Network Rail Signallers: Strike Action

[313103]

Would you also like my views on Princess Di, capital punishment, speed cameras, fuel prices, dog dirt, religion, the NHS, the media, gun crime, immigration, bankers, Top gear, motorbikes, real ale, chain hotels, cats, housing estates, gramophones, and telephone boxes?

No Captain Just the question i asked, or is that to difficult to fathom out or is it because 1500 jobs are going and there is no internal dispute that will affect the population of the nation? Of which of course you must be happy.

No need for the sarcasm, you do know it is the lowest form of wit. Just keep to the subject in hand! Simple really.

As for dinosaurs i thought they were made surplus to requirements a few thousand years ago not the 1970s!

 

[CosherB]

If you lot really want something to worry about, forget going back to the 70s and have a look at this. Yet another curbing of our liberty by this corrupt, venal, incompetant, repressive, strike-supporting government. It's from the Guardian - hardly a right wing rant sheet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...mar/27/intercepting-mail-stasi-tax-inspectors

I'm with Vince Cable on the strike issues, BTW. Just in case you hadn't hauled that on board yet.

 

[313103]

If you lot really want something to worry about, forget going back to the 70s and have a look at this. Yet another curbing of our liberty by this corrupt, venal, incompetant, repressive, strike-supporting government. It's from the Guardian - hardly a right wing rant sheet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...mar/27/intercepting-mail-stasi-tax-inspectors

I'm with Vince Cable on the strike issues, BTW. Just in case you hadn't hauled that on board yet.

Not going to answer my question ?

 

[TDK]

Captain Speaking has been asked several times what other options there are to striking, but has not provided any!

As for logical argument, the only one s/he advances is that striking punishes the customer and it's a disgrace. Oh, and they aren't interested in what the dispute is about, but managers can't be bullies because they only want to protect the interests of the company whereas the nasty old unions only want to protect their own interests at everyone else's expense- hang on, I've seen the light, the Captain is M Thatcher!

If the strike goes ahead who will suffer?

All the passengers
TOC's
FOC's
All other train crew
The families of the strikers

Now, by striking most these people/organisations will feel a bitterness towards the strikers! In the past where have strikes got people?

Miners strike? No coal industry left hardly 1000's out of work
BT strike in the 80's, they were off for 11 days striking for pay, they got a pay deal in the end but would have had to work 4 years to gain back the pay they lost for striking to break even, complete waste of time, result BT lost a lot of clients to Cable and Wireless resulting in loss of jobs.

A strike in my opinion is the unions showing their beef a 57% vote isn't that convincing to be honest because that means 43% do not want to strike but will have to. You are asking captain fro an alternative? Is there an alternative? Who knows, but if you ask all the 57% why they are stiking I bet 80% of them say that the unions want them to and do not really know the main reasons why the unions have called a strike.

 

[CarterUSM]

It's still a majority vote thus a mandate for strike has been given. People make quite a deal about percentages for some reason as if it will make a difference. 51 per cent is enough, the majority win, and that's the fairest way unfortunately. We had an 83 per cent majority for our guards strike north of the border which seems resounding but I think 80 people out of 560 odd still voted no, that's a lot in numerical terms in my book. I'm just glad ASLEF aren't involved in the signallers and maintenance action or they'd have sold everyone down the river already.

 

[CosherB]

TDK has it. A strike is not just a dispicable hit at your customer base, it's an own-goal as well. It is such a STUPID thing to do, as there can be no winners, just a lot of losing on all sides. Except Bob Crow - he'll no doubt get a pay rise out of it. Do you want to be crow-fodder?

There's a letter in today's Guardian (actually in response to some cloud-nine dreaming-spires Unite strike-supporting acedemics - as if the've ever had to run a business:roll. The letter concludes "it's worth bearing in mind the choice faced by the vast majority of workers in the private sector when confronted with unpaletable pay and conditions: seek another job". And this is the Guardian, not the Torygraph.

And that is the bald truth of the matter. If the grass is greener, hop over the fence. If the folk over the fence don't want you, perhaps there's a message there, too. You might not like that it may be up to you to find a new billet if the world changes, but hey, that's life. Deal with it in a mature and dignified manner (I've had to loads of times and I did OK in the end). Don't throw your toys out like a spoilt child and threaten silly stuff like strikes. That would be a no-win for anybody.

 

[313103]

Perhaps TDK and Captain Speaking we should just sit on our arses and do nothing then. Just ask those who WERE employed by Jarvis. Not striking has the same effect (in my eyes) in exactly the same way that striking has the same effect(in your eyes).

The one reason I've asked on more then one occasion to CS, is to get his version of what the former Jarvis employees have gained by not striking. As of yet he still hasn't answered and now to be honest he isn't going to.

However i would like to gauge opinion: Should the Network Rail employees accept the same fate as those of Jarvis, by not striking and allowing NR to make wholesale changes and a few thousand job cuts?

It would be interseting to see what reponse that gets.

 

[CosherB]

The one reason I've asked on more then one occasion to CS, is to get his version of what the former Jarvis employees have gained by not striking. As of yet he still hasn't answered and now to be honest he isn't going to.

However i would like to gauge opinion: Should the Network Rail employees accept the same fate as those of Jarvis, by not striking and allowing NR to make wholesale changes and a few thousand job cuts?

It would be interseting to see what reponse that gets.

You seem very keen to get my views on Jarvis. They are the same as for NR, or for BA. If your world of work changes and you don't like it, get off your backside (your phrase, not mine) and find another job. It's that simple.

You could do a 'Canute'; stay where you are, strike, scream and shout, throw your toys out, and expect the world to fit in with your views. But Canute got wet.

I know it's tough, but where does it say you are entitled to a smooth ride through this life?

 

[313103]

So your answer is to everyone who loses their job, thats ok just go down the dole office and find one there?

 

[CosherB]

So your answer is to everyone who loses their job, thats ok just go down the dole office and find one there?

It's never OK to lose your job. It can be devastating. But it happens, and with our vastly overspent economy it will happen a heck of a lot more in the next few years (entirely Gordon Brown's fault for taking us deeper into debt than we've ever been before in peacetime).

But striking and shouting about it won't help; this country is deep in the do-do and has to recover. The world will change in many ways in the coming years, but that brings opportunity as well as threat. Get some irons in the fire so that if the worst happens, you'll have some options elsewhere.

That's what I did.

 

[Greenback]

If the strike goes ahead who will suffer?

All the passengers
TOC's
FOC's
All other train crew
The families of the strikers

Now, by striking most these people/organisations will feel a bitterness towards the strikers! In the past where have strikes got people?

Miners strike? No coal industry left hardly 1000's out of work
BT strike in the 80's, they were off for 11 days striking for pay, they got a pay deal in the end but would have had to work 4 years to gain back the pay they lost for striking to break even, complete waste of time, result BT lost a lot of clients to Cable and Wireless resulting in loss of jobs.

A strike in my opinion is the unions showing their beef a 57% vote isn't that convincing to be honest because that means 43% do not want to strike but will have to. You are asking captain fro an alternative? Is there an alternative? Who knows, but if you ask all the 57% why they are stiking I bet 80% of them say that the unions want them to and do not really know the main reasons why the unions have called a strike.

There are also people who don;t feel bitterness to the strikers = examples of these have even been on the BBC News so beloved by some! Yes, a lot of people will suffer, which is why both sides should work hard to get a deal sorted out, and yes, unions can be confrontational but so can employers!

It is debatable whether the miners strike caused the subsequent pit closures. I used to think that it did, now, having read widely on the subject of that strike, I am not at all sure that was the case. I believe that the mines would have closed anyway, and that in fighting to save not just their jobs, but their whole communities, the miners (as a whole) retained their dignity although it was ultimately a fight they could not possibly win.

I am against the closed shop and I am against intimidation of strike breakers. I am not against groups of people taking legal and legitimate action to draw attention to issues that affect themselves and other groups in society, either directly or indirectly. Obviously, some strikes have not achieved their aims, others have. I would hope that the union members concerned would at least make themselves aware of of the issues before voting in a ballot, rather than blindly doing as they were told, but perhaps I am wrong in that hope!

 

[the sniper]

You seem very keen to get my views on Jarvis. They are the same as for NR, or for BA. If your world of work changes and you don't like it, get off your backside (your phrase, not mine) and find another job. It's that simple.

What world are you living in?! It's 'that simple'. Do you seriously not know how many people are unemployed at the moment? For most working class people without an especially great educational background, once you've lost a decent job nowadays, your screwed. To say finding another job is 'simple' is naive beyond belief...

I know it's tough, but where does it say you are entitled to a smooth ride through this life?

This screams of coming from somebody who will never have to find out how tough life can really get. Captain, for your sake, I hope that your personal aircraft never has to make an emergency landing in the real world, as I really don't think you'd like it here.

 

[royaloak]

TBH sniper I cannot be bothered to answer any more, he is obviously on a wind up (or 12 years old) and really doesnt have a clue about the real world!

 

[jon0844]

For most working class people without an especially great educational background, once you've lost a decent job nowadays, your screwed. To say finding another job is 'simple' is naive beyond belief...

So that's why people said you needed to go to school and get a decent education!

I hope the strike is about safety and about protecting jobs that are vital. Not protecting undereducated layabouts that wouldn't get a job anywhere else. Why the hell does any part of the railway want to employ these people 'for life'?!! Of course they don't.

Job security is a wonderful thing. There were a few sectors you could get a job in and have that knowledge that unless you did something terrible, you'd be there until retirement. But those days are over.

Looking at all the posts on here about the inefficiencies of NR, I've always assumed they need to do a big clear out of their staff. Not to cut back on work, but to become efficient. However, I'll fully support the union and the strike if NR is doing it in the wrong way.

What I'd like to know is if the union is aiming to protect ALL jobs at any cost, or would accept that NR needs to adapt to modern working practices. And if they do accept the inevitable, what would they recommend?

 

[the sniper]

So that's why people said you needed to go to school and get a decent education!

Yes, because an excellent education was available to everybody and still is of course... I was talking about people who have a 'decent education'. The problem is that there are a heck of a lot of people out of work that have a 'decent education', there are many people out of work that went to University, for example. This means that if you just have an 'average education', your going to find it hard to find a job now as there are so many people in the same boat as you, it's even harder still to get another job that pays as well as the one you've lost. On top of that, jobs in industries like the railway are often quite specialised, thus many skills aren't transferable to other industries.

I'm not talking about problems for stupid people here, I'm talking about normal people with a perfectly reasonable education, people that just don't have anything special on their record that sets them apart from the thousands of other unemployed people in their position.

I hope the strike is about safety and about protecting jobs that are vital. Not protecting undereducated layabouts that wouldn't get a job anywhere else. Why the hell does any part of the railway want to employ these people 'for life'?!! Of course they don't.

That you think only 'undereducated layabouts' are being made unemployed is frankly rather embarrassing. Are you living in the Captain's land of naivety too?

 

[royaloak]

Maybe JM would like to take his education and changed the broken rail at Bagshot in 4 hours, which sounds a long time until you realise that EVERYTHING had to be dragged up the hill from the station including the rail.
An education (or exam results) is no guarantee that the person is "intelligent".

 

[jon0844]

That you think only 'undereducated layabouts' are being made unemployed is frankly rather embarrassing. Are you living in the Captain's land of naivety too?

Be embarrassed then! I did say in the quote 'I hope the strike is about safety and about protecting jobs that are vital. Not protecting undereducated layabouts that wouldn't get a job anywhere else.' so I am not sure why you said what you did. I said 'I hope', not 'Well they're only going after uneducated layabouts'.

Rather than answer it or explain, you just picked out a bit of my text to be outraged at. I suggest that if you like being outraged by everything you read, you go and buy a copy of the Daily Mail.

You also completely ignored the following;

Looking at all the posts on here about the inefficiencies of NR, I've always assumed they need to do a big clear out of their staff. Not to cut back on work, but to become efficient. However, I'll fully support the union and the strike if NR is doing it in the wrong way.

What I'd like to know is if the union is aiming to protect ALL jobs at any cost, or would accept that NR needs to adapt to modern working practices. And if they do accept the inevitable, what would they recommend?

I know nothing about the strike, but figured this forum might. Yet we have people pro-union and anti-union and I am not sure either side is willing to meet in the middle. Rather like the union leaders and management, in fact.

Maybe JM would like to take his education and changed the broken rail at Bagshot in 4 hours, which sounds a long time until you realise that EVERYTHING had to be dragged up the hill from the station including the rail.
An education (or exam results) is no guarantee that the person is "intelligent".

Thanks for the insult mate.. but I didn't bring up the bit about education; I replied to something said by the sniper. I needed clarification that he wasn't suggesting the union fights for people with no education on the basis that losing their job would mean they're screwed - as if the nation must therefore protect their job at any cost.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the highly trained and qualified people working in the industry.

Anyway, this is the last I will say on the subject because when union issues get brought up, it can only end up with a major fight and insults being chucked around. It's as if some people forgot the clocks went forward an hour this morning, not back 20 years!

 

[TDK]

Perhaps TDK and Captain Speaking we should just sit on our arses and do nothing then. Just ask those who WERE employed by Jarvis. Not striking has the same effect (in my eyes) in exactly the same way that striking has the same effect(in your eyes).

The one reason I've asked on more then one occasion to CS, is to get his version of what the former Jarvis employees have gained by not striking. As of yet he still hasn't answered and now to be honest he isn't going to.

However i would like to gauge opinion: Should the Network Rail employees accept the same fate as those of Jarvis, by not striking and allowing NR to make wholesale changes and a few thousand job cuts?

It would be interseting to see what reponse that gets.

Sorry 313103, if the Jarvis workforce had opted for a strike the company wouldhave folded sooner, they would have lost earnings and still been made redundant so a no win situation there. I am not on sides and do not agree with what all the Captain has said I don't jump on the band wagon but give an opinion that is logically right in my experience. So, the strike goes ahead, it disrupts passengers lives for 4 days, the strikers lose pay and NR can not afford to keep the 1500 workers on or it will most likely be taken into adminstration (if it can) now the logical solution would be for the existing workers to take a pay cut so NR can afford tokeep 1500 brothers in employment, this is a positive action, or the existing workers could not do any overtime or rest (free) days this in turn would ensure the possible protection of the workers being made redundant however this will not happen as the current workforce like to do overtime and rest days for the extra money if the 57% of the workers who voted to strike are that passionate about their colleagues they SHOULD carry out an overtime and rest day ban not strike as they will not be causeing total disruption, they will not lose any of their basic earnings and the demand for the workforce should ensure maybe some of the redundancies being quashed. One situation I wouldlike to add is the Lambeth Labor run council in the early 80's, they made 1000 workers redundant and still carried their full duties, I am not saying this is right but the 1000 workers must have been not required in the first place.

 

[Wyvern]

I think we are letting our prejudices blind us here as to the real reasons behind these as far as the people on the ground are involved. These have been boiling up for some time now even though political issues have been brought in. Clearly if the Network Rail management can invoke criticism of the government there is a greater chance of a change at the election and they can ride rough shod over everyone.

This is how I understand it.

As far as the staff are concerned it is about safety. Even on this public forum safety issues have been discussed which are normally kept quiet. It is not only passenger safety but, even more perhaps about that of track workers. This includes staffing levels and also protection while working on the track.

Rail workers are not daft. They know their jobs are disappearing as Mechanised High Output maintenance and relaying equipment are coming in, and as signal boxes are being closed. What they ask is that the agreed redundancy or resettlement arrangements are followed.

Finally there has been a long standing agreement that signallers can organise their rosters at the local level, which has worked perfectly well.

 

[the sniper]

Be embarrassed then! I did say in the quote 'I hope the strike is about safety and about protecting jobs that are vital. Not protecting undereducated layabouts that wouldn't get a job anywhere else.' so I am not sure why you said what you did. I said 'I hope', not 'Well they're only going after uneducated layabouts'.

Ah, apologies, my mistake. I thought you were trying to insinuate that the unions are just trying to protect undereducated layabouts.

I suggest that if you like being outraged by everything you read, you go and buy a copy of the Daily Mail.

Good one.

You also completely ignored the following;

I know nothing about the strike, but figured this forum might. Yet we have people pro-union and anti-union and I am not sure either side is willing to meet in the middle. Rather like the union leaders and management, in fact.

I didn't answer because I really don't know enough about the strike to comment on the rights or wrongs of it, but from what I've gathered, the changes to possession protection rules seems to be a sincere worry amongst those who voted for a strike.

 

[thegrich37423]

I seriously cannot believe the level of stupidity being displayed in this thread from people who claim to be pro-union. Bob Crow is the man who is going to take this country into the 21st century. The UK railways are in a shambles. Roads are ten times more safer than railways and they offer ten times the value for money and comfort.
I also happen to know that HS2 is counting on these strikes. If the money is partitioned off because of the falling wages of the signallers et al, the cost dividends of HS2 will fall through, meaning that the stakeholders who have a preliminary gamble in the project will stand to lose out. This could result in the HS2 scheme being diverted to serve a different city, as the current ambition of reaching Manchester is based on these cost dividends inherited by the stakeholders.
But this is about people's jobs and I'm sorry to say that Bob Crow is the most compotent person to take the industry forward.

thegrich37423.

 

[the sniper]

I seriously cannot believe the level of stupidity being displayed in this thread from people who claim to be pro-union. Bob Crow is the man who is going to take this country into the 21st century. The UK railways are in a shambles. Roads are ten times more safer than railways and they offer ten times the value for money and comfort.
I also happen to know that HS2 is counting on these strikes. If the money is partitioned off because of the falling wages of the signallers et al, the cost dividends of HS2 will fall through, meaning that the stakeholders who have a preliminary gamble in the project will stand to lose out. This could result in the HS2 scheme being diverted to serve a different city, as the current ambition of reaching Manchester is based on these cost dividends inherited by the stakeholders.
But this is about people's jobs and I'm sorry to say that Bob Crow is the most compotent person to take the industry forward.

thegrich37423.

Heh...?

I've got to be honest, you lost me at the "Roads are ten times more safer than railways" comment. How did you work that one out...?

 

[90019]

I've got to be honest, you lost me at the "Roads are ten times more safer than railways" comment. How did you work that one out...?

Probably comparing single crashes, rather than the overall numbers.

 

[313103]

I seriously cannot believe the level of stupidity being displayed in this thread from people who claim to be pro-union. Bob Crow is the man who is going to take this country into the 21st century. The UK railways are in a shambles. Roads are ten times more safer than railways and they offer ten times the value for money and comfort.
I also happen to know that HS2 is counting on these strikes. If the money is partitioned off because of the falling wages of the signallers et al, the cost dividends of HS2 will fall through, meaning that the stakeholders who have a preliminary gamble in the project will stand to lose out. This could result in the HS2 scheme being diverted to serve a different city, as the current ambition of reaching Manchester is based on these cost dividends inherited by the stakeholders.
But this is about people's jobs and I'm sorry to say that Bob Crow is the most compotent person to take the industry forward.

thegrich37423.

What on earth are you talking about, first of all you claim that the pro union people on here (like myself) are stupid! Well that is a matter of opinion. Then you you go an and say that Bob Crow is the most competent person to take the industry forward! Not the sort of thing someone would say if they were anti union surely?

In fact your whole message seems to be confusing. Unless of course your being ironic or sarcastic.

 

[royaloak]

I seriously cannot believe the level of stupidity being displayed in this thread from people who claim to be pro-union. Bob Crow is the man who is going to take this country into the 21st century. The UK railways are in a shambles. Roads are ten times more safer than railways and they offer ten times the value for money and comfort.
I also happen to know that HS2 is counting on these strikes. If the money is partitioned off because of the falling wages of the signallers et al, the cost dividends of HS2 will fall through, meaning that the stakeholders who have a preliminary gamble in the project will stand to lose out. This could result in the HS2 scheme being diverted to serve a different city, as the current ambition of reaching Manchester is based on these cost dividends inherited by the stakeholders.
But this is about people's jobs and I'm sorry to say that Bob Crow is the most compotent person to take the industry forward.

thegrich37423.

Go on then post some links to substantiate this cr4p!

What on earth are you talking about, first of all you claim that the pro union people on here (like myself) are stupid! Well that is a matter of opinion. Then you you go an and say that Bob Crow is the most competent person to take the industry forward! Not the sort of thing someone would say if they were anti union surely?

In fact your whole message seems to be confusing. Unless of course your being ironic or sarcastic.

Or a complete and utter ####, oops I mean troll

 

[thegrich37423]

It is clear to me that Bob Crow is indeed the person who can take this industry forward. I meant to remark about the level of stupidity of the ANTI-union people. I'm all for the unions to be honest. I don't care if that boils down to an opinion though! You and the other people on here don't tell me what to believe in thank you please!
The paragraph on HS2 is worrying to say the least. If these strikes and public cuts are to be sustained, it could be its knell. But I digress.

Again, I think the anti-union people need to look beyond the immediate disruption to the day-to-day running of the railway and factor in the fact that these people's jobs are under threat. We as humans often execute actions over words to prove a point.

I'm all for High Speed 2, the environment, the unions etc.

 

[Greenback]

So that's why people said you needed to go to school and get a decent education!

I hope the strike is about safety and about protecting jobs that are vital. Not protecting undereducated layabouts that wouldn't get a job anywhere else. Why the hell does any part of the railway want to employ these people 'for life'?!! Of course they don't.

Job security is a wonderful thing. There were a few sectors you could get a job in and have that knowledge that unless you did something terrible, you'd be there until retirement. But those days are over.

Looking at all the posts on here about the inefficiencies of NR, I've always assumed they need to do a big clear out of their staff. Not to cut back on work, but to become efficient. However, I'll fully support the union and the strike if NR is doing it in the wrong way.

What I'd like to know is if the union is aiming to protect ALL jobs at any cost, or would accept that NR needs to adapt to modern working practices. And if they do accept the inevitable, what would they recommend?

I honestly believe that safety concerns are a big part of this dispute. Unlike the RMT issues on Airdrie - Bathgate, which I don't agree with (but won;t go into here!). From reading posts from people who do the job on this and other forums (I'm sure you know which ones!) there does seem to be a real level of worry that the new ways of working are inherently less safe. Of course, it could be that all of those posts gave been made by Bob Crow or his cronies under assumed identities, but I don't think he knows enough about the jobs!

 

[CosherB]

Captain, for your sake, I hope that your personal aircraft never has to make an emergency landing in the real world, as I really don't think you'd like it here.

Been there, done that, got the T shirt. And I'm still here to tell the tale. It doesn't get more real than an in-flight emergency that ends in a field full of cows but could oh so easily have ended very differently. I don't think there's much you can tell me about 'the real world'.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That you think only 'undereducated layabouts' are being made unemployed is frankly rather embarrassing. Are you living in the Captain's land of naivety too?

Ah, the whole world's out of step except Sniper. I think see your problem, old boy.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bob Crow is the man who is going to take this country into the 21st century.

HA! Crikey you with the odd name, you owe me a new laptop! I Just sprayed coffee all over this one when I read that!

The 1970s dinosaur is the man to take us into the 21st century! HA!

Is nurse coming round soon with your medicine?

 

[313103]

It is clear to me that Bob Crow is indeed the person who can take this industry forward. I meant to remark about the level of stupidity of the ANTI-union people. I'm all for the unions to be honest. I don't care if that boils down to an opinion though! You and the other people on here don't tell me what to believe in thank you please!
The paragraph on HS2 is worrying to say the least. If these strikes and public cuts are to be sustained, it could be its knell. But I digress.

Again, I think the anti-union people need to look beyond the immediate disruption to the day-to-day running of the railway and factor in the fact that these people's jobs are under threat. We as humans often execute actions over words to prove a point.

I'm all for High Speed 2, the environment, the unions etc.

Well thank you for clearing your original error which led me to comment and then considered an opinion. If you hadnt made the original error i would need not of making a comment on your message.

 

[CosherB]

Again, I think the anti-union people need to look beyond the immediate disruption to the day-to-day running of the railway and factor in the fact that these people's jobs are under threat.

And have you given a moment's thought to those who might, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs because they can't get to work becuase a bunch of selfish, petulent railway strikers made it impossibe?