RMT statement discussion.

[modernrail]

Some posts split from this thread…

I do think going on strike at weekends just as British people finally get to emerge from a really yuck 2 years and hopefully have a bit of fun shows the sort of ‘solidarity’ railway workers seem to love, or at least their unions do and their members don’t pull them up on it.

 

[Annetts key]

Unions ARE the members. No modern union can take industrial action unless supported by the membership.

If a modern union takes industrial action, it’s because the majority of members have voted for the action.

 

[Moonshot]

Completely agree on TPE. Is is a route where long trains, efficient platforms etc are key but the infrastructure is just not able to take a 10 minute service so better to go longer and 4 per hour.

Every 15 minutes is fine if properly clock faced through the core and reliable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

TPE spotting the need to fill the mid-week former peaks?

Or just aiming to avoid [justified/unjustified/cynically timed [delete as appropriate] industrial action.

I do think going on strike at weekends just as British people finally get to emerge from a really yuck 2 years and hopefully have a bit of fun shows the sort of ‘solidarity’ railway workers seem to love, or at least their unions do and their members don’t pull them up on it.

Staff are perfectly entitled to go on strike.....they do vote for it after all. I ve no doubt that passenger numbers recovery post Covid is suffering because of it. Maximum passenger inconvenience sends a message. Expect more issues as RMT are now on warpath

 

[Glenn1969]

Unions ARE the members. No modern union can take industrial action unless supported by the membership.

If a modern union takes industrial action, it’s because the majority of members have voted for the action.

I thought it was if a majority of members that vote support the action. Which isn't always a majority of total members although IMHO it should be

 

[Annetts key]

I thought it was if a majority of members that vote support the action. Which isn't always a majority of total members although IMHO it should be

The union has to ballot the union members in the relevant group of staff that is relevant to the dispute. So you can’t ballot all members if the dispute only affects one group of staff.

Non union members (of that union) don’t get a vote.

Unions are very careful to comply with the law. As if they don’t, the employer will go straight to court and get an injunction.

No union takes industrial action lightly. There will always have been numerous talks between the union and the employers before the ballot (unless the employer refuses). And normally after the ballot, and before any industrial action.

Strikes normally only happen when discussions have broken down because the employer does not want to negotiate or continue meaningful discussions anymore.

 

[Glenn1969]

The union has to ballot the union members in the relevant group of staff that is relevant to the dispute. So you can’t ballot all members if the dispute only affects one group of staff.

Non union members (of that union) don’t get a vote.

Unions are very careful to comply with the law. As if they don’t, the employer will go straight to court and get an injunction.

No union takes industrial action lightly. There will always have been numerous talks between the union and the employers before the ballot (unless the employer refuses). And normally after the ballot, and before any industrial action.

Strikes normally only happen when discussions have broken down because the employer does not want to negotiate or continue meaningful discussions anymore.

What I'm saying is a strike should only be allowed if a majority of all affected members vote for it not just a majority of those that voted

 

[Annetts key]

What I'm saying is a strike should only be allowed if a majority of all affected members vote for it not just a majority of those that voted

Why? Already there is a minimum number of ballot papers that have to be returned. What you are basically saying is that if a ballot paper gets lost in the post, or a member does not feel strongly (either way) or wishes to abstain, this should all count as a no vote.

We don’t do this for any other election or voting system.

If you try to destroy a lawful and democratic system, all that will happen will be an increase in unofficial action. Which would cause far more chaos, as the employer can’t easily deal with wildcat unofficial walkouts.

 

[Glenn1969]

Why? Already there is a minimum number of ballot papers that have to be returned. What you are basically saying is that if a ballot paper gets lost in the post, or a member does not feel strongly (either way) or wishes to abstain, this should all count as a no vote.

We don’t do this for any other election or voting system.

If you try to destroy a lawful and democratic system, all that will happen will be an increase in unofficial action. Which would cause far more chaos, as the employer can’t easily deal with wildcat unofficial walkouts.

What I'm saying is the travelling public shouldn't be held to ransom by a militant minority. If the majority of all union members are in favour fair enough, otherwise not

 

[Annetts key]

What I'm saying is the travelling public shouldn't be held to ransom by a militant minority.

But what you suggest is no longer possible under the law as it stands (not including unofficial action).

 

[Fokx]

What I'm saying is a strike should only be allowed if a majority of all affected members vote for it not just a majority of those that voted

Which is exactly what happened

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

I do think going on strike at weekends just as British people finally get to emerge from a really yuck 2 years and hopefully have a bit of fun shows the sort of ‘solidarity’ railway workers seem to love

You are aware that those ‘British people finally getting to emerge from a yuck 2 years’ also applies to the staff of the railway.

It’s not one or the other. Staff have suffered just like the rest of the population, some of them more so due to having to work and isolating from higher risk family etc

 

[Techniquest]

What I don't get about that though is this whole 're-emerging after 2 years'. I suspect a lot of people haven't done much for 2 years, but I would suggest the majority of us have been out on our travels etc for quite some time now. Not so much in 2020 of course, and not too much in 2021 either for the first part of the year, but there have been plenty of options to go out and about!

 

[Annetts key]

You are aware that those ‘British people finally getting to emerge from a yuck 2 years’ also applies to the staff of the railway.

It’s not one or the other. Staff have suffered just like the rest of the population, some of them more so due to having to work and isolating from higher risk family etc

And as most front line railway employees were considered essential workers, unless isolating, they continued to go to work. To put up with the various antivirus measures (one way systems in buildings, taking your temperature and logging it when entering a building, limited numbers of staff in kitchen areas, mess rooms, locker rooms, plastic barriers, masks, gloves, cleaning pool road vehicles before every use, having to clean multiple user computer keyboards and mice before every use, travelling on trains with others which at first, in the early days was a bit scary, having meetings outside and learning how to use video conferencing which was a sharp learning curve for the technophobes) which all changed daily life.

And then, there was the fear, that while at work, or travelling to/from work, you may catch COVID19 and then take it home and infect your own family.

Why should railway employees not have the right to ask for a reasonable pay rise?

 

[Techniquest]

Quite right there, I'm not on the railway but had similar things to deal with in my own workplace. A pay rise of a reasonable amount wouldn't go amiss, and I am wholly in support of the railway employees getting a good pay rise too. Only fair!

 

[Ken H]

And as most front line railway employees were considered essential workers, unless isolating, they continued to go to work. To put up with the various antivirus measures (one way systems in buildings, taking your temperature and logging it when entering a building, limited numbers of staff in kitchen areas, mess rooms, locker rooms, plastic barriers, masks, gloves, cleaning pool road vehicles before every use, having to clean multiple user computer keyboards and mice before every use, travelling on trains with others which at first, in the early days was a bit scary, having meetings outside and learning how to use video conferencing which was a sharp learning curve for the technophobes) which all changed daily life.

And then, there was the fear, that while at work, or travelling to/from work, you may catch COVID19 and then take it home and infect your own family.

Why should railway employees not have the right to ask for a reasonable pay rise?

Who is paying? The taxpayer? I thought government borrowing was out of control. The passenger? Maybe he has had no payrise through Covid. And maybe he has been working through it all doing deliveries, maintaining stuff etc.

 

[Fokx]

Who is paying? The taxpayer? I thought government borrowing was out of control. The passenger? Maybe he has had no payrise through Covid. And maybe he has been working through it all doing deliveries, maintaining stuff etc.

Railway workers are tax payers too…

If there’s plenty in the pot to give to dodgy PPE contracts and for MPs to receive a rise on top of their expenses (all paid for by the tax payer) then there’s plenty in the pot to give people like me a rise inline with inflation.

 

[baz962]

Who is paying? The taxpayer? I thought government borrowing was out of control. The passenger? Maybe he has had no payrise through Covid. And maybe he has been working through it all doing deliveries, maintaining stuff etc.

I'm not necessarily advocating a payrise. But you are right , others are deserving of a payrise. However , it's up to railway staff to fight for their rise and the delivery and maintenance staff are welcome to fight for theirs.

 

[Annetts key]

Who is paying? The taxpayer? I thought government borrowing was out of control. The passenger? Maybe he has had no payrise through Covid. And maybe he has been working through it all doing deliveries, maintaining stuff etc.

That’s alright then, shall we agree that no one, EVER, should get any pay rise in future then?

Inflation is unfortunately affecting the vast majority of the working population plus those on benefits or pensions. It’s doing what it always does, reduces the value of the currency, so in order to buy the same amount of goods, you have to pay more.

An argument like yours has been wheeled out for any/all government workers or workers employed by any industry or service funded by, or part funded by government. Or funded by, or part funded by a tax.

Government borrowing is nearly always out of control (standard conservative propaganda apart from when they cut taxes just before a general election).

And I do believe that the government lets ticket prices go up in line with RPI every year, regardless of what else is going on.

And this year (today in fact) the National Insurance rate has gone up.

 

[Ken H]

That’s alright then, shall we agree that no one, EVER, should get any pay rise in future then?

Inflation is unfortunately affecting the vast majority of the working population plus those on benefits or pensions. It’s doing what it always does, reduces the value of the currency, so in order to buy the same amount of goods, you have to pay more.

An argument like yours has been wheeled out for any/all government workers or workers employed by any industry or service funded by, or part funded by government. Or funded by, or part funded by a tax.

Government borrowing is nearly always out of control (standard conservative propaganda apart from when they cut taxes just before a general election).

And I do believe that the government lets ticket prices go up in line with RPI every year, regardless of what else is going on.

And this year (today in fact) the National Insurance rate has gone up.

I was not saying that. But remember, one mans pay rise is another mans tax hike or price increase. And he may not have the muscle to get his income increased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s alright then, shall we agree that no one, EVER, should get any pay rise in future then?

That would be the unachievable ideal. The best inflation rate is zero. That would involve no annual pay rises at all and nothing "going up" as a matter of course unless it had somehow got bigger or better. You would get a pay rise by getting a promotion.

Unfortunately, deflation is very harmful, and it's very hard to control inflation. Thus, typically we settle on a low single-figure rate of inflation as a "least worst", which is why we are where we are.

 

[Ken H]

That would be the unachievable ideal. The best inflation rate is zero. That would involve no annual pay rises at all and nothing "going up" as a matter of course unless it had somehow got bigger or better. You would get a pay rise by getting a promotion.

Unfortunately, deflation is very harmful, and it's very hard to control inflation. Thus, typically we settle on a low single-figure rate of inflation as a "least worst", which is why we are where we are.

Some of us remember the hyper inflation of the late 60's, early 70's. Not good times.

 

[yorksrob]

That would be the unachievable ideal. The best inflation rate is zero. That would involve no annual pay rises at all and nothing "going up" as a matter of course unless it had somehow got bigger or better. You would get a pay rise by getting a promotion.

Unfortunately, deflation is very harmful, and it's very hard to control inflation. Thus, typically we settle on a low single-figure rate of inflation as a "least worst", which is why we are where we are.

Doesn't the BoE officially aim for 2% inflation, which is therefore presumably the ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't the BoE officially aim for 2% inflation, which is therefore presumably the ideal.

The ideal is zero. 2% is a pragmatic "just above zero so we won't end up below it as that is Really Bad(tm)".

It's like car speedometers. The ideal is that they are absolutely bang-on accurate. But it's an offence to be even 1mph under, so they typically read about 5% over.

 

[yorksrob]

The ideal is zero. 2% is a pragmatic "just above zero so we won't end up below it as that is Really Bad(tm)".

It's like car speedometers. The ideal is that they are absolutely bang-on accurate. But it's an offence to be even 1mph under, so they typically read about 5% over.

I remember reading that deflation is a bad thing (not that I've ever experienced it).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember reading that deflation is a bad thing (not that I've ever experienced it).

The problem with deflation (prices reducing) is that it causes the value of your money to increase, so you don't spend it, because next week it'll be worth more. That lack of spending causes economic collapse.

You do sort of see it in one industry - IT - where computer hardware, in real terms, continues to get both better and cheaper all the time.

 

[lammergeier]

Doesn't the BoE officially aim for 2% inflation, which is therefore presumably the ideal.

I believe they aim to keep it under 2%, as opposed to aim for 2%.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe they aim to keep it under 2%, as opposed to aim for 2%.

Ah, but over zero.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, but over zero.

Yes. You aim for low single figures because below zero is very harmful. Zero would be ideal, but is unachievable.

 

[JamesT]

I believe they aim to keep it under 2%, as opposed to aim for 2%.

No, they aim for 2% - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation

What happens if we don't meet this target?
If we miss the inflation target by more than 1 percentage point either side of the target, we must tell the Government why.

So if the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation rate is more than 3% or less than 1%, our Governor writes a letter to the Chancellor to explain why and they set out what we'll do to get it back to 2%.

We publish the Inflation letters our Governor sends to the Chancellor.

 

[SJL2020]

Yes. You aim for low single figures because below zero is very harmful. Zero would be ideal, but is unachievable.

Keynes said that a small amount of inflation is good for an economy, as it helps thwart the paradox of thrift.
Internationally, most policy makers seem to have settled on 2% p.a. as the ideal inflation rate.

Also worth noting that there is nothing wrong with real wage levels rising, so long it is broadly in line with the underlying rate of productivity growth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Keynes said that a small amount of inflation is good for an economy, as it helps thwart the paradox of thrift.

I'd not agree with him, because of one simple fact - in a normally functioning economy, the interest rate is typically higher than the rate of inflation, so if you put your money in the bank it does grow beyond inflation.

Internationally, most policy makers seem to have settled on 2% p.a. as the ideal inflation rate.

As the best rate to aim at, as it's low enough not to cause harm but high enough not to end up in deflation.

Also worth noting that there is nothing wrong with real wage levels rising, so long it is broadly in line with the underlying rate of productivity growth.

Yes, true. In essence, in zero inflation, stuff costs more when it's better in some way. A more productive workforce is better and so should be paid more.