Current Affairs Rail strikes

[edge]

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.

It's purely political .
The government want this fight.
Look at the figures your quoting , for a failing system.
Add into it the cost to the country.
If that 1.2 billion lost to pubs ect is right.
That's in 16 days of strike action what is the value to them Over a year?
When they talk about the rail system , shouldn't they add that value to the country in as well, the amount they bring into those sectors vacations ,ect as a plus not just the abc of are wages ect
What the coutry makes out of us going to work never get brought up.
Well that's unless it's a stick to beat us will, what they have lost on strike days, but we never hear what we have to gain by finding a solution.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

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

Its what they and Tories do they like to convolute and mislead, even see it here with posters, they will swear blind they are not Tory and just being fair I do have more sympathy with the RMT then ASLEF I must admit ,there are some really low earners in the RMT ranks for instance for gateline staff on barely minimum wage. I know one and they take heaps of abuse from passengers too. Caveat is I don't know a train driver...

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Its what they and Tories do they like to convolute and mislead, even see it here with posters, they will swear blind they are not Tory and just being fair I do have more sympathy with the RMT then ASLEF I must admit ,there are some really low earners in the RMT ranks for instance for gateline staff on barely minimum wage. I know one and they take heaps of abuse from passengers too. Caveat is I don't know a train driver...

That is a bit of tinfoil hat statement tbf, mate.

 

[Harryflashman]

It's purely political .
The government want this fight.
Look at the figures your quoting , for a failing system.
Add into it the cost to the country.
If that 1.2 billion lost to pubs ect is right.
That's in 16 days of strike action what is the value to them Over a year?
When they talk about the rail system , shouldn't they add that value to the country in as well, the amount they bring into those sectors vacations ,ect as a plus not just the abc of are wages ect
What the coutry makes out of us going to work never get brought up.
Well that's unless it's a stick to beat us will, what they have lost on strike days, but we never hear what we have to gain by finding a solution.

I’m in no way anti-strike action but your point across the year hospitality wise is probably missing the point slightly . In that industry December basically pays for much of the early part of this year ,In some Cases I’m talking months . Whether it’s Christmas drinks , work do’s , family get togethers , Black Friday’s, or just people having a pint. That didn’t happen , Black Friday was dead and I know Boxing Day , the result certainly didn’t help, was amongst the worst days takings for that time of year .

Given that because of covid , omicron and the like hospitality haven’t had a Proper Christmas for a couple of years then the strike definitely hit them hard . At the same time that December’s fuel bills are double last year . Also There isn’t an opt out for sky on strike days when footfall or customers are down , not to mention ale prices have gone up from the brewers.

Our game the other night was a strike day and pubs in town took a fraction of what they’d normally be taking . There is a huge impact , so to an extent I do accept your point on our reliance on the railways .

I’m fairly confident not telling you anything that the likes of @peteblue wouldn’t back me up on , even though he’s in a Slightly different situation.

Now I’m not saying you shouldn’t strike , I’m supportive of your right and your aims but there was a big hit to others in December. Ultimately mind that’s the way of it .

 

[Bruce Wayne]

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.

As I said, First Group sold a division for £500 million, and paid that to shareholders in a special dividend as none had been paid for a number of years.

Re government payments during Covid I don't know the details, but the likes of TFL were subsidised because they still ran, albeit with massively reduced numbers. I mean it's not like the trains etc could stop running as they were needed to transport key workers about, but they will almost certainly have lost money while doing so.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Bit of a shame this thread that any difference of opinion gets you branded a Tory - I've never once had @Bruce Wayne as a Tory: because he isn't.

What he's raising are issues about the role of the unions, the role of government and the impact on the public.

The Government have a policy which is to offer no change to pay or conditions and push that as far as it can go...

The unions act in their members interests, which means they push for the 20% of staff and can rely on that as justification for their action.

The media do a poor job of reporting as they treat everything as adversarial rather than explaining the positions.

And the entire thread seems to conflate rail strikes with other strikes happening in other sectors...

I have little experience with rail networks, I rarely use them as they aren't fit for purpose in my opinion and in the occasions I've used them this year, my journeys have been disrupted by strikes. I would support a wider discussion about improvement across the network - but I very much doubt that will happen as the negotiation seems to focus on cost of living and wages.

Likewise in the NHS, the conversation seems to be about wages, which while most nurses would want a pay rise, the problem runs much deeper and strike action - just impacting wages - will not solve any of the underlying issues that need to be resolved to keep nurses/Drs/health assistants in post. Increasing wages while leaving those things unaddressed will lead to more "quiet quitting" where people will take the uplift but switch off due to the issues faced and we'll just have consistently fewer, but better paid nurses.

I support the right to strike, but I think the focus needs to be much wider than pay, especially where there is a relatively healthy pay award already, and it needs to focus much more heavily on public policy than simply "our members want X"

Because what it appears to do is say that you aren't really interested in changing the whole, you're only interested in changing the position of the 20%.

 

[catcherintherye]

As I said, First Group sold a division for £500 million, and paid that to shareholders in a special dividend as none had been paid for a number of years.

Re government payments during Covid I don't know the details, but the likes of TFL were subsidised because they still ran, albeit with massively reduced numbers. I mean it's not like the trains etc could stop running as they were needed to transport key workers about, but they will almost certainly have lost money while doing so.

Again though, that is irrelevant information to me within the context of this discussion.

They have taken my money, when they havent been providing services. I dont care what they have sold, it is immoral to use my money to pay a dividend to their owners for services not rendered. They are in breach of the contractual terms (or should be). When the services provided dont meet that minimum standard, its immoral to be siphoning money off for dividends for services not rendered.

I really couldnt care less what accruals they then do internally, they have taken my money for services not provided.

People cant also say that there is no money and dropping demand, while handing out hundreds and hundreds of millions in dividends. Do you not think that money might be better spent, you know improving services so people want to use their services? I mean, it's a novel idea I know, but if you invest to put on more/better services, you probably get more income. But again, what do I know compared to the brain trust of the railways, who on the one hand arent doing a very good job, and the other are handing capital away.

On the 2nd issue, I'm not referring to this period. I am to the last 12 months, with no Covid lockdowns. Strikes have caused services not to run. But we still pay for those services, even though they are not delivered.

That's slightly different to times when Support was given during lockdowns, or at least I would see them as different.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Again though, that is irrelevant information to me within the context of this discussion.

They have taken my money, when they havent been providing services. I dont care what they have sold, it is immoral to use my money to pay a dividend to their owners for services not rendered. They are in breach of the contractual terms (or should be). When the services provided dont meet that minimum standard, its immoral to be siphoning money off for dividends for services not rendered.

I really couldnt care less what accruals they then do internally, they have taken my money for services not provided.

People cant also say that there is no money and dropping demand, while handing out hundreds and hundreds of millions in dividends. Do you not think that money might be better spent, you know improving services so people want to use their services? I mean, it's a novel idea I know, but if you invest to put on more/better services, you probably get more income. But again, what do I know compared to the brain trust of the railways, who on the one hand arent doing a very good job, and the other are handing capital away.

On the 2nd issue, I'm not referring to this period. I am to the last 12 months, with no Covid lockdowns. Strikes have caused services not to run. But we still pay for those services, even though they are not delivered.

That's slightly different to times when Support was given during lockdowns, or at least I would see them as different.

I'm not sure what to say to that tbh. From memory, the division they sold was operating bus services in the US so completely unrelated to here. The government payments were to ensure that services kept running here because without it the company might well have just stopped operating them entirely and put all staff on furlough. Would that be a more preferable outcome? The government gave all manner of payments to people and businesses that were affected by the pandemic. This seems to be just one of them. For instance, if my income as a self-employed person went down, which it did, I was eligible for government support. If I sold the family home at the same time and paid off the mortgage, that's irrelevant.

 

[NorthernBlue]

Bit of a shame this thread that any difference of opinion gets you branded a Tory - I've never once had @Bruce Wayne as a Tory: because he isn't.

What he's raising are issues about the role of the unions, the role of government and the impact on the public.

The Government have a policy which is to offer no change to pay or conditions and push that as far as it can go...

The unions act in their members interests, which means they push for the 20% of staff and can rely on that as justification for their action.

The media do a poor job of reporting as they treat everything as adversarial rather than explaining the positions.

And the entire thread seems to conflate rail strikes with other strikes happening in other sectors...

