RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[djc206]

Leicester Loyal said:

Yep, great turnout, but don’t let it stop others from making cheap digs…

It’s ok and the resounding vote cements it as having majority support but it’s not great. The union I’m a member of would consider that turnout fairly disappointing for our branch. It’s really not that difficult to vote so members should be making a bit more effort.

[TheLurker]

I'd say the fact 63% of the union members voted to strike shows quite a strong show of support. Certainly far more than I'd have expected.

Not sure what it will achieve though.

[Leicester Loyal]

djc206 said:

It’s ok and the resounding vote cements it as having majority support but it’s not great. The union I’m a member of would consider that turnout fairly disappointing for our branch. It’s really not that difficult to vote so members should be making a bit more effort.

As above not voting can actually be more effective. They'll be a small percentage who forgot to vote, they'll be a small percentage who didn't receive a vote (incorrect details etc.) and they'll be a decent percentage who are only in the union to benefit themselves (legal representation etc.) Obviously then you've got a decent percentage who want it ended who either didn't bother to vote or voted no to strike action.

For RMT anyway, 70% is a pretty good turnover IMO, especially after 12 months of striking, I would have said 65% turnout was decent.

Goodluck but they need to strap in for another 6 months.

[Vasco]

Leicester Loyal said:

djc206 said:

It’s ok and the resounding vote cements it as having majority support but it’s not great. The union I’m a member of would consider that turnout fairly disappointing for our branch. It’s really not that difficult to vote so members should be making a bit more effort.

As above not voting can actually be more effective. They'll be a small percentage who forgot to vote, they'll be a small percentage who didn't receive a vote (incorrect details etc.) and they'll be a decent percentage who are only in the union to benefit themselves (legal representation etc.) Obviously then you've got a decent percentage who want it ended who either didn't bother to vote or voted no to strike action.

For RMT anyway, 70% is a pretty good turnover IMO, especially after 12 months of striking, I would have said 65% turnout was decent.

Goodluck but they need to strap in for another 6 months.

Whatever the views, and whatever anybody thinks of the RMT, it will certainly be genuinely interesting to see what the final outcome is, and when. This must be one of the longest running major disputes without resolution for some time.

[S600BSB]

Good luck to them. As a regular rail user I want the railways to be operated safely and the staff to be properly rewarded.

[ChocolateFrog]

86 said:

Heard a rail worker phone in to a radio show today trying to justify the strike on cup final day. He was made to look a right muppet. Most people thought it was the last straw taking it out on kids wanting to see their club play at Wembley. Loss of any remaining public sympathy

JTFC, won't you just think of the children

I am, mine.

There hasn't been any public sympathy.

There isn't that much for nurses and doctors, I personally couldn't care less what the 'public' think.

My skills are transferable should I wish.

[irc]

S600BSB said:

Good luck to them. As a regular rail user I want the railways to be operated safely and the staff to be properly rewarded.

Is there any evidence the pay is too low to attract staff or is any lower than comparable occupations?

[Leicester Loyal]

irc said:

S600BSB said:

Good luck to them. As a regular rail user I want the railways to be operated safely and the staff to be properly rewarded.

Is there any evidence the pay is too low to attract staff or is any lower than comparable occupations?

Think it's been done to death in the hundreds of pages we have had on the matter, no point going round in circles.

People won't change their views this far into the dispute, regardless of what's said, written or whatever arguments are put forward.

[TheLurker]

As an aside, does anyone know the rough comparison between safety on the railway vs roads? I imagine they're safer?

[loafer123]

Leicester Loyal said:

Think it's been done to death in the hundreds of pages we have had on the matter, no point going round in circles.

People won't change their views this far into the dispute, regardless of what's said, written or whatever arguments are put forward.

True.

Hard to see either side moving for the foreseeable future.

[ChocolateFrog]

TheLurker said:

As an aside, does anyone know the rough comparison between safety on the railway vs roads? I imagine they're safer?

1000's of times safer.

On a separate but slightly related topic I was told the other day that we have a station stopping incident (fail to call or overrun) rate of 1 in every 43000 stops. 1 incident every 8 years or so.

Obviously the better half of drivers will be having much less than that. Pretty bloody impressive IMO.

[The Mad Monk]

S600BSB said:

Good luck to them. As a regular rail user I want the railways to be operated safely and the staff to be properly rewarded.

The staff are more than adequately rewarded.

[valiant]

TheLurker said:

As an aside, does anyone know the rough comparison between safety on the railway vs roads? I imagine they're safer?

Road deaths involving collisions up to June 2022 was 1760.

Railways a fair bit lower than that…

[Vasco]

loafer123 said:

Leicester Loyal said:

Think it's been done to death in the hundreds of pages we have had on the matter, no point going round in circles.

People won't change their views this far into the dispute, regardless of what's said, written or whatever arguments are put forward.

True.

Hard to see either side moving for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps we should diarise for 12 and 24 months time, to make sure that we can properly review what has actually happened, and when......

[valiant]

The Mad Monk said:

The staff are more than adequately rewarded.

What’s your insight into the railway that makes you qualified to make that statement?

[Vasco]

valiant said:

The Mad Monk said:

The staff are more than adequately rewarded.

What’s your insight into the railway that makes you qualified to make that statement?

Staff turnover is often thought to be a good indicator of whether pay and rewards are adequate.

[Chrisgr31]

Well the Conservatives have had a big kicking and its well deserved. They have been absolutely hammered in Sussex, wonder what they will change. Not rail I guess!

[rigga]

The Mad Monk said:

The staff are more than adequately rewarded.

All staff?

Or are we back to everyone is on driver rates again ?

[Vasco]

Chrisgr31 said:

Well the Conservatives have had a big kicking and its well deserved. They have been absolutely hammered in Sussex, wonder what they will change. Not rail I guess!

It's only Local Elections, and didn't cover all of the UK. Traditionally, the local elections are often an opportunity for everyone to have a rant and vote for the lesser parties - the Liberals, Greens and, if they still exist (?) Monster Raving Loony Party will do very well.

Nobody in government usually takes too much notice of the local election results - and I think you can guarantee that rail won't be on any agenda!

[The Mad Monk]

valiant said:

The Mad Monk said:

The staff are more than adequately rewarded.

What’s your insight into the railway that makes you qualified to make that statement?

Look. It's just some random, anonymous bloke on t'internet spouting off.

Mind you, train drivers are paid too much for what is a semi-skilled job. Many/most/much of the railway lines/system is/are now automated - the Elizabeth line for example.

A good yardstick is to see how long the queue is when a job becomes vacant.