Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Sunset route]

How would that have worked if the GSM-R system wasnt in place - ie still using the old NRN ???

If this was in the old NSE area, the Strathclyde network or the Merseyrail network then good old CSR would of done the same a DSD alarm.

 

[74A]

It happened to the Southern catering trolley staff who 'transferred' to Rail Gourmet when they took over the contract (previously in house) only for Southern to terminate the contract a week later, the staff being 'new starters' in the letter of the law got nothing,

If they were working for Southern then transferred to Rail Gourmet then they would be covered by TUPE and got redundancy payments.

 

[455driver]

How is that a report? What I really need is some sort of official document with facts and figures .....something along the lines of how many wheelchair assists were booked in a year , and how many failed because no staff available to board them. Does make things a bit easier when fighting a cause....need some decent evidence.

As you well know, that sort of information wont be correlated so wont be available.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Dont know is the honest answer, but I guess the case would fail because the T and Cs of wheelchair assists do state 24 hours notice etc. So in reality, whether booked or not, a wheelchair assist would require a ramp and a person to operate the ramp, be it station staff or train staff.

You are missing the point. As guard do you refuse to provide assistance to a passenger requiring it just because you have received no message from Control requesting you do so? Of course not, you provide an on-demand service. It's the very existence of a requirement to provide any notice at all which I expect will at some point be tested. Unless of course the Access For All programme is to be reversed and rail travel to be denied to PRMs altogether.

 

[HLE]

How is that a report? What I really need is some sort of official document with facts and figures .....something along the lines of how many wheelchair assists were booked in a year , and how many failed because no staff available to board them. Does make things a bit easier when fighting a cause....need some decent evidence.

How about a report detailing all the DOO schemes introduced in the past and what the former guards do now? Or how many schemes that 'converted' the guards to OBS then got rid of them down the line?

 

[Moonshot]

You are missing the point. As guard do you refuse to provide assistance to a passenger requiring it just because you have received no message from Control requesting you do so? Of course not, you provide an on-demand service. It's the very existence of a requirement to provide any notice at all which I expect will at some point be tested. Unless of course the Access For All programme is to be reversed and rail travel to be denied to PRMs altogether.

Of course I dont refuse, I ll gladly do this....I m not missing any point. So the question remains then as to why TOCs require notice? Not sure myself.

 

[Moonshot]

How about a report detailing all the DOO schemes introduced in the past and what the former guards do now? Or how many schemes that 'converted' the guards to OBS then got rid of them down the line?

Indeed .....is there one?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course I dont refuse, I ll gladly do this....I m not missing any point. So the question remains then as to why TOCs require notice? Not sure myself.

A test case might well demonstrate that they should not. As things stand the obvious "excuse" is the potential difficulty of finding station staff to deal with assists which involve a change of train at a large or busy interchange station. The joys of an increasingly depopulated railway...

 

[Moonshot]

A test case might well demonstrate that they should not. As things stand the obvious "excuse" is the potential difficulty of finding station staff to deal with assists which involve a change of train at a large or busy interchange station. The joys of an increasingly depopulated railway...

Which would actually seem a good reason to book assistance in the first place if there was a requirement to change trains if i m honest.

 

[BestWestern]

How would that have worked if the GSM-R system wasnt in place - ie still using the old NRN ???

The Guard would have made contact using the NRN, or a mobile phone, or a Signal Post Telephone... The sort of thing that Guards are there for in an emergency situation, and they are still there for now. GSM-R is a good bit of kit, but all it does is put you in touch and raise the alarm. A good old fashioned human being is still required to provide the required information, and take charge of the scene.

 

[455driver]

Which would actually seem a good reason to book assistance in the first place if there was a requirement to change trains if i m honest.

At larger stations there are normally platform staff who can assist anyway so less reason to book ahead.

I think we need to compare stations where the Guard used to assist, to what happens now that the train may or may not have an OBS on board, plus what happens if the Wheelchair user does book 24 hours in advance but the OBS isnt actually on the train for one of the legitimate reasons Southern have given?

Would Southern ensure there would be somebody available to assist to comply with the 24 hour booking, not be aware of it at all, or simply not give a stuff!

We are not on about providing something new, we just dont want to see a reduction in what is/was available, is that so wrong?

 

[BestWestern]

Do you think months of strikes between now and then will make their departure more or less likely?

It will make no difference because the whole circus has been planned well in advance. For about the 100th time, this entire scenario is about saving money. That is it. It really is. This is achieved by not paying wages. That is achieved by ceasing to employ the people in question.

The government will be very careful to avoid any situation which makes disabled accessibility mandatory, and so makes OBS indispensible, because not only would that mess up the entire project, but would also mean staff would need to be reintroduced on every other DOO network by way of the same ruling. That simply will not happen.

 

[Moonshot]

At larger stations there are normally platform staff who can assist anyway so less reason to book ahead.

I think we need to compare stations where the Guard used to assist, to what happens now that the train may or may not have an OBS on board, plus what happens if the Wheelchair user does book 24 hours in advance but the OBS isnt actually on the train for one of the legitimate reasons Southern have given?

Would Southern ensure there would be somebody available to assist to comply with the 24 hour booking, not be aware of it at all, or simply not give a stuff!

We are not on about providing something new, we just dont want to see a reduction in what is/was available, is that so wrong?

Oh i know its not wrong.....but the flip side of the arguement is whether a train service is cancelled because there is no second person on board. Neither the wheelchair assist or any other passenger gets anywhere if it is cancelled. So keeping the same number of staff but at the same time reducing the need to cancel trains if staff other than the driver were not available ( for whatever reason ) would seem a rational target which would certainly tick boxes in the passengers favour.

 

[455driver]

Here is a letter from the ABC-
https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2...e-answers-letter-to-charles-horton-from-abcd/

This is the link to a letter to Charles Horton asking for clarification, I have posted the link previously (at 20:19) but the original post looks like I have posted the contents of the link below it where-as its actually a link to a different thing all together.

 

[Moonshot]

This is the link to a letter to Charles Horton asking for clarification, I have posted the link previously (at 20:19) but the original post looks like I have posted the contents of the link below it where-as its actually a link to a different thing all together.

I ve just joined them on twitter !!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The government will be very careful to avoid any situation which makes disabled accessibility mandatory, and so makes OBS indispensible, because not only would that mess up the entire project, but would also mean staff would need to be reintroduced on every other DOO network by way of the same ruling. That simply will not happen.

Hmm. The Tyne and Wear Metro- mostly built on converted railway lines- is fully accessible and is DOO. And as stations get redeveloped, there's less excuse for huge gaps and steps that mean people need ramps to get on the train.

Not that I disagree with you.

 

[455driver]

Hmm. The Tyne and Wear Metro- mostly built on converted railway lines- is fully accessible and is DOO. And as stations get redeveloped, there's less excuse for huge gaps and steps that mean people need ramps to get on the train.

Not that I disagree with you.

Which is low speed and self contained with just the one type of stock running on it (sound familiar?).
Does it have curved platforms?
Do other trains share the same track?
Does freight stock run on it?

 

[Barn]

It will make no difference because the whole circus has been planned well in advance. For about the 100th time, this entire scenario is about saving money. That is it. It really is. This is achieved by not paying wages. That is achieved by ceasing to employ the people in question.

The government will be very careful to avoid any situation which makes disabled accessibility mandatory, and so makes OBS indispensible, because not only would that mess up the entire project, but would also mean staff would need to be reintroduced on every other DOO network by way of the same ruling. That simply will not happen.

Why is doing it in two stages and going through two periods of such grief easier than just doing it in one go?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which is low speed and self contained with just the one type of stock running on it (sound familiar?).
Does it have curved platforms?
Do other trains share the same track?
Does freight stock run on it?

The curved platforms at places like Tynemouth were straightened out, and the Sunderland extension shares metal with proper trains. The only place there is an issue with level access is Sunderland, due to platform height, as the Metro trains are lower.

I don't disagree, but true accessibility is about getting rid of gaps and steps into trains, not employing someone to lump a ramp around. And it should be possible at the vast majority of locations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why is doing it in two stages and going through two periods of such grief easier than just doing it in one go?

Because you can't have the PR of "no job losses, it's just a petty dispute about the doors" if you do it in one lump.

The only way this makes business sense is if you lower wages and/or lower your staff count. The savings from not cancelling the odd train would barely pay for Charles Horton's biscuits.

 

[Moonshot]

The curved platforms at places like Tynemouth were straightened out, and the Sunderland extension shares metal with proper trains. The only place there is an issue with level access is Sunderland, due to platform height, as the Metro trains are lower.

I don't disagree, but true accessibility is about getting rid of gaps and steps into trains, not employing someone to lump a ramp around. And it should be possible at the vast majority of locations.

gaps will always exist where trains are required to pass at high speed due to the normal osscilation of stock.

 

[Barn]

Because you can't have the PR of "no job losses, it's just a petty dispute about the doors" if you do it in one lump.

The only way this makes business sense is if you lower wages and/or lower your staff count. The savings from not cancelling the odd train would barely pay for Charles Horton's biscuits.

Yes but you're going to get the bad PR at some point anyway if you have job losses, and if staff are knowing / cynical enough (choose your pick) to see through it at the first stage I'm not sure how it helps.

I agree that by doing it in two you could waste down the staff establishment and fizzle out the role to reduce compulsory redundancies, but that doesn't seem to be compatible with some of GTR's proposals in the ASLEF agreement.

 

[BestWestern]

Why is doing it in two stages and going through two periods of such grief easier than just doing it in one go?

Firstly, because it would have looked bad and been unpopular with the public to have announced that all on train staff are being sacked. And secondly because it would have been mightily expensive to make the whole lot redundant in one go.

Give it a few years, demoralise and grind people down as much as possible. A good few will leave, some will retire (particularly the ex-BR ones who would be very pricey to pay off), a small minority may move to other useful roles within the company (get jobs as Drivers, etc). Agree favourable starting terms with Aslef, which then pave the way to make less and less effort to maintain the establishment of OBS, eventually running more and more trains without them until the Drivers accept it as normal and become disinterested, finally sealing the deal with a healthy pay rise at some point in the future. In the meantime, employ new-intake OBS on crap terms and conditions which make them easily disposed of. The RMT might object. Who cares. Finally, roll out this model across the network, and award Horton a Knighthood for 'services to the railway'.

Next up, Drivers..

Some people think that the staff and their unions are living in the past. Yet, ironically, those same people also seem to think that this Victorian approach to the business of employing people is 'modern' and 'the future'. How naive some people are.

 

[Moonshot]

Firstly, because it would have looked bad and been unpopular with the public to have announced that all on train staff are being sacked. And secondly because it would have been mightily expensive to make the whole lot redundant in one go.

Give it a few years, demoralise and grind people down as much as possible. A good few will leave, some will retire (particularly the ex-BR ones who would be very pricey to pay off), a small minority may move to other useful roles within the company (get jobs as Drivers, etc). Agree favourable starting terms with Aslef, which then pave the way to make less and less effort to maintain the establishment of OBS, eventually running more and more trains without them until the Drivers accept it as normal and become disinterested, finally sealing the deal with a healthy pay rise at some point in the future. In the meantime, employ new-intake OBS on crap terms and conditions which make them easily disposed of. The RMT might object. Who cares. Finally, roll out this model across the network, and award Horton a Knighthood for 'services to the railway'.

Next up, Drivers..

