RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[ATG]

NRS said:

Or... perhaps the others who get crap rises could have a union to stick up for them too? Which is why a lot of large companies try and stop them forming (see US with Amazon etc).

Even if everyone had strong union representation, we can't all have a collective pay rise to compensate for imported inflation. Not because life isn't fair, not because someone is screwing someone else over, but because it won't work. Some aspects of economics are pretty mechanical and this area is one of them. If you've got a fixed amount of stuff available for people to buy and you give everyone an extra £50, then the prices of that fixed amount of stuff will go up by £50. The extra money doesn't allow people to buy more stuff. All that happens is that the extra money allows prices to rise even further. In other words the pay rise will be worth NOTHING in real terms.

[ATG]

Cobnapint said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They are definitely about pay, conditions and some of the ridiculous (and dangerous) proposals put forward by the clueless bean counters at NR/DfT.
NR have already (I hear) dropped some of those proposals.

Believe me. The union isn't just protecting it's members here, it is protecting the safety of your next train journey and saving NR from itself. I can't say any more than that.

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

If you feel unsafe at work, take it up with your regulator, take it up with your boss, or whoever. If all the responsible bodies disagree with your assessment, then go work somewhere else.

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

I think you knew that it was largely for your benefit.......

[.....disappointed at the slow response ...]

Some of us have work to do

[Leicester Loyal]

ATG said:

Cobnapint said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They are definitely about pay, conditions and some of the ridiculous (and dangerous) proposals put forward by the clueless bean counters at NR/DfT.
NR have already (I hear) dropped some of those proposals.

Believe me. The union isn't just protecting it's members here, it is protecting the safety of your next train journey and saving NR from itself. I can't say any more than that.

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

If you feel unsafe at work, take it up with your regulator, take it up with your boss, or whoever. If all the responsible bodies disagree with your assessment, then go work somewhere else.

Safety is everyones responsibility, especially on the railway.

Network Rail say so themselves.

[ATG]

Leicester Loyal said:

ATG said:

Cobnapint said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They are definitely about pay, conditions and some of the ridiculous (and dangerous) proposals put forward by the clueless bean counters at NR/DfT.
NR have already (I hear) dropped some of those proposals.

Believe me. The union isn't just protecting it's members here, it is protecting the safety of your next train journey and saving NR from itself. I can't say any more than that.

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

If you feel unsafe at work, take it up with your regulator, take it up with your boss, or whoever. If all the responsible bodies disagree with your assessment, then go work somewhere else.

Safety is everyones responsibility, especially on the railway.

Network Rail say so themselves.

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

[ChocolateFrog]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've never had any allowances or worked a days OT so can't comment on those but basic is £54k for an average 35 hr week (varies between 25 and 55hrs pw).

Full money reached after 4 years.

The money is alright, I'd find something else to do if it wasn't. Voted for strike action as I want a payrise and can't negotiate individually for one and the company hasn't put anything on the table, again.

[legzr1]

ATG said:

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

.

Here’s another clue. First section of the railway rulebook. Safety is the responsibility of everyone.

Those outside the industry only ever hear about it when either layers of management refuse to listen forcing threats of industrial action or there’s an incident.

[tangerine_sedge]

ATG said:

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

If you feel unsafe at work, take it up with your regulator, take it up with your boss, or whoever. If all the responsible bodies disagree with your assessment, then go work somewhere else.

Yes it is. That's why there are restrictions on how many hours people can work between breaks, why some jobs require protective clothing, and why there are guards around lathes/heavy equipment etc etc.

I think some people have no awareness of the working conditions in British industry prior to stronger unions.

[legzr1]

ATG said:

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

Empty platitudes and trivial?

Clueless to the responsibilities and nature of the industry and ignorant of the risks.

Ever thought of a middle-management role in NR?

[legzr1]

tangerine_sedge said:

Yes it is. That's why there are restrictions on how many hours people can work between breaks, why some jobs require protective clothing, and why there are guards around lathes/heavy equipment etc etc.

I think some people have no awareness of the working conditions in British industry prior to stronger unions.

Good post

[Leicester Loyal]

ATG said:

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

And when you make a mistake because you're tired or you've worked too many shifts in a row, who do you think takes responsibility? Because it won't be your manager losing their job or potentially facing jail time, it'll be yourself.

Few more decent posts above me too.

[ATG]

tangerine_sedge said:

ATG said:

Here's a clue. Safety is not the union's responsibility.

If you feel unsafe at work, take it up with your regulator, take it up with your boss, or whoever. If all the responsible bodies disagree with your assessment, then go work somewhere else.

Yes it is. That's why there are restrictions on how many hours people can work between breaks, why some jobs require protective clothing, and why there are guards around lathes/heavy equipment etc etc.

I think some people have no awareness of the working conditions in British industry prior to stronger unions.

Correcting one lot of organisational failure (i.e. st regulation) with a structureless mess where unions can say "becoz safety" and down tools is stupid. A structureless mess is a structureless mess.

[ATG]

legzr1 said:

ATG said:

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

Empty platitudes and trivial?

Clueless to the responsibilities and nature of the industry and ignorant of the risks.

Ever thought of a middle-management role in NR?

you don't do irony, do you.

[legzr1]

ATG said:

you don't do irony, do you.

You have thought of NR?

[FWIW]

ATG said:

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

It’s surprising that this needs explaining.

[Legacywr]

ChocolateFrog said:

I've never had any allowances or worked a days OT so can't comment on those but basic is £54k for an average 35 hr week (varies between 25 and 55hrs pw).

Can you break this down a bit further, an average 35 hr week becomes 25 to 55 hr week how?

[ATG]

legzr1 said:

ATG said:

you don't do irony, do you.

You have thought of NR?

You're going to have to add this to the long list of things you don't understand

[Vasco]

ATG said:

That's an empty platitude.

Of course in a trivial sense safety is everyone's responsibility, including the passengers. But when it comes to defining roles and responsibilities between organisations, it makes no sense at all to say everyone can second-guess everyone else's decisions. Ultimately decisions have to be made and responsibility has to be held by an identifiable group who can be held accountable. Responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. Saying everyone is responsible means that no one is accountable, and that is hopelessly lax where a proper safety culture is required.

Absolutely, though I doubt the rail staff on here will understand, let alone accept it.
Those same rail staff who moan about 'overpaid fat bosses' - yes, the very senior people who have to make any difficult decisions about safety. No doubt, the senior people who recognise that staff numbers are far too high and can be safely reduced - that's why they are in a senior position.
.......but rail staff will always try to play the safety card. That's how they've got away with blackmailing others (for far too long)

[valiant]

Legacywr said:

Can you break this down a bit further, an average 35 hr week becomes 25 to 55 hr week how?

Because it’s averaged over the course of the rota or over a predefined number of weeks. Not all duty lengths are the same. I think the max shift the mainline does is 9.5hrs (correct me if wrong please) so five of those is 47.5 hrs so those hours have to be clawed back somewhere with a shorter week elsewhere. Add in that you can do upto 10 days without a rest day and you can see where the variables come into play resulting in up to (in this case) 55 hrs a week.

[Legacywr]

£1000 for a 35 hr week is a pretty good whack IMO.