RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[Cobnapint]

NWTony said:

This is just the last post from you I could find so not really related.

How do you know the government is involved, you keep saying they are interfering but every public announcement is that they aren't, so why do you think they are?

Lol, of course the government is involved, via the dft, the treasury and Michael Green. They bankroll the railways.

[JagLover]

Cobnapint said:

On the other end, the TOCs etc (half of which are part owned by foreign governments) are raking it in. The contracts are win-win.
The £16bn that the government says it threw at Network Rail during the pandemic was to keep these nutty contracts afloat. The staff didn't see a penny, they were all either at work or WFH.

That all changed during the pandemic. The government took over the franchises and now pay the operating companies a management fee to operate the trains for them.

The total management fee paid in 2020/21 was £154 million.

[Cobnapint]

JagLover said:

That all changed during the pandemic. The government took over the franchises and now pay the operating companies a management fee to operate the trains for them.

The total management fee paid in 2020/21 was £154 million.

Tax payers are still paying their profits, no matter what it's called.

[legzr1]

Ouroboros said:

That is what is called out, you are posting bks. At least I posted my own real experiences not making stuff up to fit an agenda.

Talking bks?
How’s charming.

Shapps is playing his political game.
He has been asked to get around the table.
He has refused. Said it’s not his job. Called it a stunt. His own MPs have asked him again to get around the table. Again, refused.

Negotiations take place. Lynch has said every time there is progress the NR boss has to contact Shapps’ department. The department that WILL NOT get around the table but calls the shots on every decision.

That’s where we’re at.

It’s almost like they want the strike to continue.

What am I making up?
What is my ‘agenda’?

Try to see it through the eyes of someone without a seething hatred of all thing union.
If you can.

ouroboros said:

Anyway good luck to the future.

And you.

We’re all going to need it.

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

Many of us seem to keep saying the same thing - but then end up going around in circles again.

Let's try some alternative wording:-

A.......The government is, effectively, pulling the strings - and have every right to do so. It matters not one jot if it's down to Boris or Sunak.

B.......Compulsory Redundancy should always be on the table and may yet be needed.

C......The RMT need to agree changes to Terms & Conditions. What can be agreed should then determine whether CR/VR is needed - and a pay increase relevant to the significance and efficiences achieved can then be finalised.

D........There's no point in the RMT ranting on about the past 12 years, or how negotiators avoided CR in the past. That's just history - and the situation and personnel is now different.

E........Boris + co have no need to rush, it probably suits them to prolong any battle with the RMT. Train passengers only make up about 10% of the UK population and many can now easily work from home, or drive.

Well, you’re using slightly different words to ask the same questions.
But, you want different answers?

Again…

A.Agreed.
However, if that is the case then why can’t the string pullers meet with those facing job losses (or their representatives) and discuss it?

B. In a situation where VR applications outnumber the figure required for CR there is no need for CR. In the future? Who knows. But, here and now, it isn’t required but is a big stick hanging over the RMT. For this dispute, take the stick away.

C. Try it the other way round and see what progress can be made.

D. History, yes. Very recent history dealing with the same industry, very similar issues and the same government and ministers. All sides agree that progress can and has been been made. This is mentioned because it’s a proven and well-oiled machine. It works, over and over again.
The difference is ‘these times’. Removing CR will almost guarantee movement forwards and an agreed settlement. Some can’t see that. Some can but won’t budge. My take from it, there must be a reason why prolonged industrial action benefits someone, somewhere. It’s not the workers, the unions, the TOCs, NR or the passengers and freight companies…

E. See D.

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

Well, you’re using slightly different words to ask the same questions.
But, you want different answers?

Again…

A.Agreed.
However, if that is the case then why can’t the string pullers meet with those facing job losses (or their representatives) and discuss it?

B. In a situation where VR applications outnumber the figure required for CR there is no need for CR. In the future? Who knows. But, here and now, it isn’t required but is a big stick hanging over the RMT. For this dispute, take the stick away.

C. Try it the other way round and see what progress can be made.

D. History, yes. Very recent history dealing with the same industry, very similar issues and the same government and ministers. All sides agree that progress can and has been been made. This is mentioned because it’s a proven and well-oiled machine. It works, over and over again.
The difference is ‘these times’. Removing CR will almost guarantee movement forwards and an agreed settlement. Some can’t see that. Some can but won’t budge. My take from it, there must be a reason why prolonged industrial action benefits someone, somewhere. It’s not the workers, the unions, the TOCs, NR or the passengers and freight companies…

E. See D.

I refer you to my previous post;

We aren’t stupid, we get that the RMT wants CR off the table, then it will agree a pay rise and working towards modernisation, then, when modernisation plans are proposed, they will say “no” and it all starts again.

