RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
legzr1 said:
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.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.
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.
It's not a question of trying to do it 'the other way round'. The employer has said what they are looking for - the RMT can agree, in order to progress matters, or they can sulk and call more strikes. I'm sure that Boris, and the bulk of UK travellers really don't care what they do.
There's really no need for the government to get involved in negotiations. Network Rail have been given guidelines and it's for them to deal with the RMT.
It's not a question of all meeting around a table to negotiate a settlement. The RMT know what is needed of them and NR know what they can agree to.
Pure numbers of potential redundancies (if indeed there are any) does not mean that those wishing to leave on VR will be from the areas where reductions are needed. As I keep saying, CR may still be needed - if the RMT don't like it, and do their usual sulk if they can't get their own way, then I guess they will call more strikes.
Why do you feel that the rail industry shouldn't suffer CR if, despite efforts, that is the correct way forward?
legzr1 said:
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.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 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.
We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
Vasco said:
This is partly why we keep going in circles. You seem to think that the RMT has the upper hand - it doesn't. Some soft negotiating in the past seems to have skewed their view of life and a history of no CR has made them assume that they can demand it again. It needs to stay as an option until the RMT agrees changes.
It's not a question of trying to do it 'the other way round'. The employer has said what they are looking for - the RMT can agree, in order to progress matters, or they can sulk and call more strikes. I'm sure that Boris, and the bulk of UK travellers really don't care what they do.
There's really no need for the government to get involved in negotiations. Network Rail have been given guidelines and it's for them to deal with the RMT.
It's not a question of all meeting around a table to negotiate a settlement. The RMT know what is needed of them and NR know what they can agree to.
Pure numbers of potential redundancies (if indeed there are any) does not mean that those wishing to leave on VR will be from the areas where reductions are needed. As I keep saying, CR may still be needed - if the RMT don't like it, and do their usual sulk if they can't get their own way, then I guess they will call more strikes.
Why do you feel that the rail industry shouldn't suffer CR if, despite efforts, that is the correct way forward?
We’ll agree to disagree.It's not a question of trying to do it 'the other way round'. The employer has said what they are looking for - the RMT can agree, in order to progress matters, or they can sulk and call more strikes. I'm sure that Boris, and the bulk of UK travellers really don't care what they do.
There's really no need for the government to get involved in negotiations. Network Rail have been given guidelines and it's for them to deal with the RMT.
It's not a question of all meeting around a table to negotiate a settlement. The RMT know what is needed of them and NR know what they can agree to.
Pure numbers of potential redundancies (if indeed there are any) does not mean that those wishing to leave on VR will be from the areas where reductions are needed. As I keep saying, CR may still be needed - if the RMT don't like it, and do their usual sulk if they can't get their own way, then I guess they will call more strikes.
Why do you feel that the rail industry shouldn't suffer CR if, despite efforts, that is the correct way forward?
I’ve taken it as far as I can with you.
It’s got nothing to do with the ‘upper hand’, you have no idea of what previous negotiations were but label it all as ‘soft’ and I’m done with repeating that, in this case, there is no need for CR.
You disagree?
Fine.
stitched said:
It will not however be that bumpy.
We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
I’m sure the railway will miss you and your rather petulant little rants.We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
Your company or the company you work for?
Is milk transport actually a thing by rail?
Will you be dismissing the BA dispute because milk doesn’t go by air?
For the record, I don’t provide any service to you.
So even I won’t be missing you too much.
Is that you done now or do you have another half-arsed rant?
ETA:
Not that this is a popularity contest in the way Government seem to introduce legislation but:
Edited by legzr1 on Sunday 26th June 19:20
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
This is partly why we keep going in circles. You seem to think that the RMT has the upper hand - it doesn't. Some soft negotiating in the past seems to have skewed their view of life and a history of no CR has made them assume that they can demand it again. It needs to stay as an option until the RMT agrees changes.
It's not a question of trying to do it 'the other way round'. The employer has said what they are looking for - the RMT can agree, in order to progress matters, or they can sulk and call more strikes. I'm sure that Boris, and the bulk of UK travellers really don't care what they do.
There's really no need for the government to get involved in negotiations. Network Rail have been given guidelines and it's for them to deal with the RMT.
It's not a question of all meeting around a table to negotiate a settlement. The RMT know what is needed of them and NR know what they can agree to.
Pure numbers of potential redundancies (if indeed there are any) does not mean that those wishing to leave on VR will be from the areas where reductions are needed. As I keep saying, CR may still be needed - if the RMT don't like it, and do their usual sulk if they can't get their own way, then I guess they will call more strikes.
Why do you feel that the rail industry shouldn't suffer CR if, despite efforts, that is the correct way forward?
We’ll agree to disagree.It's not a question of trying to do it 'the other way round'. The employer has said what they are looking for - the RMT can agree, in order to progress matters, or they can sulk and call more strikes. I'm sure that Boris, and the bulk of UK travellers really don't care what they do.
There's really no need for the government to get involved in negotiations. Network Rail have been given guidelines and it's for them to deal with the RMT.
It's not a question of all meeting around a table to negotiate a settlement. The RMT know what is needed of them and NR know what they can agree to.
Pure numbers of potential redundancies (if indeed there are any) does not mean that those wishing to leave on VR will be from the areas where reductions are needed. As I keep saying, CR may still be needed - if the RMT don't like it, and do their usual sulk if they can't get their own way, then I guess they will call more strikes.
Why do you feel that the rail industry shouldn't suffer CR if, despite efforts, that is the correct way forward?
I’ve taken it as far as I can with you.
It’s got nothing to do with the ‘upper hand’, you have no idea of what previous negotiations were but label it all as ‘soft’ and I’m done with repeating that, in this case, there is no need for CR.
You disagree?
Fine.
CR should always be an *option* for an employer. End of.
loafer123 said:
Why? As I have repeatedly said above, it is clear that, unless the issue is forced, the RMT will never allow modernisation and modernisation may require CR.
And I’ve said that is nonsense.Modernisation is a constant, started quite a while ago in Darlington and continues to this day.
We’ve both commented on the clip you posted, I listened to what Haine had to say and I’m looking forward to the response from M Lynch.
loafer123 said:
legzr1 said:
I disagree in this case.
Why? As I have repeatedly said above, it is clear that, unless the issue is forced, the RMT will never allow modernisation and modernisation may require CR.It seems that rail staff/union are so accustomed to having jobs for life - with no possibility of ever suffering compulsory redundancy - that they simply can't handle what is normal elsewhere. Most peculiar.
At least it confirms that the RMT is very used to getting their own way. It's no wonder that real changes to T&Cs are few and far between.
Vasco said:
Quite, this really is an odd one isn't it !!
It seems that rail staff/union are so accustomed to having jobs for life - with no possibility of ever suffering compulsory redundancy - that they simply can't handle what is normal elsewhere. Most peculiar.
At least it confirms that the RMT is very used to getting their own way. It's no wonder that real changes to T&Cs are few and far between.
You just couldn’t leave it could you?It seems that rail staff/union are so accustomed to having jobs for life - with no possibility of ever suffering compulsory redundancy - that they simply can't handle what is normal elsewhere. Most peculiar.
At least it confirms that the RMT is very used to getting their own way. It's no wonder that real changes to T&Cs are few and far between.
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
Quite, this really is an odd one isn't it !!
It seems that rail staff/union are so accustomed to having jobs for life - with no possibility of ever suffering compulsory redundancy - that they simply can't handle what is normal elsewhere. Most peculiar.
At least it confirms that the RMT is very used to getting their own way. It's no wonder that real changes to T&Cs are few and far between.
You just couldn’t leave it could you?It seems that rail staff/union are so accustomed to having jobs for life - with no possibility of ever suffering compulsory redundancy - that they simply can't handle what is normal elsewhere. Most peculiar.
At least it confirms that the RMT is very used to getting their own way. It's no wonder that real changes to T&Cs are few and far between.
stitched said:
It will not however be that bumpy.
We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
Extremely relevant post. We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
Things are very different this time. You can shut down travel into London and the business I work for in Clerkenwell, staffed entirely by rail commuters is utterly unaffected.
As an observation I think the ‘Mick’s played a blinder’ line completely missed the point. There is a strike taking place at a time of minimum leverage. As an aside the resemblance to 1984 and Scargill calling a strike during spring/summer when the NCB had been stockpiling coal for such an eventuality springs to mind.
Anyways.
I don’t rarely get into the weeds on discussions like this as I don’t know the detail and history plays an oversized part and I leave it generally to the better informed. There will be skullduggery on all sides.
However in this case I’d just observe that I think the RMT have walked into a massive elephant trap: constant cries of seeing the ‘dead hand of the DoT’ and network rail having their strings pulled is pointless. The thing is the government can sit at a distance and delegate to NR because they can. The strike has, courtesy of Covid, not paralysed the economy. It isn’t a political problem looking for a solution much as the RMT want it. It currently remains a labour dispute between employer and union. And the government will want to keep it that way. And while the RMT can call further strikes to try and push it there is a cost of livings crisis which may soften strikers stance, and the gov will be looking at the implications of a marker being set re pay awards and will know it will be toast if the dam bursts. On a pay policy level they will maintain a position of ‘interested but not committed’ in results because that very much suits their purpose. Chicken vs Pig. Eggs v Bacon.
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 26th June 20:18
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 26th June 20:40
faa77 said:
Why don't the Tories change the law to prevent these strikes?
An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
Because they are not the cartoon evil tories and recognise that banning strikes is unjustified.
Have we had this.
BBC News - Thousands of PwC staff to get 9% pay rise to offset cost of living
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941595
It's ok for well paid white collar workers, just not us unionised folk.
BBC News - Thousands of PwC staff to get 9% pay rise to offset cost of living
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941595
It's ok for well paid white collar workers, just not us unionised folk.
faa77 said:
Why don't the Tories change the law to prevent these strikes?
An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
It’d give the working class another reason other than having a law breaking idiot as leader to not vote for them? An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
legzr1 said:
stitched said:
It will not however be that bumpy.
We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
I’m sure the railway will miss you and your rather petulant little rants.We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?
Your company or the company you work for?
Is milk transport actually a thing by rail?
Will you be dismissing the BA dispute because milk doesn’t go by air?
For the record, I don’t provide any service to you.
So even I won’t be missing you too much.
Is that you done now or do you have another half-arsed rant?
ETA:
Not that this is a popularity contest in the way Government seem to introduce legislation but:
Edited by legzr1 on Sunday 26th June 19:20
Seems to me that current train fares are pushed as high as they are realistically able to go.
I live in a London commuter town and am already seeing many friends with electric cars driving into London instead. Without the cost of congestion charging it’s much cheaper to drive than use the train, especially if one normally pays to park at the train station. Cheaper still for those happy to car share.
As for this weeks strikes, I don’t know anyone who was inconvenienced - everyone just worked from home of chose to meet at a location easily accessible by car.
Businesses will obviously take measures to avoid being reliant on rail services if they are perceived as unreliable. It’s shane, given that we are supposedly following a green agenda - but the % of freight being carried by rail speaks for itself in this regard.
faa77 said:
Why don't the Tories change the law to prevent these strikes?
An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
Personally, I don't think there's any need to change the law. We already have quite tough laws on unions and strike ballots etc.An outright ban on unions would be too controversial but they could require 99% of eligible staff to vote in favour, effectively banning strikes.
What seems to apply on some railways abroad is that the operator is legally required to provide at least a basic service - that would be helpful but, in any event, many UK rail travellers are now used to using alternatives. Freight operators are also likely to now have alternatives, or will move to road transport.
ChocolateFrog said:
Have we had this.
BBC News - Thousands of PwC staff to get 9% pay rise to offset cost of living
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941595
It's ok for well paid white collar workers, just not us unionised folk.
they will just add more to their customers bills.BBC News - Thousands of PwC staff to get 9% pay rise to offset cost of living
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941595
It's ok for well paid white collar workers, just not us unionised folk.
They stayed at home , no worries about their jobs, no exposure to covid when it was a real threat/ worry for people. And now we declare that there is a shortage of this type of employee? Really? Or are they all just working from home doing less.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff