Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

tsr · 18 Aug 2017

Says the 1st and 4th September on the RMT website now.

That's the Friday and Monday either side of that weekend.

Given performance on Southern hasn't been that significantly impacted by the last couple of RMT strikes, I'm afraid I would say that any estimates of disruption would be purely speculative at best.

This is not to say I agree with the implementation of DOO, as most members will recall.

RailUK Forums

al78 · 18 Aug 2017

furnessvale said:
What you mean is stop subsidising HGVs to the tune of 70% of operating costs.

This subsidy is provided by the private motorist who, if asked, I am certain would prefer some of that subsidy to be diverted to railfreight giving the motorist a clearer run on the roads.

There seems to be an assertion in there that a primary cause of road congestion is HGV traffic. I would challenge such an assertion, and speculate that the primary cause of traffic congestion is people choosing jobs and homes a long distance apart, and where the only practical way to make the journey is by road, and by motorists driving dangerously, recklessly or like spatially incompetent prats and crashing into each other, resulting in obstruction of primary routes with corresponding tailbacks.

The private motorist may need to be reminded that HGV drivers are performing an essential service to society and the economy, without which society as we know it would collapse. On the other hand, private motoring incurs significant financial and social costs on society and the economy, so we'd all be better off if people decided to make lifestyle choices which allowed them to minimize the amount of driving they do.

Of course, the motoring right whingers who worship the car will never accept this attack on their precious world view.:roll:

coppercapped · 18 Aug 2017

al78 said:
There seems to be an assertion in there that a primary cause of road congestion is HGV traffic. I would challenge such an assertion, and speculate that the primary cause of traffic congestion is people choosing jobs and homes a long distance apart, and where the only practical way to make the journey is by road, and by motorists driving dangerously, recklessly or like spatially incompetent prats and crashing into each other, resulting in obstruction of primary routes with corresponding tailbacks.

The private motorist may need to be reminded that HGV drivers are performing an essential service to society and the economy, without which society as we know it would collapse. On the other hand, private motoring incurs significant financial and social costs on society and the economy, so we'd all be better off if people decided to make lifestyle choices which allowed them to minimize the amount of driving they do.

Of course, the motoring right whingers who worship the car will never accept this attack on their precious world view.:roll:

Few people make 'lifestyle choices' (whatever that means) so they can drive to work. The population of the UK has increased by 9 million people in the last 30 years, an increase of 16%. As town centres, being the dense areas best served by public transport, are in most cases already full, house building tends to be on the periphery of those towns and cities which offer employment.

By definition, 'lifestyle choices' or not, this means that the journey to work in the town or city centre will be longer. As many companies are sited in industrial estates on the edges, or what were the edges, of towns they cannot be linked economically with all the residential areas which serve them - suburb-to-suburb service by public transport is very difficult to arrange as the flows are, individually, not large.

This is not 'worshipping' the car - and such a phrase is a nonsense - it is a simple matter of geometry. 'We'd all be better off if we walked or cycled' seems to be the mantra. It doesn't work any more - towns and cities have got too big. And walking or cycling in the rain is no fun.

Robertj21a · 18 Aug 2017

baz962 said:
Not to mention the fact that although there are some idiot car drivers about the supposed pro's in hgv's are the worst driver's going

Do you have the statistics to prove that ?

gallafent · 18 Aug 2017

coppercapped said:
This is not 'worshipping' the car - and such a phrase is a nonsense - it is a simple matter of geometry.

and service provision! For example, a job which is 28km from my house by great circle is a 38km drive taking 42 minutes. The public transport alternative (bus - train - bus) takes 88 minutes. Pervasive multi-modal MaaS will change problems such as this for the better, but it isn't here yet.

Both my house and the job are in densely populated south-east England, incidentally, which clearly should have the best chance of viable public transport systems given its high population density leading to economies of scale in provision but there are just limits to what fixed-route fixed-mode infrastructure can provide, and very often the car wins hands-down, not only on timing and convenience, but also on cost (even when only one person is in the car). It's unfortunate, but there it is.

XDM · 19 Aug 2017

The massive 24% pay rise on offer to all Southern drivers is not only for accepting the new DOO. It slightly extends to nine & a half hours the daily duty time on a very small number of turns. I think affecting only 5 early morning starts at Selhurst. But the total hours worked per week is not increased, so the extra hours on those tiny number of daily duties will be balanced by a similar reduction on the rest of the week's turns. It is not onerous.

Southern Dvr · 22 Aug 2017

XDM said:
The massive 24% pay rise on offer to all Southern drivers is not only for accepting the new DOO. It slightly extends to nine & a half hours the daily duty time on a very small number of turns. I think affecting only 5 early morning starts at Selhurst. But the total hours worked per week is not increased, so the extra hours on those tiny number of daily duties will be balanced by a similar reduction on the rest of the week's turns. It is not onerous.

No. It was supposed to be on 5 turns across the network, not just Selhurst. Furthermore there is no trust in this company, so what starts at 5 will just become 10, then 20, then everything that starts before 5am will be at 9.5 hours. The lack of trust here goes back to when the agreement was first made and we said they would just amend turns to book on at 0501 and 0502 and make those 9.5 hours, and can you guess what they did?

There was an acceptance of full DOO, there was the 5am rule as discussed above and then there was 'a full co-operation of all future new timetables' now this last point being particularly vague. Take from it what you will but the membership is inclined to believe that this means the unions would not be able to scrutinise or suggest amendments to rosters or diagrams.

Put simply, that pay offer of 24% was simply not worth the conditions that came with it, because this company cannot be trusted not to abuse them.

Robertj21a · 22 Aug 2017

Southern Dvr said:
No. It was supposed to be on 5 turns across the network, not just Selhurst. Furthermore there is no trust in this company, so what starts at 5 will just become 10, then 20, then everything that starts before 5am will be at 9.5 hours. The lack of trust here goes back to when the agreement was first made and we said they would just amend turns to book on at 0501 and 0502 and make those 9.5 hours, and can you guess what they did?

There was an acceptance of full DOO, there was the 5am rule as discussed above and then there was 'a full co-operation of all future new timetables' now this last point being particularly vague. Take from it what you will but the membership is inclined to believe that this means the unions would not be able to scrutinise or suggest amendments to rosters or diagrams.

Put simply, that pay offer of 24% was simply not worth the conditions that came with it, because this company cannot be trusted not to abuse them.

As I, and others, have said before, I can see this still being an unresolved issue in another 12 months or so. You never know, it might not get resolved until the next franchise !

XDM · 22 Aug 2017

Southern Dvr said:
No. It was supposed to be on 5 turns across the network, not just Selhurst. Furthermore there is no trust in this company, so what starts at 5 will just become 10, then 20, then everything that starts before 5am will be at 9.5 hours. The lack of trust here goes back to when the agreement was first made and we said they would just amend turns to book on at 0501 and 0502 and make those 9.5 hours, and can you guess what they did?

There was an acceptance of full DOO, there was the 5am rule as discussed above and then there was 'a full co-operation of all future new timetables' now this last point being particularly vague. Take from it what you will but the membership is inclined to believe that this means the unions would not be able to scrutinise or suggest amendments to rosters or diagrams.

Put simply, that pay offer of 24% was simply not worth the conditions that came with it, because this company cannot be trusted not to abuse them.

Southern DRV( & others), you are worrying unduly.
It seems many moons ago, but remember Southern & ASLEF's' 2016 legal tussle which was based on the interpretation of earlier agreements.
So this time both ASLEF & Southern will have lawyers crawling over every word. So if it says, as it does, that only 5 turns before 5 am can be 9.5 hours it is not a matter of trusting the company, it will be a legally binding agreement & Southern cannot extend it to 6 turns & then 10 as you fear. I know it's important to you. I still occasionally do very early starts but a max of 9.5 hours will not affect your next day, even if you live miles from your signing on point. It is only 9.5 hours & it goes very quickly with an early start!
And the same argument applies to roster changes from new timetables. Southern cannot breach the agreements, once lawyered. ASLEF lawyers will win if they challenge company attempted breaches in court.

redbutton · 23 Aug 2017

Southern Dvr said:
Put simply, that pay offer of 24% was simply not worth the conditions that came with it, because this company cannot be trusted not to abuse them.

And even if you take the current regime at their word that they have no intention to abuse the agreement, that doesn't mean 1. that they won't change their minds in future, 2. that the DfT won't force them to, or 3. that a future regime (after a franchise change, perhaps) won't abuse it.

Such vague and ambiguous language has no place in a contractual document.

LowLevel · 23 Aug 2017

redbutton said:
And even if you take the current regime at their word that they have no intention to abuse the agreement, that doesn't mean 1. that they won't change their minds in future, 2. that the DfT won't force them to, or 3. that a future regime (after a franchise change, perhaps) won't abuse it.

Such vague and ambiguous language has no place in a contractual document.

Seen that happen - I know of a grade of guards that was restructured with more restrictive T and Cs on things like leave, but the gentleman's agreement with the TOC was that for important occasions they'd do their level best to sort people out, which worked well for a few years.

Franchise change comes up - new guys say 'no, this is the letter of the agreement, we are sticking to it - declined'.

redbutton · 24 Aug 2017

LowLevel said:
Seen that happen - I know of a grade of guards that was restructured with more restrictive T and Cs on things like leave, but the gentleman's agreement with the TOC was that for important occasions they'd do their level best to sort people out, which worked well for a few years.

Franchise change comes up - new guys say 'no, this is the letter of the agreement, we are sticking to it - declined'.

Exactly. Handshake agreements only live as long as the two parties to the handshake.

Andrew32 · 30 Aug 2017

The RMT have just put out a statement asking for Chris Grayling to reveal details of an agreement reached between GTR and ASLEF which he has reportedly agreed to.

Anyone know if reports of an agreement are true?

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-calls-for-details-on-aslef-deal-with-southern/

Moonshot · 30 Aug 2017

Andrew32 said:
The RMT have just put out a statement asking for Chris Grayling to reveal details of an agreement reached between GTR and ASLEF which he has reportedly agreed to.

Anyone know if reports of an agreement are true?

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-calls-for-details-on-aslef-deal-with-southern/

Interesting news if its correct.....would drive a wedge between RMT and ASLEF

physics34 · 30 Aug 2017

Moonshot said:
Interesting news if its correct.....would drive a wedge between RMT and ASLEF

unfortunately this was always gonna happen. The RMT will always be losers in this (as will the passengers).

WatcherZero · 30 Aug 2017

Both Aslef and Government denying RMT claim a deal has been agreed.

XDM · 30 Aug 2017

physics34 said:
unfortunately this was always gonna happen. The RMT will always be losers in this (as will the passengers).

Correct, the RMT will be the losers if there is an agreement, but everyon else will be winners. If an OBS does not turn up the trains will still be able to run. Up to a thousand passengers, including women with babies & old folk, will not have an extended wait on often draughty, wet platforms. Drivers will also be winners, their train won't have to be cancelled & they will be out driving, not having to sit in the mess room listening to the mess room bore. And drivers will get their well deserved 24 % pay rise.

Southern Dvr · 30 Aug 2017

Any deal or 'agreement' would have to be put to the ASLEF membership so until its put to them it cannot really be anything but heresay.

JamesTT · 30 Aug 2017

RMT's intrasigent position has been their downfall in my opinion. They could have got round the table with GTR and ASLEF to discuss a way forward before this dispute even started.
Sorry but you can't guarantee a job for life in this day. Please don't say about joining the race to the bottom. A £30k a year job guaranteed till 2021/2022 is hardly racing to the bottom.

Chrisgr31 · 31 Aug 2017

JamesTT said:
RMT's intrasigent position has been their downfall in my opinion. They could have got round the table with GTR and ASLEF to discuss a way forward before this dispute even started.
Sorry but you can't guarantee a job for life in this day. Please don't say about joining the race to the bottom. A £30k a year job guaranteed till 2021/2022 is hardly racing to the bottom.

We know from Peter Wilkinsons infamous comments in Croydon that its unlikely a different approach by the RMT would have changed the viewpoint at the DfT as they are determined to move to DOO operation.

However I do agree that a different approach by the RMT may have lead to more support from the passengers. Of course had they shown more patience at the start of the dispute they should have waited for ASLEF to get all their ducks in a row as the combined strikes were effective.

Its also possibly worth considering what impact the dispute has had on the franchises being tendered during the dispute. If the DfT want DOO in them presumably the bidders have had to add huge budgets for industrial disputes

physics34 · 1 Sep 2017

JamesTT said:
RMT's intrasigent position has been their downfall in my opinion. They could have got round the table with GTR and ASLEF to discuss a way forward before this dispute even started.
Sorry but you can't guarantee a job for life in this day. Please don't say about joining the race to the bottom. A £30k a year job guaranteed till 2021/2022 is hardly racing to the bottom.

you could say its a career, not just a job.......so you would hope for longer term security.

physics34 · 1 Sep 2017

XDM said:
Correct, the RMT will be the losers if there is an agreement, but everyon else will be winners. If an OBS does not turn up the trains will still be able to run. Up to a thousand passengers, including women with babies & old folk, will not have an extended wait on often draughty, wet platforms. Drivers will also be winners, their train won't have to be cancelled & they will be out driving, not having to sit in the mess room listening to the mess room bore. And drivers will get their well deserved 24 % pay rise.

ha ha joker....

with a fully rostered allocation of guards and conductors the trains would all run anyway....

do you remember pre this franchise, hundreds of trains being cancelled due to no conductor.???..no me neither....infact in connex days, many MORE trains ran on time and not cancelled than now so your argument is flawed...

..and besides, how many passengers have been assisted by guards and conductors over the years? ...... how many will be helped without a guard or OBS??? ZERO, ZILCH, NON, NONE.........

physics34 · 1 Sep 2017

Southern Dvr said:
Any deal or 'agreement' would have to be put to the ASLEF membership so until its put to them it cannot really be anything but heresay.

i reckon a deal is "close" and the RMT has just jumped the gun a bit.

I wonder what the relationship between the RMT and ASLEF is on a non formal level? Do the reps talk? Do Mick Cash and Mike Whelan ever have a chinwag over a pint?

Moonshot · 1 Sep 2017

physics34 said:
i reckon a deal is "close" and the RMT has just jumped the gun a bit.

I wonder what the relationship between the RMT and ASLEF is on a non formal level? Do the reps talk? Do Mick Cash and Mike Whelan ever have a chinwag over a pint?

I doubt it .......what I would say however is that at local level the relationship between Aslef and RMT members is very good at my depot.

tbtc · 3 Sep 2017

jcollins said:
If they plan to make Valley Lines light rail and Sheffield Supertram style operation (two members of staff on all services but with driver doing the door duties) I imagine most passengers wouldn't have any objection with the proposed on board staffing levels.

The Supertram model seems to work absolutely fine, I've never had any problems with it.

All services run with two members of staff, but the second member of staff is free to spend all of his/her time attending to passengers.

Given the frequent stopping nature of Valley Lines services, if the second member of staff always has to ensure that they are at the appropriate door in plenty of time to be able to press the buttons to open the doors, and stay by the doors to press buttons then that leaves very little time to get through the train to actually deal with passengers.

That then leads to ticketless passengers, to anti-social behaviour, to passengers feeling unsafe (because they may not see the Guard in their carriage during the journey).

I can understand why people want to protect their jobs/ wages/ conditions, but the Supertram model seems to be okay for the Valley Lines as far as I can see. No system will be perfectly safe, there are thousands of shades of grey, but the frequent stop/start nature of the Valley Lines means that they are probably more suited for a Supertram-style solution than most heavy rail lines IMHO.

pemma · 3 Sep 2017

tbtc said:
The Supertram model seems to work absolutely fine, I've never had any problems with it.

All services run with two members of staff, but the second member of staff is free to spend all of his/her time attending to passengers.

From my personal experience of using the system the conductors on Supertram are much better at remembering who they have sold tickets to/inspected the ticket of than guards on trains. Probably being able to concentrate more on revenue helps in that respect.

Spankthemonkey · 3 Sep 2017

jcollins said:
From my personal experience of using the system the conductors on Supertram are much better at remembering who they have sold tickets to/inspected the ticket of than guards on trains. Probably being able to concentrate more on revenue helps in that respect.

SWT have guarenteed a second person on every train, though whether that is part of DCO or not i am unsure. GA have said there will be no extension of DOO. Wales should be guarenteeing the same. Fact is passengers want a 2nd person on the train. It is essential. In my experience, the vally lines are a tough gig for a guard, but that is exactly why we need them, for the safety and welfare of the passenger. Whether that is doing the doors or not depends on rolling stock i guess. Can staff be considered safety critical without doing the doors (ie essential to keep public order or evacuate etc)?

yorkie · 3 Sep 2017

Spankthemonkey said:
Can staff be considered safety critical without doing the doors (ie essential to keep public order or evacuate etc)?

I believe that is the case on HS1, which is driver only operated but I believe there must be a second person (an OBM in this case) for safety reasons. This is all covered in previous threads (a Google search will probably find it)

Bletchleyite · 3 Sep 2017

yorkie said:
I believe that is the case on HS1, which is driver only operated but I believe there must be a second person (an OBM in this case) for safety reasons. This is all covered in previous threads (a Google search will probably find it)

That might be a good option on this kind of service - indeed, potentially on near enough all short-train, frequent-stops rural services. You have the benefit of someone to help the passengers who MUST be there or the train doesn't run, you have the benefit of a second safety-trained person in the event of a level crossing accident or in the event of needing to protect the train on an AB line, and you have the benefit of faster dispatch and the guard being able to spend all their time on passenger assistance/revenue. And if we're talking short DMUs there's plenty of room for a suitably large image of each coach on a monitor in the cab.

That applies to most ATW services. It would similarly work quite well on Northern in places.

OTOH, I expect the Union still won't approve, as it would require them to accept that driver door operation is safe enough, which may have later staffing implications. Their argument is primarily around the position that driver door operation is not safe.

While this approach doesn't save the cost of the second member of staff, it would quite probably reduce lost revenue.

daikilo · 3 Sep 2017

Bletchleyite said:
I expect the Union still won't approve, as it would require them to accept that driver door operation is safe enough, which may have later staffing implications. Their argument is primarily around the position that driver door operation is not safe.

ASLEF seems OK with drivers closing doors and deciding when to start ...

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member