In case anyone's wondering what it's all about, this is my view from the trenches:
1. Rostering:
The recently-opened signalling centre in Cardiff replaced both Cardiff panel and Newport panel, plus a few other signal boxes. Consequently, signallers (many of whom were being made redunant) applied for the new jobs at the Cardiff centre. However, Network Rail imposed an eight-hour shift pattern, as it's apparently better from a cost point of view than running fewer twelve hour shifts and apparently reduces overall fatigue for the workers. I neither understand or agree with these claims (we went from 8 hour to twelve hour shifts ten years ago and would never want to change back).
Nevertheless, it's a brand-new work location and the company has the right to set whatever roster pattern it likes, within its own rostering guidelines - which it has. This was made quite clear from the outset and if signallers didn't like 8 hour shifts, they were more than welcome to NOT apply for the job and to seek a job elsewhere. It was NOT a case of the company imposing a change in existing rosters without consultation, which is what is being alleged by the RMT.
So, having applied for and got these jobs with advertised 8 hour shifts, the new Cardiff signallers went on strike, because they wanted 12 hour shifts like they used to have at the old Cardiff and Newport Panels. While I have some sympathy for them in having to go back to crappy 8 hour shifts, I still have to say that it was tough titty! They applied for NEW jobs that were quite clearly going to involve 8 hour shift patterns. They had the right not to apply.
So now the RMT is whipping up a poo-storm nationally, trying to scare everyone that Network Rail is going to impose new shift patterns on people against their will... B0ll0cks.
2. Protection of Engineering Possessions:
Last year, Network Rail announced that they were going to trial a Canadian-developed method of protecting engineering 'possessions' (also called 'blockades') of the railway for major engineering works. The current system involves placing pyro detonators on the line, along with a 'STOP' board and a red flashing light, as a 'backstop' against the possibility of a signalman sending a train into the possession.
Statistically, far more track workers are killed by trains in the act of placing or picking up these protective measures than are killed by any other cause on the railway. The instances of trains actually being sent inadvertently into a possession are also virtually nil. Almost all of the trains that have illegally entered a possession in the last few decades have been runaway vehicles, which would not in any case be stopped by detonators, as they don't have a driver to hear them.
Consequently, Network Rail announced this new scheme, which would do away with detonators, etc - thus preventing further deaths of track workers engaged in placing or picking up the dets. However, there was a massive backlash - not least from track-workers who like the security of dets being placed to protect them. After some discussion, Network Rail said "Ok, fair enough, we'll bin that idea for now".
However, the RMT wanted demands that this would never, ever, be up for discussion again. NR told them to ram it, as protection methods were constantly under review. RMT howled about 'safety' and called everyone out on strike, even though NR have said that they are not going to implement these new regulations.
Of course, RMT conveniently ignores the fact that the Canadians have been using this system safely for years and everyone else in Europe does something similar. They also ignore the fact tha dozens of railwaymen have died as a direct result of having to place or collect dets. Virtually only UK and India use dets on the line nowadays - all other countries simply hold signals at red and trust the signalman not to be a fvckwit. We also now have TPWS since the Ladbroke Grove crash, which actively prevents a train from passing a signal at danger, even if the driver wants to.
What RMT is really interested in is keeping manning-levels high - doing away with dets would reduce the required level of manpower and that is always anathema to the RMT. They always howl "Safety!", but in this instance it's actually about jobs - not safety. In my opinion the proposed new regs would actually save lives and the RMT has got far too many dangerous fvckwits reinstated on technicalties to ever claim the moral high-ground when it comes to safety.
So from my point of view there are some bizarre decisions by Network Rail (but also good some ones), but they haven't actually done anything that warrants striking. The RMT meanwhile, is dragging out the same, tired old propaganda, dropping the word "Safety!" into every other (safety!) soundbite, when in fact it has cokc-all to do with safety.