LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
JANUARY 1990
WE MUST BEAT PRIVATISATION
I write to you in the first Journal of 1990 In a period of great change. For me the biggest challenge is that of occupying the post of General Secretary in the 1990s and remembering the tremendous contributions of my predecessors since 1880.
I look forward to this challenge with some pride. My confidence is boosted by the knowledge that the membership of the Society is loyal and dedicated to their union as well as their
industry.
Therefore, I believe we face the future with strength and determination.
Without casting an eye too far back in history, the period of the 80s has been difficult for trade unions generally and for rail unions in particular.
The Railways Board, encouraged by the Tory Government, tried at various times to break the rail unions, an aim that failed miserably.
However, they have not given up and recent proclamations from Government sources about privatisation and the new appointment of Bob Reid as Chairman of the Board, to supposedly smooth the way for the re-introduction of a private railway industry, must and will be defeated.
However, rail workers cannot imagine that their unions can do this alone. It will require a determination to rid Britain of a Government which would privatise the air we breathe or, as the pioneers used to say, the water we drink.
If the Government and Railways Board expended as much energy in seeking to protect the safety of passengers and the workforce as they do in seeking to hand over to the "money men" a national asset as important as the rail network, perhaps some of the recent tragedies would never have occurred.
Therefore, ASLEF rightly welcomed the findings of Hidden in his report of the Clapham Disaster. The Society will spare no effort in endeavouring to ensure that the recommen-dations are implemented as speedily as possible.
However, all that could be jeopardised if the greed of this Government is not resisted and defeated.
I believe that the defeat of privatisation is the most important single goal for ASLEF in protecting its membership and their livelihood.
Our Society has a proud record of involvement in the wider activities of the Trade Union and Labour Movement.
We must not flinch from developing this activity in the 1990s and to that end we will do all in our power, along with the other unions in the railway industry, to resist the attacks that are about to be unleashed by the Government and Railways Board.
All that I have said is a call for actions to speak louder than words. Therefore I appeal to all our members, and officials to become involved in the issues as they unfold.
The decade of the 90s has already shown great political upheaval on a world scale, where people are demanding changes and greater participation in the decisions which affect their lives. We in Britain should demand no less.
I am confident I can rely on the membership to back the Executive Committee in playing a positive part in creating the conditions for the changes required.
LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
FEBRUARY 1990
STARVED OF CASH
British Rail enters the 1990s facing a severe financial crisis - thanks to the pinch-penny policies of Mrs Thatcher's Government.
□ Commuter fares could be forced up by 10 per cent over the next three years and 40 per cent over 10 years.
□ Steep rises, too, are inevitable on long-distance journeys as InterCity's profit target is raised nearly fourfold by 1983.
□ Large increases in Saver fares and those for other leisure and off-peak services will drive even more passengers away from trains and wreck B.R.'s marketing strategies.
□ An extra £250 to £500 million has to be found by 1994-95 for safety improvements identified in the Hidden Inquiry report into the Clapham Junction disaster.
But the Government is rail-blind.
It denies proper funding to the Health Service, to education, to pensions and social services - and sees nothing wrong in an equally prejudiced attack on public transport.
Balance-sheet considerations threaten to outweigh all else, including safety, as Ministers prepare to asset-strip the profitable parts of the network for privatisation.
This was made clear in guide- lines published by Transport Secretary Mr Cecil Parkinson which set an almost impossible task for BR management.
Sir Robert Reid, outgoing BR chairman who is due to retire next month, believes massive extra financial and moral support from the Government is desperately needed.
Railways could provide the most sensible answer to the nation's transport problems if they were given more Government assistance.
But, without more help, we will have a second-grade system and be unable to cope with the growing passenger and freight demands of the 1990s which European railways (with Government backing) are gearing themselves up to meet.
Under the Parkinson proposals:
• Government support grants are to be cut from £1,000 million a year in the early 1980s to £345 million by 1993. The subsidy, which stood at £490 million last year, is to be sliced by a further 30 per cent.
• Network SouthEast's subsidy, currently £140 million, is to be eliminated by 1992-93. It will become the only major commuter service in Europe without public funding.
By 1993, only the loss-making Provincial sector will be receiving any subsidy and its grant will also be cut from £400 million to £345 million.
