RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
Vasco said:
Please give a straight answer for once.
WHY is CR not necessary - when nobody has yet agreed to any revised T&Cs ?
(Please avoid your usual 'it just isn't' or 'everything would get sorted without it' typical response)
Where do think asking the same question and getting the same answer will get us?WHY is CR not necessary - when nobody has yet agreed to any revised T&Cs ?
(Please avoid your usual 'it just isn't' or 'everything would get sorted without it' typical response)
You’ve had my answer, numerous times.
I’m fed up of sifting through the weasel words, seem, apparently, conclusions from flawed opinion.
Have a browse through my posts.
You’ll have my answer.
Bye
legzr1 said:
Vasco said:
Please give a straight answer for once.
WHY is CR not necessary - when nobody has yet agreed to any revised T&Cs ?
(Please avoid your usual 'it just isn't' or 'everything would get sorted without it' typical response)
Where do think asking the same question and getting the same answer will get us?WHY is CR not necessary - when nobody has yet agreed to any revised T&Cs ?
(Please avoid your usual 'it just isn't' or 'everything would get sorted without it' typical response)
You’ve had my answer, numerous times.
I’m fed up of sifting through the weasel words, seem, apparently, conclusions from flawed opinion.
Have a browse through my posts.
You’ll have my answer.
Bye
Why is CR not needed ? - surely, if you actually knew you'd be able to give a clear answer.
legzr1 said:
loafer123 said:
It is roles which are redundant.
If they made 2,500 ticket staff roles redundant and 2,500 cleaners applied for VR, you would still need to make 2,500 ticket office staff redundant.
Is this a fact?If they made 2,500 ticket staff roles redundant and 2,500 cleaners applied for VR, you would still need to make 2,500 ticket office staff redundant.
Are you in possession of the demands, the numbers, the roles?
Legacywr said:
Are you? Actually, do you think anybody has all the facts? They may meet the numbers via VR, but will it be an appropriate spread of roles? I’d be surprised if it’s already known that it’s a workable spread.
No, I don’t have all the facts.But it wasn’t me giving a silly example using 2500 ticket office workers was it?
If it wasn’t ‘an appropriate spread’ then the numbers via VR wouldn’t have been met. It’s intrinsically linked.
Word on the grapevine, VR would get close to the number of redundancies required. Further negotiating would see an agreement. Shapps stops play.
What a legacy this shower of s
t is creating.Vasco said:
Well done,
Thank you Vasco said:
as expected you can't answer a simple question. It's the same waffle all the time.
Why is CR not needed ? - surely, if you actually knew you'd be able to give a clear answer.
Can’t you read?Why is CR not needed ? - surely, if you actually knew you'd be able to give a clear answer.
I’ve answered your question, numerous times, even when you change the question to actually ask the same question. And then you ask the question again. Add some nonsense showing how little you understand about railway safety. Then ask the same question.
Browse my earlier posts.
Or don’t.
Bye.
Again
legzr1 said:
No, I don’t have all the facts.
But it wasn’t me giving a silly example using 2500 ticket office workers was it?
If it wasn’t ‘an appropriate spread’ then the numbers via VR wouldn’t have been met. It’s intrinsically linked.
Word on the grapevine, VR would get close to the number of redundancies required. Further negotiating would see an agreement. Shapps stops play.
What a legacy this shower of st is creating.
It wasn’t a silly example, it was to demonstrate your simplistic approach that 2,500 volunteers are 2,500 roles going does not mean no CR.But it wasn’t me giving a silly example using 2500 ticket office workers was it?
If it wasn’t ‘an appropriate spread’ then the numbers via VR wouldn’t have been met. It’s intrinsically linked.
Word on the grapevine, VR would get close to the number of redundancies required. Further negotiating would see an agreement. Shapps stops play.
What a legacy this shower of s
t is creating.You are truly hard work to explain stuff to.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Imagine if there was already a route/corridor already in place.....oh there is ! But that would mean the cyclists being turfed off the track. Would never ever happen...It's weird that this was an old railway track...it's almost as if there WAS a solution but it was then shelved.
http://www.bristolbathrailwaypath.org.uk/home.shtm...
Edited by juice on Tuesday 28th June 18:18
Anyone know the real reason why someone should say that Compulsory Redundancy is 'not needed' in this dispute ?
As many will have read, another poster has stated that he's already answered the question, but all I can find is waffle.
How can NR/RMT ignore the possible need for CR when it may yet be needed (as a last resort) ?. It seems that this arrangement has gone on for 12 years!!
Is there some 'underhand' deal going on with the RMT that the rest of us aren't supposed to be aware of?
As many will have read, another poster has stated that he's already answered the question, but all I can find is waffle.
How can NR/RMT ignore the possible need for CR when it may yet be needed (as a last resort) ?. It seems that this arrangement has gone on for 12 years!!
Is there some 'underhand' deal going on with the RMT that the rest of us aren't supposed to be aware of?
FWIW said:
Would VR get the right redundancies, or the right ‘number’ of redundancies?
Initial rumblings were, before Shapps got involved, real progress was being made.In goes the s
tty stick, more bullst press releases, more biased propaganda from the client press and more lies on panel shows.Back to square one.
VR, as part of a package in an ongoing negotiation, would get a hell of a lot closer to an agreement than a demand for CR which stops everything.
ReallyReallyGood said:
legzr1 said:
If it wasn’t ‘an appropriate spread’ then the numbers via VR wouldn’t have been met. It’s intrinsically linked.
What does this mean?If they were the ‘wrong’ kind of redundancies then VR wouldn’t be agreed.
The type of redundancies, the numbers of redundant staff prepared to retrain (where required) and the use of VR is intrinsically linked.
However, VR would allow those interested to make their intentions known. Numbers, locations and qualifications noted. Further talks and negotiations follow. The way it normally does.
legzr1 said:
loafer123 said:
It wasn’t a silly example, it was to demonstrate your simplistic approach that 2,500 volunteers are 2,500 roles going does not mean no CR.
Say again?
Gary C said:
legzr1 said:
loafer123 said:
It wasn’t a silly example, it was to demonstrate your simplistic approach that 2,500 volunteers is enough may not work as they may not be in the same 2,500 roles going, so CR may still be needed. It’s not a simple numbers game
Say again?I have corrected my quote above to make more sense!
There have already been at least two phases of VR since it was first announced at the start of last August. The scheme is funded by the government (so any claims by Shapps that these discussions are nothing to do with him and the dft are just rubbish).
Some management grades were offered it in phase 1, I can't remember who was involved in phase 2, but the RMT said that the grades the union represents shouldn't be involved in the VR scheme until certain guarantees over working practices had been agreed.
Basically, NR (the government) just wanted to slash away at staff numbers, maintenance frequencies and maintenance specifications without a passing thought for what the repercussions might be to the integrity of the infrastructure.
I believe their eventual aim is to reduce the number of strikeable staff down to a level where there's relatively few people left to protect the pension scheme, which they've said they want to 'reform' in 2024. I read this as removing the final salary element and screwing it down like they did with the NHS scheme in 2015.
Some management grades were offered it in phase 1, I can't remember who was involved in phase 2, but the RMT said that the grades the union represents shouldn't be involved in the VR scheme until certain guarantees over working practices had been agreed.
Basically, NR (the government) just wanted to slash away at staff numbers, maintenance frequencies and maintenance specifications without a passing thought for what the repercussions might be to the integrity of the infrastructure.
I believe their eventual aim is to reduce the number of strikeable staff down to a level where there's relatively few people left to protect the pension scheme, which they've said they want to 'reform' in 2024. I read this as removing the final salary element and screwing it down like they did with the NHS scheme in 2015.
legzr1 said:
FWIW said:
Would VR get the right redundancies, or the right ‘number’ of redundancies?
Initial rumblings were, before Shapps got involved, real progress was being made.In goes the s
tty stick, more bullst press releases, more biased propaganda from the client press and more lies on panel shows.Back to square one.
VR, as part of a package in an ongoing negotiation, would get a hell of a lot closer to an agreement than a demand for CR which stops everything.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff