Transpennine Express Industrial Action

[YorkshireRider]

for the public tho, Northern do run plenty of services to the Airport from Crewe and manchester Transpennine services will undoubtably suffer but Northern will do there best to keep things running

Northern will do there best, and be as helpful as they can im sure. As i say i cant see it going ahead but the Leeds-Man Vic stoppers could be intresting if it does, wouldnt want to be a guard on them:cry:

 

[Greenback]

If I was driver on £35K I would of accepted 2.2% rise. However if there were strings attached to the deal I would think it through first of course.

You may well think that is what you would do. However, if you were in that position and you knew that all your bills were going to go up by moe than 3% in the next twelve months, you might not be so quick to accept.

 

[alexdodds]

for the public tho, Northern do run plenty of services to the Airport from Crewe and manchester Transpennine services will undoubtably suffer but Northern will do there best to keep things running

Up here on the ECML its not realy a problem in my part of the North East afterall there is still 4 other trains from Durham to Newcastle that arrive into Newcastle before 9am.

2 Northerns
1 East Coast
1 CrossCountry.

As for those living in Chester-le-Street well its ether become a sardine on a pacer or use the very frequent bus service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You may well think that is what you would do. However, if you were in that position and you knew that all your bills were going to go up by moe than 3% in the next twelve months, you might not be so quick to accept.

I do live in a council house with my mother and so the cost of living shouldn't be that bad. At least in Chester-le-Street is cheaper than Durham or Newcastle.

 

[radamfi]

for the public tho, Northern do run plenty of services to the Airport from Crewe and manchester Transpennine services will undoubtably suffer but Northern will do there best to keep things running

Probably the greatest benefit of privatisation is that strike action tends to be confined to one TOC meaning you don't get nationwide disruption. The carving up of London's bus network across many operators also has this benefit.

 

[Greenback]

I do live in a council house with my mother and so the cost of living shouldnt be that bad.

So put yourself in the shoes of those who are employed and have mortgages, families, and ever increasing bills!

 

[Solent&Wessex]

While it is accepted that some industries and positions have had a reduced or non existent pay increase this year, I find the argument about other sectors of the economy or unemployed people irrelevant. Compare within the industry, and I get the impression that the industry average so far this year is well above the 2.2% mark - and that includes the state run franchise and those which receive a much larger subsidy than TPE, as well as those towards the end of the franchise.

FirstGroup make a lot of money. TPE makes a lot of money for FirstGroup.

Why should TPE staff not be offered a pay increase comparable to the rest of the industry.

Look at this way. Imagine you were a low paid nurse or a teacher. Imagine the nurses and teachers across the whole country were being paid roughly the same amount. Then imagine the nurses or teachers in every other town or city were given a 5% pay increase, but in the town you worked in you were only given a 2% increase for no obvious reason. Would you be happy about that? I suspect not.

I am sure if the rest of the industry and other companies were only paying 2.2% then 2.2% would be considered fair and reasonable in this case. But that facts are that this is not the case.

 

[alexdodds]

So put yourself in the shoes of those who are employed and have mortgages, families, and ever increasing bills!

Well ok they have more to pay.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern will do there best, and be as helpful as they can im sure. As i say i cant see it going ahead but the Leeds-Man Vic stoppers could be intresting if it does, wouldnt want to be a guard on them:cry:

Northern will have to put a note on their website telling people to not do journeys like Leeds-Huddersfield and Bolton-Manchester unless essential.

I seem to remember when TPE was part of ATN and they striked, they provided a 1 hourly service between Manchester Piccadilly and York. However, this time they'll have the Lake District services to consider as well.

 

[Bon Accord]

with the utmost respect, welcome to the real world!

Ahem, in the REAL world you will often find different companies paying different salaries for those who do the same job.
But then again, in the real world most mere mortals who are not in a bulletproof job where they can hold entire swathes of the country to ransom any time they please simply have to live with it.
Up here in Scotrail land, a driver post probation earns a basic £37,700 plus final salary pension and the usual travel freebies - this wage can be achieved within 2 years. I truly struggle to think of a single blue collar job where you can walk in off the street with minimal qualifications and within a couple of years you're earning wages that fall within the 40% tax bracket.
The 'real world' of which you speak hasn't existed on the railway since 1st January 1948.

 

[Greenback]

Ahem, in the REAL world you will often find different companies paying different salaries for those who do the same job.

This of course means that the companies paying highest get the choice of the best staff. Then other companies increase their salaries to compete and get the best staff themselves.

This is what has happened on the railways, and this is also the argument used to justify the large remuneration packages for executives.

I therefore assume that you completely support the current system on the railway, yet the rest of your post contradicts this.

 

[radamfi]

Look at this way. Imagine you were a low paid nurse or a teacher. Imagine the nurses and teachers across the whole country were being paid roughly the same amount. Then imagine the nurses or teachers in every other town or city were given a 5% pay increase, but in the town you worked in you were only given a 2% increase for no obvious reason. Would you be happy about that? I suspect not.

I am sure if the rest of the industry and other companies were only paying 2.2% then 2.2% would be considered fair and reasonable in this case. But that facts are that this is not the case.

This only tends to occur in industries where pay is decided collectively and everybody knows what everyone else is on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So put yourself in the shoes of those who are employed and have mortgages, families, and ever increasing bills!

On the other hand, it could be argued that buying a house and having children are expensive and are therefore risky activities. A childfree person in a council house isn't taking this gamble. He could be saving his money for a good retirement instead. Should they be liable for bailing out someone with a big house and lots of children in the event of unemployment?

 

[Greenback]

On the other hand, it could be argued that buying a house and having children are expensive and are therefore risky activities. A childfree person in a council house isn't taking this gamble. He could be saving his money for a good retirement instead. Should they be liable for bailing out someone with a big house and lots of children in the event of unemployment?

You could argue that, but in discussions on population control on this forum, very good reasons were put forward as to why having children should not be penalised. Which all opens up a huge new debate about the function of society in assisting couple shaving children through IVF, child benefits, free education, subsidised transport...I don't think we need to go down that road since I was only putting forward reasons why some may not be so grateful about a 2.2% pay increase!

If you would like to open a new thread for a discussion on whether housebuying and having a family should be desirable and supported by the state (including social housing), then I will be happy to take part!

 

[Bon Accord]

This of course means that the companies paying highest get the choice of the best staff. Then other companies increase their salaries to compete and get the best staff themselves.

This is what has happened on the railways, and this is also the argument used to justify the large remuneration packages for executives.

But is it an example relevant to frontline Railway staff? I'd wager not. You don't need someone with an IQ of 160 with a penchant for innovation to drive a train - you merely need someone who can fulfil the job requirement safely and expeditiously.
Wages should reflect the task being undertaken, and in respect of rail staff I believe there should still be a national agreement with a baseline drivers wage which increases with seniority - to be propelled from being a 21k trainee to a 38k post probation Driver within a couple of years is to me rather nonsensical and an insult to those who are time served. The same ought to apply to Guards (or whatever they're called this week), ticket clerks etc.

I therefore assume that you completely support the current system on the railway, yet the rest of your post contradicts this.

If you truly believe in the aforementioned system then logically your advice to Northern staff unhappy about their wage rise should be to resign and join Eurostar.
If you want industry parity then instead of these pointless and damaging annual wage squabbles campaign for a national agreement.

Like most of the populace, I work in an industry without such luxuries, therefore if your outfit isn't paying as much as you would like it to, then leave and join one which will, something I and I'm sure many others will have done often enough in their careers.

 

[Butts]

Is there any more stupid phrase than "They should consider themselves lucky they have a job" (not just on this thread but increasingly in use elsewhere)?

People do not get jobs based on luck, most of the time it's down to sheer hard work, getting on with other people and learning specialist skills that ordinary members of the public do not have.

Yes, drivers are well paid, but they have the lives of hundreds of passengers in their hands, will probably be traumatised by a fatality several times in their careers and just one mistake could not only cost them their job but their life.

I couldn't do it and have every respect for those who do.

I have to agree with Captain Haddock on the "fatality factor" for want of a better expression.

As others have intimated with regard to wages it should be a case of "levelling up" rather than a race to the bottom as seems to be the current trend.

One interesting aspect of "wage envy" is that MP'S Bankers etc seem to be the targets of hostility yet Premiership Footballers , Actors and Musicians seem immune to criticism even though they earn more for agruably doing a lot less.

Case in point Rafa Benitez leaves Liverpool with a multi -million pound payoff spends six months in Italy and another million pound payoff after arguably failing in both roles - there are many others !!!

 

[Greenback]

But is it an example relevant to frontline Railway staff? I'd wager not. You don't need someone with an IQ of 160 with a penchant for innovation to drive a train - you merely need someone who can fulfil the job requirement safely and expeditiously.

This seems to be a feature of a lot of posts in these discussions. The fact is that a lot of applicants do not have the aptitude to drive a train safely. It is not just the driving part, it's the other aspects too, such as the ability to assimilate the rules, the technical ability, and so on.

Wages should reflect the task being undertaken, and in respect of rail staff I believe there should still be a national agreement with a baseline drivers wage which increases with seniority - to be propelled from being a 21k trainee to a 38k post probation Driver within a couple of years is to me rather nonsensical and an insult to those who are time served.

I would not disagree with that in principle. It deserves a thread of its own though.

If you truly believe in the aforementioned system then logically your advice to Northern staff unhappy about their wage rise should be to resign and join Eurostar.
If you want industry parity then instead of these pointless and damaging annual wage squabbles campaign for a national agreement.

I don't 'believe' in it, but that is the system we have. You cannot blame people who have tio live within the system from trying to get the best they can from it. Personally, I am in favour of national agreements, but as others have mentioned, one of the benefits of the present system is ther eis less disruption on a national scale. The unions would actually be in a stronger position if there was national bargaining.

Like most of the populace, I work in an industry without such luxuries, therefore if your outfit isn't paying as much as you would like it to, then leave and join one which will, something I and I'm sure many others will have done often enough in their careers.

When it comes down to it, much of the opposition to any mention of industrial action on the railway is down to

They are lucky to have a job
They are lucky to have any sort of increase
Anyone could do that job, they are overpaid

Now, one could say that about many professions at the moment. The fact is that it is privatisation and market forces that have pushed up the salaries of train drivers to the current levels, partly because some companies were poaching newly qualified drivers to avoid training costs. So I am not sure what you are driving at - it has already happened and the pay rates you despise are the result!

 

[Butts]

Forgive my ignorance but are there any Drivers who are not in a Union ?

 

[Bon Accord]

This seems to be a feature of a lot of posts in these discussions. The fact is that a lot of applicants do not have the aptitude to drive a train safely. It is not just the driving part, it's the other aspects too, such as the ability to assimilate the rules, the technical ability, and so on.

I would agree but would suggest that is covered by my "safely and expeditiously" remark. Not everyone has the capacity to be a Pilot, however they follow a rigid set of regulations and parameters and operate within a clearly defined mental zone - much like the railway.

Personally, I am in favour of national agreements, but as others have mentioned, one of the benefits of the present system is ther eis less disruption on a national scale. The unions would actually be in a stronger position if there was national bargaining.

They would, but if such a national agreement was made then I would suggest a provision whereby the annual wage increase reflected inflation, with any above-inflation increases only applying if there was a change in job description/responsibilities.
I would suggest that would be a fair agreement regardless of the wider financial situation and with potential for serious longevity, although there is the possibility it could be fudged by those who require annual industrial turmoil to justify their existence.

When it comes down to it, much of the opposition to any mention of industrial action on the railway is down to

They are lucky to have a job
They are lucky to have any sort of increase
Anyone could do that job, they are overpaid

Now, one could say that about many professions at the moment. The fact is that it is privatisation and market forces that have pushed up the salaries of train drivers to the current levels, partly because some companies were poaching newly qualified drivers to avoid training costs. So I am not sure what you are driving at - it has already happened and the pay rates you despise are the result!

I should be clear that I don't begrudge them it at all, however what I don't appreciate is the borderline militant assumption and arguably demand of many that to make such a wage claim in such times deserves public sympathy and understanding.
That and justifying it with a "real world" scenario which I would argue does not exist on what is effectively a railway which is nationalised in all but name, but on which we permit private companies to extract large volumes of revenue in return for providing a government specified service, the full costs of which are covered by the taxpayer. But then again, that's another thread.

 

[Greenback]

I would agree but would suggest that is covered by my "safely and expeditiously" remark. Not everyone has the capacity to be a Pilot, however they follow a rigid set of regulations and parameters and operate within a clearly defined mental zone - much like the railway.

] agree. Many people would love to be a pilot, but are unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. I am not familiar with the salary scales for pilots, but I would guess that amongst the large airlines there is a similarity that is not far away from the different TOC's in that the major airlines all offer similar increases following extended negotiations.

They would, but if such a national agreement was made then I would suggest a provision whereby the annual wage increase reflected inflation, with any above-inflation increases only applying if there was a change in job description/responsibilities.

That would be fair. If that was the case at the moment, then with inflation pushing 5%, a 2.2% offer would not even be discussed.

I would suggest that would be a fair agreement regardless of the wider financial situation and with potential for serious longevity, although there is the possibility it could be fudged by those who require annual industrial turmoil to justify their existence.

I agree.

I should be clear that I don't begrudge them it at all, however what I don't appreciate is the borderline militant assumption and arguably demand of many that to make such a wage claim in such times deserves public sympathy and understanding.
That and justifying it with a "real world" scenario which I would argue does not exist on what is effectively a railway which is nationalised in all but name, but on which we permit private companies to extract large volumes of revenue in return for providing a government specified service, the full costs of which are covered by the taxpayer. But then again, that's another thread.

I don't think there is any asusmption of public sympathy. A vote for industrial action is merely another round in negotiations.

I think we actually agree on a lot of points. The privatised system is a hotch potch that has pushed salaries up (the one thing union leaders say is good about it) yet it still requires far more support from taxpayers than the nationalised system ever did.

At the end of the day, any group of workers is entitled to ask for a fair pay rise, and to take industrial action in pursuit of that. If it were a nationalsied system, and the government offered 2% at a time when inflationw as running at 4.5%, I doubt that this would be accepted either.

 

[boing_uk]

I'd rather propose a different viewpoint to the fact that people are annoyed with the strike for the amount of money drivers are paid. I am not. While I am envious of their pay, it is not a job I would particularly like to do and I do not begrudge drivers for their level of pay.

What irks me is the tens of thousands of people who will be disproportionately affected by the strike, which the unions (and hence drivers) know and really do not care about, truth be told. People will be forced in to taking a days leave or missing out on work or having to change plans, to accomodate what is essentially a temper tantrum about getting more money. Some people simply cannot afford this. For me it will be personal disruption that I am not bothered about as I can make alternative arrangements.

I have to ask though, exactly what extra money will drivers really get in their pay packets, after the individual costs of going on strike are taken in to account? I am presuming, like when I was asked to go on strike (which I refused I will add), that not only will drivers lose pay for the duration of the strike, but will also have to contribute the employers contribution to the pension for that day as well?

What will be the actual cost of that and when it is deducted from the increase in wages, will it amount to more than the original offer? If not, what is the point? Or is it wage-packet willy waving and the symbolic "gross salary" figure that they are after?

 

[Greenback]

I'd rather propose a different viewpoint to the fact that people are annoyed with the strike for the amount of money drivers are paid. I am not. While I am envious of their pay, it is not a job I would particularly like to do and I do not begrudge drivers for their level of pay.

What irks me is the tens of thousands of people who will be disproportionately affected by the strike, which the unions (and hence drivers) know and really do not care about, truth be told. People will be forced in to taking a days leave or missing out on work or having to change plans, to accomodate what is essentially a temper tantrum about getting more money. Some people simply cannot afford this. For me it will be personal disruption that I am not bothered about as I can make alternative arrangements.

I have to ask though, exactly what extra money will drivers really get in their pay packets, after the individual costs of going on strike are taken in to account? I am presuming, like when I was asked to go on strike (which I refused I will add), that not only will drivers lose pay for the duration of the strike, but will also have to contribute the employers contribution to the pension for that day as well?

What will be the actual cost of that and when it is deducted from the increase in wages, will it amount to more than the original offer? If not, what is the point? Or is it wage-packet willy waving and the symbolic "gross salary" figure that they are after?

It takes two sides to negotiate. If this argument is correct, then it is not only the drivers that don't care, it;s also the management.

In reality, both sides do care about the disruption, which is why the majority of ballots do not lead to strikes at all. As I said above, it;s another little dance in the negotiations ritual.

As to the costs of going on strike, it was once explained to me that as pay is pensionable, an extra 3% on basic pay will feed through to income during the rest of your working life and beyond. The likelihood is that the extra money secured will outweigh the short term loss. So it's more than just a temper tantrum and pay packet waving when you look at it in those terms.

 

[knight2004]

This annoys me as everyone else is havijng to bear with cuts and zero pay rises they shouod be grateful they are getting any at all sorry to be so blunt but it's just how things are unti msay 12 months time. I knwo they all do a great job but so do others in other areas

 

[Greenback]

This annoys me as everyone else is havijng to bear with cuts and zero pay rises they shouod be grateful they are getting any at all sorry to be so blunt but it's just how things are unti msay 12 months time. I knwo they all do a great job but so do others in other areas

Yes, we're all in this together alright, and no one apart from train drivers is getting any pay rise at all this year.

 

[YorkshireRider]

Forgive my ignorance but are there any Drivers who are not in a Union ?

Very few, although TPE say on there website they do have some and will be expected to turn up for work as normal. If the strike goes ahead i can only see at best an hourly service between York/Leeds and Man Pic (6 car) and ask other tocs to take passengers onwards, with buses for places like Scarbrough, Windermere and Hull.

 

[Butts]

Very few, although TPE say on there website they do have some and will be expected to turn up for work as normal. If the strike goes ahead i can only see at best an hourly service between York/Leeds and Man Pic (6 car) and ask other tocs to take passengers onwards, with buses for places like Scarbrough, Windermere and Hull.

If the industrial action goes ahead will First be at an advantage in chartering a replacement bus service as they are also a major Bus Operator ?

 

[S19]

I sympathise with the TPE drivers. I wouldn't accept 2.2% either when living costs are soaring each day.

Those that say they'd be happy, or drivers are paid too much wouldn't be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

I'm not a train driver either before I get ripped to shreds. I just work in a different, high paid, safety critical industry.

 

[Butts]

But would it be possible for a TOC to do what BA did and employ crew on seperate (inferior t&c 's) like they do at Gatwick compared to Heathrow.

Come to think of it I wonder if The Pilots (train drivers) are on a lower screw under this Gatwick operation.

Just a thought.

Perhaps this already exists to a degree with some of the multi-franchise operators in the UK.

 

[142094]

But would it be possible for a TOC to do what BA did and employ crew on seperate (inferior t&c 's) like they do at Gatwick compared to Heathrow.

Come to think of it I wonder if The Pilots (train drivers) are on a lower screw under this Gatwick operation.

Just a thought.

Perhaps this already exists to a degree with some of the multi-franchise operators in the UK.

Takes too long to train drivers up, route knowledge and signing of units differs from area to area, and at such short notice it is very unlikely. You'll sometimes hear of management filling in for conductors but most members of management have probably never driven a train before.

 

[krisk]

Good for them going on strike you work hard you should be rewarded

 

[trickyvegas]

I respect their right to strike, considering it's the same week as the announced fares increase. Commuting from Stalybridge is going to be a lottery as I'm pretty sure all the Northern services will be full to bursting by the time they get there. Think I'll have to go the for the two-hour, three-bus option instead - at least it'll be Stagecoach services so First Group won't be getting any of my money for those two days.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Just a few facts a m8 of mine posted on Facebook

Highest paid director salary £456,000 up 5.8%
Total Sales £246million - up on the previous year.
Profit before tax - £43million - up 13.1%
Shareholder Dividends £42.5million - UP 165%
Inflation rate now 5%
Pay offer to staff 2.2%..