Of course I want roads.
Take it to the members?
That buys us a month. The members say no, what then?
Well I suppose they could click their heels together three times and say "There's no place like home"....
And the reduction in fuel and marginal maintenance/wear and tear on equipment of all types.
and following on from that, "you don't have to work on the railways,, if the hours and conditions are this bad" its your choice, no body is forcing you to put up with these conditions...
That's not the point. The point is that they want massive changes to the terms and conditions. Someone here put that if you don't want to work Sundays , then don't apply for a job where you have to work Sundays. I agree but you can't have it both ways. We applied to jobs with specific terms and conditions and signed a contract to that effect. So stick to them then.
it worked for British Gas...
There are plenty of gas fitters around. The industry is massively short of drivers.
I personally am ok with slight change with a better uplift. But I have asked this question before and no one will answer it. My inter city toc is 10k behind at least two quite near. If we all get the same rise they will be on even more. If we all get the same terms and conditions then what do you do about the difference. Because we already have drivers leaving and others applying and then changing their mind when other higher paid tocs offer them a job. Even with better conditions we are losing them , imagine if we had the same conditions. It would be a revolving door.
but more importantly the travelling public (those that are left that is ) arn't happy, you can blame govt. rdg, toc's, but to joe public its the unions, and hence the poor railway worker... When this mess is all over and done with, its them you've got to win back, thats going to be the fight cause after all this time, they've found other ways of travelling...
Trust me I have been driving trains so packed I'm leaving people behind. We don't need to win people back.
Montgomery has replied that the offer was carefully negotiated and already included the concessions agreed with the union reps and that, whilst he is happy to talk, the unions are not getting another offer until this one has been put to the members. It is a clear, consistent and understandable position. The RMT don't want to put it to their members and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to do so. This letter from the RMT is effectively a counter offer, which is fine. The RDG said no, just as the RMT said no to the original offer.
Thats interesting, thanks for the link
I guess they won't answer because there really isn't one. It seems that the DfT are starting a process of standardisation across TOCs with this and even though the details of the implementation of the T&Cs will be determined by the TOCs, the principles will be common. This will be unfair on some. I will guess though that a process of salary harmonisation will follow. Whilst from the employee perspective we all want to be the same as the highest, my guess is that it will be a gradual process where the highest paid get lower rises over time. There will be shifts with the TOCs who pay the best having no problems recruiting and benefiting from applications from other TOCs, but when their headcount is full, it is full. The DfT should recognise that this leads to the poorest paid TOCs having the highest attrition and therefore greatest recruitment and training costs.
Aren't we running fewer trains now?
But it isn't. The fare might not cover it but the wider economy makes more as has been mentioned many a time. And that was before the government admitted it had lost more than the cost to settle.
I don't know about every toc .
Why does this government have no legitimacy?
I'm not sure anyone is saying that there should not be a subsidy for rail - OK, I'm not saying that. The point is that they need to be run more efficiently with less waste - and there seems to be great argument about what that actually means in practice - so that the service is there to provide the wider economic benefits at the best value for the fares and subsidy.
you make a fair and valid point, but, and there's always the but, progress moves on, even if we're comfy as we are... remember the Luddites.
You probably also signed same contract with a specific salary, do you want that unchanged until day you retire too.
That's a very bitter approach, not sure if it because you aspire to be a manager and they haven't accepted you. Or you are narked that they negotiated bigger bonuses than RMT negotiated for your grade.
Because the change is too much. And I notice that my question still didn't get answered upthread. Part of the reason we are still here is because the different tocs have different terms and conditions. The government want to give the same percentage payrise to all the companies which is a bigger rise to the higher paid tocs. Some of those higher paid tocs have worse conditions and so will get a higher payrise for less loss. The unions want a simple payrise and then to negotiate separately with each company on the changes , but without this agreement to no strikes. Once you agree to that the government will offer say 1% to buy pretty much every condition and then you are stuck because you agreed to no strikes. I already posted before that several companies get 10k more but worse terms. So I personally would want at least 10k and then the same percentage as those. I accept less salary for better conditions and infact I moved from a toc paying 9k more for that reason.
Can't really bring the pay increase into it because everyone in every industry gets payrises sooner or later. The minimum wage goes up but they don't have changes to conditions. But as I said before I'm not resistant to change. But they want too much for too little. And still you don't say how you balance between companies.