It seems to be generally accepted by most people (but not necessarily on this thread) that a much better customer-facing role is required by TOCs, and the travelling public. Most guards would, probably, see the need for an improvement in that area and, hopefully, relish the idea [I assume that some guards may believe that they may not be up to a suitable standard, or simply prefer sitting in the back cab]. Once they take on a more customer-facing role there's little reason why the job description shouldn't include other associated issues - rail staff will know far better than me as to what these could be but I'd guess some general tasks that may occasionally involve ticket issue, revenue control, booking offices, routine customer enquiries etc etc. The key being flexibility.
I don’t think there’s been any suggestion at all that any new OBS-esque grade would take on other duties, but maybe that sort of flexibility would help to offset the inefficiency of the spare capacity necessary to ensure a robust plan if there’s a commitment to provide a second member of staff on all trains (even with that exceptional circumstances clause). An interesting thought?
There’s absolutely no reason why those in the existing grade shouldn’t be as visible as an OBS with no safety-critical duties would be. No-one should routinely be hiding in back cabs, nor should the management be letting them do so - I know that some do, and they’re a disgrace to the grade, especially given the current dispute!
Being allowed to dispatch from rear cabs allows guarda to view the platform through an open window though, so it is beneficial for dispatch purposes, as that's probably the best view anyone else could ever get of the platform. Superior to behind a saloon door or via cctv.
Agreed, but it does limit their “visibility” to the passengers, so allowing and encouraging dispatch from various positions throughout the train (perhaps using the back cab still for locations with a higher risk) would be a sensible compromise and still preferable to the driver doing the dispatch alone.
But that still keeps a guard grade on every train, and still leaves RMT with blackmail power.
The RMT have made themselves a target that must be broken.
It all comes down to what ASLEF will do. The next election isn’t until 2022, so it will come down to getting ASLEF on board then getting enough DCO that they only need the guards that won’t strike.
The RMT only need to be broken if it suits someone’s political agenda to do so! This dispute aside, as widespread as it is, I don’t think they’re particularly unreasonable. As above, my personal experience is that they’ve been rather constructive in dealing with a significant reduction in the workforce as progress marches on.
I’d be surprised if DOO on most of the existing fleet was considered feasible, and even more surprised if ASLEF would accept it. Things like fitting monitors in a suitable location in existing cramped cabs, bodyside cameras on body profiles not designed for them, independent access to cabs and so on would all concern me greatly.
Northern must know what ASLEF will do, surely? They'd not have got to this stage without finding out privately.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t. ASLEF’s opposition to DOO is clear, albeit undermined by their (understandable but unfortunate) position on Southern, and in any case it’d surely have to be put to the membership. As Gems says, I doubt they’ll be rushing to accept it on the west side in particular, where McGee and Zee are very close to home.