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!
As I've posted previously, many people can't work from home, including myself. My job is specialised so I don't have a choice about where to work and moving to London would be more expensive. Showing some understanding and sympathy to commuters for the impact the strikes are having might gain strikers more support.
The problems on GTR over the last 18 months have been so stressful that I've reduced my hours because I can't face doing the commute so often so I have taken a paycut.
Nope. Set amount every month. It's a DB Defined benefit scheme so I don't think the company can reduce their contributions. There is one Toc where the scheme is 121% over funded so the monthly contributions are going down so no affect even iff the companies don't pay in as much.
AVC's (Additional voluntary contributions) a voluntary money purchased element may be reduced by members to reduce less pay due to striking.
I don’t think that particularly bothers the unions, nor do a lot of people really see it like that.
I get the feeling most people are at the point of taking the view that these problems weren’t occurring a few years ago, now they are, and are simply adding this to the long list of matters for which they are dissatisfied with this government.
Being particularly cynical, I also bet there’s a few people who like the idea of strikes affecting working days, as it gives them a means to justify working from home.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Don’t underestimate just how angry staff are. I get the feeling there are people who might - albeit grudgingly - take the offer, but whose opinion is tipped as they feel extremely angry at the way things have been handled.
Being particularly cynical, I also bet there’s a few people who like the idea of strikes affecting working days, as it gives them a means to justify working from home.
Nope. Set amount every month. It's a DB Defined benefit scheme so I don't think the company can reduce their contributions. There is one Toc where the scheme is 121% over funded so the monthly contributions are going down so no affect even iff the companies don't pay in as much.
AVC's (Additional voluntary contributions) a voluntary money purchased element may be reduced by members to reduce less pay due to striking.
All any further strikes are going to do is lose money for those striking. Government has made it abundantly clear that it isn’t shifting. Waiting for the General Election is a gamble for ASLEF too.
I alsofind it baffling that almost every driver I know is sick of the strikes and wants them over yet voted to continue action.
Here he is. I'm sure you said the same about the RMT dispute? You seem bitter about anyone's plight to preserve or improve their living standards and I find that 'baffling'. I'd say that says more about you than the ones taking action.
Some definitely. For example I had one guy talk to me about it on the train home all the way from work to my home station , which is his too . He is a musician in a big orchestra ( London philharmonic type big ). Totally supports us despite being unable to get to work during strikes and can't really work from home. Obviously some in the street on a picket line might not be. Edited to add I'm a season ticket holder at a premier league club. All the people around me are aware of what I do for a living and one of the lads that sits a couple of seats away , his other half works for the dft . When you have the support of football supporters that struggle to get to games on a strike day , you know there is still a reasonable amount of support.
In return for which you have to sacrifice your family life. Worse, those with the most conditions to lose will continue to be the worst paid, despite the fact that they would be working to the same conditions as those who sold them years ago.
What's hard to understand? People are pissed off at the lack of a resolution, that doesn't mean that they want to surrender.
In return for which you have to sacrifice your family life. Worse, those with the most conditions to lose will continue to be the worst paid, despite the fact that they would be working to the same conditions as those who sold them years ago.
That's the thing with this bleeding thread. Some people just aren't listening. Most drivers I know would probably accept the poor pay offer , but we absolutely won't accept the bonfire to our terms and conditions. The higher paid companies would get an even bigger rise for less changes as they already sold them. Absolutely not acceptable and if you did accept the changes , then you should get a bigger rise than companies that won't have those changes.
That's the thing with this bleeding thread. Some people just aren't listening. Most drivers I know would probably accept the poor pay offer , but we absolutely won't accept the bonfire to our terms and conditions. The higher paid companies would get an even bigger rise for less changes as they already sold them. Absolutely not acceptable and if you did accept the changes , then you should get a bigger rise than companies that won't have those changes.
"Not listening" is a phrase that has always troubled me. I think it likely that the majority of people following this kind of thread listen carefully and are very aware that the prevailing mood amongst drivers is as you say regarding the trade off between terms and conditions and a pay increase.
But people can listen and not agree - which appears to be the point of a number of posts. Whether you care about the opinion of non-drivers is of course up to you.
Personally I completely agree with the second point in your post, in that the companies where more changes to Ts and Cs are required should receive a higher rise. I'm not a fan of the arbitrage between companies and if the government is moving towards standardisation of both then I would see the logic in this in making the railways better managed. I don't think that this is ultimately to the benefit of the drivers though as the market which has forced up driver's pay will disappear, and I suspect that there will be great disagreement in the level of pay to be set, with those who need to make few changes being offered quite a low rise.
