RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
milkround said:
My union actively campaigned and went mad when we were given a retention bonus. Claiming as it wasn’t given to people in other roles it was unfair.
They then refused a pay offer because it was only for my working group. Costing me abs people doing my job thousands.
They have now done the dirty and thrown us under the bus with a pay rise less than originally offered to look after others in the same union. Basically playing us like pawns and lying though their teeth. Not even the reps can defend it.
Some unions might be great, but at my workplace they are a disgrace and have insured I have less money. But hey it’s the government who are to blame…
Unions look after the union, collecting dues. Gone are the days of cooperative unions where dues went to members not fat cat executives in plush golden handshake pay deals. Modern unions act like the Mafia. It is funny though don't join one, still get the pay increase benefits, lol.They then refused a pay offer because it was only for my working group. Costing me abs people doing my job thousands.
They have now done the dirty and thrown us under the bus with a pay rise less than originally offered to look after others in the same union. Basically playing us like pawns and lying though their teeth. Not even the reps can defend it.
Some unions might be great, but at my workplace they are a disgrace and have insured I have less money. But hey it’s the government who are to blame…
Ouroboros said:
Unions look after the union, collecting dues. Gone are the days of cooperative unions where dues went to members not fat cat executives in plush golden handshake pay deals. Modern unions act like the Mafia. It is funny though don't join one, still get the pay increase benefits, lol.
I’m prepared to discuss things with anyone on here (within my limited knowledge) but you’re coming across more and more as a Troll.Your opinion of ‘grr union! seem 50 years out of date.
I Know Nothing said:
I recently went to Stoke on a train, had to change at Crewe!
Got to the station, one window open for ticket sales large queue, £20 for 37 min journey one way, train delayed.
Got to Crewe, Crewe is a huge station, no idea were to go for my connection. There was one guy on the platform and about 10 people around him looking for guidance took about 30 minutes to get my turn. Got to Stoke, train doors stuck shut, no one to summon help.
Just what the railways need less people!
You stood on a platform waiting to speak to station staff for directions for 30 minutes?Got to the station, one window open for ticket sales large queue, £20 for 37 min journey one way, train delayed.
Got to Crewe, Crewe is a huge station, no idea were to go for my connection. There was one guy on the platform and about 10 people around him looking for guidance took about 30 minutes to get my turn. Got to Stoke, train doors stuck shut, no one to summon help.
Just what the railways need less people!
I don't believe you.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Saturday 25th June 14:47
legzr1 said:
loafer123 said:
Why shouldn’t it be mentioned?
Clearly, if redundancies are required, it is better to do that via VR, but if not, like any other organisation, it would have to be CR…they don’t have guaranteed jobs for life…no one does.
As for the demand itself, it has been remarkably imprecise about what it covers…
Why should it be mentioned when it isn’t required to be mentioned.Clearly, if redundancies are required, it is better to do that via VR, but if not, like any other organisation, it would have to be CR…they don’t have guaranteed jobs for life…no one does.
As for the demand itself, it has been remarkably imprecise about what it covers…
The mention of it (and refusal, so far, to remove it) leads directly to your last point.
RMT and NR seem quite happy to negotiate, as normal, without it.
Other think differently.
No serious negotiations as a result.
I guess someone, somewhere knows exactly the reason for this.
I can (and have) hinted and guessed.
I'm not really sure why there's so much discussion about the past 12 years and the ability to get CR off the table - it's possible now if the RMT get off their high horse. Just because someone has given in to their demands for 12 years doesn't mean that it needs to remain.
Surely, it's irrelevant whether it's NR or the government? - the fact remains that the employer has included it as a requirement (which may be removed, at the right time).
Vasco said:
.......and as I've said already, why should anybody take CR off the table before the RMT agree to revised T&Cs ? - it's for the employer/govt to agree with the RMT, not to just give in to their demands.
I'm not really sure why there's so much discussion about the past 12 years and the ability to get CR off the table - it's possible now if the RMT get off their high horse. Just because someone has given in to their demands for 12 years doesn't mean that it needs to remain.
Surely, it's irrelevant whether it's NR or the government? - the fact remains that the employer has included it as a requirement (which may be removed, at the right time).
I’ve answered.I'm not really sure why there's so much discussion about the past 12 years and the ability to get CR off the table - it's possible now if the RMT get off their high horse. Just because someone has given in to their demands for 12 years doesn't mean that it needs to remain.
Surely, it's irrelevant whether it's NR or the government? - the fact remains that the employer has included it as a requirement (which may be removed, at the right time).
This will keep going around in circles if your answer to “why should it be a demand if it isn’t required?” continues to be “because” or “why shouldn’t it be?”.
The previous 12 years is to give context. Progress can and has been made. It can continue to be made but someone, somewhere is stopping it. It’s not the Union. It’s not NR. It’s not the TOCs and FOCs.
That leaves one other party.
You make up your own mind as to the reasons why.
The other two big railway unions have managed it.
I Know Nothing said:
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.
I can't really opt to run an airline either, so they are monopoly?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.
The strike was not short notice, it was talked about for a while unlike Easyjet and others who just canceled the flights while people were at the airport, but that is OK because it was the managers fault.
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
.......and as I've said already, why should anybody take CR off the table before the RMT agree to revised T&Cs ? - it's for the employer/govt to agree with the RMT, not to just give in to their demands.
I'm not really sure why there's so much discussion about the past 12 years and the ability to get CR off the table - it's possible now if the RMT get off their high horse. Just because someone has given in to their demands for 12 years doesn't mean that it needs to remain.
Surely, it's irrelevant whether it's NR or the government? - the fact remains that the employer has included it as a requirement (which may be removed, at the right time).
I’ve answered.I'm not really sure why there's so much discussion about the past 12 years and the ability to get CR off the table - it's possible now if the RMT get off their high horse. Just because someone has given in to their demands for 12 years doesn't mean that it needs to remain.
Surely, it's irrelevant whether it's NR or the government? - the fact remains that the employer has included it as a requirement (which may be removed, at the right time).
This will keep going around in circles if your answer to “why should it be a demand if it isn’t required?” continues to be “because” or “why shouldn’t it be?”.
The previous 12 years is to give context. Progress can and has been made. It can continue to be made but someone, somewhere is stopping it. It’s not the Union. It’s not NR. It’s not the TOCs and FOCs.
That leaves one other party.
You make up your own mind as to the reasons why.
The other two big railway unions have managed it.
I still don't see the problem - let's just both accept that's what they require. You can then blame them and no one else.
Even so, it's still in the hands of the RMT to agree revised T&Cs.
I recognise that you're being very helpful and pragmatic but I struggle to see what all the fuss is about CR - it should remain, for the time being. The previous 12 years is irelevant. Times and personnel change.
Vasco said:
?? I've already said that it can be NR or government. Neither of us know a definitive answer - but, so what if it is a personal insistence of Boris, Shapps or Sunak ?
I still don't see the problem - let's just both accept that's what they require. You can then blame them and no one else.
Even so, it's still in the hands of the RMT to agree revised T&Cs.
I recognise that you're being very helpful and pragmatic but I struggle to see what all the fuss is about CR - it should remain, for the time being. The previous 12 years is irelevant. Times and personnel change.
I really can’t be bothered to go through it all again I still don't see the problem - let's just both accept that's what they require. You can then blame them and no one else.
Even so, it's still in the hands of the RMT to agree revised T&Cs.
I recognise that you're being very helpful and pragmatic but I struggle to see what all the fuss is about CR - it should remain, for the time being. The previous 12 years is irelevant. Times and personnel change.
.I’ve said what I think will work and help progress things. I’ve also said who is stopping that. I don’t know why or what their motive really is but I can guess. The last 12 years is absolutely relevant and shows what can be achieved without political interference.
Drop the demand, get round the table, stop this nonsense.
Simple.
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
?? I've already said that it can be NR or government. Neither of us know a definitive answer - but, so what if it is a personal insistence of Boris, Shapps or Sunak ?
I still don't see the problem - let's just both accept that's what they require. You can then blame them and no one else.
Even so, it's still in the hands of the RMT to agree revised T&Cs.
I recognise that you're being very helpful and pragmatic but I struggle to see what all the fuss is about CR - it should remain, for the time being. The previous 12 years is irelevant. Times and personnel change.
I really can’t be bothered to go through it all again I still don't see the problem - let's just both accept that's what they require. You can then blame them and no one else.
Even so, it's still in the hands of the RMT to agree revised T&Cs.
I recognise that you're being very helpful and pragmatic but I struggle to see what all the fuss is about CR - it should remain, for the time being. The previous 12 years is irelevant. Times and personnel change.
.I’ve said what I think will work and help progress things. I’ve also said who is stopping that. I don’t know why or what their motive really is but I can guess. The last 12 years is absolutely relevant and shows what can be achieved without political interference.
Drop the demand, get round the table, stop this nonsense.
Simple.
The government can insist on whatever it likes. Probably, they see little point in rushing anything as union disputes often improve Tory standing in the country [and, yes, they could do with some good news!].
I'm sure Boris isn't going to bother with rail issues for weeks/months, so the RMT is free to call more strikes if they think it will change anything.
Most of the country isn't bothered, or affected. There's really not much need to see early progress.
legzr1 said:
I’m prepared to discuss things with anyone on here (within my limited knowledge) but you’re coming across more and more as a Troll.
Your opinion of ‘grr union! seem 50 years out of date.
No I've worked in 3 unionised companies.Your opinion of ‘grr union! seem 50 years out of date.
I worked for one of the biggest British heavy manufacturers, worked for 2 years on agency, paid union dues. After making 700 million profit the company decided to get rid of 700 agency in 4 weeks. What did the union do, nothing.
I've worked in the rail industry and seen a drunk driver nearly kill others whilst the union did all it could to protect his job.
I worked at another unionised site where the union reps told us, to not work too hard and if anyone was asked to do overtime, they would go straight to the union to moan. It was embarrassing and the company was struggling ended up moving business abroad.
So I talk from good experience, if you think that is trolling, I think that is because you are coming across as brainwashed and naive.
legzr1 said:
Why should it be mentioned when it isn’t required to be mentioned.
The mention of it (and refusal, so far, to remove it) leads directly to your last point.
RMT and NR seem quite happy to negotiate, as normal, without it.
Other think differently.
No serious negotiations as a result.
I guess someone, somewhere knows exactly the reason for this.
I can (and have) hinted and guessed.
Let’s look at this another way.The mention of it (and refusal, so far, to remove it) leads directly to your last point.
RMT and NR seem quite happy to negotiate, as normal, without it.
Other think differently.
No serious negotiations as a result.
I guess someone, somewhere knows exactly the reason for this.
I can (and have) hinted and guessed.
Say there weren’t enough volunteers. Do you agree that businesses, including the railways, should be able to make people redundant?
If not, all you are doing is dancing around guaranteeing jobs for life.
Vasco said:
It seems that you simply aren't reading or understanding what I keep saying.
The government can insist on whatever it likes. Probably, they see little point in rushing anything as union disputes often improve Tory standing in the country [and, yes, they could do with some good news!].
I'm sure Boris isn't going to bother with rail issues for weeks/months, so the RMT is free to call more strikes if they think it will change anything.
Most of the country isn't bothered, or affected. There's really not much need to see early progress.
On the contrary, I read and understood and simply disagree with you.The government can insist on whatever it likes. Probably, they see little point in rushing anything as union disputes often improve Tory standing in the country [and, yes, they could do with some good news!].
I'm sure Boris isn't going to bother with rail issues for weeks/months, so the RMT is free to call more strikes if they think it will change anything.
Most of the country isn't bothered, or affected. There's really not much need to see early progress.
I’ve suggested what can move things on. You next post seems to suggest there’s is no need to move on at all.
I’m relying on BJ to do nothing.
There is no freezer to hide in.
No reason for another trip to Ukraine just yet.
I had hoped that his front bench might have more about them. The fact is, they’re even worse. At least he got one thing right - no competition from his latest reshuffle.
loafer123 said:
Let’s look at this another way.
Say there weren’t enough volunteers. Do you agree that businesses, including the railways, should be able to make people redundant?
If not, all you are doing is dancing around guaranteeing jobs for life.
Hypotheticals?Say there weren’t enough volunteers. Do you agree that businesses, including the railways, should be able to make people redundant?
If not, all you are doing is dancing around guaranteeing jobs for life.
In the case you’ve given, yes.
Focus could then turn to leaving packages, re-employment in other industries, god forbid even some government help with workshops helping with retraining.
In this dispute, that isn’t the case.
Ouroboros said:
No I've worked in 3 unionised companies.
I worked for one of the biggest British heavy manufacturers, worked for 2 years on agency, paid union dues. After making 700 million profit the company decided to get rid of 700 agency in 4 weeks. What did the union do, nothing.
I've worked in the rail industry and seen a drunk driver nearly kill others whilst the union did all it could to protect his job.
I worked at another unionised site where the union reps told us, to not work too hard and if anyone was asked to do overtime, they would go straight to the union to moan. It was embarrassing and the company was struggling ended up moving business abroad.
So I talk from good experience, if you think that is trolling, I think that is because you are coming across as brainwashed and naive.
You talk of anecdotal instances in what seem to me to be quite sI worked for one of the biggest British heavy manufacturers, worked for 2 years on agency, paid union dues. After making 700 million profit the company decided to get rid of 700 agency in 4 weeks. What did the union do, nothing.
I've worked in the rail industry and seen a drunk driver nearly kill others whilst the union did all it could to protect his job.
I worked at another unionised site where the union reps told us, to not work too hard and if anyone was asked to do overtime, they would go straight to the union to moan. It was embarrassing and the company was struggling ended up moving business abroad.
So I talk from good experience, if you think that is trolling, I think that is because you are coming across as brainwashed and naive.
t places to work with st representation.It’s a shame to extrapolate that to describe all unions, including the RMT. It does you no favours.
Naive even…
It was the last point in your last post that was obvious trolling.
And, I think you know that.
Edited by legzr1 on Saturday 25th June 16:27
legzr1 said:
loafer123 said:
Let’s look at this another way.
Say there weren’t enough volunteers. Do you agree that businesses, including the railways, should be able to make people redundant?
If not, all you are doing is dancing around guaranteeing jobs for life.
Hypotheticals?Say there weren’t enough volunteers. Do you agree that businesses, including the railways, should be able to make people redundant?
If not, all you are doing is dancing around guaranteeing jobs for life.
In the case you’ve given, yes.
Focus could then turn to leaving packages, re-employment in other industries, god forbid even some government help with workshops helping with retraining.
In this dispute, that isn’t the case.
legzr1 said:
You talk of anecdotal instances in what seem to me to be quite st places to work with st representation.
It’s a shame to extrapolate that to describe all unions, including the RMT. It does you no favours.
Naive even…
It was the last point in your last post that was obvious trolling.
And, I think you know that.
You can't call me trolling that say that my own experiences are invalid, because they don't fit with your thinking. Life is about experiences that happen to you.t places to work with st representation.It’s a shame to extrapolate that to describe all unions, including the RMT. It does you no favours.
Naive even…
It was the last point in your last post that was obvious trolling.
And, I think you know that.
Edited by legzr1 on Saturday 25th June 16:27
loafer123 said:
The problem with your theory is that it turns everything into a new dispute…rolling action to stop change…they will never agree to CR, as they are demonstrating now.
You asked a hypothetical question. I answered ‘ in kind’Truth is, I can’t predict with certainty what would happen. Nor can you.
However ,very recent history shows what can be achieved without the the threat of CR.
Now it’s up to those who are paid to sort this out to actually get it sorted.
Less interference would be welcomed too.
Ouroboros said:
You can't call me trolling that say that my own experiences are invalid, because they don't fit with your thinking. Life is about experiences that happen to you.
So your last sentence wasn’t a lame attempt at provoking a reaction?If you’d left it out of the conversation we’d be having a different discussion.
But you didn’t and we’re not.
Luckily for you, you’re out of the industry now so smile and move on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff