Cross Country industrial action - August 2009 (merged topics)

[whole diary]

[Tim]

I've got absolutely no problem with people being in a union and I have no problem with unions like RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) or ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) fighting, with strikes if neccessary,  for better pay and conditions for their workers.  That is, after all, what they are there for.   

I do however think that their is a downside to the behaviour of some of the more powerful unions which I think gives them a bad name and that is the promotion of a lack of job flexibility and the encouragement of an "its not my job to do that" attitude.   This makes things like modernisation and increases in productivity and efficiency tortuously difficult.   

When you hear about the NUT instructing teachers to refuse to show flexibility in covering other peoples classes to allow school trips to go ahead. or the endless argumenst that the rail unions have over where the driver or the guard should unlock the doors it gets me cross.  If Arriva XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) guards are asked to tidy up their trains when they have time then why should they have a problem with this?  It is not like they are taking a pay cut or having to work longer hours.  It is the sort of job that a good proportion of staff would be doing anyway without being asked.  Your employer is essentailly buying your time and it seems reasonable that you should have a say over that price, but what they choose to do with your time (so long as it isn't dangerous or illegal etc) is largely up to them isn't it not?

[IndustryInsider]

The argument for or against Unionism is as old as Unionism itself. I can see both sides of the story - as a Union member myself I am grateful of the legal support against FGW^▸ (First Great Western) that is offered in case I ever find myself needing it. In over 20 years membership of two different Unions, I was never been required to take a single days worth of industrial action.

The argument about proving your worth for a pay increase is a difficult one. FallenAngel and others may have to work bloody hard to fight for a contract extension, or to get a decent pay rise or promotion - the same way my g/f does in her similar field of work - but how on earth do you quantify the criteria under which a train driver (for example) is judged and therefore paid? The only performance related issue, which could easily be measured and which they can directly affect, is their actual driving. They drive trains, to the standards set out by company policies. Yes, a driver could hammer the hell out of a trip in order to make up a couple of minutes delay, but only to be further delayed by circumstances out of their control. To ask FallenAngel and others a question, how would you suggest that drivers pay should be determined under your 'Everyone should have equal opportunity but not everyone is equal or should be rewarded as such' argument?

If you are of the opinion that all staff in the same public sector jobs (or quasi public sector in the case of the railways) should be paid the same money, then if there were no Unions then FGW (and the other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s) would be able to offer rudimentary pay increases with no hassles. Longer shifts, shorter breaks, and more intensive work could (and probably would) lead to a less safe environment for everyone. Yes, many railway employees are well paid, but many are not - the wage a gateline member gets or a despatcher is particularly poor. If a driver was being paid much less than they are now, you would not encourage the same (mostly) professional quality staff that you currently get.

However, there are certain things about the Union that I don't agree with. They do need to modernise badly. Too many Union representatives and members are simply in it to be as bloody awkward to every facet of change as possible. Too many rules within the union are so hopelessly out of date. General Secretaries and other senior members live in a bygone age where (to the majority of the outside world) whenever they make a public appearance they just look like idiots and as a result give the whole movement a bad name. A small percentage of staff use the Union to get away with being as bone-idle and disruptive as possible, yet those who go out of their way to do a hard days work for good money get nothing more in their pay-packet. Too many staff who really should be shown the door (i.e. constantly on the sick list for no good reason) are protected by the Unions and keep their jobs. And, I believe, industrial action is taken too quickly - but it is the most effective way to hurt the company and stop them from introducing changes to the detriment of its employees - this is proven by the number of times industrial action is called off due to a 'last minute change of heart' from the employer before it actually affects the workforce.

As with so many of the arguments and discussions on here, there is no black and there is no white. It's a shame so many posters, whatever the argument, always seems to think there is!

[inspector_blakey]

Very eloquently put II. I was going to drop a post in here along the same lines but you've elegantly covered everything that I was going to say and much more besides!

[Btline]

...though apparently Mussolini wasn't above a bit of timetable padding either...

Oh. I think I'll take my Mussolini poster down...

[Phil]

I pay my way, both tax's and fares.  I won't bother to ask if you do.

Just out of interest Flamingo, with regard to your statement regarding paying fares; I am sure you do, but it nevertheless prompts me to ask if the following statement (made over a year ago now, as you can see) from Vacman regarding FGW^▸ (First Great Western) staff is no longer true?

I have genuine reasons for asking this, to do with my own staff and the soon to be reduced package of extras the nature of their job entitles them to - so please don't interpret it as my quoting you out of context or being argumentative. Quite the opposite in fact!

First group TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) employees get the best travel facilities, unlimited for the individual TOC you work for (FGW), 10 days free travel on all other First TOC's, and ^5 family and friends tickets where you can take up to four people with you for ^5 per day!

[TerminalJunkie]

Oh. I think I'll take my Mussolini poster down...

Put it on a lamppost 

[JayMac]

Further to the posts and views expressed on this thread; One of the more interesting things about these forums is looking at a pattern of posting and views expressed by other posters. Over a period of time, the content can give a real insight into the individuals make-up, and can give other posters a view on how much attention to take of that poster. It is especially interesting to view the contradictions about certain posters views of issues that affect them and affect other people. 

Inconsistency is a wonderul human trait, Flamingo. I could probably find some contradictions in your posts if I looked hard enough. In fact I think I'll start looking now......um, no I won't....er, yes I will.

Oh, and one of the other more interesting things about these forums is looking at how, no matter what the topic, some posters will always try and continue an old arguement about Railcards......

[Mookiemoo]

I wouldn't bother too much with logical argument, IndustryInsider. The Moral Majority has spoken, and anybody disagreeing with them must be wrong. 

For those of you that are self employed, good for you.  Every type of work has it's plus and minus points, if you consider the advantages of individualism outweigh a regular wage, then don't complain about what you perceive to be the negative sides of your decision, at least not in a forum about railways. Why not go and set up another site where you can get together with like-minded souls to compare the advantages and disadvantages of self-employment, and stop inflicting your moans on the rest of us who want to talk trains.

Further to the posts and views expressed on this thread; One of the more interesting things about these forums is looking at a pattern of posting and views expressed by other posters. Over a period of time, the content can give a real insight into the individuals make-up, and can give other posters a view on how much attention to take of that poster. It is especially interesting to view the contradictions about certain posters views of issues that affect them and affect other people. 

One forum I am a member of has a good system where individual posters can, if they troll enough, be given an "O2 Thief, do not respond" tag, that makes it very useful to avoid feeding the Troll. For this reason, I am also against posts being deleted (unless offensive to the site at large, not just individual posters, whether these posts are aimed at other members or not), or excessive moderation.

Although it is Grahams train set (no pun intended) and he is at liberty to allow whatever posts he wishes, some of the more recently deleted posts have been done so to protect the guilty, and showed the moral posturing of certain members to be just that, posturing.  To extrapolate from that, although they wish to make illegal certain methods of negotiation that may cause inconvenience to them, they are blatant about their forward planning to take actions to obtain fraudulent discounts. Both the arrogance and hypocrisy of this is breathtaking.


[/quote

There is a world of difference between a regular wage and a unionised job where you can hold the public to ransom - note - its not FGW^▸ (First Great Western) that pay the price but the punters.  There are plenty of regular wage jobs where unionism would be laughed at.

Since I can see the veiled implication at me...............the one thing I am not is a troll and I never once asked for any of said posts to be deleted - in fact I think I flamed the mods for it!  I stand by what I say and did. I'd still love to see the content of some of the ones that were deleted before I got a chance to see them!

It cannot be fraud if the wording of the terms that you are alledgedly frauding against are vague enough to lead to one of two meanings - depending on how you want to interpret the law and if you do not lie on the application form. 

[Mookiemoo]

Unions should be banned.

Fine, so long as you also ban all other self-interest groups, like the RAC, the AA, the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Lib Dems, BNP^▸ (Barnstaple), UKIP, Round Table, Chambers of Commerce, the National Trust, RSPCA, NSPCC, Private Members Clubs, the WI, the Guilds, the GMC, the Bar Council, etc, etc...

As far as im aware - none of them (with the exception of the gubbermint) are in the habit of grinding parts of the country to a halt in their own self interest

[JayMac]

Unions should be banned.

Fine, so long as you also ban all other self-interest groups, like the RAC, the AA, the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Lib Dems, BNP^▸ (Barnstaple), UKIP, Round Table, Chambers of Commerce, the National Trust, RSPCA, NSPCC, Private Members Clubs, the WI, the Guilds, the GMC, the Bar Council, etc, etc...

As far as im aware - none of them (with the exception of the gubbermint) are in the habit of grinding parts of the country to a halt in their own self interest

I've heard the WI can be quite militant 

[Mookiemoo]

But we wouldnt all do it at the same time

No, because then it might look like you were a union...

we'd all be replaced in a week

Are there really that many people out there with the necessary skills, available at the drop of a hat? Hmm.

Yes - they are called indian fast track visas and offshoring.  

And whether you like it or not, you are enjoying the benefits of union muscle every time you set foot on an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train, because the unions' threat of industrial action at the turn of 2007-8 and the refusal to work on rest days around Christmas and New Year were factors in persuading the company to recruit extra drivers and conductors to ensure its trains actually ran.

And the drivers get good pay and conditions precisely because of Aslef union officials being skillful at exploiting the break-up of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) into lots of operators, who all need drivers to run their trains and don't want to lose them to someone else. I think that's what's known as market forces, not socialism.

Is that not supply and demand?  If you need to have a union there must be potential oversupply or drivers would get what they ask.

As for the xmas New YEar thing - if that hadnt of happened - suspect the franchise would have gone tits up due to poor performance and bad publicity.  The end game would have been the same.  

[Mookiemoo]

Further to the posts and views expressed on this thread; One of the more interesting things about these forums is looking at a pattern of posting and views expressed by other posters. Over a period of time, the content can give a real insight into the individuals make-up, and can give other posters a view on how much attention to take of that poster. It is especially interesting to view the contradictions about certain posters views of issues that affect them and affect other people. 

Inconsistency is a wonderul human trait, Flamingo. I could probably find some contradictions in your posts if I looked hard enough. In fact I think I'll start looking now......um, no I won't....er, yes I will.

Oh, and one of the other more interesting things about these forums is looking at how, no matter what the topic, some posters will always try and continue an old argument about Railcards......

You may find contradictions. apart from everything else, my views and opinions on subjects may change with increased experience and knowledge, but I sincerely hope that you may never find blatant self-interest to the exclusion of all others...

p.s. I've reread my post. Where did I mention rail cards ?

You didnt have to mention it - was bloody obvious to whit you were referring.  Now if you can find another example to which your comments:

"To extrapolate from that, although they wish to make illegal certain methods of negotiation that may cause inconvenience to them, they are blatant about their forward planning to take actions to obtain fraudulent discounts. Both the arrogance and hypocrisy of this is breathtaking."

Bearing in mind im clear on my stand on both - please supply in which case I'll retract my post. 

My stand is - and I use myself often as an illustration - any job where the service is a public one and its not just the employer or related business that are affected, should not be allowed to strike.

that includes police, NHS, staff, railways, post office etc etc - its not joe public who your gripe is with so do not make them suffer.  Ironically, the minute these services go on strike, public support for their cause often decreases. 

I do not agree with unionism at all but I abhor strike action in public services

[grahame]

I'm getting concerned that some of the posts on this thread are erring towards personal digs and attacks ... can I suggest that everyone posting has a careful look at future posts they make and bear in mind that we ask all members not to indulge in such things - be it in their posts, or in their profiles or signatures.

Unionisation is always going to cause strong views.  A personal thought, somewhat midstream, is that it's as necessary for a large workforce to be organised for collective negotiation just as it's necessary for parlimentarians to be organised in some way (such as the party system). Otherwise, organisation of businesses and country would be impractically difficult. And in both cases, where any one element becomes dominant, there is the risk of the checks and balanced being lost.

[JayMac]

However, there are certain things about the Union that I don't agree with. They do need to modernise badly. Too many Union representatives and members are simply in it to be as bloody awkward to every facet of change as possible. Too many rules within the union are so hopelessly out of date. General Secretaries and other senior members live in a bygone age where (to the majority of the outside world) whenever they make a public appearance they just look like idiots and as a result give the whole movement a bad name. A small percentage of staff use the Union to get away with being as bone-idle and disruptive as possible, yet those who go out of their way to do a hard days work for good money get nothing more in their pay-packet. Too many staff who really should be shown the door (i.e. constantly on the sick list for no good reason) are protected by the Unions and keep their jobs. And, I believe, industrial action is taken too quickly - but it is the most effective way to hurt the company and stop them from introducing changes to the detriment of its employees - this is proven by the number of times industrial action is called off due to a 'last minute change of heart' from the employer before it actually affects the workforce.

I heartily concur with this part of your post InIn. Just what the hell were Bob Crow and the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) doing pitching up at the Vestas factory dispute on the Isle Of Wight? What on earth has wind turbine production got to do with the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union? This kind of protest is reminiscent of the days of 'flying pickets' during the Miner's Strike. Bob Crow is, in my opinion, using his high public profile to stick his nose in to disputes where he has no jurisdiction.
Mr Crow, stick to representing those who work on trains, boats and buses. That's what your union members pay their subs for.

[willc]

What the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) were doing was representing their members who worked for Vestas.

I have no idea why the RMT represents them, but it does - lots of unions represent all sorts of people you might not expect, for example, the rugby league players' association is part of the GMB - so no flying pickets to be seen in East Cowes.