BR is also being asked to achieve a further £325 million reduction in subsidies by 1993, if possible, although its grant will have fallen more than £800 million in a decade.
• Massively-increased profit targets for InterCity of £95 million and Railfreight of £50 million for 1992-93 turn the screw even tighter.
Inter-City's return on assets will have to rise from 1.3 per cent to 4. 75 per cent.
An evitable result will be the soaring fare increases, particularly in the South East, and less money available for investment.
Parkinson argues that increased revenue and low running costs from more modern equipment reduces the need for subsidy from the tax-payer.
Investment by BR in 1989-90 was the highest for 25 years and it will be going up by a further 75 per cent over the next three years, he told MP before Christmas.
Under its Corporate Plan, the Board envisages a £5,000 million investment plan over the next five years which will have to be mainly self-financed.
Spending on new trains, electrification, and stations will rise from £1,000 million next year to £1,250 million in 1992-93.
Much of the money is required to up-grade services in the South East in readiness for the Tunnel opening in 1993.
Targets have been based on assumptions that rail traffic will grow by 4 per cent a year and national economic growth remains healthy.
Both these assumptions could prove to be optimistic. If the economy slips into recession, fare increases would have to be even higher.
Rail manpower, in any event, is expected to be reduced by around 4,000 to 123,000 by 1993-94.
But low wages and poor conditions of service are bound to inflict greater recruitment problems as large numbers of staff retire or leave the industry.
The Transport Secretary said he would be looking to the Board to improve productivity to minimise the direct pressure of increased costs on fares.
The Corporate Plan expects an 8 per cent rise in productivity over five years.
According to Parkinson, it anticipates only "modest" fare increases iri real cash terms over the next three years.
Urging improvements in the financial performance of the rest of BR's freight business, the Transport Secretary said he wanted to see still greater involvement of the private sector "to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel"
On safety, he disclosed, the Government has committed £125 million over the next three years.
All the financial targets were bitterly attacked by Mr John Prescott, Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary.
''Passengers are fed up with paying the highest fares in Europe for a dirty, overcrowded, unreliable service," he said.
Prescott claimed the Government had starved British Rail of £3,500 million in the 10 years from 1983 to 1993 by reducing subsidies.
That money could have been used to help keep pace with the railway revolution now sweeping Europe.
Instead, BR fares have rocketed; safety, quality of service and reliability have suffered; and we are missing out on the major opportunities offered by the Channel Tunnel.
-------------
CLAIM SUBMITTED
A claim for a substantial percentage increase in basic wage rates was submitted by the Society to British Rail on 11th January.
Derrick Fullick, Aslef general secretary, said: "On behalf of the EC, I have submitted the following letter to the Board.
"Arrangements are in hand for a joint trade union meeting to co-ordinate similar claims for Tyne & Wear Metro and London Underground Limited."
The letter, to Mr Paul Watkinson, BR director, employee relations,
reads:
"On behalf of my Society's member grades, I wish to submit an application for a substantial percentage increase in basic rates of pay.
The claim which will be presented to you will also include representations in favour of a reduction in the working week, to 35 hours.
In order to facilitate presentation of the claim I look forward to an early meeting of the RSNC being arranged."
LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
FEBRUARY 1990
THANK YOU
On behalf of Bro. G. Hatcher and myself, we would like to thank Robin Thompson & Partners for their assistance in our recent case for compensation from the C.I.C.B.
Both of us wish to express our gratitude for all their help and to the union for appointing an excellent firm as its legal representative.
C. NEWTON
BRANCH SECRETARY
BRIGHTON
Back row, middle Andy Reed Battersea Branch
Front row, third from the left Chris Newton Brighton Branch
LINK RESTRUCTURE AT BRIGHTON
At the April 1990 Branch proposed link structures where explained to the members, this was
due to the reduction of diesel work. To overcome this problem it was decided that the number
1 link would increase to 56 cover the diesel work as well as covering all electrical routes and
traction.
The L211 link would combine with the old number two link and be increased to 32 drivers in
size. The link would cover all electrical routes only. There was a number of drivers from the
former top two links given the option to move into the new number 2 link and become non
progressive similar to the remaining L211 drivers. This would then allow those displaced
drivers to stay within the diesel link. Some drivers decided to go into the new number 2 link
and remain non progressive in that link. This option was also given to senior drivers who
originally opted not to go into the diesel links or qualified for the L211 link, when the depots
originally amalgamated.
The pilot link had been done away through retirements and the remainder of the station pilot
work was covered within the top link.
After all these years there still major problems within Brighton Southern depot which can be
trace back to the rationalisation of the two Brighton Motive Power Depot.
By 1993 the links structure would once again change due to more diesel working being lost,
The links would be Link 1 of 36, Link 2 & 3 at 40 and Link 4 of 16.
The link structure within the depot would alter with changes to route and traction knowledge
being introduced into the depot.
LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
APRIL 1990
SOUTHERN REGION SECTION COUNCIL ‘B’
February 1990 marked a unique occasion as it was the milestone of 20 years continues service of 20 years continuous service by Bros. Bill Eames and Ron Lifford, Chairman and Secretary respectively.
They were both elected to office by the Central and South Eastern Sectors in February 1970, following the re-organization of councils, and have represented the interests of Southern footplatemen throughout the past two decades. They have served with a total of 14 other members, including the undersigned, during this time.
Their long service has ensured continuity and stability within Council, a fact that was clearly illustrated recently when management tried to depart from an established practice.
Documents and memoranda going back to the 1970s were soon produced which proved and supported staff side’s case.
There have been some very hard times for the Society members and the region during the period, with depot closures, train cuts and official industrial disputes.
All of these challenges have been met and tackled by Bill and Ron in their forthright and honest manner. They have served the union and Region to the best of their considerable ability, and could be asked to do no more than that.
They have spent many long hours of their own time unselfishly in the service of others.
This long service deserved recognition, and was duly recorded on the evening of 28 February when a surprise presentation was made by other serving members of Council.
They were both given a Society locomotive plaque, with an additional plate added and suitably engraved.
For once in their careers, they were both lost for words and found it hard to believe that the event was planned within Council, under their noses, without them getting a whiff of it!
It must be unusual for so long a period of office to be served, with so many years of uncertainty and problems, but our two stalwarts have worn quite well, although they still bear the scars of battle.
The time spent on Council is unprecedented in living Southern Region memory.
Now that the proposals on the Machinery of Negotiation and Consultation have been shelved, it seems likely that they will notch up 21 years in 1991 (a fact that we could not be sure of whilst making our plans). Perhaps this landmark should be recorded by the Society in an official manner when that time comes, and should be examined by others.
It remains for us to wish them well in their continued efforts, and to add that we are aware that all members who know, or who have come in contact with them over the years, join us in saying: “Thanks and well done, Bill and Ron.”
TONY ALLEN EASTBOURNE BRANCH,
ARTHUR BROCKMAN GUILDFORD ELECTRIC BRANCH
JIM ROWE BASINSTOKE BRANCH
TOMMY TAYLOR GROVE PARK BRANCH
LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
APRIL 1990
B.R.'S PAY OFFER
IT'S STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH
The rail unions are determined to press for a substantial improvement in the 8 per cent initial wage offer put forward by British Rail.
Both this figure and a further part of the offer relating to a reduction in the working week
have been rejected by A.S.L.E.F. Executive Committee and the Council of the Federation of Rail Unions.
As Locomotive Journal went to press, British Rail increased the offer to 8.5 per cent - but this was also rejected.
A further meeting of the R.S.N.C. is being sought in pursuit of our claim for a substantial "without strings" percentage increase in basic rates and a 35-hour working week.
This claim, presented at an R.S.N.C. meeting on 22nd February, is based on evidence relating to:
[] inflation since the last settlement and the effects on pay;
[] the impact of higher mortgage rates, the poll tax and rent on our members' standard of living;
[] the "going rate" in outside industry and recent settlement in the public sector;
[] comparisons with the rates of pay of other public sector workers; labourers in the private sector; BR engineers;
[] between train drivers and their comparators elsewhere; and clerks and supervisors;
[] the long hours that many of our members are forced to work to approach average earning levels;
[] the level of wages of a minority of railway workers who have no opportunity to work overtime;
[] the contrast with the new British Rail chairman's salary;
[] the improvements in B.R.'s financial performance in the past two years, and our members contribution to the increased productivity; and
[]arguments for a reduction in the basic working week to 35- hours for all railway workers.
On 14th March, a further meeting of the R.S.N.C., British Rail offered:
■ an increase of 8 per cent on rates of pay from 9th April 1990:
■ a commitment to begin negotiations on working time with a view to delivering changes that incorporate full cost compensating benefits to the businesses and that achieve actual reduc-tions in working time as well as harmonising basic time at a level equivalent to 37 hours a week.
In its detailed response, the Board said it considered that its offer was seeking a settlement which:
■ offers a fair pay increase which establishes a reasonable balance between its ability to pay on the one hand and our members aspirations on the other; and
■ identifies the process for us seeing steps to reduce actual hours worked and to harmonise basic working time.
A.S.L.E.F. Executive Committee, on giving consideration to the report of the R.S.N.C. and to the initial offer, adopted the following resolution:-
"That the report be noted and the General Secretary instructed to advise the B.R.B.
that their response to our 1990 wage claim is unacceptable.
The Council of the Federation of Rail Trade Unions and Joint Trade Union meeting be advised.
"Further, all branches and LDCs on BR be advised accordingly."
The Society advised the Council of the Federation of Rail Unions and T.S.S.A. of its decision.
Following discussions at joint trade union and Federation level, and at the Federation Council meeting held on 22nd March, it was recommended that both parts of the offer be rejected and a further meeting of the R.S.N.C. be sought in pursuit of our claim.
ASLEF advised the British Railways Board of our position and arrangements were being made for a further R.S.N.C. to be held. We shall, of course, keep members advised of developments.
CROYDON TRAINING CENTRE
Driver Minder Course Early 1990s
Back Row - Right Tony Martin (Littlehampton), Gary Coombes (West Worthing),
Chris Edmunds (Littlehampton), Dave Knight (Brighton), Alan Taylor (Norwood),
Ian Munro (West Worthing), & John Carney (Eastbourne).
Front Row Left Right Paul Miles, (London Bridge), Instructors Tony Harper
& Trevor "CHOPPER" Harris
LOCOMOTIVE JOURNAL
MAY 1990
B.R.'S 9.3% DEAL
GETS THE NOD
British Rail's "no strings' offer of 9.3 per cent on basic rates to all staff covered by the Rail-way Staffs National Council effective from 7th May has been accepted by the unions.
In Head Office Circular No. 83 dated 26th April 1990, members were advised of the British Railways Board's final and unconditional offer to all staff covered.
In addition, the interim non-enhanceable allowances agreed in 1988 for some grades will be continued until they are overtaken by restructuring. It is intended that, in 1991, the general pay review should revert to its customary anniversary date, i.e. 8th April 1991.
A joint trade union meeting on 26th April discussed the revised pay offer in association with BR's proposals towards a reduction in the basic working week.
At this meeting it was recognised by all parties that this was most definitely management's "final offer."
Representations had been made to the Director, Employee Relations, British Railways Board, as to the possibility of moving the anniversary date back to April 1990.
The response was clear and precise that it was "clearly out of the question." However, for next year the 8th April 1991 anniversary date was secure.
At the end of the meeting it was unanimously deemed that the 9.3 per cent offer would form the basis of acceptance.
So far as hours was concerned it was considered that the proposed way forward was not acceptable and, as such, further discussions at R.S.N.C. level would be required.
Report-back of these deliberations was made to a meeting of the full Rail Federation Council on 1st May, where the following recommendation was proposed:
"That we recommend acceptance of the Board's offer to increase basic rates of pay by
9.3 per cent from May 7th.
Further, we recommend rejection of the Board's proposals in relation to the 'route' forward toward a reduction in the basic working week.
We seek further negotiations at the R.S.N.C. to pursue our policy of a 35-hour working week."
A.S.L.E.F. Executive Committee, on giving full consideration to the report back of the Rail Federation Council meeting in association with the recommendation, adopted the following resolution:
That the report be noted and the recommendations of the Council of the Federation be adopted
Eastbourne Driver Alan Titherly c1990