Rail Strikes announced

[Pinhead]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I get it. No-one wants redundancies but... demand on the rail network is way down from pre-pandemic. And that's not going to change. Working from home is now a thing. This doesn't appear to be the companies being evil for the sake of profit and cutting things to the bone. It's just an inevitable right-sizing. 

I wish we all could just have 100% job security all the time but that's not how the economy works. And for the first time pretty much ever, the rail industry is no longer growing, so for the first time ever I think cuts are actually justifiable.

It could be self defeating, driving more customers to arguing a case with their firms for WFH if they are in a position to do so, driving down numbers further, and raising ticket prices for those still needing to use the network, further discoraging use. Jobs security is of course absolutely vital today, however with the best will in the world, no organisation is going to tolerate having to pay people to stand around with no job to do and if they're a private organisation, rob their shareholders to pay people to do so even if those shareholders are being given an obscene slice of the pie.

 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

…except they’ve been trying to bring in compulsory redundancies since before the pandemic. 

They’re also trying to enforce cuts to track maintenance teams and security staff, despite those staff already being overworked - is that justifiable in your eyes too? 

Yeah - fewer trains running due to lower demand should mean less track maintenance. Fewer people at stations requires less station security.

They were wrong to being doing it pre-pandemic, but they're not now. I don't see how the fact that they were wrong pre-pandemic is relevant because... that's not the world we're living in.

If people actually want to ensure these people keep their jobs, they should start travelling on trains again or buy a season ticket. Because that's how their jobs are paid for.

I'm baffled by people who work from home three days a week and drive into work the other two claiming that they "support the staff". It's like people "supporting the troop" during the Iraq war. It's just a meaningless platitude.

[Chazwozza]

4 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

...even if those shareholders are being given an obscene slice of the pie.

 

And that's where the problem lies.  In a nationalized railway system everyone's aim is making the thing work well and making a profit is not the aim.  As it is, making a profit is the aim - just ask the shareholders - and everything else comes second.  It's the same with all those out-sourced bits of the NHS, they don't care about patient welfare or doctors/nurses' working hours - all they want is profit for their shareholders.

[Drinky]

It's myopic to plan for rail demand staying low - there are still long-term strategic benefits to expanding mass transit, which are stated priorities of the government (and in pretty much all western countries - see Deutsche Bahn's 9 euro summer initiative). What is likely to change is the times at which people travel, as more flexible work patterns drive people away from commuting, but there with hybrid work there are still going to be people traveling to and from the office.

There are plenty of cautionary tales out there right now of the failure of contracting the workforce with the intention of scaling up later to meet demand (just visit a British airport). There's definitely a rationale for extending the guarantee of no compulsory redundancy and scaling down through natural attrition where needed.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Drinky

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah - fewer trains running due to lower demand should mean less track maintenance. 

But on the whole there aren’t fewer trains running than pre-pandemic anymore. Where I work, the timetable is 95% restored to what it was pre-pandemic. It doesn’t matter how many people are actually on the trains if the same number of trains are running. 

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Fewer people at stations requires less station security. 

Passenger numbers on Saturday nights etc are exactly the same as they were pre-pandemic - and their behaviour is worse. 

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

They were wrong to being doing it pre-pandemic, but they're not now. I don't see how the fact that they were wrong pre-pandemic is relevant because... that's not the world we're living in.

 

It’s relevant because it proves beyond  doubt that they aren’t doing it because of the pandemic, the pandemic is just being used an excuse for something they’ve been trying to do for years. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Rose-Colored Boy

[DeanoL]

Just now, Rose-Colored Boy said:

But there aren’t fewer trains running than pre-pandemic anymore. Where I work, the timetable is 95% restored to what it was pre-pandemic. 

So we're looking at cutting 5% of workers then all else being equal. What figure is being proposed?

[Pinhead]

The system is the problem - shareholders getting disproportionate dividends that are ever escalating in order to keep them from taking their investments elsewhere, so essentially becoming bribes.... Nat Rail is all about making savings I should imagine - it doesn't pay out shareholder dividends - so its probably about justifying their grant each year from the government (oh and that covid survival windfall).

[Rose-Colored Boy]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

So we're looking at cutting 5% of workers then all else being equal. 

No, because timetables don’t work like that. There are maybe one or two trains an hour which haven’t been restored - and by the time any cuts come in they probably will be anyway.

There has not been a big enough reduction in trains that station, security and maintenance staff have a significantly reduced workload. And certainly not to the point where staff are “standing around not doing anything”. With the possible exception of on-board staff - and there aren’t enough of those anyway - you can’t cut jobs just because the 10:47 from Blah Blah Ville to Boo Boo Town isn’t running, when the 10:52 from Bing Bong Land to Bish Bosh City is running from the same platform, on the same tracks, with the same terror threat.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Rose-Colored Boy

[steviewevie]

don't we want more trains, better trains, cheaper trains, if we're going to get people to stop using their cars? Lots of people want to work from home because their train journeys are shit and expensive. The trains I've been on the last few months have all been pretty busy and unpleasant.

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

The system is the problem - shareholders getting disproportionate dividends that are ever escalating in order to keep them from taking their investments elsewhere, so essentially becoming bribes.... Nat Rail is all about making savings I should imagine - it doesn't pay out shareholder dividends - so its probably about justifying their grant each year from the government (oh and that covid survival windfall).

Yeah I'd nationalise the whole thing if it was down to me, but in the system we're in, a drop in demand makes sense to be matched with a drop in supply

1 minute ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

No, because timetables don’t work like that. There are maybe one or two trains an hour which haven’t been restored - and by the time any cuts come in they probably will be. You can’t cut jobs just because the 10:47 from Blah Blah Ville to Boo Boo Town isn’t running, when the 10:52 from Bing Bong Land to Bish Bosh City is running. 

Sure, a timetable review is needed. And certainly if staff are cut more services should be cut to match that so that staff aren't overworked. 

But the reality is less demand means less money coming in and further price rises seem unsustainable to me, especially as a lot of work travel is now people choosing to go into the office rather than being required to (and they might make different choices if tickets cost more).

Yes, loads of money is effectively wasted by going into shareholder pockets but that's a systemic problem. Even if the system were nationalised we'd be looking at cuts right now because demand is down. 

Certain economic adjustments are happening right now - speak to anyone that used to work in a city centre cafe if you want to hear about redundancies. The rail network needs to adapt to that in a big way and *maybe* one can work out a system where you can do that without redundancies. But when one side comes in immediately with strike action unless it can have a guarantee there won't be any, the ability to have that conversation seems cut off to me.

[Pateen]

Has there been any mention of any Bus companies deciding to run some coaches to the festival?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Pateen said:

Has there been any mention of any Bus companies deciding to run some coaches to the festival?

Not sure there’s any buses / drivers free to step in … 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But when one side comes in immediately with strike action unless it can have a guarantee there won't be any, the ability to have that conversation seems cut off to me.

There’s nothing immediate about it. As I’ve said, these conversations have been going on for years - more or less since the last time NR agreed to two years of no compulsory redundancies in exchange for a below-inflation pay rise (2019). The strike is an absolute last resort attempt to force NR into a proper negotiation - it’d have been voted down if the industry hadn’t already spent years trying to resolve this. 

Anyway I start work at 14:30 so I need to get ready now, see you later for more vigorous debate 🙂 

[mattiloy]

20 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah I'd nationalise the whole thing if it was down to me, but in the system we're in, a drop in demand makes sense to be matched with a drop in supply

Sure, a timetable review is needed. And certainly if staff are cut more services should be cut to match that so that staff aren't overworked. 

But the reality is less demand means less money coming in and further price rises seem unsustainable to me, especially as a lot of work travel is now people choosing to go into the office rather than being required to (and they might make different choices if tickets cost more).

Yes, loads of money is effectively wasted by going into shareholder pockets but that's a systemic problem. Even if the system were nationalised we'd be looking at cuts right now because demand is down. 

Certain economic adjustments are happening right now - speak to anyone that used to work in a city centre cafe if you want to hear about redundancies. The rail network needs to adapt to that in a big way and *maybe* one can work out a system where you can do that without redundancies. But when one side comes in immediately with strike action unless it can have a guarantee there won't be any, the ability to have that conversation seems cut off to me.

I see that you are looking at this through the lens of supply and demand.

But rail companies are still making big bunce, so say this goes through and staff costs rise- they can do one of two things, take on the extra costs and simply reduce their profits, or decrease prices to the clearance level - given the cross elasticity of demand with road travel presumably being much greater than usual, given road travel much more expensive at the moment - they will probably make back their cash. But that sets a precedent for both wages and ticket prices that they don’t want to pursue.

Edited June 8, 2022 by mattiloy

[Ayrshire Chris]

26 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Not sure there’s any buses / drivers free to step in … 

At last!  A chance for Cliff to get a gig at Glastonbury 😊

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I see that you are looking at this through the lens of supply and demand.

But rail companies are still making big bunce, so say this goes through and staff costs rise- they can do one of two things, take on the extra costs and simply reduce their profits, or decrease prices to the clearance level - given the cross elasticity of demand with road travel presumably being much greater than usual, given road travel much more expensive at the moment - they will probably make back their cash. But that sets a precedent for both wages and ticket prices that they don’t want to pursue.

Or nationalise. I'd love to see the unions just go "right, permanent strike until nationalisation is agreed". Actually fix the underlying problem. Then we don't have to look at it under the lens of supply and demand anymore.

I get people's arguments, but these sort of cuts have been happening it lots of places: city centre venues, restaurants, bars and cafes to name one big sector. And no-one gives a fuck. "Not my problem". 

And kudos to railway workers for effectively unionising and so being able to say "well, we're going to make it your problem". That means there's more attention, more eyes and more discussion about it. But that's the only reason. Someone's job on the railway is no more inherently valuable than someone's job in Costa. It's just as shit for both of them to lose those jobs. But while they both remain private enterprises, they will be measured on profit and so falling demand will mean cuts to jobs and prices increases to customers.

I've always found unions to be a little odd. I'm pro-union, in that I feel they should exist, they should represent the needs and wants of their members, there should be enough that everyone can be in one and employees should be protected from any comeback from joining one.

But beyond that, the do and *should* exist as selfish entities there purely for the benefit of their members and no-one else. Which means, if I'm not a member, that doesn't mean just because I consider myself left-wing, I should be in support of every union action by default. Doesn't mean I won't be, but I think any action has to be judged on its own merits.

[downtherabbithole]

4 hours ago, Tommy Dickfingers said:

I’m getting the train to the festival on Wednesday. My journey time has now increased by a good couple of hours but so fucking what. Incomparable to people who’d be potentially losing their jobs. Power to the strikers I hope it comes off for them. They have my total and utter support. 

I'm also wondering why you think it will affect your travel time by two hours. I travel down on the train on Wednesday too so am hoping this isn't the case 

[Tommy Dickfingers]

2 minutes ago, downtherabbithole said:

I'm also wondering why you think it will affect your travel time by two hours. I travel down on the train on Wednesday too so am hoping this isn't the case 

Coz the one I’d rather have got which is a lot quicker has no seats available. 

[downtherabbithole]

5 minutes ago, Tommy Dickfingers said:

Coz the one I’d rather have got which is a lot quicker has no seats available. 

Ahh right. Sorry to hear and thanks for clarifying 

[Pateen]

Am I very naive in thinking the festival organisers will help with more buses.

There are so many people affected by this

[duke88]

1 minute ago, Pateen said:

Am I very naive in thinking the festival organisers will help with more buses.

There are so many people affected by this

Problem is, they're already using loads of coaches and buses. Can't just conjure up more out of thin air.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Pateen said:

Am I very naive in thinking the festival organisers will help with more buses.

There are so many people affected by this

yes ... theres no drivers 

[Madyaker]

I had no idea the UKs rail service was privately owned. That’s nuts. Public transport is one of the things that should always be state owned. It’s supposed to be about providing a service and that should be it’s main focus not generating profit. 
 

 

[Jay Pee]

4 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

If you could post this on the help thread if it firms up pls 

I don't think it's happening unfortunately. I played the game and went to owner (jib would have been a none starter as curtain twitchers both sides)..

I have paid 55 for me. Wanted 195.00 For three of us! Oh well

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

I had no idea the UKs rail service was privately owned. That’s nuts. Public transport is one of the things that should always be state owned. It’s supposed to be about providing a service and that should be it’s main focus not generating profit. 
 

 

Network Rail is a public body and the operating companies are also being brought under one (publicly owned) roof with a big reorganisation next year. Whether it’ll fix the issues is doubtful with this government in charge but it can’t do any harm.