Unite Network Rail Strikes Off

[yorksrob]

To the passengers it makes little difference which strike is which, it's part of the same industrial action

 

[Thirteen]

To the passengers it makes little difference which strike is which, it's part of the same industrial action

I do wonder if passengers have come somewhat immune to rail strikes? The RMT for better or worse are most associated with rail industrial action, it's not quite the same for say nurses or paramedics because they so rarely strike so it makes much more impact when they do.

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder if passengers have come somewhat immune to rail strikes? The RMT for better or worse are most associated with rail industrial action, it's not quite the same for say nurses or paramedics because they so rarely strike so it makes much more impact when they do.

That's an interesting point.

The rail unions are part of the railway scenery but we're (the passengers) also part of the railway scenery and we turn up

We're immune to the extent its convenient.

 

[Chester1]

Brexiters have been incredibly sore winners, most Remainers have moved on.

@PaulM is demonstrating why it appears to many brexiteers that remainers haven't moved on. I agree most remainers have moved on but there is a vocal minority who haven't at all. I read a news article recently that said the real brexit divide is between those who want to make the best of the situation and see the country prosper outside of the EU regardless of how they voted and those that want things to fail. Those being purists that can't work with the EU at all and those that think the worse things get the more likely we are to rejoin. The former I ignore and the latter I ask about Schengen, the Euro and how we would get unanimous support of all 27 members....

I moved on very quickly but I know a couple of people as angry as they were the day after the referendum and frankly after this long they are likely to stay like that the rest of their lives.

RMT more or less reflected the view of its members on brexit. That's their job!

 

[PaulMc7]

@PaulM is demonstrating why it appears to many brexiteers that remainers haven't moved on. I agree most remainers have moved on but there is a vocal minority who haven't at all. I read a news article recently that said the real brexit divide is between those who want to make the best of the situation and see the country prosper outside of the EU regardless of how they voted and those that want things to fail. Those being purists that can't work with the EU at all and those that think the worse things get the more likely we are to rejoin. The former I ignore and the latter I ask about Schengen, the Euro and how we would get unanimous support of all 27 members....

I moved on very quickly but I know a couple of people as angry as they were the day after the referendum and frankly after this long they are likely to stay like that the rest of their lives.

RMT more or less reflected the view of its members on brexit. That's their job!

I've moved on but I can also point out just how big a mess it is. The RMT have to get the best for their members but anyone with any foresight whatsoever knew how bad this would be and after doing a spell in recruitment, it's the biggest eye-opener I've had into how bad Brexit has made things. The UK won't have any chance to prosper outside of the EU until we get better politicians than what we currently have. Labour and the Tories are beyond hopeless.

 

[Chester1]

I've moved on but I can also point out just how big a mess it is. The RMT have to get the best for their members but anyone with any foresight whatsoever knew how bad this would be and after doing a spell in recruitment, it's the biggest eye-opener I've had into how bad Brexit has made things. The UK won't have any chance to prosper outside of the EU until we get better politicians than what we currently have. Labour and the Tories are beyond hopeless.

Multiple OT posts didn’t give that impression!

Your second to last sentance is my view. People who say brexit can't work ignore that every developed country outside of the EU + EEA isn’t in a customs union or single market with its neighbours. Its not to say those things aren’t a good idea but they are not prerequisites of being a rich well functioning country.

I suspect the RMT executive has changed substantially since 2016.

 

[SynthD]

every developed country outside of the EU + EEA isn’t in a customs union or single market with its neighbours. Its not to say those things aren’t a good idea but they are not prerequisites of being a rich well functioning country.

Please can you rewrite this without the double negatives. I’m lost.

 

[43066]

Please can you rewrite this without the double negatives. I’m lost.

Can you point out the double negatives? I can’t see any, and it reads perfectly well to me.

 

[coppercapped]

Only about five people even know that exists…

Interesting that you are suggesting that practically all of the RMT's members don't know what is in Rule 1 of their own Union's rule book but at the same time the impression is given that a majority of them are deeply concerned with the details of the changes in the Terms and Conditions of employment as it applies to them.

In the event it doesn't actually matter whether the members are aware that such a clause exists - although it doesn't show them in any good light if they are unaware of what they have signed up to - what matters is if the five people that know about it are in the management of the Union and who are, I hope, scrupulous in upholding the contents of the Rule Book.

It is, at least to this member of the general public, not clear which public statements and actions of the RMT union's executive should be placed under the 'trades disputes' heading and which under the heading of 'supersession of the capitalist system'.

Until this matter is clarified I suggest that a strong suspicion will remain that the RMT speaks with forked tongue and is using its members for a political purpose under the guise of a trades dispute.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an anti-union rant by some swivel-eyed Tory backwoodsman but a plea for transparency.

I’d hazard a guess more RMT and (especially) ASLEF members vote Tory than believe that old guff. A bit like the stuff about Cuban fishermen (is that still a thing) .

 

[Annetts key]

It is, at least to this member of the general public, not clear which public statements and actions of the RMT union's executive should be placed under the 'trades disputes' heading and which under the heading of 'supersession of the capitalist system'.

The RMT is very careful to comply with the relevant laws regarding being involved with political matters.
This current dispute started due to the railways wanting ‘modernisation’. The RMT has attended talks for many, many months (as detailed in many topics on these forums). As have the other trade unions. The industrial action is taking place for only one reason, in the talks with the various railway companies, there is very little movement to the middle ground by the railway companies on issues that are important to the RMT and it’s members. And there has been two or more ballots for industrial action by the RMT members.

If you think the RMT is trying to go down the route of the supersession of the capitalist system, could you please link to any significant signs of this please? Because otherwise, I would say that it’s unsubstantiated and off topic.

 

[Chester1]

Please can you rewrite this without the double negatives. I’m lost.

I am not challenging that they [single market and customs union] are good idea but they are not a prerequisites of a rich well functioning country.

I agree with Pauls post that what we need to improve our national situation is good leadership and governance. That gets us back on topic because it is what is needed to deal with the current strikes.

 

[43066]

Interesting that you are suggesting that practically all of the RMT's members don't know what is in Rule 1 of their own Union's rule book but at the same time the impression is given that a majority of them are deeply concerned with the details of the changes in the Terms and Conditions of employment as it applies to them.

In the event it doesn't actually matter whether the members are aware that such a clause exists - although it doesn't show them in any good light if they are unaware of what they have signed up to - what matters is if the five people that know about it are in the management of the Union and who are, I hope, scrupulous in upholding the contents of the Rule Book to the letter.

Why would they know, and why would they care?

You are completely missing the point that joining a union on the railway is a largely pragmatic decision, based on one’s employment situation, rather than some grandiose political statement.

These are tiny organisations (ASLEF and RMT combined number barely over 100k members), with next to no real political influence, but which have a very large impact on the working environment in this industry. I say that as an ASLEF member, who has precisely no idea what “rule 1.6 of the ASLEF constitution” might be. Why would I need to know?

By the same token, as shift-workers, surely it’s obvious why those same people have good cause to be “all over” the finer points of their employment contracts? Those agreements dictate what time one starts work, finishes, and (crucially) how much that start and finish time can be varied etc.

I would ask, why are (certain) people on here continually getting their knickers in a twist over the finer points of unions’ constitutions, to a level their own members don’t even bother to do? It’s a bit like how we keep being told that we all vote a certain way in disputes because we’ve been duped, rather than because we want a pay rise/not to see our Ts and Cs burned before our eyes…

I can see no reason for this scrutiny other than to invent yet more reasons to attack unions, and to perpetuate the conspiracy theory that, unlike the wounded and vicious political party running this country, via their third attempt at a government without a GE, minor trade unions somehow pose an existential threat to democracy in 2022 UK, and of course every member is some kind of Marxist drone being remotely controlled by Mick Lynch?!

It’s for the birds.

It is, at least to this member of the general public, not clear which public statements and actions of the RMT union's executive should be placed under the 'trades disputes' heading and which under the heading of 'supersession of the capitalist system'.

Until this matter is clarified I suggest that a strong suspicion will remain that the RMT speaks with forked tongue and is using its members for a political purpose under the guise of a trades dispute.

Most members of the general public have no such suspicion because they are also blissfully unaware of the finer points of the unions’ charters. Do most Tory/voters delve into the constitutions of the respective political parties before voting? Of course not.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an anti-union rant by some swivel-eyed Tory backwoodsman but a plea for transparency.

For avoidance of doubt, I’d likely meet many peoples’ definition of a “swivel-eyed Tory backwoodsman”, but I’m still a paid up union member...

 

[railfan99]

63/37, but agreed.

I wouldn’t say it is an ‘overwhelming’ rejection. As it stands, only 52% of the members voted to reject it.

It will be interesting to see what RMT do next, as they will surely know that more members will now be coming in to work.

As one from Australia affected on two days in October when many rail employees struck during my rail holiday, these continuing strikes do the international image of the UK no favours.

I "get it" that inflation is a problem, as it is throughout much of the world.

But unfortunately, big wage rises tend over time to result in a 'spiral' where prices rise faster than they would otherwise have.

I hope the RMT can come to its senses and accept the deal put forward. The leadership seems oblivious to how every time members strike, it results in a few more locals abandoning rail as their preferred or most used method of commuter or long distance transport.

This doesn't assist the long term future of rail, which we all care about.

Notably, those who've been on strike have probably already lost at least five per cent of their annual earnings in the UK rail sector in 2022. There comes a time when it's better to accept an agreement rather than remain obstinate.

 

[Sheridan]

Why would they know, and why would they care?

You are completely missing the point that joining a union on the railway is a largely pragmatic decision, based on one’s employment situation, rather than some grandiose political statement.

These are tiny organisations (ASLEF and RMT combined number barely over 100k members), with next to no real political influence, but which have a very large impact on the working environment in this industry. I say that as an ASLEF member, who has precisely no idea what “rule 1.6 of the ASLEF constitution” might be. Why would I need to know?

Speaking as a member of a rail union, I genuinely find this quite surprising. Why would you not want to know what you’re signing up to? Yes you get a say in the day-to-day terms and conditions of your role, but you’re also signing up to something larger. I don’t understand why you would be wilfully ignorant of that.

Obviously, as you say, it can be a pragmatic decision and if you decide the benefits of union representation outweigh the costs of signing up to a ideology you don’t subscribe to then that’s totally understandable. But just to say it’s irrelevant seems odd. You’re paying over £350 a year to be a member, after all!

 

[43066]

As one from Australia affected on two days in October when many rail employees struck during my rail holiday, these continuing strikes do the international image of the UK no favours.

I "get it" that inflation is a problem, as it is throughout much of the world.

But unfortunately, big wage rises tend over time to result in a 'spiral' where prices rise faster than they would otherwise have.

I hope the RMT can come to its senses and accept the deal put forward. The leadership seems oblivious to how every time members strike, it results in a few more locals abandoning rail as their preferred or most used method of commuter or long distance transport.

This doesn't assist the long term future of rail, which we all care about.

Notably, those who've been on strike have probably already lost at least five per cent of their annual earnings in the UK rail sector in 2022. There comes a time when it's better to accept an agreement rather than remain obstinate.

And you know all that, based on two days on holiday in the UK?! Including how much RMT members have lost in terms of their earnings….

Of course you do mate.

Speaking as a member of a rail union, I genuinely find this quite surprising. Why would you not want to know what you’re signing up to? Yes you get a say in the day-to-day terms and conditions of your role, but you’re also signing up to something larger. I don’t understand why you would be wilfully ignorant of that.

Which rail union do you belong to?

I belong to mine primarily because it’s a way to better my pay and conditions….

Why did you join yours?! We will soon find out who is wilfully ignorant….

 

[Sheridan]

Which rail union do you belong to?

I belong to mine primarily because it’s a way to better my pay and conditions….

Why did you join yours?! We will soon find out who is wilfully ignorant….

I joined mine for the same reasons, and as I said that’s perfectly valid and normal. I just think it’s a bit disingenuous to say ‘why would they know and why would they care’ when your subs are being used to further that cause.

 

[Chester1]

And you know all that, based on two days on holiday in the UK?! Including how much RMT members have lost in terms of their earnings….

Of course you do mate.



Which rail union do you belong to?

I belong to mine primarily because it’s a way to better my pay and conditions….

Why did you join yours?! We will soon find out who is wilfully ignorant….

I joined mine for the same reasons, and as I said that’s perfectly valid and normal. I just think it’s a bit disingenuous to say ‘why would they know and why would they care’ when your subs are being used to further that cause.

Which rail staff don't have a choice of recognised unions for their grade?

 

[Sheridan]

Which rail staff don't have a choice of recognised unions for their grade?

I’ve not got a clue and I’m not sure why you quoted my post when asking that.

 

[43066]

I joined mine for the same reasons, and as I said that’s perfectly valid and normal. I just think it’s a bit disingenuous to say ‘why would they know and why would they care’ when your subs are being used to further that cause.

Which railway union do you belong to? Why won’t you say?

I disagree. My union (ASLEF) subs mostly support the union itself (I’ve opted out of the political levy), which furthers my interests in the job that I do, not sure what “cause” it is you think I’m supporting? Politically I generally vote against it.

 

[Chester1]

I’ve not got a clue and I’m not sure why you quoted my post when asking that.

Sorry I thought the union you are a member of is a rail one.

 

[Sheridan]

Which railway union do you belong to? Why won’t you say?

I disagree. My union (ASLEF) subs mostly support the union, which furthers my interests in the job that I do, not sure what “cause” it is you think I’m supporting? Politically I generally vote against it.

ASLEF supports many causes which would be considered left-wing, both within the UK and around the world. Of course its main purpose is to further the aims of its members. As I said at the start, it’s fine to be a member purely because of that aspect and not the former. I just thought that when you said ‘why would I need to know what x rule is’, that it was quite blasé - why wouldn’t you want to know what your union stands for in the wider sense?

(Fwiw I have agreed with almost all of your posts on this thread!)

 

[the sniper]

I’m saying Turkeys don’t tend to vote for Christmas…

RMT and Brexit says otherwise....

This would have been more true if the RMT had supported remain. In the context of the railway, the EUs pursuit of rail market liberalisation is almost completely incompatible with the position of the likes of the RMT. I'm not sure how people struggle with the basic principles involved, other than being blinded by their own grievances and opinions on the wider matter.

I would ask, why are (certain) people on here continually getting their knickers in a twist over the finer points of unions’ constitutions, to a level their own members don’t even bother to do? It’s a bit like how we keep being told that we all vote a certain way in disputes because we’ve been duped, rather than because we want a pay rise/not to see our Ts and Cs burned before our eyes…

It's usually indicates the point at which the ammunition is running out. To me it merely highlights the weakness of their position, while I imagine they think they're throwing out some real zingers...

 

[PaulMc7]

This would have been more true if the RMT had supported remain. In the context of the railway, the EUs pursuit of rail market liberalisation is almost completely incompatible with the position of the likes of the RMT. I'm not sure how people struggle with the basic principles involved, other than being blinded by their own grievances and opinions on the wider matter.



It's usually indicates the point at which the ammunition is running out. To me it merely highlights the weakness of their position, while I imagine they think they're throwing out some real zingers...

One of the main issues with the railway in the UK is staffing and a lack of it hence the need to rely on rest day working more than ever before. Covid didn't help but Brexit has absolutely battered staffing levels in every industry. As I said in a previous post, I worked in recruitment for a period of time and honestly people have no idea how much of a difference Brexit has made on staffing.

If the cost of living also doesn't get driven up as much as it has, a lot of this strike action doesn't happen either in my opinion. The need for big payrises would be far smaller than it now is.

Brexit has harmed the railway industry a lot more than the general public probably realise. My mindset is driven from a staffing point of view and as well as protecting worker rights and conditions.

It didn't take a genius to know Brexit with the Tories in charge would be a major disaster. People are correct to be very disappointed in the fact it was allowed to happen.

Do I think the UK could have prospered outside of the EU? Yes, but you'd need to rip up the entirety of Westminster and start again with actual top quality politicians who actually live in the real world and would be affected by any negative side effects of horrendous decisions made by government for it to prosper.

We need people with no association to Eton or second incomes that make their MP wage pocket change compared to what they gain outside of Westminster.

The strikes in the railway industry could go on until the next general election if truth be told purely because this current crop of Tories don't remotely care as the railway being unaccessible doesn't affect them at all. They're just a bunch of scumbags and that's me being polite.

 

[Bantamzen]

One of the main issues with the railway in the UK is staffing and a lack of it hence the need to rely on rest day working more than ever before. Covid didn't help but Brexit has absolutely battered staffing levels in every industry. As I said in a previous post, I worked in recruitment for a period of time and honestly people have no idea how much of a difference Brexit has made on staffing.

If the cost of living also doesn't get driven up as much as it has, a lot of this strike action doesn't happen either in my opinion. The need for big payrises would be far smaller than it now is.

Brexit has harmed the railway industry a lot more than the general public probably realise. My mindset is driven from a staffing point of view and as well as protecting worker rights and conditions.

It didn't take a genius to know Brexit with the Tories in charge would be a major disaster. People are correct to be very disappointed in the fact it was allowed to happen.

Do I think the UK could have prospered outside of the EU? Yes, but you'd need to rip up the entirety of Westminster and start again with actual top quality politicians who actually live in the real world and would be affected by any negative side effects of horrendous decisions made by government for it to prosper.

We need people with no association to Eton or second incomes that make their MP wage pocket change compared to what they gain outside of Westminster.

The strikes in the railway industry could go on until the next general election if truth be told purely because this current crop of Tories don't remotely care as the railway being unaccessible doesn't affect them at all. They're just a bunch of scumbags and that's me being polite.

Its an interesting point, one of the big remain arguments was that being outside out of the EU would lead to higher prices. And it did. Yes there have been subsequent issues that have caused even more price rises, but Brexit is in the mix for sure. So it is possible to a degree that had we stayed put, prices wouldn't be going up so much, and thus demand for high pay rises would have been less resulting in less industrial action.

You are also right in that we need politicians who come from the real world, not the airy fairy, wakey wokey, middle class left or the arrogant, silver spoon fed, fat cat right but from the people in the factories, shops & offices. People from both sides of the political spectrum who actually understand how things work outside of Westminster & the after dinner speech network. People that understand how the decisions of politicians can & do affect the lives of ordinary people. We need politicians that once again represent us, not their bank balance. Maybe then they would be a bit more willing to stop the genital waving competition & sit around the table and sort all this s*** out, and in turn help bring the union execs off their political hobby horses and prepare to meet halfway.

<Puts on tin hat & heads for the bunker>

 

[Falcon1200]

So are you saying that there should be a guarantee that there should never be any compulsory redundancies?

If the TOCs/DfT/Government really are determined to extend DOO, and want the slightest chance of getting the Unions to agree to a deal which includes it, there should be a guarantee that no staff affected by any such extension will be made redundant, or suffer a reduction in grade or income.

 

[zwk500]

If the TOCs/DfT/Government really are determined to extend DOO, and want the slightest chance of getting the Unions to agree to a deal which includes it, there should be a guarantee that no staff affected by any such extension will be made redundant, or suffer a reduction in grade or income.

But the whole point of DOO is to save on staffing costs, so promising that makes introducing DOO just an expense.

 

[Falcon1200]

But the whole point of DOO is to save on staffing costs, so promising that makes introducing DOO just an expense.

No, because that expense reduces as Guards retire, move on, etc; Which is exactly what happened when DOO was introduced on the North Clyde electrics in Glasgow. BR allowed the Guards' establishment to decline naturally. The only problem being that DOO was then delayed, leading to months of cancellations due to shortage of Guards!

 

[43066]

Covid didn't help but Brexit has absolutely battered staffing levels in every industry.

Or, in other words, there’s no longer an unlimited supply of cheap foreign workers who can be exploited? That’s a good thing!

However it’s disingenuous to imply that has anything to do with low staffing levels on the railway which has long (since well before Brexit, and probably since before the EU even existed) relied on rest day working by operational staff because it’s cheaper than employing a full complement.

You appear to be identifying a range of personal grievances, and automatically saying “this is because of Brexit”.

 

[zwk500]

No, because that expense reduces as Guards retire, move on, etc; Which is exactly what happened when DOO was introduced on the North Clyde electrics in Glasgow. BR allowed the Guards' establishment to decline naturally. The only problem being that DOO was then delayed, leading to months of cancellations due to shortage of Guards!

That's how it'd be done in a sensible world, but we haven't had a sensible government for quite some time...

 

[43066]

But the whole point of DOO is to save on staffing costs, so promising that makes introducing DOO just an expense.

Really!?

But upthread I was assured by @greyman42 that the government hasn’t announced any redundancies, and that that the RMT is completely unreasonable for opposing DOO and wanting guarantees.