RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
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.
It goes on everywhere, in all industries, private and national.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.
Just read the reports of the average parliamentary bar at 11PM.
We can all give anecdotal examples to prove a point either way but it’s a little pointless and gets us nowhere.
I asked yo to name and shame because all railway SC posts are open to regular medicals, spot checks and compulsory testing after an incident. How an alcoholic escaped this is more down to s
t management imho.Unless he was an alcoholic seeking help and wasn’t actually drunk when the incident you’ve mentioned occurred?
Difficult to refute anything you’ve said without details so I’ll leave it at that.
Legacywr said:
The last paragraph that you quoted from the previous poster, was regarding taking CR off the table… no?
Yes.In this specific case, this specific dispute, where thousands have applied for voluntary redundancy.
Nowhere have I said I thought what you suggested I was thinking.
legzr1 said:
It goes on everywhere, in all industries, private and national.
Just read the reports of the average parliamentary bar at 11PM.
We can all give anecdotal examples to prove a point either way but it’s a little pointless and gets us nowhere.
I asked yo to name and shame because all railway SC posts are open to regular medicals, spot checks and compulsory testing after an incident. How an alcoholic escaped this is more down to st management imho.
Unless he was an alcoholic seeking help and wasn’t actually drunk when the incident you’ve mentioned occurred?
Difficult to refute anything you’ve said without details so I’ll leave it at that.
It happened at oxley depot in Wolverhampton 2006, if there are details somewhere. I know it happened as I was there that night. The union played up the point of him having a problem, and didn't seem to care about the non unionised cleaners, on sJust read the reports of the average parliamentary bar at 11PM.
We can all give anecdotal examples to prove a point either way but it’s a little pointless and gets us nowhere.
I asked yo to name and shame because all railway SC posts are open to regular medicals, spot checks and compulsory testing after an incident. How an alcoholic escaped this is more down to s
t management imho.Unless he was an alcoholic seeking help and wasn’t actually drunk when the incident you’ve mentioned occurred?
Difficult to refute anything you’ve said without details so I’ll leave it at that.
t money who nearly got killed.The worst thing was it had happened before but they covered it up.
I've worked in private companies and never seen or heard anything like what went on at that depot.
legzr1 said:
Legacywr said:
The last paragraph that you quoted from the previous poster, was regarding taking CR off the table… no?
Yes.In this specific case, this specific dispute, where thousands have applied for voluntary redundancy.
Nowhere have I said I thought what you suggested I was thinking.
But, anyway, it’s not practical to take CR off the table, even in this dispute.
Apologies if this has been said already, however surely it’s the job of the union to protect the job of _every_ member? The minute they accept compulsory redundancies, they’ll be sending a message to their members that’s equivalent to “we’ll hang one of you out to dry…we just don’t know who yet” and then with that, the whole concept of a union crumbles. Or am I talking nonsense?
FWIW I’m certainly not on anyone side here, however I do accept that there are some things a union has to do
FWIW I’m certainly not on anyone side here, however I do accept that there are some things a union has to do
legzr1 said:
Well, you mentioned jobs for life then repeated the same sentiment an hour later.
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.
It's a different culture & maybe you haven't experienced both.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.
Compulsory redundancy can be for either the worst performers when reducing a team size or for roles no longer needed.
VR typically attracts 2 types - early retirement & the best people, with long service who know they can get another job.
The people you want to get rid of almost never apply for VR.
No compulsory redundancy ever, under any circumstances suits the slackers in any organisation.
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.....
In my experience, most people want to do a good day's work and do the best they can. I worked for about 8 factories in my time as the operator of a specialised keyboard. Skilled work. I got no extra pay for doing so yet paid for my evening classes to learn the device, one year of two nights a week. I did an additional one year one night a week and managed to scrounge a little bit of extra pay on the additional skill.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 journeymen worked hard, and harder than they needed to. They generally took pride in their work.
Most people would, wouldn't they?
I was on call 24/7 for two years in the police. I got no extra pay for it. I was in the Lake District on holiday still available for advice over the phone, and the manager of the cottage was only too willing to assist.
CrgT16 said:
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.
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!!
Almost without exception we spend less on running our railways (setting aside large capital projects like CrossRail and HS2) than our European peers. They subsidise their operations by between two and five times the amount we do (per passenger mile). Our high ticket prices are mostly a function of the cost not being 'hidden' by subsidy - in Europe the ticket will cost less but the citizens will pay more tax.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!!
As for the effect of wages rises on inflation - we are in a price-driven inflation cycle (caused by a combination of money washing around the economy from various pandemic support measures, the sudden release of lockdown measures causing a rebound effect plus disrupted supply chains, shortages of key materials and panic buying of oil and gas due to the war in Ukraine). The wages are rising to meet higher prices, rather than prices rising because people have too much money. This inflation period is not likely to last long, and wages rising to meet it really just long-term adjustment for a decade or more of minimal wage rises in the bottom half of the workforce.
Carbon Sasquatch said:
It's a different culture & maybe you haven't experienced both.
Compulsory redundancy can be for either the worst performers when reducing a team size or for roles no longer needed.
VR typically attracts 2 types - early retirement & the best people, with long service who know they can get another job.
The people you want to get rid of almost never apply for VR.
No compulsory redundancy ever, under any circumstances suits the slackers in any organisation.
The ‘people you want to get rid of’ should be performance managed out of the business. Poor employees should be dealt with with effective and proactive management and should not rely on VR in the hope they apply or use CR to get rid and end up with a demoralised workforce. There are processes in place just like in any other workplace to deal with poor performance and these would have been agreed with the unions prior. As long as the process is followed to the letter then there’s nothing a union can do. Compulsory redundancy can be for either the worst performers when reducing a team size or for roles no longer needed.
VR typically attracts 2 types - early retirement & the best people, with long service who know they can get another job.
The people you want to get rid of almost never apply for VR.
No compulsory redundancy ever, under any circumstances suits the slackers in any organisation.
Using CR to rid yourself of troublesome employees is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Legacywr said:
I think my statement was a reasonable reply.
But, anyway, it’s not practical to take CR off the table, even in this dispute.
You seemed to suggest I thought there is never a need for compulsory redundancy.But, anyway, it’s not practical to take CR off the table, even in this dispute.
I don’t think that, never have and certainly haven’t even suggested that on this thread.
Maybe you think I’m splitting hairs?
No. I am not.
And not practical to take the threat off the table inthis dispute?
We’ll see.
I have a feeling that is exactly what will happen. And it will signal (sorry) the start of meaningful discussion.
On this, you CAN quote me.
valiant said:
The ‘people you want to get rid of’ should be performance managed out of the business. Poor employees should be dealt with with effective and proactive management and should not rely on VR in the hope they apply or use CR to get rid and end up with a demoralised workforce. There are processes in place just like in any other workplace to deal with poor performance and these would have been agreed with the unions prior. As long as the process is followed to the letter then there’s nothing a union can do.
Using CR to rid yourself of troublesome employees is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Again, I find myself in full agreement.Using CR to rid yourself of troublesome employees is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Carbon Sasquatch said:
It's a different culture & maybe you haven't experienced both.
Compulsory redundancy can be for either the worst performers when reducing a team size or for roles no longer needed.
VR typically attracts 2 types - early retirement & the best people, with long service who know they can get another job.
The people you want to get rid of almost never apply for VR.
No compulsory redundancy ever, under any circumstances suits the slackers in any organisation.
I’ve never said ‘no compulsory redundancies, ever’. And I can’t remember reading it anywhere on this thread either.Compulsory redundancy can be for either the worst performers when reducing a team size or for roles no longer needed.
VR typically attracts 2 types - early retirement & the best people, with long service who know they can get another job.
The people you want to get rid of almost never apply for VR.
No compulsory redundancy ever, under any circumstances suits the slackers in any organisation.
What I have said is drop the threat and implement VR correctly, in good faith.
It looks like you haven’t had experience of how this works.
I have.
Three times.
Your mantra of ridding the company of the lazy, the feckless, the absolute fools by the use of CR takes no account of this dispute. When a whole sector is being threatened with unemployment even the bright, intelligent and hard working go out with the bath water.
Is CR really the tool for this particular job?
Hardly the scenario you seem to be describing.
Vasco said:
Everything to date suggests that the % increase will largely be down to the RMT members themselves. It's simply going to boil down to how prepared rail staff are to accept revised Terms & Conditions.
Refusal to accept changes probably means 3% max.........it's then over to you....
Certain terms and conditions are worth a hell of a lot more than 3%. All depends on the sector, job and depot though. Refusal to accept changes probably means 3% max.........it's then over to you....
Excuse me if it's already been posted but this is the offer from the DFT no wonder the RMT are out the door don't think any sane person would accept this.
- ~2500 compulsory redundancies
- increase weeks on nights (28-39)
- reduce night shift pay from 1.25x to 1.10x rate
- reduce weekend shift pay from 1.50x to 1.10x rate
- no mention of new tech in moderation so far
Also talk of fire and rehire for mobile operatives, onto self employed contracts requiring own vans, no guarantee on fuel allowance.
As you can see that it quite a hit to someone's earnings in the name of modernisation.
Not a lot of detail discussed yet, but in today's meeting TOCs have explicitly stated their desire to change to DOO on 'all applicable routes and traction on a date to be specified'.
Also mention of the 'creation of a customer service grade' which I believe was in GBR documents earlier this year.
- From RMT* Government's offer to deal with the cost of living crisis and *11.7% inflation*
- NR* - offer is 2% plus 2 payments of 0.5% of salary this year, changes to T&Cs
- ~2500 compulsory redundancies
- increase weeks on nights (28-39)
- reduce night shift pay from 1.25x to 1.10x rate
- reduce weekend shift pay from 1.50x to 1.10x rate
- no mention of new tech in moderation so far
Also talk of fire and rehire for mobile operatives, onto self employed contracts requiring own vans, no guarantee on fuel allowance.
As you can see that it quite a hit to someone's earnings in the name of modernisation.
- TOC* - off is 2% plus extra 1% in exchange for T&C's
- Pensionable age to be raised 62 to 65*
Not a lot of detail discussed yet, but in today's meeting TOCs have explicitly stated their desire to change to DOO on 'all applicable routes and traction on a date to be specified'.
Also mention of the 'creation of a customer service grade' which I believe was in GBR documents earlier this year.
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.
Yup. Gold plated employment disappeared for everyone else years ago.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.
They should be grateful for how long the grays train has lasted and get with the rest of the world.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff