Could the unions bid for a railway concession?

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

Don't know about that one, but I believe the Disneyworld one uses real preserved steam locomotives.

 

What did amuse me was travelling on a train in the Animal Kingdom in Disneyworld and seeing a lamp on the back with "BR(W)" on it.

 

(Not somewhere I ever expected to go, but I once went to a conference that bizarrely was in a hotel in Disneyworld and it seemed a bit silly not to visit the theme parks while I was there).

Disneyland (Anaheim) has three heritage locos from 1894/1902/1925 plus two newly built "Americans" from 1955.

Walt Disney World (Orlando) has 4 heritage locos from 1916/1925/1925/1928 all Baldwins of various types.

 

Disneyland Hong Kong has three *Severn-Lamb new build steam outline diesels.

There are some other steam outline locos in various places

 

According to Wikipedia there are 17 proper steam locos in various resorts around the world.

 

*Severn-Lamb are in Alcester, Warwickshire

[Bucoops]

51 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

Walt Disney World (Orlando) has 4 heritage locos from 1916/1925/1925/1928 all Baldwins of various types.

 

 

They do indeed - not run for a couple of years though while they build a new ride that has affected the track. 

 

[Nearholmer]

Well, that's Disney pre-qualified to bid, but what about the Methodist Church?

 

There is at least one very active member of the 0-gauge, coarse scale fraternity who is a Methodist Minister, and he and a another Minister run a very good two-yearly model railway exhibition at one of their churches, so maybe they could be persuaded to front a bid on behalf of their denomination.

[Bucoops]

A member of the Clergy liking trains?

 

It would never happen

 

[Coryton]

4 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

A member of the Clergy liking trains?

 

It would never happen

 

The Reverend Awdry was certainly not the only one.

[ikcdab]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

Bullsh*t

The pension was contributory, just like any other pensionable job.

 

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I've just removed my ‘agree’ from that post, because I ‘read past’ the non-contributory

Well perhaps it depends on which part of the public sector you worked for. I was in the principle civil service pension scheme from 1978 for 38 years and the pension was non-contributory. By which I mean there were no deductions shown on my wage slip and the advertised salary was what I was paid.

Almost from my first day in 1978 as a rookie draughtsman, I was told that the saleries were lower to account for the non-contributory nature.

I guess other public sector jobs were different.

[melmerby]

15 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

 

Well perhaps it depends on which part of the public sector you worked for. I was in the principle civil service pension scheme from 1978 for 38 years and the pension was non-contributory. By which I mean there were no deductions shown on my wage slip and the advertised salary was what I was paid.

Almost from my first day in 1978 as a rookie draughtsman, I was told that the saleries were lower to account for the non-contributory nature.

I guess other public sector jobs were different.

I was in the standard Civil Service pension scheme from 1962 and it was contributory (6%?, 6½%?), shown on wage slip as superannuation contribution and the salary was lower than outside industry.

I retired (redundancy) still under the Civil service scheme conditions even though I was by then in a privatised company.

I still have civil service conditions on my pension.

[br2975]

14 hours ago, ikcdab said:

And a very good non-contributory pension and longer holidays. I was told that these made up the shortfall in wages.

That's the biggest load of cobblers I've read in years............

.

Fire service and police pensions are "contributory", ( as are all other public sector pension schemes ) and the members "contribute" a higher percentage of their earnings than virtually any other industry, in the case of the police  I believe it is currently around 13% to be eligible for a 'half pension' after 35 years service.

.

 

[Nearholmer]

The Police scheme is described in detail here https://www.polfed.org/media/14224/policepensionscheme2015-membersguide-june2016.pdf

 

It is roughly 13% employee contributions, but it’s got a quite favourable fractional calculation, based on 1/55 (university staff are on 1/80 I think), although on the other hand that isn’t of final salary, it’s of salary in the year each 1/55 is accrued.

 

The other question about pensions is the employer % contribution, which again varies a lot between schemes, and in some schemes (‘balance of cost’) it goes up and down over time as the amount needed to guarantee a defined pension changes.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Coryton]

3 hours ago, br2975 said:

That's the biggest load of cobblers I've read in years............

.

Fire service and police pensions are "contributory", ( as are all other public sector pension schemes ) and the members "contribute" a higher percentage of their earnings than virtually any other industry, in the case of the police  I believe it is currently around 13% to be eligible for a 'half pension' after 35 years service.

.

 

 

OK how about this:

(From a House of Commons briefing paper on public service pensions from a few weeks ago)

 

"In most cases, both employers and employees contribute to their pensions. The main exception is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is non-contributory for members, although pension benefits are taken into account when pay is assessed.31 Until April 2012, members of two further schemes (the classic section of the civil service scheme and the judicial pension schemes) only paid contributions towards survivor benefits. However, they now also contribute to personal benefits."

 

A pedant might suggest that we've gone a teensy bit off-topic here.

[Nearholmer]

13 minutes ago, Coryton said:

A pedant might suggest that we've gone a teensy bit off-topic here.

Isn’t the subject of pensions always on-topic for a significant proportion of the RMWeb demographic?

[br2975]

48 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

OK how about this:

(From a House of Commons briefing paper on public service pensions from a few weeks ago)

 

"In most cases, both employers and employees contribute to their pensions. The main exception is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is non-contributory for members, although pension benefits are taken into account when pay is assessed.31 Until April 2012, members of two further schemes (the classic section of the civil service scheme and the judicial pension schemes) only paid contributions towards survivor benefits. However, they now also contribute to personal benefits."

 

A pedant might suggest that we've gone a teensy bit off-topic here.

 

having been  public sector employee for 45 years in three different roles, I know exactly how much I contributed towards my pension ............. and still have my South Wales Police Authority pay advice slips commencing 1979 that confirm my comment.

 

[The Stationmaster]

My post about pensions seems to have vanished for some reason but as far as BR was concerned pensions were contributory - in fact at one time I was paying 12% of my pensionable salary in pensions contributions.

 

The big difference was that some of the company schemes operated by the Big Four were non-contributory and some people remained in those funds until well into the BR era as part of retaining various other company based conditions of employment.  Thus, for example, the GWR wages grade fund paid an ex-gratia pension while the LNER wages grade fund was a contributory scheme and was voluntary.  And of course the qualifying percentages also varied.   BR gradually introduced its own schemes (I believe the first was the wages grade fund) but those of us who joined as salaried staff in the 1960s actually became members of the LNER salaried staff superannuation fund even though we didn't work on any part of the former LNER. 

 

Eventually all the schemes were overtaken by newly created BR schemes although the salaried staff scheme was initially very much a re-working of the LNER scheme and transition into it made little or no difference for contributing members of the fund.

[KeithHC]

Ok simplistically is it against what a union is about. A union running a commercial company pay negotiations would be very interesting.

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Ok simplistically is it against what a union is about. A union running a commercial company pay negotiations would be very interesting.

 

Keith

Maybe not - for example some unions work very closely with legal companies and recommend (or even instruct) their members to use particular companies (however useless such companies, and their over-charging,  turn out to be - bitter voice of experience there I'm afraid).  To me that is a commercial arrangement (why else send one of your members to a pack of idiots?)  even if there is no evidence of money changing hands

[ikcdab]

1 hour ago, Coryton said:

 

OK how about this:

(From a House of Commons briefing paper on public service pensions from a few weeks ago)

 

"In most cases, both employers and employees contribute to their pensions. The main exception is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is non-contributory for members, although pension benefits are taken into account when pay is assessed.31 Until April 2012, members of two further schemes (the classic section of the civil service scheme and the judicial pension schemes) only paid contributions towards survivor benefits. However, they now also contribute to personal benefits."

 

A pedant might suggest that we've gone a teensy bit off-topic here.

ok so my post wasnt such "cobblers" after all. no deductions were  made from my salary ever while i was in the PCSPS working for the MOD. All we did pay was the 1.5% WPS alluded to in the quote. As we have gone off-topic, i will refrain friom further comments on the subject!

[ikcdab]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe not - for example some unions work very closely with legal companies and recommend (or even instruct) their members to use particular companies (however useless such companies, and their over-charging,  turn out to be - bitter voice of experience there I'm afraid).  To me that is a commercial arrangement (why else send one of your members to a pack of idiots?)  even if there is no evidence of money changing hands

of course unions have employees too. One well-known union used to employ its cleaning staff on zero-hours contracts while publicly condemning  the then government for not out-lawing them.

[Coryton]

6 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

of course unions have employees too. One well-known union used to employ its cleaning staff on zero-hours contracts while publicly condemning  the then government for not out-lawing them.

 

But presumably in many cases union employees would be represented by a different union (if at all).

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

But presumably in many cases union employees would be represented by a different union (if at all).

Or not represented at all if they were on zero hours contracts   Incidentally and wildly off parts of this topic my final salary pension on a zero hours contract job has just been increased for the second time this year - the latest increase is £8 per annum.

[caradoc]

29 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

of course unions have employees too. One well-known union used to employ its cleaning staff on zero-hours contracts while publicly condemning  the then government for not out-lawing them.

 

Events involving the recently retired RMT General Secretary would indicate that Trade Unions are not always perfect employers. And while it would be interesting to see, for example, Manuel Cortes of my former Union, the TSSA, having to take responsibility for managing the railway rather than simply criticising those who do, I don't see it happening, for the very reason that having to run (and be blamed for) something yourself is very different from simply moaning about it. 

 

 

 

[Coryton]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Or not represented at all if they were on zero hours contracts   Incidentally and wildly off parts of this topic my final salary pension on a zero hours contract job has just been increased for the second time this year - the latest increase is £8 per annum.

 

I did say if at all.

[Michael Hodgson]

23 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

my final salary pension on a zero hours contract job has just been increased for the second time this year - the latest increase is £8 per annum.

Congratulations on getting a raise ... I expect they sent the letter first class 

[caradoc]

IIRC for a while the Railway Pension Fund (not sure whether just NR or everyone) had a scheme whereby, up to a limit, an employee's Additional Voluntary Contributions were matched by the employer; Effectively money for nothing ! This scheme, plus the fact that pension contributions are tax-free, were major factors allowing me to retire at 57. 

 

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

18 hours ago, rab said:

Imagine the chaos there'd be.

We think the service is bad now! 

You've totally missed the point then. If the operator was run as a not-for-profit by a collective of workers (under the overall umbrella of an arms-length company created by a trade union) you'd never, ever have a strike and other key indicators like sickness and staff turnover would be exponentially better. The collective/co-operative could employ its own management team based on their ability and with a genuine financial incentive in the success of the company rather than being on the management-go-round conveyor belt of people who foul up somewhere and then move onto the next company. It was tried with considerable success by some of the privatised bus companies back in the day (the largest was Yorkshire Rider) but their model was to make all the staff shareholders and ultimately they took the bag of silver dangled by a large plc and sold out to them. 

Trouble is that it's all too "non-tory" for the current government to contemplate or for those who have spent the last 42 years living under right  of centre governments to begin to understand.

 

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, caradoc said:

IIRC for a while the Railway Pension Fund (not sure whether just NR or everyone) had a scheme whereby, up to a limit, an employee's Additional Voluntary Contributions were matched by the employer; Effectively money for nothing ! This scheme, plus the fact that pension contributions are tax-free, were major factors allowing me to retire at 57. 

 

 

As far as I know that was NOT a NR imitative and has never been offered by NR themselves*

 

I think it might have started under BR and was continued for a time by some of the Infrastructure maintenance companies after privatisation before it got frozen (no matching for new starters and no increase from the company if employees increased theirs). 

 

*Note most NR employees are not technically on NR contracts - as they got TUPIED across when maintenance was taken back in house their contracts (including rates of pay, amount of holiday, enhancements) will depend on whether they were ex AMEC, ex Belfour Beatty, ex Jarvis, etc. Moreover anyone joining NR today as a fresh recruit, if joining an ex IMC disciplines like front line S&T, P-Way, etc will also be given the appropriate ex IMC contract (i.e. ex AMEC, etc).