Yes, but there are many who will refuse to acknowledge the points being made. Having to repeat over and over again "it's about the conditions" gets tedious. People can by all means disagree but they really ought to be able to engage in robust two-way debate rather than blithely going "you're all greedy, you should just accept the [poor] deal, I'd sack the lot..." (I paraphrase but this sort of thing appears often among the bottom feeders in media comments sections) and not responding to the challenges posed in replies to their comment.
"Not listening" is a phrase that has always troubled me. I think it likely that the majority of people following this kind of thread listen carefully and are very aware that the prevailing mood amongst drivers is as you say regarding the trade off between terms and conditions and a pay increase.
But people can listen and not agree - which appears to be the point of a number of posts. Whether you care about the opinion of non-drivers is of course up to you.
Personally I completely agree with the second point in your post, in that the companies where more changes to Ts and Cs are required should receive a higher rise. I'm not a fan of the arbitrage between companies and if the government is moving towards standardisation of both then I would see the logic in this in making the railways better managed. I don't think that this is ultimately to the benefit of the drivers though as the market which has forced up driver's pay will disappear, and I suspect that there will be great disagreement in the level of pay to be set, with those who need to make few changes being offered quite a low rise.
We had this discussion at our depot. A no strings pay deal for 2022 and also 2023 would get the dispute out of the way until such time as terms and conditions need to be discussed. At which point there would probably be a Labour government in power anyway
Yes, but there are many who will refuse to acknowledge the points being made. Having to repeat over and over again "it's about the conditions" gets tedious. People can by all means disagree but they really ought to be able to engage in robust two-way debate rather than blithely going "you're all greedy, you should just accept the [poor] deal, I'd sack the lot..." (I paraphrase but this sort of thing appears often among the bottom feeders in media comments sections) and not responding to the challenges posed in replies to their comment.
I get your point. The strength of feeling about driver posting here is very clear regarding the Ts&Cs. If you take the media comments in popular newspapers to heart though you are doomed to being a life of irritation regardless of your point of view.
Whether you agree or not, people are going to discuss public sector vs private sector, comparison with the nurses, the rights and wrongs of the need for reform etc and not all are going to agree with you, or think that their comparisons are not relevant.
I love the spirited conversation, debate and disagreements on here - but we so have to be able to disagree with each other without too much rancour - In my opinion
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We had this discussion at our depot. A no strings pay deal for 2022 and also 2023 would get the dispute out of the way until such time as terms and conditions need to be discussed. At which point there would probably be a Labour government in power anyway
It seems you are not alone. I'm curious as to why the government chose to make the offer to the RMT that they did considering their negotiating stance to date, but they have, so I wonder what their path to a similar offer to the drivers is?
Is your first point really true? As with the RMT staff, anyone wanting to make up for the lost day will just work a Rest Day and be better off in the wage packet at the end of the month by doing so. but having not worked any more days that month. Only those working every shift possible will lose out, but these must be the tiny minority, especially if accounts from drivers on here are accurate.
On the second point, are they not really sick that a sensible pay offer has not been made yet? I know I would feel this in their situation. This cannot be good for morale and employer-employee relations either.
Regarding working rest day vice a strike day, surely with an overtime ban in place as well that is not possible, or in ASLEFs world does working an extra day over and above the normal rostered work not count as overtime?
Regarding working rest day vice a strike day, surely with an overtime ban in place as well that is not possible, or in ASLEFs world does working an extra day over and above the normal rostered work not count as overtime?
I guess there are maximum shift lengths and minimum rests/breaks between shifts? Is there no requirement (by law rather than agreement with a union) about days off?
I haven't heard the term pigeon chess in at least a decade
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I guess there are maximum shift lengths and minimum rests/breaks between shifts? Is there no requirement (by law rather than agreement with a union) about days off?
Rest Day Working is outside of the normal rostering parameters. Agreed rosters will usually have agreed limits which differ from company to company (eg, maximum of six working days in a row, minimum of 14 hours between shifts, maximum of a ten hour working day).
If a Driver chooses to work overtime, they could then theoretically work 13 days in a row (maximum allowed under the Hidden recommendation’s following the Clapham crash) with a minimum of 12 hours between shifts (another Hidden recommendation).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Rest Day Working is outside of the normal rostering parameters. Agreed rosters will usually have agreed limits which differ from company to company (eg, maximum of six working days in a row, minimum of 14 hours between shifts, maximum of a ten hour working day).
