Network Rail industrial action suspended

[Carlisle]

Don’t forget there are NR staff that with the exception of strike days of course, really go above and beyond to keep the trains moving everyday from controllers, to signallers to S&T. Just because they are part of a striking union, they are still real people at the end of the day.

I highly doubt virtually any genuine poster this forum regardless of political persuasion, thinks otherwise.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I'm reading the leave issue with interest. Is it really the case that it is common for leave booked 3 months in advance not to be granted? Does anyone know why this would be the case?

TOC side rather than Network Rail but you can book leave 365 days in advance (the maximum anvailable) and be declined in certain places.

 

[mpthomson]

It would be interesting to know where she got that daya from, as everything I see suggests that Britons work some of the longest hours in Europe.

On the subject of strikes, presumably this means that we'll be spared the late start on the Friday as the signallers will be in ?

High productivity and longer hours worked aren't directly linked (in fact longer hours often mean reduced productivity if that extra time isn't efficiently used). Productivity as a measure is based on output per hour worked. On average from the ONS figures that Truss used the UK is 13% lower other G7 countries.

There are some surprises in that data, Japan's productivity is 25-28% lower than the UK's and France and the US are 18-28% higher.

 

[High Dyke]

On the subject of strikes, presumably this means that we'll be spared the late start on the Friday as the signallers will be in ?

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The signallers will be in, but the TOC's have already made their plans. If they really tried, then a full service from the start could be achieved.

 

[87015]

On the subject of strikes, presumably this means that we'll be spared the late start on the Friday as the signallers will be in ?

Not for many TOCs who haven't made any changes to plan, ie LNR first trains 0700-0800 https://www.londonnorthwesternrailw...lanning/service-disruptions/industrial-action

Some are going back to a full service but seem in the minority (and generally those who have previously rolled back)

 

[Dan G]

When is the ballot result due? 20 March?

 

[ar10642]

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The signallers will be in, but the TOC's have already made their plans. If they really tried, then a full service from the start could be achieved.

First Thameslink out of Haywards Heath is 07:45 and will probably be extremely busy so I am not using the trains that day.

 

[Annetts key]

High productivity and longer hours worked aren't directly linked (in fact longer hours often mean reduced productivity if that extra time isn't efficiently used). Productivity as a measure is based on output per hour worked. On average from the ONS figures that Truss used the UK is 13% lower other G7 countries.

There are some surprises in that data, Japan's productivity is 25-28% lower than the UK's and France and the US are 18-28% higher.

Ahh, statistics… It also depends on how you measure it.

Also, in some professions/jobs/tasks/duties there may be elements where you are waiting before being able to start work. For example on the railways, engineering staff often have to wait for the lineblock or the T3 worksite to be set up before work can start. Or if other engineering work is taking place, you may have to wait if the safety exclusion zone overlaps where your work is.

Or the shift may be on duty to provide faulting, engineering cover for another group or other cover. Hence there may not be a “full days work” allocated.

When is the ballot result due? 20 March?

It’s a referendum and it runs up until 20th March.

 

[Fleetmaster]

It would be interesting to know where she got that daya from, as everything I see suggests that Britons work some of the longest hours in Europe.

As the term suggests, productivity is a measure of what you're getting out of those hours in terms of value to the business, and thus the economy. It measures (indirectly) things like happiness, motivation, skills, working practices, none of which are intrinsically linked to pay (a 10% rise doesn't make a worker 10% less likely to do a job wrong or complete a form 10% faster, and it certainly doesn't make them 10% happier).

Rather obviously, trade union bargaining to secure an increase in one cost (wages) to reduce another cost (inefficiency) is not how you boost productivity. It's a total waste of time really, if the industry in question stands or falls on long term productivity improvements (which by extension make it easier to invest large sums in the business to multiply productivity gains, because banks love productivity), whether those pressures are caused by global competition or a further erosion of the sense of not getting value for money from a monopoly entity.

 

[yorksrob]

High productivity and longer hours worked aren't directly linked (in fact longer hours often mean reduced productivity if that extra time isn't efficiently used). Productivity as a measure is based on output per hour worked. On average from the ONS figures that Truss used the UK is 13% lower other G7 countries.

There are some surprises in that data, Japan's productivity is 25-28% lower than the UK's and France and the US are 18-28% higher.

Indeed. I think the moral of this story is that you can't assume a workforce is work shy just because of a lower productivity figure.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The signallers will be in, but the TOC's have already made their plans. If they really tried, then a full service from the start could be achieved.

That would be a shame really. The first train on my line is generally unusable due to crush loading and leaves people behind.

As the term suggests, productivity is a measure of what you're getting out of those hours in terms of value to the business, and thus the economy. It measures (indirectly) things like happiness, motivation, skills, working practices, none of which are intrinsically linked to pay (a 10% rise doesn't make a worker 10% less likely to do a job wrong or complete a form 10% faster, and it certainly doesn't make them 10% happier).

Rather obviously, trade union bargaining to secure an increase in one cost (wages) to reduce another cost (inefficiency) is not how you boost productivity. It's a total waste of time really, if the industry in question stands or falls on long term productivity improvements (which by extension make it easier to invest large sums in the business to multiply productivity gains, because banks love productivity), whether those pressures are caused by global competition or a further erosion of the sense of not getting value for money from a monopoly entity.

Yes, but if Ms Truss did accuse the British workforce of being "workshy" as your previous post implies, it rather suggests that it is she who doesn't understand the difference between productivity and attendance at work.

 

[eldomtom2]

Rather obviously, trade union bargaining to secure an increase in one cost (wages) to reduce another cost (inefficiency) is not how you boost productivity. It's a total waste of time really, if the industry in question stands or falls on long term productivity improvements (which by extension make it easier to invest large sums in the business to multiply productivity gains, because banks love productivity), whether those pressures are caused by global competition or a further erosion of the sense of not getting value for money from a monopoly entity.

One could perhaps question whether a system where workers are expected to produce ever-increasing sums for their employer is sustainable...

 

[Facing Back]

One could perhaps question whether a system where workers are expected to produce ever-increasing sums for their employer is sustainable...

Putting the slightly loaded language to one side, a system where businesses are under competitive pressure to become ever more efficient has proven to be sustainable for decades. Businesses which do not compete tend not to survive, which is generally not to the benefit of "the workers".

That is not to say that a business which has a never ending cycle of asking it's employees to work longer and longer is acceptable or sustainable, however continuously looking for changes to ways of working, reducing waste, increasing automation all are.

And the UK has some way to go with all of this.

 

[Dan G]

It’s a referendum and it runs up until 20th March.

The RMT can call the vote whatever they like and saying "I don't know" would've been fine

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

To make the best question a bit easier, can anyone recall how long there was between the vote closing and results being announced for previous ballots?

 

[Annetts key]

The RMT can call the vote whatever they like and saying "I don't know" would've been fine

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

To make the best question a bit easier, can anyone recall how long there was between the vote closing and results being announced for previous ballots?

I made the distinction because a referendum is not subject to the same rules as a ballot.
Same day, within hours.

One could perhaps question whether a system where workers are expected to produce ever-increasing sums for their employer is sustainable...

It’s obviously not sustainable. Incidentally, neither is the economy unless you have inflation. Especially if your economy is based on extraction of minerals or other natural resources where there are limited amounts that can be extracted at a reasonable cost. As an example, the Cornish tin mines closed because extraction became uneconomic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

Putting the slightly loaded language to one side, a system where businesses are under competitive pressure to become ever more efficient has proven to be sustainable for decades. Businesses which do not compete tend not to survive, which is generally not to the benefit of "the workers".

That is not to say that a business which has a never ending cycle of asking it's employees to work longer and longer is acceptable or sustainable, however continuously looking for changes to ways of working, reducing waste, increasing automation all are.

The word you are looking for is ‘technology’. That’s primarily the reason that businesses can improve output. But how easy that is, very much depends on the industry and if the customer will tolerate automation.

Supermarkets are a good example, gradually they have moved away from traditional tills to increasingly having ’self service’ checkouts. Or other systems where shoppers can pay electronically.

 

[Facing Back]

The word you are looking for is ‘technology’. That’s primarily the reason that businesses can improve output. But how easy that is, very much depends on the industry and if the customer will tolerate automation.

It wasn't really the word I was looking for but I take your meaning and yes technology is critical but it is not the only way business improves output. This is a key service my firm provides and one of the recent transformations I led, the implementation of new technology was about 25% of the change, and by far the easiest. The implementation of new processes in the laboratory, a modified version of Kaisan and a production line approach to testing plus a root and branch overhall of the shift systems and the supply yielded much greater productivity benefit - more product, less cost.

I can provide more examples. I do not assert that this is applicable to the UK railway, I really don't know, I just say it to make the point that it can be more than technology - the transformation mantra is typically people, process, technology - in that order.

 

[eldomtom2]

Putting the slightly loaded language to one side, a system where businesses are under competitive pressure to become ever more efficient has proven to be sustainable for decades.

I don't think it makes to assume that because something has worked so far it will work indefinitely. And further I do not consider a world obsessed with ever increasing efficiency to be a worthwhile one.

 

[Facing Back]

Supermarkets are a good example, gradually they have moved away from traditional tills to increasingly having ’self service’ checkouts. Or other systems where shoppers can pay electronically.

Supermarkets are indeed an excellent example who are benefiting hugely from change, often technology led. The introduction of various forms of self service is very visible but the savings from it pale into insignificance compared to the benefits from increasing automation in the warehouse, continuous improvement of the supply chain, better integration of channels, data analysis and marketing... the list goes on. It is such a competitive market than continual improvement is bread and butter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

I don't think it makes to assume that because something has worked so far it will work indefinitely. And further I do not consider a world obsessed with ever increasing efficiency to be a worthwhile one.

Business is full of disruptors, and the rate we see these seems to be increasing - as a recent poster pointed out, often but not exclusively technology led. We have the response to the climate crises, the rise of AI/machine learning, the impact of the war, inflation and the cost of energy, mass migration etc all driving change across the world.

I agree that there is no guarantee that market forces and the drive for competitive advantage will be a feature indefinitely, but I think strongly its likely to be a feature at least for our lifetimes.

And you are of course entitled to your view on a world obsessed with efficiency and you are increasingly not alone. Stress and burn-out are increasing in many areas.

The public sector - and I include the rail industry in this for this argument - have not historically been subject to the level of competition that much of the private sector has been, and the inertia is greater, however there is now much more attention on "getting value for money" now - something governments seems to be very bad at generally, but hopefully will get better.

 

[Fleetmaster]

One could perhaps question whether a system where workers are expected to produce ever-increasing sums for their employer is sustainable...

Not really. It's well established that there's always a gain to be made somewhere, no business is ever working at maximum efficiency.

One could argue it is immoral, since it relies on consumerism, and the only reason for the drive for efficiency is to increase value for shareholders or maintain a competitive advantage.

The alternative would be a managed economy, and that's never worked. Except in war time I guess. Definitely not sustainable, but I guess Putin is giving it a good go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

Indeed. I think the moral of this story is that you can't assume a workforce is work shy just because of a lower productivity figure.

It's not my area of expertise, but I am pretty sure Japan has low productivity because they stopped having babies (cultural thing, ironically because men are favoured because it's still a very patriarchal society, especially in business). With not enough taxes to sustain the now retired workforce that grew them to become a global leader, they have hit the wall, needing too much from too few. Not going backwards, but left behind.

Investment is the first to go. This is why they were keen to do a deal with the EU so they could repatriate Honda, going back to what they know. And it comes as a surprise to a lot of people, but Japan didn't actually spread the wealth of their boom, meaning that outside of the metropolitan areas, it's still a pretty backward country, much like how Germany still had (has) fax machines.

The U.S. I think is very productive, but for very negative reasons. Pretty much everyone who can is in work, and they work very long hours, often two jobs, but the pay is crap, with colleges loans taking a big chunk, the conditions are crap, housing is cheap and crap, because land is cheap and cities are all but bankrupt or murder capitals, plus there's none of the support systems of a decent welfare state. All compared to Europe of course.

Add to that the fact they waste a serious amount of money and resources just competing with each other, with states offering huge tax breaks to lure factories across state lines, which all has to come from the workers in one way or another. It's basically a giant sweatshop, barring the high tech stuff. Even there, I think there is such a difference in the whole culture of why people work at all, it's almost impossible to compared say, Airbus with Boeing.

Yes, but if Ms Truss did accuse the British workforce of being "workshy" as your previous post implies, it rather suggests that it is she who doesn't understand the difference between productivity and attendance at work.

No, I'm quite sure she meant productivity. And perhaps how many people who can work, don't. I think the media seized on the working hours just because of was an easy but lazy attack line.

 

[Mag_seven]

If anyone wants to discuss issues other than the RMT dispute with NR then they are welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.

We will now lock this thread until the result of the ballot is known.