Some people think that the staff and their unions are living in the past. Yet, ironically, those same people also seem to think that this Victorian approach to the business of employing people is 'modern' and 'the future'. How naive some people are.

What are the current terms and conditions for the OBS grade new starters?

 

[BestWestern]

What are the current terms and conditions for the OBS grade new starters?

I've no idea. There was a job add offering what looked to be broadly the same as the existing staff were getting. A poster talked of having applied, and then some time later came back to report zero progress, I seem to recall. It was considered likely that the job ad was merely part of GTR's then-tactics to intimidate staff.

It would be unwise of GTR to impliment any new contract whilst the dispute is actively ongoing, particularly the Aslef aspect, because it would merely underline the concerns of the RMT about the bleak future of the OBS grade, and furnish the unions with ammunition. Far more likely that such a move will be made further down the line. It will come though, there is no gain in continuing to pay new starters the former Guards' salary.

 

[Moonshot]

I've no idea. There was a job add offering what looked to be broadly the same as the existing staff were getting. A poster talked of having applied, and then some time later came back to report zero progress, I seem to recall. It was considered likely that the job ad was merely part of GTR's then-tactics to intimidate staff.

It would be unwise of GTR to impliment any new contract whilst the dispute is actively ongoing, particularly the Aslef aspect, because it would merely underline the concerns of the RMT about the bleak future of the OBS grade, and furnish the unions with ammunition. Far more likely that such a move will be made further down the line. It will come though, there is no gain in continuing to pay new starters the former Guards' salary.

ah right....so the way i have read that is that guards moving to the OBS grade would retain the T and Cs ( in terms of salary ) of their current role? Sorry if it seems I m asking something which may have been already answered....11000 plus posts is way too much to search through.

 

[lejog]

The government will be very careful to avoid any situation which makes disabled accessibility mandatory, and so makes OBS indispensible, because not only would that mess up the entire project, but would also mean staff would need to be reintroduced on every other DOO network by way of the same ruling. That simply will not happen.

The law is already carefully framed. One of the disability laws sets outs TOCs responsibilities to disabled passengers (forgive me if I forget which), but it is little more than they write a Policy document which follows guidelines set by the ORR/ATOC.

These guidelines include providing transport to the nearest accessible stations and assistance at accessible stations under the national Passenger Assist scheme, which requires 24hours notice.

There is little chance of a "test case" based on disabled people turning up without notice being successful, because Parliament have already legislated on the matter. Of course the DfT/GTR will know this.

On the other hand if a booking for assistance has been made, GTR will have to ensure there's someone to provide it.

 

[JamesTT]

Can I just remind some on here not all Conductors were converted to OBS so couldn't a limited number of redundancies have taken place. Instead of this Machiavellian scheme that is apparently happening?

 

[WatcherZero]

The swing in staff attitude from the vote 3 months ago to strike to oppose DOO to today is 41.5% where 95.6% of staff supported taking action to oppose DOO in the original ballot.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Whilst I have seen no formal reports on the issues of the disabled having issues on Southern in the last 24 hours there have been stories about a blind person boarding a Southern train, and after they were on board it was announced the train was no longer stopping at the station they required so they were going to be over-carried and have to navigate a station they didnt know to come back.

There have also been stories this evening of a disabled person having to change platforms 3 times due to cancellations and platform changes.

In addition to this there are regularly reports of disabled people being unable to board trains, with the same person having been unable to board on 3 occasions, and I think it was earlier this week that it was reported on Twitter that a member of Southern staff had been rude to a disabled passenger.

The issue is that a number of these disabled passengers were able to board without giving notice before the guards were got rid off.

It might be sensible that a train can run when a staff member is missing, but surely a better solution is that enough staff are employed to cover for absences etc. The reality is Southern is a profitable network that until this year more than covered all costs of operation. There is therefore no need to cut costs and staff as they can be afforded from current income.