Scotrail

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Surely the point is that you negotiate a pay increase at the same time as the new terms and then they are linked together. If anyone doesn't want to agree the new terms they can stick with their old contract.

No workforce or union worth their salt would agree to a collective on different contracts. Some will exist for sure, but they are to be avoided. 

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's not forcible, though. No one is forcing them to do anything here.

They've been offered a 4.2% pay rise, and have rejected it. They have the option to accept that if they wish to keep their current, not really fit for purpose, contracts in 2022, or accept that their job role in 2022 requires Scotrail being able to provide a public service 24 hours a day / 7 days a week where needed, and that if they want to demand a 10% rise on their already relatively healthy base salary then some flexibility is required from them too.

Evidently Scotrail didnt have the sense to do so. But I assume this dispute has arisen out of a yearly pay negotiation. You cant just start slapping other things on the table left right and centre. The company would have to approach the union about other terms and conditions, not covered in the scope of this dispute, seperately  

[101]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's not forcible, though. No one is forcing them to do anything here.

They've been offered a 4.2% pay rise, and have rejected it. They have the option to accept that if they wish to keep their current, not really fit for purpose, contracts in 2022, or accept that their job role in 2022 requires Scotrail being able to provide a public service 24 hours a day / 7 days a week where needed, and that if they want to demand a 10% rise on their already relatively healthy base salary then some flexibility is required from them too.

Do we need a 24/7 passenger railway?

Sure I think it could start a bit earlier and finish a bit later but I'm not sure there would be much sense in running the network 24/7, perhaps on the route between Glasgow and Edinburgh would have much traffic during the night and pretty much no route in Scotland would work as a sleeper service. Further to that so much maintenance happens over night meaning disruption to the services would probably make them unreliable and it might impact on freight something we should be using more of to take trucks off the roads.

Tldr, yes the service could be better but I'm not sure 24/7 is a good use of public funds.

[welshbairn]

I think RMT were offered the same deal yesterday, no way they'll accept it now if they were ever going to. 

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, 101 said:

Do we need a 24/7 passenger railway?

Not always, but why not lock in the ability to run it if and when needed?

If the SG are serious about reducing car use, then there is absolutely an argument for trains to run much later into the night / earlier in the morning. Society is 24/7 now and the public transport service should reflect that (neither our rail or bus services do). It will also help the late night economy in city centres etc.

Other countries / cities manage to run 24/7 train services and still maintain their railways. Why can't we?

[craigkillie]

11 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

No workforce or union worth their salt would agree to a collective on different contracts. Some will exist for sure, but they are to be avoided.

The union would be negotiating the new contract for its staff though, it's just that individual staff would have an opt-out as would always be the case with any change in contract. I'd be amazed if every single train driver right now is on the same contract - there will be folk who have been doing the job since the 1980s.

[101]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Not always, but why not lock in the ability to run it if and when needed?

If the SG are serious about reducing car use, then there is absolutely an argument for trains to run much later into the night / earlier in the morning. Society is 24/7 now and the public transport service should reflect that (neither our rail or bus services do). It will also help the late night economy in city centres etc.

Other countries / cities manage to run 24/7 train services and still maintain their railways. Why can't we?

Glasgow's subway should absolutely run through the night especially when it is driverless. Edinburgh is already well catered for by busses 24/7.

But yes there is an obvious gap linking the 2 cities between midnight and 4.

I'm not sure how many countries with a comparable population run their railway 24/7 let alone one who's maintenance is provided by a separate parliament to the one that decides who puts trains on the tracks.

I think it would take a great deal longer to secure a deal in which drivers can be asked to work 24/7 however think new recruits should be on these contracts and existing ones pushed to any time between 4/12

[flyingscot]

6 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Other countries / cities manage to run 24/7 train services and still maintain their railways. Why can't we?

I don't think Scotland really has the demand for 24/7 trains. Even somewhere like Paris, the RER and Metro don't run much beyond 1am to 5am and London/Berlin it's weekends only.  

The main issue is the lack of night bus services in Scotland which is mainly because demand is low they don't turn a profit and local authorities have no money to expand the supported bus network. 

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, 101 said:

Glasgow's subway should absolutely run through the night especially when it is driverless. Edinburgh is already well catered for by busses 24/7.

But yes there is an obvious gap linking the 2 cities between midnight and 4.

I'm not sure how many countries with a comparable population run their railway 24/7 let alone one who's maintenance is provided by a separate parliament to the one that decides who puts trains on the tracks.

I think it would take a great deal longer to secure a deal in which drivers can be asked to work 24/7 however think new recruits should be on these contracts and existing ones pushed to any time between 4/12

Glasgow has 24/7 busses too, but they are only much use if you live within the city, and if they didn't exist would be cheaply replaced by a taxi.

It's the towns on the outskirts of Glasgow that have dreadful public transport late at night etc, which makes getting to work / a night out / going to a gig needlessly expensive if you can't get a bus or train.

The last trains home at a minimum on Friday / Saturday and first trains on a Sunday need to be much later / earlier.

I think Edinburgh - Glasgow is not anywhere close to the priority.

[Bairnardo]

12 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The union would be negotiating the new contract for its staff though, it's just that individual staff would have an opt-out as would always be the case with any change in contract. I'd be amazed if every single train driver right now is on the same contract - there will be folk who have been doing the job since the 1980s.

My point, broadly, was that people are lumping this pay offer in with various other things on their expectation list for the contracts of others..... It doesn't work like that in the real world though. This is a pay dispute. Its about a % figure. If Scotrail want to start on other aspects of the contract, its a separate negotiation. One which in this day and age, increasingly so it seems, ends with fire and rehire. An utterly fucking abhorrent practice which is probably the best representation of what todays Tories, with their demonising of Unions, desperation to cut worker rights, and their media cheerleader enablers, are all about. 

Its pretty sad to see so many people turned because it happens to be affecting them via a service they use. 

And none of this is to say I think the union should just get what they want. In their minds should be a balance. Evidently they dont think they have reached it yet, but a lot of people are getting confused about whats on the table here.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

I don't think Scotland really has the demand for 24/7 trains. Even somewhere like Paris, the RER and Metro don't run much beyond 1am to 5am and London/Berlin it's weekends only.  

The main issue is the lack of night bus services in Scotland which is mainly because demand is low they don't turn a profit and local authorities have no money to expand the supported bus network. 

A fair point tbf. There's also a real lack of investment in general to provide bus services to new build areas. I've no idea where my nearest bus stop is, for example.

Another reason why public transport should be in public hands and ran to provide a vital service rather than generate profit.

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

My point, broadly, was that people are lumping this pay offer in with various other things on their expectation list for the contracts of others..... It doesn't work like that in the real world though. This is a pay dispute. Its about a % figure. If Scotrail want to start on other aspects of the contract, its a separate negotiation. One which in this day and age, increasingly so it seems, ends with fire and rehire. An utterly fucking abhorrent practice which is probably the best representation of what todays Tories, with their demonising of Unions, desperation to cut worker rights, and their media cheerleader enablers, are all about. 

Its pretty sad to see so many people turned because it happens to be affecting them via a service they use. 

And none of this is to say I think the union should just get what they want. In their minds should be a balance. Evidently they dont think they have reached it yet, but a lot of people are getting confused about whats on the table here.

I'd maybe have a wee bit of sympathy with your point here if this was Scotrail trying to force new terms and conditions on the drivers.

But it isn't, the drivers are the ones causing this. If they ended up in a fire and rehire situation through their own greed and refusal to conceed any ground in return for their demands then they will get no sympathy from me.

[flyingscot]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

A fair point tbf. There's also a real lack of investment in general to provide bus services to new build areas. I've no idea where my nearest bus stop is, for example.

Another reason why public transport should be in public hands and ran to provide a vital service rather than generate profit.

Personally the main aim should be increased regulation and cooperation with Local Authorities, even if buses remain owned by private companies. Which is likely to be far more achievable. 

The issue with public hands, as always, is where the funding comes from to run loss making routes. 

 

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

I'd maybe have a wee bit of sympathy with your point here if this was Scotrail trying to force new terms and conditions on the drivers.

But it isn't, the drivers are the ones causing this. If they ended up in a fire and rehire situation through their own greed and refusal to conceed any ground in return for their demands then they will get no sympathy from me.

What ground should they concede? Again, are you suggesting they should offer up increased working hours as part of this negotiation?

I know you are saying you want a railway that's staffed 24/7, but we don't currently have that. There are wage negotiations every year. This year the drivers don't think its enough so are rejecting it. What you are doing is using that to grind a perfectly legitimate axe, but on this occassion its totally misplaced. 

[craigkillie]

10 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

My point, broadly, was that people are lumping this pay offer in with various other things on their expectation list for the contracts of others..... It doesn't work like that in the real world though. This is a pay dispute. Its about a % figure. If Scotrail want to start on other aspects of the contract, its a separate negotiation. One which in this day and age, increasingly so it seems, ends with fire and rehire. An utterly fucking abhorrent practice which is probably the best representation of what todays Tories, with their demonising of Unions, desperation to cut worker rights, and their media cheerleader enablers, are all about. 

Its pretty sad to see so many people turned because it happens to be affecting them via a service they use. 

And none of this is to say I think the union should just get what they want. In their minds should be a balance. Evidently they dont think they have reached it yet, but a lot of people are getting confused about whats on the table here.

What has been described on this thread isn't "fire and rehire" though, it's simply a refresh of conditions with the option of the legacy contract available to those who want it. Nobody is suggesting binning off the staff who don't agree, but rather removing this form of contract organically over time as these staff retire or leave.

The goal of the negotation may well be pay for the employees, but by using their terms and conditions as part of their negotiating technique, I think that becomes fair game for the overall negotiation. Otherwise the government can quite easily be left wondering whether they could repeat this gambit again in six months time and look for another payrise.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, craigkillie said:

What has been described on this thread isn't "fire and rehire" though, it's simply a refresh of conditions with the option of the legacy contract available to those who want it. Nobody is suggesting binning off the staff who don't agree, but rather removing this form of contract organically over time as these staff retire or leave.

The goal of the negotation may well be pay for the employees, but by using their terms and conditions as part of their negotiating technique, I think that becomes fair game for the overall negotiation. Otherwise the government can quite easily be left wondering whether they could repeat this gambit again in six months time and look for another payrise.

I mean, thats collective bargaining for you. If Scotrail want to make an approach over other terms, they have to open a legal consultation process. 

Re your first paragraph, its where it leads. The reason why a union would seek to avoid this scenario is simple divide and conquer/thin end of the wedge. Its a very popular employer technique to dilute the power of unions.

I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you have the enviable luxury of never having been utterly fucked over by your employer, or at least have one you trust/who trusts you. The stuff you are saying sounds sensible when you talk about it on a forum, but my lived experience is absolutely f**k allowing your employer to spilt the workforce along contractual lines.

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

Sturgeon should just get on with it and buy everyone a bike. 

 

Not a fair comparison unless you factor in how much TV money Deutschebahn get 

[welshbairn]

Most German train drivers earn a fair bit less than here, incidentally.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-train-drivers-earn-less-than-youd-think/a-18467783

[19QOS19]

Most German train drivers earn a fair bit less than here, incidentally.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-train-drivers-earn-less-than-youd-think/a-18467783

I don't know what they make tbh but they're surely on more now than they were 7 years ago?

[craigkillie]

I mean, thats collective bargaining for you. If Scotrail want to make an approach over other terms, they have to open a legal consultation process. 
Re your first paragraph, its where it leads. The reason why a union would seek to avoid this scenario is simple divide and conquer/thin end of the wedge. Its a very popular employer technique to dilute the power of unions.
I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you have the enviable luxury of never having been utterly fucked over by your employer, or at least have one you trust/who trusts you. The stuff you are saying sounds sensible when you talk about it on a forum, but my lived experience is absolutely f**k allowing your employer to spilt the workforce along contractual lines.

I've been involved in intermittent strike action for over 4 years in my job so while I've not been directly screwed over by my employer to that extent, I am not in some position of not understanding how these things work.

The public's position on this is naturally different to if staff at Tesco or something were on strike. In this specific case is their employer is essentially the government rather than some nefarious capitalist institution. Therefore although they absolutely should be doing everything in their power to force through what they want, the government also has a responsibility on behalf of the nation to head off any future action of this nature and instead essentially move future disputes towards more formal and well-defined strike action, which I would still defend their right to have.

As I said previously, I wouldn't expect that the new staff being trained right now will have the same contracts as the guys who have been driving trains since the 1980s anyway, so positioning this as a "divide and conquer" tactic seems a bit much. It's a way of both parties getting something they want in order to find a practical way out of this situation that doesn't just lead to further action a few months down the line.

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Most German train drivers earn a fair bit less than here, incidentally.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-train-drivers-earn-less-than-youd-think/a-18467783

I don't know what they make tbh but they're surely on more now than they were 7 years ago?

Apologies, thought it was up to date. This is hopefully more accurate from last year:

https://injuredly.com/deutsche-bahn-strikes-by-comparison-this-is-the-income-of-train-drivers/

Edited June 1, 2022 by welshbairn