RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[Cobnapint]

valiant said:

Kings X has recently completed a massive resignalling and remodelling of the track layout. It’s all ultra modern kit to the latest standards. If you ain’t trained on it then you ain’t working on it. Simple as that.

Signalling is incredibly complex and, as with Kings Cross, bespoke to the area. You HAVE to be totally competent with the equipment and completely familiar with the track layout and geometry. Not everything can be fixed by Dave with a lump hammer.

There’s a case for training up the Euston mob but then they have to be continually recertified for what would be a rare event and the economics don’t really work and you’d lose staff as they went for retraining every six months.

Well put. Some on here, and 99.9% of the general population just don't understand how the railway works.

[Cobnapint]

Vasco said:

The point is that nothing can ever be 100% perfect and we all have to judge what is a safe level that we consider correct.
It may well be that some work practices could be improved, streamlined, or are no longer necessary. It might also be that gradual changes and practices over many years mean that we actually need even better/tighter controls over a few items. Times change, and safety procedures shouldn't lag behind.

I would assume that the best people to make a reasoned and balanced judgement of safety vs costs should be those senior NR managers paid (well) to take on those responsibilities - in conjunction with subordinates who have routine practical experience.

Lol. You could feasibly throw the 'nothing can ever be 100%' at crossing the road - I mean, you never know, you might trip and the driver of the oncoming might be looking in his mirror at the time and when he looks forward it's too late.
You can't be so flippant with public transport where there scary world of post incident inquiries, litigation, the sack or jail (yes, jail) await those that didn't stick to standards and procedures.

[Vasco]

Cobnapint said:

Vasco said:

The point is that nothing can ever be 100% perfect and we all have to judge what is a safe level that we consider correct.
It may well be that some work practices could be improved, streamlined, or are no longer necessary. It might also be that gradual changes and practices over many years mean that we actually need even better/tighter controls over a few items. Times change, and safety procedures shouldn't lag behind.

I would assume that the best people to make a reasoned and balanced judgement of safety vs costs should be those senior NR managers paid (well) to take on those responsibilities - in conjunction with subordinates who have routine practical experience.

Lol. You could feasibly throw the 'nothing can ever be 100%' at crossing the road - I mean, you never know, you might trip and the driver of the oncoming might be looking in his mirror at the time and when he looks forward it's too late.
You can't be so flippant with public transport where there scary world of post incident inquiries, litigation, the sack or jail (yes, jail) await those that didn't stick to standards and procedures.

I presume that you don't understand the words.....'nothing can ever be 100%'

I doubt that you are a senior manager with NR and would prefer to trust their judgement.

[Cobnapint]

The trouble with senior management at NR is that a growing number of them don't have the experience you probably think they have.

As railway 'lifers' retire, they are replaced with pre-programmed ex-graduates with little experience that are expected to wake up in the morning, sing the company song and go to work where they'll make ill judged decisions in responsible positions on significantly less money than the guy who just left the post.

[rigga]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Unfortunately a death at my old depot in 2019 , driver ignored safety protocol rushing to catch a taxi , and depot driver ignored rules for coupling up units.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-5...

[Vasco]

Cobnapint said:

The trouble with senior management at NR is that a growing number of them don't have the experience you probably think they have.

As railway 'lifers' retire, they are replaced with pre-programmed ex-graduates with little experience that are expected to wake up in the morning, sing the company song and go to work where they'll make ill judged decisions in responsible positions on significantly less money than the guy who just left the post.

Whether right or wrong, that's often the view of more junior staff in many industries when new senior faces appear - they're new/they can't know enough/I know more than them......etc

The point is, however, that the decisions aren't to be made by you and, similarly, they may well have some information that you are not aware of. Consequently, they may well be in a strong position to make a better overall judgement.

It seems increasingly obvious on this thread that a few RMT members can only understand their role if it is 'gold plated'. They have no understanding of cost effective practices, little ability to judge when 'gold' is not necessary because 'silver' does the same job and a complete lack of understanding of how the real world works.

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

I've already said that I never said anything about regulations - so you've made that up in your earlier comments.

OK, I’ve re-read the pertinent posts.

I asked if you were seriously suggesting a relaxation of safety regulations as an answer to anything.

You answered ‘don’t make things up’. I didn’t. I asked a question.

Vasco said:

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 didn’t think it needed commenting on.

However, I’m sure those of us in the industry appreciate your kind words.

Vasco said:

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced,

Deliberately blinkered = opposing view to yours based on hands-on experience, daily contact with those facing job losses and also those in charge of running a complicated network.

