Scotrail - RMT Strike Ballot

[PauloDavesi]

Would it be too much to hope that when Scotrail's management revue their staffing numbers they take into account which operatives acted to deliberately harm the business and make that information a key factor in deciding who gets promoted or released?

Every time the customer is inconvenienced by strike action is yet another additional reason for the taxpayer to stop subsidising the rail industry.

 

[jopsuk]

Taking part in a legal strike action is (supposed) not be held against an employee. Even Thatcher kept that protection for unions.

 

[A-driver]

Would it be too much to hope that when Scotrail's management revue their staffing numbers they take into account which operatives acted to deliberately harm the business and make that information a key factor in deciding who gets promoted or released?

Every time the customer is inconvenienced by strike action is yet another additional reason for the taxpayer to stop subsidising the rail industry.

You can not be victimised for being in a union or on strike. That can not form any part of any hr procedure.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

You can not be victimised for being in a union or on strike. That can not form any part of any hr procedure.

but it happens so very often

 

[PauloDavesi]

Is it 'victimisation' if the employer takes into account actions by an operative that are deliberately designed to harm the company? I'd say it was sensible management to ensure such disruptive & harmful individuals are replaced as soon as possible.

 

[jopsuk]

Whilst as ANorthernGuard says it does happen, the legal status of it supposedly not happening is really the very foundation of unions; that participation in collective action can/should not be held against you. Strip that away, you basically have no union

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Would it be too much to hope that when Scotrail's management revue their staffing numbers they take into account which operatives acted to deliberately harm the business and make that information a key factor in deciding who gets promoted or released?

Every time the customer is inconvenienced by strike action is yet another additional reason for the taxpayer to stop subsidising the rail industry.

Sorry for standing up for what we believe in aka our rights, maybe if more people had some backbone this country would not be in the sorry state it is in, yes at one stage unions did have too much power and that power was abused especially in the 70's and early 80's, nowadays there are a lot more rules governing strikes and how they are conducted, I am damn proud to be part of a union and will continue to be, if people choose not to be in a union fine by me, but when they see themselves on the scrapheap because they had no one to fight for them, it would be their own fault and no one elses. maybe, just maybe if some of these corporate clowns who have no idea about the actual people who work for them came down once in a while and actually saw the job and the hassles and the problems and also the praise that we (sometimes) get, maybe just maybe they realise its the employees that make a company work and not the overpaid fat cat directors sat on their collective backsides wearing their rose tinted thousand pound shades. and I am sorry if I ever strike again if it causes an "inconvenience" but to be blunt protecting my Job, my safety and my rights is slightly more important to myself than someone having to get up 20 minutes earlier for work!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it 'victimisation' if the employer takes into account actions by an operative that are deliberately designed to harm the company? I'd say it was sensible management to ensure such disruptive & harmful individuals are replaced as soon as possible.

aaah so you want corporate robots who go yes sir no sir..I am sure you would go far.

 

[A-driver]

Whilst as ANorthernGuard says it does happen, the legal status of it supposedly not happening is really the very foundation of unions; that participation in collective action can/should not be held against you. Strip that away, you basically have no union

And if that was allowed to happen then we would basically end up with slavery.

People can be as anti union as they like but unions are not actually there to cause trouble. They are there to protect the workers interests. If they didn't exist then we would very quickly see the greedy rail companies forcing staff to work 7 days a week on minimum wage with no breaks, 12 hour days etc etc and if staff tried to stand up to them they would be sacked and replaced. That isn't far off slavery.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Whilst as ANorthernGuard says it does happen, the legal status of it supposedly not happening is really the very foundation of unions; that participation in collective action can/should not be held against you. Strip that away, you basically have no union

It happens way to often, half of the disputes tend to be about management bullies attempting to force people out who are involved in union activities> but you never see papers report that now do we?

 

[jopsuk]

The guy that was running that construction industry blacklist of union "agitators" got off rather lightly.

 

[PauloDavesi]

By becoming personally insulting, the rail operative shows the major problem of his industry, the total lack of realisation that the heavily subsidised industry is there to provide a service to customer.

 

[Greenback]

PauloDavesil plse cease trying to goad other members into retaliating. It is not illegal to take industrial action, and to suggest that anyone who takes part should be disciplined or dismissed is just about guaranteed to create a hostile response.

 

[A-driver]

Whilst we rarely do sit spare as has been explained I think there is an obvious difference between the railway and certain other industries when it comes to staffing levels-in many jobs if someone is off sick then others can (and often have to) work even harder-work through lunch, do 2 things at once etc.

That's not possible when it comes to driving or guarding trains. We can't drive 2 trains at once, it takes physical time to get to places of work-if I drive the 1023 to peterbourgh I can't then also drive the 1145 to Cambridge from London as I couldn't physically get from peterbourgh back to London in 5 minutes.

That is why the need for spare men is so essential. Then there is the fact that people going sick is also more 'essential' (for want of a better word) as unlike most jobs we can't take any medication and work. If I wake up with a cracking headache I can't take a pain killer and go to work, I have to declare what I am taking and then I won't be allowed to drive a train that day so someone else has to do it for me.

I have sat spare (as in done no work at all) when down on the roster as spare 3 times in 5 years and on average I am rostered spare every other shift. Normally you get a job off spare when the roster comes out.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Whilst we rarely do sit spare as has been explained I think there is an obvious difference between the railway and certain other industries when it comes to staffing levels-in many jobs if someone is off sick then others can (and often have to) work even harder-work through lunch, do 2 things at once etc.

That's not possible when it comes to driving or guarding trains. We can't drive 2 trains at once, it takes physical time to get to places of work-if I drive the 1023 to peterbourgh I can't then also drive the 1145 to Cambridge from London as I couldn't physically get from peterbourgh back to London in 5 minutes.

That is why the need for spare men is so essential. Then there is the fact that people going sick is also more 'essential' (for want of a better word) as unlike most jobs we can't take any medication and work. If I wake up with a cracking headache I can't take a pain killer and go to work, I have to declare what I am taking and then I won't be allowed to drive a train that day so someone else has to do it for me.

I have sat spare (as in done no work at all) when down on the roster as spare 3 times in 5 years and on average I am rostered spare every other shift. Normally you get a job off spare when the roster comes out.

Yep pretty much the same as us. some people really do not see the real railway, they just see what tabloids want them to see.

 

[PauloDavesi]

The fact remains that the taxpayer heavily subsidises your industry, and a large number of the operatives within your industry have an appalling attitude towards the customer.

 

[marks87]

How much stock can we put in ScotRail's claim that a "near-normal" service will run next week?

I'd been planning a trip to Inverness next Saturday, but normally in these situations it's the central belt that's protected and nothing goes north of Stirling.

 

[michael769]

How much stock can we put in ScotRail's claim that a "near-normal" service will run next week?

I'd been planning a trip to Inverness next Saturday, but normally in these situations it's the central belt that's protected and nothing goes north of Stirling.

I think the only thing to do is to wait until the actual running information is released at the start of next week. Typically the Express Group Services (which includes Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness) get the highest priority and will be the last to be cut - so I would hazard a guess that services to Inverness from the central belt will be running, with perhaps some early morning cancellations. On the other hand the Far North Line is likely to be one of the first to be dropped - but it often gets replacement buses.

The BBC are reporting that talks this morning have been unsuccessful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20735655

 

[ANorthernGuard]

you seem to have a total lack of realisation that the people you would like to turn into corporate robots are people with RIGHTS who work damn hard to keep the network running as smoothly as it does (all things considered) people do not like losing money especially after christmas but they are willing to do it for what they believe in and actually we provide a hell of a good service to the "customer" considering the age of our rolling stock and the fact that staffing levels have been reduced so much that as soon as there is a bug or something similar going around a depot trains get cancelled because there are no spare men to cover and not enough people to cover even with rest day working

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The fact remains that the taxpayer heavily subsidises your industry, and a large number of the operatives within your industry have an appalling attitude towards the customer.

a small number probably does have an appalling attitude like in any industry and the Taxpayer is also the staff who works on the railway and we pay a lot of tax. yes it is heavily subsidised but without subsidy the majority of lines would be shut, plain and simple then there would be no railway to speak of

 

[A-driver]

There are very few rail employees with such a bad attitude to the customer than you say there are. Most will try there best to help the customer but what you have to bare in mind is that most customer facing roles (and many on minimum wage) spend the majority of their day being sworn at, called a jobs worth, assaulted, treated like absolute dirt for just doing their job and if any do try and stand up for themselves they face being sacked for being rude to a customer who may well have been far ruder to them!

Only last weekend a woman asked me if her advanced ticket for an up Cambridge cruiser an hour layer could be used on my train (an hour earlier). I explained that I don't really know anything about ticketing but that I wouldn't have thought she could use it on a different train but suggested she speak to booking office staff who know about ticketing. Did she say 'ok, we'll thanks anyway'?! No, she mumbled 'you are completely useless, all of you, just trying to fleece us out of as much money as possible, f'kin jobsworth' and walked off.

 

[bb21]

This thread has now been reviewed by the moderation team. Please ensure that further discussion remains strictly on topic. Thanks.

 

[Smudger105e]

This thread has now been reviewed by the moderation team. Please ensure that further discussion remains strictly on topic. Thanks.

Nice one, my friend(s). Keep up the great work, moderating is all too often a thankless task, so thank you to all the mods on these forums.

Anyway, back on track...

So Bob Crow apprently says that Scotrail have refused to discuss the reinstatement of the sacked member of staff. Scotrail have not denied this (also apparently).

I have seen this sort of stand-off occur all too frequently over the years. It is sad that there seems to be no common ground to delay or eliminate the industrial action, as no-one wants it, RMT members, Scotrail and certainly not the travelling public. In my experience, this situation often arises because certain Managers want to 'put the Union in its place' or they have an inflated ego, and are determined to do what they feel is right. This may not be the case with this dispute, of course.

One issue I have with the disciplinary process is that the Company puts the charges, they listen to the evidence of the 'prosecution' (which is themselves) and 'defence', and then make up their minds whether they are right or not. They are Judge, Jury and Executioner! I believe we should have independant bodies to make these decisions. Why not ACAS involvement?

 

[PauloDavesi]

It is the role of management to manage the organisation and the workforce to meet its contractual and legal obligations.

The operatives have agreed to the contractual terms for their employment and have agreed to abide by the companies rules and policies. If, the operative has broken those rules as is the case here, and taking into account the nature of the offense and the operatives previous conduct, the employer is right to dismiss the operative to ensure no further harm is done to the company and its customers.

 

[jopsuk]

Those that whine that train staff do "spare" turns are also those that complain loudest when a service is cancelled due to "lack of available traincrew" in all likelihood.

 

[GB]

Those that whine that train staff do "spare" turns are also those that complain loudest when a service is cancelled due to "lack of available traincrew" in all likelihood.

Very true indeed, can't have it both ways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is the role of management to manage the organisation and the workforce to meet its contractual and legal obligations.

The operatives have agreed to the contractual terms for their employment and have agreed to abide by the companies rules and policies. If, the operative has broken those rules as is the case here, and taking into account the nature of the offense and the operatives previous conduct, the employer is right to dismiss the operative to ensure no further harm is done to the company and its customers.

Without wishing to go back through 11 pages, what previous conduct is being brought into question.

 

[A-driver]

It is the role of management to manage the organisation and the workforce to meet its contractual and legal obligations.

The operatives have agreed to the contractual terms for their employment and have agreed to abide by the companies rules and policies. If, the operative has broken those rules as is the case here, and taking into account the nature of the offense and the operatives previous conduct, the employer is right to dismiss the operative to ensure no further harm is done to the company and its customers.

Agreed, but when the management twist their own rules that people have signed up for and refuse to fairly hear the employees side of a story then what should happen? Are you saying the employee should just roll over and not fight their employer? That's what unions are there for.

 

[the sniper]

It is the role of management to manage the organisation and the workforce to meet its contractual and legal obligations.

The operatives have agreed to the contractual terms for their employment and have agreed to abide by the companies rules and policies. If, the operative has broken those rules as is the case here, and taking into account the nature of the offense and the operatives previous conduct, the employer is right to dismiss the operative to ensure no further harm is done to the company and its customers.

I suppose in your world though when management decide to screw their employees and customers, that is just fair enough, as anything management do to purely benefit their shareholders is undoubtedly for the greater good.

 

[A-driver]

Sometimes I wish I lived in the fantasy worlds of some posters on this forum-life seems so much simpler there where everything is back and white without any 'real world' complications.

 

[PauloDavesi]

@GBFreight, I was talking in general terms. I have no knowledge of the past displinary offenses, if any, of the dismissed operative.

However, it could be that his misconduct classed as serious enough to warrant his immediate dismissal anyway.

 

[A-driver]

@GBFreight, I was talking in general terms. I have no knowledge of the past displinary offenses, if any, of the dismissed operative.

However, it could be that his misconduct classed as serious enough to warrant his immediate dismissal anyway.

It could, and I can assure you that the vast majority of times the union will not then ballot for industrial action over that particular case. I sadly know of a few rail staff who have lost their jobs who the union won't back because of obvious infringements in various rules and contractual obligations etc.