Great British Railways: Thoughts, predictions, speculation

[Aictos]

What I want to know is will the concessions be more proactive with deliberate fare evasion eg travelling from station A to C but deliberately buying a ticket from station B to C and thus deliberately not paying the full fare or those who chance not paying for a ticket on the first place.

Or will they take the approach that well we get paid a fee to run the service, who cares as a few companies seem to do including South Eastern which has been noted on here numerous times.

Instead of worrying about what name this organisation will have, they should concentrate on improving the service quality from cleaniness of trains/stations, more access for all schemes, more proactive revenue protection with heavier PFs bringing it in line with TfL, improving ticket options and making it easier to purchase tickets eg just have Off Peak, Anytime or Weekend ticket types so get rid of the various Super Off Peak variations, first to last train staffing, faster graffiti/fly posters removal and more regular quality audits with heavier fines for non compliance.

As to the name, why not go for TransRail operated by (insert operator), the Trans for transforming travel and Rail well no explanation needed.

Or if you broke up the concessions into the BR shadow TOCs again you could have InterCity operated by First so a standard livery modelled on the ScotRail branding guidelines so if First lost the concession it would simply change to InterCity operated by Arriva etc

 

[Wolfie]

What I want to know is will the concessions be more proactive with deliberate fare evasion eg travelling from station A to C but deliberately buying a ticket from station B to C and thus deliberately not paying the full fare or those who chance not paying for a ticket on the first place.

Or will they take the approach that well we get paid a fee to run the service, who cares as a few companies seem to do including South Eastern which has been noted on here numerous times.

Instead of worrying about what name this organisation will have, they should concentrate on improving the service quality from cleaniness of trains/stations, more access for all schemes, more proactive revenue protection with heavier PFs bringing it in line with TfL, improving ticket options and making it easier to purchase tickets eg just have Off Peak, Anytime or Weekend ticket types so get rid of the various Super Off Peak variations, first to last train staffing, faster graffiti/fly posters removal and more regular quality audits with heavier fines for non compliance.

As to the name, why not go for TransRail operated by (insert operator), the Trans for transforming travel and Rail well no explanation needed.

Or if you broke up the concessions into the BR shadow TOCs again you could have InterCity operated by First so a standard livery modelled on the ScotRail branding guidelines so if First lost the concession it would simply change to InterCity operated by Arriva etc

I agree a lot of this. I'd be happier if your ticket type proposals didn't all apparently involve fares rises. Those, should efforts be made to ensure that more people actually pay (l agree), should be less necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree a lot of this. I'd be happier if your ticket type proposals didn't all apparently involve fares rises. Those, should efforts be made to ensure that more people actually pay (l agree), should be less necessary.

Some will be needed for it to be revenue neutral. Indeed, the Government is unlikely to get on board at all unless they are slightly revenue positive. But I do think some key simplifications - most notably single-fare pricing - are worth "paying for".

 

[Aictos]

Thing is there's so many variations of off peak ticketing with numerous restrictions on what you and cannot use for travel that it does need to be simplified.

Just have a look in BRFares.com to see why they need to be simpler.

 

[Cardiff123]

Imminent Williams Review could spark major industrial unrest | Railnews | Today's news for Tomorrow's railway

www.railnews.co.uk

Seriously RMT? We're (hopefully) just emerging from a devastating pandemic, and encouraging people back onto public transport, specifically the railways, is vital for tackling climate change and stopping any further, sustained cuts to rail services. Yet the RMT react by threatening wholesale strike action?

The RMT, which had called for wholesale renationalisation, is gearing up for a fight.

RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: ‘As we emerge from the pandemic our railway needs a radical new forward thinking strategy to expand and improve services to make them more reliable, affordable and accessible, allowing the network to‎ play is full role in rebuilding our economy and reducing carbon emissions.

Agreed, but then RMT descends into it's usual over the top hyperbole........

‘Instead all the signals are that the Shapps/Williams review will be stuck in the past and wedded to the failure of privatisation. It’s the same meat with different gravy served up by the Tories and their rail fat cat friends.

‘We are already seeing the reality of rail under this government with thousands of Network Rail and other jobs under threat, fare hikes for passengers and pay freezes for workers. We know full well that the industry is preparing for a tsunami of cuts, enabling the rail companies to return to a culture of massive dividend payments and corporate greed.