You?

A casual browser with time of their hands to google an article?

Vasco said:

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.

I ‘seem’ to suggest?

Please quote where I’ve said that or anything approaching it.

You ‘seem’ to think that whatever you did in previous employment gives your opinion some sort of extra gravitas in an industry you ‘seem’ to have never worked in or have extremely limited experience of.

Here’s an idea.

I stand on one side of the rail, in a position of safety. You on the other side with a clipboard full of interesting facts and figures proving the safety regimes you’ve implemented. Cross to my side, over a live line and explain how railway safety is not unique.

You might get lucky and make it over.

If you don’t, rest assured, I’ll bring up the issues with Ciras, the ORR and the RAIB (which involve exactly the same as the safety protocols as Tesco, the local post office and the Chinese takeaway down the road…)

Vasco said:

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.

If you knew anything about working on or near the line I might have a go at what you’ve posted there.
Quite clearly, you do not.
I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to educate you.

Too much ‘seemingly’ amd ‘appears’ for my liking.
Weasel words…

Sorry etc.

Vasco said:

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.

You seemed confused.

NR says ‘some have to leave or be reallocated’? This can quite easily be dealt with under the remit of VR. As it has done and will continue to be done.

I’ve said there is no need, in this case, for CR.
RMT say it can be worked out.
NR say it can be worked out.
The TOCs say it can be worked out.

But, here we have you and Shapps demanding that CR remains an option in this dispute.

Vasco said:

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.

Bullst and you know it.

M Lynch was described very recently as a man of integrity and straight talking.
Not my words.
The words of Andrew Haines, chief executive NR.
Two days ago.

I’ll email him and tell him he’s wrong because Vasco on PH said so.

Recent news and social media have had quite a few interviews featuring Lynch vs whoever. At every stage, the person coming out at the other end looking untrustworthy, slimy or simply a damned liar is not the RMT representative.

Perhaps you get different news in your version real life?
Apologies if that is the case.

Obviously, the past 12 years of negotiations and agreements mentioned by both Lynch and his TOC and NR counterparts just didn’t really happen.

Again, because you say so.

Vasco said:

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.

Get CR off the table.
Negotiate terms, wages, redundancies.

The threat of CR is not welcomed, not needed, not helping.

Again, you and Shapps disagree.



With that, I’m done if you continue down your same well-trodden path.

I genuinely cannot be bothered.


Perhaps when I retire…

[Vasco]

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.

OK, I’ve re-read the pertinent posts.

I asked if you were seriously suggesting a relaxation of safety regulations as an answer to anything.

You answered ‘don’t make things up’. I didn’t. I asked a question.

Vasco said:

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 didn’t think it needed commenting on.

However, I’m sure those of us in the industry appreciate your kind words.

Vasco said:

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately blinkered in the hope that I, and others, will be convinced,

Deliberately blinkered = opposing view to yours based on hands-on experience, daily contact with those facing job losses and also those in charge of running a complicated network.

You?

A casual browser with time of their hands to google an article?

Vasco said:

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.

I ‘seem’ to suggest?

Please quote where I’ve said that or anything approaching it.

You ‘seem’ to think that whatever you did in previous employment gives your opinion some sort of extra gravitas in an industry you ‘seem’ to have never worked in or have extremely limited experience of.

Here’s an idea.

I stand on one side of the rail, in a position of safety. You on the other side with a clipboard full of interesting facts and figures proving the safety regimes you’ve implemented. Cross to my side, over a live line and explain how railway safety is not unique.

You might get lucky and make it over.

If you don’t, rest assured, I’ll bring up the issues with Ciras, the ORR and the RAIB (which involve exactly the same as the safety protocols as Tesco, the local post office and the Chinese takeaway down the road…)

Vasco said:

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.

If you knew anything about working on or near the line I might have a go at what you’ve posted there.
Quite clearly, you do not.
I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to educate you.

Too much ‘seemingly’ amd ‘appears’ for my liking.
Weasel words…

Sorry etc.

Vasco said:

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.

You seemed confused.

NR says ‘some have to leave or be reallocated’? This can quite easily be dealt with under the remit of VR. As it has done and will continue to be done.

I’ve said there is no need, in this case, for CR.
RMT say it can be worked out.
NR say it can be worked out.
The TOCs say it can be worked out.

But, here we have you and Shapps demanding that CR remains an option in this dispute.

Vasco said:

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.

Bullst and you know it.

M Lynch was described very recently as a man of integrity and straight talking.
Not my words.
The words of Andrew Haines, chief executive NR.
Two days ago.

