RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
Ouroboros said:
ZedLeg said:
I wonder how many of the anti union people here actually live the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest life they’re clearly a fan of.
i've been in a union. i've seen how it works, like the mafia, fear and intimidation to get members, even seen people call non members free riders etc.I've seen how the union is there to protect the union first. I've seen a union protect someone who nearly killed others, whilst a union rep knew about this guys alcoholism yet said nothing, because ''hate mangement''
So yes i'm happy to be anti union because ive seen non unionised places where people get paid good money for hard work, without lackies to please, and no instilled us and them culture.
You know stuff like asking a worker to stay later once in a blue moon, and not have them run off to the union guy to complain straight away.
faa77 said:
ZedLeg said:
I wonder how many of the anti union people here actually live the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest life they’re clearly a fan of.
The fact you think anti-union means supporter of dog-eat-dog says it all.I joked earlier about only getting a 6% pay rise this year, that was the highest pay rise for someone not being promoted in the whole company and I had to fight tooth and nail for it. For me to get it other people got less than they might have got otherwise, what is that if not dog eat dog?
Welshbeef said:
Very very true.
I’ve never been in a Union but have worked in places with unions. They love going for universal uplifts in wager rather than performance related pay. Why work hard and do well when a lazy inept sod who cannot be fired due to 40years and high exit costs coke into play.
Well quite. Unions want pay rises for all, not just the people that do their jobs well. They are a joke nowadays. Thank god it's almost impossible for strike action to impede a car journey. I’ve never been in a Union but have worked in places with unions. They love going for universal uplifts in wager rather than performance related pay. Why work hard and do well when a lazy inept sod who cannot be fired due to 40years and high exit costs coke into play.
ZedLeg said:
faa77 said:
ZedLeg said:
I wonder how many of the anti union people here actually live the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest life they’re clearly a fan of.
The fact you think anti-union means supporter of dog-eat-dog says it all.I joked earlier about only getting a 6% pay rise this year, that was the highest pay rise for someone not being promoted in the whole company and I had to fight tooth and nail for it. For me to get it other people got less than they might have got otherwise, what is that if not dog eat dog?
If people are being paid different increases it should be determined by their effectiveness in the role. Most activities can be measured objectively and a person exceeding expectations should receive a higher % increase. Flat rate increases are preferred by some organisations (e.g railways), partly because it handily ignores the lazy employees who don't do a fair days work.
ZedLeg said:
You mentioned the alcoholic before, I’d still be curious to see more details.
I worked at a maintenance depot for Vigin Trains.This old guy who was an alcoholic, job was to apply brakes and then inform cleaners to clean outside of the train. Well he never applied the brakes, train rolled forward and only luck, the cleaner weren't killed or had legs removed.
Procedure is drink test, which was done hours later, the guy was 3 times over limit.
Me i thought he would be sacked on the spot, the union argued stress etc, and dragged it out and eventually got them to early retire him on full pension. It was mentioned by union rep, he had been drinking heavy for last 10 years and this had happened before but 2nd man applied brakes.
The cleaners were just minimum wage non union people, and no s
ts given to their potential deaths, that is what shocked me the most. It just seemed protecting this guy, who was over retirement age so could have left earlier anyway, when all the unions reps knew he had a drink problem but hid it.in fairness the mangement weren't the best but that was to do with the US and them mentality.
ZedLeg said:
I wonder how many of the anti union people here actually live the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest life they’re clearly a fan of.
I would have thought most people work in industries where they are paid market rates, and don't have a local mafia to bully companies and their customers.ZedLeg said:
faa77 said:
ZedLeg said:
I wonder how many of the anti union people here actually live the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest life they’re clearly a fan of.
The fact you think anti-union means supporter of dog-eat-dog says it all.I joked earlier about only getting a 6% pay rise this year, that was the highest pay rise for someone not being promoted in the whole company and I had to fight tooth and nail for it. For me to get it other people got less than they might have got otherwise, what is that if not dog eat dog?
So your company increases the price of its goods/services by 6%....
So if all companies did this, prices of all goods/services increase by 6%.....
So what was the point of the pay rise?
Edited by faa77 on Wednesday 25th May 22:03
Ouroboros said:
ZedLeg said:
You mentioned the alcoholic before, I’d still be curious to see more details.
I worked at a maintenance depot for Vigin Trains.This old guy who was an alcoholic, job was to apply brakes and then inform cleaners to clean outside of the train. Well he never applied the brakes, train rolled forward and only luck, the cleaner weren't killed or had legs removed.
Procedure is drink test, which was done hours later, the guy was 3 times over limit.
Me i thought he would be sacked on the spot, the union argued stress etc, and dragged it out and eventually got them to early retire him on full pension. It was mentioned by union rep, he had been drinking heavy for last 10 years and this had happened before but 2nd man applied brakes.
The cleaners were just minimum wage non union people, and no s
ts given to their potential deaths, that is what shocked me the most. It just seemed protecting this guy, who was over retirement age so could have left earlier anyway, when all the unions reps knew he had a drink problem but hid it.in fairness the mangement weren't the best but that was to do with the US and them mentality.
As Angela Rayner says...
"There are times when it's one of my members who has acted badly, but even then I blame management – after all, they recruited that person. Management created the mess, so it is up to management to sort it out, with the best possible result for the member I'm representing."
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/feb/17/work...
valiant said:
foxbody-87 said:
Dblue said:
Like all of us are facing for the next year or two. Forcing 10% wage rises through a very powerful union is exactly the reason why inflation will likely continue to be a big problem.
The RMT members have some very very well paid members already, wages for drivers on London Underground work out at around 3 times that of a nurse for example.
It's sod all to do with profits of train companies , they do it because they can.
Probably worth pointing out that the majority of drivers are members of ASLEF, not the RMT.The RMT members have some very very well paid members already, wages for drivers on London Underground work out at around 3 times that of a nurse for example.
It's sod all to do with profits of train companies , they do it because they can.
Also, nobody disagrees that nurses are underpaid but the RMT don't have bargaining rights for them I'm afraid - that would be the job of Unison or whichever union they pay to represent their interests.
And what’s the average salary for a nurse in London?
Not starting salary but the average for a nurse as the poster I replied to mentioned?
And why the heck do people always compare nurses to tube drivers? Is it some sort of metric used to calculate inflation or something? Every bleedin’ time tube or train drivers salaries are mentioned someone brings out the nurses.
Just accept that different professions pay different salaries.
Not starting salary but the average for a nurse as the poster I replied to mentioned?
And why the heck do people always compare nurses to tube drivers? Is it some sort of metric used to calculate inflation or something? Every bleedin’ time tube or train drivers salaries are mentioned someone brings out the nurses.
Just accept that different professions pay different salaries.
Dblue said:
valiant said:
foxbody-87 said:
Dblue said:
Like all of us are facing for the next year or two. Forcing 10% wage rises through a very powerful union is exactly the reason why inflation will likely continue to be a big problem.
The RMT members have some very very well paid members already, wages for drivers on London Underground work out at around 3 times that of a nurse for example.
It's sod all to do with profits of train companies , they do it because they can.
Probably worth pointing out that the majority of drivers are members of ASLEF, not the RMT.The RMT members have some very very well paid members already, wages for drivers on London Underground work out at around 3 times that of a nurse for example.
It's sod all to do with profits of train companies , they do it because they can.
Also, nobody disagrees that nurses are underpaid but the RMT don't have bargaining rights for them I'm afraid - that would be the job of Unison or whichever union they pay to represent their interests.
Ban these unions now
Leicester Loyal said:
The tube drivers aren’t even in the RMT, they’re in a different union. Their pay rises are nothing to do with Network Rail either.
Tube drivers are also a tiny minority of people, all the focus is on them because they’re on a good wage, rather than the lads on 23k a year.
They've gone on strike in the past. They're fair game.Tube drivers are also a tiny minority of people, all the focus is on them because they’re on a good wage, rather than the lads on 23k a year.
Leicester Loyal said:
The tube drivers aren’t even in the RMT, they’re in a different union. Their pay rises are nothing to do with Network Rail either.
Tube drivers are also a tiny minority of people, all the focus is on them because they’re on a good wage, rather than the lads on 23k a year.
You keep going on about this £23k. Thats what they pay. If its not enough, get another job. Or promotion.Tube drivers are also a tiny minority of people, all the focus is on them because they’re on a good wage, rather than the lads on 23k a year.
Or go on strike and bang a few more nails in your own coffins.
monkfish1 said:
You keep going on about this 23k. Thats what they pay. If its not enough, get another job. Or promotion.
Or go on strike and bang a few more nails in your own coffins.
If we all left you’d be on here moaning the trains weren’t running Or go on strike and bang a few more nails in your own coffins.
If you think that’s the case then sit back and relax, knowing we’re only harming ourselves, hopefully you’re not mistaken.
Leicester Loyal said:
monkfish1 said:
The "no redundancies" demand is living in a parallel universe. Peak railway has happened on most parts of the network. Its an industy that is destined for a decline. No one is going to agree to keep staff employed indefinitely for whom there is no work. At taxpayer expense.
That decline being rapidly accelerated by said industrial action.
You keep going on about how bad it all is. Leave. But you wont. Because, deep down, you know its a pretty good gig really.
Theres also plenty of scope to reduce cost and increase efficency. Which the unions will object to at every step.
Its sad to see this happening to an industry i spent more than half my working life in.
There's plenty of work, I did almost 100 overtime shifts last year in order to keep the roster manned up and the trains running... We can't fill the roster in our depot, constantly understaffed and needing overtime just to get by, it's simply not sustainable.That decline being rapidly accelerated by said industrial action.
You keep going on about how bad it all is. Leave. But you wont. Because, deep down, you know its a pretty good gig really.
Theres also plenty of scope to reduce cost and increase efficency. Which the unions will object to at every step.
Its sad to see this happening to an industry i spent more than half my working life in.
Why would I leave? It's a job I've spent years training for, it's a job I love doing and I enjoy keeping the country moving. I'd rather (as we all would) come to some compromise and try to iron out the differencies.
Efficiecy has been cut these past few years because of the paperwork and the red tape, getting rid of red zone working has made it much harder for us to work during the day and on afternoon shifts. The only alternative to this is to work permanent nights, but we need a team to staff the day and afternoon shifts in case of faults or a serious incident. We're down to the bare bones where we are, I can't speak for the rest of the depots up and down the country, but we don't have anymore fat to cut in terms of staff numbers. As an example we need 3 men due to safety for certain jobs, so when we're only in a 2 man team, getting the job done isn't possible, the only thing we can do is break the company rules to get it done.
If the cuts are as serious as you say, then alot of us will be out of a job soon anyway (and I'd be the first at risk in my depot tbh, but it's a risk I'm willing to take)
A solution could have been found ages ago, but both sides need to work together to find one.
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/network-rail-wor...
This was also sent out to us last month, and probably did more to up the YES to a strike vote than any payrise or job redundancy compromise could.
Believe me, they are not supporting yours. At some point in your career you wil hopefuilly realise. I realised, early on. I did the remaing 15 years of my time with no representation. Didnt need it. Did what was required and rewarded accordingly.
If you are short of bodies, why are you worried about redundancy? Sure, elsewhere, there will be too many people. You think the give a s
t about you if you have to go. Theres going to have to be redundancies if passenger numbers stay where they are. You cant seriously expect otherwise?As for your link, its laughable you pay any attention to such drivel. That such a thing can influence yours, or any one elses decisions just proves my point. To much winding each other up in the mess room.
Look after number one first. Think for yourself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff