Current Affairs Rail strikes

[edge]

"Can you do a few Sunday Mark, or few out of your area?" "yeah, sure." £100 in your bin. Kinda feels a better worker/employee (sic) relationship if I am honest. But maybe thats me.

No mate up to you if your happy why get into fights .
For all my years in the union I havnt been near them for at least 20 years,.
If I have a problem I sort it.
To be honest I really don't have much respect to most of the union reps I come across.
If you get a good one they are worth there weight in gold but to many are only intrested in it for what they get put of it.
I have a sort of love /hate relationship with the Unions.
Had a few battles with them over the years

 

[catcherintherye]

If you're looking at it from a business perspective though, you have:
a) passenger numbers and revenue down about 25% on pre-Covid levels
b) the regulators setting fare increases at considerably below inflation

That seems a strange set of circumstances to be demanding pay rises at inflation levels. In most other industries that would be a recipe for huge job losses.

I think you are arguing different things though.

Business performance and inflation. I think people are legitimate enough, in a world where pensions rise with inflation, which will be paid for out of taxation, to say that people in work should receive the same. Especially when the government says it's on the side of working people, but seems to spend it's time demonising them for stating this.

It's also worth stating, that shareholders of train firms have been paid dividends. They have even recieved tax payers subsidies when they have not provided services. Is there not a question to perhaps ask, why are owners of these businesses being given dividends from the tax payer, when they arent even providing services? Surely those funds should be withheld?

But (to me at least) we seem to have a two tier system, whereby those who work are put at the bottom of the list, and those who dont seem to get rewarded in ways unimaginable for employees.

 

[catcherintherye]

"Can you do a few Sunday Mark, or few out of your area?" "yeah, sure." £100 in your bin. Kinda feels a better worker/employee (sic) relationship if I am honest. But maybe thats me.

I agree mate. The problem is, increasingly that latter bit doesnt happen.

Again may just be my experience, but theres a lot of, can you do this extra- yea sure.

Next week- why arent you doing what you did week? That's not a very good working practice.

I think most managers seem to take advantage.

I should add, my current line manager is fantastic, and not this. And honestly I'd go to the end of the earth for him.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think you are arguing different things though.

Business performance and inflation. I think people are legitimate enough, in a world where pensions rise with inflation, which will be paid for out of taxation, to say that people in work should receive the same. Especially when the government says it's on the side of working people, but seems to spend it's time demonising them for stating this.

It's also worth stating, that shareholders of train firms have been paid dividends. They have even recieved tax payers subsidies when they have not provided services. Is there not a question to perhaps ask, why are owners of these businesses being given dividends from the tax payer, when they arent even providing services? Surely those funds should be withheld?

But (to me at least) we seem to have a two tier system, whereby those who work are put at the bottom of the list, and those who dont seem to get rewarded in ways unimaginable for employees.

It's estimated that around 150,000 people in the tech industry lost their job last year because of a drop in performance across the sector that was much less than seen in the rail sector. This is the reality for those working in sectors that have to generate their own income. Another visible example is the 400 or so pubs that shut during the year as trade declined so much. So yes, it would be a two tier system in which sectors with the government over a barrel get protections that the rest of the economy don't enjoy. Remember, the government should represent everyone, not just the noisy.

 

[catcherintherye]

It's estimated that around 150,000 people in the tech industry lost their job last year because of a drop in performance across the sector that was much less than seen in the rail sector. This is the reality for those working in sectors that have to generate their own income. Another visible example is the 400 or so pubs that shut during the year as trade declined so much. So yes, it would be a two tier system in which sectors with the government over a barrel get protections that the rest of the economy don't enjoy. Remember, the government should represent everyone, not just the noisy.

But again you seem to Dodge the question.

Why are my taxes being paid to shareholders of businesses even when they dont provide the service? Why are shareholders prioritised in that way?

If I dont turn up for work, and dont do my job, I dont get paid. Whether i work in tech, for a pub, for a government, whether I'm noisy or not etc.

Why are shareholders treated differently?

And why are pensioners given inflation busting rises? As a employee, that if a far bigger concern to me.

Any thoughts on those thing, rather than this imaginary dichotomy you've made between employees of different sectors. And this is said, as someone who works in the field of the private sector, so respectfully, doesnt need you to mansplain to me of.the challenges that exist in my sector, but rather to actually listen to the concerns I am giving you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But again you seem to Dodge the question.

Why are my taxes being paid to shareholders of businesses even when they dont provide the service? Why are shareholders prioritised in that way?

If I dont turn up for work, and dont do my job, I dont get paid. Whether i work in tech, for a pub, for a government, whether I'm noisy or not etc.

Why are shareholders treated differently?

And why are pensioners given inflation busting rises? As a employee, that if a far bigger concern to me.

Any thoughts on those thing, rather than this imaginary dichotomy you've made between employees of different sectors. And this is said, as someone who works in the field of the private sector, so respectfully, doesnt need you to mansplain to me of.the challenges that exist in my sector, but rather to actually listen to the concerns I am giving you.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't recall any discussion during this episode calling for a fundamental restructuring of the financial relationship between the government and the rail industry. I'm quite open to such a debate taking place. As it stands though, what you seem to be saying is that because the government (wrongly) compensate rail companies during strikes, then the government should (wrongly) prop up the wages of workers in an industry that has seen plummeting demand.

 

[catcherintherye]

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't recall any discussion during this episode calling for a fundamental restructuring of the financial relationship between the government and the rail industry. I'm quite open to such a debate taking place. As it stands though, what you seem to be saying is that because the government (wrongly) compensate rail companies during strikes, then the government should (wrongly) prop up the wages of workers in an industry that has seen plummeting demand.

Well I have mentioned it a few times, and you seem to divert the question towards this alleged difference between public and private sector workers. You are speaking to someone who is a private sector worker, someone who has been laid off in that sector when things go wrong, and someone who has not as yet got the same pay increase as public sector colleagues are asking for. I understand it. I dont need you to speak on my behalf, I am more than capable of articulating my own views.

I have asked a few times about where your concern is for tax payers money being used for businesses who dont provide the service, who then use that money to pay dividends. All I've seen you say, is that you are happy for dividends to be paid, but unhappy for employees to ask to not have a pay cut. It just feels to me like you prioritise any group except for the people who actually do the job.

And no, I am not saying that at all. What I am asking, is why, when the government says it puts working people first, is it giving money to companies that do not provide the service, while simultaneously telling employees who do provide the service they have to accept less.

And again, I dont need you to inform me of what happens with employees in tbe private sector. As indicated above, I work in the private sector. I'm saying all of this to you, as someone who works in the private sector, so please dont put words in my mouth.

 

[Kurt.]

The bbc reporting on the rail strikes is disgusting, on the news now it reported again that the trains are on strike due to a dispute over pay…. They never mention the changes to working conditions, reduced pension, loss of overtime etc … shouldn’t be allowed

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well I have mentioned it a few times, and you seem to divert the question towards this alleged difference between public and private sector workers. You are speaking to someone who is a private sector worker, someone who has been laid off in that sector when things go wrong, and someone who has not as yet got the same pay increase as public sector colleagues are asking for. I understand it. I dont need you to speak on my behalf, I am more than capable of articulating my own views.

I have asked a few times about where your concern is for tax payers money being used for businesses who dont provide the service, who then use that money to pay dividends. All I've seen you say, is that you are happy for dividends to be paid, but unhappy for employees to ask to not have a pay cut. It just feels to me like you prioritise any group except for the people who actually do the job.

And no, I am not saying that at all. What I am asking, is why, when the government says it puts working people first, is it giving money to companies that do not provide the service, while simultaneously telling employees who do provide the service they have to accept less.

And again, I dont need you to inform me of what happens with employees in tbe private sector. As indicated above, I work in the private sector. I'm saying all of this to you, as someone who works in the private sector, so please dont put words in my mouth.

By discussion I meant the wider discussion rather than any taking place on this forum. The Unions aren't advocating for a change in the nature of the government's relationship with the rail industry or the financial support it's provided. If you know of any then I'd be open to reading it. Regarding dividends, I would need to hear more about it. The only rail company I've looked at is First Group, which didn't pay dividends for several years, and only did so recently because they sold another division of the company for a few hundred million and returned much of that to shareholders to thank them for not taking a dividend for several years.

 

[Cool_Blue]

Huge Amazon depot in Cov going on strike. No idea if its unionised. But will be interesting to see how folk react to not having stuff delivered for a few days/ever, compared to missing a train.

Not being able to go to Home Bargains 7 days a week would spell the end of the world for some people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Huge Amazon depot in Cov going on strike. No idea if its unionised. But will be interesting to see how folk react to not having stuff delivered for a few days/ever, compared to missing a train.

They were hiring huge numbers of people during the pandemic due to the surge in deliveries. I know in the US they increased salaries a fair bit to enable them to attract people. They've also announced quite major redundancies this year though as the other side of that curve hits, although I'm not sure where in the business those redundancies are happening.

 

[edge]

By discussion I meant the wider discussion rather than any taking place on this forum. The Unions aren't advocating for a change in the nature of the government's relationship with the rail industry or the financial support it's provided. If you know of any then I'd be open to reading it. Regarding dividends, I would need to hear more about it. The only rail company I've looked at is First Group, which didn't pay dividends for several years, and only did so recently because they sold another division of the company for a few hundred million and returned much of that to shareholders to thank them for not taking a dividend for several years.

The union want rail
re nationalisation, one company to run everything.
So that's a clear difference in how they want the government to fund the system.
Cut out the middleman so to speak.
Track , train ownership, stations ect not a fractured system like we have now.
It's labour policy now as well by the way.
It's nothing that most countries don't already have and have a much better system.
While your fares have
Gone up Germany has a flat fare, helped by the profits they make here, Dutch the same, the director is on film actually the stating above
You are going on about rail travel not picking up, well prior to covid it was getting record numbers, I didn't get a record pay rise in fact its going passed 3 years since we had one.
The train system , even when we are not on strike is a shambles , look at the likes of the service to London, cut to the bone and it is constantly cancelled.
Transpenine express , may as well not exist every day massive cancelled service, between Yorkshire and Manchester.
Northernrail it's cancellations all the time, various reasons given, old train stock, not enough train crew ect been like that for years,
New years day for instance ,turned up for work , no train service, nobody had told any of the staff, we are in , train crew are in all sitting about , the reason nobody has a clue.
You can't get passengers on trains that don't run and people start to use there cars ect as the service is unreliable.
The strike has cost the government £320 million to pay these companies while we strike, they don't lose a penny, in fact the gain , no wages for us , no fines for the service levels, and no reason on there part to strike a deal.
It's supposed to have cost the hospitality industry alone 1.3 billion on strike days , there has only been 16 days of action.
It's the government who are at fault for a fraction of the costs to this country the whole thing could be cleared up.
Why have they started this fight when the country least needs it,
Could have said give them say 10% over two years and tagged on modernization, like all the other companies , have done, merseyrail, euros target, scot rail. Wales and a few others.
Union has agreed to that in each and ever one of the cases and said they would in this one.
It's a political fight caused by this government, we didn't ask for it but we are on it till the end.

 

[edge]

just Google to see how much the train companies take out the system , lots of links pick your source,
Rmt one from a year or two a go.

Loading…

www.google.com

Ps should have been euros star in last post

 

[catcherintherye]

By discussion I meant the wider discussion rather than any taking place on this forum. The Unions aren't advocating for a change in the nature of the government's relationship with the rail industry or the financial support it's provided. If you know of any then I'd be open to reading it. Regarding dividends, I would need to hear more about it. The only rail company I've looked at is First Group, which didn't pay dividends for several years, and only did so recently because they sold another division of the company for a few hundred million and returned much of that to shareholders to thank them for not taking a dividend for several years.

I dont know the exact union position, as I'm not a member, but Mick Lynch does seem to be advocating for a change in how rail travel is considered. I'm raising my positions as a tax payer more than anything else.

In terms of rail companies, there is legitimate questions on two issues. Firstly should the government be paying for their services if services are not provided? If they do, what incentive do they have to resolve an industrial dispute? They have little, and it shows, leading to prolonged difficulties for passengers.

Secondly, within that context, I dont think it's appropriate for some of these funds to then be allocated to shareholders. First group have paid 500m to shareholders, Abellio 350million etc etc. These are not small sums of money. If you're delivering the service you say, it's one thing to take a dividend. If you're letting passengers down, taking my money for no service offering it's a liberty to take that money and use it for shareholders.

Have we perhaps considered, how that money could have been better utilised on investment, and thus attracting more customers, thus allowing for employees to not have to take wage cuts?

But either which way, I cant seem to get any clarity from you as to whether, if a company does not provide a service, it should receive payment for this. I thought it would have been reasonably straightforward, but seemingly not.

 

[catcherintherye]

just Google to see how much the train companies take out the system , lots of links pick your source,
Rmt one from a year or two a go.

Loading…

www.google.com

Ps should have been euros star in last post

Which is sort or my point really mate.

Theres a wider discussion about whether often foreign companies should be extracting profit from our rail. Theres also an additional point, as to say should they be doing so when investment and improvements are clearly needed. However they are separate discussions.

My point is more, that in a year where services have been enormously detrimentally affected, is it right they still get paid for services that are not delivered. To me that just stinks of cronyism. I dont understand as a tax payer, why I'm making payments to management and shareholders of companies when they cant provide the services they are contractually obligated to provide.

I know Bruce made some point about selling off some assets, but it's sort of irrelevant to the point being made. They're not meeting their contract, and still being paid. It's not a sensible way to run a business.