Train Operating Companies v Trade Unions dispute - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[devonexpress]

We all know this is politically motivated, when Labour was in before 2010, the unions would have been happy with these plans, the second the Conservatives come into power, there planning strikes!!   I think its about time Theresa May got her act into gear, and went a bit Margret Thatcher style on them, and if that doesn't work, then maybe strikes on any form of public transport should be considered!

[devonexpress]

All I mean by safety critical is needing to be there before the service runs.  Flight attendants and Guards are comparable in that sense at least.  Without them the train/aircraft is allowed to move but not with passengers on board. 

Flight Attendants are allowed to work with passengers on-board, the legal rule is that 1 flight attendant must be available for a maximum of 49 passengers, so in this regard they are completely different to a guard/train manager.

[Tim]

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.

Absolutely correct in respect of ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) (the drivers union) unless there are specific technical concerns about the DOO equipment then this is absolutely not a safety issue for ASLEF.  It isn't even a standing up for your members issue.  It is simply the Union flexing its muscle (perhaps it wants to be seen to be as tough as the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)?)

In respect of the RMT, I do think there is a safety issue about removing a second safety critical staff member - although it is not connected with the doors.  There is also the spectre of the Guards role being downgraded and that resulting in pay and conditions being eroded in the future.  You may think that the Guard role should be downgraded, but the RMT are sticking up for their members which is what they are there for.  

[Tim]

All I mean by safety critical is needing to be there before the service runs.  Flight attendants and Guards are comparable in that sense at least.  Without them the train/aircraft is allowed to move but not with passengers on board. 

Flight Attendants are allowed to work with passengers on-board, the legal rule is that 1 flight attendant must be available for a maximum of 49 passengers, so in this regard they are completely different to a guard/train manager.

Guards are allowed to work with passengers on-board too.  They are allowed to sell tickets, deter ticketless travel and anti-social behaviour, provide information and reassurance to passengers.  My original point is that Guards did more of this then perhaps they would be looked at as more of an asset than a cost by the ToCs.  For Guards to become more useful they need to be freed of door duties and (some of them) need to change their attitude and become more visible to passengers.  There is a potential win-win outcome to this dispute resulting in the retention of guards but reassigning their duties and management so that they are able to "earn their keep" better. 

[ChrisB]

"oooh, not my job, Guv"

[caliwag]

The hard man in the camp! It is true he's had foot in all camps...having been involved with BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), then in setting up the Shropshire and Wrexham and now DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/14/peter-wilkinson-the-man-the-unions-say-is-driving-the-southern-rail-strike

[Richard Fairhurst]

Blimey, he does look a bit like Lord Voldemort in that photo, doesn't he?

[ChrisB]

The talks between GTR & ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) have broken down at ACAS.

[Tim]

"oooh, not my job, Guv"

precisely.  And that is where my sympathy with the Union mentality ends. 

[Bmblbzzz]

I went to that Woldemar talk yesterday evening. His take on this is that Southern are pawns in a long-term government strategy which is more to do with labour relations than transport, ie removing unions. Unlike other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), Southern is not a franchise but a management contract; this means they don't lose money (or not so much) when trains don't run. That's why the government can use them to remove the unions' ability to stop trains running, by the introduction of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)). It's not that Southern particularly wants DOO or intends to use it, or that it will even become the norm; just that enabling it means a guards' strike cannot stop the railways. Bear in mind that Wolmar of course has his own political slant.

[TonyK]

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?

I wouldn't disagree at all. The most cack-handed negotiating position, however, must be held by DafT supremo Peter Wilkinson, who poured oil on troubled flames when he made his view on the dispute between a private company and its employees crystal clear last February:

Speaking to local rail users about train drivers, he said: “We have got to break them,” adding that those who resisted government plans should “get the hell out of my industry”.

Sorry, whose industry? As a retired civil servant, I doubt I would have dreamed of saying such a thing, even when drunk.

It remains my opinion, though, that without government interference on a large scale, Southern and the unions would have reached a compromise that didn't cost much, gave both sides a victory and a loss, and kicked the issue into the long grass until the next franchise. However it may appear in certain newspapers, rail staff do not like losing pay and would rather be working. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), like any othe business, certainly don't like losing revenue and, possibility more importantly, credibility with the government and passengers.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

I think the safety issue re DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) could have been better argued by ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) – their PR^▸ (Public Relations) is truly awful, and does their members a great injustice.  In particular, the Hayes & Harlington incident changed things.  Until then I think there was an assumption that if the Driver got the door interlocks it was OK to go.  After Hayes the Driver was criticised for not looking back down the train to ensure every door was clear, as RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) seemed to be saying the door interlocks could not be relied upon.

Now this may be OK for a 3 car Turbo, but is this duty not unduly onerous for a 12 coach train on the crowded Southern network?  Even with CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), the Driver will have 24 images to look at – I don’t know what size they are, but on a crowded platform how can the Driver be sure that no-one standing close to a door has not, for example got their raincoat trapped?

If I was ASLEF I would say fine, we’ll do DOO with 12 coaches, but on condition that no Driver will be disciplined for a trap incident so long as they had the door interlocks OK.

BTW^▸ (by the way), I agree that Peter Wilkinson's involvement has been unhelpful.  Grayling could do the industry and Southern commuters a great service by sacking him.

edited following moderator's reminder on Forum rules

[TonyK]

BTW^▸ (by the way), I agree that Peter Wilkinson is a truly odious individual.  Grayling could do the industry and Southern commuters a great service by sacking him.

But he is a tough man, and the government needs a tough man at the helm, which is why he is paid a lot more than the Prime Minister. Even if this dispute is nothing to do with them. (Ahem).

[old original]

Blimey, he does look a bit like Lord Voldemort in that photo, doesn't he?

I'm thinking more like the controller in "The Village" ...number 6

[grahame]

BTW^▸ (by the way), I agree that Peter Wilkinson is ...

Please do remember that "Personal attacks on people / individuals are unacceptable ...." from our forum guidelines - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1761.0 .  Many of the opinions we form are moulded by the people, the organisations and media who provide the data feeds we read ... and especially in a fraught engagement between the goliaths involved in the Southern dispute may not impartially reflect the person.