RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
legzr1 said:
To answer the question I missed on your edit.
Taking everything into account, the deceit, lies, twisting of figures and the right-wing propaganda (repeated numerous times on this very thread) I support the current action 100%.
M Lynch, in less than a month, has taken this s
t Government to task in a way the opposition has not in 12 years.
YMMV.
So the strike is political then? Taking everything into account, the deceit, lies, twisting of figures and the right-wing propaganda (repeated numerous times on this very thread) I support the current action 100%.
M Lynch, in less than a month, has taken this s
t Government to task in a way the opposition has not in 12 years.YMMV.
legzr1 said:
bad company said:
legzr1 said:
bad company said:
Who’s used by Unilever etc., who conducted the poll?
You question an independent poll carried out by a company used by the companies I mentioned.Tell me how the poll is in anyway suspect.
Once you’ve worked that out maybe you can tell me what use your last meme was too?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rail-tubes-...
The poll was undertaken by an independent polling company used by many other companies.
There are other polls out there with differing results.
Are you going to answer me now?
What is so shady about the poll I posted?
What are you suggesting? Outside influence? A massaging of figures?
And, what has train driver wages to do with an RMT dispute.
Your turn.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/how-po...
Vasco said:
I've already said that I never said anything about regulations - so you've made that up in your earlier comments.
I see that you also handily ignored my genuine comment about some tasks nowadays may need MORE controls etc - why didn't you comment on that 'positive' suggestion ?. **Some answers from you would be appreciated**
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced, but I hate to tell you that the rail industry is NOT unique - you seem to continually suggest that safety is something unique on the railways. It's not - and that may help you better understand why many others also have an excellent knowledge of the importance of safety procedures, controls etc etc.
The sign of a good manager and workforce, in ANY industry may well be that they achieve what is required, safely and effectively, at a acceptable cost. They don't need the rail version, which appears to require a multitude of different people and tasks. Seemingly, in the view of senior NR management, they simply don't need so many people - that's for them to make that judgement, not you.
Your general approach to over-manning seems to be that compulsory redundancy is simply not acceptable to RMT members. You can wheel out as many arguments as you like about safety but if NR say there are too many people then some have to leave or be reallocated to other duties. THE RMT ATTITUDE TO COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY IS PRECISELY WHY IT HAS TO REMAIN ON THE TABLE AS A *POSSIBLE* OPTION - just like everywhere else.
There's likely to be little trust in the RMT nowadays and a high risk that they'll not comply with what they appear to agree. If they are so sure that they will comply with the revised T&Cs then they can ignore CR as it won't be needed. The fact that you, and the RMT, whinge on about compulsory redundancies suggests to me that you know full well that there's a good chance that revised T&Cs won't eventually proceed as planned. The RMT needs to earn a lot of trust and it seems to have a struggle to even understand why CR is needed at this stage.
Jesus…I see that you also handily ignored my genuine comment about some tasks nowadays may need MORE controls etc - why didn't you comment on that 'positive' suggestion ?. **Some answers from you would be appreciated**
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced, but I hate to tell you that the rail industry is NOT unique - you seem to continually suggest that safety is something unique on the railways. It's not - and that may help you better understand why many others also have an excellent knowledge of the importance of safety procedures, controls etc etc.
The sign of a good manager and workforce, in ANY industry may well be that they achieve what is required, safely and effectively, at a acceptable cost. They don't need the rail version, which appears to require a multitude of different people and tasks. Seemingly, in the view of senior NR management, they simply don't need so many people - that's for them to make that judgement, not you.
Your general approach to over-manning seems to be that compulsory redundancy is simply not acceptable to RMT members. You can wheel out as many arguments as you like about safety but if NR say there are too many people then some have to leave or be reallocated to other duties. THE RMT ATTITUDE TO COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY IS PRECISELY WHY IT HAS TO REMAIN ON THE TABLE AS A *POSSIBLE* OPTION - just like everywhere else.
There's likely to be little trust in the RMT nowadays and a high risk that they'll not comply with what they appear to agree. If they are so sure that they will comply with the revised T&Cs then they can ignore CR as it won't be needed. The fact that you, and the RMT, whinge on about compulsory redundancies suggests to me that you know full well that there's a good chance that revised T&Cs won't eventually proceed as planned. The RMT needs to earn a lot of trust and it seems to have a struggle to even understand why CR is needed at this stage.
Laterz….
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
I've already said that I never said anything about regulations - so you've made that up in your earlier comments.
I see that you also handily ignored my genuine comment about some tasks nowadays may need MORE controls etc - why didn't you comment on that 'positive' suggestion ?. **Some answers from you would be appreciated**
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced, but I hate to tell you that the rail industry is NOT unique - you seem to continually suggest that safety is something unique on the railways. It's not - and that may help you better understand why many others also have an excellent knowledge of the importance of safety procedures, controls etc etc.
The sign of a good manager and workforce, in ANY industry may well be that they achieve what is required, safely and effectively, at a acceptable cost. They don't need the rail version, which appears to require a multitude of different people and tasks. Seemingly, in the view of senior NR management, they simply don't need so many people - that's for them to make that judgement, not you.
Your general approach to over-manning seems to be that compulsory redundancy is simply not acceptable to RMT members. You can wheel out as many arguments as you like about safety but if NR say there are too many people then some have to leave or be reallocated to other duties. THE RMT ATTITUDE TO COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY IS PRECISELY WHY IT HAS TO REMAIN ON THE TABLE AS A *POSSIBLE* OPTION - just like everywhere else.
There's likely to be little trust in the RMT nowadays and a high risk that they'll not comply with what they appear to agree. If they are so sure that they will comply with the revised T&Cs then they can ignore CR as it won't be needed. The fact that you, and the RMT, whinge on about compulsory redundancies suggests to me that you know full well that there's a good chance that revised T&Cs won't eventually proceed as planned. The RMT needs to earn a lot of trust and it seems to have a struggle to even understand why CR is needed at this stage.
Jesus…I see that you also handily ignored my genuine comment about some tasks nowadays may need MORE controls etc - why didn't you comment on that 'positive' suggestion ?. **Some answers from you would be appreciated**
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced, but I hate to tell you that the rail industry is NOT unique - you seem to continually suggest that safety is something unique on the railways. It's not - and that may help you better understand why many others also have an excellent knowledge of the importance of safety procedures, controls etc etc.
The sign of a good manager and workforce, in ANY industry may well be that they achieve what is required, safely and effectively, at a acceptable cost. They don't need the rail version, which appears to require a multitude of different people and tasks. Seemingly, in the view of senior NR management, they simply don't need so many people - that's for them to make that judgement, not you.
Your general approach to over-manning seems to be that compulsory redundancy is simply not acceptable to RMT members. You can wheel out as many arguments as you like about safety but if NR say there are too many people then some have to leave or be reallocated to other duties. THE RMT ATTITUDE TO COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY IS PRECISELY WHY IT HAS TO REMAIN ON THE TABLE AS A *POSSIBLE* OPTION - just like everywhere else.
There's likely to be little trust in the RMT nowadays and a high risk that they'll not comply with what they appear to agree. If they are so sure that they will comply with the revised T&Cs then they can ignore CR as it won't be needed. The fact that you, and the RMT, whinge on about compulsory redundancies suggests to me that you know full well that there's a good chance that revised T&Cs won't eventually proceed as planned. The RMT needs to earn a lot of trust and it seems to have a struggle to even understand why CR is needed at this stage.
Laterz….
......and then you may wonder why the RMT has become so generally ignored and laughed at by most sane and sensible people.
legzr1 said:
bad company said:
. I haven’t met anyone who supports the strike.
Shy Tory complex perhaps?You have an answer to my previous questions?
Vasco said:
If you can't answer simple points, or bother apologising when you're in the wrong, it does tend to rather emphasise that we are all clearly dealing with what may be considered to be 'a typical, blinkered, RMT member'. You clearly don't understand how other businesses work, how VR/CR works, how efficiency and productivity can be improved etc etc
......and then you may wonder why the RMT has become so generally ignored and laughed at by most sane and sensible people.
Pushed for time.......and then you may wonder why the RMT has become so generally ignored and laughed at by most sane and sensible people.
You last effort deserved a proper break down. Perhaps when I have more time.
Your rather insulting prose does you no favours.
Using a qualifier such as ‘seems’ seems to be your MO too…
I will apologies if I’m wrong.
I will not if what you’ve posted is an inference to an ‘obvious’ outcome.
As I said, laterz…
The question; regarding the strike impact upon the public, coming off the back of a two year cluster
when inconvenience was low down the list of problems. Could it be the public are very much hardened to inconvenience therefore the rail strikes are not the collapse of Society functioning as they were in past years ?
when inconvenience was low down the list of problems. Could it be the public are very much hardened to inconvenience therefore the rail strikes are not the collapse of Society functioning as they were in past years ?
Darth Paul said:
I’ll add my six pence as a potential rail user. My office has now been moved from 7 miles away to 31 miles away. The old offices only public transport option was taking two buses and doubling the journey time so the car was the only real option.
The new place has a train station right outside, and I can take a short ebike ride to my local train station for a direct run, so the train should be a viable option.
When it comes to cost, even my car which I just about eek out mid to high 30’s mpg, the train is only marginally cheaper on a single ticket journey and probably adds another 15 mins to the commute. Reliability, even before the strikes, it was extremely hit and miss, with daily cancellations and delays the norm. If I was in the office 5 days a week, then it would be a no brainer of getting a monthly pass and sucking it up. But with the expected trips in at twice a month at the most, I might as well not bother and just drive. If it was decently cheaper than the car and reliable I’d happily take the train, but currently, why would I bother?
That is a good pointThe new place has a train station right outside, and I can take a short ebike ride to my local train station for a direct run, so the train should be a viable option.
When it comes to cost, even my car which I just about eek out mid to high 30’s mpg, the train is only marginally cheaper on a single ticket journey and probably adds another 15 mins to the commute. Reliability, even before the strikes, it was extremely hit and miss, with daily cancellations and delays the norm. If I was in the office 5 days a week, then it would be a no brainer of getting a monthly pass and sucking it up. But with the expected trips in at twice a month at the most, I might as well not bother and just drive. If it was decently cheaper than the car and reliable I’d happily take the train, but currently, why would I bother?
They sell annual or monthly passes, why not a "1 year worth of travel" pass , so you can use it for 260 odd days (or however many working days there are in the year) and each day you travel, 1 day is deducted from it?
I suspect the archaic ticket machines and lack of modern technology is a precluding factor.
I've not followed the RMT's struggles, seen only a few clips of the Bald chap talking, he seems to want to get the best for his workers
However, I think the workers want too much
We could shut down 50% of the rail travel without too much problem, if we look how many empty trains and seats there are, especially off peak.
Rail travel is pitiful at best. Downright frustrating at worst.
stitched said:
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
Source: The ORR
I'm struggling to find stats on teachers being killed while on duty.
I've found one example, from 2014, "first teacher to be killed at work for 18 years".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/st...
legzr1 said:
FiF said:
And as posted previously
Support or oppose strike?
Support 25%
Oppose 39%
Appropriate time or not?
Appropriate 24%
Inappropriate 49%
11% pay rise reasonable or not?
Reasonable 26%
Unreasonable 52%
11% rise affordable?
Affordable 17%
Unaffordable 57%
YouGov
Are we allowed to average the polls, take a median figure and proclaim that the result?Support or oppose strike?
Support 25%
Oppose 39%
Appropriate time or not?
Appropriate 24%
Inappropriate 49%
11% pay rise reasonable or not?
Reasonable 26%
Unreasonable 52%
11% rise affordable?
Affordable 17%
Unaffordable 57%
YouGov
Or can that only happen when discussing the wages of rail staff to include huge swathes of high page workers not even balloted for action?
Still, 'oh look there's a squirrel' and serial whataboutery in play from both sides. Meanwhile travelling public, aka customers, will increasingly say sod that for a game of soldiers if they are able to make a choice. The ones who will suffer longer term are those customers who for whatever reason don't have a real choice and railway workers.
Also please note some of the latter will be RMT members on strike, but some will be colleagues in the industry not on strike. Sadly collateral damage will result no matter how much you try to exclude from the discussion other areas not taking or balloted for action, well paid or otherwise.
Gareth1974 said:
stitched said:
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
Source: The ORRI'm struggling to find stats on teachers being killed while on duty.
I've found one example, from 2014, "first teacher to be killed at work for 18 years".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/st...
Vasco said:
Gareth1974 said:
stitched said:
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
Source: The ORRI'm struggling to find stats on teachers being killed while on duty.
I've found one example, from 2014, "first teacher to be killed at work for 18 years".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/st...
stitched said:
RMT worker 'if you see a needle stop work'
Contractor 'crunch'
RMT worker 'don't go near ther the live rail'
Contractor 'click'
Been there and earned good money.
Waving the danger flag to excuse the overrpayment and excuse the strikes?
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
RMT worker: “999? Ambulance please. It’s another contractor. Yep, again…”Contractor 'crunch'
RMT worker 'don't go near ther the live rail'
Contractor 'click'
Been there and earned good money.
Waving the danger flag to excuse the overrpayment and excuse the strikes?
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
.
Gareth1974 said:
Vasco said:
Gareth1974 said:
stitched said:
Show me the the statistics, last time I looked you were less at risk than teachers.
Source: The ORRI'm struggling to find stats on teachers being killed while on duty.
I've found one example, from 2014, "first teacher to be killed at work for 18 years".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/st...
? A track worker was fatally struck by a passenger train at Roade in April 2020 (seemed to ignore the train warnings - he was also the Controller of Site Safety,)
? A driver and conductor were killed in the derailment at Carmont in August 2020 (you’ll probably remember this from the news)
? A depot worker was fatally injured at Eastleigh depot in November 2020
? A track worker was fatally struck by a passenger train near Surbiton station in February 2021 (report here )
And to be helpful, a link to the ORR here
ETA: the Eastleigh incident seemed scant on info on ORR. This is all I could see
On Monday 30th November a rail loading operative employed at the Eastleigh long-welded rail depot died while maintaining a welding machine. He was part of a small team cleaning electrical contact plates. A 108m length of rail was inadvertently moved along the conveyor, trapping the worker. This conveyor which moves rail through the welding machine had not been isolated. No permit to work had been issued for the maintenance task.
The work activity risk assessment identified the trapping risk and described a mechanical isolation procedure. The lock-off procedure was flawed and not followed. There was a heavy reliance on personal protective equipment and procedures as controls identified in the risk assessment.
The depot is operated by Route Services but as other locations, the premises and plant are the responsibility of the local Route, in this case Wessex.
Edited by S17Thumper on Monday 27th June 19:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff