SWR strikers - does the Union pay their wages on strike?
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
itcaptainslow said:
Not wishing to enter an argument, as I can totally understand how frustrating disruption is (at the end of the day, people just want to get to work reliably, and more importantly, home on time!)-I've just outlined some of the guard's duties in my post above. Just because their duties aren't immediately obvious, doesn't mean they're "not doing anything".
I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
I'm sorry to say that few passengers are likely to believe that !!I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
The RMT have been strike-happy for years. They act like something from the 1970s and then expect the public to support them - fat chance !
The RMT ballots for strikes without even bothering with lesser actions - and their members vote in favour of strikes. How is that '....the very last thing that rail staff want' ??
A union can't just "ballot for a strike without even bothering with lesser actions"-we've got some of the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe regarding when a strike can and cannot be called. It is a last resort.
Members will vote in favour of a strike when they feel all other options, including action short of a strike (e.g. working to rule, no overtime etc) have been exhausted.
With regards to them being "strike happy", unfortunately there's no figures for how many disputes have been resolved without industrial action, but I'd wager it's many more than the number of strikes called. I go back to my previous point of this country having some of the most anti-union laws in the EU-so many hoops have to be jumped through and criteria fulfilled before a strike is called.
itcaptainslow said:
I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
What is the point? I think Joe Public has forgotten what it is. There doesn't appear to be any dispute about guards pay, hours or pension. There doesn't appear to be any published plan for sweeping job cuts. Rick101 said:
I do find find the anti guard position quite peculiar but not surprising. It's the way these threads always go.
I suspect a number of those with strong opinions on the matter, don't use trains so has little direct impact on them.
For those that do use trains, I fail to see what the benefit is. It won't get any cheaper. The Government are seeing to that. Any cost savings from getting rid of guards, which is clearly the long term goal, will go to shareholders pockets.
You will be paying more and having less. I doubt very much performance will increase. In fact I see it having an opposite effect.
Someone once said 'there is no choice to be made between safety and performance'. It's a shame that seems to be forgotten when profits come into the picture.
The problem is there are finite resources, the train companies are charged with running the service but they cannot, if they are unable to make business decisions. The increased profits going to shareholders is straightforward misinformation, the profits are capped under the "Cap and collar" agreement. Any savings have to either be passed on, or more likely reinvested, where they should either improve the service or make it safer by allowing spending where it's actually needed. I suspect a number of those with strong opinions on the matter, don't use trains so has little direct impact on them.
For those that do use trains, I fail to see what the benefit is. It won't get any cheaper. The Government are seeing to that. Any cost savings from getting rid of guards, which is clearly the long term goal, will go to shareholders pockets.
You will be paying more and having less. I doubt very much performance will increase. In fact I see it having an opposite effect.
Someone once said 'there is no choice to be made between safety and performance'. It's a shame that seems to be forgotten when profits come into the picture.
edc said:
What is the point? I think Joe Public has forgotten what it is. There doesn't appear to be any dispute about guards pay, hours or pension. There doesn't appear to be any published plan for sweeping job cuts.
It's the wide definition of an Industrial dispute. Any employee who becomes aware of a potential safety issue has to raise it, they also can report it to the authorities. Despite the authorities charged with investigating safety saying it's safe the unions, for what appear to be political reasons have deemed it an industrial dispute. That may be backfiring, given the queen's speech and longstanding plans to limit their ability to strike/what is an industrial dispute. Graveworm said:
edc said:
What is the point? I think Joe Public has forgotten what it is. There doesn't appear to be any dispute about guards pay, hours or pension. There doesn't appear to be any published plan for sweeping job cuts.
It's the wide definition of an Industrial dispute. Any employee who becomes aware of a potential safety issue has to raise it, they also can report it to the authorities. Despite the authorities charged with investigating safety saying it's safe the unions, for what appear to be political reasons have deemed it an industrial dispute. That may be backfiring, given the queen's speech and longstanding plans to limit their ability to strike/what is an industrial dispute. Are Union leaders more qualified than Rail people and the various established mechanisms to review safety and procedure? This sort of action makes them less like a Union campaigning and protecting member employee interests into some sort of political campaign pressure group.
itcaptainslow said:
Robertj21a said:
itcaptainslow said:
Not wishing to enter an argument, as I can totally understand how frustrating disruption is (at the end of the day, people just want to get to work reliably, and more importantly, home on time!)-I've just outlined some of the guard's duties in my post above. Just because their duties aren't immediately obvious, doesn't mean they're "not doing anything".
I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
I'm sorry to say that few passengers are likely to believe that !!I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
The RMT have been strike-happy for years. They act like something from the 1970s and then expect the public to support them - fat chance !
The RMT ballots for strikes without even bothering with lesser actions - and their members vote in favour of strikes. How is that '....the very last thing that rail staff want' ??
A union can't just "ballot for a strike without even bothering with lesser actions"-we've got some of the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe regarding when a strike can and cannot be called. It is a last resort.
Members will vote in favour of a strike when they feel all other options, including action short of a strike (e.g. working to rule, no overtime etc) have been exhausted.
With regards to them being "strike happy", unfortunately there's no figures for how many disputes have been resolved without industrial action, but I'd wager it's many more than the number of strikes called. I go back to my previous point of this country having some of the most anti-union laws in the EU-so many hoops have to be jumped through and criteria fulfilled before a strike is called.
There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
Robertj21a said:
itcaptainslow said:
Robertj21a said:
itcaptainslow said:
Not wishing to enter an argument, as I can totally understand how frustrating disruption is (at the end of the day, people just want to get to work reliably, and more importantly, home on time!)-I've just outlined some of the guard's duties in my post above. Just because their duties aren't immediately obvious, doesn't mean they're "not doing anything".
I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
I'm sorry to say that few passengers are likely to believe that !!I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
The RMT have been strike-happy for years. They act like something from the 1970s and then expect the public to support them - fat chance !
The RMT ballots for strikes without even bothering with lesser actions - and their members vote in favour of strikes. How is that '....the very last thing that rail staff want' ??
A union can't just "ballot for a strike without even bothering with lesser actions"-we've got some of the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe regarding when a strike can and cannot be called. It is a last resort.
Members will vote in favour of a strike when they feel all other options, including action short of a strike (e.g. working to rule, no overtime etc) have been exhausted.
With regards to them being "strike happy", unfortunately there's no figures for how many disputes have been resolved without industrial action, but I'd wager it's many more than the number of strikes called. I go back to my previous point of this country having some of the most anti-union laws in the EU-so many hoops have to be jumped through and criteria fulfilled before a strike is called.
There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
Robertj21a said:
Nothing to do with Trade Union law so you can forget that Red Herring !
There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
They do and more often than you think!There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
I’ve been balloted a lot more times for ‘action short of a strike’ than for an actual strike.
Sometimes it works, other times it gets escalated to a full strike ballot and them magically management decides that it needs to look at our dispute seriously and a solution is found. Funny that.
itcaptainslow said:
How do you know this when a ballot may be kept private or not broadcast by the media? Generally it’s only publicised at the point a strike is balloted for, at which point negotiations may have been ongoing for many months. Just because it’s not acted out in the (somewhat biased with their own agenda) media, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
When was the last time that the RMT balloted for a Work to Rule ?Robertj21a said:
Nothing to do with Trade Union law so you can forget that Red Herring !
There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
A trade union can't instruct it's members to work to rule .There's nothing at all to stop a trade union balloting for lesser action, such as a Work to Rule - but they don't. They ballot for a strike - and many members vote for it, so it's hardly their only, or final, choice.
This is just an old-fashioned, out of date, union wanting to keep extra staff employed so that they can threaten strikes if the management try to improve productivity.
Strike action rather than a walk out has to follow procedure which gives the employer notice as to when it's going to happen .
Looks like SWR could now face losing the franchise, years back the same thing happened to Connex when their performance dropped due to staff taking the piss at the expense of the commuters.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/south-we...
I commute into London from S/E England and have never seen a guard on my trains (even the long Hitachi's that go through Blackfriars) so I don't see what's so special about SWR that they need them when all other companies don't.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/south-we...
I commute into London from S/E England and have never seen a guard on my trains (even the long Hitachi's that go through Blackfriars) so I don't see what's so special about SWR that they need them when all other companies don't.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff