RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
Whenever I hear of union negotiations I always think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
Biggy Stardust said:
Whenever I hear of union negotiations I always think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
Very good - some humour does indeed stand the test of time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
Biggy Stardust said:
Whenever I hear of union negotiations I always think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
Role reversal since 1959.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4fMo07CXo
It’s now the NR puppet master retiring to seek approval from Government ministers on every point. The same ministers who couldn’t possibly get involved with disputes…
legzr1 said:
Carbon Sasquatch said:
That's where I lose sympathy - jobs for life for the boys.
OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Apparently there are more applications for VR than the numbers for compulsory redundancy demanded by NR/government.OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Why not just remove that requirement and move on?
You’d almost think there was an agenda here.
That has even been suggested by another Union who have negotiated a 7% no-strings deal just today.
loafer123 said:
legzr1 said:
Carbon Sasquatch said:
That's where I lose sympathy - jobs for life for the boys.
OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Apparently there are more applications for VR than the numbers for compulsory redundancy demanded by NR/government.OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Why not just remove that requirement and move on?
You’d almost think there was an agenda here.
That has even been suggested by another Union who have negotiated a 7% no-strings deal just today.
Netflix - having a bit of a disaster at the moment - today announced 300 redundancies. Seems perfectly sensible - the company has fewer subscribers, isn't making enough money, so doesn't need as many people. That's what redundancy is for.
If you went to a team of 10 investment bankers & said we thing we could manage with 9 and we will spend the saving on giving the others a 10% rise, there would be no problem at all - it would be almost expected.
legzr1 said:
Apparently there are more applications for VR than the numbers for compulsory redundancy demanded by NR/government.
Why not just remove that requirement and move on?
You’d almost think there was an agenda here.
That has even been suggested by another Union who have negotiated a 7% no-strings deal just today.
If the RMT are likely to truly keep to what they've said today then I guess NR might take a chance on removal of Compulsory Redundancy - but it needs to be made crystal clear that it could still be reinstated if the RMT continue to be less than cooperative.Why not just remove that requirement and move on?
You’d almost think there was an agenda here.
That has even been suggested by another Union who have negotiated a 7% no-strings deal just today.
It's also of less use to Network Rail if they allow Voluntary Redundancy only to find nobody applying from the areas most needing to cutback on staff numbers.
legzr1 said:
Carbon Sasquatch said:
That's where I lose sympathy - jobs for life for the boys.
OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Apparently there are more applications for VR than the numbers for compulsory redundancy demanded by NR/government.OK - negotiate enhanced redundancy terms, but resisting redundancies for jobs that just aren't needed anymore seems just so old school.
Why not just remove that requirement and move on?
You’d almost think there was an agenda here.
That has even been suggested by another Union who have negotiated a 7% no-strings deal just today.
Surely if they’re near with VR numbers they can let natural wastage take care of the rest. People leave/ transfer/get promoted all the time so it shouldn’t take too long to get to NR’s magic numbers?
Get it off the table, agree a payrise (I still think they’ll settle at 5%) and then focus on modernisation changes. Strikes can be, and often are, called off if good faith in negotiations occur.
valiant said:
I imagine that VR numbers exceed the required amount in certain sectors and not enough VR in other sectors hence the government/NR insistence on compulsory redundancies.
Surely if they’re near with VR numbers they can let natural wastage take care of the rest. People leave/ transfer/get promoted all the time so it shouldn’t take too long to get to NR’s magic numbers?
Get it off the table, agree a payrise (I still think they’ll settle at 5%) and then focus on modernisation changes. Strikes can be, and often are, called off if good faith in negotiations occur.
Getting closer but not there yet. Surely if they’re near with VR numbers they can let natural wastage take care of the rest. People leave/ transfer/get promoted all the time so it shouldn’t take too long to get to NR’s magic numbers?
Get it off the table, agree a payrise (I still think they’ll settle at 5%) and then focus on modernisation changes. Strikes can be, and often are, called off if good faith in negotiations occur.
Modernisation changes need to discussed and at least provisionally agreed in principle. RMT can then clarify where there may be serious issues for them.
Only then agree the % rise (which can be higher/lower depending on what has been agreed).
Carbon Sasquatch said:
No compulsory redundancies = jobs for life.
That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
I've posted before of my experience of the railways and union. An alcoholic railman who left the brakes off a train and nearly killed the cleaners, was protected by his fellow workers and union.That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
The people that I found working on the rail industry wouldn't survive five seconds in the real world work environment.
It was like working in the 1970s.
Edited by Ouroboros on Thursday 23 June 19:38
Carbon Sasquatch said:
No compulsory redundancies = jobs for life.
That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
Nonsense.That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
No compulsory redundancies refocuses NR minds onto decent VR options.
Keep repeating the same thing doesn’t make you right.
Get it off the table and move on.
Ouroboros said:
I've posted before of my experience of the railways and union. An alcoholic railman who left the brakes off a train and nearly killed the cleaners, was protected by his fellow workers and union.
The people that I found working on the rail industry wouldn't survive five seconds in the real world work environment.
It was like working in the 1970s.
If only one anecdotal post could sum up a whole industry and union made up of literally millions over the years…The people that I found working on the rail industry wouldn't survive five seconds in the real world work environment.
It was like working in the 1970s.
Edited by Ouroboros on Thursday 23 June 19:38
legzr1 said:
If only one anecdotal post could sum up a whole industry and union made up of literally millions over the years…
I've got more stories.Making up jobs to bill the train lease holder. I think that is called fraud. They did it so they could keep the headcount. The decent jobs like train driver was extremely closed shop and pretty much everyone who got a job was related or friends with a manager or union rep.
A bloke who people thought was gay, he wasn't, getting homophobic abuse from the union rep.
The safety aspects were taken seriously but at the same time allowed the workers to sit and watch TV most of the day/night, because union rules.
My site was small, but it was the worst environment I've ever experienced. The managers were no better, but that is the problem the whole system is toxic.
Edited by Ouroboros on Thursday 23 June 19:50
Ouroboros said:
I've got more stories.
Making up jobs to bill the train lease holder. I think that is called fraud. They did it so they could keep the headcount. The decent jobs like train driver was extremely closed shop and pretty much everyone who got a job was related or friends with a manager or union rep.
A bloke who people thought was gay, he wasn't, getting homophobic abuse from the union rep.
The safety aspects were taken seriously but at the same time allowed the workers to sit and watch TV most of the day/night, because union rules.
My site was small, but it was the worst environment I've ever experienced. The managers were no better, but that is the problem the whole system is toxic.
Name and shame.Making up jobs to bill the train lease holder. I think that is called fraud. They did it so they could keep the headcount. The decent jobs like train driver was extremely closed shop and pretty much everyone who got a job was related or friends with a manager or union rep.
A bloke who people thought was gay, he wasn't, getting homophobic abuse from the union rep.
The safety aspects were taken seriously but at the same time allowed the workers to sit and watch TV most of the day/night, because union rules.
My site was small, but it was the worst environment I've ever experienced. The managers were no better, but that is the problem the whole system is toxic.
Edited by Ouroboros on Thursday 23 June 19:50
legzr1 said:
valiant said:
Get it off the table, agree a payrise (I still think they’ll settle at 5%) and then focus on modernisation changes. Strikes can be, and often are, called off if good faith in negotiations occur.
This.legzr1 said:
Carbon Sasquatch said:
No compulsory redundancies = jobs for life.
That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
Nonsense.That encourages a race to the bottom, like we've already seen on this thread - anyone who does more than the minimum is an idiot.....
No compulsory redundancies refocuses NR minds onto decent VR options.
Keep repeating the same thing doesn’t make you right.
Get it off the table and move on.
Why get it off the table ? Restricting the ability to get rid of under performers & no longer required roles is just plain unhealthy.
I completely understand why the minimum effort culture is the result - it's the logical consequence.
Give the most productive quarter a 30% increase & the least productive zero. Clearly checks & balances required, but as a principle it leads to better results overall - IMHO of course,
legzr1 said:
Name and shame.
Pointless and against rules. It goes on, the difference is, I saw no one ever get sacked, even the drunk bloke, got early retirement. When you have a bunch of not very intelligent people earning 40k plus in a pretty easy and non pressured job, you want to protect that. It was like a bubble over what went on in the real world.
No sympathy for me. Always find trains and underground a very closed club with jobs for life attitude.
Every year it becomes more and more expensive and the service does not improve accordingly! Why is it so expensive to run trains in this country?
£30 return to London for a 40min train ride, crammed in a hot carriage and standing (20miles) it’s just too expensive. Rip off really.
I don’t know how other countries do it but I don’t think they spend as much as we do. Train fares are expensive because some people have no other alternative so they are milked for as much as possible.
Unions are good at politicising and polarising the workforce, most times for pure greed. I don’t belong to an Union and never will.
Anyway everyone wants pay rises that cover inflation, sure. Sadly the reality is if everyone gets that than it would fuel inflation even more. Compared to the pay rise given to NHS staff this Network Rail employees are taking the grand piss! What bunch of jokers!!
Every year it becomes more and more expensive and the service does not improve accordingly! Why is it so expensive to run trains in this country?
£30 return to London for a 40min train ride, crammed in a hot carriage and standing (20miles) it’s just too expensive. Rip off really.
I don’t know how other countries do it but I don’t think they spend as much as we do. Train fares are expensive because some people have no other alternative so they are milked for as much as possible.
Unions are good at politicising and polarising the workforce, most times for pure greed. I don’t belong to an Union and never will.
Anyway everyone wants pay rises that cover inflation, sure. Sadly the reality is if everyone gets that than it would fuel inflation even more. Compared to the pay rise given to NHS staff this Network Rail employees are taking the grand piss! What bunch of jokers!!
Ouroboros said:
Pointless and against rules. It goes on, the difference is, I saw no one ever get sacked, even the drunk bloke, got early retirement.
When you have a bunch of not very intelligent people earning 40k plus in a pretty easy and non pressured job, you want to protect that. It was like a bubble over what went on in the real world.
Welcome to UK policing.When you have a bunch of not very intelligent people earning 40k plus in a pretty easy and non pressured job, you want to protect that. It was like a bubble over what went on in the real world.
Carbon Sasquatch said:
I wasn't aware I was repeating myself - but I will now
Why get it off the table ? Restricting the ability to get rid of under performers & no longer required roles is just plain unhealthy.
I completely understand why the minimum effort culture is the result - it's the logical consequence.
Give the most productive quarter a 30% increase & the least productive zero. Clearly checks & balances required, but as a principle it leads to better results overall - IMHO of course,
Well, you mentioned jobs for life then repeated the same sentiment an hour later.Why get it off the table ? Restricting the ability to get rid of under performers & no longer required roles is just plain unhealthy.
I completely understand why the minimum effort culture is the result - it's the logical consequence.
Give the most productive quarter a 30% increase & the least productive zero. Clearly checks & balances required, but as a principle it leads to better results overall - IMHO of course,
No one mentioned under-performers until you’ve bagged it in with no longer required roles. Why have you done that?
Get it off the table for the reasons already given numerous times.
Thousands want VR? Work out a deal. Things will progress.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff