Train Operating Companies v Trade Unions dispute - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

The unions have offered the Scotrail deal I understand,

I thought the Scotrail deal is really little different to what Southern were already doing on guard operated services, at least on 377s? The driver opens the doors already.   Unless it means SN would also have to put a second member of staff back on trains that have been one man operated for ages.   It's difficult to pin down which geographic areas of current SN operation RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) are actually striking over, let alone ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about).

Paul

[paul7575]

I thought today's ACAS meeting was only booked to be ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) v Southern.

If so then frankly Bob Crow Mk2^▸ (Mark 2 coach) can do one.

Both unions would almost certainly argue that their disputes are completely separate and coincidental, so it would be a bit rich to expect a combined meeting, as you say.

Paul

[chuffed]

Cannot help thinking that there be room for a rotating vacancy on top of the nearest Christmas tree for a certain C.Grayling and M.Cash to replace A.Doll (the current incumbent) of the Southern Railway Company. To be placed firmly in situ by as many Southern commuters as can get their hands on them.

[ChrisB]

I thought Southern had already guaranteed that all of these people (posts) would be retained and that they would not suffer any loss of income, the only change that I understand is losing the responsibility for train door operation, dispatch & protection to a full time customer facing role.

Correct.

The argument as I've seen it reported is that Southern want simply the flexibility, only at times of disruption, for their trains to start their journeys DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)), and pick up the delayed, safety-trained second member of staff on the journey, presumably arranged by their OPs^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter) section to join at a later station.

And the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) refuse. They'll go no further than the Scotrail offer, which means if that second staff member is delayed on their inward journey, the train departs after their arrival, or is more likely cancelled.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Both unions would almost certainly argue ...

I couldn't disagree with that. 

[chrisr_75]

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) is furious at the complete contempt that has been shown to us by Southern rail this morning...

Perhaps intending passengers who have been subjected to horrors for months feel the same from RMT, ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about), Southern Rail and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). 

In the interest of absolute clarity, that quote is from Mick Cash and NOT me!

[Chris from Nailsea]

Accepted, chrisr_75 - so I've edited that original post, but also left this one, simply to give the context. 

[Tim]

I thought Southern had already guaranteed that all of these people (posts) would be retained and that they would not suffer any loss of income, the only change that I understand is losing the responsibility for train door operation, dispatch & protection to a full time customer facing role.

Correct.

The argument as I've seen it reported is that Southern want simply the flexibility, only at times of disruption, for their trains to start their journeys DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)), and pick up the delayed, safety-trained second member of staff on the journey, presumably arranged by their OPs^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter) section to join at a later station.

And the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) refuse. They'll go no further than the Scotrail offer, which means if that second staff member is delayed on their inward journey, the train departs after their arrival, or is more likely cancelled.

The RMT's objection isn't so much over what their members will be doing, but over the ToCs desire to run train without their members.  At the moment they say that this will only apply at time of disruption, but that is probably the thin end of the wedge and I would expect that the definition of "time of disruption" includes an RMT strike, thereby weakening the RMT's power and ensuring that pay and conditions will erode over the coming years. 

[ChrisB]

Easyto construct a legal agreement to exclude, surely?

No, the unions point blank refuse anything that doesn't give any flexibility & want a second crew on board at *all* times, or train is cancelled

[TonyK]

I get the distinct impression that, left to their own devices, Southern and the unions would have cobbled together an agreement to last the remainder of the franchise. It may then become someone else's problem. Instead, both sides are at loggerheads and Southern stands a very real chance of losing the franchises it holds because of its cack-handed management of the situation. It has, let us not forget, been around for a lot less time than the rail unions.

The government is now talking about limiting unions' ability to strike. Good luck with that, given that they ultimately lost the case for excluding unions from GCHQ, and that if they do a Reagan and haul striking drivers off in handcuffs, there still won't be any trains running. That they are thinking of such a thing because of a disagreement between a private sector employer and its employees shows that this is a proxy war between government and unions, with the train operating company and the poor bloody passenger as the collateral victims.

[grahame]

... and the poor bloody passenger as the collateral victims.

The "Association of British Commuters" - https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/your-complete-guide-to-thursdays-southernfail-protest-how-you-can-help/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/1208771822490198/?fref=nf - is planning a march this evening (17:30 from Victoria) to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).    ABC describes itself as "the pressure group soon to undertake a judicial review of the government’s handling of Southern Rail" though with the name the group has chosen, it would appear to have far wider ambitions than just the Southern Franchise area.

You have a number of Goliaths slugging it out, each appearing more principled than pragmatic in looking for solutions, with the passengers for whom a rail service is being provided in the first place being the powerless minnows.  Passenger involvement seems to have fallen by the wayside (if it was ever there) with complaints of MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) not responding, with criticism of the company running Southern dating from before this dispute, and no-to-little from the unions to provide reassurance that they are putting passengers above politics.

The theory is that the passenger's voice is via the DfT because that's directed by the government that we elected, and indeed I wonder whether their arms-length spinoff Transport Focus should be more involved ...

[TaplowGreen]

I get the distinct impression that, left to their own devices, Southern and the unions would have cobbled together an agreement to last the remainder of the franchise. It may then become someone else's problem. Instead, both sides are at loggerheads and Southern stands a very real chance of losing the franchises it holds because of its cack-handed management of the situation. It has, let us not forget, been around for a lot less time than the rail unions.

The government is now talking about limiting unions' ability to strike. Good luck with that, given that they ultimately lost the case for excluding unions from GCHQ, and that if they do a Reagan and haul striking drivers off in handcuffs, there still won't be any trains running. That they are thinking of such a thing because of a disagreement between a private sector employer and its employees shows that this is a proxy war between government and unions, with the train operating company and the poor bloody passenger as the collateral victims.

It's true that Southern has been around for a lot less time than the rail Unions, however confusing length of tenure with being right minded is a tenuous link at best - let's focus on consistency instead - in 2011 Mick Whelan agreed to his members operating 12 car DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) trains for First Capital Connect in return for a pay rise for drivers - rather blows away his high minded commitment to Health and Safety doesn't it?

He has latterly claimed that this has led to an increase in incidents however this is flatly refuted by the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

So I think it's fair to say that agreeing to a position he alleges is dangerous in return for a pay rise, and now calling his members out on strike on the premise that it's too dangerous, is a somewhat "cack handed" negotiating position wouldn't you say?

If anyone's declaring war, it's the Unions. This is becoming a political strike, stoking the egos of the Union Barons, and let's remember the record/longevity of Trade Unions taking on Conservative Governments over issues which they have little credibility or public sympathy is not a good one.

[ChrisB]

The theory is that the passenger's voice is via the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) because that's directed by the government that we elected, and indeed I wonder whether their arms-length spinoff Transport Focus should be more involved ...

I think you're very wrong there - Transport Focus is no spin-off from a small group of unhappy commuters - previously called Passenger Focus, it's the independent passenger body for Rail (and Road). Nothing to do whatsoever with ABC

[grahame]

The theory is that the passenger's voice is via the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) because that's directed by the government that we elected, and indeed I wonder whether their arms-length spinoff Transport Focus should be more involved ...

I think you're very wrong there - Transport Focus is no spin-off from a small group of unhappy commuters - previously called Passenger Focus, it's the independent passenger body for Rail (and Road). Nothing to do whatsoever with ABC

I think I've been very wrongly understood - Transport Focus is a governmental quango / spinoff.  Indeed nothing to to with ABC - shouldn't have read like that!

[ChrisB]

yes, sorry - you majored on ABC & then mentioned the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) in the same sentence, so you were inded referring to the DfT rather than ABC.

TF however, won't get involved in union disruption, especially when the DfT is involved!