Arriva Rail North DOO

[DarloRich]

I'm a working person, and a union member. I think there's a massive gulf between those who work on the railway and those who don't. As someone in the latter camp, the approach from the TOC (no redundancies during the franchise, etc) is so softly-softly that the RMT response looks utterly deranged. I get that staff don't want anything to change, but that's so far from the reality experienced by everyone else that I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the average disinterested spectator, much less those who rely on the trains to get to work.

but that isnt what the dispute is about - despite the TOC and politicians pretending it is - what it is about is retaining 2 fully trained and competent members of staff on broad at all times.

BTW - I rely on the train to get to work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think to me the sensible area is somewhere in between. The impression I have is that the unions seek simple conservatism i.e. that nothing ever changes (other than wages increasing annually at a suitable rate). Whereas I feel business owners should have the right to change and grow their business as they wish, provided it doesn't cause too much of a problem to staff. So to me if they want DOO and the Government think DOO is safe enough, then I am fine with DOO in some contexts.

But I also think effort should go into ensuring that doesn't just mean mass redundancy of guards, but retraining into other roles etc and preservation of pay levels, which is what I think the Unions need to fight for, not just the simple "no change" line which they will, like it or not, lose.

For Northern Connect, I can see two possible compromises - a Strathclyde style agreement (i.e. OBS a likes) or driver release, guard close - I'd see either as sensible but I can really see strengths in the former on a network with low platform staffing, low ticket barrier provision and substantial on board sales not going to go away any time soon. For a commuter service, to be honest I would go for full DOO with Penalty Fares provided an accessibility solution can be found like the Merseyrail level boarding project, with the money used to increase BTP and Merseyrail-style Byelaw Officer provision on known problem trains e.g. in the late evening.

 

[Spartacus]

So you think the RMT are right to directly cause people who can't afford cars to lose their jobs in 2017/2018 just because there's a risk their member's continued employment might end in 2025 if DCO goes ahead?

I see it more as them not wanting someone to die because there aren't two fully trained members of staff on the train at all times.

 

[northwichcat]

BTW - I rely on the train to get to work.

Are you one of the people who can't do your designated shift times on strike days even when you consider alternatives to the train e.g. other operators, buses etc.?

 

[northwichcat]

I see it more as them not wanting someone to die because there aren't two fully trained members of staff on the train at all times.

How many people have died on DOO trains compared to on non-DOO trains and what difference does having a second member of staff who isn't a guard have on those figures? If you don't know the answer then it's not a valid argument.

 

[47802]

The argument about staff numbers is an interesting one. There is a great deal of difference between a body in a company high viz tabbard doing hand holding customer service (on no doubt weak t&c and with poor job security) and a fully trained and competent member of staff . The (reverse?) politics of envy seem to drive many posters to a fetish for the former.



it is this that you any many posters detest: Working people standing up for themselves. Perhaps because you are so powerless you feel all should be. That is the nub of the issue. The sad thing is that you do the work of the Tory for them.

I'm a working person, and a union member. I think there's a massive gulf between those who work on the railway and those who don't. As someone in the latter camp, the approach from the TOC (no redundancies during the franchise, etc) is so softly-softly that the RMT response looks utterly deranged. I get that staff don't want anything to change, but that's so far from the reality experienced by everyone else that I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the average disinterested spectator, much less those who rely on the trains to get to work.

Indeed, interesting how anybody with a more reasonable approach to industrial relations is automatically branded a Tory, now in other sectors you argue that lack of Union representation has meant some bad employers treating their staff like dirt, but on the other hand I expect there are many better companies and employees that don't like Unions because of their Uncompromising attitude in many cases, I was in Union for a short while but was not impressed by either the ability or attitude of the Unions representatives many of which I would regard as typical left wingers still trying to fight a class war now I sure not all Union representatives are like that but unfortunately the ones I met were

 

[ComUtoR]

How many people have died on DOO trains compared to on non-DOO trains and what difference does having a second member of staff who isn't a guard have on those figures? If you don't know the answer then it's not a valid argument.

