Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Shaw S Hunter]

For the Northern staff on here supporting the RMT. You may have been on higher wages now if the RMT had not been so stupid during the last Arriva franchise.

And what did Arriva have to do with North West Trains/First North Western? You may remember Serco/Abellio's unsuccessful efforts to achieve harmonisation of traincrew T&Cs by reducing everyone to the worst combination of those which existed in the two previously separate franchises with minimal compensation. Traincrew west of the Pennines (ie who never worked for Arriva) overwhelmingly rejected them. You would do well to remember that there is a lot more to Northern than just Yorkshire, regardless of the attitude sometimes shown by Northern's head office staff.

 

[Deepgreen]

ASLEF didn't leap into industrial action mode, they refused to drive the 12-car DOO(P) Gatwick Express trains as they thought they'd agreed that they'd only run DOO(P) as maximum 8-car.

GTR took legal action and got an injunction out against them, forcing them to drive the trains. GTR's initial attempt to roster an inexperienced driver on the first scheduled 12-car run, with the intention of bullying them into taking the train, didn't work. And an interesting read the judgment was too. There was some very, er, interesting logic in the judgment. Including discounting some of the drivers at Redhill from the ballot because GTR said they wouldn't be asked to drive GatEx, even though historically they had...

That'd explain why it has gone quiet there, and why VTEC are trying to cut staff numbers a different way by making the guard also undertake the role of crew leader.

Exactly - "thought they'd agreed " is just not good enough, and I would expect my union to be on top of these things.

 

[infobleep]

Well why get rid of it, this being bus conductors, if it was so popular and not a bad thing?

Like getting rid of on board staff on Gatwick Express and then some years later deciding let's have them.

No doubt they will then get rid of then again soon enough before perhaps deciding they want them again.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clearly unions require staff to exist. However, the point has been made on this thread that the public appears largely to be on the side of the staff, but that the RMT's campaign has been woeful and has let the members (staff) down. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to 'bash' the union for its poor performance, while supporting the staff.

I agree here and I support the strike.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[sarahj]

A lot of railways have local agreements on things that often get agreed to during pay discussions. Down here they are called either DRI's or CRI's. They often cover things like breaks, rostering and other everyday stuff. The driver 12 car non DOO was in a local agreement. Alas, it was found that many of these are years old and full of terms like, 'where possible' and 'if needed', and suchlike. ASLEF's disagreement was over one of these. The court case in essence said, 'not worth the paper it's printed on due to these terms'. During the last discussions on conductor pay last November, a local agreement was made on bringing conductor numbers up. What a deal that was!!!!

 

[Carlisle]

The likelyhood of ASLEF HST and Wessex drivers accepting DOO self dispatch via CCTV on trains over 1/4km long in a segregated cab (so no drop down window and looking back to double check like turbos) on highly curved, short and platforms where cabs won't even be platformed, regardless of what the RMT say or do, is zero.

So your saying a proven and adequate method used for 10 years to dispatch the similar javelin fleet is totally unsuitable for the IEPs

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, I've realised that now, it was a piece of news I missed. Although what I said is still true, as now none of the expensive white elephant NB4Ls now run with an open platform, which was the whole point of blowing all that money on them in the first place.

Interesting, of course, how people lose their jobs to pay for the mistakes that management make. The NB4L was a waste of money but the TfL management responsible for the omnishambles still have their six figure salaries and six figure bonuses, and the less said about our Foreign Secretary the better.

I'm sure there's a relevance to the current thread somewhere. Connex Charlie couldn't run a hot bath and it's his staff, not him, who lose their jobs to pay for it.

I totally agree about the NRM being a complete waste of money. However, don't blame TfL management. It was a mayoral policy and indeed what he was elected on. TfL has a legal duty to implement the mayor's policies. You should actually commend TfL management for being able to steer the mayor away from an RM lookalike which could not be operated with only a driver. What we have now is an expensive, very ugly bus, but at least it is still fit for purpose.

And your assertion that the TfL managers who implemented the project ares till around is incorrect. Apart from Peter Hendy and David Brown, who both got out earlier, they've all gone in the latest round of job cuts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well why get rid of it, this being bus conductors, if it was so popular and not a bad thing?

Because unlike the railways, there is little political support in providing vast amounts of funding for bus services. The choice is simple. Get rid of "conductors", raise fares or cut back services.

 

[infobleep]

I totally agree about the NRM being a complete waste of money. However, don't blame TfL management. It was a mayoral policy and indeed what he was elected on. TfL has a legal duty to implement the mayor's policies. You should actually commend TfL management for being able to steer the mayor away from an RM lookalike which could not be operated with only a driver. What we have now is an expensive, very ugly bus, but at least it is still fit for purpose.

