Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About
Waterloo Campaign
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 01:15 30 Sep 2022
- Windsor Castle: People travel hundreds of miles to say farewell to the Queen
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/10/22 - ClimateFest, Melksham
21/10/22 - TWSW General Meeting
02/11/22 - WWRUG / Trowbridge

On this day
30th Sep (2013)
BRB Residuary Body abolished (*)

Train RunningNo cancellations or delays
PollsOpen and recent polls
Open to 04/10 08:15 Airport closure (Doncaster) - what to you think?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
September 30, 2022, 01:27:24 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[84] ClimateFest, Melksham, 17th September 2022 - Electric Bus pres...
[76] Elizabeth Line - ongoing discussion
[57] East - West Rail update (Oxford to Bedford) - ongoing discussi...
[56] Channel 5 series - Paddington Station 24/7, starting 11 Septem...
[48] Airport Closure - Doncaster / Sheffield / Robin Hood
[44] Every cloud ...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11
  Print  
Author Topic: Rail Strike Looming  (Read 7986 times)
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11168


View Profile Email
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2022, 12:34:12 pm »


Perhaps, but doing away with the old is of no benefit to those using the new.

It is, if the alternative, now that costs are being paid directly by the taxpayer, is reduction in services to achieve the savings required. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should pump £1.5billion a year into the railways so as you retain things as currently?

Quote
It is simply saving money for a private rail operator, the profit of which goes to shareholders.

Get with the times? The operators now are paid a management fee, and costs and revenue pass to the taxpayer. So the 'profit' you refer to evaporates, turning into a £1.5billion / year loss. That's unsustainable, surely.

What's your suggestion then, if your plan would be to retain all the staff?
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11168


View Profile Email
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2022, 12:37:21 pm »

*Rant*

What point are you actually trying to prove with this needless pedantry over where, when and in what format the editorial I quoted was published? I saw it on the Guardian website, where it says its a Guardian editorial, and that's from where I linked and quoted.

I'm fully aware of the Guardian Media Group's setup, and the Observer's place in it. I also know that the Observer's business agenda (looking to the week ahead) is different to the groups' editorials. Hence why the piece you've quoted isn't the same ("That was in today's Observer") as the one I posted.
*Rant over*

Posted at 1830 today, so actually more likely to be tomorrow’s print edition of the Guardian.

I corrected myself, so not sure why you needed that rant?

It is indeed.
Logged
Reading General
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 410


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2022, 01:13:31 pm »


Perhaps, but doing away with the old is of no benefit to those using the new.

It is, if the alternative, now that costs are being paid directly by the taxpayer, is reduction in services to achieve the savings required. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should pump £1.5billion a year into the railways so as you retain things as currently?

Quote
It is simply saving money for a private rail operator, the profit of which goes to shareholders.

Get with the times? The operators now are paid a management fee, and costs and revenue pass to the taxpayer. So the 'profit' you refer to evaporates, turning into a £1.5billion / year loss. That's unsustainable, surely.

What's your suggestion then, if your plan would be to retain all the staff?

Yes. Retain the staff and the public should fund a railway for everyone all over the country. Defund and reduce the railway now and it won’t be coming back. The railway is of economic significance to this country even if it’s not noticeable to the operators or the, referred to as a minority, taxpayer. Yes, less people are travelling to work, largely in London, each day but reducing staff and costs now under the impression that the railway is always going to have this level of passengers is short term for profit thinking and excluding more people. This is an opportunity to build a railway for everyone, promised by this ludicrous government. You drop staff and services now and you will require incentive and demand to get the same services back when things change. The bargaining price suggested that the public will pay is nothing more than the bribery that will be used as an excuse to release more of it into the private sector and make it a consumer choice rather than what should be a life necessity. Nobody ever questions the cost of the tarmac and road infrastructure which covers this country as it’s recognised that its benefits are beyond the price of repair. Perhaps we should consider privatising roads.
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 6590



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2022, 02:07:16 pm »


Perhaps, but doing away with the old is of no benefit to those using the new.

It is, if the alternative, now that costs are being paid directly by the taxpayer, is reduction in services to achieve the savings required. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should pump £1.5billion a year into the railways so as you retain things as currently?

Quote
It is simply saving money for a private rail operator, the profit of which goes to shareholders.