This pointless argument comes up numerous times in these threads. There is no statistics to prove either way. There is nothing that can be proven or refuted.

 

[Wombat]

but that isnt what the dispute is about - despite the TOC and politicians pretending it is - what it is about is retaining 2 fully trained and competent members of staff on broad at all times.

BTW - I rely on the train to get to work.

So is it about working people standing up for themselves, as you mentioned earlier, or is it about safety? Because if it's the latter, I don't care how much you protest about the partiality of the ORR, I'll take their opinion over that of the RMT every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[DarloRich]

Ahem. You made a ridiculous argument because I said I don't support the RMT causing maximum disruption when their members' jobs are safe until 2025. Yet you ignore the issue that the RMT's stance is causing many people to lose their jobs now, so basically you think everyone else sits below the RMT members and if anyone dares to question you then you start arguing the reverse and labeling them as supporting the Tory's policy.

The issue, as you know only to well, is not about job security but retaining 2 competent and fully trained members of staff on the train at all times. I support that.

Alternative approach - approach Northern jointly with ASLEF. ASLEF can say their members refuse to work services unless there is a second member of staff on board who has suitable training and then both the RMT and ASLEF can talk about what that role should be and what training they should have. Maybe it could include some training that guards don't currently have, which could make trains safer?

Perhaps - but surely that has already happened before the ballot for strike action. You cant ( rightly) take joint or supportive action so each strike must be balloted and formed independently and correctly. That sounds good in theory but I don't think it can be delivered in reality. What happens when Arriva ( and the government) either refuse to talk or buy off one party?

So is it about working people standing up for themselves, as you mentioned earlier, or is it about safety? Because if it's the latter, I don't care how much you protest about the partiality of the ORR, I'll take their opinion over that of the RMT every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

That's your choice but being the cynical and non trusting person that I am I will reserve judgement. It is hard to build trust when one of the key advocates for DOO is on the board of the body presenting the study.............................

 

[northwichcat]

Perhaps - but surely that has already happened before the ballot for strike action. You cant ( rightly) take joint or supportive action so each strike must be balloted and formed independently and correctly. That sounds good in theory but I don't think it can be delivered in reality. What happens when Arriva ( and the government) either refuse to talk or buy off one party?

Based on earlier posts it's been suggested ASLEF haven't talked to Northern about DOO until now and are waiting for Northernto approach them, while the RMT approached Northern as soon as the franchise started after previously trying to strike against old Northern over DOO before being told it's illegal to strike against a future employer. Of course if ASLEF approached Northern at the earliest opportunity it could have speeded up the introduction of DOO, opposed to slowing it down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you one of the people who can't do your designated shift times on strike days even when you consider alternatives to the train e.g. other operators, buses etc.?

Knowing where he lives and works, no, he isn't. He doesn't drive but he has other alternatives, primarily bus (if a little slower) but also walking wouldn't be out of the question, taking about an hour to an hour and a bit. As it's a major local employer he works for there is also the possibility of arranging an informal taxi share with other staff in the same position.

I would think that very few *cannot* work around a strike, even if it involves a day's work that doesn't earn much money (due to taxi use) or a very early start/late finish to use a slower mode of transport. Though many will simply choose to take a day's annual leave if it is an option to do so.

 

[northwichcat]

This pointless argument comes up numerous times in these threads. There is no statistics to prove either way. There is nothing that can be proven or refuted.

Yes it's comes up all the time but this time someone was taking it a new level claiming passengers would die if DOO was introduced!

 

[Spartacus]

How many people have died on DOO trains compared to on non-DOO trains and what difference does having a second member of staff who isn't a guard have on those figures? If you don't know the answer then it's not a valid argument.

I don't know the answer to many things, but it doesn't meant there wouldn't be a valid argument about it. However, between January 2011 and the end of 2015 there were 10 serious incidents involving passengers getting on and off trains, and 8 of these were at DOO stations, one only wasn't more serious because of the prompt actions of the guard, two incidents resulted in 'life changing injuries' of which a surgeon can probably be credited with saving their life as much as anything, certainly only modern medicine. I'd also state that at Sutton Weaver in 2014 when the driver was electrocuted on the line that the guard almost certainly saved his life.

 

[DarloRich]

Based on earlier posts it's been suggested ASLEF haven't talked to Northern about DOO until now and are waiting for Northernto approach them, while the RMT approached Northern as soon as the franchise started after previously trying to strike against old Northern over DOO before being told it's illegal to strike against a future employer. Of course if ASLEF approached Northern at the earliest opportunity it could have speeded up the introduction of DOO, opposed to slowing it down.

but are ASLEF or their members in dispute with Northern? Are they not just an interested spectator at this stage? Surely it is fair for one party to say that they wont discuss detail until that detail is known. How, otherwise, do you know if there is anything to be in dispute about?

A bland statement at whichever communication meeting exists between union and employer that "we do not support driver only operation ( in whatever form) and will discuss this further if and when our members are impacted" is all that is needed at this stage from ASLEF.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't know the answer to many things, but it doesn't meant there wouldn't be a valid argument about it. However, between January 2011 and the end of 2015 there were 10 serious incidents involving passengers getting on and off trains, and 8 of these were at DOO stations, one only wasn't more serious because of the prompt actions of the guard, two incidents resulted in 'life changing injuries' of which a surgeon can probably be credited with saving their life as much as anything, certainly only modern medicine. I'd also state that at Sutton Weaver in 2014 when the driver was electrocuted on the line that the guard almost certainly saved his life.

There's also been serious incidents (including death) where guards have been present. Now we don't need another discussion about whether the guards were to blame or not for those incidents but all railway staff (whatever their role is) are human and all humans make mistakes sometimes. I don't know how many train services operate a day and how many of those are DOO but 10 serious incidents over 5 years across all DOO services doesn't sound like a particularly high number, especially considering some of the DOO services are busy London commuter routes, which could be carrying over 1000 passengers per service at peak times.

 

[Spartacus]

10 was over all services, and 80% of them were on DOO services. Only 70% of incidents were in the London commuter belts.

 

[northwichcat]

10 was over all services, and 80% of them were on DOO services. Only 70% of incidents were in the London commuter belts.

When you're talking about an average of 2 incidents per year, I don't think the word 'only' is appropriate to put before 70%. That's an average of 1 every 20 months on non-London commuter routes.

 

[Carlisle]

The impression I have is that the unions seek simple conservatism i.e. that nothing ever changes (other than wages increasing annually at a suitable rate).

So really the franchises and /or their controlling authorities should shoulder a sizeable part of the blame for the current mess , given a significant proportion of them have been perfectly content to sit back for years allowing this to become very much the accepted normal on our railway

 

[B&I]

Providing Safety isn't compromised - and that seems to be less and less of the Unions primary argument - I would totally agree. We (mainly the Media) have created a culture in this country that Rail staff and passengers are a "superior" breed that should be protected at all costs, and I mean ALL costs. Yet again today, the news item about a possible Cabinet reshuffle, as well as a seperate one about the strikes themselves, has been used to reminder us of last week's fare increases. According to the Rail North Consultation of 2014 or 2015, Abellio were getting a whacking great £706 million subsidy for running the Northern franchise. Media reports at the time of the change in franchise, suggested Arriva were getting a mere £200 million. That's clearly a big saving for the taxpayer (equal to at least 16,700 years worth of Cancer treatment for instance), but its still the same as the entire gross* subsidy for tendered bus services in England and Wales outside London.

* ie. before the Government claw some back through Fuel Tax and all the other business related taxes.

Is the appalling state of deregulated bus services a good reason to reduce standards on the railways ? Or should the 'protected' nature of rail passengers not be something we should aspire to for bus users as well ?

 

[Dave1987]

Like I've said before there's a major difference between industrial action to make a point to the employer (which doesn't have to be strike action) and causing maximum disruption to the general public to make a political point. The RMT have opted for the later and expect the public to be on their side! My objection to this is the RMT are causing people in other sectors to lose their jobs or to miss out on employment opportunities due to not being able to get to interviews and employers not wanting to employ people who would rely on the train to get to work when there's so much strike action. I know members of non-rail unions and members of the Labour Party who share my objections as well.

This Government pays little credence unions. You only have to look at other industries where companies have announced job losses or pay & pensions restructuring. They are quite happy to accept what business says and blame them on “market conditions”. The only time they ever pay any attention is when union actions make the headlines. The RMT have concerns about safety and jobs. I highly doubt the Government would pay any attention what so ever if the union didn’t bang the drum and create as much media focus as possible. The Government has long turned around to people and said you should be grateful to have a job. That’s well and truly biting them in the arse at the moment with their bewilderment at poor wage growth. It’s just the railways people don’t sit back and accept what the rest of the economy seems happy to do.

 

[Dave1987]

Indeed, interesting how anybody with a more reasonable approach to industrial relations is automatically branded a Tory, now in other sectors you argue that lack of Union representation has meant some bad employers treating their staff like dirt, but on the other hand I expect there are many better companies and employees that don't like Unions because of their Uncompromising attitude in many cases, I was in Union for a short while but was not impressed by either the ability or attitude of the Unions representatives many of which I would regard as typical left wingers still trying to fight a class war now I sure not all Union representatives are like that but unfortunately the ones I met were

I believe that the current Government have cultivated this though. There is absolutely zero trust in anything Grayling says. The Tories continually attack the unions. If they tried to engage instead of continually attacking and berating unions they might make people trust things they say. The Government actions against ASLEF by taking them to court says the unions can’t trust a word the Government says unless it’s legally binding. May has repeatedly said she wants to be a PM for everyone yet her Government continually leans to the right and attack’s institutions that protect the working class. Tories created this, no one else. It’s a pretty good bet that gentleman’s agreements will never happen again. Anything negotiated will be legally binding.

 

[FordFocus]

You're missing the obvious. For DfT the last Northern franchise was a massive mistake, not because of a lack of investment but because it let the holder walk away with £30m a year in profit while getting a hefty subsidy. DfT have reduced the hefty subsidy and the new franchise will have higher operating costs even post DCO implementation. DCO has never been about Arriva saving money it's always been about DfT wanting more revenue taken - guards going off to do the doors costs money and doesn't bring in any revenue - with more revenue Arriva won't call for more revenue support from DfT or throw back the keys to the franchise.

Your missing the bigger picture. The DfT want rid of guards and the second person all together and to go for the SE approach of Penalty Fares because it's cheaper. The McNulty (no second person) and RSSB Evaluating Technological Solutions for DOO [...] (mentions how best to remove guards) reports sees to that.

If the DfT wants more revenue collected there are easier ways of doing that without industrial action. Fitting guard door control panels to every doorway throughout the train is one way. No more going to the back cab. ATW, FGW managed it during their franchises with the same DMU stock.

 

[FordFocus]

Based on earlier posts it's been suggested ASLEF haven't talked to Northern about DOO until now and are waiting for Northernto approach them, while the RMT approached Northern as soon as the franchise started after previously trying to strike against old Northern over DOO before being told it's illegal to strike against a future employer. Of course if ASLEF approached Northern at the earliest opportunity it could have speeded up the introduction of DOO, opposed to slowing it down.

RMT approached Northern as they put into their bid for DOO operation so wanted answers and discussions to commence immediately.

Your last sentence won't happen. Why would a trade union go forward under it's own steam to negotiate a worse set of T&Cs for it's membership? I'm under the impression that ASLEF branches across the north are against DOO.

 

[northwichcat]

Your missing the bigger picture. The DfT want rid of guards and the second person all together and to go for the SE approach of Penalty Fares because it's cheaper. The McNulty (no second person) and RSSB Evaluating Technological Solutions for DOO [...] (mentions how best to remove guards) reports sees to that.

If the DfT wants more revenue collected there are easier ways of doing that without industrial action. Fitting guard door control panels to every doorway throughout the train is one way. No more going to the back cab. ATW, FGW managed it during their franchises with the same DMU stock.

The conclusions of McNulty report are not official government policy. Have you noticed how they've ignored many of the conclusions of the Foster report on IEP. Why are you so sure everything in the McNulty report will come true when so much of the Foster report was ignored by the government?

What keeps getting overlooked is wheelchair passengers must be able to turn up and go by 1st January 2020. That requires either step free entry from the platforms to the trains (like many Metro systems and like we'll soon see on Merseyrail) or staff of some description in addition to drivers. If train operators do overlook it then legal action can be taken against them.

 

[northwichcat]

RMT approached Northern as they put into their bid for DOO operation so wanted answers and discussions to commence immediately.

Your last sentence won't happen. Why would a trade union go forward under it's own steam to negotiate a worse set of T&Cs for it's membership? I'm under the impression that ASLEF branches across the north are against DOO.

Not sure about the worse T&Cs - as we know from previous disputes ASLEF will want something in exchange for their members taking on more responsibility. However, you're missing the point I was making I was saying ASLEF wouldn't have approached Arriva 18 months ago because doing so would increase the chance of Arriva meeting the DfT set target, doing nothing until they're approached increases the chance of Arriva missing the deadline.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your missing the bigger picture. The DfT want rid of guards and the second person all together and to go for the SE approach of Penalty Fares because it's cheaper. The McNulty (no second person) and RSSB Evaluating Technological Solutions for DOO [...] (mentions how best to remove guards) reports sees to that.

Does it? How come, then, Southern have been allowed to have the (poor, IMO) OBS compromise?

If the DfT wants more revenue collected there are easier ways of doing that without industrial action. Fitting guard door control panels to every doorway throughout the train is one way. No more going to the back cab. ATW, FGW managed it during their franchises with the same DMU stock.

That would help. Driver release and guard close would be even better, and is already used on large chunks of the network, including Southern before the present debacle, not to mention VT, XC (possibly except the 170 services) and no doubt others.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Does it? How come, then, Southern have been allowed to have the (poor, IMO) OBS compromise?



That would help. Driver release and guard close would be even better, and is already used on large chunks of the network, including Southern before the present debacle, not to mention VT, XC (possibly except the 170 services) and no doubt others.

Almost all Guards I know including myself would have no problems with Driver Opening and Guards closing. That would be a win for all except the Shareholders and Dft

 

[Bletchleyite]

Almost all Guards I know including myself would have no problems with Driver Opening and Guards closing. That would be a win for all except the Shareholders and Dft

Indeed, and it is my preferred method of operation for Northern and most other UK rail services. Merseyrail is a bit of an exception, but there's another thread for that

Interestingly, the Class 175s were originally designed for that method of operation, but at the time there was such an uproar that they were modified to conventional full guard operation! But away from Northern, just about every TOC that started off as a slamdoor operation at privatisation has gone that way with new stock - I think only the Desiros are the exception.

 

[FordFocus]

Does it? How come, then, Southern have been allowed to have the (poor, IMO) OBS compromise?

What do you think is poor about the OBS compromise? [genuine question]

 

[FordFocus]

The conclusions of McNulty report are not official government policy. Have you noticed how they've ignored many of the conclusions of the Foster report on IEP. Why are you so sure everything in the McNulty report will come true when so much of the Foster report was ignored by the government?

A quick google for DfT and McNulty brings about this press release from the DfT East Coast partnership debacle: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-vision-for-rail So the report is still in the minds of those in Whitehall and not buried away like the 1980s version of Beeching.

I believe the ITT for Northern also had a suggestion for McNulty suggestions but I don't have the PDF to hand.

What keeps getting overlooked is wheelchair passengers must be able to turn up and go by 1st January 2020. That requires either step free entry from the platforms to the trains (like many Metro systems and like we'll soon see on Merseyrail) or staff of some description in addition to drivers. If train operators do overlook it then legal action can be taken against them.

It's a good point. I suspect the only way of getting a true turn up and go service for wheelchair passengers is to guarantee a second person on the train. Would the DfT accept though?