If a Driver chooses to work overtime, they could then theoretically work 13 days in a row (maximum allowed under the Hidden recommendation’s following the Clapham crash) with a minimum of 12 hours between shifts (another Hidden recommendation).
Also worth noting that this wouldn’t just apply to Rest Day Working. If you are spare on the master roster, you could pick up a turn that changes your booking on/off time with agreed notice being given to you (eg, your booking on time could be moved earlier/later by up to 2/3/4 hours as long as you are given 24/36 hours notice depending on your company’s agreements) however you could be rung up on the day that you are 1200 spare to be asked ‘could you do us a massive favour and come in at 1630 instead to cover a job’. In that case, it’s entirely up to you to decide if you are happy to do that but in all cases, you cannot breach the Hidden recommendations as you’d be leaving yourself wide open in the event of an incident.
Rest Day Working is outside of the normal rostering parameters. Agreed rosters will usually have agreed limits which differ from company to company (eg, maximum of six working days in a row, minimum of 14 hours between shifts, maximum of a ten hour working day).
If a Driver chooses to work overtime, they could then theoretically work 13 days in a row (maximum allowed under the Hidden recommendation’s following the Clapham crash) with a minimum of 12 hours between shifts (another Hidden recommendation).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
All any further strikes are going to do is lose money for those striking. Government has made it abundantly clear that it isn’t shifting. Waiting for the General Election is a gamble for ASLEF too.
I alsofind it baffling that almost every driver I know is sick of the strikes and wants them over yet voted to continue action.
The Government backed down with the Barristers, then it backed down with the nurses, then the ambulance staff, shifted its position on Network Rail staff, it u turned on ticket office closures, then did a deal with the RMT at the TOCS, then it shifted and backed down and did a deal with doctors.
I think 90% of drivers think they'll shift and back down with drivers too, hence why 90% continue to vote for strike action.
As a general rule of thumb Hidden is no more than:-
12 hours per day
12 hours rest between booking off & booking on again
No more than 72 hours worked in any 7 day period
No more than 13 consecutive days worked
That's the thing with this bleeding thread. Some people just aren't listening. Most drivers I know would probably accept the poor pay offer , but we absolutely won't accept the bonfire to our terms and conditions.
The problem is ASLEF are being stupid with the way it is pitching it to the media, everyone is calling it a Pay dispute, not a terms and conditions dispute, so everyone from a rail passenger to your MP will think it is just about pay
eg
ITV
Members of the drivers’ union Aslef are staging a series of strikes in the coming days in a long-running dispute over pay.
The problem is ASLEF are being stupid with the way it is pitching it to the media, everyone is calling it a Pay dispute, not a terms and conditions dispute, so everyone from a rail passenger to your MP will think it is just about pay
eg
ITV
But it is a pay dispute, the union balloted members over the lack of a pay award. The deal that Harper bangs on about that may or may not be on the table offers drives 2% less than the RMT deal, with a bonfire of terms and conditions.
Is your first point really true? As with the RMT staff, anyone wanting to make up for the lost day will just work a Rest Day and be better off in the wage packet at the end of the month by doing so.
It is true, albeit not for everyone. There is only a finite amount of RDW available, in fact less when there is a strike on. Not everybody can work it.
It will depend on individual company’s terms and conditions, but it is usual that days taken on strike do not count towards service, and therefore pension entitlement.
Here he is. I'm sure you said the same about the RMT dispute? You seem bitter about anyone's plight to preserve or improve their living standards and I find that 'baffling'. I'd say that says more about you than the ones taking action.
It‘s about reality. Many, many people - including many on the railway - have had to face it and have had changed Ts&Cs, etc in the past decade and more. I‘m not bitter about it at all (I don’t do bitter), but I do wish that there was room for discussion and compromise.
The bit I find baffling is that it all seems so digital. How about members asking ASLEF to explore options with employers to find what is possible to end the strike? Or do we just go on like this for another year?
We had this discussion at our depot. A no strings pay deal for 2022 and also 2023 would get the dispute out of the way until such time as terms and conditions need to be discussed. At which point there would probably be a Labour government in power anyway
there again will they be any more receptive? back in the old labour yes probably, but the present one...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
a question with no ulterior motive, if a driver/T/M stops his train because he's run out of hours how then does he get back home? or does his job take this into account ie if due to a tech. fault or weather?
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.