Really? And the evidence for this is? Being paid a small fee by government to run rail services will hardly result in massive profits for operators.

‘RMT will fight any such plans with a national strategy and we have already moved the union on to a dispute footing in preparation for that fight.’

I'm a left leaning voter and no fan of rail privatisation, but the RMT don't help themselves.

 

[adrock1976]

Ok call it British National Rail, BNR. Won't ever be mistaken for anything else less savoury.

Well I as under the impression with the new set-up the companies operating the franchises would become less visible anyway?

I would be a bit wary of something beginning with British National, as it sounds like it would be a product of the neo-Nazi organisation British National Party.

I would keep it simple and have British Rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm a left leaning voter and no fan of rail privatisation, but the RMT don't help themselves.

Yep. It's an organisation I just wish would go away, with ASLEF, a much more reasonable and pragmatic Union, taking up the slack.

The RMT does tremendous harm to the railway with the way they act, which only harms the long term future of it for everyone - including the very staff whose interests they supposedly represent - and do little more than to give Unions, a very important movement, a bad name.

Baby steps. The next natural thing to push for is not to reprivatise Northern and LNER, and to vest other TOCs in the new organisation as their agreements expire. Then you have what they want - nationalisation - with a realistic way to achieve it!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT has agreed a funding extension for TfL for 10 days only, until May 28.
This must mean that the imminent railway announcement includes, or impinges on, TfL's operation.
Transport for London funding package extended by 10 days | Metro Report International | Railway Gazette International

The government and the Mayor of London have agreed a 10-day extension of Transport for London’s current funding deal, which was due to expire on May 18. The latest extension on the same terms comprises a payment of £65m with a top-up grant available based on actual passenger revenues.
In a written statement to parliament, Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps said the extension would ‘provide certainty while we finalise the terms of the next funding deal which will get TfL onto a more financially sustainable footing.’

I think you'd have to call it hand-to-mouth management to be reduced to this kind of nonsense.

 

[Cardiff123]

Yep. It's an organisation I just wish would go away, with ASLEF, a much more reasonable and pragmatic Union, taking up the slack.

The RMT does tremendous harm to the railway with the way they act, which only harms the long term future of it for everyone - including the very staff whose interests they supposedly represent - and do little more than to give Unions, a very important movement, a bad name.

Baby steps. The next natural thing to push for is not to reprivatise Northern and LNER, and to vest other TOCs in the new organisation as their agreements expire. Then you have what they want - nationalisation - with a realistic way to achieve it!

Even with full nationalisation, I'm sure the RMT still wouldn't be happy. They'd find something to go into dispute with the government about.
I agree, as a union they do enormous harm to the rail industry, and so in turn the employees they are there to represent. Widespread industrial action would have a devastating impact on the industry long term and passenger numbers at any time, but especially now, just as we need to be encouraging passengers back with confidence.

 

[HSTEd]

I hesitate to say anything because this is a very touchy topic, but I think they are emboldened by that report that claimed "driverless tube is poor value for money".

The problem with that assessment is, as Paris Metro drivers have found out, political concerns can easily override supposed economically optimal actions

 

[Annetts key]

Imminent Williams Review could spark major industrial unrest | Railnews | Today's news for Tomorrow's railway

www.railnews.co.uk

Seriously RMT? We're (hopefully) just emerging from a devastating pandemic, and encouraging people back onto public transport, specifically the railways, is vital for tackling climate change and stopping any further, sustained cuts to rail services. Yet the RMT react by threatening wholesale strike action?

You think that the RMT does not know about the pandemic? The RMT has worked closely with Network Rail to agree new procedures in connection with safe working throughout the pandemic.
You think the RMT does not know about climate change? The RMT is very much in favour of public transport. The RMT represents both railway workers and bus company employees. So of course wants more trains and more buses, both because it’s the right thing to do for the population, and because it’s the best way of providing environmentally friendly transport.

Agreed, but then RMT descends into it's usual over the top hyperbole........

The threat of industrial action is more to do with the details that have been leaked to the RMT about plans from within Network Rail that look likely to result in a substantial reduction of staff, and substantial changes to working conditions and contracts. With no pay rise for the vast majority of staff.

Really? And the evidence for this is? Being paid a small fee by government to run rail services will hardly result in massive profits for operators.

The devil is in the detail (which we don’t have yet), hence before any negotiations, you always start off by setting the bar high. What percentage do you think the private companies should be paid? And where can I as an individual get an equivalent almost guaranteed income with very little risk?

I'm a left leaning voter and no fan of rail privatisation, but the RMT don't help themselves.

I’m not a radical lefty or indeed particularly left leaning. But why retain the private operating companies at all? I can understand why the rolling stock companies would be retained for now, even if I don’t agree with it. And I don’t have a problem with retaining the privately owned freight companies.

Yep. It's an organisation I just wish would go away, with ASLEF, a much more reasonable and pragmatic Union, taking up the slack.

ASLEF and RMT often work together. ASLEF only represents train drivers. RMT represents a much wider number of grades of staff. As far as I know, there have not yet been any indications that the number of train drivers will be cut. If ASLEF see the changes as negative for their members, I expect they will also threaten industrial action.

The RMT does tremendous harm to the railway with the way they act, which only harms the long term future of it for everyone - including the very staff whose interests they supposedly represent - and do little more than to give Unions, a very important movement, a bad name.

The RMT are a democrat and member lead union. If a substantial number of the members did not agree, there would be no action. Remember, the current general secretary has only just been elected in this month.

Baby steps. The next natural thing to push for is not to reprivatise Northern and LNER, and to vest other TOCs in the new organisation as their agreements expire. Then you have what they want - nationalisation - with a realistic way to achieve it!

But aren’t all current TOC franchise agreements cancelled? If yes, then it should not be difficult to take all the TOCs back into operator of last resort ownership. If now is not the right time to do it, why not?

Even with full nationalisation, I'm sure the RMT still wouldn't be happy. They'd find something to go into dispute with the government about.
I agree, as a union they do enormous harm to the rail industry, and so in turn the employees they are there to represent. Widespread industrial action would have a devastating impact on the industry long term and passenger numbers at any time, but especially now, just as we need to be encouraging passengers back with confidence.

Do you really, really think that the RMT members want to go on strike and not get paid while on strike? Of course they don’t. The RMT general secretary knows this. A democratic union only takes strike action as a last resort. The RMT very much prefers to have sensible and meaningful discussions with both the companies it deals with and with government ministers.

 

[Wolfie]

Yep. It's an organisation I just wish would go away, with ASLEF, a much more reasonable and pragmatic Union, taking up the slack.

The RMT does tremendous harm to the railway with the way they act, which only harms the long term future of it for everyone - including the very staff whose interests they supposedly represent - and do little more than to give Unions, a very important movement, a bad name.

Baby steps. The next natural thing to push for is not to reprivatise Northern and LNER, and to vest other TOCs in the new organisation as their agreements expire. Then you have what they want - nationalisation - with a realistic way to achieve it!

You do, l assume, realise that the people running RMT are elected by their members. If RMT was to disappear tomorrow, and ASLEF was to represent all rail workers, there is absolutely no guarantee that those members would not elect a similar leadership in ASLEF.

Being a member of a specialist TU myself l know that any such merger would not be in drivers' interests as their concerns would be lost in those of the greater body of the membership...

 

[godfreycomplex]

You think that the RMT does not know about the pandemic? The RMT has worked closely with Network Rail to agree new procedures in connection with safe working throughout the pandemic.
You think the RMT does not know about climate change? The RMT is very much in favour of public transport. The RMT represents both railway workers and bus company employees. So of course wants more trains and more buses, both because it’s the right thing to do for the population, and because it’s the best way of providing environmentally friendly transport.


The threat of industrial action is more to do with the details that have been leaked to the RMT about plans from within Network Rail that look likely to result in a substantial reduction of staff, and substantial changes to working conditions and contracts. With no pay rise for the vast majority of staff.


The devil is in the detail (which we don’t have yet), hence before any negotiations, you always start off by setting the bar high. What percentage do you think the private companies should be paid? And where can I as an individual get an equivalent almost guaranteed income with very little risk?


I’m not a radical lefty or indeed particularly left leaning. But why retain the private operating companies at all? I can understand why the rolling stock companies would be retained for now, even if I don’t agree with it. And I don’t have a problem with retaining the privately owned freight companies.


ASLEF and RMT often work together. ASLEF only represents train drivers. RMT represents a much wider number of grades of staff. As far as I know, there have not yet been any indications that the number of train drivers will be cut. If ASLEF see the changes as negative for their members, I expect they will also threaten industrial action.


The RMT are a democrat and member lead union. If a substantial number of the members did not agree, there would be no action. Remember, the current general secretary has only just been elected in this month.


But aren’t all current TOC franchise agreements cancelled? If yes, then it should not be difficult to take all the TOCs back into operator of last resort ownership. If now is not the right time to do it, why not?


Do you really, really think that the RMT members want to go on strike and not get paid while on strike? Of course they don’t. The RMT general secretary knows this. A democratic union only takes strike action as a last resort. The RMT very much prefers to have sensible and meaningful discussions with both the companies it deals with and with government ministers.

This

 

[grove]

I suspect when the hype is over and the detail emerges there will be huge disappointment at the loss if flexibility of fares, actual price increases and little saving for commuters with the flexible season/carnet arrangements. Let's see.

 

[Aictos]

The RMT does tremendous harm to the railway with the way they act, which only harms the long term future of it for everyone - including the very staff whose interests they supposedly represent - and do little more than to give Unions, a very important movement, a bad name.

If that's the case then why has RMT membership increased then?

Surely if the RMT did tremendous harm to the industry then it wouldn't see a increase in membership as potential members would have been turned off by their policies.

As it is, membership has increased which shows you're mistaken.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OLR TOCs (LNER and Northern) are not really any different from concession TOCs like Merseyrail and LO.
They just deliver the service specified with the stock provided, and any margin above/below cost is balanced by the DfT/Merseytravel/TfL.
All TOCs are currently like that with ERMAs (except GWR which is still on a short franchise direct award, agreed after Covid started).
There's no particular reason to retain direct DfT management of OLR TOCs if we go into GBR-managed concession contracts delivered by the private sector.
No doubt all will be clear on Thursday (maybe!).

 

[Wolfie]

You think that the RMT does not know about the pandemic? The RMT has worked closely with Network Rail to agree new procedures in connection with safe working throughout the pandemic.
You think the RMT does not know about climate change? The RMT is very much in favour of public transport. The RMT represents both railway workers and bus company employees. So of course wants more trains and more buses, both because it’s the right thing to do for the population, and because it’s the best way of providing environmentally friendly transport.


The threat of industrial action is more to do with the details that have been leaked to the RMT about plans from within Network Rail that look likely to result in a substantial reduction of staff, and substantial changes to working conditions and contracts. With no pay rise for the vast majority of staff.


The devil is in the detail (which we don’t have yet), hence before any negotiations, you always start off by setting the bar high. What percentage do you think the private companies should be paid? And where can I as an individual get an equivalent almost guaranteed income with very little risk?


I’m not a radical lefty or indeed particularly left leaning. But why retain the private operating companies at all? I can understand why the rolling stock companies would be retained for now, even if I don’t agree with it. And I don’t have a problem with retaining the privately owned freight companies.


ASLEF and RMT often work together. ASLEF only represents train drivers. RMT represents a much wider number of grades of staff. As far as I know, there have not yet been any indications that the number of train drivers will be cut. If ASLEF see the changes as negative for their members, I expect they will also threaten industrial action.


The RMT are a democrat and member lead union. If a substantial number of the members did not agree, there would be no action. Remember, the current general secretary has only just been elected in this month.


But aren’t all current TOC franchise agreements cancelled? If yes, then it should not be difficult to take all the TOCs back into operator of last resort ownership. If now is not the right time to do it, why not?


Do you really, really think that the RMT members want to go on strike and not get paid while on strike? Of course they don’t. The RMT general secretary knows this. A democratic union only takes strike action as a last resort. The RMT very much prefers to have sensible and meaningful discussions with both the companies it deals with and with government ministers.

Agreed. I'd missed this when l posted something at least similar in parts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2021 ==

The DfT has agreed a funding extension for TfL for 10 days only, until May 28.
This must mean that the imminent railway announcement includes, or impinges on, TfL's operation.
Transport for London funding package extended by 10 days | Metro Report International | Railway Gazette International

I think you'd have to call it hand-to-mouth management to be reduced to this kind of nonsense.

10 days "certainty"? Even by the normal mealy-mouthed duplicity of politicians that plumbs new depths. I suspect that the Tories really don't like London's empathetic rejection of Boris' tame placeman.

 

[jon0844]

The DfT has agreed a funding extension for TfL for 10 days only, until May 28.
This must mean that the imminent railway announcement includes, or impinges on, TfL's operation.
Transport for London funding package extended by 10 days | Metro Report International | Railway Gazette International

I think you'd have to call it hand-to-mouth management to be reduced to this kind of nonsense.

I would expect TfL to be taken into Government control and part of any new reinvented/rebooted 'BR'. I think as it stands, TfL is pretty much bust - although I wonder if some aspects of TfL might be spun off, like taxis or the river services and roads?

 

[Wolfie]

I would expect TfL to be taken into Government control and part of any new reinvented/rebooted 'BR'. I think as it stands, TfL is pretty much bust - although I wonder if some aspects of TfL might be spun off, like taxis or the river services and roads?

TfL was left screwed by the financial deal agreed by BoZo. If that, which l massively oppose, takes place, then why exactly should the same not happen to other regional networks, all of which, unlike TfL, relied on central Government cash pre-COVID let alone now.
If HMG does take over TfL the last remaining Tory MPs in London are dead people walking.

 

[24Grange]

If RMT want to strike, I'm sure the government will be rubbing its hands with glee... wanting to do a "miners" on them.

 

[Bevan Price]

If RMT want to strike, I'm sure the government will be rubbing its hands with glee... wanting to do a "miners" on them.

Yes - RMT need to be careful, or they could do for the railways what Mr Scargill did for the mining industry.

 

[CBlue]

If that's the case then why has RMT membership increased then?

Surely if the RMT did tremendous harm to the industry then it wouldn't see a increase in membership as potential members would have been turned off by their policies.

As it is, membership has increased which shows you're mistaken.

I take it you've never heard of the phrase "Turkeys voting for Christmas", then.

Myself? I certainly don't want to see any job losses but if a well-paid sector like the railway industry has to suffer a pay freeze for a few years....well, why should it be treated any differently from anything else? Of course their membership will increase if they're promising to stop pay freezes and job losses. However, if at current spending levels nothing can be made to work economically then, unfortunately, cutbacks will happen whether the RMT like it or not.

Demanding more money at a time there isn't any doesn't really sound like the best way of guaranteeing future employment for your members.

 

[24Grange]

Two points;-

Welcome to the public sector ( no pay rises)
Passenger/customer numbers at low ebb ( and unsure if will ever recover to pre-covid levels)
Government in deep debt and will looking to cut costs wherever possible ( Although saying that Boris isn't cut from the same cloth as Austerity Cameron)

Perfect storm?

RMT in all sense a "closed shop"? hence increase in members?

 

[Wolfie]

Two points;-

Welcome to the public sector ( no pay rises)
Passenger/customer numbers at low ebb ( and unsure if will ever recover to pre-covid levels)
Government in deep debt and will looking to cut costs wherever possible ( Although saying that Boris isn't cut from the same cloth as Austerity Cameron)

Perfect storm?

RMT in all sense a "closed shop"? hence increase in members?

Given that traditional "closed shop"s have been illegal for years l fail to see how RMT can be one. Had it occurred to you that in times of uncertainty and potentially negative changes to employment levels, terms and conditions then being in a TU is pretty much a no-brainer.

The Government may indeed be in heavy debt but apparently not sufficient for very lucrative contracts, often with at best mixed results, not to reportedly continue to be awarded to Tory party donors and cronies. Many of these are suspect enough procedurally that the Courts are involved in looking at the propriety of them.

The PM's attempts to cut public sector spending, if you believe the media, at least initially didn't stretch to him not trying to foist the cost of his No 10 flat refurb on the taxpayer either.

 

[Annetts key]

Two points;-

Welcome to the public sector ( no pay rises)
Passenger/customer numbers at low ebb ( and unsure if will ever recover to pre-covid levels)
Government in deep debt and will looking to cut costs wherever possible ( Although saying that Boris isn't cut from the same cloth as Austerity Cameron)

Perfect storm?

RMT in all sense a "closed shop"? hence increase in members?

Network Rail (where the RMT has substantial membership) has been part of the public sector for years now, so thank you, but that’s not news to us.

The front line railway staff and the RMT are well aware of the drop in passengers. Again, not news. Some staff do actually use the trains to travel to and from work, so it is just a bit obvious when the guard says to you, congratulations, you’re my first passenger on this train as it heads to it’s last stop...

A government in deep debt? I thought that was the way governments liked it. After all, since when has a government in modern times actually had very low debt, let alone had more income than debt?

And by the way, there are four unions within the railways (not including the very, very small union that promises never to take industrial action, assuming they still actually exist and actually have any members).

 

[jon0844]

Government in deep debt and will looking to cut costs wherever possible ( Although saying that Boris isn't cut from the same cloth as Austerity Cameron)

Boris seems to have no clue how we're going to pay everything back, preferring to pretend we can just keep spending our way out of the problem.

I think as soon as he can change the law on minimum terms of Government, he's going to seek to call an election and cling on to power for as long as he can before the **** hits the fan.

There are going to be cuts just about everywhere, and we saw how people went from clapping the NHS, to accusing the NHS workers of working in empty hospitals and saying they should be grateful to have a job at all. Funny how the 'all in it together' only seems to apply when it comes to normals wanting a pay rise.

Perhaps the Government will realise they need to invest in the railway to see it make a profit (spend money to make money) but we shall have to wait and see. Lower passenger numbers forecast for XX years might well see a lot of projects delayed or cancelled, and the need for all that rolling stock to provide for the peaks may change as we get something akin to an off-peak service all day.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

A government in deep debt? I thought that was the way governments liked it. After all, since when has a government in modern times actually had very low debt, let alone had more income than debt?

When Nigel Lawson was Chancellor Of The Exchequer in the mid 1980s, there was a cash surplus which he used to pay off part of the national debt. Similarly, during an early period of Gordon Brown's term as Chancellor, he too was able to reduce the national debt.

 

[Annetts key]

Boris seems to have no clue how we're going to pay everything back, preferring to pretend we can just keep spending our way out of the problem.

It always amuses me that voters think that the ‘ordinary people’ that are elected to power and hence who form the ministers in government, somehow become experts on stepping into office.

The whole point of the House of Commons is that commoners can stand and get elected (unlike the upper house, the Lord’s).

From what I can tell, the normal way of dealing with government debt is to borrow the money, then service the interest payments until either the term of the borrowing is up (then borrow a new amount and pay back the original debt), or until inflation has effectively reduced the value of the debt (not including the cost of the interest payments) to a fraction of what it originally would have been worth.

This works because in the past £100 (say) buys a lot more than £100 will buy in the future, due to inflation. And as normally income also rises to try to keep up with inflation, government income over a long period should rise. Hence in the future, a debt of £100 will be easier to pay off.

The downside is all the interest payments. If however income is sufficient to service the interest payments for the debt, and the government and country has a good reliable record on this, lenders will still be prepared to lend money to the government at reasonable interest rates.

At the moment though, the Bank of England is doing the equivalent of ‘printing money’, which the government is then borrowing to spend on it’s current commitment. While inflation is low, this is not a problem.

There are going to be cuts just about everywhere, and we saw how people went from clapping the NHS, to accusing the NHS workers of working in empty hospitals and saying they should be grateful to have a job at all. Funny how the 'all in it together' only seems to apply when it comes to normals wanting a pay rise.

Ahh, the selfishness of humans showing up again. “I’m not getting a pay rise so why should they” or “I’ve lost my job, they should consider themselves lucky they still have a job”.
Never mind that in a capitalist society like ours, there are numerous people that get paid lots of money for doing jobs that are shall we say, ‘not essential’ to peoples lives.

As I understand it, a lot of NHS staff were undervalued in terms of how much they are paid well before anyone had heard of COVID. Same with a lot of teachers. And for cleaning staff. And I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

 

[Trainer2]

DBS staff expect the report to be unveiled tomorrow

soon followed by NR announcing job cuts per region, up to 9,000 in total

job cuts is one thing but will they try and change the T&Cs? Less than 24 hours until we find out.

 

[Bald Rick]

If that's the case then why has RMT membership increased then?

Surely if the RMT did tremendous harm to the industry then it wouldn't see a increase in membership as potential members would have been turned off by their policies.

As it is, membership has increased which shows you're mistaken.

When I used to deal with them a decade ago, at the highest level, they claimed to be ‘the fastest growing trade union’ with 95,000 members according to their website back then.

Now they are a ‘fast growing trade union with more than 83,000 members’ according to their website now.