RMT union vote for a national rail strike
Discussion
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? 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.
Clueless to the responsibilities and nature of the industry and ignorant of the risks.
Ever thought of a middle-management role in NR?
Cobnapint said:
Vasco said:
I'm often a bit puzzled by these sort of comments. You're saying that senior people at Network Rail support cutbacks (in specific areas/tasks) but the RMT object - on safety grounds ?
Yup. NR want to cut back on maintenance/safety checks to justify the staff cuts.Cobnapint said:
Vasco said:
I'm often a bit puzzled by these sort of comments. You're saying that senior people at Network Rail support cutbacks (in specific areas/tasks) but the RMT object - on safety grounds ?
Yup. NR want to cut back on maintenance/safety checks to justify the staff cuts.The RMT is a Trade Union. Are they legally accountable for safety issues across the network ?
Vasco said:
.........but, surely, NR is the employer, with clear overall responsibilities for safety issues ?
The RMT is a Trade Union. Are they legally accountable for safety issues across the network ?
The buck stops with the ORR.The RMT is a Trade Union. Are they legally accountable for safety issues across the network ?
However:
https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/industry-g...
Apologies as this is probably in the wrong thread but I thought some people might be interested in the salaries and entrance exams for LU drivers
London Underground driver reveals super strict entrance exams and eye-watering salary
London Underground driver reveals super strict entrance exams and eye-watering salary
Aslef train drivers at eight companies to strike on July 30th.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62166276
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62166276
Cobnapint said:
Vasco said:
I'm often a bit puzzled by these sort of comments. You're saying that senior people at Network Rail support cutbacks (in specific areas/tasks) but the RMT object - on safety grounds ?
Yup. NR want to cut back on maintenance/safety checks to justify the staff cuts.I guess you want maintenance to continue at its existing level even when there is no need to do so. At the tax payers expense.
Vasco said:
Cobnapint said:
Vasco said:
I'm often a bit puzzled by these sort of comments. You're saying that senior people at Network Rail support cutbacks (in specific areas/tasks) but the RMT object - on safety grounds ?
Yup. NR want to cut back on maintenance/safety checks to justify the staff cuts.The RMT is a Trade Union. Are they legally accountable for safety issues across the network ?
It lies with company in question and its employees.
Outside of pay negotiations, the union spends most of its time defending indefensible acts by its members.
Leicester Loyal 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.
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. 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.
Few more decent posts above me too.
Legacywr said:
Leicester Loyal said:
alangla said:
New offer made by Network Rail to the RMT - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62141374
Will be interesting to see if the union put this to the membership or kybosh it before then. On the face of it, it appears fairly attractive and if anything, more generous than the ScotRail/ASLEF offer that was accepted yesterday.
Rejected hopefully.Will be interesting to see if the union put this to the membership or kybosh it before then. On the face of it, it appears fairly attractive and if anything, more generous than the ScotRail/ASLEF offer that was accepted yesterday.
Rostered 39 weekends a year
Travel discount will be taken out of our salary pre-tax (just like the BR days), so it'll cost us regardless. Loss of maintenance staff etc. Payrise isn't that bad, but having to accept all the T&Cs with it is pretty poor.
Slowly realising that a lot of the blokes (and ladies) on track probably won't be working here in 10 years, it's only going one way.
The railway needs staff 7 days a week. If weekends are impoortant to you, and they were to me, change your job. I moved off the tools into the office, almost entirely for that reason.
monkfish1 said:
Im sure they do. Less trains, inevitably will mean less mnaintenance as the asset will deterirate less quickly.
I guess you want maintenance to continue at its existing level even when there is no need to do so. At the tax payers expense.
It’s predominantly the heavy freight trains that cause the wear and damage (alongside outside environmental factors).I guess you want maintenance to continue at its existing level even when there is no need to do so. At the tax payers expense.
So far at least, none of the FOCs have experienced industrial action.
Those heavy trains keep on running.
As has been repeated many times in this thread, relax maintenance regimes at ‘your’ peril.
Countdown said:
Apologies as this is probably in the wrong thread but I thought some people might be interested in the salaries and entrance exams for LU drivers
London Underground driver reveals super strict entrance exams and eye-watering salary
It’s a helpful post.London Underground driver reveals super strict entrance exams and eye-watering salary
Worth noting that mainline (away from closed systems running through tunnels..) the training and timespans can be trebled compared to LuL.
No doubt we’ll get the flippant ‘you don’t even steer the things’ comments from those on here thinking ‘Golly! Those wages almost equal my pension. How dare they?!!!…’
monkfish1 said:
No. The union(s) have ZERO responsibility for safety. None. At all.
It lies with company in question and its employees.
Outside of pay negotiations, the union spends most of its time defending indefensible acts by its members.
Careful use of the wording there.It lies with company in question and its employees.
Outside of pay negotiations, the union spends most of its time defending indefensible acts by its members.
Well done.
Still, I’m sure you’re away of the significant input from Unions when discussing safety issues aren’t you?
Well, when they’re not ‘defending indefensible acts’ and other anecdotal nonsense.
legzr1 said:
It’s predominantly the heavy freight trains that cause the wear and damage (alongside outside environmental factors).
So far at least, none of the FOCs have experienced industrial action.
Those heavy trains keep on running.
As has been repeated many times in this thread, relax maintenance regimes at ‘your’ peril.
Not really convinced that the senior managers in NR would suggest cutbacks if they weren't safe. So far at least, none of the FOCs have experienced industrial action.
Those heavy trains keep on running.
As has been repeated many times in this thread, relax maintenance regimes at ‘your’ peril.
In repeating the same old safety arguments on here ad infinitum it still appears that you and RMT are professing to be more concerned about 'safety' than the people employed by NR to hold that responsibility.
Is that the case?
legzr1 said:
monkfish1 said:
Im sure they do. Less trains, inevitably will mean less mnaintenance as the asset will deterirate less quickly.
I guess you want maintenance to continue at its existing level even when there is no need to do so. At the tax payers expense.
It’s predominantly the heavy freight trains that cause the wear and damage (alongside outside environmental factors).I guess you want maintenance to continue at its existing level even when there is no need to do so. At the tax payers expense.
So far at least, none of the FOCs have experienced industrial action.
Those heavy trains keep on running.
As has been repeated many times in this thread, relax maintenance regimes at ‘your’ peril.
The reality is, you tailor maintenance to maintain the assest in an appropiate condition for its use. It goes without saying, that track (and we are not talking just track of course) will wear more quickly with regular freight than it will with a 153 scuttling over it 3 times a day.
As i already said, traffic is down, therefore its logical that the maintenance will be less. Not necessarily proportianlly or indeed at all in some cases.
Having spent way to many years doing exactly this on rail vehicles, one frequently ran into the phropets of doom that you could possibly do "less" maintenance or it would all go wrong.
Of course it was mostly nonsense. There was much scope to change the maintenance to suit the use. In some cases that was less maintenance. Sometimes it was more. Their is certainly no "peril" involved in matching maintenance performed to the requirements.
It just suits now to "pay" the safety card to achieve the end objectives. Im sure if all the demands were met, then all this talk of safety would, magically stop.
As an aside, sadly, the concept of maintenance seems to be lost on most these days. That includes NR.
Legacywr said:
monkfish1 said:
But he forgot to mention the bit that there is other time off instead.
I took that as a given There are plenty of industries where you wouldnt have time off during the week.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff