"Over By Christmas"?

[Gorlash1886]

If you work where I think you do, I 100% agree that’s not a good outcome. Was that from the local reps/LDC?

We have had very little communicated about what, if anything, has actually been offered, just assured that it’s “unsuitable”, or similar . Lack of transparency is one of my biggest criticisms of the union, frankly.

Yeah your guess is more than likely correct about company. A driver sent questions to someone higher up the chain that the ldr, if I'm honest it made the atmosphere a bit more bitter

 

[Steveswan10]

Just a question, I fully understand the reasoning behind the strikes and would go as far to say this has been coming for a couple years and not just on the railways, but out if interest, what would happen if some of the companies who use the railways for transport of freight (of the top of my head TATA steel ect) decide that because if the strikes and the uncertainty of how long this is gonna go on for (I appreciate their trying to get it sorted) they will decide to pull out completely from using the railways and go all to road transportation? Also bearing in mind the railways trying to win new traffic? Could that mean that some of the lines that only exist for freight get closed and the signallers could end up losing their jobs?
Any thoughts would be appreciated

 

[Exscrew]

Just a question, I fully understand the reasoning behind the strikes and would go as far to say this has been coming for a couple years and not just on the railways, but out if interest, what would happen if some of the companies who use the railways for transport of freight (of the top of my head TATA steel ect) decide that because if the strikes and the uncertainty of how long this is gonna go on for (I appreciate their trying to get it sorted) they will decide to pull out completely from using the railways and go all to road transportation? Also bearing in mind the railways trying to win new traffic? Could that mean that some of the lines that only exist for freight get closed and the signallers could end up losing their jobs?
Any thoughts would be appreciated

Would be unlikely as there is not enough logistics to cope with further demand, plus the argument that freight traffic is a greener alternative to lorries Would rear its head again.

NR recently put out documentation about increasing freight volume.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just a question, I fully understand the reasoning behind the strikes and would go as far to say this has been coming for a couple years and not just on the railways, but out if interest, what would happen if some of the companies who use the railways for transport of freight (of the top of my head TATA steel ect) decide that because if the strikes and the uncertainty of how long this is gonna go on for (I appreciate their trying to get it sorted) they will decide to pull out completely from using the railways and go all to road transportation? Also bearing in mind the railways trying to win new traffic? Could that mean that some of the lines that only exist for freight get closed and the signallers could end up losing their jobs?
Any thoughts would be appreciated

On NR strike days, the railway does seem to prioritise long-distance freight, by keeping the WCML open for a limited period.

 

[12LDA28C]

If you work where I think you do, I 100% agree that’s not a good outcome. Was that from the local reps/LDC?

We have had very little communicated about what, if anything, has actually been offered, just assured that it’s “unsuitable”, or similar . Lack of transparency is one of my biggest criticisms of the union, frankly.

I believe an offer of 2% has always been 'on the table', which may vary slightly between TOCs but would depend on what they agreed with the DfT when their current contract was drawn up. Unsurprisingly, this fantastic 'deal' has not been put to the members by ASLEF.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2022 ==




Personally I think Mick Lynch has been pretty savvy with the proposals for action in December and January - the strike days coupled with the overtime ban may see some routes with little or no service for three whole weeks, not to mention major essential engineering jobs over the Christmas period cancelled or postponed.

That will cause massive disruption and seems to have been enough to actually make the Government finally sit up and take an interest.

 

[Birkonian]

ASLEF reached agreement with TfW even earlier than RMT did. Their deal is broadly similar.

Hence this Saturday TfW will be pretty much the only operator running trains not just in Wales, but also the West Midlands and (other than a very limited token service from TPE) Greater Manchester.

I'm travelling from Chester to Warrington tomorrow on the TfW service to Machester Airport.

 

[STKKK46]

I believe an offer of 2% has always been 'on the table', which may vary slightly between TOCs but would depend on what they agreed with the DfT when their current contract was drawn up. Unsurprisingly, this fantastic 'deal' has not been put to the members by ASLEF.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2022 ==




Personally I think Mick Lynch has been pretty savvy with the proposals for action in December and January - the strike days coupled with the overtime ban may see some routes with little or no service for three whole weeks, not to mention major essential engineering jobs over the Christmas period cancelled or postponed.

That will cause massive disruption and seems to have been enough to actually make the Government finally sit up and take an interest.

Yep. Timing and severity of the strikes have certainly caused conversation.

Let’s hope it works out now. Workers and public happy for Christmas would certainly do the current government the world of good.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, if there's a formula that works in Scotland and Wales, it should be offered in England as well.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just a question, I fully understand the reasoning behind the strikes and would go as far to say this has been coming for a couple years and not just on the railways, but out if interest, what would happen if some of the companies who use the railways for transport of freight (of the top of my head TATA steel ect) decide that because if the strikes and the uncertainty of how long this is gonna go on for (I appreciate their trying to get it sorted) they will decide to pull out completely from using the railways and go all to road transportation? Also bearing in mind the railways trying to win new traffic? Could that mean that some of the lines that only exist for freight get closed and the signallers could end up losing their jobs?
Any thoughts would be appreciated

I can say with certainty that freight traffic was lost permanently as a result of railway strikes in B.R. days - I was there .

What happened was that time sensitive rail borne traffic obviously still had to be moved during a strike, and our customer would approach a road haulier to provide a service. The road hauler was prepared to move the traffic only on condition that a long-term contract was agreed. Of course, we already had a contract with the customer, but frustration of contract was claimed.

The time sensitive traffic attracted premium rates and non-time sensitive traffic did not, and it was the former that was more likely to be lost. so the traffic mix remaining tended to decline in profitability.

No idea about the current situation; it seems those who know are, perhaps ominously, keeping quiet...

 

[ValentaFan1974]

From The Telegraph just now:

Access Restricted

The Treasury has blocked train operators from offering unions a pay rise that would have avoided Christmas strike action, amid growing fears that public sector wages risk spiralling out of control.

The Government is understood to have vetoed proposals for a pay increase of between 8pc and 9pc over two years on Monday, despite indicating 48 hours earlier that Whitehall would support a deal.

Rail staff are planning to bring travel to halt with eight days of walkouts in December and January as a result.

It comes as ministers scramble to head off a wave of strike action across the public sector,with nurses, doctors and civil servants all threatening industrial action unless they can secure significant pay increases.

Treasury officials are thought to be concerned that giving in could trigger a jump in inflation and pile extra costs on the taxpayer.

Sources said that last Saturday, officials from the Department for Transport ordered train negotiators to offer pay rises to their counterparts from the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) in order to avoid further strikes.



All pay increases must be signed off by the Government, which has been responsible for train operators' finances since the Covid crisis.

An indicative deal was thrashed out that rail bosses thought would be sufficient to end the biggest wave of industrial action on the railways for a decade.

The Telegraph understands that train companies were willing to offer pay rises of between 8pc and 9pc over the next two years under a national framework that would be agreed by operators and their unions.

But when representatives from the train operators on Monday asked the DfT for approval to put the deal in writing, officials are believed to have backtracked.

Industry sources claim that the DfT was blocked from sanctioning the pay rises following discussions with the Treasury.

On Friday, the RMT agreed to wage increases of between 7pc and 9pc on Scotland's railways.

 

[Thirteen]

I wonder which person at the DfT leaked that to the Telegraph? My money's on Huw Merriman.

 

[43066]

When the Telegraph of all newspapers publishes an article like that, it’s crystal clear where the problem lies.

 

[43074]

I wonder which person at the DfT leaked that to the Telegraph? My money's on Huw Merriman.

Would be interesting to know who their industry source was too

 

[Thirteen]

When the Telegraph of all newspapers publishes an article like that, it’s crystal clear where the problem lies.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are ministers at the DfT who have had enough of the Treasury holding things up. That's the only reason someone there would perhaps spill to the Telegraph.

 

[PG]

When the Telegraph of all newspapers publishes an article like that, it’s crystal clear where the problem lies.

Cue cartoon of government with gun shooting their own foot
Maybe the thread title actually refers to the government

 

[diffident]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are ministers at the DfT who have had enough of the Treasury holding things up. That's the only reason someone there would perhaps spill to the Telegraph.

The Treasury hold all the cards. The DfT could offer everything that the Unions want, but ultimately, the Treasury signs off on govt spending. In that respect, I have a modicum of sympathy for the DfT in such situations.

 

[43066]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are ministers at the DfT who have had enough of the Treasury holding things up. That's the only reason someone there would perhaps spill to the Telegraph.

Indeed. You ask a very good question as to who leaked this.

Maybe the thread title actually refers to the government

Liz Truss was described in her last few days in power as being “like a corpse delivering its own eulogy”. A most apt description which I think it’s safe to say now goes for the wider government.

A slow, lingering death. It’s embarrassing, frankly.

 

[Thirteen]

The Treasury hold all the cards. The DfT could offer everything that the Unions want, but ultimately, the Treasury signs off on govt spending. In that respect, I have a modicum of sympathy for the DfT in such situations.

I suspect Shapps was more than willing to tow the party line but the current lot at the DfT kind of want this dealt this sooner rather than later.

It smells like a leak to make the Treasury look like the bad guy and hopefully twists the arm. I'm surprised the article landed today rather than Sunday.

 

[yorksrob]

8-9 % over two years is in no way unreasonable. From an economic point of view its not even contributing to inflation because its under inflation

Time the Government got on with it and agreed.

 

[Peterthegreat]

8-9 % over two years is in no way unreasonable. From an economic point of view its not even contributing to inflation because its under inflation

Time the Government got on with it and agreed.

That's my view too. Especially when some have not had a pay rise for 3 years already.
And Barristers got 15%!

 

[JonathanH]

And Barristers got 15%!

Barristers got 15% having not had any increase for most of the preceding decade.

Rightly or wrongly there are two issues for rail workers in the eyes of government - firstly that they had inflationary increases throughout the period up to 2019, when many other workers had ongoing pay restraint so in relative terms are better off than people in other workforces, and secondly that money needs to come from outside the industry to pay for increases now because of the downturn in railway revenue.

 

[yorksrob]

That's my view too. Especially when some have not had a pay rise for 3 years already.
And Barristers got 15%!

Indeed.

Barristers got 15% having not had any increase for most of the preceding decade.

Rightly or wrongly there are two issues for rail workers in the eyes of government - firstly that they had inflationary increases throughout the period up to 2019, when many other workers had ongoing pay restraint and secondly that money needs to come from outside the industry to pay for increases now because of the downturn in railway revenue.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda... There are lots of things that weren't done when they should have been over the last twenty years.

We are where we are, get the trains running.

 

[Thirteen]

I know we like to think The Government is one body but clearly there are disagreements and meetings between the various departments.

 

[JonathanH]

We are where we are, get the trains running.

That only happens if one side caves in on the pay negotiations and I think you could take a rather big punt on that not happening.

 

[43066]

firstly that they had inflationary increases throughout the period up to 2019

Usually for conditions being sold rather than just “because”… You’ll find “inflationary” also means something rather different to “at or above the rate of inflation”.

secondly that money needs to come from outside the industry to pay for increases now because of the downturn in railway revenue.

Except that revenues are increasing again. The current issues are strangling that growth and preventing more passengers from returning, so that approach is penny wise pound foolish, to say the least.

I also notice GPs are doing very well, thanks very much, despite the fact I’ve been unable to get an appointment for much of the last couple of years. Who pays for that? Oh yes that would be me as a 40% tax payer.

Oh and I notice benefits claimants have had a rise…

 

[21C101]

They say pay must be limited to 2% to keep inflation down and tax allowances frozen for six years, but are happy to increase benefits and non contributory civil service pensions by 10.1%.

A lot of people now wonder if it is worth working full time and bank of England MPC members are vexed as to how come so many can afford to leave the workforce.

The maths is brutal. They are ramping up benefits and pension spending by huge amounts and throttling those who earn the money which provides the tax to pay for it.

Once you add in the compound effects of doing this year after year you discover that systemic economic collapse in short order is the inevitable result of such a policy.

It is madness.

 

[43066]

They say pay must be limited to 2% to keep inflation down and tax allowances frozen for six years, but are happy to increase benefits and non contributory civil service pensions by 10.1%.

A lot of people now wonder if it is worth working full time and bank of England MPC members are vexed as to how come so many can afford to leave the workforce.

The maths is brutal. They are ramping up benefits and pension spending by huge amounts and throttling those who earn the money which provides the tax to pay for it.

Once you add in the compound effects of doing this year after year you discover that systemic economic collapse in short order is the inevitable result of such a policy.

It is madness.

Also not exactly “conservative”, is it!?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I’ve been unable to get an appointment for much of the last couple of years. Who pays for that? Oh yes that would be me as a 40% tax payer.

Same here, and it's infuriating - but I wholly blame the receptionists. Someone's going to die at some point because a receptionist has decided their judgement is equivalent to that of a medical professional and refused a medical appointment. It's always the same whether the practice is in London, Cardiff, Etobicoke CA or the moon. I have no criticism of the GPs themselves.

 

[yorksrob]

That only happens if one side caves in on the pay negotiations and I think you could take a rather big punt on that not happening.

Well, government should agree to 8-9 % over two years.

Get the trains running.

And if they want to economise, performance related pay for GP's based on numbers of face to face consultancies. (If they're doing it properly its sometimes a lot more intimate than "face to face")

 

[43066]

Same here, and it's infuriating - but I wholly blame the receptionists. Someone's going to die at some point because a receptionist has decided their judgement is equivalent to that of a medical professional and refused a medical appointment. It's always the same whether the practice is in London, Cardiff, Etobicoke CA or the moon. I have no criticism of the GPs themselves.

An ex of mine was a GP and I got a bit of an insight. Apparently the receptionists ask you what’s wrong to “triage” patients and get an idea how long an appointment you will need. But I agree why on earth would I want to tell a doctors’ receptionist personal information? There are many other issues: there is a tendency for practices to take on too many patients, also hypochondriacs (and general idiots) who go to the doctors with non problems, but still have to be entertained so take up valuable time. It’s a mess.

Perhaps people should have to pay £10 to see a GP - at least they’d think twice about whether they needed to go - but that would cause uproar!

Apologies off topic - but the NHS certainly rivals the railway in terms of structural incompetence, and more than eclipses it in terms of waste.