railuserhudds
New Member
- Joined
- 16 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1
I've read a number of posts on here relating to guards and driver only operation and thought some of you might not be aware of a RMT piece from a while back. One of the guards quoted is Alex Holden who some of you may be aware has since died.
Just to add my view:
If train crews want a shorter working week then that's absolutely fine in my opinion. However, the problem is if they want a shorter working week for the same amount of pay and holidays and to still expect pay rises in future years. The operators then won't want to employ extra staff and it will lead to more cancellations, possibly of more managers acting as conductors and a greater risk of trains going over to DOO - something the unions don't want.
An 8.5% cut in working hours would under normal circumstances result in a 8.5% pay cut and the saved money could be used to bring in extra employees. In the current economic climate bringing in extra employees would be excellent and having more people in employment could see passenger numbers rise and further additional employees and larger pay rises. South West Trains offering shorter working hours without cutting pay but freezing pay for future years sounds like a very good alternative to a pay cut, but adding a lot of other extra conditions changes that.
I'm surprised at the comments about Northern not putting safety first. They have conductors on all services and the conductors sometimes complain about having to do things like opening doors from the back and having to wait until the train has cleared the platform before they can return to the cab or continue checking tickets. Although, not having a 'second conductor' on doubled up services without a through corridor connection effectively gives the impression to half the passengers that there is no conductor on board.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---RMT said:Train operating companies that have not yet conceded a 35-hour week should be given a year to comply, delegates agreed.
It was time for action to get 35 hours in place everywhere as a crucial step towards the goal of a 32-hour week, said conductor Steve O’Connor, Bletchley and Northampton.
Conditions must not be sacrificed for a shorter working week, delegates emphasised – not least when the ‘shorter week’ on offer was a longer
week in disguise.
Sue Elliot, Wimbledon, recalled the recent attempt by South West Trains to offer a ‘shorter’ week that would have cost a year’s pay rise, five days’
leave, booking-off time and special Sunday leave – and would have left staff working longer hours.
With the strong support of the union, that ‘offer’ had been rejected by a ten-to-one margin, noted Sue Tony Gulley, Bristol Rail was glad that the SWT offer had been beaten: “It’s restructuring through the back door,” he said. “We won’t achieve a shorter working week on a ‘cost-neutral’ basis, we need to fight for it as a right,” said driver Steve Scoffins, Leeds City.
The guard’s safety role must come before revenue duties, delegates agreed.
Northern Rail’s policy of allowing managers to place warnings for poor revenue
collection on individual guards’ records, despite accepting that revenue was secondary to safety, was condemned.
Conference urged the executive to ensure that no agreements were put in place that changed operational procedures to satisfy revenue demands.
“Northern are trying to get guards to ignore the rule book to maximise revenue, and we need to say no to any erosion of safety standards for commercial reasons,” said Alex Holden, Manchester Victoria.
“The pressure on conductors is to put revenue first, and if the companies aren’t prepared to put safety first, this union is,” said Craig Johnston, Carlisle
City.
New trains being ordered in the biggest procurement exercise for years must be configured to protect the guard’s operational safety role, said EC rep Alex
Gordon.
Staff travel should be negotiated back for all staff, delegates
agreed.
Staff travel was under attack from privateers for whom profit
always came first, and conference called for operators to be warned that the union would “use all means necessary” to secure it.
“This is about getting back to safeguarded passes for all, not the three-tier system we have at the moment” said Darren Ireland Liverpool 5.
“It is the staff who have kept the industry going, and it is an insult we don’t have passes, not just for all staff, but for our families as well,” said Steve
Skelly, Bridgend and Llantrisant.
Just to add my view:
If train crews want a shorter working week then that's absolutely fine in my opinion. However, the problem is if they want a shorter working week for the same amount of pay and holidays and to still expect pay rises in future years. The operators then won't want to employ extra staff and it will lead to more cancellations, possibly of more managers acting as conductors and a greater risk of trains going over to DOO - something the unions don't want.
An 8.5% cut in working hours would under normal circumstances result in a 8.5% pay cut and the saved money could be used to bring in extra employees. In the current economic climate bringing in extra employees would be excellent and having more people in employment could see passenger numbers rise and further additional employees and larger pay rises. South West Trains offering shorter working hours without cutting pay but freezing pay for future years sounds like a very good alternative to a pay cut, but adding a lot of other extra conditions changes that.
I'm surprised at the comments about Northern not putting safety first. They have conductors on all services and the conductors sometimes complain about having to do things like opening doors from the back and having to wait until the train has cleared the platform before they can return to the cab or continue checking tickets. Although, not having a 'second conductor' on doubled up services without a through corridor connection effectively gives the impression to half the passengers that there is no conductor on board.
Last edited: