Even if true, that's hardly "exactly right" - @DanNCL said "days later", that's a pretty big difference and I think that matters when we're talking about it. Completely agree there was no opportunity for any sensible discussion of it. They say the offer was made at 1518 - rather precise, and hardly "late in the day"...
The overall point is that this offer has been awaited for months (my TOC was notified of being in dispute with ASLEF as of mid last year), and then this blanket “offer” is suddenly made late on a Friday afternoon, and sent to the media simultaneously.
Anyone who has ever done any kind of 9-5 office job thinks of 1518 on a Friday as quite late for anything major to happen, when people are disappearing off for the weekend. This was entirely tactical.
Probably not, but it's a tactic used by unions when announcing strike dates, for example. My point is not to condone the practice, but to acknowledge that unreasonableness comes both ways.
Hardly the same, is it? If strike dates are announced that has little to do with negotiation (it means it has failed), and it’s surely beneficial for the public to know strike dates ASAP. How is that unreasonable?
I have (more than the two particular TOC NRCs quote in the stuff they've circulated). None of them prohibit local negotiation. What makes discussion difficult is that in the current system is that TOCs are responsible to the DfT for changes to budget - as they have been for the past 2 and a half years. The politicisation of the discussions certainly make it difficult.
It seems you’ve either missed the bits regarding industrial action (or are trying to obfuscate?).
I’m not going to go into chapter and verse here because it’s too laborious, but the net result is that any dispute is required to be notified to the Secretary of State, with whom the operator must then agree how it is to be dealt with. This is why it’s so laughable that those occupying the office of Secretary of State have repeatedly claimed that negotiations are nothing to do with them.
The net result of these agreements is that TOCs have no effective ability to negotiate locally to resolve disputes with the unions. This position well known throughout all quarters of the industry, so I’m unsure why you seem to be suggesting otherwise?
A fair distinction to make, but the doc has their logo on it, and I haven't seen a fuss made about it until now.
The “fuss” (by which I assume you mean unions noticing that no negotiation is being allowed) has been going on for many months.
as for the tariff days to work they would have to be set at the pace of the slowest learners, rather than the fastest.
Not the case - they’re set around an average and often people need more. The risk of
not having a guaranteed minimum number of trips/hours is that people might be rushed through and potentially signed off when not competent. The agreed number also benefits the TOC by providing a benchmark by which questions can be asked if someone does need longer (ie is there a question around capability, have they been taking the training seriously etc) .
Exactly the same reasons underpin why a trainee driver needs a minimum number of hours before they are eligible for assessment.
It’s pointless, petty meddling with a system that has been proven to work well.
www.bbc.co.uk