Get with the times? The operators now are paid a management fee, and costs and revenue pass to the taxpayer. So the 'profit' you refer to evaporates, turning into a £1.5billion / year loss. That's unsustainable, surely.

What's your suggestion then, if your plan would be to retain all the staff?

Yes. Retain the staff and the public should fund a railway for everyone all over the country. Defund and reduce the railway now and it won’t be coming back. The railway is of economic significance to this country even if it’s not noticeable to the operators or the, referred to as a minority, taxpayer. Yes, less people are travelling to work, largely in London, each day but reducing staff and costs now under the impression that the railway is always going to have this level of passengers is short term for profit thinking and excluding more people. This is an opportunity to build a railway for everyone, promised by this ludicrous government. You drop staff and services now and you will require incentive and demand to get the same services back when things change. The bargaining price suggested that the public will pay is nothing more than the bribery that will be used as an excuse to release more of it into the private sector and make it a consumer choice rather than what should be a life necessity. Nobody ever questions the cost of the tarmac and road infrastructure which covers this country as it’s recognised that its benefits are beyond the price of repair. Perhaps we should consider privatising roads.

You are Mick Lynch and I claim my £5!

(Or 10% pay rise & guarantee of no redundancies ever!)

 Wink
Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1571


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: May 31, 2022, 06:55:42 am »

Quote
is a way of creating equal access.
Sounds like the levelling up agenda. Call for Mr Gove.

Quote
You drop staff and services now
I believe the airlines have had problems with this sort of thing.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4216


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2022, 04:47:40 pm »

It is easy to blame this all on the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) leadership, but you don't get that sort of result in a ballot unless there is an awful lot if discontent among staff. If there is then it needs fixing. Unfortunately the treasury is now running the railways (by which I probably mean treasury minsters) and on past record they understand less about managing people than they do about engineering.  They do not understand that if you treat people well you can get away with paying them less. 

Of course they want people to leave to cut costs, but they don't understand that this approach usually means that the wrong people leave. You then end up with the wrong mix of staff. You also end up paying your worst people more than you need to do the job badly because there is no on else to do the job.  They are still discontented and therefore treat ordinary passengers in the same way that management treat them. 
Logged
DaveHarries
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 209



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: May 31, 2022, 07:45:12 pm »

I am not a rail sector employee but if I had been then I would also have voted no to taking strike action. As it is I work in the automotive sector. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that there are union members among my colleagues. Do we get decent pay rises every year? No. Do we have decent T&C? No. Do we go on strike over it? No.

As it is my colleagues and I rely on rail for getting between jobs that we are assigned and between those jobs and the depots we work from. Having chatted with my driving colleagues in the depot I work from over the last few days it is safe to say that there is very little or no backing among us to the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)'s planned action. It might be easy to blame the TOCs (Train Operating Company) for the fact that the strike is on the cards (which some people might do) but it is the RMT members' decision that this is on the cards, not that of the TOCs.

Dave
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 6590



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2022, 05:42:48 am »

It is easy to blame this all on the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) leadership, but you don't get that sort of result in a ballot unless there is an awful lot if discontent among staff. If there is then it needs fixing. Unfortunately the treasury is now running the railways (by which I probably mean treasury minsters) and on past record they understand less about managing people than they do about engineering.  They do not understand that if you treat people well you can get away with paying them less. 

Of course they want people to leave to cut costs, but they don't understand that this approach usually means that the wrong people leave. You then end up with the wrong mix of staff. You also end up paying your worst people more than you need to do the job badly because there is no on else to do the job.  They are still discontented and therefore treat ordinary passengers in the same way that management treat them. 

Parking the rhetoric, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to whether the RMT's headline demands are realistic in the current climate - substantively, a pay rise approaching double figures, and guarantees of no compulsory redundancies?

With the taxpayer having pumped £billions into the railways over the course of the pandemic, from where do you consider these additional costs should be funded, given falling passenger numbers, demand and therefore revenue?
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3862


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2022, 06:45:12 am »

It is easy to blame this all on the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) leadership, but you don't get that sort of result in a ballot unless there is an awful lot if discontent among staff. If there is then it needs fixing. Unfortunately the treasury is now running the railways (by which I probably mean treasury minsters) and on past record they understand less about managing people than they do about engineering.  They do not understand that if you treat people well you can get away with paying them less. 

