay rise if we agreed to sign a new contract substantially increasing our working week. And the deal was nothing like the 4/4% or 4/5% over 2 years backdated that is on the table with the rail unions, more like 2%.

Obviously there was massive resistance, and industrial action, but at the end of the day the other option was a practically zero pay rise. We were to put it lightly damned if we took it, and damned if we didn't. So the the contempt shown to railway workers by the government is not exclusive. The UK government treat all publicity funded workers with equal contempt.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've never said these roles are not justified of a payrise. I'm very much supportive of higher pay for ALL public sector roles . My issue is the government line that they can't afford a payrise for rail without (frankly ridiculous) changes to terms and conditions. I very much doubt that say, teachers have been asked to work an extra day every two weeks as a reward for their 5 percent payrise. And rightly so.

Fair enough, it didn't read that way to me hence my comment.

But rail staff shouldn't be asked to make ridiculous compromises such as a compulsion to have to work every other Sunday on top of the working week, for a below inflation rise.

Certainly.

 

[N0G83]

This is an argument I just don't buy. The government are able to afford 5 percent (or more) for Nurses, teacher, barristers, army, ETC ,none of whom actually earn money for the economy, yet rail staff, who do generate actual income for the economy are told that their payrise can not be funded. For coming up to 5 years now! It just rubbishes the argument frankly. If the money can be found for others, then 4 percent no strings after 4 years of nothing can be found for rail staff. Everyone knows this is all ideology from the Tories, and nothing to do with the money.

The Unions were offered 5% for 2022 & 4% for 2023, yes the money is there. But it’s the T & C’s applied to these pay rises causing stagnation.