Arriva Rail North DOO

[gazzaa2]

Northern were simply hoping for RMT to call off the strikes for the next few Saturdays with them being the busiest Saturdays with Christmas shoppers and markets.

I doubt they're bothered about January.

 

[driver_m]

Northern were simply for RMT to call off the strikes for the next few Saturdays with them being the busiest Saturdays with Christmas shoppers and markets.

No doubt you'll get shot down for saying that as cynical. However, I've seen that tactic used before .

 

[Darandio]

No doubt you'll get shot down for saying that as cynical. However, I've seen that tactic used before .

It's not cynical at all. At the end of last week Northern asked the RMT to suspend the strikes because they were going to talk. Now we know they had no intention of talking today so their intentions were obvious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not cynical at all. At the end of last week Northern asked the RMT to suspend the strikes because they were going to talk. Now we know they had no intention of talking today so their intentions were obvious.

I must admit, much as I don't think it should fully go the RMT's way, that it would be good (in terms of getting people to take ACAS seriously) if failure to attend punctually meant a ruling in the other party's favour as it would in a Court.

 

[Robertj21a]

If nothing else, the news from today's meeting can put to bed all the rather OTT messages posted on here over the past few days. I've deliberately kept out of much of the recent 'debate' as I simply couldn't see where all the apparent excitement was coming from - seemingly just because the RMT indicated that it might be persuaded to give up door opening !!
Arriva has always offered no redundancies, and has proposed an 'OBS' role where appropriate. If nobody is going to lose a job then I fail to see how the RMT can expect to gain much support from others.

 

[driver_m]

It's not cynical at all. At the end of last week Northern asked the RMT to suspend the strikes because they were going to talk. Now we know they had no intention of talking today so their intentions were obvious.

We know that, but the apologists and union bashers on here won't see it that way.

 

[Confused52]

We know that, but the apologists and union bashers on here won't see it that way.

The RMT were happy to proceed only on the basis that they attended to receive ARNs capitulation, that is what Mick Cash's letter earlier in the thread said. Expecting that the strikes would be suspended to allow negotiations is a pretty normal request by the TOC and doesn't suggest that total capitulation will follow. That ARN were waiting for clarification of extra funding from government is to be expected given the way that government works. However the RMT appears to have decided that by requiring instant capitulation, no matter how unreasonable, they could claim that ARN were frustrating progress. That, when the letter clearly shows that they did not intend any progress to be made. As a passenger I can see this for what it is a ruse by the RMT to make the staff think it is all the TOCs fault by exploiting the grandstanding intervention by TfN and the response from the DfT that I can't even find in official sources). It looks to me as if ARN have been suckered by the RMT and now seem intransigent because they were trying so hard to do exactly the opposite, they just don't seem to get negotiating with the kind of opponents they now have. Basically no one in HR who wasn't there in the 70's would be able to cope. I am not a ToC apologist by the way just trying to be a reasonable observer but this debate is way too polarised at times.

It is beyond doubt that the RMT are determined to carry on and even ARN cannot be thick enough not to notice that it is now past the period of protected industrial action. The next discussion with the DfT may not be what the RMT want or expect and certainly not what passengers want

 

[M60lad]

Is there no way back now after talks broke down today and will strikes go on idenfinetly now and what are the chances of strikes being ramped up to being on more than one day?

Also what are the chances of more talks to get the sorted in the future?

 

[Bantamzen]

Northern were simply hoping for RMT to call off the strikes for the next few Saturdays with them being the busiest Saturdays with Christmas shoppers and markets.

I doubt they're bothered about January.

Northern, passengers, local businesses etc. This strike is starting to badly affect high street businesses, affect other people's job security.

I've every sympathy for the guards in this dispute, but it seems to me that all three sides are playing games now. The DfT, Northern and the RMT. Its time to lock all three in a room, bang their heads together and no coming out until an agreement is made.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The RMT were happy to proceed only on the basis that they attended to receive ARNs capitulation, that is what Mick Cash's letter earlier in the thread said. Expecting that the strikes would be suspended to allow negotiations is a pretty normal request by the TOC and doesn't suggest that total capitulation will follow. That ARN were waiting for clarification of extra funding from government is to be expected given the way that government works. However the RMT appears to have decided that by requiring instant capitulation, no matter how unreasonable, they could claim that ARN were frustrating progress. That, when the letter clearly shows that they did not intend any progress to be made. As a passenger I can see this for what it is a ruse by the RMT to make the staff think it is all the TOCs fault by exploiting the grandstanding intervention by TfN and the response from the DfT that I can't even find in official sources). It looks to me as if ARN have been suckered by the RMT and now seem intransigent because they were trying so hard to do exactly the opposite, they just don't seem to get negotiating with the kind of opponents they now have. Basically no one in HR who wasn't there in the 70's would be able to cope. I am not a ToC apologist by the way just trying to be a reasonable observer but this debate is way too polarised at times.

It is beyond doubt that the RMT are determined to carry on and even ARN cannot be thick enough not to notice that it is now past the period of protected industrial action. The next discussion with the DfT may not be what the RMT want or expect and certainly not what passengers want

Since neither of us was present at the negotiating table it is pointless attempting to make such detailed comment on what actually took place. Anything we say is just opinion or spin. What does strike me is that ARN appeared, based on their own statement, not to have done their homework: not very professional.

As for your closing comment, it seems to be based on the premise that the DfT is free to unilaterally impose its will on the matter: I'm not convinced that local stakeholders would be at all supportive of that. If a negotiated settlement really is beyond reach then a solution will surely involve some dialogue among politicians rather than civil servants dictating the outcome. Given all that is going on in Westminster I suspect that such discussions are unlikely this side of Brexit.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not much point in putting all 3 in a room together. There's so little common ground, or respect, that nobody is prepared to budge an inch. Presumably, the strikes continue well into 2019.
The RMT could easily resolve all this if they wanted to. Arriva could as well if they were allowed to - but the DfT has every right to determine how the operation is to be run.

 

[Starmill]

There could soon, quite feasibly, be no Northern train services on Saturdays. At all. Is this truly what the RMT want?

Presumably? What's the point of going on strike, if not this?

 

[yorksrob]

Not much point in putting all 3 in a room together. There's so little common ground, or respect, that nobody is prepared to budge an inch. Presumably, the strikes continue well into 2019.
The RMT could easily resolve all this if they wanted to. Arriva could as well if they were allowed to - but the DfT has every right to determine how the operation is to be run.

Perhaps the Northern transport authorities should take the Government to some sort of judicial review, given that it seems to be intent on damaging the North's economy to pursue its own ideological fetish.

 

[Killingworth]

Who is running this railway, the DfT, Northern or the RMT?

Who pays the piper dictates the tune. The DfT is ultimately picking up the tab for the greatest loss making TOC in the country. Northern are pig in the middle.

We need a win/win solution. At present the passengers are certainly losing, but so are the three sparring parties. DfT and Northern need to reduce costs and increase revenue.

All need to work together to improve the current financial deficit. Let the RMT contribute practical ideas that can be implemented to help reduce that imbalance. Northern have some in mind, but we haven't had them confirmed. There must be areas of agreement.

We have heard all sorts of speculation ranging from suggesting Northern wanted to remove every guard from every train with no other member of staff aboard, to RMT not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the guard's role.

Negotiation in public is unhelpful. Backing an opponent against a wall usually doesn't work. So far Northern and TfN give the outward appearance of giving some ground. RMT appear to have given none.

It augers badly for the future of any business if a trades union has the whip hand, especially if they rub it in!

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps the Northern transport authorities should take the Government to some sort of judicial review, given that it seems to be intent on damaging the North's economy to pursue its own ideological fetish.

Judicial reviews are very expensive and could only hope to succeed if there is evidence that the Government have acted in some way which breaks the law. There is absolutely no evidence of this.

 

[yorksrob]

Who is running this railway, the DfT, Northern or the RMT?

Who pays the piper dictates the tune. The DfT is ultimately picking up the tab for the greatest loss making TOC in the country. Northern are pig in the middle.

We need a win/win solution. At present the passengers are certainly losing, but so are the three sparring parties. DfT and Northern need to reduce costs and increase revenue.

All need to work together to improve the current financial deficit. Let the RMT contribute practical ideas that can be implemented to help reduce that imbalance. Northern have some in mind, but we haven't had them confirmed. There must be areas of agreement.

We have heard all sorts of speculation ranging from suggesting Northern wanted to remove every guard from every train with no other member of staff aboard, to RMT not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the guard's role.

Negotiation in public is unhelpful. Backing an opponent against a wall usually doesn't work. So far Northern and TfN give the outward appearance of giving some ground. RMT appear to have given none.

It augers badly for the future of any business if a trades union has the whip hand, especially if they rub it in!

I'm not sure I agree. If Northern/Whitehall were to give ground that every train would have a second person on board, perhaps we could move onto the more useful debate about what role that person actually did.

And I'm not sure that all these secretive talks are any good either. We passengers never seem to get the same answers from different protagonists as to what the differnt sides are actually calling for.

I've said it before that arguing over whether there should be a second person should be on board at all is stupidly pointless for a rural network like Northern.

 

[furnessvale]

I'm not sure I agree. If Northern/Whitehall were to give ground that every train would have a second person on board, perhaps we could move onto the more useful debate about what role that person actually did.

Without trying to inflame the situation, doesn't that rather put the cart before the horse?

Surely the natural progression is to decide what jobs need doing and then employ sufficient staff to carry out those tasks, not say "right we will employ x number of people. Now, what work do we want them to do?"

 

[Killingworth]

I'm not sure I agree. If Northern/Whitehall were to give ground that every train would have a second person on board, perhaps we could move onto the more useful debate about what role that person actually did.

And I'm not sure that all these secretive talks are any good either. We passengers never seem to get different answers from different protagonists as to what the differnt sides are actually calling for.

I've said it before that arguing over whether there should be a second person should be on board at all is stupidly pointless for a rural network like Northern.

The second person point has been conceded by Northern/TfN - but possibly too easily by DfT? OK, that was easy. There will be a few services where DOO may have been feasible, and not operating a very few trains in emergencies as DOO is a small issue.

As far as we know Northern are prepared to discuss details. RMT give the impression they won't give a millimetre, not even to permit drivers to open doors of stock which is fitted to permit that. So far they have shown no apparent concession whatsoever.

 

[yorksrob]

Without trying to inflame the situation, doesn't that rather put the cart before the horse?

Surely the natural progression is to decide what jobs need doing and then employ sufficient staff to carry out those tasks, not say "right we will employ x number of people. Now, what work do we want them to do?"

If we were starting from scratch in a new industry, then yes.

If you're trying to move away from a long established status quo in a highly unionised industry, you pick your battle carefully to produce the most useful outcome with the least disruption.

You do not embark on a lengthy and damaging confrontation over the highly theoretical debate about whether once in a blue moon, a train might travel in service without a second person, on a railway where the vast majority of services will need a second person anyway. Concede this and start discussing what will make a difference.

 

[yorksrob]

The second person point has been conceded by Northern/TfN - but possibly too easily by DfT? OK, that was easy. There will be a few services where DOO may have been feasible, and not operating a very few trains in emergencies as DOO is a small issue.

As far as we know Northern are prepared to discuss details. RMT give the impression they won't give a millimetre, not even to permit drivers to open doors of stock which is fitted to permit that. So far they have shown no apparent concession whatsoever.

We never seem to get to what the RMT may or may not be prepared to concede in terms of the second person role because we are forever stuck in a pointless discussion over whether there should always be a second person or not, and this when Arriva/Whitehall have been given a clear statement that the transport authorities in the North desire a second person on each train.

 

[driver_m]

...and still people continue to talk about 'imposing' doo without mentioning the herd of elephants in the room. .
I'll ask again.

Have the drivers been asked yet to accept DOO?

And what makes you think it will end with the drivers meekly accepting it? Cash? The sack? The ridiculous notion that just because it happens in Glasgow and London means that it's inevitable? The laughable view that you can bring in drivers on a different contract and train them up and expect ASLEF and current driver's to accept that?

The RMT were happy to proceed only on the basis that they attended to receive ARNs capitulation, that is what Mick Cash's letter earlier in the thread said. Expecting that the strikes would be suspended to allow negotiations is a pretty normal request by the TOC and doesn't suggest that total capitulation will follow. That ARN were waiting for clarification of extra funding from government is to be expected given the way that government works. However the RMT appears to have decided that by requiring instant capitulation, no matter how unreasonable, they could claim that ARN were frustrating progress. That, when the letter clearly shows that they did not intend any progress to be made. As a passenger I can see this for what it is a ruse by the RMT to make the staff think it is all the TOCs fault by exploiting the grandstanding intervention by TfN and the response from the DfT that I can't even find in official sources). It looks to me as if ARN have been suckered by the RMT and now seem intransigent because they were trying so hard to do exactly the opposite, they just don't seem to get negotiating with the kind of opponents they now have. Basically no one in HR who wasn't there in the 70's would be able to cope. I am not a ToC apologist by the way just trying to be a reasonable observer but this debate is way too polarised at times.

It is beyond doubt that the RMT are determined to carry on and even ARN cannot be thick enough not to notice that it is now past the period of protected industrial action. The next discussion with the DfT may not be what the RMT want or expect and certainly not what passengers want

Hahaha . As reliable as a bus following another one. I'll refer you back to a year ago .Have a look at who was taking strike action, and the same tactic used on RMT.....

 

[yorksrob]

...and still people continue to talk about 'imposing' doo without mentioning the herd of elephants in the room. .
I'll ask again.

Have the drivers been asked yet to accept DOO?

And what makes you think it will end with the drivers meekly accepting it? Cash? The sack? The ridiculous notion that just because it happens in Glasgow and London means that it's inevitable? The laughable view that you can bring in drivers on a different contract and train them up and expect ASLEF and current driver's to accept that?
.

Because it's a completely meaningless point to me, as a passenger, until someone actually asks them.

Perhaps the protagonists in this dispute could wait until they hear what the drivers actually have to say before striking.

 

[Gems]

Well, well, well. Looks like I will have Saturday off after all.

I really thought this time a little progress might be made, obviously not. I have to admit though I was a little confused last Friday when Northern management sent out a internal email saying they welcomed unconditional talks. 'Unconditional' is a word you can bound about all night long, but there is always going to be conditions on all sides. Clearly it was all a ploy to save Christmas and the RMT caught them short. These people must be totally stupid if they really thought the strikes would be cancelled whilst they played their games. "We will keep a second person on the trains, but it could be a cleaner come bottle washer. That is never going to be good enough a guarantee. Surly if you are going to keep guards on the same terms and conditions keeping them fully competent is of little hardship. But we all know the truth. Guards on Monday, Carlisle security minimum wage zero hour contract workers on the Tuesday.

I'm hearing things from places upon high. Get set for a mind blowing escalation in the coming days/weeks. Saturday strikes are set to continue, but it takes a while to go through the calendar and pencil in 52 of them.

 

[Starmill]

And what makes you think it will end with the drivers meekly accepting it? Cash? The sack? The ridiculous notion that just because it happens in Glasgow and London means that it's inevitable? The laughable view that you can bring in drivers on a different contract and train them up and expect ASLEF and current driver's to accept that?

To be fair, out of all of these options, surely a mixture of them actually would work... It's not like they all seem drastically unlikely? All of them are pretty commonplace across the economy?

 

[Starmill]

I'm hearing things from places upon high. Get set for a mind blowing escalation in the coming days/weeks. Saturday strikes are set to continue, but it takes a while to go through the calendar and pencil in 52 of them.

You went from going on about how you would be on the trains on Saturdays from now on to this within a period of a few days. There does not seem to have been any new information in the intervening period. What changed?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Carlisle security minimum wage zero hour contract workers.......

Is this really the case about "zero hours employment" staff contracts that Carlisle have made part of their employment conditions on this current contract? If so, was it also the same "zero hours employment" staff contracts that were in existence when both STM Security and G4S had this particular contract?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You went from going on about how you would be on the trains on Saturdays from now on to this within a period of a few days. There does not seem to have been any new information in the intervening period. What changed?

The optimism that the dispute could be resolved arose from the intervention by TfN which appeared to be accepted, at least in principle, by the DfT. Yet when it came to talks it seems Northern are maintaining exactly the same position. My guess is that the DfT have, on reflection, decided that they are not prepared to back down after all. As others have said it's starting to look like a fight around the principle of who's "in charge" rather than reaching a consensus especially with local stakeholders.

 

[Carlisle]

My guess is that the DfT have, on reflection, decided that they are not prepared to back down after all. .

Considering the way the RMT have behaved in the last 2 or 3 years its I don’t imagine any level of management would recommend total capitulation to them as a good idea

 

[M60lad]

Northern have posted the following on their website:

Northern has issued a statement following the conclusion of ACAS talks with RMT earlier today (Tuesday 4 December).

Richard Allan, Deputy Managing Director at Northern, said: “Today at ACAS talks, Northern went in to the meeting with an open mind and made it clear we wish to continue discussions and all options will be considered that involve the deployment of two members of staff on Northern services.

“Any customer who needs help with access, personal security, information, ticketing and so on will have a member of staff, in addition to the driver, on-board trains to help them.

“On behalf of customers and stakeholders, and in the spirit of working together, Northern would welcome RMT postponing its planned industrial action. We look forward to further talks at ACAS.”


Am I right in thinking that could be a way of sorting this as it seems Northern do want it sorting?

 

[yorksrob]

The optimism that the dispute could be resolved arose from the intervention by TfN which appeared to be accepted, at least in principle, by the DfT. Yet when it came to talks it seems Northern are maintaining exactly the same position. My guess is that the DfT have, on reflection, decided that they are not prepared to back down after all. As others have said it's starting to look like a fight around the principle of who's "in charge" rather than reaching a consensus especially with local stakeholders.

Typical balls up, made in London.

The sooner we have full devolution, the better. We could turn parliament into a boutique hotel.