And your assertion that the TfL managers who implemented the project ares till around is incorrect. Apart from Peter Hendy and David Brown, who both got out earlier, they've all gone in the latest round of job cuts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Because unlike the railways, there is little political support in providing vast amounts of funding for bus services. The choice is simple. Get rid of "conductors", raise fares or cut back services.

Yet the people didn't mind the money being spent the first time round. Guess they didn't understand the costs or care.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[Chrisgr31]

DOO is more than about who closes the Goddamn doors though. Yes, a driver closing the doors using CCTV is "safe enough" and, yes, guards will occasionally make mistakes too. But DOO is about more than the doors, it is about having a second person on board who is safety trained and can deal with things when they go wrong.

First Capital Connect were convicted of Health and Safety law breaches at Kentish Town, and their safety failures were directly related to the fact that there was one member of safety staff on a broken down 12-carriage train and that one member of staff couldn't cope by himself.

The problem, of course, is that FCC's "punishment" for their criminal behaviour was a measly £75,000. No managers were punished in the criminal courts and no managers lost their jobs or their bonuses. £75,000 is pocket money for a TOC. So where is the incentive to do the job properly? It's cheaper to run an unsafe service- nothing has changed since this incident- and pay the fines.

Interesting, didnt know this.

Its no surprise the negotiations broke down today. Southern say they plan to have a 2nd member of staff on every train that currently has but wants ability to run them without the 2nd member.

RMT want it guaranteed but Southern won't. Southern wont because they dont plan to have the 2nd member of staff in disruption if they get held up elsewhere.

Presumably the RMT suspect there will be times when the 2nd member of staff isnt even rostered on the train. So maybe the RMT should be pushing for the 2nd member of staff to be rostered and it only runs without them if they have become unavailable during their shift.

The RMT also should have been seeking a guarantee about the 2nd member of staff on the longer trains.

Its also odd because the OBS roll is meant to be to enhance customer experience, you need that customer experience more in times of disruption!

 

[Dave1987]

So your saying a proven and adequate method used for 10 years to dispatch the similar javelin fleet is totally unsuitable for the IEPs

If it's not in their contacts they don't have to accept it.

 

[Carlisle]

If it's not in their contacts they don't have to accept it.

Ok but times change and workers need to move too i currently work alongside folk that face actual redundancy rather than the Southern restructuring, so what's your answer to them ?

 

[Mintona]

Can confirm there is nothing at all about DOO(P) in GWR HSS or West driver's contracts.

 

[the sniper]

Ok but times change and workers need to move too i currently work alongside folk that face actual redundancy rather than the Southern restructuring, so what's your answer to them ?

Sorry to hear that, but how is that relevant to a Driver's T&C, the railway, ASLEF or this thread? What answer are you looking for Dave to provide and why?

 

[Antman]

Sorry to hear that, but how is that relevant to a Driver's T&C, the railway, ASLEF or this thread? What answer are you looking for Dave to provide and why?

The point obviously is that times change with the onset of technology, it does sometimes seem that the railway industry is trapped in some sort of time warp.

 

[Don King]

So your saying a proven and adequate method used for 10 years to dispatch the similar javelin fleet is totally unsuitable for the IEPs

Yes. DOO CCTV dispatch is inherently unsafe on all traction. It is the worst possible form of dispatch possible. No communication with the passengers on the platform so no mechanism to tell late runners to stand clear or to deal with drunks leaning against trains short of shutting the cab down and getting into a row with them then returning to the cab to find they are doing it again, no field of vision to see the wider platform, time lapses, affected by sunlight / snow / fog / rain, passengers carrying umbrellas distort the field of vision (yes seriously), blind spots and so on. It is interesting that the bulk of RAIB investigations into DOO dispatch incidents are with CCTV self dispatch.

The IEP is much longer than the 395 and the cab isn't even like a unit where the driver can lean out of the window and look back if he is unsure - it is very much like a segregated HST cab.

Not to mention the Great Western infrastructure is filled with severley curved platforms (Bodmin, Bath), massively short platforms, stations where the cab has to be driven off the platform for the passenger doors to fit on (so even more difficult for the driver to deal with drunks and miscreants on the platform), signal sighting is not set up for DOO self dispatch and so on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The point obviously is that times change with the onset of technology, it does sometimes seem that the railway industry is trapped in some sort of time warp.

Technology replacing guards would automate the dispatch process - e.g. platform edge doors for starters. Not hand all the duties (and legal liablity) to the driver. And that's without all the other stuff a guard does.

There is no technological change whatsoever. Instead it is overload the driver with pointless crap which acts as a massive distraction, whilst putting the guard on the dole.

Indeed there have been spads because the driver is concentrating on dispatch with idiot behaviour on the platform, or being abused by passengers and didn't bother checking the signal. Given that TOCs are strict about mobile phones / mp3 players and so on - and people in the cab no less - rightly might I add because they cause a massive distraction, it seems absolutely insane that despite this strictness, that they make drivers deal with people who will distract them - be it people complaining about delays or bothering drivers with questions at platforms (usually because there is no one else to ask - can't blame the passengers for this), vulnerable people who need extra care and attention, or idiots acting recklessly or criminally.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to hear that, but how is that relevant to a Driver's T&C, the railway, ASLEF or this thread? What answer are you looking for Dave to provide and why?

It appears he wants drivers to enthusiastically support DOO, increase their own workload, liablity, risk of incidents and assaults, and and put their own friends and colleagues on the dole.

 

[philthetube]

Yes. DOO CCTV dispatch is inherently unsafe on all traction. It is the worst possible form of dispatch possible. No communication with the passengers on the platform so no mechanism to tell late runners to stand clear or to deal with drunks leaning against trains short of shutting the cab down and getting into a row with them then returning to the cab to find they are doing it again, no field of vision to see the wider platform, time lapses, affected by sunlight / snow / fog / rain, passengers carrying umbrellas distort the field of vision (yes seriously), blind spots and so on. It is interesting that the bulk of RAIB investigations into DOO dispatch incidents are with CCTV self dispatch.

The IEP is much longer than the 395 and the cab isn't even like a unit where the driver can lean out of the window and look back if he is unsure - it is very much like a segregated HST cab.

Not to mention the Great Western infrastructure is filled with severley curved platforms (Bodmin, Bath), massively short platforms, stations where the cab has to be driven off the platform for the passenger doors to fit on (so even more difficult for the driver to deal with drunks and miscreants on the platform), signal sighting is not set up for DOO self dispatch and so on.

I would have thought that if drivers did their jobs correctly, not departing when vision is obscured, drunks leaning on trains etc, calling for assistance whenever needed, if a station is unstaffed it does not become a drivers job to deal with drunks or other idiots, mentally ill people etc, if the assistance has to come from afar then so be it, then DOO would not work because of delays.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You get boring, very very quick you obviously can't have much else going for you!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a direct response, which is about as off topic as the posting you have made above, I respond as follows:-
"When you have the things that I have, such as a loving wife of some 75 years of age with a happy marriage of 41 years, children now in middle age who are well set up and wonderful grandchildren, what else do I need "to be going for me"

Incidentally, you should have used the word "quickly" rather than "quick" in your posting, but the correct use of grammar is another thing "to be going for me" to borrow your very own phrase.

 

[Don King]

And what did Arriva have to do with North West Trains/First North Western? You may remember Serco/Abellio's unsuccessful efforts to achieve harmonisation of traincrew T&Cs by reducing everyone to the worst combination of those which existed in the two previously separate franchises with minimal compensation. Traincrew west of the Pennines (ie who never worked for Arriva) overwhelmingly rejected them. You would do well to remember that there is a lot more to Northern than just Yorkshire, regardless of the attitude sometimes shown by Northern's head office staff.

I would have thought that if drivers did their jobs correctly, not departing when vision is obscured, drunks leaning on trains etc, calling for assistance whenever needed, if a station is unstaffed it does not become a drivers job to deal with drunks or other idiots, mentally ill people etc, if the assistance has to come from afar then so be it, then DOO would not work because of delays.

Ahh yes blame the driver for incompetency rather than an unsafe cost cutting system. If only everyone did their jobs correctly 100% of the time no matter the circumstances eh?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting, didnt know this.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...800-passengers-are-left-stranded-8819715.html

The RAIB report made chilling reading.

Its no surprise the negotiations broke down today. Southern say they plan to have a 2nd member of staff on every train that currently has but wants ability to run them without the 2nd member.

RMT want it guaranteed but Southern won't. Southern wont because they dont plan to have the 2nd member of staff in disruption if they get held up elsewhere.

If GTR were genuine in their position they would have no problem whatsoever with having a similar agreement to the Ticket Examiner role on Strathclyde. The fact that they are not prepared to agree to that sort of agreement logically leads us to the conclusion that they have no interest in the longevity of the OBS role.

The business case for the OBS role doesn't make sense if you have the same number of staff earning the same money running the same number of trains. It only makes sense if you sack them or reduce their wages. Therefore we must assume that that is the goal of the process, which is why GTR will not agree to a Strathclyde-style agreement.

I think it is clear that GTR have no intention of keeping the OBS role in the medium or long term.

The driver 12 car non DOO was in a local agreement. Alas, it was found that many of these are years old and full of terms like, 'where possible' and 'if needed', and suchlike. ASLEF's disagreement was over one of these. The court case in essence said, 'not worth the paper it's printed on due to these terms'.

Pretty much spot on there.

ASLEF made an agreement in good faith, and in turned out in court that the agreement was leakier than the Titanic because of all the caveats, caveats that ASLEF agreed to to try and help the operation of the business.

There is a lesson to be learned for ASLEF here, to be sure, which is don't agree to caveats to help someone out in disruption, because they'll use it to force you to do it all the time.

The RMT have certainly understood this lesson loud and clear, which is why they're not prepared to accept Connex Charlie's mealy-mouthed assurances at face value. The man clearly and obviously cannot be trusted, as ASLEF learned the expensive way.

 

[HH]

If GTR were genuine in their position they would have no problem whatsoever with having a similar agreement to the Ticket Examiner role on Strathclyde. The fact that they are not prepared to agree to that sort of agreement logically leads us to the conclusion that they have no interest in the longevity of the OBS role.

The business case for the OBS role doesn't make sense if you have the same number of staff earning the same money running the same number of trains. It only makes sense if you sack them or reduce their wages. Therefore we must assume that that is the goal of the process, which is why GTR will not agree to a Strathclyde-style agreement.

I think it is clear that GTR have no intention of keeping the OBS role in the medium or long term.

My guess is that they will keep the role, but that they'll reduce numbers; because if your goal is to use them for efficient revenue collection/protection, then you don't need a guard for the whole length of every journey; that will allow you to get more trips in per diagram, which allows you to cut numbers.

This is on top of the savings they will get from reducing the spare cover. I don't know what it currently is, but elsewhere I've seen it shown as going from 35% to 20%, which is equivalent to saving around 70 guards out of 500.

 

[Antman]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...800-passengers-are-left-stranded-8819715.html

The RAIB report made chilling reading.



If GTR were genuine in their position they would have no problem whatsoever with having a similar agreement to the Ticket Examiner role on Strathclyde. The fact that they are not prepared to agree to that sort of agreement logically leads us to the conclusion that they have no interest in the longevity of the OBS role.

The business case for the OBS role doesn't make sense if you have the same number of staff earning the same money running the same number of trains. It only makes sense if you sack them or reduce their wages. Therefore we must assume that that is the goal of the process, which is why GTR will not agree to a Strathclyde-style agreement.

I think it is clear that GTR have no intention of keeping the OBS role in the medium or long term.



Pretty much spot on there.

ASLEF made an agreement in good faith, and in turned out in court that the agreement was leakier than the Titanic because of all the caveats, caveats that ASLEF agreed to to try and help the operation of the business.

There is a lesson to be learned for ASLEF here, to be sure, which is don't agree to caveats to help someone out in disruption, because they'll use it to force you to do it all the time.

The RMT have certainly understood this lesson loud and clear, which is why they're not prepared to accept Connex Charlie's mealy-mouthed assurances at face value. The man clearly and obviously cannot be trusted, as ASLEF learned the expensive way.

Surely the 'business case' is that the OBS will be able to able to deal with passengers without having to go off and do the doors and should the OBS not be available then the train doesn't get cancelled, isn't it?

 

[Carlisle]

It appears he wants drivers to enthusiastically support DOO, increase their own workload, liablity, risk of incidents and assaults, and and put their own friends and colleagues on the dole.

Jobs may change but can you show evidence other than union scare stories that prove people are going to be put on the dole anytime soon as a result of any recent or proposed DOO scheme unless they personally choose to take voluntary severance, remember plenty of non DOO TOCs have cut back on onboard, station and other staff over the years, or do the unions just want to conveniently ignore that reality

 

[Tetchytyke]

My guess is that they will keep the role, but that they'll reduce numbers

My guess is that the OBS role will be nothing more than a place-holder. They won't actively make OBS staff redundant- at least not until the next franchise- but the role won't be developed and anyone who moves on won't be replaced. I think GTR are hoping to get rid of most of the staff through natural wastage, tbh; the insecurity and the downgrading will make sure anyone who can leave will leave.

Surely the 'business case' is that the OBS will be able to able to deal with passengers without having to go off and do the doors and should the OBS not be available then the train doesn't get cancelled, isn't it?

A tiny minority of trains are cancelled due to lack of a guard. The operational flexibility savings are pocket money; without DafT's funding I reckon they'd have lost more money that they'll save.

Getting rid of them is the only way the whole thing makes sense, especially as GTR won't guarantee the presence of OBS staff.

 

[HH]

Surely the 'business case' is that the OBS will be able to able to deal with passengers without having to go off and do the doors and should the OBS not be available then the train doesn't get cancelled, isn't it?

Partly. As I noted above, the main point of the latter is that it allows you to reduce spare cover - cancellations are very costly so additional guards are employed to cover for short-term absences. If they are not necessary for the train to run you can cut that down considerably.

Collecting more revenue is also a benefit, but it will also allow further reductions in headcount over time - if a stretch is fully gated will you need an OBS on that stretch?

Longer term, another financial benefit will be lower salaries, because strikes will not cause cancellations, lowering bargaining power. This won't affect this franchise much, but for DfT it ticks the box of reducing long term cost - something that is now explicitly stated as an aim in every ITT.

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

My guess is that the OBS role will be nothing more than a place-holder. They won't actively make OBS staff redundant- at least not until the next franchise- but the role won't be developed and anyone who moves on won't be replaced. I think GTR are hoping to get rid of most of the staff through natural wastage, tbh; the insecurity and the downgrading will make sure anyone who can leave will leave.

Someone still has to collect/protect revenue. This is likely to go down over time, but is not going to disappear; certainly on some routes, like Uckfield, I can't see the role disappearing anytime soon.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Someone still has to collect/protect revenue. This is likely to go down over time, but is not going to disappear

Revenue protection doesn't have to be carried out on board a train by somebody earning a guard's wage though.

Automatic gates at the big stations will be sufficient to persuade most people to pay something, with a small team of roving RPIs. Which is what GoVia use on London Midland and on Thameslink.

ETA I cannot see the OBS role having any sort of longevity. It's not needed to run the business, a subcontracted gate dragon can do most of the revenue protection at half the cost, and the savings only kick in if you reduce headcount. As people leave they won't be replaced. Wages won't rise, so more will leave. And then they'll get rid of the rest in about 2020.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My guess is that the OBS role will be nothing more than a place-holder. They won't actively make OBS staff redundant- at least not until the next franchise

If you are referring to GTR above, then you are assuming that they will be awarded the next franchise from the way your posting is worded.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you are referring to GTR above, then you are assuming that they will be awarded the next franchise from the way your posting is worded.

No I'm not, whoever takes over the franchise will (in my expectation) make them redundant. They might, if they're lucky, get the year's TUPE protection before they're given the shove, mind.

 

[HH]

Revenue protection doesn't have to be carried out on board a train by somebody earning a guard's wage though.

Automatic gates at the big stations will be sufficient to persuade most people to pay something, with a small team of roving RPIs. Which is what GoVia use on London Midland and on Thameslink.

ETA I cannot see the OBS role having any sort of longevity. It's not needed to run the business, a subcontracted gate dragon can do most of the revenue protection at half the cost, and the savings only kick in if you reduce headcount. As people leave they won't be replaced. Wages won't rise, so more will leave. And then they'll get rid of the rest in about 2020.

You're quite correct, where gates already exist and I made that point. The cost of installing new gates and staffing them is quite high however. I doubt whether there is a business case for some parts of the railway. Therefore I think you're overstating the situation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cost of installing new gates and staffing them is quite high however. I doubt whether there is a business case for some parts of the railway.

You don't need to gate every station, just gate the main ones and you get most of the revenue protected. The cost of the OBS is probably more than the revenue you'd protect between some of the smaller stations out towards Uckfield, tbh.

 

[HH]

You don't need to gate every station, just gate the main ones and you get most of the revenue protected. The cost of the OBS is probably more than the revenue you'd protect between some of the smaller stations out towards Uckfield, tbh.

Maybe, but you forget that DfT has quite tough ticketless travel targets; when you add the fines for missing those then ignoring some routes gets much less attractive.

I can't see TOCs bidding to stop protecting revenue and the DfT turns the bid into commitments. That's why I feel confident that there will still be jobs; almost as confident as I am that there will be less than there are today.

 

[Deepgreen]

You're quite correct, where gates already exist and I made that point. The cost of installing new gates and staffing them is quite high however. I doubt whether there is a business case for some parts of the railway. Therefore I think you're overstating the situation.

However, the enforcement of first class, for example, has disappeared (and never actually appeared at all on Thameslink in my experience!), and I have not noticed any change in the regime on Southern now that some OBSs are supposedly in place to provide the much-vaunted passenger service.

There are also significant holes in the gated network - Redhill's platform 3 is a huge one where there is almost never any form of checking.