I’ll email him and tell him he’s wrong because Vasco on PH said so.

Recent news and social media have had quite a few interviews featuring Lynch vs whoever. At every stage, the person coming out at the other end looking untrustworthy, slimy or simply a damned liar is not the RMT representative.

Perhaps you get different news in your version real life?
Apologies if that is the case.

Obviously, the past 12 years of negotiations and agreements mentioned by both Lynch and his TOC and NR counterparts just didn’t really happen.

Again, because you say so.

Vasco said:

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.

Get CR off the table.
Negotiate terms, wages, redundancies.

The threat of CR is not welcomed, not needed, not helping.

Again, you and Shapps disagree.



With that, I’m done if you continue down your same well-trodden path.

I genuinely cannot be bothered.


Perhaps when I retire…

Quite an amazing response.

Usually, people from different industries can learn from others because the *type* of work being undertaken is comparatively irrelevant - it's more useful to learn how the various procedures, controls, safety, HR, T&Cs etc are implemented in practice.

From your various responses you've shown a complete inability to even understand that totally different organisations still have common themes. It's as if you truly believe that rail staff and the TUC are somehow above everybody else!

We've said, many times, that we keep going round in circles. Like it or not, that's largely because you are lacking in 'real world' knowledge away from the railways.

Time flies by and there's little point in wasting it by continuing a debate where there's no likelihood of agreement.

I'll leave you to it, but may still comment when you repeat something totally ridiculous.

[Cobnapint]

Vasco said:

Whether right or wrong, that's often the view of more junior staff in many industries when new senior faces appear - they're new/they can't know enough/I know more than them......etc

It's a view generated by some of the ridiculous ideas passed down from the top and full knowledge of who the person is and the experience they've had.

[Cobnapint]

Vasco said:

Quite an amazing response.

Usually, people from different industries can learn from others because the *type* of work being undertaken is comparatively irrelevant - it's more useful to learn how the various procedures, controls, safety, HR, T&Cs etc are implemented in practice.

From your various responses you've shown a complete inability to even understand that totally different organisations still have common themes. It's as if you truly believe that rail staff and the TUC are somehow above everybody else!

We've said, many times, that we keep going round in circles. Like it or not, that's largely because you are lacking in 'real world' knowledge away from the railways.

Time flies by and there's little point in wasting it by continuing a debate where there's no likelihood of agreement.

I'll leave you to it, but may still comment when you repeat something totally ridiculous.

Unbelievable ignorance and unwarranted cheek in one single post.

The railway is more or less out there on it's own as far as safety procedures and rules go. It is the way it is because it NEEDS to be the way it is.
Without being in it and understanding how it works (like I have for over 42 years, just retired) then I'd probably have found myself posting like you too.

[CrgT16]

Well it does seem the railways need to change actually.

The current doesn’t work and is unsustainable. Perhaps with even less usage we will have to cut the service and stations further with unavoidable job losses.

This has happened in the past and it might be needed now at the cost of rail workers but also communities.

The inability to adapt to 21st century practices and build in flexibility on the workforce will ultimately lead to its downsizing. There isn’t one problem it’s not alone the workers fault or the management or the Government. Perhaps everyone involved has a role to make the railways what they are now. The idea that increasing the wages will fix all that is a fallacy. Yes pay people a fair wage but there needs a revision of practices and how the all thing works. It’s not by paying Joe bloggs an extra £100-200 pounds a month that will make the rail run perfect!

[Gary C]

Cobnapint said:

The railway is more or less out there on it's own as far as safety procedures and rules go. It is the way it is because it NEEDS to be the way it is.

There are other examples of highly regulated industries with very specific safety procedures, Nuclear industry being a prime example.

We went through having to give up our heavily unionised and inflexible attitude probably 20 years ago, but also the exec needs to loose its inflexible and antagonistic attitude too (they weren't too bad though to begin with) and work together.

[FiF]

Gary C said:

Cobnapint said:

The railway is more or less out there on it's own as far as safety procedures and rules go. It is the way it is because it NEEDS to be the way it is.

There are other examples of highly regulated industries with very specific safety procedures, Nuclear industry being a prime example.

We went through having to give up our heavily unionised and inflexible attitude probably 20 years ago, but also the exec needs to loose its inflexible and antagonistic attitude too (they weren't too bad though to begin with) and work together.

Well precisely, and each industry has it's own specific situations that those outside may not have encountered.

Having said that each industry will have variable standards. Whilst in one position where ours were strict but imo reasonable, eg none of thus can't carry a tea down some steps malarkey, went to consult and help an almost identical lot overseas on a problem they had. Their rules appeared to stop at "no shorts and flip flops."

[valiant]

CrgT16 said:

Well it does seem the railways need to change actually.

The current doesn’t work and is unsustainable. Perhaps with even less usage we will have to cut the service and stations further with unavoidable job losses.

All that will achieve is a death spiral of the railways. You keep removing services or close stations and people will stop using them and so more services are axed until you have a bare bones service that is solely funded by the taxpayer and is unreliable and uninviting to users.

We’ve been here before. Anybody who used the the Tube in the eighties will testify that a poor service, completely demoralised staff and graffiti strewn stations were normal and passenger numbers dropped year on year. It took billions of pounds and many years to get out of that rut and passenger numbers grew off the back of it.

[Vasco]

Cobnapint said:

Vasco said:

Quite an amazing response.

Usually, people from different industries can learn from others because the *type* of work being undertaken is comparatively irrelevant - it's more useful to learn how the various procedures, controls, safety, HR, T&Cs etc are implemented in practice.

From your various responses you've shown a complete inability to even understand that totally different organisations still have common themes. It's as if you truly believe that rail staff and the TUC are somehow above everybody else!

We've said, many times, that we keep going round in circles. Like it or not, that's largely because you are lacking in 'real world' knowledge away from the railways.

Time flies by and there's little point in wasting it by continuing a debate where there's no likelihood of agreement.

I'll leave you to it, but may still comment when you repeat something totally ridiculous.

Unbelievable ignorance and unwarranted cheek in one single post.

The railway is more or less out there on it's own as far as safety procedures and rules go. It is the way it is because it NEEDS to be the way it is.
Without being in it and understanding how it works (like I have for over 42 years, just retired) then I'd probably have found myself posting like you too.

I think I'm right in saying that both of you are lifetime (40 years) railmen. You simply can't have experience of how other businesses work and how many problems are common to many industries - which rather proves what I've said all along !!

[ChocolateFrog]

Vasco said:

Cobnapint said:

The trouble with senior management at NR is that a growing number of them don't have the experience you probably think they have.

As railway 'lifers' retire, they are replaced with pre-programmed ex-graduates with little experience that are expected to wake up in the morning, sing the company song and go to work where they'll make ill judged decisions in responsible positions on significantly less money than the guy who just left the post.

Whether right or wrong, that's often the view of more junior staff in many industries when new senior faces appear - they're new/they can't know enough/I know more than them......etc

The point is, however, that the decisions aren't to be made by you and, similarly, they may well have some information that you are not aware of. Consequently, they may well be in a strong position to make a better overall judgement.

It seems increasingly obvious on this thread that a few RMT members can only understand their role if it is 'gold plated'. They have no understanding of cost effective practices, little ability to judge when 'gold' is not necessary because 'silver' does the same job and a complete lack of understanding of how the real world works.

I love the fact that "gold plated" now means about £35k a year and some T&C's that are yet to be eroded by capitalism.

[Cobnapint]

Gary C said:

There are other examples of highly regulated industries with very specific safety procedures, Nuclear industry being a prime example.

This is true. One industry specific set of safety regulations won't suit another.

Which takes me back to incompetent decisions at the top. The previous CE of NR came from the oil industry. He brought with him a safe system of work called Safe Work Leader that was implemented on the rigs in the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster.

It was trialled on the East Midlands area and was one of the most expensive, ridiculous, irrelevant systems you've ever seen.
The RMT was intensely involved in trying to correct the long list of failings within it, in fact in the end the union saved NR from itself.
It just didn't work.
After that the CE merry-go-round stopped, he jumped off with his massive pay out, another one climbed on and the merry-go-round started up again.

[rampageturke]

legzr1 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

So the strike is political then?

Certainly beginning to look that way.

Some called it as such at the very beginning.

BJs ‘Thatcher’ moment.


You can make up your own mind.

I don't think they can make up their own mind

[Scolmore]

legzr1 said:

Get CR off the table.
Negotiate terms, wages, redundancies.

The threat of CR is not welcomed, not needed, not helping.

Why seek to remove one of the best tools for clearing out dead wood and turning an organisation around? Is this just standard union protectionism or is there a hidden good reason?

There's a whole lot of local railways which would now make excellent e-bike roads & not cost billions a year to operate. Perhaps its time for a Beeching 2

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

Quite an amazing response.

Thank you.
.

Vasco said:

I'll leave you to it, but may still comment when you repeat something totally ridiculous.

Exactly as I have done with numerous posts on here including many of yours.