I have little experience with rail networks, I rarely use them as they aren't fit for purpose in my opinion and in the occasions I've used them this year, my journeys have been disrupted by strikes. I would support a wider discussion about improvement across the network - but I very much doubt that will happen as the negotiation seems to focus on cost of living and wages.

Likewise in the NHS, the conversation seems to be about wages, which while most nurses would want a pay rise, the problem runs much deeper and strike action - just impacting wages - will not solve any of the underlying issues that need to be resolved to keep nurses/Drs/health assistants in post. Increasing wages while leaving those things unaddressed will lead to more "quiet quitting" where people will take the uplift but switch off due to the issues faced and we'll just have consistently fewer, but better paid nurses.

I support the right to strike, but I think the focus needs to be much wider than pay, especially where there is a relatively healthy pay award already, and it needs to focus much more heavily on public policy than simply "our members want X"

Because what it appears to do is say that you aren't really interested in changing the whole, you're only interested in changing the position of the 20%.

But people aren’t striking for pay alone. Which has been pointed out multiple times in this thread alone. Not all of us have fallen for the media, government and big business spin.

 

[Jebus_lives]

But people aren’t striking for pay alone. Which has been pointed out multiple times in this thread alone. Not all of us have fallen for the media, government and big business spin.

The point is that if the outcome is that pay increases for union members but none of the underlying issues are resolved then we'll be back in the same situation again in a few years.

And, if the union is acting in the interests of its members and secures an uplift in pay, will it be inclined to pursue things further to address those underlying issues?

I don't fault the union here btw, they operate effectively within the remit they're given, the issue is with the acceptance of improvement for their membership against the needs of society as a whole. They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm not sure what to say to that tbh. From memory, the division they sold was operating bus services in the US so completely unrelated to here. The government payments were to ensure that services kept running here because without it the company might well have just stopped operating them entirely and put all staff on furlough. Would that be a more preferable outcome? The government gave all manner of payments to people and businesses that were affected by the pandemic. This seems to be just one of them. For instance, if my income as a self-employed person went down, which it did, I was eligible for government support. If I sold the family home at the same time and paid off the mortgage, that's irrelevant.

I dont think you're getting the point I'm making mate.

I'm not referring to furlough.

I'm talking about this year. When strikes have been on, they are still getting paid for services that are not provided. That shouldn't be happening.

Supporting a business through lockdown is one thing. Supporting a management team, during industrial action, when they are not providing services is another. I dont understand why as a tax payer I'm being expected to do that.

If I set up a business, didnt provide the service, I wouldn't expect people to pay me.

 

[NorthernBlue]

The point is that if the outcome is that pay increases for union members but none of the underlying issues are resolved then we'll be back in the same situation again in a few years.

And, if the union is acting in the interests of its members and secures an uplift in pay, will it be inclined to pursue things further to address those underlying issues?

I don't fault the union here btw, they operate effectively within the remit they're given, the issue is with the acceptance of improvement for their membership against the needs of society as a whole. They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

There’s only the government and greedy businesses at fault. Every public service we have, be it state owned or privately, is being run into the ground. There’s no appetite from them to fix anything. Just pillage. And then blame workers. Or small boats at Dover. Or Corbyn.

 

[Jebus_lives]

There’s only the government and greedy businesses at fault. Every public service we have, be it state owned or privately, is being run into the ground. There’s no appetite from them to fix anything. Just pillage. And then blame workers. Or small boats at Dover. Or Corbyn.

I agree. But, and I think we should be mindful of this fact, the unions exist to further the interests of their members, not of the wider public.

A good deal for union members does not automatically equate to a good deal for the public.

 

[NorthernBlue]

I agree. But, and I think we should be mindful of this fact, the unions exist to further the interests of their members, not of the wider public.

A good deal for union members does not automatically equate to a good deal for the public.

I’m a naive believer in having a government that is our union thus doing away with what we have now. As a country Boris and co were preferred so maybe we get what we deserve.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I’m a naive believer in having a government that is our union thus doing away with what we have now. As a country Boris and co were preferred so maybe we get what we deserve.

Yes but we don't. And wishing it so doesn't make it be.

If your wider point is that rail workers et al should go on strike to cause disruption to the public as punishment for voting for Johnson and co, then that's an entirely different topic I suspect.