Railway strikes?

[Apollo]

2 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

Your last sentence is entirely accurate.  

 

Pennies need to be counted other than when it's bailing out bankers, spunking obscene money on utterly failed track and trace and dodgy PPE supplied by Hancock's mate down the pub etc etc 

 

We still haven't got to grips with the offshore tax dodgers, non dom's and the like.  The number of billionaires in the UK is up 20% since the pandemic - were they on the front line providing vital services, were they fvck.  Yet we are told by the right wing media the problem is ordinary working people trying to get a decent pay rise.

 

What really saddens me is when other ordinary hard working people fall for this cornucopia of dogshit.  

So if someone has a different view of the world to you, it’s not because they have a different opinion of their own, it’s because they’ve been duped.

 

Can’t stand this holier than thou attitude some people have.

[Bordersfox]

15 minutes ago, Apollo said:

So if someone has a different view of the world to you, it’s not because they have a different opinion of their own, it’s because they’ve been duped.

 

Can’t stand this holier than thou attitude some people have.

Lots of people have been duped numerous times by politicians.  Persuading people to vote against their own interests happens all of the time otherwise we wouldn't have the widest gap between rich and poor for a very long time, the stain of food banks etc etc

 

Also a simple fact we have an extremely reactionary media with very little in the way of objective reporting.  This, quite clearly, impacts the thinking of the general population.  If you want to call that being duped so be it.

 

But that's off topic.  If you have a different opinion and you like where we are as a country currently including many different sectors striking then you're perfectly entitled to that view.  

[The People's Hero]

Its a complex issue; but I'm not sure what happened to the attitude and spirit amongst workers to accept they have a choice. If you don't want to do job A for employer B, then go and do job D for employer K.

 

Everyone always thinks everyone else has it easy, but not many people take the plunge and swap. 

 

So what I would love to know; and I'm sure there is an answer here that I just don't get is - why is the general attitude towards work, I want this particular job but I want to choose the terms, conditions and pay of it and I'll strike if I don't get it, as opposed to, I don't like the terms and conditions of this job, maybe I should get another one.

 

I know that's being simplistic; but if these changes are so bad, then why aren't we seeing more of the trainy-folk resigning and doing something else? I get that we'd be in a right pickle if they all resigned, but it would shift the supply/demand dynamic a bit wouldn't it? 

 

I know railwork is mostly skilled work, but I can't think about strikes without recalling how a load of unskilled posties went on strike and just got sacked basically because supply/demand wasn't in their favour so the Royal Mail (horifically run organisation anyway - probably in need of the sort of modernisation that so many other trades/sectors need - including the railways) just recruited others. Didn't the driving instructors just strike? Like.. really? I assumed a lot of them were self employed but also, what are they striking over? In fact, I don't care, but striking does seem to be a bit en vogue currently.

 

This isn't anti-railway workers at all. I haven't taken the time to really delve in to it - and I do take the point that others have made that the average man on the street just focuses on how train drivers are no longer happy on £60k and want £80k or whatever, whereas actually there's a huge variety of different work on the railways and salaries obviously vary massively within that AND that its about more than money. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

32 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Its a complex issue; but I'm not sure what happened to the attitude and spirit amongst workers to accept they have a choice. If you don't want to do job A for employer B, then go and do job D for employer K.

 

Everyone always thinks everyone else has it easy, but not many people take the plunge and swap. 

 

So what I would love to know; and I'm sure there is an answer here that I just don't get is - why is the general attitude towards work, I want this particular job but I want to choose the terms, conditions and pay of it and I'll strike if I don't get it, as opposed to, I don't like the terms and conditions of this job, maybe I should get another one.

 

I know that's being simplistic; but if these changes are so bad, then why aren't we seeing more of the trainy-folk resigning and doing something else? I get that we'd be in a right pickle if they all resigned, but it would shift the supply/demand dynamic a bit wouldn't it? 

 

I know railwork is mostly skilled work, but I can't think about strikes without recalling how a load of unskilled posties went on strike and just got sacked basically because supply/demand wasn't in their favour so the Royal Mail (horifically run organisation anyway - probably in need of the sort of modernisation that so many other trades/sectors need - including the railways) just recruited others. Didn't the driving instructors just strike? Like.. really? I assumed a lot of them were self employed but also, what are they striking over? In fact, I don't care, but striking does seem to be a bit en vogue currently.

 

This isn't anti-railway workers at all. I haven't taken the time to really delve in to it - and I do take the point that others have made that the average man on the street just focuses on how train drivers are no longer happy on £60k and want £80k or whatever, whereas actually there's a huge variety of different work on the railways and salaries obviously vary massively within that AND that its about more than money. 

Good post and one I fully appreciate.

 

I think we'll find in the next couple of years that a lot of people will leave, you'll have a couple of thousand go and then they'll end up raising the wages anyway to try and entice people back in.

 

A lot of us do genuinely enjoy the job, away from all the politics of it, I enjoy my work, I enjoy the group I work with I and want to spend the rest of my working career in the same industry.

[The People's Hero]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Good post and one I fully appreciate.

 

I think we'll find in the next couple of years that a lot of people will leave, you'll have a couple of thousand go and then they'll end up raising the wages anyway to try and entice people back in.

 

A lot of us do genuinely enjoy the job, away from all the politics of it, I enjoy my work, I enjoy the group I work with I and want to spend the rest of my working career in the same industry.

Thank you.

 

I rely on the trains a lot and aside from believing rail travel in this country to be ridiculously expensive; I'd miss it if we didn't have it.. so I can see the importance in some sort of agreement being struck between the Govt, the unions and by extension, the workforce.

 

Whilst I know its reductive and old ground, I truly am blown away by how much train drivers are paid here compared to European counterparts. How has this happened? And can you see why one perception (correct or otherwise) might be that the unions are too strong?

[FerrisBueller]

Good on them. Although I’m still not entirely over the cross country staff opening the toilet door on me as I was doing my daily fare dodge-sit on the toilet and play gameboy, luckily my kegs were up.

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Thank you.

 

I rely on the trains a lot and aside from believing rail travel in this country to be ridiculously expensive; I'd miss it if we didn't have it.. so I can see the importance in some sort of agreement being struck between the Govt, the unions and by extension, the workforce.

 

Whilst I know its reductive and old ground, I truly am blown away by how much train drivers are paid here compared to European counterparts. How has this happened? And can you see why one perception (correct or otherwise) might be that the unions are too strong?

I think they sold a lot of their old British Rail terms and conditions off a few years ago and in return got a very decent payrise. I work in maintenance so don't know the ins and outs.

 

I think basic salary for train driver is probably around 45k or so, the quoted numbers are always including their overtime that they do. Most TOCs rely on their drivers coming in on Sundays in order to fulfill the timetable, if the drivers say no we don't want the overtime (as has happened recently), then the trains don't run.

 

100% can see why people think unions are too strong, but without unions we wouldn't have sick pay, annual leave and loads of other benefits that we get in this country. We're just ordinary people, yet the mandate for strike action was huge, of the 70% or so that voted, 90% voted to strike, so it shows that most of us are pretty peed off with the offer and how we've been treated in general. If it was a fair offer and they weren't trying to shaft us then the percentage numbers would be no where near that high.

[Bordersfox]

54 minutes ago, Apollo said:

That's effectively what he was saying was it not? 

Perhaps with my last sentence.  And perhaps I should have clarified that, of course, some people will be anti-rail strikes and will have a fully formed and informed view as to why they are anti-rail strikes.  I will never agree with these people and think they are wrong, for some of the reasons I listed.  But if that's their world view or their view on a particular topic then they are entitled to it.  

 

However, let's not play silly buggers and pretend that their aren't many people who simply inhale the bile and, not to shy away from what it is, propaganda, spewed out by the Sun and the Mail et al about strikers, unions and unions leaders with little to no basis in reality.  

 

I don't think duped is the word I would use.  However, with more objective and factual reporting do I think most people would support the strikes.  Yep. 

[Bordersfox]

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I think they sold a lot of their old British Rail terms and conditions off a few years ago and in return got a very decent payrise. I work in maintenance so don't know the ins and outs.

 

I think basic salary for train driver is probably around 45k or so, the quoted numbers are always including their overtime that they do. Most TOCs rely on their drivers coming in on Sundays in order to fulfill the timetable, if the drivers say no we don't want the overtime (as has happened recently), then the trains don't run.

 

100% can see why people think unions are too strong, but without unions we wouldn't have sick pay, annual leave and loads of other benefits that we get in this country. We're just ordinary people, yet the mandate for strike action was huge, of the 70% or so that voted, 90% voted to strike, so it shows that most of us are pretty peed off with the offer and how we've been treated in general. If it was a fair offer and they weren't trying to shaft us then the percentage numbers would be no where near that high.

Well said! 

 

Perhaps we should remove all of the employment rights and not to mention basic health and safety legislation that's been largely passed because of union action and see then whether people think unions are a good or bad thing. 

 

You only have to look at what happens in a country like Qatar where employees have no rights, particularly in hazardous jobs like construction or factory work.  People die.  

[Parafox]

52 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Why strike, as opposed to just finding a job you like.

So easy isn't it. You know, find a job you like. Even more difficult to find one that needs their training and experience. 

 

Maybe these folks are in a job they like but are being treated badly by their employers, having real-terms salary reduced, adverse changes to their working conditions whilst expected to accept extra responsibilities, hours added to rotas, enforced overtime/unsocial hours working. 

 

The only option to them is, if they want to stay in a job which they like and feel secure in and have served their time as a type of apprenticeship but now they find they're being unfairly treated whilst they see shareholders benefiting, is to withdraw their labour, 

 

What other way do they have to try to improve their working lives? 

 

If you were being shafted by your employer what would you do?

[Sly]

2 hours ago, Houdini Logic said:

But why should an employer be able to alter your terms? That's kind of the point. It's a written agreement. Employees aren't allowed to change it as they please, so why should the employer be able to? 

The “role” typically gets made redundant and rebranded as something else. The employer ultimately has the power.   
 

 

[Sly]

I’m with the @The People's Hero on this one. If people aren’t happy with the job they have, then they should look to find another one. 
 

It’s a balancing act, between business making money and paying a fair wage. As a business, what do you do if you’re not making the money you want?

 

Reduce the headcount, therefore putting more pressure on the remaining employees, or end up shutting down certain services etc. Private businesses are entitled to try and make the money they want (rightly or wrongly). Personally I think they’re looking to make too much, as rail travel in this country is expensive, compared to that of others. 
 

I’d say the railways would have been better staying publicly owned.

 

Ultimately, if people were to leave the rail

companies, they’ll end up with a headache as they’ll not have the workforce with the skills. So will end up paying more to get them back. Semi pointless but that’s how the working cyle

goes. 

[Parafox]

I took a look online regarding contractual agreements between employer and employee and as an example I found this:

 

Your employer might want to change the terms of your contract, for example:

• change your pay
• change the work you do
• change your place of work
• cut or change the hours you work.

In theory, your employer can’t change the terms of your contract without your agreement.

 

In theory...

Edited 29 December 2022 by Parafox

[Raj]

On 28/12/2022 at 15:40, SemperEadem said:

Hope they get what they are after.

Do we know EXACTLY what they are after?

 

I was talking to my postman and some of the things RM are trying to change is atrocious(Working hours/ sunday working etc).

 

It's easy saying just change jobs but sometimes  you have to fight for what is right.

I've been in a union for 30+ years and would  strike if my employer was trying to make fundamental  changes to T&Cs.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

I took a look online regarding contractual agreements between employer and employee and as an example I found this:

 

Your employer might want to change the terms of your contract, for example:

• change your pay
• change the work you do
• change your place of work
• cut or change the hours you work.

In theory, your employer can’t change the terms of your contract without your agreement.

 

In theory...

Not sure all those are true as they can usually relocate within about 25 miles radius and you suck it up or leave, and the work you do will usually have some wording designed to allow some wriggle room, just as occasional unpaid  long hours or weekends are possible. Pay, yes never changes without notification, although they may just rebrand/merge the company and give the option to accept the changes or leave.  

[Legend_in_blue]

3 hours ago, Sly said:

I’m with the @The People's Hero on this one. If people aren’t happy with the job they have, then they should look to find another one. 
 

It’s a balancing act, between business making money and paying a fair wage. As a business, what do you do if you’re not making the money you want?

 

Reduce the headcount, therefore putting more pressure on the remaining employees, or end up shutting down certain services etc. Private businesses are entitled to try and make the money they want (rightly or wrongly). Personally I think they’re looking to make too much, as rail travel in this country is expensive, compared to that of others. 
 

I’d say the railways would have been better staying publicly owned.

 

Ultimately, if people were to leave the rail

companies, they’ll end up with a headache as they’ll not have the workforce with the skills. So will end up paying more to get them back. Semi pointless but that’s how the working cyle

goes. 

The problem here is that many are not unhappy with the work that they do, going out and getting a "better paid job" as one out of touch MP called it will not change anything for these people.  Public service workers are more frustrated at how their working conditions have deteriorated over 12 years of real terms cuts.  They see the environment they work in getting stretched that little bit more with each passing year and the level of goodwill counteracting that is beginning to show signs of deterioration.  Many public service workers do a job they enjoy, sheer frustration as to how they are being stretched beyond their means is the problem.  Moving jobs solves nothing.  The problem is still there and who exactly is supposed to come in and fill the vacancies they create on top of the many vacancies there are now?  Experienced staff are needed now more than ever.  The govt should treat all public service workers with respect but they care little other than a clap or two in 2020.

[grobyfox1990]

Also is there any evidence to state wages are fuelling inflation? Rhetorical question really as I know they aren’t, but does anyone believe public sector wage increases are actually driving inflation figures

[Corky]

If people just kept moving job because they didn't like the previous one, surely there would just be a never ending cycle? There aren't enough jobs going for that to happen. I get the sentiment but we have make jobs attractive to future employees as well.

[grobyfox1990]

53 minutes ago, Corky said:

If people just kept moving job because they didn't like the previous one, surely there would just be a never ending cycle? There aren't enough jobs going for that to happen. I get the sentiment but we have make jobs attractive to future employees as well.

Because it’s a stupid sentiment based in theory and not reality. I, like probably many others, am trained and experienced in a specific type of work. I can’t just swap jobs every 6 months. Proper nonsense 

[rachhere]

Isn’t this the whole issue that workers in those sectors which are striking at the moment are dropping and they are struggling to recruit. Catching the train in Birmingham these days it’s routine to hear all about the trains that are cancelled due to shortage of crew, there’s a shortage of teachers (and people training to teach) and   We are constantly hearing of the gaps in the NHS. These strikes are as much about protecting these vital services moving forward as it is about improving rights now. 

[Voll Blau]

It's mind-blowing that there are people who think just getting another job or even changing careers entirely is an easy solution for most.

[fox_up_north]

I should point out, from an education standpoint, that simply "changing careers" is incredibly difficult to do without funding. EG:

 

You are entitled to your education, up to Level 3 (A level or equivalent) being free AT THE FIRST ATTEMPT/ COMPLETION.

 

Degrees are not free, nor are MAs. You are also massively charged if you attempt a second.

 

An apprenticeship is, potentially, an option but - from my several years working in the sector - you need an employer willing to take you and, typically, they will only really take people "sight unseen" up to the age of about 23. The rest will be employees in their company who are looking to progress their careers, which means starting on a lower salary.

 

 

The upshot is that it means the people that are most likely to "benefit" from the concept of changing careers would seem to be:

 

- low skilled workers who don't have much formal education (and are likely to be on low pay) 

- very highly skilled and financially secure/ free of responsibility workers, who can afford to change

 

The former will just be back to square one; taking poorly paid jobs with unfavourable conditions. The latter will be a much smaller pool of people who are probably able to dictate more of what they want. 

 

 

And that's BEFORE we even get into the physical costs of training, such as transport, materials, childcare cover for classes, etc.

[Raj]

9 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Because it’s a stupid sentiment based in theory and not reality. I, like probably many others, am trained and experienced in a specific type of work. I can’t just swap jobs every 6 months. Proper nonsense 

Exactly.

I'd love to know how many people are entirely  in love with their jobs.

Bounce out of bed after holidays and cant wait to go back to work.

How many have just fallen into what they do and just do it to provide for the family.

Most arent that high up the ladder to just swap jobs " cos we can".

 

[CosbehFox]

If you are a highly skilled worker whose done umpteen years training alongside a high risk experience, it’s pretty gutting to throw all that away to get a new job which may require further umpteen years of training to get pay equality to previous role. 
 

In my experience of working both public and private sector, if you want to look on this on a purely financial medium term basis, if the rail workers were to leave their roles and then re-employment would be required it would be at a higher rate of pay, possibly even at day rates to private contractors or even agencies. It’s a false economy which levels the budget for a year or two until the next financial hole arrives.
 

I’ve seen it at councils where you require professional expertise in property or legal services. Who when directly employed are paid below the market rate but get the benefit of decent T & Cs
 

The more this wrangle goes on with the various strikes, the more contempt builds for the employer and in the long term, you end up with a shortage of staff skilled in those roles because no-one has any incentive to train for those jobs and the staff retention brings to dramatically fall. 

Edited 30 December 2022 by CosbehFox

[ozleicester]

"Its the workers fault"