Unite Network Rail Strikes Off

[Annetts key]

a few weeks ago, didn't the union negotiator recommend to the union leaders that the offer he had had qualified to be put to the vote, but the leadership declined too? which to me a bystander, seemed a bit strange...

Be careful here, because there is more than one RMT negotiator. And I assume you are talking about the RMT rather than Unite.

Also, the wording and the context needs to be understood. On the RMT Network Rail maintenance (including CAPEX and Works Delivery), the RMT National Reps have been very clear on what they think of what Network Rail have offered. The lead officer would have put this in the report that he gave to the NEC.

I don’t know what situation is for RMT Network Operations, but certainly there are plenty of signallers striking. But I don’t have a full picture across the whole company.

 

[AVK17]

I don’t know what situation is for RMT Network Operations, but certainly there are plenty of signallers striking. But I don’t have a full picture across the whole company.

The Ops reps on the national negotiating team are current signallers who have been released for union duties. The strikes so far have been solid on the Ops side.

 

[yorksrob]

Arthur Scargill led his troops up a hill demanding that "no pits shall close unless life expired".
He is still protesting he was right, but his industry has vanished, to be replaced mostly by off-shore wind farms.

I don't really see the comparison.

As a passenger, I don't really see the point of months of disruption for the sake of DOO. The trains I travel on would likely have a second person on anyway, it matters not to me what buttons they push.

The key point is that the management and the Unions appeared to have a deal lined up that would have spared me a lot of cost and disruption, yet the government saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue

 

[Thirteen]

a few weeks ago, didn't the union negotiator recommend to the union leaders that the offer he had had qualified to be put to the vote, but the leadership declined too? which to me a bystander, seemed a bit strange...

I do wonder if there is an element of stick it to the Government by the RMT which might be effective with the RDG because the DfT is in their purview but it's not as effective with Network Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

The strikes so far have been solid on the Ops side.

They have Not been solid. Not at all.

Hence why the RMT is not reporting as such.

 

[Starmill]

You do know that the RMT NEC are elected by the members, don’t you? If the NEC were to go against the will of the members, they will be voted out. The NEC are themselves workers.

That would imply a lot more cohesiveness about priorities within the membership base and the executive than there actually is.

 

[Exscrew]

They have Not been solid. Not at all.

Hence why the RMT is not reporting as such.

Well I'm my region they have been completely solid

 

[Starmill]

The key point is that the management and the Unions appeared to have a deal lined up that would have spared me a lot of cost and disruption, yet the government saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue

The offer at Network Rail is still being rejected however, at 5%+4% and nothing to do with DOO. Only by the RMT though. And only because the NEC recommended rejection.

 

[Towers]

As a passenger, I don't really see the point of months of disruption for the sake of DOO. The trains I travel on would likely have a second person on anyway, it matters not to me what buttons they push.

The key point is that the management and the Unions appeared to have a deal lined up that would have spared me a lot of cost and disruption, yet the government saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue

I'm really not sure that DOO is a "non-issue", though. It's one of the biggest & most significant changes that the government want to bring in, and indeed that various powers-that-be have seen as the holy grail of modernisation for years.

I'm not convinced by the 'sabotage' line, I think it far more likely that perhaps the RDG left it aside because they want a resolution, whilst the government felt that if it wasn't thrashed out now it would be a missed opportunity?

 

[yorksrob]

The offer at Network Rail is still being rejected however, at 5%+4% and nothing to do with DOO. Only by the RMT though. And only because the NEC recommended rejection.

I must admit, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the changes to the maintenance regime to comment. Perhaps my suggestions of transparency would assist the lay person to understand the argument.

However, from the Minister's interview on Today yesterday, it seems clear that the Government sabotaged the agreement which had been agreed without DOO.

 

[Falcon1200]

the government saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue

That could equally well read 'the RMT saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue', given that DOO has been in operation for 40 years and many RMT staff work or travel on DOO trains every single day.

I'm really not sure that DOO is a "non-issue", though. It's one of the biggest & most significant changes that the government want to bring in

A change which began 40 years ago! And which was not reversed in any way, let's not forget, under 13 years of Labour rule. What the RMT should be focussing on is the detail; What services does the Government/DfT/TOCs intend to convert to DOO? Surely not every UK passenger train, I find that hard to believe, and I cannot see that long distance services will ever run with just one member of staff, the Driver of course, on board. But there are are many other services where DOO would be quite reasonable, in for example the ludicrous situation between Glasgow and Edinburgh where one route is DOO but the others are not.

Regardless of the true situation concerning DOO, I do understand that staff have concerns, and the very least the TOCs should be saying is that no staff will be made redundant, or suffer any reduction in basic or take home pay, if DOO is extended.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm really not sure that DOO is a "non-issue", though. It's one of the biggest & most significant changes that the government want to bring in, and indeed that various powers-that-be have seen as the holy grail of modernisation for years.

I'm not convinced by the 'sabotage' line, I think it far more likely that perhaps the RDG left it aside because they want a resolution, whilst the government felt that if it wasn't thrashed out now it would be a missed opportunity?

Well, I'm a passenger and I want a resolution. And the government strenuously tell us at every opportunity that its between the management and the unions. The Government want to have their cake and eat it.

DOO really is a bit of a non-issue. Revenue needs to be collected and that means having someone checking tickets on the train. Guards can do it or someone else can, but the outcome is the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, I'm a passenger and I want a resolution. And the government strenuously tell us at every opportunity that its between the management and the unions. The Government want to have their cake and eat it.

DOO really is a bit of a non-issue. Revenue needs to be collected and that means having someone checking tickets on the train. Guards can do it or someone else can, but the outcome is the same.

I'm convinced that DOO bit was not put in in good faith, but rather as a spoiler so the deal would not be accepted. If you wanted to put DOO in you would say more about what you meant by DOO and where. DOO on all routes is just not going to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

That could equally well read 'the RMT saw fit to sabotage it for this non-issue', given that DOO has been in operation for 40 years and many RMT staff work or travel on DOO trains every single day.



A change which began 40 years ago! And which was not reversed in any way, let's not forget, under 13 years of Labour rule. What the RMT should be focussing on is the detail; What services does the Government/DfT/TOCs intend to convert to DOO? Surely not every UK passenger train, I find that hard to believe, and I cannot see that long distance services will ever run with just one member of staff, the Driver of course, on board. But there are are many other services where DOO would be quite reasonable, in for example the ludicrous situation between Glasgow and Edinburgh where one route is DOO but the others are not.

Regardless of the true situation concerning DOO, I do understand that staff have concerns, and the very least the TOCs should be saying is that no staff will be made redundant, or suffer any reduction in basic or take home pay, if DOO is extended.

I would simply say that the parties who are legitimately involved - The trades union and management, had reached an agreement, and that's where it should have stayed.

 

[Starmill]

DOO really is a bit of a non-issue. Revenue needs to be collected and that means having someone checking tickets on the train. Guards can do it or someone else can, but the outcome is the same.

This isn't the way the trade union sees it though.

A guard must be present, otherwise the train cannot run, but trains may run without a ticket inspector. A guard must also be trained to operate specific routes and types of train, which ticket inspectors don't.

That's what the dispute is actually about. Not door control.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm convinced that DOO bit was not put in in good faith, but rather as a spoiler so the deal would not be accepted. If you wanted to put DOO in you would say more about what you meant by DOO and where. DOO on all routes is just not going to happen.

I'm convinced that that is the case.

As a Northern passenger, I've already had a year and a bit of dispute on this subject three years ago, and it was equally a non-issue causing me grief then.

 

[Starmill]

I would simply say that the parties who are legitimately involved - The trades union and management, had reached an agreement, and that's where it should have stayed.

It's a bit of a stretch though to say there was an agreement. The figures of 5%+4% which have been offered by Network Rail aren't currently offer to TOC members without changes to conditions. Nor is it realistic to imagine that they will be to be honest.

 

[yorksrob]

This isn't the way the trade union sees it though.

A guard must be present, otherwise the train cannot run, but trains may run without a ticket inspector. A guard must also be trained to operate specific routes and types of train, which ticket inspectors don't.

That's what the dispute is actually about. Not door control.

As a passenger, I'm not greatly concerned about the technicalities. It's just not worth the at least two years so far of disruption it's caused me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2022 ==

It's a bit of a stretch though to say there was an agreement. The figures of 5%+4% which have been offered by Network Rail aren't currently offer to TOC members without changes to conditions. Nor is it realistic to imagine that they will be to be honest.

Until there's transparency around negotiations, we'll never know for sure, however it should have been for the negotiating parties concerned.

 

[A0]

Not at all. It's easier for the main combatants to sit in their office and ignore the situation if they're not forced to negotiate.

Except that's not what happens in any case except in a few cases of the most blockheaded union leaders.

The reality is the Unions want a settlement, because it's costing their members a loss of salary every day they're out and the management will be seeing a loss of revenue. So I don't see anyone not wanting to negotiate, it's just that the demands seem to be a long, long way from what's being offered and somebody's going to lose out or have to back down.

 

[A0]

Surely not every UK passenger train, I find that hard to believe, and I cannot see that long distance services will ever run with just one member of staff, the Driver of course, on board. But there are are many other services where DOO would be quite reasonable, in for example the ludicrous situation between Glasgow and Edinburgh where one route is DOO but the others are not.

Regardless of the true situation concerning DOO, I do understand that staff have concerns, and the very least the TOCs should be saying is that no staff will be made redundant, or suffer any reduction in basic or take home pay, if DOO is extended.

Exactly - I've pointed out before that you have DOO on Great Northern suburban services into Kings Cross, on Thameslink services on both the GN and Midland mainline, yet you don't have DOO on LNW Northampton / Milton Keynes services into Euston or Chiltern services to Aylesbury.

Perhaps somebody can explain what the fundamental difference between the Euston or Marylebone line suburban services is to those into St Pancras / Kings Cross that the former need guards and the latter don't ?

 

[Towers]

As a passenger, I'm not greatly concerned about the technicalities. It's just not worth the at least two years so far of disruption it's caused me.

But of course it if you believe that the future of your livelihood depends upon it. Striking RMT members, unsurprisingly, aren't too concerned about passenger inconvenience, that's sort of the point!

 

[yorksrob]

But of course it if you believe that the future of your livelihood depends upon it. Striking RMT members, unsurprisingly, aren't too concerned about passenger inconvenience, that's sort of the point!

Fair point, with the proviso that striking members livelihoods also depend on passengers turning up.

But in a situation as around here where you're generally going to need a second person on the train, it's for management to justify the change to the status quo and the two years + and counting of upheaval resulting from it. I can't see how they can justify it.

 

[Worldwide]

It will be interesting to see what the TSSA result will be.

I think the RMT just need to accept the fact modernisation needs to happen within Network Rail.

As essentially this modernisation is paying for the pay deal element, like all government departments effectiveness need to be made.

They have no compulsory redundancies until 2025 and no one is being forced onto the new contract.

CP7 funding has been reduced which will make next control period challenging.

If this is the drama now I dread to think what will happen when GBR comes in.

 

[Starmill]

As a passenger, I'm not greatly concerned about the technicalities. It's just not worth the at least two years so far of disruption it's caused me.

I was pointing out that your description of the dispute was fundamentally not correct.

 

[yorksrob]

I was pointing out that your description of the dispute was fundamentally not correct.

So you're saying that there wasn't a deal under negotiation that was torpedoed by the insertion of DOO ?

 

[Towers]

Fair point, with the proviso that striking members livelihoods also depend on passengers turning up.

But in a situation as around here where you're generally going to need a second person on the train, it's for management to justify the change to the status quo and the two years + and counting of upheaval resulting from it. I can't see how they can justify it.

You make a very relevant point!

And this I think is where some modern thinking needs to appear on the part of the unions. If passenger numbers remain supressed, and the current action certainly isn't helping it improve, we might well see for the first time actual cuts being made. I see no reason not to believe that the gvmnt are very much up for it, and of course that seriously dents the unions' power if it means lower headcount requirements.

 

[Carlisle]

That's what the dispute is actually about. Not door control.

Do you have any evidence of that? Significant strike action occurred in 2019 on WMR & SWR for no other reason than retention of door closing & dispatch duties .

 

[Watershed]

So you're saying that there wasn't a deal under negotiation that was torpedoed by the insertion of DOO ?

The rejection of a higher pay increase over at NR, with arguably fewer 'strings' attached, suggests that the deal would have been rejected even without DOO being inserted.

 

[yorksrob]

The rejection of a higher pay increase over at NR, with arguably fewer 'strings' attached, suggests that the deal would have been rejected even without DOO being inserted.

Maybe. Unfortunately the meddling has taken place now so we can't know.

 

[Starmill]

Do you have any evidence of that? Significant strike action occurred in 2019 on WMR & SWR for no other reason than retention of door closing & dispatch duties .

It has been accepted quite happily by RMT and Aslef at Greater Anglia and ScotRail within the past few years. There's no reason to believe that changes to door control wouldn't be on the negotiation table.

However, the offer from the RDG was that the RMT must accept the principle of a passenger train operated by a driver only, and negotiations would start from that point. RMT will not enter into any negotiations on that basis and reject outright the premise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2022 ==

So you're saying that there wasn't a deal under negotiation that was torpedoed by the insertion of DOO ?

Precisely. There was no such offer without the clauses which commit to RMT accepting the principle of DOO. And there's unlikely to be.