Scotrail - RMT Strike Ballot

[michael769]

Reality is that no-one on here knows what happened neither during the incident nor in the subsequent disciplinary hearings, and have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the case.

At the end of the day an industrial dispute takes two parties and inmost that end in strike both sides tend to bear some of the blame. In this case both Scotral and the RMT have used quite confrontational and unprofessional language in the media, presumably to further their own agendas. Unfortunatelly such behavior in unlikely to resolve this dispute.

Both sides had an opportunity to take the moral high ground and chose to squander that opportunity.

I am very concerned that the dismissed individual has has his name and recent employment history splashed all over the media, something that will severly predjudice his future employment prospects (mud no matter how unjustified sticks, and media mud is near imposdible to remove).

One can only hope that both sides come to their senses and discuss things in a professional manner in private. Only in this manner can the dispute be resolved and futher harm to the individual's public reputation be averted.

 

[PauloDavesi]

Perhaps the way forward is for the rail unions to seek significant conditions from the employers in exchange to agreeing to forgoing the right to take strike action. They could sell it to the public as 'putting the customer first' which would put massive pressure on the TOC's etc to accept sensible proposals.

All in the industry would benefit.

 

[Smudger105e]

Both sides had an opportunity to take the moral high ground and chose to squander that opportunity.

I accept the flavour of this comment, but put yourself in the position of the RMT officials. You have ballotted you membership for industrial action, and you have been mandated to organise that action. The Management of the Company say they want to talk to you, but will not talk about the item over which the industrial action was initiated. What other course would you take other than to say that the Management will not talk to us about the dismissal? I cannot see how the RMT can take the 'moral high ground' any more than they have.

Perhaps the way forward is for the rail unions to seek significant conditions from the employers in exchange to agreeing to forgoing the right to take strike action. They could sell it to the public as 'putting the customer first' which would put massive pressure on the TOC's etc to accept sensible proposals.

All in the industry would benefit.

This would go against everything that my Trade Union membership means to me. It would be physically impossible to cater for all circumstances. Or is the suggestion that the TUs would agree not to strike if the Company will not sack any of their members without agreeing it with the TU first? :P

Perhaps the way forward is for the management structures of the TOCs to accept mandatory independant binding arbitration in cases of staff sackings?

 

[GB]

Perhaps the way forward is for the rail unions to seek significant conditions from the employers in exchange to agreeing to forgoing the right to take strike action. They could sell it to the public as 'putting the customer first' which would put massive pressure on the TOC's etc to accept sensible proposals.

All in the industry would benefit.

What would the happen when the company decide to poo over the nice new conditions?

 

[A-driver]

The trade union and company can't predict every single eventuality that may cause a breakdown in industrial relations and so removing the right to strike wouldn't work.

I will point out that the railway isn't the only industry to see strikes and more so that there are very few strikes in the railway. There have been a few threats of strikes but very very seldom do these actually come to anything. As I said before, strike threats are a way of forcing management to actually talk to the union. No one wants a strike-least if all the union members as its bad publicity and means a day without any pay. The problem is the press report a strike ballot as a strike-they fail to recognise the difference.

 

[snail]

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.

Have you not heard of employment law? Most of what you claim is illegal, union or no union.

 

[Smudger105e]

and what for?

It is because the TOC has dismissed someone on charges which seem to be rather weak, where the punishment has not fitted the crime. A sledge hammer to crack a nut. If the chap had assaulted the passenger, dismissal would have been right, I don't think anyone on here would have agrued any differently. Had he sworn at her, dismissal would seem a little extreme to me, as it seems that he did nothing of this type, then surely would a written warning or some retraining have been a better course of action?

Sorry if I have upset people on here but this type of action has to stop.

I am sure that you have not upset anyone, your posts have not been personal. I agree that this should stop, and if the Management of the various companies did not take such draconian action against their staffs, there would be an immediate cessation of 'this type of action'.

 

[68000]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sacked-ticket-collector-who-sparked-1491085

THE Scotrail conductor whose sacking sparked a series of Christmas strikes has a history of run-ins with passengers.

Scott Lewis, 40, was fired over claims he made a passenger cry during a dispute in March.

But the Record has learned he had previously been disciplined for throwing a 13-year-old boy off a train at a deserted station for not having a valid ticket.

It is understood Mr Lewis was reprimanded for leaving the minor stranded at an unmanned stop, then failing to report the incident.

 

[Smudger105e]

Have you not heard of employment law? Most of what you claim is illegal, union or no union.

What he said was..

They are there to protect the workers interests. FACT
If they didn't exist then we would very quickly see the greedy rail companies forcing staff to work 7 days a week I used to work 7 days a week pre-Hidden.
on minimum wage FACT - any Company wants to pay staff as little as possible, this maximises profits
with no breaks we were entitled to 20 minutes between the 3rd and 5th hour under BR, this was negotiated by the Trade Unions.
12 hour days - I am rostered 12 hour shifts now, well 11 1/2 because my company have implemented an unpaid meal break which was paid under BR.
if staff tried to stand up to them they would be sacked and replaced. That is exactly how Companies treat contractors, and not just Rail Companies.


One incident does not, in my mind, constitute a history. How long ago did this previous incident occur? A final written warning only stays on your record for 2 1/2 years. And it would have been a final written warning only if it was gross misconduct. We are talking about a man's livelihood and career here. Or are we talking about a number?

 

[A-driver]

Have you not heard of employment law? Most of what you claim is illegal, union or no union.

What I said was an extreme case and i am aware it is illegal but employment law is something pushed for by the left wing politicians, I'm pretty sure if the unions didn't exist and the right wing MPs and MEPs could get it through we would see employment laws diminished. The torys have been trying to reduce employee protection lately in this country.

What people often forget about unions is that there are 2 sides here and depending on which paper you read only one gets properly reported.

The employers overall aim is to get maximum work out of employees for minimum pay. The union are the opposite, maximum pay for minimum work. Neither are right and so they negotiate to meet in the middle.

 

[michael769]

One incident does not, in my mind, constitute a history. How long ago did this previous incident occur? A final written warning only stays on your record for 2 1/2 years. And it would have been a final written warning only if it was gross misconduct. We are talking about a man's livelihood and career here. Or are we talking about a number?

Indeed. One must also wonder where this report came from and what the circumstances where? For example was said "deserted stop" actually in a busy town centre?

This was something I was concerned about. Mr Lewis now faces a public allegation based on a one sided report with no right of reply which any propective employer will find when they do a google serch for his name (routine practice these days). This cannot possibly be in his interests, even if he is reinstated, it will still be hanging over him if he ever tries to change job.

Hopefully both sides have not lost sight that there is a real human being at the heart of this dispute, and take action to mitigate the public harm to his reputation and future prospects.

 

[PauloDavesi]

It would seem that Mr Lewis has forgotten that the passenger he has mistreated, on the 2 reported occasions, and maybe many more times, "is a real human being".

Actually there is a press complaints procedure he can follow, and indeed also the legal route, if he feels the article in the Daily Record was incorrect. the fact that he hasn't and he hasn't used the industrial tribunal route to dispute his dismissal would suggest that the reported facts of his misconduct are actually correct

Would you really want to employ someone who treats your customers so badly?

 

[michael769]

It would seem that Mr Lewis has forgotten that the passenger he has mistreated, on the 2 reported occasions, and maybe many more times, "is a real human being".

Would you really want to employ someone who treats your customers so badly?

I can only presume that you are an eyewitness to the events, to have such certainty as to his actions and behaviour.

I hope you have come forwards and offered your witness evidence to Scotrail and the RMT to assist them in reaching a quick resolution to this dispute.

 

[Smudger105e]

It would seem that Mr Lewis has forgotten that the passenger he has mistreated, on the 2 reported occasions, and maybe many more times, "is a real human being".

Would you really want to employ someone who treats your customers so badly?

No.

IF and its a big IF, he has carried out these actions.

 

[MacRae13]

The operatives have agreed to the contractual terms for their employment and have agreed to abide by the companies rules and policies.

According to the union he was complying with the policies in his actions. Nevertheless, other rail unions along with the RMT are in discussion about withdrawing from those policies en bloc as they are so unreasonable.

If, the operative has broken those rules as is the case here

As is the case here? Present on the occasion were you? Privvy to the whole CCTV footage when the union were only shown excerpts are you?

I have no knowledge of the past displinary offenses, if any, of the dismissed operative.

Correct. So to include any mention of them is folly.

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

Then again, maybe not?

Perhaps the way forward is for the rail unions to seek significant conditions from the employers in exchange to agreeing to forgoing the right to take strike action.

Not sure if you're actually serious here or just having a laugh.

the fact that he hasn't and he hasn't used the industrial tribunal route to dispute his dismissal would suggest that the reported facts of his misconduct are actually correct

Why?

 

[scotraildriver]

What is particularly difficult for staff in ivolved in this dispute and why many failed to vote is that they feel the RMT has not given them sufficient information about what happened. Everyone wants to protect their colleagues but there are so many rumours etc (just look at this thread) and the RMT has done little to quash or otherwise these rumours it is difficult for people to make an informed decision. It has also become clear that the RMT had seen at least some CCTV footage of the incident but told members they had not when they sent ballot papers so there is some unease as to quite what the truth is in general. I really hope its sorted soon though.

 

[snail]

What he said was..

They are there to protect the workers interests. FACT

I never said they weren't.

 

[Smudger105e]

I never said they weren't.

No, you said most, but didn't specify which were and which weren't illegal.

 

[HH]

If they didn't exist then we would very quickly see the greedy rail companies forcing staff to work 7 days a week I used to work 7 days a week pre-Hidden.

Pre-hidden was BR. That was the government, not a company. Most companies don't want staff working 7 days a week; it's counter-productive.

on minimum wage FACT - any Company wants to pay staff as little as possible, this maximises profits

Not Fact at all. Take the case of John Lewis. Smart companies often pay more than the going rate to get better staff.

with no breaks we were entitled to 20 minutes between the 3rd and 5th hour under BR, this was negotiated by the Trade Unions.

That's not "no breaks" is it? Most UK rail staff get paid breaks, which is better than the average worker.

Of course rights have often had to be fought for, and TUs are necessary, but not every company is desperately trying to screw its workers; it's not good business in a service industry.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

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!.

Exactly. In my job I am part of a union and I almost had my job lost. Had it not been for the union rep being there I could currently be on the dole.

I have taken part in a strike because of the removal of specific things what I am entitled to when I signed up for my job. Do I regret it? No. I was willing to show solidarity with my brother workers. Yes I lost pay for that day but would I rather lose pay andkeep my entitlements compared to havingnot lose pay and lose said entitlements.

I would happily strike again

 

[A-driver]

Of course rights have often had to be fought for, and TUs are necessary, but not every company is desperately trying to screw its workers; it's not good business in a service industry.

No they are not, but every rail company certainly is. The amount of paperwork is to get any blame or liability off of them-if a driver has an incident the first thing the company to is try to ensure it is down to the driver and not company policy or training etc.

I'm afraid that sadly TOCs care nothing for their staff. Or passengers really-they have a shortish 10 year franchise or however long to maximise profits and that's what they do. John Lewis don't hold the franchise-they invest in the future and that's why they pay more for staff. Rail companies don't do that as if they don't win the next franchise then they have wasted money.

 

[Smudger105e]

Pre-hidden was BR. That was the government, not a company.

I don't thinkI said pre Hidden was not BR, did I?

Most companies don't want staff working 7 days a week; it's counter-productive.

Not Fact at all. Take the case of John Lewis. Smart companies often pay more than the going rate to get better staff.

See A Driver's post, this is not my experience of Rail Companies.

That's not "no breaks" is it? Most UK rail staff get paid breaks, which is better than the average worker.

From where to you get the data to make this argument? Most Rail staff get paid breaks? I work in the Industry, and do not know what conditions other grades within my own Company work under. Also, where is the data about the 'average worker'?

Of course rights have often had to be fought for, and TUs are necessary, but not every company is desperately trying to screw its workers; it's not good business in a service industry.

Please tell the Rail Companies, because that is not the experience of a large number of Rail Staff.

No they are not, but every rail company certainly is. The amount of paperwork is to get any blame or liability off of them-if a driver has an incident the first thing the company to is try to ensure it is down to the driver and not company policy or training etc.

I'm afraid that sadly TOCs care nothing for their staff. Or passengers really-they have a shortish 10 year franchise or however long to maximise profits and that's what they do. John Lewis don't hold the franchise-they invest in the future and that's why they pay more for staff. Rail companies don't do that as if they don't win the next franchise then they have wasted money.

Spot on post. In my experience the Train Operators (TOCs FOCs etc.) do not voluntarily give wage rises, for example, they have to be argued for by the TUs.

I must say that I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that certain people have the view that Trades Union are not necessary in this day and age, and then there are those who know that without Trades Unions, pay and coditions of service would be eroded at an alarming rate.

If a Rail TU takes industrial action, and it impacts on the travelling public, that is unfortunate, but it is not what a strike is devised for, it is desigend to hit the Company where it is most effective, in the pocket. All my opinion, of course...

 

[bnm]

No they are not, but every rail company certainly is. The amount of paperwork is to get any blame or liability off of them-if a driver has an incident the first thing the company to is try to ensure it is down to the driver and not company policy or training etc.

I'm afraid that sadly TOCs care nothing for their staff. Or passengers really-they have a shortish 10 year franchise or however long to maximise profits and that's what they do. John Lewis don't hold the franchise-they invest in the future and that's why they pay more for staff. Rail companies don't do that as if they don't win the next franchise then they have wasted money.

This 'us and them' attitude is what really counter-productive. It's always the staff who have useless managers and a cynical employer. It's never the staff who might actually be in the wrong. They can organise themselves collectively but that just means they can collectively make bad decisions.

If as a driver you have an employer that care's nothing for it's staff why don't you look elsewhere for employment? Nobody is forcing you to work for them.

 

[A-driver]

This 'us and them' attitude is what really counter-productive. It's always the staff who have useless managers and a cynical employer. It's never the staff who might actually be in the wrong. They can organise themselves collectively but that just means they can collectively make bad decisions.

If as a driver you have an employer that care's nothing for it's staff why don't you look elsewhere for employment? Nobody is forcing you to work for them.

I know no one forces me to work for them and I am very happy in my job-I wouldn't want to do anything else. That dosnt alter the fact that we have a poor relationship with our employers.

Most rail staff just turn up and get on with their jobs professionally without issue but it is very apparent that we are seen as a necessary evil.

I don't understand why you think that the staff may be in the wrong? Can you provide an example to explain what you mean?

And I don't see where you got the idea that I felt forced to work for my company? I never hinted at that, my previous posts were explaining what industrial relations are like and why the railway can't be compared to a business like John Lewis which models itself on customer service and top staff.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This 'us and them' attitude is what really counter-productive. It's always the staff who have useless managers and a cynical employer. It's never the staff who might actually be in the wrong. They can organise themselves collectively but that just means they can collectively make bad decisions.

If as a driver you have an employer that care's nothing for it's staff why don't you look elsewhere for employment? Nobody is forcing you to work for them.

I'm sorry Mac, I totally disagree with you here, the trouble is more with upper management and director level. The majority of those management have never say spent a week with a driver/guard/platform staff to actually know what it is really like, most local managers despair at a lot of the directives they get told to implement. My depot has good solid managers who are in a horrible situation at times and I put that firmly in the laps of the upper tier management and directors.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

Sad fact is, a lot of operations staff (especially BR era staff, but not exclusive to them) continue to see the railway not as a business but as something they're entitled to be a part of, and that they deserve all of the charity and the benefits and the welfare above all else.

There's a definite attitude problem amongst a lot of them, and an ever pervading "us and them" atmosphere between operations and management levels, just like the above poster said, of victimised front line staff and clueless chocolate munching office partying know-nothing's trying to squeeze every last penny out of them... never the other way around.

And I know that there are people here who've experience of both worlds who can testify exactly which of two parties are more like to dig their heels in or say "no" to something no matter what the question, just because they're used to saying it.

 

[A-driver]

It didn't help that we are rarely acknowledged by management when it comes to making changes etc. We (especially drivers) routinely report problems which cause delays or possible dangers and we are generally ignored for it. Some examples...

Eco driving-a manager with no train driving experience looks at how much energy can be saved with ECO driving. Basically it means taking power far far slower than we normally do. So that gets implemented and we are disciplined if we don't do it and take power too quickly. The time table dosnt change to reflect this so were as under normal driving we may be able to get 50mph between stations and do it in 2-3 mins under ECO driving we are lucky to reach 40 at lower acceleration and run 2 mins late between each station then get chased for delays.

Then there are stations we don't feel safe self dispatching in the rush hours as its impossible to see everything clearly in the mirrors or look back provided but nothing us done-sadly it will take a serious incident for management to turn around and accept there is a problem.

Or the constant minimum turn around a being used more and more in diagrams making it impossible to make up any lost time. When I worked on southern a few senior managers were paid to spend 2 weeks travelling on the vic- west Croydon via crystal palace service to find out why it always ran late and was the worst performing train in the country. Why didn't they just ask the drivers? We arnt as stupid as people think and we would all of given the true answer in minutes-its because we get minimum turn around a at either ends and un realistic timings en route for the driving policy the company forces on us. But they don't ask us as they know they won't like the answer!

 

[Goatboy]

As is the case here? Present on the occasion were you? Privvy to the whole CCTV footage when the union were only shown excerpts are you?

So if the Union has not seen the full episode how can they be sure they are on the 'right' side of this?

 

[YorkshireRider]

Pre-hidden was BR. That was the government, not a company. Most companies don't want staff working 7 days a week; it's counter-productive.

True but many railway employees do have rosters that have 7 day weeks, however they may also have 5 days off in a row also to balance this out, the rosters are 35 hour weeks (at least at EC) but averaged out over 12 week cycles. This is not a complaint, i think most staff prefer it this way but just worth pointing out.

 

[O L Leigh]

Sad fact is, a lot of operations staff (especially BR era staff, but not exclusive to them) continue to see the railway not as a business but as something they're entitled to be a part of, and that they deserve all of the charity and the benefits and the welfare above all else.

It is not a fact at all. You are making a very sweeping generalisation. No other industry seems to be so much in need of union representation for staff than the railways.

I joined the industry having worked in various other industries, including public sector. For the first few years I would have agreed with what you have said above. There were the "old lags" and "the awkward squad" that would undermine and moan about the management, deliberately misinterpreting instructions and the like. I wondered what it was all about because, to me at least, this was just management doing what management do. It was not so different to what I'd seen happening elsewhere.

But then in 2009 we had a dispute that resulted in strike action being taken, and the lead-up to that really opened my eyes. The way that the TOC dealt with the staff was simply disgraceful. Agreements were routinely ignored, staff were summarily dismissed, lies were told to us about the state of the company's finances, we were made a derisory pay offer, the TOC refused to enter into any constructive dialogue with the staff-side representatives, lies were told in order to attempt to split the unions. Basically there was a total breakdown in industrial relations and we'd had enough of it. If we'd been able to have a sensible dialogue this outcome could have been avoided, but the problem was that the management didn't seem to want it. Really and honestly, I have never worked in any industry where anything like this has happened.

There's a definite attitude problem amongst a lot of them, and an ever pervading "us and them" atmosphere between operations and management levels, just like the above poster said, of victimised front line staff and clueless chocolate munching office partying know-nothing's trying to squeeze every last penny out of them... never the other way around.

The problem is that there really is an "us" and a "them" because of the style of management applied to the operational side of the railway. Yes a lot of union business is dull and perhaps a little more confrontational than I would like, but it gets things done. But we do get edicts coming down from on high from one management wonk or another that make no sense. We look at them and fail to see the logic or purpose behind them, so of course we end up feeling agrieved. If it's an operational issue, why not come and ask us for some input? We all have experience and expertise, far more than is the case than the current inhabitants of the Ivory Tower. None of us want to have a SPAD or overrun, so we share knowledge to make sure that we guard ourselves against such things.

Would they try and squeeze every last drop out of frontline staff if given the chance? Very probably. Just look at what happened to the bus industry.

And I know that there are people here who've experience of both worlds who can testify exactly which of two parties are more like to dig their heels in or say "no" to something no matter what the question, just because they're used to saying it.

That's just rubbish, I'm afraid. You're making generalised statements because all you see from the outside are the times when industrial relations break down. What you don't see are the times when it is the management-side that says "no" to staff requests and suggestions (for which I can give you examples). You also do not see the many many times when both sides are in agreement about getting something done.

O L Leigh