Ongoing ASLEF overtime bans

[Mattydo]

It doesn't affect the TOCs they just send the bill to the DfT every month for the cost of running the operation. DfT have already acknowledged that fare revenue is being impacted and the nett cost of running the railway has gone up. Whats needed is for DfT to find an olive branch that moves this forward such that ASLEF will come back to the table and be persuaded to work with operators to at least develop new T&Cs for for new starters so there is a long term adjustment to dealing with Sundays etc.

Not exactly accurate. Certainly the DfT covers the cost of strike days but overtime impacts result in impacts to the TOC directly.

 

[Watershed]

Not exactly accurate. Certainly the DfT covers the cost of strike days but overtime impacts result in impacts to the TOC directly.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what impact you're referring to?

 

[Facing Back]

Not exactly accurate. Certainly the DfT covers the cost of strike days but overtime impacts result in impacts to the TOC directly.

I'm surprised at that - it wasn't my memory of the NRC conditions. Could you elaborate please?

 

[Magdalen Road]

This. Train strikes are normal now. The travelling public are used to it. The unions can strike as often as they want to, but the impact is nothing more than it being vaguely annoying.

My blood pressure isn't used to it.
It's far more than vaguely annoying, it's causing significant disruption to my life.

 

[boiledbeans2]

The country is really feeling the effects of wider industrial action. The sheer number of people choosing not to travel at all costs the leisure economy massively. [...]

...which is a good thing... to the government.

Remember, the government is trying to bring down inflation. Supressing demand is one way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

But there will be a new governemnt next year, one that will likely offer a reasonable sum with no strings attached, say 4 or 5 percent. One that is not so ideologically embedded in victorian times and practices. If we can find the money for the Army, prison officers etc , then we can find it for rail staff who by then will be 5 years without so much as any rise whatsoever in that period.

Here's something I've never understood. I've seen the argument multiple times that a Labour government would be willing to offer wage increases to train drivers.

But at the core, Labour is a socialist-leaning party. They would much prefer income equality. Now, train drivers are earning more than the average UK wage. Would would Labour want to exacerbate this income inequality? It's more likely that Labour would raise the minimum wage than make the rich richer.

 

[Facing Back]

This. Train strikes are normal now. The travelling public are used to it. The unions can strike as often as they want to, but the impact is nothing more than it being vaguely annoying.

We changed track when Avanti became so unreliable. A local firm will take 2 or 3 of us from Manchester to London and back for a very significant discount on open rail fares. In nice Mercs. Its a door to door service and they hang around and will drive us around London too. I like train journeys but that revenue is lost forever.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm not confusing anything. Moreover you'd have to prove how tiny that percentage is with something other than an assertion. Granted geography (of the railway) means that certain parts of the country use the railway more than others but in other parts the percentage of people using public transport in general is a lot higher. Particularly dense urban areas. Like the North West and London.

When I see trains full and standing at the weekend and week day peaks this utilisation argument really makes me chuckle.

I don't have to prove anything. You're still missing the fact that enormous parts of the country have no train service at all, or if there is one nearby, the odds are that it won't go where they want to go/at a suitable time. That's why private cars will generally win - flexibility.

If the trains were regularly used by, say, 30% of the population then the government might just start to register their existence. In the meantime they have much more of concern (NHS/Teachers etc) - which probably affect more like 80-90% of the population.
Rail is, unfortunately, in a totally different league.

 

[Silverlinky]

I'm surprised at that - it wasn't my memory of the NRC conditions. Could you elaborate please?

I'd guess that TOC's could account for their cancellations due to ASOS and get them removed from their performance figures, thereby protecting any potential bonus payments on top of the agreed contract fees.

 

[Bald Rick]

So what do you mean by not damaging the wider economy.

The rail strikes and overtime bans just aren’t damaging the wider economy. They are damaging the rail industry, sure, and very locally some businesses will be suffering, but other business are benefitting. The net effect on the wider economy is essentially nil.

I thought the government admitted it cost more than it would have to settle.

The minister said somethign without a full appreciation of the facts.

Certainly the DfT covers the cost of strike days but overtime impacts result in impacts to the TOC directly.

The Government is on the hook for all revenue and costs. The overtime ban means less cost, and less revenue, both of which are covered by Government.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

I'd guess that TOC's could account for their cancellations due to ASOS and get them removed from their performance figures, thereby protecting any potential bonus payments on top of the agreed contract fees.

The cancellations for the amended timetables are all made through a planned variation to the timetable and do not count in their performance figures.

 

[Mattydo]

The minister said somethign without a full appreciation of the facts.

And yet you have that full appreciation?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

The rail strikes and overtime bans just aren’t damaging the wider economy. They are damaging the rail industry, sure, and very locally some businesses will be suffering, but other business are benefitting. The net effect on the wider economy is essentially nil.

Very locally is doing a lot of heavy work there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

I'm surprised at that - it wasn't my memory of the NRC conditions. Could you elaborate please?

Performance results affect their variable payments. However the biggest potential effect that a "franchise" holder faces is that we've recently witnessed befall First... Very much expedited by over time bans.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

I don't have to prove anything.

So we take your hyperbole at your word then ?

 

[Sonic1234]

The overtime ban means less cost, and less revenue, both of which are covered by Government.

Would be interested to know how ticket sales have been this week compared to normal, and how many refunds have been given out. Off peak on Southern today (half the normal frequency) the trains seemed very busy, looked as if they were getting better utilisation of stock - did make me think the Government might actually prefer this. Even more so when the (few?) customers who looked at the half-frequency timetable and considered it unacceptable were probably helping out a local council in the form of car parking charges!

 

[Bald Rick]

And yet you have that full appreciation?

I do, yes.

Very locally is doing a lot of heavy work there.

Is it? How is the wider economy being damaged then, in your opinion?

 

[Mattydo]

I do, yes.



Is it? How is the wider economy being damaged then, in your opinion?

Not my opinion (and that's my point here in general). The Centre for Economics estimates the wider economy lost £700 million in reduced output and £1.5 billion to the tourism and hospitality industry. Whilst some of that may be redirected a lot of it will stay in the pockets of people staying at home.

I've stated before I'm not a militant unionist or against reform but I find this intent on forming the argument as if the railway exists in some alternate universe where it's functioning has no effect on the country is kind of ridiculous. If it were true Maggie would have done for it years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Centre for Economics estimates the wider economy lost £700 million in reduced output and £1.5 billion to the tourism and hospitality industry.

Ok, fair enough, but that is less than 1/1000th of the economic output of the country, based on a year’s worth of action that generally involved Network Rail signallers striking and thus closing a significant part of the network - such that typically on a strike day only around 20% of normal services could run (but usually carrying 30-40% of usual passengers).

I've stated before I'm not a militant unionist or against reform but I find this intent on forming the argument as if the railway exists in some alternate universe where it's functioning has no effect on the country is kind of ridiculous.

Clearly the functioning of the railway does have an effect on the economy, in many places.

My point is that the industrial action occurring now is not having the same impact as it was up to March; with the ASLEF overtime ban the network as a whole is running almost a full service, with passenger numbers barely twitching. When the RMT strike tomorrow, there will be something in the region of 50% of normal services operating, and my educated guess is that somewhere around 70% of usual passengers will be carried. And therefore the economic impact is much reduced compared to what it was, which even then was frankly minimal.

 

[boiledbeans2]

Not my opinion (and that's my point here in general). The Centre for Economics estimates the wider economy lost £700 million in reduced output and £1.5 billion to the tourism and hospitality industry. Whilst some of that may be redirected a lot of it will stay in the pockets of people staying at home.

As I mentioned in one of my posts above, this is actually positive news for the government. The strikes are bringing down inflation by suppressing demand. It's the same reason why interest rates are going up - to promote savings and suppress demand.

 

[Mattydo]

Ok, fair enough, but that is less than 1/1000th of the economic output of the country, based on a year’s worth of action that generally involved Network Rail signallers striking and thus closing a significant part of the network - such that typically on a strike day only around 20% of normal services could run (but usually carrying 30-40% of usual passengers).



Clearly the functioning of the railway does have an effect on the economy, in many places.

My point is that the industrial action occurring now is not having the same impact as it was up to March; with the ASLEF overtime ban the network as a whole is running almost a full service, with passenger numbers barely twitching. When the RMT strike tomorrow, there will be something in the region of 50% of normal services operating, and my educated guess is that somewhere around 70% of usual passengers will be carried. And therefore the economic impact is much reduced compared to what it was, which even then was frankly minimal.

I think there is some common ground in our views there. But what are the Unions to do?... I think it extremely unlikely that a resolution occurs this side of a GE, but an increase in strike action is unlikely to be financially sustainable for most members until next autumn. Do the unions halt all action until the climate is more likely to result in a settled outcome? Politically speaking (and let's be honest labour unions ARE political entities), I feel it would be suicidal to their existence.

 

[irish_rail]

I’ll take it that you are quite happy to badly affect others’ jobs and livelihoods. Nice.

Right, but you find it acceptable that my job and livelihood should be drastically changed?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ok, fair enough, but that is less than 1/1000th of the economic output of the country, based on a year’s worth of action that generally involved Network Rail signallers striking and thus closing a significant part of the network - such that typically on a strike day only around 20% of normal services could run (but usually carrying 30-40% of usual passengers).



Clearly the functioning of the railway does have an effect on the economy, in many places.

My point is that the industrial action occurring now is not having the same impact as it was up to March; with the ASLEF overtime ban the network as a whole is running almost a full service, with passenger numbers barely twitching. When the RMT strike tomorrow, there will be something in the region of 50% of normal services operating, and my educated guess is that somewhere around 70% of usual passengers will be carried. And therefore the economic impact is much reduced compared to what it was, which even then was frankly minimal.

Many operators have been running a near normal service this week but many haven't so do the numbers normalise across all operators or is there correlation with level of service being provided.

 

[Bald Rick]

But what are the Unions to do?

Get round the table and negotiate properly, (like most other unions in other sectors have done through the last year of industrial strife), rather than say ‘no, make another offer’.

Many operators have been running a near normal service this week but many haven't so do the numbers normalise across all operators or is there correlation with level of service being provided.

Clearly there is variation between operators - Scotrail isn’t affected at all, and I would expect that London Overground sees passenger numbers increase, whereas some other TOCs are seeing passenger numbers reduce.

 

[Mattydo]

Right, but you find it acceptable that my job and livelihood should be drastically changed?

Exactly.

And to infer that drivers might enjoy any aspect of this is, quite frankly, nonsense.

Striking is horrible, not just financially but emotionally. I respect and like my managers, I am aware of the stress to causes my colleagues in other departments who I respect equally and above all I value our customers.

But, and it's a big but, I have absolutely no respect for the people behind the veil. The Tories have failed this country and seem intent to bring a blow to the unions before they all join the queue at the job office. I won't accept that without a fight.

 

[Facing Back]

Not my opinion (and that's my point here in general). The Centre for Economics estimates the wider economy lost £700 million in reduced output and £1.5 billion to the tourism and hospitality industry. Whilst some of that may be redirected a lot of it will stay in the pockets of people staying at home.

I've stated before I'm not a militant unionist or against reform but I find this intent on forming the argument as if the railway exists in some alternate universe where it's functioning has no effect on the country is kind of ridiculous. If it were true Maggie would have done for it years ago.

I'm fairly sure that the 1.5bn comes from the hospitality industry, not the CEBR - however hospitality surely has the largest financial impact from these actions, bearing in mind much of the economy has learned to function for periods without travel.

 

[NI 271]

I just love the idea that after a year of strikes including Christmas, the first week back in January, Cheltenham and Eurovision, this overtime ban is going to be the thing that makes the government cave in. What a complete waste of everyone's time.

It's almost as laughable as some of the 'thoughts' opined on here that those whose lives would be unrecognisable if they accepted the 'offer' should simply bend over and take it because that makes everybody else's problem go away, isn't it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

Now, train drivers are earning more than the average UK wage. Would would Labour want to exacerbate this income inequality? It's more likely that Labour would raise the minimum wage than make the rich richer.

Train drivers are "the rich" now? In what world?

 

[Facing Back]

I think there is some common ground in our views there. But what are the Unions to do?... I think it extremely unlikely that a resolution occurs this side of a GE, but an increase in strike action is unlikely to be financially sustainable for most members until next autumn. Do the unions halt all action until the climate is more likely to result in a settled outcome? Politically speaking (and let's be honest labour unions ARE political entities), I feel it would be suicidal to their existence.

What are the unions to do?

Either decide that their normal hard-ball approach remains appropriate and the government can be persuaded or pressured into backing down on changes to T&Cs and escalate their action significantly.

Or take the more usual approach of accepting that some change is going to happen and negotiate around the specifics of the offer which cause the drivers most pain. Why are the TOC's/government so hell bent on short-notice roster changes - what are they really trying to achieve (lets not assume it is to "beat the union) and what other options can the union suggest which will meet those objectives (or close to them) with less pain for the drivers. And in the process, what would the union like which will make life more appealing to drivers and is easy for the TOCs to offer.

 

[Watershed]

Train drivers are "the rich" now? In what world?

Driver salaries - before overtime - average around £60k; that puts them in the top 10th percentile of earners. I don't know about your definition of rich, but they're certainly not doing badly.

 

[Bevan Price]

How the "ball" is currently with the union I do not know. The members have just voted to continue with an extremely high % - don't you think the members would have voted to not continue with action if they were happy with the offer that was tabled.

Somehow, the union leaders are managing to convince the sheep (sorry - members) that industrial action wil bring success.
Sorry - they are wasting everybody's time. This government does not care how long disruption occurs, and there will be no more money. The only thing that happens will be a gradual, long term reduction in services, and lower recruitment to replace staff who leave / retire. And do not expect any early changes after the next election - even if Labour somehow manage to win. Money does not grow on trees, and Labour will not want to increase income tax or VAT.
(Expect a torrent of anti-Labour propaganda in the pro-Tory press in the months before that election. )

 

[irish_rail]

Exactly.

And to infer that drivers might enjoy any aspect of this is, quite frankly, nonsense.

Striking is horrible, not just financially but emotionally. I respect and like my managers, I am aware of the stress to causes my colleagues in other departments who I respect equally and above all I value our customers.

But, and it's a big but, I have absolutely no respect for the people behind the veil. The Tories have failed this country and seem intent to bring a blow to the unions before they all join the queue at the job office. I won't accept that without a fight.

Exactly. This brings no pleasure to any driver, thats for sure. Morale is as low as I've ever known it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

Driver salaries - before overtime - average around £60k; that puts them in the top 10th percentile of earners. I don't know about your definition of rich, but they're certainly not doing badly.

No one is saying drivers haven't done well. But for the umpteenth time this is about the Ts and Cs . A small below inflation payrise would be acceptable, provided drivers aren't forced to completely wreck our work life balance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

Somehow, the union leaders are managing to convince the sheep (sorry - members) that industrial action wil bring success.
Sorry - they are wasting everybody's time. This government does not care how long disruption occurs, and there will be no more money. The only thing that happens will be a gradual, long term reduction in services, and lower recruitment to replace staff who leave / retire. And do not expect any early changes after the next election - even if Labour somehow manage to win. Money does not grow on trees, and Labour will not want to increase income tax or VAT.
(Expect a torrent of anti-Labour propaganda in the pro-Tory press in the months before that election. )

Sorry, but you sound like you have fallen for the Tory party propaganda machine. To accuse train drivers of being sheep shows how far removed you are from the situation and the realities. Also, i don't think most drivers care if recruitment is frozen or services reduced, as there will be NO compulsory redundancies of drivers so not really too much of a threat. A recruitment freeze of a year or two will be followed by a frenzied few years of recruitment anyway. It really isn't a threat. Only the travelling public will lose, so another well done to the wonderful Tory party.

 

[ar10642]

So we take your hyperbole at your word then ?

You could just look at the published stats. Rail is only about 10% of journeys, vast majority is by car. In my network of family and friends I'm the only one who uses trains more than once or twice a year.

 

[class 9]

Driver salaries - before overtime - average around £60k; that puts them in the top 10th percentile of earners. I don't know about your definition of rich, but they're certainly not doing badly.

That may be the case, but my take home pay on a basic month is just over 3K, over 1K mortgage, other half only works part time, yes we're doing OK, but I wouldn't regard myself rich by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Silverlinky]

No one is saying drivers haven't done well. But for the umpteenth time this is about the Ts and Cs . A small below inflation payrise would be acceptable, provided drivers aren't forced to completely wreck our work life balance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

Well that message needs to be got out there, because there a hell of a lot of people who think this is about "members who kept Britain running during the pandemic and who haven't had a payrise for four years"

 

[class 9]

You could just look at the published stats. Rail is only about 10% of journeys, vast majority is by car. In my network of family and friends I'm the only one who uses trains more than once or twice a year.

The majority of car journeys are only about a mile or 2, if you took out these tiny little trips from the stats, rails percentage share would be larger.