Possible strike action on NXEA

[Ferret]

I see your point, but you wouldn't have trains to catch at times without the good will of the staff....

 

[asylumxl]

Yes, mainly goodwill from customers like me.

Agreed.

 

[Metroland]

I see your point, but you wouldn't have trains to catch at times without the good will of the staff....

I understand that, but as I've pointed out staff (in general) get a very good deal. I'm not convinced by any argument I've seen so far that people are entitled to above inflation pay rises at a time of recession, and feel its their right to screw the passenger and taxpayer for as much as possible.

It concerns me that some seen a complete disassociation between their actions and the passenger, and you get the impressive that some believe the railway is there to primarily run trains and provide a wage rather than a useful service.

In reality, people will just find alternatives where they can, as someone that would like to see the network grow, that would be a very sad day.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's disappointingly predictable that the discussion has focused purely on pay and the inference that drivers are striking in order to secure "big pay rises". I hinted as much way back on the first page of this thread (and no, it wasn't a dig aimed at Yardman but at the media).

The situation on NXEA is more wide-reaching, as I suspect it is on the other TOC's. Against a background of continuing profitability and only marginally slowed growth, shareholder dividends and bonuses for the top brass, the company has been dragging it's heels over pay negotiations. Until a couple of weeks ago we have been repeatedly told we will not be receiving an offer this year but we could have a small (and I mean small) compensation payment not added to pay instead. Add to that a climate of worsening industrial relations over various things that I don't feel at liberty to discuss publicly. Quite honestly we've had enough, as a 95.5% "Yes" vote should illustrate.

Contrary to what some may think or how the media may portray us, we're not out to bleed the company white. We just want a sensible pay increase and to be left alone to get on with our jobs. They would have the staff believe that there is no money in the pot but tell the shareholders that all is rosy in the garden. Unfortunately the company can't have it both ways. Nor is it fair to reward the top echelons for all their (ahem) hard work without passing the rewards down to the staff who actually make the company successful. We are perfectly well aware of the issues over the public perception of our actions and it is deeply regrettable that it has come to this, but we need to demonstrate the depth of our disgust and get the company to treat it's staff with a little more respect. Unfortunately all they seem to be interested in is ensuring future profitability, as they are certainly not facing difficult trading conditions.

O L Leigh

 

[yardman]

As from what been said in this thread, much of what happens within union based environments is spun out of context by the media.

From a differing perspective, I was a union negotiator, and over the last couple of years have won decent deals for the company i belong to. This year we ended up freezing pay but that was purely due to finance situation of the company. I think one thing that needs to be clarified here is that, yes we are in a recession, it affects some industries while others can ride it quite happily. But the one thing that has come through industry meetings is that companies have a knack of utilising this economic crises to their benefit. In the print (my industry) there are companies basting in fairly healthy profits (but using the economic crises to reduce terms). I think it is all too easy for people to say "because some are in trouble...then we all are..." because a lot of that isnt true.

I'm not going to get into the argument about whether certain groups on here are over/underpaid. You do the job for the terms you agree. When those terms are threatened, then you have the right to defend them.

I hope that makes a little sense, i too have just done a 12hr night shift so might need to edit this later when i wake.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's disappointingly predictable that the discussion has focused purely on pay and the inference that drivers are striking in order to secure "big pay rises". I hinted as much way back on the first page of this thread (and no, it wasn't a dig aimed at Yardman but at the media).

O L Leigh

I didnt think you were, but as i had only just open the conversation, was a little nervous you might have thought i was whinging on the pay lark.

Respects...

 

[jopsuk]

o L Leigh, whilst you make valid points, it is rather undermined by the RMT:

RAIL UNION RMT announced today that members working on National Express East Anglia have voted by a massive nine to one majority in favour of strike action in a dispute over pay, conditions and reorganization.

By mentioning pay first, it relegates conditions and "reorganisation" (I assume as it did where I work this in part means job cuts) to a secondary concern.

At ASLEF:

The particular issue that led to this crisis was a vote on pay

If the unions are making it clear the votes were mainly about pay, then no wonder the media and public think it's mainly about pay!

 

[Metroland]

I've just spent the last 1/2 hour trying to search for the nuts and bolts of the offer, and are still none the wiser. All I know it is above inflation. All I know is Bob Crow is ranting about shareholders and profits and fighting for better working conditions. This is despite constant above inflation pay rises:

'Wages and conditions for front line operational staff have not been eroded in
the rail sector, although some of the early franchise holders did attempt to
move in that direction. In fact a shortage of qualified staff and long training
lead in times have necessitated wage increases well above RPI, for drivers an
average of 18% above RPI since 1997. It is notable that train conductors now
earn significantly more than bus drivers. The gap widens further if pay
enhancements and other earnings potential is included. In general train
drivers and conductors also have a much shorter standard working week than
bus drivers. A basic 35-hour week is fairly standard for both grades.'

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2008/cipto/pdf/cipto-tn3.pdf P74

The difference between the different sectors is shown on P64

 

[Ferret]

I understand that, but as I've pointed out staff (in general) get a very good deal. I'm not convinced by any argument I've seen so far that people are entitled to above inflation pay rises at a time of recession, and feel its their right to screw the passenger and taxpayer for as much as possible.

Hmm, well in that case, read O L Leigh's eloquent post above....

And if you're still concerned about the railway company's being bled dry - you could always turn your fire against the leasing companies/banks who are taking the p*** out of all of us. You could probably halve taxpayer subsidies if the TOCs weren't fleeced for the 'privelege' of leasing in knackered old stock.....

 

[Metroland]

. You could probably halve taxpayer subsidies if the TOCs weren't fleeced for the 'privelege' of leasing in knackered old stock.....

The trouble is, this is just rhetoric. I'm equally against all people taking the **** and I want it to stop. But there is no evidence that you could half subsidy on this issue alone, although there is lack of competition

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9263

But the same applies to wage settlements, if many of these jobs were on the wider market and there was less barriers to entry, it would be impossible for the RMT and ASLEF to monopolise aspects of the labour market. Many people would, for example, do a drivers job for less, not more. This monopolization of various aspects of the industry is the key reason for constant cost rises, the government needs to open these areas up through the education system and licensing, as well as restructuring to allow competition where appropriate. Where you have monopolies, like all others, they should be regulated.

 

[Ferret]

Metroland, why do you constantly refer back to drivers in your examples all the time? Is it jealousy as I alluded to before? It's been explained to you ad nauseum why they are paid such a good wage. And as for their above inflation pay rises - they secured them by effectively selling their terms and conditions. They became more productive so the company reflected this by giving them a wage increase.

By competition, what are you suggesting? Are you advocating driving wages down by having people effectively bidding for drivers jobs saying "I'd do it for this"? So, driver goes to the bank manager and says "can I have a mortgage based on this salary....oh but hang on, better base it on £10,000 lower than that actually just in case some ******* goes to NatEx and says he'll undercut me". Please explain how you'd like this system of yours to work - it seems utterly ludicrous from where I'm stood...

 

[Metroland]

Well its not jealousy, I've told you, I want the network to expand, but there are many barriers to it doing so, principally cost increases. Why drivers? Well most of the strikes referenced in this post are from drivers, this is despite them being in the top 10-20% wage bracket.

Let's examine the facts.

Is there are shortage of people wanting to be drivers? No, several hundred people apply for each job. So what's the problem? The key reason is barriers to entry. I cannot get certification for the job, without going through a closed shop process. This is different to say truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and pilots.

The same applies to many other jobs in the industry. This is one reason pay demands and costs go up and real labour supply is squeezed.

One reason is the fixed nature of the railways, but perhaps something there could be done through technology in the longer term. But certainly changes need to be made so entry is much easier. If I was running a bus company or airlines, I could openly recruit staff and go into competition with some of these companies that doesn't want to provide a cost effective service and drive costs down and productivity up. And by the way, I am not in the business of having unfettered capitalism in operation, but a balance needs to be struck.

But this is why I am advocating the independent committees look at pay demands where you haven't got true markets or you have vital public services. Longer term, the railways will have trouble keeping costs down and competing without a serious look at these issues, which threatens their viability.

In short there is no way I can go to a college or school and get certification and bid to do the job at lower cost than someone else. This doesn't apply to most other industries, even in the transport sector, even ones more technically complex.

 

[asylumxl]

I do find it amusing the drivers don't feel at liberty to talk about the actual reasons for the action. Why should you expect to receive any sympathy or benefit of the doubt from the public when you won't even tell them why you are screwing them over and causing disruption? Honestly, what a joke.

 

[Ferret]

In short there is no way I can go to a college or school and get certification and bid to do the job at lower cost than someone else. This doesn't apply to most other industries, even in the transport sector, even ones more technically complex.

Lets take the example of a pilot then. Yes, you can go to Simflight or CSE and pay to train to be a pilot, but you can't then go to BA and say "hi there, I'm a qualified pilot and I'd like a job please, and I'll undercut old Captain Harris that has 20 years flying experience by £5k pa"

Have you actually looked at what proportion of overheads wages actually form? Like O L Leigh says, they're happy to pay out to directors and shareholders - the Quentin Fortesque-Smythes of this world who sit on their fat arses raking it in - but as soon as the very people that earn the money for the company want a fair share of the cake it's a case of go forth and multiply.

And Asylum, you'll probably find that O L Leigh is not at liberty to talk about such issues courtesy of his contract of employment..........

 

[Metroland]

Have you actually looked at what proportion of overheads wages actually form?

Yes I have, you obviously haven't clicked the link above. Its 25% for TOC costs, and at least another 20% for NR. So around 45% of costs, overall, are labour. That's excluding train building, consultancy and so on. I suspect the true costs are nearer 60% as they were in BR days.

As for shareholders, many are private individuals or companies which pay into pension schemes. Without investment (or return) it is impossible to raise money to invest in jobs.

Whereas you cannot undercut someone that has signed a contract of employment, when that contract ceases (either if they break the contract) or for other reasons you can replace them with others. The key point is the railway unions can get away with holding the public and companies to ransom, because there isn't an open pool of labour, for all sorts of reasons. In my view this needs to be regulated in favour of the public interest.

You might disagree and say staff T&C are more important, I'll put it to you, as a customer I'm more important than you are, without me your business would cease to exist. Therefore if the railways start to price themselves out of the market, because they fail to control costs, their future (and the people that work for them) is threatened. So it's actually in everyone's interests, including Mr Crow to engage in these issues.

 

[Ferret]

Yes I have, you obviously haven't clicked the link above. Its 25% for TOC costs, and at least another 20% for NR. So around 45% of costs, overall, are labour. That's including train building, consultancy and so on. I suspect the true costs are nearer 60% as they were in BR days.

So we'll call it 25% then, seeing as we're just discussing strike action by a TOC's employees. My point exactly - the TOCs themselves have a whole range of costs, not just their own employees but yet these aren't focused on. Is it just that you and indeed management see employees as an easy option?

As for shareholders, many are private individuals or companies which pay into pension schemes. Without investment (or return) it is impossible to raise money to invest in jobs.

So why does this entitle them to a larger share of the pie than those on the front line actually keeping the job moving? I don't deny that shareholders contribute to a business, but they should not take precedence over front line staff.

Whereas you cannot undercut someone that has signed a contract of employment, when that control ceases (either of they break the contract) or for other reasons you can replace them with others. The key point is the railway unions can get away with holding the public and companies to ransom, because there isn't an open pool of labour, for all sorts of reasons. In my view this needs to be regulated in favour of the public interest.

And against the interest of the very people who do the job. Thing is, if you've gone through pilot training or train driver training for that matter then you're likely to use that skill for the rest of your life. After all, it's not a skill that's interchangeable with other industries...! [yikes, what am I saying, what industry?] But if you're arguing that through natural wasteage then you should be able to reduce wages then how much impact would that have? I'd contend that the impact would be negligible and not actually the answer to a perceived problem....

 

[Metroland]

Well we're focussing on employees because the thread is about strikes. Profit margins for TOCs are around 2-5% from my understanding, so I'm not entirely sure that's the only issue.

If I had my way, it would all be co-operatives, there wouldn't be any capitalist markets in this sector. See, I'm not a narrow minded right wing, profiteering, the labour force don't count type.

But what I'm trying to get you to engage in, is a discussion about why you think employees deserve an above inflation pay rise with falling or softening revenues. I can understand people not wanting a cut in living standards, but I find it hard to understand (above inflation) pay demands in this sort of economic period.

Yes other costs should be cut, and the fat trimmed, but surely labour costs are part of that. Do you not think is is rather insensitive to be asking for more money, given the backdrop fares are going up anyway? Do you not think if other people's living standards are not going up, they deserve a freeze on rail fares? Do you agree having paid £88 I deserve the advertised train service?

And against the interest of the very people who do the job.

No its not, without people like me, what you don't understand is you don't have a job. While you might say, then I will have no train service, the reality is, I can travel in other ways. Of course I prefer to travel by train, I prefer other people to. But in the real world, they won't do at any cost, nor will they do so if they turn up and there is no services. So its very much in your interests to keep people coming.

I am very much for decent working conditions, and treating people correctly, but staff are not isolated from public opinion whether they like it or not. And I'm afraid strikes are not going to be popular and some people may take their business elsewhere, especially with extremely shaky justification. If you think there is a valid reason for strikes I would suggest you need to convince the public why - and there are valid reasons. So far all we get is 'Well we can't talk about that' and we deserve big pay increases - which may or may not be true, but its hard to see from where I am standing and the prices I am paying why and I have no doubt I'm not alone.

Finally, if you want to 'make money', go into a fully commercial business or start one of your own, the same goes for any other public sector employees, servants or employees or business that receive public money. Your occupation is about serving the public first, remuneration second.

 

[Ferret]

I can understand people not wanting a cut in living standards, but I find it hard to understand (above inflation) pay demands in this sort of economic period.

Simple. There are lies, more lies and then government statistics. Union members see prices rising for everyday commodities that they need to survive. How often do you buy a TV? Once every 5 years at best? You buy spuds and meat and butter and milk etc etc every day though...........

Yes other costs should be cut, and the fat trimmed, but surely labour costs are part of that. Do you not think is is rather insensitive to be asking for more money, given the backdrop fares are going up anyway? Do you not think if other people's living standards are not going up, they deserve a freeze on rail fares? Do you agree having paid £88 I deserve the advertised train service?

In a situation where shareholders and management are still taking their slice, do you find it unfair that Union members are asked to give up theirs? Yes, having paid up your £88 you should get the service you paid for but it's all too easy to blame the RMT and ASLEF rather than looking at the real cause of the problem............

..... without people like me, what you don't understand is you don't have a job.

Put simply, that's nonsense. Of course railway workers know that without customers we have no job. What an imbecilic comment you've made here and it does your argument no favours!

 

[Metroland]

What an imbecilic comment you've made here and it does your argument no favours!

Well at least I have one, you just want to line your pockets at my and others expense. You won't be reasoned with, we just hear all this nonsense about unions, management and various other twaddle nobody is really interested in and has little or no basis in fact. You have utterly unconvinced me, someone who actually knows about this industry why you deserve a pay rise, i dare say the Daily Mail readers will be less kind. Good luck to you, you'll need it.

 

[Ferret]

Well at least I have one, you just want to line your pockets at my and others expense.

Wrong. I just want to be paid a fair wage for the job I do, and not have it squeezed by the fatcats who haven't got a clue how to run a railway and shareholders who sit on their behinds and live off the hard work done by others.

And of course, the fact I have no argument is why I've engaged in a discussion with you for the past day and a half......................
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You have utterly unconvinced me, someone who actually knows about this industry why you deserve a pay rise, i dare say the Daily Mail readers will be less kind. Good luck to you, you'll need it.

Thanks.... would be much appreciated except for the fact I'm not actually going on strike:roll:

If you know so much about the industry, you'd have understood how drivers etc etc had secured above inflation pay rises over the years. Either you know nothing about it or you conveniently chose to ignore these facts (yes, facts - you know, the very things you claim I don't base anything I say on) to further your arguments, which are clearly based on little more than jealousy.

 

[Metroland]

Well the fact is, as I have pointed out, there is a limited supply of labour in a closed market, constant organised strikes. That's how they have secured a pay rise.

I think £35-50k is more than fair for a non graduate job, its more pay then nurses and teachers (both graduate professions, both have lots of responsibility and one works shifts). Its more pay than many IT professionals, graphic designers, many journalists, planners, engineers, firemen, many policemen, bus drivers, truck drivers and a whole host of jobs I could name.

It's not jealousy, all I'm asking for is a little bit of consideration for the wider issues, a voice of reason if you like, because this sort of action is going to make a lot of people extremely annoyed. If you don't believe me, listen to some radio phone ins and read the newspapers comments pages.

 

[Ferret]

Well the fact is, as I have pointed out, there is a limited supply of labour in a closed market, constant organised strikes. That's how they have secured a pay rise.

No, read back through the thread. It was done through productivity deals - effectively restrictive terms and conditions were 'sold' to get pay increases.......

I think £35-50k is more than fair for a non graduate job, its more pay then nurses and teachers (both graduate professions, both have lots of responsibility and one works shifts). Its more pay than many IT professionals, graphic designers, many journalists, planners, engineers, firemen, many policemen, bus drivers, truck drivers and a whole host of jobs I could name.

Yup, and many IT professionals, graphic designers, journalists (WTF?) and uncle Tom Cobbley and all couldn't do railway jobs if they tried. Just because somebody goes to Uni doesn't mean they should be entitled to more money than a train driver. How many graduates have worthwhile degrees - how many of them can even spell?!

It's not jealousy, all I'm asking for is a little bit of consideration for the wider issues, a voice of reason if you like, because this sort of action is going to make a lot of people extremely annoyed.

I'm sure it will. But you make out as though it's the fault of the Unions and their members - as though they actually want to go on strike. As I've said before, nobody wants to go on strike - ultimately it benefits nobody. But when backed into a corner, would you rather the members just capitulated and allowed themselves to be shafted?

 

[Metroland]

Its not all union members fault no, of course it isn't. Its just a shame there are so many strikes in this sector, which does little to improve public perception some of us try so hard to change. The industry and unions need to work a lot harder on positive aspects, and if disputes emerge the public should be engaged and kept on side, not alienated and made to feel like its would be so much simpler without them. Its our railway as much as yours when we rely on it and put so much money in.

 

[Ferret]

Its not all union members fault no, of course it isn't. Its just a shame there are so many strikes in this sector...

Really? Just as an example (I could name several others) I haven't heard of Virgin WC drivers striking for the last decade!!! Just goes to show what can be achieved by negotiation!

 

[O L Leigh]

I do find it amusing the drivers don't feel at liberty to talk about the actual reasons for the action. Why should you expect to receive any sympathy or benefit of the doubt from the public when you won't even tell them why you are screwing them over and causing disruption? Honestly, what a joke.

Come and talk to me on the picket line and I'll gladly tell you everything that's been going on. However, while there is a chance to negotiate a way out of this impasse it is not right that I risk "queering the pitch" by posting details openly on an internet forum.

Metroland: You talk a good case. Are you a company negotiator...?

Train driving is not a "closed shop". Anyone and everyone can apply and those taken on are done so on merit. It is a fair and open recruitment process.

The problem as I see it is that you would like your cake and eat it. While staff pay is an expense to any company, it is not a barrier to rail expansion. Unfortunately, claiming that driving down costs would open the floodgates of investment is just totally wrong. I say this so often that I sound like a stuck record, but it's the Government that runs the railway not private enterprise. Any cost savings achieved by screwing down on wages would just be offset against the bottom-line. The company could claim it was that much more profitable and pay it's shareholders bigger dividends and the top brass bigger bonuses.

There is a moral point that I didn't have time to expand on, but Ferret correctly identifies it. While there are industries that are struggling in the current economic climate, some are continuing to thrive as usual. In spite of the chaos of the first six months of this year, NXEA remain profitable. Now, while there is one aspect of a pay increase as a means of keeping pace with increases in the cost of living, it should also be a reflection of the company's performance over the past 12 months. However, what is happening (and not just on the railways) is that companies are attempting to fob off their staff with tiny increases or even pay freezes on the basis that things might get tough later. While I have some sympathy with employers who really do find themselves staring into the abyss, for the rest of them this is a morally unacceptable position. It's also mightily hypocritical if they're still paying out shareholder dividends and bonuses.

I'm not greedy and nor am I even particularly keen to strike. I have a lot of sympathy for people who will be getting no pay increase this year and even more for those facing redundancy. I'm just lucky enough to work in an industry where the employers are still making profits and it makes me hopping mad that they can use an economic crisis that just happens to be passing by to try and cement their position. As I said before, the railways are not facing a particularly challenging trading situation. They aren't worried about their future survival. All the TOC's are concerned about is safeguarding future profitability.

O L Leigh

 

[asylumxl]

Come and talk to me on the picket line and I'll gladly tell you everything that's been going on. However, while there is a chance to negotiate a way out of this impasse it is not right that I risk "queering the pitch" by posting details openly on an internet forum.

O L Leigh

If the picket line is anywhere near London, I might take you up on that...

 

[whoosh]

With regards to the strike on East Midlands Trains (which was suspended).

Firstly, yes the Train Managers and all the other staff at East Midlands Trains have been told they will not get a pay rise this year, unless it's paid for by productivity.
Many staff outside the rail industry will have been told the same.

Greedy EMT drivers eh? Wanting more money?

Hold your horses though. All the other staff have their pay anniversary in April, which is based on February's RPI (which was 0.0%), and I dare say most people outside the rail industry do too.
EMT driver's pay rise was due on 1st January 2009, and should be based on November 2008's RPI (which was 3%).

In fact, the Train Manager's and other staff's offer is better than the driver's one. They get RPI without having to do anything! Myself, as an ex-Midland Mainline driver, has to agree to several productivity strings to get ..... 3% (which I should get before any strings are attached!)

The pay deal should've been negotiated, agreed by, and implemented on 1st January 2009, but the management were "too busy with the December 2008 timetable" to talk about it at the end of last year. The first formal meeting was in January 2009, when no offer was made. Another meeting was scheduled to take place within the next two weeks, but this was delayed until the end of April.
Call me a cynic, but making an announcement about redundancies in other grades, telling all the other staff that they won't get a pay rise because there'll be no money after paying the drivers theirs, and seeing how low inflation will go in the meantime, are excellent tactics to undermine the drivers and make them look greedy for wanting a fair raise in pay for when they were due one.

In April, the company (part of the Stagecoach Rail Group, which made £55,700,000 in profits in the year to April 2009) made an offer of 1.5% with 15 productivity strings attached. Oh yeah, and no backpay - (which meant it was nearer 0.75% by the time it would have been sorted out) even though it was their decision to delay the pay talks.


Fast forward a few months, and the offer earlier this week was 3% for the ex-MML side, still with many productivity strings. It's these conditions that are the sticking point, with many drivers saying they'd rather have no rise at all, but with no changes to conditions (in effect a real-terms pay cut, as - just to remind you- RPI was 3% in November last year when talks should've been taking place). We're hardly the greedy pigs some people think we are.

The company either needs to raise the percentage and give a fair price for the conditions it wants to buy, or ask for less conditions to be sold, or perhaps give a new condition/benefit. Talks took place on Wednesday to try and come to an arrangement. 2.5% is mentioned now, but I don't yet know about the conditions.
Hopefully it will be sorted soon, as the money has been staying in East Midlands Trains bank account earning them interest.




Turning now to the NXEA dispute:

While there are industries that are struggling in the current economic climate, some are continuing to thrive as usual. In spite of the chaos of the first six months of this year, NXEA remain profitable. Now, while there is one aspect of a pay increase as a means of keeping pace with increases in the cost of living, it should also be a reflection of the company's performance over the past 12 months. However, what is happening (and not just on the railways) is that companies are attempting to fob off their staff with tiny increases or even pay freezes on the basis that things might get tough later. While I have some sympathy with employers who really do find themselves staring into the abyss, for the rest of them this is a morally unacceptable position. It's also mightily hypocritical if they're still paying out shareholder dividends and bonuses.

O L Leigh

I think one thing that needs to be clarified here is that, yes we are in a recession, it affects some industries while others can ride it quite happily. But the one thing that has come through industry meetings is that companies have a knack of utilising this economic crises to their benefit. In the print (my industry) there are companies basting in fairly healthy profits (but using the economic crises to reduce terms). I think it is all too easy for people to say "because some are in trouble...then we all are..." because a lot of that isn't true.

Indeed, many companies who are doing very well and making ££Millions, are using the "current financial climate" as an excuse not to give their staff a raise. I'd actually go as far as to say that such companies are actually prolonging the recession, by artificially restricting their employees' disposable income.

 

[Failed Unit]

The company either needs to raise the percentage and give a fair price for the conditions it wants to buy, or ask for less conditions to be sold, or perhaps give a new condition/benefit. Talks took place on Wednesday to try and come to an arrangement. 2.5% is mentioned now, but I don't yet know about the conditions.

This is one thing that annoys me about the press, as clearly this new offer which is 2.5% increase is better than the previous offer which was a 5% increase. (Yes I know strings were attached). The press leapt on this 5% figure with the gready drivers reject 5% when the rest of us are getting nothing, but never mentioned what the drivers were losing for this. I don't know the ins and outs but an example the press wouldn't mention using round figures.

Basic £100
Overtime (which is not compulsory) £50
Total for me £150

Pay rise £120
Overtime (0 as we must work this for love)
Total for me £120

The press would jump on my 20% pay rise but not the fact that my earning have really dropped as I no longer get overtime! I am sure the same kind of thing is happening at both EMT and NXEA, but the press just concentrates on the increase to the BASIC pay.

Where I work the CEO has just got a multi-million pound bonus, the companys profits are at a record. What do the staff get, some get layed off the rest get 0% increase and thier working week increase by 1/2 hour. The company claim that they can do this as everyone else is and we won't leave with the state of the employment market. We don't have unions, but when you see this kind of thing going on I don't begrudge the railway workers strike so much even if it does cause me problems getting to work. Management will take the p*** if they can get away with it. Hopefully when the economy picks up, we can all leave where I work and reward our management for the way they treated us in the bad times. Talking to lots of people the recession is been used as a way of cutting T&C and shafting employees, at least some of them have a way of sticking up for themselves.

 

[Metroland]

I think some people are still entirely missing the point.

As its already been acknowledged, the government controls the railways, this is play capitalism.

In this morning's Guardian, 16% cuts across all departments are being openly talked about. Now its not to say anything has been decided for the railways, but I think we can be fairly certain rail is going to have less money spent on it rather than more. Therefore, money has to be saved somewhere and everyone has to play their part.

I would politely suggest, that you should expect no rise in living standards for some years, maybe even a fall. Most people in this country and going to have to put up with exactly the same, public or private sector whether they like it or not. The cupboard is bare.

Even if productivity does rise I would suggest this needs to pay down subsidy take, not pay rises. So I will put my finger in the air and suggest the rail sector ought to be looking at reducing government subsidy by 1-2 billion, hopefully through efficiency rather than reduction in network or big job losses. Thank god passenger numbers are still, generally, increasing and there are pesky green issues, else I'd be certain we'd be looking at Serpell all over again.

 

[whoosh]

This is one thing that annoys me about the press, as clearly this new offer which is 2.5% increase is better than the previous offer which was a 5% increase. (Yes I know strings were attached). The press leapt on this 5% figure with the greedy drivers reject 5% when the rest of us are getting nothing, but never mentioned what the drivers were losing for this.

Ah yes the press release relating to what was offered before last Wednesday's talks, which mentioned, "Drivers on local and regional services were offered a 5.74% increase."

Only it wasn't actually that simple really:

Ex-Midland Mainline drivers were offered 3% backdated to January (unlike the offer in April!) with several productivity strings attached. [£37,433 to £38,556.]
Ex-Central trains drivers were offered 3% backdated to January, then from the date of the agreement being signed (July, if it had been) it would've gone up to half the difference between that rate and the ex-MML new rate. [£36461 to £37555 (3%) up until July, then to £38055 (4.37% compared with last years rate of £36461) for the remainder of the year.]

Then from next January a 1.13% rise to meet the ex-MML driver's new rate plus whatever next year's pay rise is (probably nothing!) [£38055 to £38556]. But that's next year.

They had more productivity strings than ex-MML drivers.


So the rise in earnings this year for ex-Central drivers, compared to last year is 3% x 6 months, plus 4.37% times 6 months, then divided by 12 months = 3.68%. That's assuming that all of July would be paid at the second rate - the ballot was returned in the middle of July, and also there are 13 pay periods every year not 12, as we are paid every 4 weeks. So the £38055 rate may have been a bit shorter, in which case the rise in earnings would've been slightly lower than 3.68%.


For the company to give out a press release saying it offered 5.74%, and for Tim Shoveller the Managing Director to be quoted as saying, "some employees standing to get an increase of nearly 6%," is highly misleading, as it completely fails to mention that this was a staggered rise which included an element of next year's pay and therefore wasn't over a period of just one year, which everyone reading it would've assumed was the case. Not to mention focusing purely on the money, failing to mention there were strings attached, and failing to mention the pay anniversary was in January not April like the majority of people.



The sad thing is people believe what's put in the press. I'm glad you're not one of them 'Failed Unit' - thanks for your support.

 

[Chris-P]

It's all well and good the rail unions deciding to strike, however it has to be realised that it's NOT just the company that's affected, the general public are, and while I feel that the union's stance is right regarding pay I can't help but think that by striking you are depriving the general population of a very important method of transport, in some cases the only way for them to travel.

In my opinion, this needs to be resolved in such a way that the public can still use the trains, even if still highly disruptive (i.e. 1 service an hour, or even 1 service every 2 hours calling at all stations, depriving the company of a lot of money and hammering the point home, but not totally depriving certain members of public of their only method of long-distance transport should it be needed)