[News] Braking news - more train strikes over the Christmas period announced

[jackalbion]

Oh, I'm sure.

As I say, I haven't followed this story closely at all, I was merely replying to the point about Sundays being "special". However, I certainly don't buy that reduction of overtime, in any job, represents a pay cut.

In my first ever job when I came out of university, weekend overtime was very much a thing; many people would do five hours each Saturday morning as a result. Two hours "travel time" was given for working on a weekend, and the whole lot was doubled, so 14 hours pay was received for a very easy five hours work.

Some people became accustomed to this big boost in their pay and largely structured their outgoings around it. It was never guaranteed though and, when it stopped, as it did periodically, mild panic would set in.

In short, just because the availability of overtime has nearly always been available, doesn't mean it always will. Didn't we previously see some de facto striking when rail workers refused to work overtime? If nothing else, that signals that it shouldn't be a cornerstone in the provision of a vital public service.

I agree to a certain extent, a public service shouldn’t be reliant on overtime, but there isn’t enough staff to cover the basic service without overtime, if they want to start covering Sundays on the roster, they need to recruit a lot more staff, something they are reluctant to do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Oh, I'm sure.

As I say, I haven't followed this story closely at all, I was merely replying to the point about Sundays being "special". However, I certainly don't buy that reduction of overtime, in any job, represents a pay cut.

a job with shift pattern including weekends, late and early starts would probably have that reflected in a higher basic rate compared to more regular patterns. odd thing is we pay lower fares for the weekend, despite apparently higher wage cost, wonder how many would like a resolution that rises fares to cover?

 

[portslade seagull]

What most don't understand is big payrises means bigger job losses to pay for it. BT have announced pay rises of upto 15% but their caveat was 10k more job losses by 2025. This will happen all over and the jobs lost will reappear in agency roles at a far reduced rate. The only people that sit smugly in all of this are the union leaders who still get their 120-250k wages no matter the outcome rather like the sitting government. The workers are the pawns in all of this

 

[Thunder Bolt]

a job with shift pattern including weekends, late and early starts would probably have that reflected in a higher basic rate compared to more regular patterns. odd thing is we pay lower fares for the weekend, despite apparently higher wage cost, wonder how many would like a resolution that rises fares to cover?

It amazes me that you can decide what workers can and can't do with their hours, pay etc, yet not point the finger at shareholders (who do nothing) taking £800 million out of the system the tax payer is subsidising.

Edit to add, I agree with portslade seagull, the workers are the pawns. Who are the shareholders? Who is getting the profits?

Something is wrong and it isn't the unions.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

interesting term "union assist", as if they should the ones deciding what is and isnt used. which is the point really. i should have qualified the previous remark they block any change that alters jobs.

A massive generalisation. Unions represent the workers who actually have to work with the new technology.

I was in a trade union for a big proportion of my working life. In 30 odd years, I went on strike twice (that was in the Civil Service, when the government tried to screw over the pensions) and we won.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Oh, I'm sure.

As I say, I haven't followed this story closely at all, I was merely replying to the point about Sundays being "special". However, I certainly don't buy that reduction of overtime, in any job, represents a pay cut.

In my first ever job when I came out of university, weekend overtime was very much a thing; many people would do five hours each Saturday morning as a result. Two hours "travel time" was given for working on a weekend, and the whole lot was doubled, so 14 hours pay was received for a very easy five hours work.

Some people became accustomed to this big boost in their pay and largely structured their outgoings around it. It was never guaranteed though and, when it stopped, as it did periodically, mild panic would set in.

In short, just because the availability of overtime has nearly always been available, doesn't mean it always will. Didn't we previously see some de facto striking when rail workers refused to work overtime? If nothing else, that signals that it shouldn't be a cornerstone in the provision of a vital public service.

Yeah same experience here, my salary was made up of about 25% overtime I would guess.
However the company I worked for were still making a profit at that rate, so they were happy with the situation too.
There was a much healthier share of benefit to the company and employee back then IMO.
Today it feels that we are expected to care more about the health of the company profits than we do the standard of living of the employee.

The bottom line here is that regardless of what should be the case, currently Sunday working, is contractually paid as overtime for many workers.
If the company want to change the contract, they will need to offer something worth having.

Alternatively they could just employ more people to cover the gap (I assume)

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Interesting you chose to completely ignore the new railway technology I used as an example, that has been brought in with Union assist, and then just said the same thing again based on no information

So the union have a yes/no on technology being brought in? I am not sure that is a healthy way to run a public service.

I think as a society we will all benefit from a solution in this strike, but I do accept your point that a lot of people are inconvenienced. I’m not in the view that anyone finding a way around without using the railway is strike breaking (like some Lewes supporting moron on twitter who claimed BHAFC were scabbing the RMT by putting on buses), the point is to disrupt the train service not the entirety of peoples lives, and it frustrates me when some people just want that, I don’t think that’s right.

I can hand on heart say I have not been affected by the strike and I imagine most of the country has not to anything more than a mild inconvenience, if anything some people are happy as they can WFH.

The strikes currently have majority of support in the public, but I can see this changing without movement on the unions side and if they strike over xmas after the past 2 years, as the wrong people are being targetting.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

A massive generalisation. Unions represent the workers who actually have to work with the new technology.

I was in a trade union for a big proportion of my working life. In 30 odd years, I went on strike twice (that was in the Civil Service, when the government tried to screw over the pensions) and we won.

Sounds like they are refusing to learn a new system? no wonder the train network is so poor and set in the past.

 

[beorhthelm]

It amazes me that you can decide what workers can and can't do with their hours, pay etc, yet not point the finger at shareholders (who do nothing) taking £800 million out of the system the tax payer is subsidising.

Edit to add, I agree with portslade seagull, the workers are the pawns. Who are the shareholders? Who is getting the profits?

Something is wrong and it isn't the unions.

traditionally it is the employer that sets hours and pay, though see it can be confusing with the rail. major part of the dispute is with nationalised Network Rail, where is the shareholder interest there?

we're recylcing the same old debate from last strikes on Southern, the trains have OBS and ticket offices remain open, things the union said wouldnt happen in those disputes. those practices are being rolled out across other TOC, im sure they'll end up the same.

 

[Bold Seagull]

a job with shift pattern including weekends, late and early starts would probably have that reflected in a higher basic rate compared to more regular patterns. odd thing is we pay lower fares for the weekend, despite apparently higher wage cost, wonder how many would like a resolution that rises fares to cover?

We still seem to have a bit of a Beeching attitude still to the railways, whereas it should be considered a utility and a necessary part of a joined up transport plan where rail continues to grow and be a viable alternative to the car, not that it has to be a profit making endeavor that lines or times of travel need to make financial sense.

With packed roads and growing car use, our attitude to rail needs to make it a viable alternative to reduce car use and make it part of a sustainable transport plan. It isn't odd at all that we pay lower fares at weekends because there is simply less demand - we need to increase that demand outside of the commuters where rail is a necessity. Where it is a choice, it needs to be made our first choice.

We need to look back at the mistakes of the Beeching cuts and try to envisage what our rail use might be in 10 or 20 years, not just the next 2 or 5. Driving efficiency and change as a mantra isn't always for the greater good, and short term economic gains aren't always for the long term benefit for the rest of us. Rail is an important part of our collective infrastructure.

Agree completely with @Thunder Bolt, and it isn't just profiteering, it's that it reduces long term thinking and planning for short term gains.

The rail companies are a failure for the UK. They have been a great success for many foreign investors. Yet we turn on the workers when there is a huge great elephant standing beside us.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

So the union have a yes/no on technology being brought in? I am not sure that is a healthy way to run a public service.


I can hand on heart say I have not been affected by the strike and I imagine most of the country has not to anything more than a mild inconvenience, if anything some people are happy as they can WFH.

The strikes currently have majority of support in the public, but I can see this changing without movement on the unions side and if they strike over xmas after the past 2 years, as the wrong people are being targetting.

Pretty sure the strike action they are calling will have no impact on the public.
The majority of trains do not run during the period they are striking.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Very true about many rail staff.

But not train drivers. ONS figures, median salary £59k. Maxing at £77k.

As has been pointed out on here ad nauseam, the drivers are mainly represented by ASLEF, not the RMT.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Pretty sure the strike action they are calling will have no impact on the public.
The majority of trains do not run during the period they are striking.

True. Only the traditional Boxing Day Brighton to London services in this area.

 

[Weststander]

As has been pointed out on here ad nauseam, the drivers are mainly represented by ASLEF, not the RMT.

I knew that. ASLEF were around when I was brought up on striking Britain up to 1979.

They’re in a series of strikes right now too, £60k is insufficient income.

 

[Bozza]

Yeah same experience here, my salary was made up of about 25% overtime I would guess.
However the company I worked for were still making a profit at that rate, so they were happy with the situation too.
There was a much healthier share of benefit to the company and employee back then IMO.
Today it feels that we are expected to care more about the health of the company profits than we do the standard of living of the employee.

The bottom line here is that regardless of what should be the case, currently Sunday working, is contractually paid as overtime for many workers.
If the company want to change the contract, they will need to offer something worth having.

Alternatively they could just employ more people to cover the gap (I assume)

It feels like I'm missing something somewhere, since the story seems to be...

- Sundays should be considered a regular working day and not reliant upon overtime to run services
- There's not enough people to work Sundays on regular hours
- There's no desire to expand the workforce

...which leaves a bit of a gap with regard to resourcing Sunday services, doesn't it?

 

[jackalbion]

Sounds like they are refusing to learn a new system? no wonder the train network is so poor and set in the past.

That would be completely wrong, that isn't based on anything, new technology and systems have been coming in all the time.

 

[Bozza]

With packed roads and growing car use, our attitude to rail needs to make it a viable alternative to reduce car use and make it part of a sustainable transport plan. It isn't odd at all that we pay lower fares at weekends because there is simply less demand - we need to increase that demand outside of the commuters where rail is a necessity. Where it is a choice, it needs to be made our first choice.

Correct. But it's not even a consideration for me.

I used to always travel to the Amex by train. I've not tried since we emerged from the pandemic. Reports on here describe what an utter shitshow it is match after match, so I drive.

We might go to London for a couple of days before Christmas. If we do, I'll not even think about taking the train. I don't want to waste my time working out what services may run before factoring in the possibility of strikes leaving us either frustrated and/or stranded. I'll drive instead.

 

[LamieRobertson]

True. Only the traditional Boxing Day Brighton to London services in this area.

So it has some impact?

 

[Reddleman]

The point that seems to be missed here is that T&C’s need to be updated because they are so unbelievably antiquated. The fact that on public transport a Sunday will only now be seen as a normal day sums it up.

Also the claim that wage increases must keep up with cost of inflation is disingenuous and unrealistic. No company can afford to give a double digits increase in one year, everyone has to accept that due to external factors we will all take a hit this year. Also, interesting that in all the years that wage increases in the rail industry were above inflation they were gladly accepted despite the antiquated working conditions.

In the main I am supporter of unions defending their members but the ridiculous working practices that continue to plague our railways need to be addressed.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Correct. But it's not even a consideration for me.

I used to always travel to the Amex by train. I've not tried since we emerged from the pandemic. Reports on here describe what an utter shitshow it is match after match, so I drive.

We might go to London for a couple of days before Christmas. If we do, I'll not even think about taking the train. I don't want to waste my time working out what services may run before factoring in the possibility of strikes leaving us either frustrated and/or stranded. I'll drive instead.

When you then say plan a longer rail journey as a family, say to the North or something, the cost is eye watering compared to a tank of fuel or so. This does need to change. Rail does need to be attractive to you, me, and everyone where it is an option, both in terms of quality and frequency of service. Rail companies don't want to run services for convenience, they only want to run what makes the money and cut back on what doesn't - our rail has to be more than that.