RMT Talks

[Merle Haggard]

I'm not sure of the legislative details but railway pensions' indexing was changed from R.P.I. to C.P.I. by a vote in the H.o.C.. My recollection is that the vote was unanimous by the about 35 of our M.P.s who bothered to turn up.
This was done at a stroke with no consultation - at least not with members. Generally, C.P.I. gives lower increases than R.P.I..
There was an occasion a few years ago when the index figure was negative, but the pension was unchanged (i.e., no decrease).

 

[GardenRail]

Yes usually something like July's figure is used as a guide for the following years increase or that's how I have understood it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Sep 2024 ==

I can't see RPI disappearing from railway pay awards any time soon.

November RPI in Network Rail cases.

 

[winks]

What’s the latest re Network Rail pay offer ?

 

[12LDA28C]

Move on. RPI is no longer relevant in the rail industry and is just one of many reforms that need to be introduced sooner rather than later if the railways are to remain at the heart of UK plc.

Why are you telling me to 'move on'? Maybe you should tell the Government to 'move on' and use a different measure of inflation for increasing regulated fares.

For your enlightenment, this quote is taken from the ORR website, my bolding:

• Rail fares across Great Britain increased by 5.0% in 2024 compared with a 4.3% increase in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) between March 2023 and March 2024. Regulated fares increased by 5.1%.

Link here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-fares/

 

[GardenRail]

What’s the latest re Network Rail pay offer ?

Currently subject to an eReferendum taking place as we speak. Closes at 11am on the 25th September.

 

[dk1]

November RPI in Network Rail cases.

Apologies mate. I only knew it from the TOC side.

 

[GardenRail]

Apologies mate. I only knew it from the TOC side.

Not looking for apologies, just supplying a bit of info

 

[LowLevel]

It is important to note by the way that apparently TSSA are dragging their heels over the offer regarding pensionable pay for grades for which they hold bargaining rights at TOCs, which potentially means that even if RMT members vote to accept implementation could be delayed.

 

[Towers]

It is important to note by the way that apparently TSSA are dragging their heels over the offer regarding pensionable pay for grades for which they hold bargaining rights at TOCs, which potentially means that even if RMT members vote to accept implementation could be delayed.

TSSA can’t obstruct RMT grades receiving their rise, surely? Or do you mean just the affected grades who have representation from both?

 

[Lpf93]

TSSA can’t obstruct RMT grades receiving their rise, surely? Or do you mean just the affected grades who have representation from both?

They can. Collective bargaining agreement

 

[Geeves]

In the past TSSA members voted to accept a pay rise RMT members in clerical and booking office jobs rejected. Needless to say it didn't get anywhere because paying people different wages for their choice of union isn't a thing. Half the things that go on at TSSA don't make any sense.

I don't think it's going to make any difference and it will be a majority over minority situation. RMT are already voting. Just add as far as my TOC is concerned since ASLEF went on their own collective bargaining for all grades doesn't seem to be a thing

 

[Towers]

In the past TSSA members voted to accept a pay rise RMT members in clerical and booking office jobs rejected. Needless to say it didn't get anywhere because paying people different wages for their choice of union isn't a thing. Half the things that go on at TSSA don't make any sense.

I don't think it's going to make any difference and it will be a majority over minority situation. RMT are already voting. Just add as far as my TOC is concerned since ASLEF went on their own collective bargaining for all grades doesn't seem to be a thing

That would be my expectation, but of course it may vary depending on TOC & grade etc. I know of at least one TOC who ceased to recognise TSSA for collective bargaining purposes, so it would be difficult to see how it could have an impact there - unless this is something that has an effect at a national level of course? I can’t imagine the overwhelming majority of guards, station grades and other frontline staff who are RMT being overly impressed at TSSA delaying things!

 

[Elecman]

No different when RMT held up TSSA staff pay rise at Network Rail the other year due to Collective Bargaining of those staff grades

 

[jimjim]

TSSA have asked questions about whether any payment of arrears of contributions will take place when the pensions rates are reassessed in July 2025 as well as issues with people that have retired. Dft haven't answered those questions. I think it is pretty sensible to ask whether their members will end up with a bill next year before agreeing to a deal

I've heard on the grapevine that Aslef have had these questions answered from the Dft and they were happy. I'm not sure why the Dft haven't given TSSA the same response as it supposed to be the same no strings deal for everyone.

 

[officewalla]

Why are you telling me to 'move on'? Maybe you should tell the Government to 'move on' and use a different measure of inflation for increasing regulated fares.

For your enlightenment, this quote is taken from the ORR website, my bolding:

• Rail fares across Great Britain increased by 5.0% in 2024 compared with a 4.3% increase in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) between March 2023 and March 2024. Regulated fares increased by 5.1%.

Link here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-fares/

So what. RPI will not be used for pay increases whatever the dinosaurs within and without the unions say or think!

 

[12LDA28C]

So what. RPI will not be used for pay increases whatever the dinosaurs within and without the unions say or think!

Most likely not. But clearly plenty of organisations including the Government still consider it a valid metric when it suits their agenda, whether you agree or not.

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm not sure of the legislative details but railway pensions' indexing was changed from R.P.I. to C.P.I. by a vote in the H.o.C.. My recollection is that the vote was unanimous by the about 35 of our M.P.s who bothered to turn up.
This was done at a stroke with no consultation - at least not with members. Generally, C.P.I. gives lower increases than R.P.I..
There was an occasion a few years ago when the index figure was negative, but the pension was unchanged (i.e., no decrease).

Also note that RPI is being abolished in 2030, leaving only the existing CPIH as the alternative measure to CPI. While CPIH is often higher than CPI it's not always the case. My (non-railway) pension increases by RPI annually. Clearly it won't from 2030. Hopefully the annual increase will be the higher of CPI or CPIH.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Also note that RPI is being abolished in 2030, leaving only the existing CPIH as the alternative measure to CPI. While CPIH is often higher than CPI it's not always the case. My (non-railway) pension increases by RPI annually. Clearly it won't from 2030. Hopefully the annual increase will be the higher of CPI or CPIH.

It was interesting that it was government legislation that changed the railway pension, even though pensions are paid out of a fund built up entirely by employees' and employers' contributions. You wouldn't expect them to similarly legislate unilaterally for other pensions - for example, yours.

Just intrigued by the mechanism by which they did it.

 

[Tractor2018]

So what. RPI will not be used for pay increases whatever the dinosaurs within and without the unions say or think!

So what?

You said RPI is no longer relevant in the rail industry. That's what the poster quoted you on. It's been pointed out to you it is still relevant.

I understand it's a busy thread, but if you can't keep track of your own posting...........

 

[3RDGEN]

It was interesting that it was government legislation that changed the railway pension, even though pensions are paid out of a fund built up entirely by employees' and employers' contributions. You wouldn't expect them to similarly legislate unilaterally for other pensions - for example, yours.

Just intrigued by the mechanism by which they did it.

I am not sure it was legislation they just announced they would use CPI vice RPI for Public Sector pension increases. This was also applied to the RPS since the safeguarded staff pensions are effectively underwritten by the UK Taxpayer. I assume the other privatised industries had the same change?

"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business...PI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI)." - George Osborne's Budget announced that payments to retired public servants will now rise with inflation measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI). The government will now use CPI inflation to calculate "revaluation orders". These are the numbers most schemes use to ensure a final salary pension keeps pace with inflation between the time a member leaves their job and retirement.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I am not sure it was legislation they just announced they would use CPI vice RPI for Public Sector pension increases. This was also applied to the RPS since the safeguarded staff pensions are effectively underwritten by the UK Taxpayer. I assume the other privatised industries had the same change?

I am quite clear in my mind that there was a Commons vote on it, it sticks in my mind! I may have misunderstood what happened, but I even checked out how the vote went - the Commons was almost deserted with about 35 members present, unanimous vote. Presumably it's iN Hansard somewhere.
And I think it was only the railway pension scheme at that time - even though the railway pension fund has enormous reserves. Some of the other public sector pensions work, as I understand it, by paying current pensioners out of current workers' contributions. I can understand the Govt. being wary because they're totally on the hook for these (actually the taxpayer is), but if a pension fund like the railway one becomes insolvent there's a scheme to protect pensioners. This scheme is, I think, funded by a levy on all pension funds - it's sometimes described as 'the Govt. underwrites it' but that seems to just mean 'the Govt. makes sure that someone underwrites it'.
Is there a difference in treatment between safeguarded and not safeguarded staff for the pension fund? I thought it was about travel, not pensions, but again I might be wrong. I know current staff who are paying into the railway pension scheme but I'm not sure if they joined after 1996 (-ish).

 

[Bald Rick]

I am quite clear in my mind that there was a Commons vote on it, it sticks in my mind! I may have misunderstood what happened, but I even checked out how the vote went - the Commons was almost deserted with about 35 members present, unanimous vote. Presumably it's iN Hansard somewhere.
And I think it was only the railway pension scheme at that time - even though the railway pension fund has enormous reserves. Some of the other public sector pensions work, as I understand it, by paying current pensioners out of current workers' contributions. I can understand the Govt. being wary because they're totally on the hook for these (actually the taxpayer is), but if a pension fund like the railway one becomes insolvent there's a scheme to protect pensioners. This scheme is, I think, funded by a levy on all pension funds - it's sometimes described as 'the Govt. underwrites it' but that seems to just mean 'the Govt. makes sure that someone underwrites it'.
Is there a difference in treatment between safeguarded and not safeguarded staff for the pension fund? I thought it was about travel, not pensions, but again I might be wrong. I know current staff who are paying into the railway pension scheme but I'm not sure if they joined after 1996 (-ish).

Yes. If you joined the scheme before 5/11/93 (the date the Railways Act reveived Royal Assent) you are a ‘protected person’ and have certain additional benefits, principally the % reduction in pension you get for early retirment.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yes. If you joined the schem before 5/11/93 (the date the Railways Act reveived Royal Assent) you are a ‘protected person’ and have certain additional benefits, principally the % reduction in pension you get for early retirment.

I didn't realise that, thanks.
In the early 2000s, I understand that the Govt. changed the rules on the earliest that a pension could be taken without repayment of some of the tax relief on contributions from age 50 to 55. This probably would have reduced the number of people interested in taking an early pension. It also seems that the RPS had a rule rule that you could only draw a pension early if you were made redundant.

 

[officewalla]

So what?

You said RPI is no longer relevant in the rail industry. That's what the poster quoted you on. It's been pointed out to you it is still relevant.

I understand it's a busy thread, but if you can't keep track of your own posting...........

People can live in then past and quote outdated demands as much as they like but RPI is not and will not be used for pay settlements in the railways industry ever again in my opinion. The fact that it is still used by a small number of companies to continue to fleece the customer does not contradict my views in earlier posts. Just because it has been used in the past, does not mean that it is still the right metric to use especially as it has been discredited by economists and the like who now use the CPI or CPIH when discussing inflation.

 

[Val3ntine]

People can live in then past and quote outdated demands as much as they like but RPI is not and will not be used for pay settlements in the railways industry ever again in my opinion.

Interesting you say that with such conviction when I know of at least one TOC who have guaranteed a minimum RPI increase for their next pay anniversary in April 2025.

 

[Goldfish62]

It was interesting that it was government legislation that changed the railway pension, even though pensions are paid out of a fund built up entirely by employees' and employers' contributions. You wouldn't expect them to similarly legislate unilaterally for other pensions - for example, yours.

Just intrigued by the mechanism by which they did it.

I assume it goes back to privatisation. The railways were unusual if not unique that upon privatisation employees were not ejected from the railway pension scheme. In the bus industry for example, we were forced out of our public sector schemes and had to join vastly inferior schemes with our new employers.

With the railways the government conceded an exception, with membership of the railway scheme continuing. I assume that in return it gave the government an element of control over the scheme.

 

[GardenRail]

Well, the vote ended at 11am today, so we should find out Network Rail's result soon......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==

RATES OF PAY & CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 2024 – NETWORK RAIL



I write to advise you that the referendum has now closed, and the result is as follows: -



Are you prepared to accept the proposals?



Votes Cast: 13366

Voting ‘Yes’: 11864

Voting ‘No’: 1502



Congratulations on your patience and determination during this lengthy negotiation that started under one government and concluded under another.

 

[Marcel7179]

Well, the vote ended at 11am today, so we should find out Network Rail's result soon......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==

RATES OF PAY & CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 2024 – NETWORK RAIL



I write to advise you that the referendum has now closed, and the result is as follows: -



Are you prepared to accept the proposals?



Votes Cast: 13366

Voting ‘Yes’: 11864

Voting ‘No’: 1502



Congratulations on your patience and determination during this lengthy negotiation that started under one government and concluded under another.

Excellent work!

 

[GardenRail]

Excellent work!

Almost time to start negotiating for 2025.... Might be sorted for August, if we're lucky!

 

[Towers]

I see colleagues have been advised that TSSA are indeed now delaying proceedings, which must be rather irksome.