Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[grumblingalong]

Dave, I don't. What I do is ask questions, or cite from safety reports. Also, unable to tell if the second sentence was sarcasm.

There's a distinct difference between the reports you read and the reality.

How you can have every guard and driver on here tell you something isn't a good idea and still believe yourself to be right is beyond me.

Come and do the job for a year you'll change your mind I promise you.

And no I'm not some useless, eternally employed union protected drone as you seem to be suggesting some of us are.

 

[Antman]

There's a distinct difference between the reports you read and the reality.

How you can have every guard and driver on here tell you something isn't a good idea and still believe yourself to be right is beyond me.

Come and do the job for a year you'll change your mind I promise you.

And no I'm not some useless, eternally employed union protected drone as you seem to be suggesting some of us are.

But doesn't every driver and guard that comes on here saying that have a vested interest, which is understandable? Somebody who is not directly involved is far more likely to offer an objective view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Drivers aren't allowed to leave the cab at Bat & Ball station. One driver was assaulted when he went to reset a passcom and taken to hospital about 3 years ago. Since then, if a passcom is pulled at Bat & Ball the driver must call control and wait for BTP to arrive before he can leave the cab to reset it.

Does that only apply at Bat & Ball?

 

[gtr driver]

There's a distinct difference between the reports you read and the reality.

How you can have every guard and driver on here tell you something isn't a good idea and still believe yourself to be right is beyond me.

Come and do the job for a year you'll change your mind I promise you.

And no I'm not some useless, eternally employed union protected drone as you seem to be suggesting some of us are.

Seconded.

I've read RAIB reports that don't really come to any conclusions because they are sometimes skating around the point that a second person dispatching could have prevented an incident. See West Wickham.

I've come from the outside world to drive and been shocked by the state of the mirrors and the effect of sunshine and shadow on the monitor pictures, and find it hard to believe I can be expected to faultlessly dispatch a 12 car train under such conditions.

And then we discover that the CEO of Southern is on the RSSB and we're really expected to believe it's an independent body?!

The reality of what DOO means now, let alone in the future, is not being talked about in the media, which aside for the odd exception, is repeating the government and company line without question. No one ever asks the people on the front line what these changes will mean to them. Perhaps because they won't give the desired answer, as their opinion is based on experience.

The unions are the only bodies who can give our side, and they are being scuppered by both government and company (though that effectively be one and the same at the moment). So we feel defenceless.

The union exists to represent its members. Since this usually involves trying to protect pay and perks this is going to appear inherently left wing as it's usually protection against the activities of government and share holders. However many of the members are indifferent about politics, floating voters, or even Conservatives. Many withdraw the political levy. Many don't even like the concept of the union. Many of them support the principle of DOO. But even they understand that DOO when applied universally without regard to the wildly differing conditions on different stations, different trains and different times of day, potentially increases the risk to the passengers well being and to their own livelihood and liberty.

We are not stupid. We know the public are inconvienced by industrial action. We don't want them to suffer. We also know they are deliberately misled as to the truth of our work and our concerns to place us in a permanently bad light. But we are sure that they would rather have the unions taking an active role in the industry if it increases their safety.

 

[grumblingalong]

But doesn't every driver and guard that comes on here saying that have a vested interest, which is understandable? Somebody who is not directly involved is far more likely to offer an objective view.

The real problem is those who write the reports are involved and are not objective.

I understand your point yes, but you wouldn't get us debating it with such passion, or indeed losing valuable income if it wasn't worth doing.

If something was safe, that allowed me to spend more time with the passengers and avoid the perils of a safety critical incident I'd go for it, but I will not ever accept a system that exposes the passengers I move safely every day to risk of harm.

The one point I think it worth remembering in this situation, forgetting risk of strike action, if there wasn't the financial gain in it for southern (eventually) would it be happening? No. Because two safety trained members of staff on every train will always be safer, two is always safer than one.

 

[gtr driver]

But doesn't every driver and guard that comes on here saying that have a vested interest, which is understandable? Somebody who is not directly involved is far more likely to offer an objective view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Does that only apply at Bat & Ball?

It's not much comfort if an objective RAIB and CPS decide I'm negligent even though it may only be a matter of chance if I see a PTI incident developing on monitor number 11 on a dark platform when I'm trying to ensure that the pushchair on monitor number 2 is clear before I close the doors. Of course we have a vested interest in our own culpability in such a situation! how can we not?

 

[bnm]

BTW aviation is my passion so I do know what I'm talking about.

Equally then, those of us with a passion for trains, but who don't actually drive or guard them, know what we are talking about.

 

[AlterEgo]

And no I'm not some useless, eternally employed union protected drone as you seem to be suggesting some of us are.

Where have I suggested that?

 

[Robertj21a]

Silly question, I accept, but can someone remind me why the strikes are still going ahead (I know I've lost the plot......)

 

[grumblingalong]

Where have I suggested that?

My apologies, my brain melded you with Mr Embers for some reason. It's been a long day.

 

[embers25]

We are not stupid. We know the public are inconvienced by industrial action. We don't want them to suffer. We also know they are deliberately misled as to the truth of our work and our concerns to place us in a permanently bad light. But we are sure that they would rather have the unions taking an active role in the industry if it increases their safety.

You don't want passengers to suffer then don't strike...simple. I am also pretty sure you'll find that a straw poll of most rail commuters don't think the unions increase safety at all. The RMT are not in this for safety at all and never have been. It's all about the bottom line....less guards...less members.....less subs...simple. To go on strike over a role they have signed a new contract on is striking for the sake of striking. The public have plenty of sympathy for rail staff but not rail unions. I see now the RMT and other unions are penetrating much more into buses too and sure enough the strikes are now appearing. Not satisfied with ruining the railway they now are going after the buses all for those extra subs....lucky passengers.

 

[Dave1987]

Dave, I don't. What I do is ask questions, or cite from safety reports. Also, unable to tell if the second sentence was sarcasm.

So you are disagreeing with people who actually do the job based on what you have read in RAIB reports. That's like me going on an aviation forum and saying I know better than a seasoned captain with 15,000 flight hours simply because I've watched Air Crash Investigation! My passion is aviation but I certainly don't go onto aviation forums to argue with pilots simply because I know a fair bit about flying. What you do is ask questions and then argue with drivers who don't give the responses that you have decided are appropriate, thereby making it sound as if you know better than someone who is a qualified driver.

 

[grumblingalong]

You don't want passengers to suffer then don't strike...simple. I am also pretty sure you'll find that a straw poll of most rail commuters don't think the unions increase safety at all. The RMT are not in this for safety at all and never have been. It's all about the bottom line....less guards...less members.....less subs...simple. To go on strike over a role they have signed a new contract on is striking for the sake of striking. The public have plenty of sympathy for rail staff but not rail unions. I see now the RMT and other unions are penetrating much more into buses too and sure enough the strikes are now appearing. Not satisfied with ruining the railway they now are going after the buses all for those extra subs....lucky passengers.

Do you actually have any opinions on the matter apart from unions=bad?

I wonder what made you have such a hate for the organisations.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you are disagreeing with people who actually do the job based on what you have read in RAIB reports. That's like me going on an aviation forum and saying I know better than a seasoned captain with 15,000 flight hours simply because I've watched Air Crash Investigation! My passion is aviation but I certainly don't go onto aviation forums to argue with pilots simply because I know a fair bit about flying. What you do is ask questions and then argue with drivers who don't give the responses that you have decided are appropriate, thereby making it sound as if you know better than someone who is a qualified driver.

No, can you show me where I've actually argued against the word of a driver please Dave? Like, told them they're wrong, just because I felt like it?

You are incapable of engaging in a proper debate, but I'm giving you a chance to prove your point.

What you don't like is lay people daring to ask questions and using referenced evidence that counteracts your own intuition. Well, I'm afraid train crew are getting a good kick up the arse, over and over again, by a clever government, who have you all totally surrounded.

I hate Tories and I like trains - and train crew. I'm more than a little tired of being told I know a) nothing or b) too much, and that somehow I don't like train crew, or am "pro DOO". It illustrates how little in the way of reasoned argument there is out there, from some posters here, and the RMT in general.

 

[thelem]

The OBS role will be no worse of than if they had rolled over at the start, in fact they have achieved a huge amount over what they were originally offered.

Have they? What are staff now being offered? Will they get the £2000 and guarantees of employment and overtime, or was the conditional on the RMT accepting Southern's offer?

 

[grumblingalong]

No, can you show me where I've actually argued against the word of a driver please Dave? Like, told them they're wrong, just because I felt like it?

You are incapable of engaging in a proper debate, but I'm giving you a chance to prove your point.

What you don't like is lay people daring to ask questions and using referenced evidence that counteracts your own intuition. Well, I'm afraid train crew are getting a good kick up the arse, over and over again, by a clever government, who have you all totally surrounded.

I hate Tories and I like trains - and train crew. I'm more than a little tired of being told I know a) nothing or b) too much, and that somehow I don't like train crew, or am "pro DOO". It illustrates how little in the way of reasoned argument there is out there, from some posters here, and the RMT in general.

There can be no debate if both sides don't give a little, it seems apparent to me that you have dug your heels in on your opinion and refuse to listen to alternatives.

That's what it seems, if this is going to be anything more than a nasty thread you're going to need to climb down from that horse of yours a little.

Not meant to be rude, that's just how I see your recent posts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have they? What are staff now being offered? Will they get the £2000 and guarantees of employment and overtime, or was the conditional on the RMT accepting Southern's offer?

The £2000 expired, not that I would have wanted to take it anyway. Not sure on the other points.

 

[gtr driver]

No, can you show me where I've actually argued against the word of a driver please Dave? Like, told them they're wrong, just because I felt like it?

You are incapable of engaging in a proper debate, but I'm giving you a chance to prove your point.

What you don't like is lay people daring to ask questions and using referenced evidence that counteracts your own intuition. Well, I'm afraid train crew are getting a good kick up the arse, over and over again, by a clever government, who have you all totally surrounded.

I hate Tories and I like trains - and train crew. I'm more than a little tired of being told I know a) nothing or b) too much, and that somehow I don't like train crew, or am "pro DOO". It illustrates how little in the way of reasoned argument there is out there, from some posters here, and the RMT in general.

Actually we are very happy for lay people to ask questions. Especially since there is widespread ignorance about every aspect of the railway, even within the railway itself. However if our answers are then doubted or dismissed because our experience doesn't comply with the reports or evidence you have seen, then what is the point in asking us, or us bothering to try to debate? I know what the stats say. That's not much comfort to the driver who ends up at the sharp end of an incident. Yet again I will say there are many drivers who are not opposed to the principle of DOO. They would just like their fears regarding its expansion (and indeed its current use) into account as it is them who will be taking the consequences of that expansion.

Maybe it's me misreading the tone of your responses, but you don't sound like someone who "likes train crew". You seem to be pleased about us "getting a kick up the arse" and "being totally surrounded".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You don't want passengers to suffer then don't strike...simple. I am also pretty sure you'll find that a straw poll of most rail commuters don't think the unions increase safety at all. The RMT are not in this for safety at all and never have been. It's all about the bottom line....less guards...less members.....less subs...simple. To go on strike over a role they have signed a new contract on is striking for the sake of striking. The public have plenty of sympathy for rail staff but not rail unions. I see now the RMT and other unions are penetrating much more into buses too and sure enough the strikes are now appearing. Not satisfied with ruining the railway they now are going after the buses all for those extra subs....lucky passengers.

Do you really need it spelled out?

Better pay, better perks, better security = more committed workforce, who have a stake in doing things well, more likely to take their role seriously - because believe me, if you don't, you could do a LOT of harm - and willing to stay for the long haul instead of the ten a penny poorly skilled poorly paid agency staff who are here today gone tomorrow because there is no incentive for them to do different.

Protected working hours such as the minimal 12 hours between shifts and breaks that have to be taken. Make no mistake, the operator would be happy for us to work longer hours, more intensively, with less breaks, then blame us when we nod off and pass a red signal, because in the long term it will cost them less. This protection didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be won, and it wouldn't be given to us out of good will.

Even just simple elements of the union's work that you will never know about play an overall part in safety. Something that might seem trivial - like an uneven or unlit walkway to a siding - by being properly lit and maintained might stop the driver slipping and breaking his leg on the way to the train in the dark early hours. Result is lots of cancelled trains - not helpful to passengers.

Yes, their first duty is to their members. But their actions make the railway a safer place for everyone as a result. Like it or not. If there were no unions the operators would be trying to get away with far more than they do now.

I'm faintly disturbed that there seems to be an implicit approval from so many that we should be happy to create a less skilled, less satisfied workforce as this directly affects those to whom they provide the service.

 

[Dave1987]

Have they? What are staff now being offered? Will they get the £2000 and guarantees of employment and overtime, or was the conditional on the RMT accepting Southern's offer?

Half the stuff in the latest deal wasn't in the original offer back all those months ago. They were all steadily added as the union pointed out how guards would be losing money (where do you think the overtime thing came from?), not having any bargaining rights for the future etc etc. In fact virtually all the extras weren't in the original deal including the current guarantee of the role until at least 2021. So actually the RMT's actions have resulted in a far improved offer. And in that way they did what they are supposed to do in getting the best deal possible for their members.

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe it's me misreading the tone of your responses, but you don't sound like someone who "likes train crew". You seem to be pleased about us "getting a kick up the arse" and "being totally surrounded".

I am ex railway staff and have a lot of friends who are still on the railway, some in the guard's grade. I don't want train crew to get smashed by the Tories, but I do wonder at the wisdom of those who elect the RMT's leaders. It has a serious image problem and no concept of how a modern Union might work, outside of just going on strike. The strike is destructive to both passengers and the RMT. I say that as a current trade unionist who attends every meeting at my workplace.

The public aren't interested in the safety aspect. They don't understand railway safety, and it is unrealistic to expect them to.

 

[gtr driver]

I am ex railway staff and have a lot of friends who are still on the railway, some in the guard's grade. I don't want train crew to get smashed by the Tories, but I do wonder at the wisdom of those who elect the RMT's leaders. It has a serious image problem and no concept of how a modern Union might work, outside of just going on strike. The strike is destructive to both passengers and the RMT. I say that as a current trade unionist who attends every meeting at my workplace.

The public aren't interested in the safety aspect. They don't understand railway safety, and it is unrealistic to expect them to.

They're concerned for THEIR safety. They just haven't been given the facts. When I tell lay people why we're worried they get it.

 

[Antman]

They're concerned for THEIR safety. They just haven't been given the facts. When I tell lay people why we're worried they get it.

These are the same sort of safety arguments put forward years ago about keeping conductors on buses.

 

[Phil.]

Silly question, I accept, but can someone remind me why the strikes are still going ahead (I know I've lost the plot......)

It's not just you that's lost the plot. The R.M.T. leadership have too. (Reluctantly) accept a deal but still have a three day strike. That's the way to gain public sympathy.

 

[FordFocus]

These are the same sort of safety arguments put forward years ago about keeping conductors on buses.

A road and a live railway with third rail is a bit of difference.

 

[Antman]

A road and a live railway with third rail is a bit of difference.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A road and a live railway with third rail is a bit of difference.

The principal is the same!

And how is the third rail relevant to this dispute?

 

[Dave1987]

These are the same sort of safety arguments put forward years ago about keeping conductors on buses.

So we bring flight attendants into the equation and get told that isn't relevant yet you bringing bus conductors is?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The principal is the same!

And how is the third rail relevant to this dispute?

Same as the principal of why are flight attendants necessary yet guards are considered expendable.

 

[Harbornite]

The principal is the same!

And how is the third rail relevant to this dispute?

Roads in urban areas tend to be safer to walk along at night than third rail railways because they don't have 750 volts within touching distance.

 

[Carlisle]

Protected working hours such as the minimal 12 hours between shifts and breaks that have to be taken. Make no mistake, the operator would be happy for us to work longer hours, more intensively, with less breaks, then blame us when we nod off and pass a red signal, because in the long term it will cost them less. This protection didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be won, .

Wasnt the minimum 12 hour break rule originally introduced mainly due to being part of the Hidden recommendations , whilst the unions have probably been instrumental in ensuring it's far better adhered to these days than it was in BR times

 

[the sniper]

From what I have read on this thread since inception, it seems a common trait of logic from those who do indeed see it as part of "The Struggle", unfortunately.

You've seen what you want to see...

My comments are valid to this thread as no one has yet convinced me with any authority that the RMT leadership are not using the series of disputes that they are involved with as anything but a politically motivated fight against the DfT, the Conservative government, rail privatisation, etc.

If Labour were pushing through DCO, the RMT and ASLEF (who you seem to ignore) resistance would be exactly the same. While you might be obsessed with the RMT leadership's ideology and Jeremy Corbyn, such things are irrelevant to the vast majority of RMT members that I know on the ground. Even after 400+ pages of people arguing for and against DCO, highlighting all the issues involved, you're still just pushing your silly, self indulgent interpretation of this dispute, trolling people you randomly perceive to be communists... :roll:

 

[embers25]

Actually we are very happy for lay people to ask questions. Especially since there is widespread ignorance about every aspect of the railway, even within the railway itself. However if our answers are then doubted or dismissed because our experience doesn't comply with the reports or evidence you have seen, then what is the point in asking us, or us bothering to try to debate? I know what the stats say. That's not much comfort to the driver who ends up at the sharp end of an incident. Yet again I will say there are many drivers who are not opposed to the principle of DOO. They would just like their fears regarding its expansion (and indeed its current use) into account as it is them who will be taking the consequences of that expansion.

Maybe it's me misreading the tone of your responses, but you don't sound like someone who "likes train crew". You seem to be pleased about us "getting a kick up the arse" and "being totally surrounded".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Do you really need it spelled out?

Better pay, better perks, better security = more committed workforce, who have a stake in doing things well, more likely to take their role seriously - because believe me, if you don't, you could do a LOT of harm - and willing to stay for the long haul instead of the ten a penny poorly skilled poorly paid agency staff who are here today gone tomorrow because there is no incentive for them to do different.

Protected working hours such as the minimal 12 hours between shifts and breaks that have to be taken. Make no mistake, the operator would be happy for us to work longer hours, more intensively, with less breaks, then blame us when we nod off and pass a red signal, because in the long term it will cost them less. This protection didn't come out of nowhere, it had to be won, and it wouldn't be given to us out of good will.

Even just simple elements of the union's work that you will never know about play an overall part in safety. Something that might seem trivial - like an uneven or unlit walkway to a siding - by being properly lit and maintained might stop the driver slipping and breaking his leg on the way to the train in the dark early hours. Result is lots of cancelled trains - not helpful to passengers.

Yes, their first duty is to their members. But their actions make the railway a safer place for everyone as a result. Like it or not. If there were no unions the operators would be trying to get away with far more than they do now.

I'm faintly disturbed that there seems to be an implicit approval from so many that we should be happy to create a less skilled, less satisfied workforce as this directly affects those to whom they provide the service.

There are NUMEROUS non-unionised workplaces (mine thank god is one) where we all take safety very seriously and when their bosses try to cut corners there are protections in place or workers forums to resolve issues. None of which require unions. No unions does not lead to a less skilled, less satisfied workforce.

Also thanks to constant scaremingering and lies most unionised workplaces (such as the railway) have low morale not high and crtainly not high levels of worker satisfaction. When your union keeps saying strike for better you all keep listening blindly and throwing your money away whilst inconveniencing poor passengers. Another poater asked why I hate unions. The GTR dispute highlights perfectly every reason to hate one.

 

[the sniper]

Also thanks to constant scaremingering and lies most unionised workplaces (such as the railway) have low morale not high and crtainly not high levels of worker satisfaction. When your union keeps saying strike for better you all keep listening blindly and throwing your money away whilst inconveniencing poor passengers. Another poater asked why I hate unions. The GTR dispute highlights perfectly every reason to hate one.

Yes, I'm sure ASLEF Train Drivers on £50k+ per year, in many locations having not seen a strike for over two decades, crying throughout their 36 hour 4 day week, hate their Union too for the reasons you mention...

 

[LowLevel]

Yet you point to the buses as being infiltrated and 'ruined' by the unions - in my experience since deregulation in particular bus drivers generally have pretty poor wages, working conditions, morale and rosters having had the lot forced down by the so called bus bandits in the 90s so it seems to me they're long overdue some improvement.