2026 Pay Award

[greatkingrat]

The big difference is that police, NHS, civil servants etc have largely standardized T&C's. I don't see how a pay review body would work on the railway while there are still such big differences in terms between TOCs.

 

[whitby26]

Anyone from Thameslink give an insight to the current pay deal talks ?

 

[Starmill]

The big difference is that police, NHS, civil servants etc have largely standardized T&C's. I don't see how a pay review body would work on the railway while there are still such big differences in terms between TOCs.

There is one relatively obvious answer to that.

 

[whoosh]

There is one relatively obvious answer to that.

I don't want Avanti West Coast conditions though thanks. Not even for the money they're on.
Certainly not for the money I'm on.

 

[officewalla]

The big difference is that police, NHS, civil servants etc have largely standardized T&C's. I don't see how a pay review body would work on the railway while there are still such big differences in terms between TOCs.

Indeed but it makes sense with a nationalised industry to harmonise T&Cs and then have a pay review body. Otherwise what is the purpose of GBR if not to standardise the industry nationwide?

 

[Starmill]

I don't want Avanti West Coast conditions though thanks. Not even for the money they're on.
Certainly not for the money I'm on.

The answer isn't for everyone to be on the same conditions and pay in the whole country. It's for a range of different bands to be available with a certain degree of choice about which one you go into. Obviously not every location might have every possibility, but everyone should have the opportunity to join the one that's the most similar to the conditions they previously worked under.

 

[Jericho]

Harmonisation is pure fantasy. It will never happen - the idea that GBR will have the expertise to even look at trying do it is fiction. Not least because they won't be given the funding to do it. Everyone knows that harmonisation is Whitehall code for reducing costs under the banner of 'efficiencies'. They can't even bring Sundays into the working week at some TOCs so how on earth can they manage harmonisation?!

 

[class ep-09]

Harmonisation is pure fantasy. It will never happen - the idea that GBR will have the expertise to even look at trying do it is fiction. Not least because they won't be given the funding to do it. Everyone knows that harmonisation is Whitehall code for reducing costs under the banner of 'efficiencies'. They can't even bring Sundays into the working week at some TOCs so how on earth can they manage harmonisation?!

I guess GBR could harmonise by saying -“ from now on such and such grade is on such and such contract if joining the railways “ and let all other contracts expire / retire / transfer, till everybody is on new this same contract everywhere.

I know unions would bargain hard but in principle it is possible.

 

[transportphoto]

Can I gently guide the topic of conversation back to a factual one about this years pay award, please? I believe the topic of harmonisation under GBR has been discussed previously but if we’d like to continue that conversation then please do so in the Speculative Discussion area of the Forum. Thank you.

 

[Starmill]

Harmonisation is pure fantasy. It will never happen - the idea that GBR will have the expertise to even look at trying do it is fiction. Not least because they won't be given the funding to do it. Everyone knows that harmonisation is Whitehall code for reducing costs under the banner of 'efficiencies'. They can't even bring Sundays into the working week at some TOCs so how on earth can they manage harmonisation?!

If by harmonisation you meant everyone moving to new terms right away, then yes absolutely. However a rationalisation of terms rather than several hundred different possibilities is absolutely one of the key considerations.

Do you really think that GBR are going to be content to just roll everything over as today indefinitely? I would suggest this is totally unrealistic. There are very few areas for genuine improvement thta GBR can influence, but this is one of them. Having spent all the money to set it up do you really think it's realistic that they'd just go "well it's difficult, so we'll keep everything the same as it was under privatisation"?

Pay awards are a key part of the above process. Whether achieved through a pay review body or a more individual process.

 

[GWR1969]

GWR pay offer 3.6% .. Aslef union said yes Unite union ballet was a yes , RMT recommends a yes , ballot ends this week and TSSA is having a ballot now on the 3.6%

 

[officewalla]

GWR pay offer 3.6% .. Aslef union said yes Unite union ballet was a yes , RMT recommends a yes , ballot ends this week and TSSA is having a ballot now on the 3.6%

So everyone is waiting for one small union to agree? Why not implement the pay rise for the grades represented by the 3 main unions? TESSA will not be getting anymore so why bother fighting it?

 

[Starmill]

So everyone is waiting for one small union to agree? Why not implement the pay rise for the grades represented by the 3 main unions? TESSA will not be getting anymore so why bother fighting it?

The law dictates that changes are made according to the entire bargaining unit. You can't split it up if different staff in the same bargaining unit are in a different trade union.

 

[dodecahedron67]

TPE (at least RMT, think also ASLEF) accepted 3.6% with strings so minimal they might as well be non-existent

 

[gtrdriver]

Anyone from Thameslink give an insight to the current pay deal talks ?

5% backdated too october 2025 + 5% October 2026 with 3k bonus payment. Productivity based around training and route refresh. Takes renumeration to just over 80k

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2026 ==

I forgot to mention its currently being balloted now, also on the table is a 1 year 4.3% deal backdated too october 2025 ( no strings) which has passed already and will superseed the 2 year deal if not passed.

 

[officewalla]

The law dictates that changes are made according to the entire bargaining unit. You can't split it up if different staff in the same bargaining unit are in a different trade union.

Why not? What Law? Drivers are not gateline staff and ASLEF embarked on a long dispute not that long ago when as I recall, TESSA settled quite early.

 

[Starmill]

Why not? What Law? Drivers are not gateline staff and ASLEF embarked on a long dispute not that long ago when as I recall, TESSA settled quite early.

It's rather unlikely that gate staff would be in the same bargaining unit as drivers. But it's common that different station grades are in the same bargaining unit and therefore more than one trade union could be recognised.

 

[officewalla]

It's rather unlikely that gate staff would be in the same bargaining unit as drivers. But it's common that different station grades are in the same bargaining unit and therefore more than one trade union could be recognised.

Doesn't say that and that is not the suggestion. The point and question is with respect to what Law says that the members of 3 out of the 4 unions involved and non-union members, have to wait for the 4th union to agree before getting their agreed pay rise?

 

[Starmill]

Doesn't say that and that is not the suggestion. The point and question is with respect to what Law says that the members of 3 out of the 4 unions involved and non-union members, have to wait for the 4th union to agree before getting their agreed pay rise?

Because who is or is not in what union is irrelevant. It's not permitted to treat someone differently because they're a member of one union or not a member of another.

 

[kw12]

Doesn't say that and that is not the suggestion. The point and question is with respect to what Law says that the members of 3 out of the 4 unions involved and non-union members, have to wait for the 4th union to agree before getting their agreed pay rise?

There is no such law.

When a bargaining unit is created it is specified how that unit's pay award decisions are to be decided. A bargaining unit may specify that each pay award needs to be agreed by all of the unit's unions. Where this applies the pay award is not paid to any staff until all of the unions have accepted it.

Alternatively, the bargaining unit may specify that pay awards are to be accepted or rejected depending of the decision of the majority of the unions (and this specification may include any weighting to be applied to reflect differences in union size). The largest such bargaining unit is probably that for NHS for staff on Agenda for Change contracts. This has 14 unions.

Where a bargaining unit is set up this way, each accepted pay award is paid to everyone, including members of any unions that rejected it.

Thus, if staff have to wait until the last union accepts the pay award then this is because of how that particular bargaining unit has been set up, not any specific law.

 

[dk1]

Looks like a resounding YES vote from Anglia, Great Eastern & West Anglia. All around 80-90% in favour of accepting the pay deal.

 

[officewalla]

There is no such law.

When a bargaining unit is created it is specified how that unit's pay award decisions are to be decided. A bargaining unit may specify that each pay award needs to be agreed by all of the unit's unions. Where this applies the pay award is not paid to any staff until all of the unions have accepted it.

Alternatively, the bargaining unit may specify that pay awards are to be accepted or rejected depending of the decision of the majority of the unions (and this specification may include any weighting to be applied to reflect differences in union size). The largest such bargaining unit is probably that for NHS for staff on Agenda for Change contracts. This has 14 unions.

Where a bargaining unit is set up this way, each accepted pay award is paid to everyone, including members of any unions that rejected it.

Thus, if staff have to wait until the last union accepts the pay award then this is because of how that particular bargaining unit has been set up, not any specific law.

Thank you for the explanation. I knew of course that there is no such law but was hoping that the person who posted it would explain what they meant. It still makes absolutely no sense why different groups of workers in an organisation cannot receive their pay rise when it has been accepted and agreed by them. As usual, the unions don't care much for their members and would rather stall a pay rise to follow their own agenda.

 

[Starmill]

Thank you for the explanation. I knew of course that there is no such law but was hoping that the person who posted it would explain what they meant. It still makes absolutely no sense why different groups of workers in an organisation cannot receive their pay rise when it has been accepted and agreed by them. As usual, the unions don't care much for their members and would rather stall a pay rise to follow their own agenda.

I have already explained it. You cannot put membership of a particular trade union or not as a condition of getting a pay rise or indeed as membership of a bargaining unit. It's a shame there are some perverse consequences to this but that's the price of the protection. Do you think the employer is just doing it for a giggle? There are lots of upsides to a larger and more mixed bargaining unit which are conveniently ignored by those whinging about this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2026 ==

There is no such law.

When a bargaining unit is created it is specified how that unit's pay award decisions are to be decided. A bargaining unit may specify that each pay award needs to be agreed by all of the unit's unions. Where this applies the pay award is not paid to any staff until all of the unions have accepted it.

Alternatively, the bargaining unit may specify that pay awards are to be accepted or rejected depending of the decision of the majority of the unions (and this specification may include any weighting to be applied to reflect differences in union size). The largest such bargaining unit is probably that for NHS for staff on Agenda for Change contracts. This has 14 unions.

Where a bargaining unit is set up this way, each accepted pay award is paid to everyone, including members of any unions that rejected it.

Thus, if staff have to wait until the last union accepts the pay award then this is because of how that particular bargaining unit has been set up, not any specific law.

Exactly.

 

[NeakPed]

As usual, the unions don't care much for their members and would rather stall a pay rise to follow their own agenda.

Except in the majority of cases, it is the members who have rejected the offer through either a ballot or feedback from branch meetings.
Are you saying that the unions should accept any offer without consulting those affected by it ?

 

[Starmill]

Except in the majority of cases, it is the members who have rejected the offer through either a ballot or feedback from branch meetings.
Are you saying that the unions should accept any offer without consulting those affected by it ?

I don't read it that way, more as an expression that a smaller bargaining unit, or a differently-drawn one, would bring benefit. Of course I imagine that is true, but it would also bring a disbenefit.

 

[kw12]

I don't read it that way, more as an expression that a smaller bargaining unit, or a differently-drawn one, would bring benefit. Of course I imagine that is true, but it would also bring a disbenefit.

To illustrate this, consider a bargaining unit with four unions, where the largest three unions accept a pay award and the smallest union does not.

If the bargaining unit was setup as a "majority of unions" unit then the pay award is accepted.

If the unit is an "all unions must accept" bargaining unit noone receives the award until the smallest union reaches an agreement it accepts.

If there had been a separate bargaining unit for the smallest union then the main unit would have accepted (and start to receive) the award.

If all the staff had been in the same union (rather than spread across separate unions) then the award would have been accepted (as the majority of individual members accepted it).

 

[officewalla]

Except in the majority of cases, it is the members who have rejected the offer through either a ballot or feedback from branch meetings.
Are you saying that the unions should accept any offer without consulting those affected by it ?

Feedback from a branch meeting where deviation from the party line will not be tolerated.....really? The fact remains that it does not feel right for a pay deal that has been agreed between the majority of those to whom it affects is held up by a small number who still want more. This is 1930s labour relations and the process should be modified to reflect best modern practice.

 

[whoosh]

"Who still want more"?

I thought it was out to a referendum and the votes need to be returned and counted?


Or are those members not allowed a vote or a rep with a seat at the negotiating table now?

Your entire stance is based on the idea that TSSA is fighting for more money, when what you were actually told is that they are voting on their pay deal like the other unions have.

Perhaps the term 'ballot' and 'referendum' being used interchangeably has led to this confusion?

 

[Horizon22]

A gentle reminder that this is about the 2026 Pay Award and the specifics around that, not about union internal politics or policy and any other speculative discussions. If people want to discuss such topics, please use the 'Speculative Discussion' forum.

 

[TTD31]

Any news on WMT for drivers?