Scotrail

[101]

45 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

Government ministers should sort out their own affairs before trying to interfere in others.

Lorna Slater for example is on around £98K per annum and given her attitude to workload, I don't think she'll be coming in on her days off.

Scottish Greens' Lorna Slater 'didn't want to work every day' at COP26 in Glasgow | Glasgow Times

It really depends at what level of renumeration should employment rights stop.

[DA Baracus]

Why does it need to be one or the other in the case of rail drivers and people on lower incomes? It's not like train drivers are mega wealthy and don't pay tax either.

I'm all for drivers getting a better wage and not doing overtime. If your business needs overtime on a regular basis then it's a shite business and needs sorted out. That's now the government's job and they need to be quick here.

I'm also for those who get paid less than train drivers getting paid more too.

Where do you stop if you go with the line of 'x makes more than y so x should shut the f**k up'? Should folk making £30k shut the f**k up and just be grateful because people earn less than that? Should folk who make £20k shut the f**k up and be grateful because some people make less? Should anyone earning a wage shut the f**k up and be grateful because there are people unemployed?

[Left Back]

10 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Network Rail is the responsibility of Westminster not ScotGov.

Some unionists conveniently forget that.

Your point is?   Network rail aren't causing the current issues.  Why are you bringing them up?

[vikingTON]

57 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Yes, people should certainly feel guilt at their T&Cs and accept a few years of erosion at a time of record inflation, based on other peoples ill informed/arbitrary perception of how generously they are paid. 

They don't have to feel guilt but if they have any interest in generating public support for their cause then they have to engage with that context. 

What we are seeing at the moment is something like a replication of the medieval guilds in which a handful of sectors have managed to aggressively gatekeep their terms (and in the case of railways, completely obsolete practices and roles) while the rest of the economy works according to a completely different reality. Which might be good from a narrowly self-preservation sense but completely undermines any prospect of broader labour solidarity. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by vikingTON

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, Left Back said:

This is true but it's also irrelevant.  The government have a responsibility to provide a fit for purpose public transport system. even when they didn't own it.  As has been pointed out if you don't have enough staff to run the service it clearly isn't fit for purpose and the government should have been stepping in to prevent a situation like this arising.  Staffing levels should be a contractual obligation to the franchise operator.

To then continue to claim it's nothing to do with them as it's owned by an arms length company is also utter twaddle.

Do they?

I live in Edinburgh which has one of the best bus services in the country - we are very lucky. My sister lives elsewhere and it is expensive, infrequent and basically pointless.

I havent noticed the questions in parliament leading to an improvement to the utterly shite bus services being provided in other parts of the country.

I suspect that this is because - outside of the lifeline services paid for by government - it is entirely up to those companies who have the franchise to decide if they are profitable or not.

Are you now seriously telling me that the Scottish Govt (or Westminster for that matter) have some statutory obligation to ensure that - in our example - Scotrail employ enough drivers to facilitate a service without the need for overtime???

There are a million things that radges on a phone in think governments should step in and sort.........thats a long way from having a statutory obligation.

[vikingTON]

The government is quite clearly responsible for having effective public transport and that is a devolved matter. It's amazing that anyone is trying to circle the wagons about that, but all too predictable given the mindset surrounding many supporters of the SNP. 

[Blue Brazil Forever]

1 hour ago, Left Back said:

If you're talking household then I'd think a lot of households will be over this when two people are working.  I wouldn't say it won't affect them.  It might not really hurt households on that level of income but there will be an effect.

For example NS and PM upwards of £230,000 per annum plus benefits.

[Left Back]

7 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Do they?

I live in Edinburgh which has one of the best bus services in the country - we are very lucky. My sister lives elsewhere and it is expensive, infrequent and basically pointless.

I havent noticed the questions in parliament leading to an improvement to the utterly shite bus services being provided in other parts of the country.

I suspect that this is because - outside of the lifeline services paid for by government - it is entirely up to those companies who have the franchise to decide if they are profitable or not.

Are you now seriously telling me that the Scottish Govt (or Westminster for that matter) have some statutory obligation to ensure that - in our example - Scotrail employ enough drivers to facilitate a service without the need for overtime???

There are a million things that radges on a phone in think governments should step in and sort.........thats a long way from having a statutory obligation.

Yes they should.  How much is this episode going to cost the economy?  How much is it going to cost the taxpayer to sort out?  The train drivers union shouldn't be able to hold the government to ransom like this and some basic foresight could have prevented it.

The government are supposed to have an agenda to increase the use of public transport for environmental reasons.  How is any of the above helping that?  It's a f**k-up in so many ways.

[peasy23]

Thats not the media throwing a workforce with the audacity to take action under the bus is it?
 
There is no precedence for this whatsoever.... It is totally new.

They aren't taking any action though. They are just working to their rota which will include a certain amount of Saturday and Sunday shifts. Not working non contractual overtime isn't industrial action. It's shambolic for any business to rely on OT to get the work done.

[Empty It]

Some people coming across very bitter here because train drivers get a decent wage, as others have said should everyone on any sort of wage just shut up and take whatever salary is given to them due to the fact that someone somewhere makes less money?

Also people talking about giving large rises to unskilled jobs whilst skilled workers should stop complaining about their shit rise, why would anyone want to spend years training and studying to do a skilled job if they could walk into any job for a minor difference in salary?

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

4 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Thats not the media throwing a workforce with the audacity to take action under the bus is it?
 
There is no precedence for this whatsoever.... It is totally new.

They aren't taking any action though. They are just working to their rota which will include a certain amount of Saturday and Sunday shifts. Not working non contractual overtime isn't industrial action. It's shambolic for any business to rely on OT to get the work done.

It's called working to rule, industrial inaction if you like. 

[Left Back]

7 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

4 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Thats not the media throwing a workforce with the audacity to take action under the bus is it?
 
There is no precedence for this whatsoever.... It is totally new.

They aren't taking any action though. They are just working to their rota which will include a certain amount of Saturday and Sunday shifts. Not working non contractual overtime isn't industrial action. It's shambolic for any business to rely on OT to get the work done.

 

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's called working to rule, industrial inaction if you like. 

Working to rule is classed as industrial action and conveniently allows for action short of a strike, around which there are strict rules around ballots etc.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-guidance/organising-and-bargaining/industrial-action

[Bairnardo]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's called working to rule, industrial inaction if you like. 

Nope. We are still in the realms of staff members choosing to do/not do overtime as they see fit. This is not "work to rule"

[dirty dingus]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Nope. We are still in the realms of staff members choosing to do/not do overtime as they see fit. This is not "work to rule"

Is working to rule not doing only the jobs your professionally qualified for. eg- a painter working on a job downing tools until a joiner comes and removes a shelf so he can continue painting. 

[Bairnardo]

27 minutes ago, virginton said:

They don't have to feel guilt but if they have any interest in generating public support for their cause then they have to engage with that context. 

What we are seeing at the moment is something like a replication of the medieval guilds in which a handful of sectors have managed to aggressively gatekeep their terms (and in the case of railways, completely obsolete practices and roles) while the rest of the economy works according to a completely different reality. Which might be good from a narrowly self-preservation sense but completely undermines any prospect of broader labour solidarity. 

At this stage in the game for Trade Unionism, I think the possibility of/importance of, public support has been eroded to the point where it's not really taken into consideration. Honestly not even sure it carries much clout.

Much in the same way as this site routinely ridicules gammons for getting upset at protests because they cause them some minor inconvenience, most trade unionists will surely just shrug their shoulders at Daily Mail readers telling then to "GeT bAcK tO wOrK!!!!!!!"

You're not getting a fair shake in the media if you have the temerity to take industrial action in the UK nowadays. Even the revered nurses would get slaughtered now. 

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Nope. We are still in the realms of staff members choosing to do/not do overtime as they see fit. This is not "work to rule"

You can bang on about the technicalities of whether the union are involved and whether this is officially work to rule industrial action.

Back in the real world what's happening is a work to rule that is impacting the service dramatically.  The unions will be rubbing their hands together as they can deflect and say "nothing to do with us".  Basically dance around the edges in the same way that politicians do.

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, dirty dingus said:

Is working to rule not doing only the jobs your professionally qualified for. eg- a painter working on a job downing tools until a joiner comes and removes a shelf so he can continue painting. 

Doing only that work which is stipulated in yuor contract. It is a form of industrial action and must be voted on under the various strict terms foisted on Unions by the tories.

[19QOS19]

It's called working to rule, industrial inaction if you like. 

Again, no it isn't. Working to rule may well come in to play after drivers are balloted but at this time drivers are taking their days off. There is absolutely no industrial action at this time.

[welshbairn]

The ASLEF boss has said they can sort out the staff shortages overnight if they get offered an acceptable pay deal. Sounds like more than individual workers suddenly wanting to spend more time with their families.

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

You can bang on about the technicalities of whether the union are involved and whether this is officially work to rule industrial action.

Back in the real world what's happening is a work to rule that is impacting the service dramatically.  The unions will be rubbing their hands together as they can deflect and say "nothing to do with us".  Basically dance around the edges in the same way that politicians do.

Thats because the technicalities are incredibly important and if you really want to have an opinion on what these drivers are doing, you should understand them. 

Ultimately though, you need to decide whether the drivers themselves owe anything to the service users. And for me, the answer to that is a resounding no