It’s like they, and you, think everyone is stupid. We see what is going on.

[valiant]

loafer123 said:

I refer you to my previous post;

We aren’t stupid, we get that the RMT wants CR off the table, then it will agree a pay rise and working towards modernisation, then, when modernisation plans are proposed, they will say “no” and it all starts again.

It’s like they, and you, think everyone is stupid. We see what is going on.

It depends what you mean by ‘modernisation’.

If it’s about adopting new technologies and new ways of working, well, that’s being going on all the time. It’s nothing new to the railway or it’s unions.

If it’s about introducing detrimental terms and conditions that leaves the employees in a worse condition such as what’s been stated a few pages back like reducing shift allowances to near zero, more and more weekend working, supplying your own vehicle and possibly fuel, etc, etc then that’s hardly ‘modernising’ is it? That’s just an out and out attack on conditions that will lead to experienced staff leaving the business in droves making the railways less efficient and productive.

Modernisation to some means squeezing the staff until they squeak then squeezing that little bit more. It’s just a cover word that on the outside seems innocuous and reasonable but in reality is anything but.

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

I refer you to my previous post;

We aren’t stupid, we get that the RMT wants CR off the table, then it will agree a pay rise and working towards modernisation, then, when modernisation plans are proposed, they will say “no” and it all starts again.

It’s like they, and you, think everyone is stupid. We see what is going on.

I read your previous post.

I didn’t think it was worth repeating what I’ve already said to be honest.
I don’t see a question, just a statement.

I haven’t read anywhere that accuses you or anyone who shares your views of being stupid.

I’ve mentioned the comment from M Lynch (which is fact) that modernisation is ongoing. I’m in the industry and it’s constant change, upgrading, changes to regulations and rules and methods of work. He has mentioned several times that hundreds of negotiations, deals and modernisation plans have been introduced over the life of this Government.
This will continue.

The best predictor of the near future is the recent past.

As I’ve said, same workers, same union, same industry and same Government.

The facts, experiences and examples of recent negotiations make YOUR prediction of what WILL happen look a little, errr, off the mark.


Remove CR and reach a settlement.
Insist it remains and buckle up for a bumpy ride.

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

I read your previous post.

I didn’t think it was worth repeating what I’ve already said to be honest.
I don’t see a question, just a statement.

I haven’t read anywhere that accuses you or anyone who shares your views of being stupid.

I’ve mentioned the comment from M Lynch (which is fact) that modernisation is ongoing. I’m in the industry and it’s constant change, upgrading, changes to regulations and rules and methods of work. He has mentioned several times that hundreds of negotiations, deals and modernisation plans have been introduced over the life of this Government.
This will continue.

The best predictor of the near future is the recent past.

As I’ve said, same workers, same union, same industry and same Government.

The facts, experiences and examples of recent negotiations make YOUR prediction of what WILL happen look a little, errr, off the mark.


Remove CR and reach a settlement.
Insist it remains and buckle up for a bumpy ride.

Have a listen to Andrew Haines on R4 Broadcasting House this morning.

I would be fascinated on your insider view as to whether the ridiculous working terms and conditions he references are true.

Forgot to say - he also says the RMT always talk about reforms, but never allow them…hmm…

Edited by loafer123 on Sunday 26th June 12:48

[pquinn]

legzr1 said:

Remove CR and reach a settlement.

"Take away the stick then we'll talk about how big the bag of carrots is going to be"

If they need CR then it's going to happen, you can't just throw that option away blindly. If they're lucky enough that the right people go voluntarily then great but otherwise they need the mechanism. Plus once they fold on that it's obvious it will get dragged up again and again as a red line negotiating position as we've already seen.

Maybe there'll be a settlement but right now it looks like there's no advantage to it and they might as well just plough ahead with the changes, and thank you all for volunteering all that unpaid time off.

[rigga]

loafer123 said:

legzr1 said:

I read your previous post.

I didn’t think it was worth repeating what I’ve already said to be honest.
I don’t see a question, just a statement.

I haven’t read anywhere that accuses you or anyone who shares your views of being stupid.

I’ve mentioned the comment from M Lynch (which is fact) that modernisation is ongoing. I’m in the industry and it’s constant change, upgrading, changes to regulations and rules and methods of work. He has mentioned several times that hundreds of negotiations, deals and modernisation plans have been introduced over the life of this Government.
This will continue.

The best predictor of the near future is the recent past.

As I’ve said, same workers, same union, same industry and same Government.

The facts, experiences and examples of recent negotiations make YOUR prediction of what WILL happen look a little, errr, off the mark.


Remove CR and reach a settlement.
Insist it remains and buckle up for a bumpy ride.

Have a listen to Andrew Haines on R4 Broadcasting House this morning.

I would be fascinated on your insider view as to whether the ridiculous working terms and conditions he references are true.

Missed that program, what working terms and conditions did he mention?

[legzr1]

pquinn said:

"Take away the stick then we'll talk about how big the bag of carrots is going to be"

If they need CR then it's going to happen, you can't just throw that option away blindly. If they're lucky enough that the right people go voluntarily then great but otherwise they need the mechanism. Plus once they fold on that it's obvious it will get dragged up again and again as a red line negotiating position as we've already seen.

Maybe there'll be a settlement but right now it looks like there's no advantage to it and they might as well just plough ahead with the changes, and thank you all for volunteering all that unpaid time off.

And when it’s not needed (by anyone other than Shapps and his other wonderful front-benchers) leave it there anyway.

Good plan.

Let’s see how this pans out then.

[loafer123]

rigga said:

Missed that program, what working terms and conditions did he mention?

Worth listening to the interview;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0018nhh

23 min and 15 secs is the start

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

Have a listen to Andrew Haines on R4 Broadcasting House this morning.

I would be fascinated on your insider view as to whether the ridiculous working terms and conditions he references are true.

Forgot to say - he also says the RMT always talk about reforms, but never allow them…hmm…

Edited by loafer123 on Sunday 26th June 12:48

Got a link?

My views are not ‘insider’ btw.

I speak and listen to people affected by this, some of whom know what they’re talking about.

I compare and contrast with the sound bites, briefings and the words of unfortunate Tory MPs forced to confront M Lynch.
And a couple of bitter members on here.

As for never allowing reforms… Was he playing to an audience without someone else there in possession of some facts?

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

Worth listening to the interview;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0018nhh

23 min and 15 secs is the start

Thanks.

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

Got a link?

My views are not ‘insider’ btw.

I speak and listen to people affected by this, some of whom know what they’re talking about.

I compare and contrast with the sound bites, briefings and the words of unfortunate Tory MPs forced to confront M Lynch.
And a couple of bitter members on here.

As for never allowing reforms… Was he playing to an audience without someone else there in possession of some facts?

See above - have a listen - he sounds pretty credible to me, and what he states is easily refutable if it isn’t true, and there has been a deafening silence…

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

See above - have a listen - he sounds pretty credible to me, and what he states is easily refutable if it isn’t true, and there has been a deafening silence…

Cross posts.

I’ve listened and I cannot wait for RMTs response

The original point made by the presenter seems a little confused. Short hand notes made while talking on a picket line then posed as a question? Confusion over franchises and TOCs while questioning engineering procedures on blockades and possessions?

Someone is very confused here.
I expect clarity soon.


ETA:

Deafening silence?
Really?

Here’s an official RMT response to similar bullst spouted by Haines’ chief string-puller yesterday.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-on-grant-shapps-cl...


Putting as much bias aside as possible and taking in the news, interviews and briefs over the past week or so who, in your opinion, is more likely to be economical with the truth, divert and deflect, come across as half-arsed and lacking in integrity?

Be honest.

Edited by legzr1 on Sunday 26th June 13:22

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

Cross posts.

I’ve listened and I cannot wait for RMTs response

The original point made by the presenter seems a little confused. Short hand notes made while talking on a picket line then posed as a question? Confusion over franchises and TOCs while questioning engineering procedures on blockades and possessions?

Someone is very confused here.
I expect clarity soon.

I saw the TOC franchise bit as confusion by a bad researcher…everyone knows Network Rail controls the track.

The main point, of course, is why people working in different regions of NR refuse to cross into neighbouring regions…makes no sense.

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

I saw the TOC franchise bit as confusion by a bad researcher…everyone knows Network Rail controls the track.

The main point, of course, is why people working in different regions of NR refuse to cross into neighbouring regions…makes no sense.

I’ve edited my post to add a link.

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

I’ve edited my post to add a link.

Thanks…that’s a lot of words shouting “it’s all rubbish” whilst actually confirming the core of what is alleged.

They won’t work across region boundaries because they might have different equipment? If that’s the case, don’t work on equipment you’re not trained on, rather than banning wholesale.

And the crap about specialist equipment on vans? You don’t need full vans of equipment for every job.

It’s all very obvious.