RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
Jockman said:
The strikes are timed for maximum impact. Look at upcoming airline strikes. Why wouldn’t they?
Unions represent less than 25% of the workforce these days. They are irrelevant to most peoples lives.
Having said that, 3% is a woeful offer to make so I respect their right to make their voices heard.
It’s 2% and only if all government demands are met to their satisfaction in the coming years.Unions represent less than 25% of the workforce these days. They are irrelevant to most peoples lives.
Having said that, 3% is a woeful offer to make so I respect their right to make their voices heard.
You’d be forgiven for thinking it’s planned provocation.
BJ gets his Thatcher vs Scargill moment?
I Know Nothing said:
Seen the price of rail travel, you have to be quite well off to travel by rail!
Well, it depends. Savvy travellers know to book well in advance and super saver off peak advance dothefandango type tickets can work out pretty cheap and cost effective compared to the alternatives but of course turn up and go type tickets can be horrendously expensive.
I totally agree that ticketing is an absolute clusterf
k on the railways and can be as confusing as hell. I read that there is as many as 53M different combinations of tickets throughout the network which is madness and that a simple system needs to be put in. If the government gets its way and closes all the ticket offices then it has to do what they did in London and introduce a simple fare structure like Oyster (Although this may happen as TfL will soon be heavily involved in ticketing within the SouthEast).But ultimately someone has to pay. Cheap tickets generally mean a heavier subsidy which is what generally happens in Euroland. Our weird hybrid system was originally intended to remove the subsidy altogether but it has never worked as intended and a limited subsidy remains but is far lower than what most Europeans pay
legzr1 said:
Ouroboros said:
Let's he honest strikes like this impact the lowest paid and vulnerable in society but the unions don't really care about those do they? They whole thing is I'm all right Jack f the rest.
Terrible isn’t it?If only a minister for transport would stop getting involved in employee and employer negotiations and let them sort it out…
Let NR drop the demand for compulsory redundancies (as they have for the last 12 years) - it would take literally hours to end the dispute.
Government will not let NR do that. Why is that?
NR/Govt have no need to withdraw CR if the RMT haven't yet agreed to necessary changes to T&Cs. If they agreed it could all be over quickly.
I know it's a bit 'chicken and egg' but, whether the RMT like it or not, it is for the employers, as NR/Govt, to drive progress. The RMT might like to think that they are calling the shots but everyone knows that strikes could go on for months and there'd be little likelihood of the government rushing to do anything about it
Jockman said:
The strikes are timed for maximum impact. Look at upcoming airline strikes. Why wouldn’t they?
Unions represent less than 25% of the workforce these days. They are irrelevant to most peoples lives.
Having said that, 3% is a woeful offer to make so I respect their right to make their voices heard.
Unions should be irrelevent these days but seems we are going in the opposite direction.Unions represent less than 25% of the workforce these days. They are irrelevant to most peoples lives.
Having said that, 3% is a woeful offer to make so I respect their right to make their voices heard.
Working conditions seems to be getting worse, age of retirment is going up while some get to retire at 55 if not earlier. Pay has decreased in recent years and there is demand that some sectors work unsociable hours for little if no extra pay (I will put a seperate posting on this in a bit).
legzr1 said:
Terrible isn’t it?
If only a minister for transport would stop getting involved in employee and employer negotiations and let them sort it out…
Let NR drop the demand for compulsory redundancies (as they have for the last 12 years) - it would take literally hours to end the dispute.
Government will not let NR do that. Why is that?
I think when you have spent 50+ billion on something that is obviously failing, then you get a say in wage negotiations.If only a minister for transport would stop getting involved in employee and employer negotiations and let them sort it out…
Let NR drop the demand for compulsory redundancies (as they have for the last 12 years) - it would take literally hours to end the dispute.
Government will not let NR do that. Why is that?
Vasco said:
As you would say to me, it's all part of negotiation.
NR/Govt have no need to withdraw CR if the RMT haven't yet agreed to necessary changes to T&Cs. If they agreed it could all be over quickly.
I know it's a bit 'chicken and egg' but, whether the RMT like it or not, it is for the employers, as NR/Govt, to drive progress. The RMT might like to think that they are calling the shots but everyone knows that strikes could go on for months and there'd be little likelihood of the government rushing to do anything about it
My point stands.NR/Govt have no need to withdraw CR if the RMT haven't yet agreed to necessary changes to T&Cs. If they agreed it could all be over quickly.
I know it's a bit 'chicken and egg' but, whether the RMT like it or not, it is for the employers, as NR/Govt, to drive progress. The RMT might like to think that they are calling the shots but everyone knows that strikes could go on for months and there'd be little likelihood of the government rushing to do anything about it
There is ‘something else’ going on here.
Shapps (quite rightly) has said this is an RMT vs NR dispute. He (quite rightly) has opinions and is entitled to voice them.
All good so far.
For 12 years, RMT have negotiated with NR and the TOCs, taking (where necessary) compulsory redundancy off the table.
NR have indicated that can be done. RMT have said NR indicated it could be done. This Government then interfere.
Why is this happening?
This isn’t negotiation. This is stopping negotiations before they can even begin.
Read my last couple of posts and tell me that this is all just part of the normal process.
Tlandcruiser said:
Digga said:
To their credit, BBC news just ran a piece about the strike at the end of their half hourly bulletin. Played an interview with a Blackpool landlady; bookings down 30% on both her properties. She said this is indicative of what others would be experiencing. This is the brutal truth about unions flexing their muscle in monopoly industries. Hundreds, thousands of businesses, thousands, tens of, possibly hundreds of thousands of ordinary people’s travel, holiday and leisure plans wrecked. This after two years of lockdowns. It is morally repugnant.
Soley down to strikes and nothing to do with the cost of living?I Know Nothing said:
Digga said:
To their credit, BBC news just ran a piece about the strike at the end of their half hourly bulletin. Played an interview with a Blackpool landlady; bookings down 30% on both her properties. She said this is indicative of what others would be experiencing. This is the brutal truth about unions flexing their muscle in monopoly industries. Hundreds, thousands of businesses, thousands, tens of, possibly hundreds of thousands of ordinary people’s travel, holiday and leisure plans wrecked. This after two years of lockdowns. It is morally repugnant.
How is it a monopoly industry?You can travel by car, bus, plane, there are alternatives!
I also find it really hard to believe 30% of people take the train when going on holiday.
You call a strike at short notice, people who rely (not least because they’re told “cars are baaad McKay.”) on public transport, have only the limited coach network to fall back on. They are not directly interchangeable either, if you have set you life up to be carless and reliant on rail.
I Know Nothing said:
Seen the price of rail travel, you have to be quite well off to travel by rail!
Of course you can say the bosses and the government don't care about this group because they can just as easily settle the dispute by giving the railway workers what they want.
As long as these strikes are announced in advance most people and organisations should be able to make arrangements to mitigate any disruption by finding alternatives?
Seen the price of fuel, car tax car expenses.Of course you can say the bosses and the government don't care about this group because they can just as easily settle the dispute by giving the railway workers what they want.
As long as these strikes are announced in advance most people and organisations should be able to make arrangements to mitigate any disruption by finding alternatives?
Look where these strikes impact the most, towns in the sticks, places that aren't readily accessible. The places where poor or older people live. It is shameful really and I think the rail industry needs a shake up.
It is funny seeing this fat middle aged union reps, never worked a hard day in there lives smiling at all this. Got to keep getting the subs. I will never forgot the miners living on nothing whilst Arthur Scargill lived in up on full wages in his penthouse. Who are the idiots there?
Ouroboros said:
I think when you have spent 50+ billion on something that is obviously failing, then you get a say in wage negotiations.
I think when you’ve repeated the ‘nothing to do with us, it’s for them to decide, we don’t get involved in wage disputes’ mantra over and over it’s a little rich to then prevent NR doing what they’ve said is possible.You get that yeah?
Where do you get £50Bn + from?
Is that net of the huge amount that has gone to TOC CEOs and nationalised foreign companies over the last decade?
Does it include the failed franchise system?
Does it include the cost of bailing out RailTrack and the costs of nationalising it running up debt and deaths?
legzr1 said:
I think when you’ve repeated the ‘nothing to do with us, it’s for them to decide, we don’t get involved in wage disputes’ mantra over and over it’s a little rich to then prevent NR doing what they’ve said is possible.
You get that yeah?
Where do you get £50Bn + from?
Is that net of the huge amount that has gone to TOC CEOs and nationalised foreign companies over the last decade?
Does it include the failed franchise system?
Does it include the cost of bailing out RailTrack and the costs of nationalising it running up debt and deaths?
50 billion is the network rail debt after the government fully took over in 2020. The debt was increasing at 5 billion a year so probably at 60-70 billion now with all the COVID stuff. You get that yeah?
Where do you get £50Bn + from?
Is that net of the huge amount that has gone to TOC CEOs and nationalised foreign companies over the last decade?
Does it include the failed franchise system?
Does it include the cost of bailing out RailTrack and the costs of nationalising it running up debt and deaths?
legzr1 said:
It’s 2% and only if all government demands are met to their satisfaction in the coming years.
You’d be forgiven for thinking it’s planned provocation.
BJ gets his Thatcher vs Scargill moment?
Next you’ll be telling me he’s looking for a Falklands like distraction abroad to unify disparate domestic opinion…..ah, I see what you mean. You’d be forgiven for thinking it’s planned provocation.
BJ gets his Thatcher vs Scargill moment?
He’s not even in the same league.
BrabusMog said:
Why are train company employees supposed to be immune to redundancy?!
It is the BR mentality.Back in the old days they got a s
t load of perks, free rail travel, some 1st class. Golden pensions etc. When the debts kept mounting up the rail unions just didn't want to change, because the government keeps bailing them out. There will be a point when it just isn't feasible to spend billions on something that is obviously failing.I worked with some people who worked less than 6 months a year for full salary, because contract from 20 years said so.
Edited by Ouroboros on Saturday 25th June 13:14
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
As you would say to me, it's all part of negotiation.
NR/Govt have no need to withdraw CR if the RMT haven't yet agreed to necessary changes to T&Cs. If they agreed it could all be over quickly.
I know it's a bit 'chicken and egg' but, whether the RMT like it or not, it is for the employers, as NR/Govt, to drive progress. The RMT might like to think that they are calling the shots but everyone knows that strikes could go on for months and there'd be little likelihood of the government rushing to do anything about it
My point stands.NR/Govt have no need to withdraw CR if the RMT haven't yet agreed to necessary changes to T&Cs. If they agreed it could all be over quickly.
I know it's a bit 'chicken and egg' but, whether the RMT like it or not, it is for the employers, as NR/Govt, to drive progress. The RMT might like to think that they are calling the shots but everyone knows that strikes could go on for months and there'd be little likelihood of the government rushing to do anything about it
There is ‘something else’ going on here.
Shapps (quite rightly) has said this is an RMT vs NR dispute. He (quite rightly) has opinions and is entitled to voice them.
All good so far.
For 12 years, RMT have negotiated with NR and the TOCs, taking (where necessary) compulsory redundancy off the table.
NR have indicated that can be done. RMT have said NR indicated it could be done. This Government then interfere.
Why is this happening?
This isn’t negotiation. This is stopping negotiations before they can even begin.
Read my last couple of posts and tell me that this is all just part of the normal process.
It's about time that the railways were treated like most other businesses and I daresay that the government can see that this is as good a time as any.
RMT needs a big dose of reality - it will be a really big shock for them, given how they've been protected from the real world for far too long.
Digga said:
Because you, I, or anyone else can’t opt to run a train service, ad hoc. That’s how.
You call a strike at short notice, people who rely (not least because they’re told “cars are baaad McKay.”) on public transport, have only the limited coach network to fall back on. They are not directly interchangeable either, if you have set you life up to be carless and reliant on rail.
It’s a monopoly because only railways can, err, do railways?You call a strike at short notice, people who rely (not least because they’re told “cars are baaad McKay.”) on public transport, have only the limited coach network to fall back on. They are not directly interchangeable either, if you have set you life up to be carless and reliant on rail.
It’s not a monopoly on transportation.
Legally, strike action has a process including advance warning.
Plan accordingly. Used different modes of transport. Not many people have a mainline station at the bottom of their driveway and yet millions use the network (on non-strike day).
BrabusMog said:
legzr1 said:
BrabusMog said:
Why are train company employees supposed to be immune to redundancy?!
Have you read the thread?(Rhetorical question, apologies)
If there was a valid reason, I am sure I’d have read and understood it by now.
I’ve said this several times, explained it and still find myself repeating it yet again.
There have been thousands of redundancies. I’ve been made redundant quite a few times. Every time there’s a downturn in the economy the threat returns and more are forced out of the industry.
I can’t dumb it down any further.
Edited by legzr1 on Saturday 25th June 13:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff