ASLEF strike mandate renewed

[Efini92]

No mention of any ballot for Northern drivers though?

Theirs and TPE’s are going to be sent out shortly.
The closing date is 8th August.

 

[43066]

Apart from Cheltenham Gold Cup week and the FA Cup Final?

To be clear I'm not saying major events shouldn't be targeted.

As I say, there’s something major happening somewhere virtually every weekend they will be accused of targeting by those who it suits to do so. They have cancelled action over the queens death, funeral didn’t target Christmas (other than engineering works), the coronation etc.

Who is able to define what might or might not be acceptable at this stage?

ASLEF at least thought that was worth recommending, and it was only rejected by a small margin, so clearly that (or what’s been put to members in Wales) points to the ballpark of an eventual settlement.

 

[Florence Rox]

It is pretty clear that this government will not allow the TOCs to offer any more, so I see little point in continuing this dispute. I am a union member BTW, RMT, not ASLEF

 

[tomoufc]

But Scotrail turned down a flat 5% pay increase with no change to t's and c's despite ASLEF recommendation to accept.
Upon that result ASLEF immediately came back with the "wanting fair pay" line.
Who is able to define what might or might not be acceptable at this stage?

The membership

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

It is pretty clear that this government will not allow the TOCs to offer any more, so I see little point in continuing this dispute. I am a union member BTW, RMT, not ASLEF

I think they would offer a lot more if the strike strategy was more serious. eg continuous strikes, blanket overtime bans

 

[Sporty60]

It'll be a coincidence if strikes are called during Wimbledon I guess,but it does run for 2 weeks of course.

 

[whoosh]

When does the current agreement with most of SWR's drivers expire?

April 2023.
Same at c2c as well I believe.

 

They effectively just did, didn't they?

FWIW, I do think putting a formal deal to a vote should be mandatory, but I think it's fairly clear what would happen if they had. It just removes any arguments about whether anyone was acting improperly or not.

The only people I can hear saying the deal should be put to the train drivers, aren't train drivers. Usually politicians or journalists.
Haven't heard a single train driver want a vote on the deal offered.
If they wanted a vote on it, they would be moaning and table-thumping for one. But they haven't.

But Scotrail turned down a flat 5% pay increase with no change to t's and c's despite ASLEF recommendation to accept.
Upon that result ASLEF immediately came back with the "wanting fair pay" line.
Who is able to define what might or might not be acceptable at this stage?

Obviously wasn't quite fair enough! Shouldn't take much to push it over the line - only 51% voted no. It shouldn't need to be massively different to swing some more yes votes.

 

[Confused52]

The 2021 framework agreement and the text in the public domain of the last RDG offer was very vague on the actual changes to T&Cs. I concluded that it was up to each TOC to negotiate the T&Cs in the second stage which the union decided not to have. Without the second stage occurring what actual changes in terms are people objecting to? Is it the worst case within the general description, a communicated but not public set of detailed changes from the TOCs, or against any change at all. If this has been made clear I certainly haven't seen the answer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does anyone get the feeling that this Government will stick to its position until the time of the General Election and if they are voted out of office, it will be the incoming Government who will have to attempt to seek resolution of all matters, in the knowledge that matters have been so for a very long time?

 

[Silverlinky]

Does anyone get the feeling that this Government will stick to its position until the time of the General Election and if they are voted out of office, it will be the incoming Government who will have to attempt to seek resolution of all matters, in the knowledge that matters have been so for a very long time?

I think many people have that feeling, and that's partly why I think any further action which leads to a loss of pay for members is futile.

I also think though that many people have the feeling that a General Election and a new ruling party is going to solve everything and they are going to get a much better deal out of Labour than is being offered by the Tories..... dangerous thinking IMO.

 

[Mag_seven]

I also think though that many people have the feeling that a General Election and a new ruling party is going to solve everything and they are going to get a much better deal out of Labour than is being offered by the Tories..... dangerous thinking IMO.

Indeed - I'm sure Keir Starmer will not want to be accused by the Tories and the right wing media of being "in the pockets of the unions".

 

[Ianigsy]

The Government has no incentive to settle before the next election and would probably rather spend the money elsewhere. They also know that while many rail staff might not have had a pay rise in years, a couple of days of strikes a month mean that not only is their pay packet worth less in real terms, they’re also taking home less than they were 3 or 4 years ago in pounds and pence.

The unions don’t have much incentive either as there’s nothing for them in accepting a half-baked settlement from a lame duck government when a new administration could reach better terms with them quite readily and claim it as a quick win.

 

[Fokx]

It is pretty clear that this government will not allow the TOCs to offer any more, so I see little point in continuing this dispute. I am a union member BTW, RMT, not ASLEF

As you’ll know from being an RMT member there is little point in not continuing the dispute as that would lead to an automatic acceptance of the new T&C’s as they will be forced in to existing agreements.

For union members on both sides it’s currently a case of:

A) Continue the dispute - Continue the current situation of being on 2019 pay but with 2019’s terms and conditions in hope of an improved offer and retainment of the most important terms and conditions as viewed by the membership

OR

B) End the dispute - accept the new terms and conditions, poor pay deal and that’s that.

There isn’t really an option C of do nothing and everything stays the same

 

[43066]

I’m It is pretty clear that this government will not allow the TOCs to offer any more, so I see little point in continuing this dispute. I am a union member BTW, RMT, not ASLEF

Well as it stands the RMT have been offered more in % terms than ASLEF, and the attack on Ts and Cs/lack of ability to negotiate locally are more of a concern for most, so there’s every reason to continue! Hence the result in the OP.

I concluded that it was up to each TOC to negotiate the T&Cs in the second stage which the union decided not to have.

This is a complete (and I suspect deliberate) misrepresentation of the position. It was a vague set of nationwide principles required to be committed to in advance, with actual changes Ts and Cs to be imposed after consultation rather than negotiation, and the union prevented from taking IR for a long period. Essentially local agreements were being targeted, rosters would be imposed rather than agreed, and any ambiguity could be construed against the interests of the union.

Without the second stage occurring what actual changes in terms are people objecting to? Is it the worst case within the general description, a communicated but not public set of detailed changes from the TOCs, or against any change at all. If this has been made clear I certainly haven't seen the answer.

The changes to spare arrangements for one thing, changes to Sunday working arrangements by bringing in forced overtime rather than allowing proper negotiations for Sundays to be brought inside the working week. This was all discussed in detail on various threads at the time, so I’d suggest you go back and read those.

Whether you agree/understand the concerns or not, those of us with experience of the industry could see exactly what it might lead to, hence the overwhelming mandate to continue action.

Does anyone get the feeling that this Government will stick to its position until the time of the General Election

They might, or they might decide to settle the disputes in advance of the election campaign, as they need some good news stories. Settling will be easy and cheap in the case of the railway, compared to the nurses/doctors etc. I hope that’s what happens for the sake of both the staff and passengers involved.

I get the sense ASLEF will stick to its guns too and, unlike the current government, we will still be talking about ASLEF after the next GE .

and that's partly why I think any further action which leads to a loss of pay for members is futile.

Well 90%+ of those very same members clearly disagree.

I also think though that many people have the feeling that a General Election and a new ruling party is going to solve everything and they are going to get a much better deal out of Labour than is being offered by the Tories..... dangerous thinking IMO.

It’s a fairly safe bet that, having just won an election, a new party isn’t going to continue with exactly the same policies of the previous government. Especially in the scenario of a labour government (or perhaps a lib/lab coalition) following hot on the heels of a hard right Tory administration.

 

[Thirteen]

ASLEF and RMT could target Pride on 1st July but I suspect they won't due to the backlash they would face.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

In regards to the ScotRail offer, I assume ASLEF will try and get a deal closer to TfW's offer.

I find it strange that GTR's Yes vote was not in the 90% range, is that unusual?

 

[JonathanH]

PS - it is maddening that this dispute has not been settled. It should not have been allowed by all parties to rumble on this long.

There is no middle ground though.

I assume you are expecting the Treasury to find more money, or the workers to accept the offer.

 

[CAF397]

There is the money, as Huw Merriman has conceded at the Select Committee.
He said it has cost more not resolving the rail strikes than it would have to have sorted them.

 

[dk1]

I’m just glad we are not striking on the 23rd & 24th of this month as I need the train after cancelling on two previous occasions. Must admit to being very surprised as those dates coincide with Glastonbury.

 

[43066]

I find it strange that GTR's Yes vote was not in the 90% range, is that unusual?

Yes, they’re a little lower (albeit still a healthy %).

At a pinch, they’re already almost entirely DOO, with committed Sundays (very much the worst of all worlds as Sunday arrangements go) and quite a few Ts and Cs already sold, so perhaps some feel there’s less to lose.

 

[Confused52]

This is a complete (and I suspect deliberate) misrepresentation of the position. It was a vague set of nationwide principles required to be committed to in advance, with actual changes Ts and Cs to be imposed after consultation rather than negotiation, and the union prevented from taking IR for a long period. Essentially local agreements were being targeted, rosters would be imposed rather than agreed, and any ambiguity could be construed against the interests of the union.

The changes to spare arrangements for one thing, changes to Sunday working arrangements by bringing in forced overtime rather than allowing proper negotiations for Sundays to be brought inside the working week. This was all discussed in detail on various threads at the time, so I’d suggest you go back and read those.

Whether you agree/understand the concerns or not, those of us with experience of the industry could see exactly what it might lead to, hence the overwhelming mandate to continue action.

https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf

I didn't misrepresent anything.



"
Year two will be payable upon successful conclusion of meaningful discussions on reform elements contained within individual TOC proposals which will be held in accordance with the respective recognised TOC collective bargaining procedural arrangements.

The scope of these TOC level discussions is to be based on the Bespoke Framework Reform Elements listed below. This will require each TOC to undertake a scoping exercise to determine which elements are appropriate, recognising these will vary by each TOC.
o Working Arrangements Principles
o Sunday Working (7‐Day Railway) Arrangements
o Diagramming and Rostering Including Leave Arrangements
o Spare Turns & Utilisation Arrangements
o Annual Leave Entitlement Arrangements
o New SMART Technology Equipment
TOCs will bring forward proposals based upon the outcome of the scoping exercise for discussion under the respective collective bargaining procedures. These discussions are on the understanding that progress is concluded in each TOC within an expected three‐month period following any endorsement of this proposal."


from https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf (The offer from the RDG itself).

Collective bargaining isn't the same as consultation. I don't see the black and white claims of awful outcomes that have been described in the thread. Meaningful discussion is not a high bar and and miles away from being an assumed outcome amounting to a precondition. You offer no evidence on TOC by TOC detail so the disagreement looks as if it is based on either a worst case interpretation of what might be intended. Thanks for you honest answers. I have seen discussions about what T&Cs might be changed but it has all been speculation and bears no resemblance to the offer published by ASLEF and the extract above.

 

[PeterY]

PS - it is maddening that this dispute has not been settled. It should not have been allowed by all parties to rumble on this long.

I agree with you DarloRich. Over the past year for me and no doubt some of the travelling public just think "I won't book anything by train until the 14 days notice beforehand, that there are no strikes planned" . Yes this has gone on too long and there is no settlement in sight.

 

[Train_manager]

PS - it is maddening that this dispute has not been settled. It should not have been allowed by all parties to rumble on this long.

100% Tory government making. They wanted the dispute so they change the law and smash the unions.

 

[Silverlinky]

https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf

I didn't misrepresent anything.



"
Year two will be payable upon successful conclusion of meaningful discussions on reform elements contained within individual TOC proposals which will be held in accordance with the respective recognised TOC collective bargaining procedural arrangements.

The scope of these TOC level discussions is to be based on the Bespoke Framework Reform Elements listed below. This will require each TOC to undertake a scoping exercise to determine which elements are appropriate, recognising these will vary by each TOC.
o Working Arrangements Principles
o Sunday Working (7‐Day Railway) Arrangements
o Diagramming and Rostering Including Leave Arrangements
o Spare Turns & Utilisation Arrangements
o Annual Leave Entitlement Arrangements
o New SMART Technology Equipment
TOCs will bring forward proposals based upon the outcome of the scoping exercise for discussion under the respective collective bargaining procedures. These discussions are on the understanding that progress is concluded in each TOC within an expected three‐month period following any endorsement of this proposal."


from https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf (The offer from the RDG itself).

Collective bargaining isn't the same as consultation. I don't see the black and white claims of awful outcomes that have been described in the thread. Meaningful discussion is not a high bar and and miles away from being an assumed outcome amounting to a precondition. You offer no evidence on TOC by TOC detail so the disagreement looks as if it is based on either a worst case interpretation of what might be intended. Thanks for you honest answers. I have seen discussions about what T&Cs might be changed but it has all been speculation and bears no resemblance to the offer published by ASLEF and the extract above.

So basically everything that TfW sold/gave away/gave up?

 

[DarloRich]

I assume you are expecting the Treasury to find more money, or the workers to accept the offer.

It is, rather obviously, a bit of both! I am expecting, as with all disagreements of this nature, for their to be compromise on both sides. I am also demanding some mature leadership, especially from the government. Stop all the silliness, sit down, do a deal.

We wont get it though will we?

100% Tory government making. They wanted the dispute so they change the law and smash the unions.

Exactly - it also fires up their supporters and allows their client media to report how evil the unions are allowing them to avoid the rather obvious bin fire this country has become under their watch!

 

[JonathanH]

I am also demanding some mature leadership, especially from the government.

You are demanding more money to be put on the table in that case, simple.

 

[DarloRich]

You are demanding more money to be put on the table in that case, simple.

Obviously - that is the point of compromise. How much extra is the art of the deal as our tango coloured American friend might say!

( and there is money - at least if you are a tory donor)

 

[Bevan Price]

Indeed - I'm sure Keir Starmer will not want to be accused by the Tories and the right wing media of being "in the pockets of the unions".

The NHS staff pay dispute will get greater priority than rail workers if Labour manages to win the next general election. So do not hope for a quick solution when there is likely to be limited money available for generous pay increses.

 

[irish_rail]

The NHS staff pay dispute will get greater priority than rail workers if Labour manages to win the next general election. So do not hope for a quick solution when there is likely to be limited money available for generous pay increses.

But train drivers aren't demanding 35 percent. That is never going to happen. 4 percent with no strings attached is what most train drivers want. An easy win for a new Labour government. Passengers win, staff win and the economy benefits. I think you'd be surprised how keen Labour will be to end the dispute for rail workers. Doctors, whilst there demands are so high will prove more difficult to sort.

 

[43066]

https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf

I didn't misrepresent anything.



"
Year two will be payable upon successful conclusion of meaningful discussions on reform elements contained within individual TOC proposals which will be held in accordance with the respective recognised TOC collective bargaining procedural arrangements.

The scope of these TOC level discussions is to be based on the Bespoke Framework Reform Elements listed below. This will require each TOC to undertake a scoping exercise to determine which elements are appropriate, recognising these will vary by each TOC.
o Working Arrangements Principles
o Sunday Working (7‐Day Railway) Arrangements
o Diagramming and Rostering Including Leave Arrangements
o Spare Turns & Utilisation Arrangements
o Annual Leave Entitlement Arrangements
o New SMART Technology Equipment
TOCs will bring forward proposals based upon the outcome of the scoping exercise for discussion under the respective collective bargaining procedures. These discussions are on the understanding that progress is concluded in each TOC within an expected three‐month period following any endorsement of this proposal."


from https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2023-04/rdg_pay_reforms_proposal_270423_1.pdf (The offer from the RDG itself).

Collective bargaining isn't the same as consultation. I don't see the black and white claims of awful outcomes that have been described in the thread. Meaningful discussion is not a high bar and and miles away from being an assumed outcome amounting to a precondition. You offer no evidence on TOC by TOC detail so the disagreement looks as if it is based on either a worst case interpretation of what might be intended. Thanks for you honest answers. I have seen discussions about what T&Cs might be changed but it has all been speculation and bears no resemblance to the offer published by ASLEF and the extract above.

Yes you have.

You’ve completely ignored the more detailed “offer” document which contained details of what is envisaged by the government - TOCs to take full control of rostering subject only to consultation, not agreement. Changes to spare arrangements, Sunday arrangements etc. as I have already set out. This brief document adds no additional clarity to that. Fairly obviously any ambiguity in a document drafted by the government is going be construed in the most pro government/anti union way - so why would any union in its right mind agree to it?

It’s completely clear to me as an ASLEF member why this “offer” is utterly unacceptable. You can split irrelevant hairs and tell me I’m wrong. But the fact remains the union has rejected it and the membership has resoundingly voted in support of continuing action. It’s equally clear from our previous exchanges (especially your loaded comments about ASLEF overtime rates) that you have a staunchly anti union agenda, and will only ever argue that ASLEF are in the wrong, so what exactly is the point of discussing it?

You are demanding more money to be put on the table in that case, simple.

Or that the government allow the TOCs to negotiate with their own employees in a realistic fashion, to reflect the widely different Ts and Cs and other factors affecting the industry.

The NHS staff pay dispute will get greater priority than rail workers if Labour manages to win the next general election.

It’s simply false to suggest that there’s a choice between settling one and not the other. Both are separate areas of governmental responsibility and both need settling.

Both would already have been settled by more sensible and moderate government that wasn’t trying to create a distraction.

 

[footprints]

At some stage the penny will drop that the “offer” needs to be improved and local negotiations enabled, or this will continue to the next election (along with overtime bans, working to rule etc. if going on strike is made more difficult).

At some stage perhaps the penny will drop that the offer isn't going to be improved.

As you’ll know from being an RMT member there is little point in not continuing the dispute as that would lead to an automatic acceptance of the new T&C’s as they will be forced in to existing agreements.

For union members on both sides it’s currently a case of:

A) Continue the dispute - Continue the current situation of being on 2019 pay but with 2019’s terms and conditions in hope of an improved offer and retainment of the most important terms and conditions as viewed by the membership

OR

B) End the dispute - accept the new terms and conditions, poor pay deal and that’s that.

There isn’t really an option C of do nothing and everything stays the same

If the RMT and Aslef are to continue striking regardless, what have the government got to lose by eventually just imposing the changes anyway?

 

[Thirteen]

I suspect that if the TfW deal is accepted, it'll be the template for Labour if they get into Government.