Of course they want people to leave to cut costs, but they don't understand that this approach usually means that the wrong people leave. You then end up with the wrong mix of staff. You also end up paying your worst people more than you need to do the job badly because there is no on else to do the job.  They are still discontented and therefore treat ordinary passengers in the same way that management treat them. 

Parking the rhetoric, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to whether the RMT's headline demands are realistic in the current climate - substantively, a pay rise approaching double figures, and guarantees of no compulsory redundancies?

With the taxpayer having pumped £billions into the railways over the course of the pandemic, from where do you consider these additional costs should be funded, given falling passenger numbers, demand and therefore revenue?

Negotiations are (or should be) about reaching a compromise between the 2 sides demands.  The thing that will hamper the compromise will be the Government's hand cuffs placed on the Rail Industries Exc leadership teams.

With all the other travel chaos currently the Unions may see they have an advantage with the public discontent with the issues ant sea and air ports, that is an advantage for the Unions and their members and not for the travelling public but such is the nature of industrial disputes
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9410


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2022, 11:34:20 am »

The general feeling amongst people working for the TOCs (Train Operating Company) I've spoken to is that a 4-5% increase is acceptable.  The main beef is the alleged prevention from the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) to the operators and NR» (Network Rail - home page) of opening pay discussions after 2 or 3 years of no increases and the cost of living crisis.

The RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) ballot result, with such a strong mandate (much stronger than I thought it would be), sends a very clear message to the DfT that staff won't 'roll over' and accept peanuts or nothing.  And, naturally, the Union want a commitment to prevent compulsory redundancies.

It looks like an ASLEF» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) ballot along similar lines will be taking place over the next couple of weeks.

Doesn't mean a strike will happen (though it is quite likely).  Definitely doesn't mean the RMT's demands will be even close to being met and the end of the 'dispute'.  As ET says, they hardly ever are...that's negotiating.  Perhaps haggling is a better word!
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
GBM
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 972


View Profile Email
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2022, 12:50:19 pm »

I've always felt that being a union member is a good idea.
The few ballots I've been involved in, only one resulted in a strike.
We didn't want to inconvenience the travelling public, well, we actually hated the idea.
Negotiations were stalemated, so out we went for 48 hours.

The option was not to strike, and accept a far lower pay settlement and a change to working conditions to our detriment.
But from some views above, that is better than striking.
If we had accepted a lower settlement, etc; then the following year we would be accepting a lower settlement again, and a change to working conditions.  That seems a race to the bottom.  We would soon be on minimum wage & dreadful working conditions, but hey, we could hold our heads up and say we didn't inconvenience anyone but ourselves.

Apart from ACAS, there's little middle ground.
Logged

Personal opinion only.  Writings not representative of any union, collective, management or employer. (Think that absolves me...........)
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18218



View Profile
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2022, 02:12:24 pm »

When did negotiations begin? From what I can gather the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) balloted for strike action before any meaningful discussions began. Arse about face surely?
Logged

#NotMyKing
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9410


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2022, 03:07:40 pm »

When did negotiations begin? From what I can gather the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) balloted for strike action before any meaningful discussions began. Arse about face surely?

The unions claim that the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) would not allow train operators to open negotiations with them I believe.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18218



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2022, 05:57:17 pm »

When did negotiations begin? From what I can gather the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) balloted for strike action before any meaningful discussions began. Arse about face surely?

The unions claim that the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) would not allow train operators to open negotiations with them I believe.

A belief? Any corroboration?

Last week the DfT urged the RMT to come to the negotiating table. Saying they were disappointed that the RMT had balloted for strike action before entering negotiations. Someone's lying. Much as I loathe the current government I believe them in this instance.
Logged

#NotMyKing
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3862


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2022, 07:49:20 pm »

When did negotiations begin? From what I can gather the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) balloted for strike action before any meaningful discussions began. Arse about face surely?

The unions claim that the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) would not allow train operators to open negotiations with them I believe.

The same applied to Network Rail ......... DfT and No10 steer was any pay award has to be on 'efficiencies' above and beyond the 'Modernisation of the Industry' process that is currently ongoing

However it would seem that NR» (Network Rail - home page) (aka DfT / No10) have made a 2.5% pay offer from 1st July 2022 to the TSSA» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) for management grades, the TSSA have said this offer does not resolve the dispute ..................... negotiations / haggling continues
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page