Arriva Rail North DOO

[yorkie]

Noy having a go at you - just the fact that the whole thing is supposed to be about passenger safety and they are not even trained in providing emergency aid. So what passenger safety are they going on about?

The RMT's own very selective kind of safety for events that occur once in a blue moon; where we are apparently safer with someone sealed away in a back cab than someone patrolling the train, even though 99.9% of the time it will actually be the other way round. But there's no point trying to reason with them. All we can do is make sure the travelling public know the truth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I struggle to understand why the RMT think that striking every Saturday is the most effective option available to them. I'm sure if they really thought about it a bit they might see a better way of pursuing their aims.

Weekday striking would very much turn passengers against them (having to drive or get the bus to the shops is one thing, but having to get up earlier than usual for work is quite another). Multiple days a week might be unaffordable and reduce support among staff.

 

[Starmill]

Weekday striking would very much turn passengers against them

As our 39th strike approaches, I feel that ship has sailed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As our 39th strike approaches, I feel that ship has sailed.

Yes and no - the ire of a Monday-Friday 9-5 commuter[1] is much greater than the ire of the Saturday shopper who can drive, go by bus or shop Sunday instead. If you want evidence of that, look at how LNR (and LM before them) like putting out all-day full-and-standing 4-car sets on a weekend just so they can save a couple of quid on slightly overpriced 350/2 leases - they wouldn't dare do that in the Monday morning peak.

[1] I know plenty of people also work Saturdays.

 

[Starmill]

They were perfectly happy to strike on weekdays earlier in the dispute. There is nothing to suggest they minded then.

Instead it seems far, far more likely that Saturday is the day the strikes are called because:
It is the day that is the most popular with Union members to go on strike
It has a much greater effect on the service, because of the availability of contingency staff

There is very little evidence to suggest that public opinion has anything at all to do with it.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes and no - the ire of a Monday-Friday 9-5 commuter[1] is much greater than the ire of the Saturday shopper who can drive, go by bus or shop Sunday instead. If you want evidence of that, look at how LNR (and LM before them) like putting out all-day full-and-standing 4-car sets on a weekend just so they can save a couple of quid on slightly overpriced 350/2 leases - they wouldn't dare do that in the Monday morning peak.

[1] I know plenty of people also work Saturdays.

I'm not sure I agree with that. For most people, a work day's already spoiled on account of being a work day. Setting out to spoil peoples leisure time every single weekend is only going to antagonise them.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I am very shocked at that. I would have thought that that would be the first part of any training

Yet no one can answer why the RMT think that opening and closing the doors is a red line yet not being trained in emergency aid is acceptable.

Trade unions' primary goal is to defend and, where possible, improve the T's & C's of employment of their members. Safety critical competencies arise from the need to conform with the railway rule book, a document which has evolved over time, largely in response to accidents exposing shortcomings in current ways of work. It is a general principle in most forms of employment that increasing responsibility leads to higher pay. The railway is no different. And of course guards have long been responsible for the safety of passengers whether in terms of everyday dispatch procedures, including door operation, or dealing with out of course incidents and accidents. Naturally guards' pay reflects that degree of responsibility. However at no time have those responsible for regulating rail safety made any demands for guards to be trained in first aid. Therefore that requirement does not exist in the rule book and so is not included in the defined responsibilities of the guard and so does not form part of the employment T's & C's. Ergo RMT has no current interest in its existence or otherwise. As things stand first aid competence is no more than a "nice to have" that nobody actually wants to pay for and so it has been dropped. IME nearly all guards would have no issue with being properly trained in first aid but you may be sure that if it was to be written into employment contracts, and therefore become a formal responsibility, some payment would need to be made.

 

[nidave]

Trade unions' primary goal is to defend and, where possible, improve the T's & C's of employment of their members. Safety critical competencies arise from the need to conform with the railway rule book, a document which has evolved over time, largely in response to accidents exposing shortcomings in current ways of work. It is a general principle in most forms of employment that increasing responsibility leads to higher pay. The railway is no different. And of course guards have long been responsible for the safety of passengers whether in terms of everyday dispatch procedures, including door operation, or dealing with out of course incidents and accidents. Naturally guards' pay reflects that degree of responsibility. However at no time have those responsible for regulating rail safety made any demands for guards to be trained in first aid. Therefore that requirement does not exist in the rule book and so is not included in the defined responsibilities of the guard and so does not form part of the employment T's & C's. Ergo RMT has no current interest in its existence or otherwise. As things stand first aid competence is no more than a "nice to have" that nobody actually wants to pay for and so it has been dropped. IME nearly all guards would have no issue with being properly trained in first aid but you may be sure that if it was to be written into employment contracts, and therefore become a formal responsibility, some payment would need to be made.

So why is opening and closing the doors (and the if that's in the rule book why does it not happen everywhere) make passengers more safe than say being trained in emergency aid. the rule book can be changed.. that's what this is all about - the claim by the RMT is that by not opening and closing the doors its less safe for passengers.

Thats the root of the argument. Yet they are not fighting for the rule book to be changed to make the 2nd person on board trained in emergency aid.

My job relies on following changing legislation - I adapt and have to use the new rules in my job.

 

[pt_mad]

Yet no one can answer why the RMT think that opening and closing the doors is a red line yet not being trained in emergency aid is acceptable.

Perhaps the doors are a red line so that the guard can be guaranteed for long into the future? Agree to driver dispatch and although an extra member of staff may be planned in or essential for X years, but after the agreement may expire and wouldn't be as difficult for an operator to propose a programme of full DOO from there. And if drivers were already in charge of full diaptach then it wouldnt be as difficult to bring in Vs from the position we have now where a guard is currently essential for the train to move.

First aid can be seen by many as a legal minefield. Do the Tocs have insurance that covers their staff patching up wounds with a few days first aid training? Or would they rather just phone the emergency or non emergency NHS, and follow their instructions? Providing you do what they advise then you'd be covered as not making your own assumptions and risking making something worse.

It's slightly different when a passer by stops in the street to help someone. They wouldn't need insurance. If someone at work starts cleaning up someone's bloody knee and providing a dressing then that, unfortunately, carries some element of risk should they make anything worse. Infection. Or risk of infection to the staff who may end up carrying out first aid on a fairly regular basis of it applies for cuts and surface wounds.

 

[Killingworth]

Meanwhile, out on the network anecdotal evidence suggests Hope Valley outdoor visitors are getting used to a weekend service that only runs on Sundays - now as overcrowded as any day of the week!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the doors are a red line so that the guard can be guaranteed for long into the future? Agree to driver dispatch and although an extra member of staff may be planned in or essential for X years, but after the agreement may expire and wouldn't be as difficult for an operator to propose a programme of full DOO from there. And if drivers were already in charge of full diaptach then it wouldnt be as difficult to bring in Vs from the position we have now where a guard is currently essential for the train to move.

Yes, I think this is what it is. If it's physically impossible to operate the train DOO, then it won't be operated DOO. It guarantees the continuation of the role.

First aid can be seen by many as a legal minefield. Do the Tocs have I Durance that covers their staff patching up wounds with a few days first aid training? Or would they rather just phone the emergency or non emergency NHS, and follow their instructions? Providing you do what they advise then you'd be covered as not making your own assumptions and risking making something worse.

It's slightly different when a passer by stops in the street to help someone. They wouldn't need insurance. If someone at work starts cleaning up someone's bloody knee and providing a dressing then that, unfortunately, carries some element of risk should they make anything worse. Infection. Or risk of infection to the staff who may end up carrying out first aid on a fairly regular basis of it applies for cuts and surface wounds.

Then take out an insurance policy!

 

[nidave]

Perhaps the doors are a red line so that the guard can be guaranteed for long into the future? Agree to driver dispatch and although an extra member of staff may be planned in or essential for X years, but after the agreement may expire and wouldn't be as difficult for an operator to propose a programme of full DOO from there. And if drivers were already in charge of full diaptach then it wouldnt be as difficult to bring in Vs from the position we have now where a guard is currently essential for the train to move.

First aid can be seen by many as a legal minefield. Do the Tocs have insurance that covers their staff patching up wounds with a few days first aid training? Or would they rather just phone the emergency or non emergency NHS, and follow their instructions? Providing you do what they advise then you'd be covered as not making your own assumptions and risking making something worse.

It's slightly different when a passer by stops in the street to help someone. They wouldn't need insurance. If someone at work starts cleaning up someone's bloody knee and providing a dressing then that, unfortunately, carries some element of risk should they make anything worse. Infection. Or risk of infection to the staff who may end up carrying out first aid on a fairly regular basis of it applies for cuts and surface wounds.

So why do companies have to have a first aid trained person in the office. Is there something different about a train full of people compared to a supermarket ?? Why is first aid a legal minefield - I was under the impression it’s likely that the court will not find you liable for providing aid when you are trained to do so. Can you provide any facts to back this claim up?

It’s important though that the law and the fear of being sued doesn’t prevent people from going to someone’s aid in an emergency whether or not they’ve been formally trained. If you are offering life saving treatment in accordance with what would be considered reasonable then it’s likely that the court will not find you liable.

https://orchardtrainingservices.co.uk/can-i-be-sued-for-giving-first-aid/
https://orchardtrainingservices.co.uk/can-i-be-sued-for-giving-first-aid/
How is opening and closing a door safer for the passenger than being able to provide emergency aid to someone? Its a simple question. the RMT seem to think that its safer for the passengers that a guard opens the door than they are trained to provide emergency aid - I would like to know how.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So why is opening and closing the doors (and the if that's in the rule book why does it not happen everywhere) make passengers more safe than say being trained in emergency aid. the rule book can be changed.. that's what this is all about - the claim by the RMT is that by not opening and closing the doors its less safe for passengers.

Thats the root of the argument. Yet they are not fighting for the rule book to be changed to make the 2nd person on board trained in emergency aid.

My job relies on following changing legislation - I adapt and have to use the new rules in my job.

The rule book can of course be changed. But RMT has zero input to such changes. As I said rule book changes tend to arise from lessons learned from incidents. As such any rule book requirement for first aid competence will only happen if an accident investigation, say, identifies that an outcome from said accident was materially worse as a result of the lack of that competence. Even then the cost of implementing the change would still be tested against the notional value of the improved outcome likely to be achieved as a result. Deaths and injuries arising from PTI failings have occurred so the value of proper competence in that area can be assessed. Indeed the PTI is currently the highest single risk factor to which passengers are exposed. But nobody has yet shown that the lack of first aid training has ever made a significant difference to passenger safety. The safety of door operation remains subject to debate. The available statistics are not overwhelming in either direction of the DOO discussion.

 

[nidave]

So the

The rule book can of course be changed. But RMT has zero input to such changes. As I said rule book changes tend to arise from lessons learned from incidents. As such any rule book requirement for first aid competence will only happen if an accident investigation, say, identifies that an outcome from said accident was materially worse as a result of the lack of that competence. Even then the cost of implementing the change would still be tested against the notional value of the improved outcome likely to be achieved as a result. Deaths and injuries arising from PTI failings have occurred so the value of proper competence in that area can be assessed. Indeed the PTI is currently the highest single risk factor to which passengers are exposed. But nobody has yet shown that the lack of first aid training has ever made a significant difference to passenger safety. The safety of door operation remains subject to debate. The available statistics are not overwhelming in either direction of the DOO discussion.

But is it not one of the things the RMT are saying us unchangeable and they wont accept anything less - that a guard opening and closing the doors is essential to passenger safety. I am trying to get my head around how this is more important than other things like (to keep banging on about a point) the person not being first aid trained.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

But is it not one of the things the RMT are saying us unchangeable and they wont accept anything less - that a guard opening and closing the doors is essential to passenger safety. I am trying to get my head around how this is more important than other things like (to keep banging on about a point) the person not being first aid trained.

You can bang on about it all you like (and that's partly what a forum is for!) but the fact is that first aid competence simply isn't part of the safety argument for anyone with responsibility for safety management. As such RMT have absolutely nothing to gain by including it as part of their argument. I guess your view of what constitutes passenger safety is rather different to those who are actually tasked with making decisions in this area. Perhaps you need to find like-minded individuals and start a campaign...

 

[nidave]

You can bang on about it all you like (and that's partly what a forum is for!) but the fact is that first aid competence simply isn't part of the safety argument for anyone with responsibility for safety management. As such RMT have absolutely nothing to gain by including it as part of their argument. I guess your view of what constitutes passenger safety is rather different to those who are actually tasked with making decisions in this area. Perhaps you need to find like-minded individuals and start a campaign...

So in other words you cant tell me why ensuring that only the guard can open and close the doors is essential to passenger safety like the RMT say it is. OK then.

 

[Tomnick]

So in other words you cant tell me why ensuring that only the guard can open and close the doors is essential to passenger safety like the RMT say it is. OK then.

Firstly it’s defending the status quo rather than demanding additional competencies as first aid training would be - that’s that distinction.

It’s clear that it’s safer (to some extent) for the guard to dispatch the train than for the driver to do it (with, generally, a poorer view of the platform/train interface and more distractions from his other duties). It’s not just about “opening and closing doors” though - the guard’s role also includes responsibility for carrying out emergency protection in some circumstances, for example, which again provides a safety benefit to some extent.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So in other words you cant tell me why ensuring that only the guard can open and close the doors is essential to passenger safety like the RMT say it is. OK then.

I am not a spokesperson for the RMT. But in my view the safe supervision of the closing of passenger doors can be achieved more effectively by a guard due to them having the possibility of changing their position on the platform as opposed to being confined to a fixed view provided by bodyside cameras. The assistance available to PRMs is also enhanced by the guard having to be on the platform during each and every station stop. But I have no problem with drivers releasing the doors. The safety of that could however be improved by the use of both CSDE and ASDO, the functions of which are almost, but not quite, guaranteed to be carried out by guards releasing doors.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes, I think this is what it is. If it's physically impossible to operate the train DOO, then it won't be operated DOO. It guarantees the continuation of the role.

Of course, it’s been a long established practice (with considerable success) of the RMT to try to force settlement of all their DOO related disputes on that basis if they possibly can, however It appears those at the DFT are now wise to that and try and guide the industry accordingly. .

 

[andy35554]

This is dragging on so long I don't know why they just don't walk out indefinitely. As far as I can see the 39 or so strikes so far have not worked.

 

[Jeni]

As a Northern passenger I've lost all sympathy for the guards cause.

 

[pt_mad]

Yes, I think this is what it is. If it's physically impossible to operate the train DOO, then it won't be operated DOO. It guarantees the continuation of the role.



Then take out an insurance policy!

I know that seems like a logical answer in theory (take out suitable insurance and train all your onboard ops staff in first aid), and I think the TOCs will be well insured.

The grey lies where how much of the responsibility is on the company and how much is on the worker if they issue first aid, where another person may have called for medical personnel, and then the first aider does what they thinks is best in the moment, makes something worse or doesnt do something quite right or quite well enough. Like dealing with cuts or minor wounds. Let's be honest, if you wernt 100 percent sure, you just wouldn't do it, and would call for help or ensure the person made the trip to a&e or minor injuries unit if that's what the 111 operator advised.

 

[pt_mad]

So why do companies have to have a first aid trained person in the office. Is there something different about a train full of people compared to a supermarket ?? Why is first aid a legal minefield - I was under the impression it’s likely that the court will not find you liable for providing aid when you are trained to do so. Can you provide any facts to back this claim up?


https://orchardtrainingservices.co.uk/can-i-be-sued-for-giving-first-aid/
How is opening and closing a door safer for the passenger than being able to provide emergency aid to someone? Its a simple question. the RMT seem to think that its safer for the passengers that a guard opens the door than they are trained to provide emergency aid - I would like to know how.

Well I think people would seriously hope nothing would reach any court. Otherwise they would have wished they'd left any wound well alone and called 111.

Anyway without drifting too off topic I think we are getting some type of picture as to some of the reasons why first aid training is not carried out on absolute mass.

As well as it seemingly not being a legal requirement or obligation in every public premises, it'd be hard to force someone to train and then administer where they didn't feel comfortable or confident, when there is always the option of getting a professional on the phone pretty much straight away and doing exactly what they say. They will judge from their end whether someone needs to come out on an non emergency basis, an emergency basis, or whether the person should arrange transport to hospital.

 

[Bantamzen]

As a Northern passenger I've lost all sympathy for the guards cause.

As another I haven't, I have however run out of patience with RMT's 1970's style tactics. But this is exactly what I was referring to in some of my earlier posts. There is a tipping point in a long running dispute where disruption goes from inconvenience to a serious problem. I think this dispute has passed that point, and public support will wain quickly.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, it’s been a long established practice (with considerable success) of the RMT to try to force settlement of all their DOO related disputes on that basis if they possibly can, however It appears those at the DFT are now wise to that and try and guide the industry accordingly. .

With Northern passengers as collateral damage in this ideological battle.

 

[yorksrob]

As a Northern passenger, I feel that none of the protagonists in this dispute are acting in my interests. They are all pursuing their own interests at my expense.

 

[DaveB10780]

As a Northern passenger, I feel that none of the protagonists in this dispute are acting in my interests. They are all pursuing their own interests at my expense.

My sentiments exactly, not a care in the world about passengers. Organisations like that deserve to go under as quickly as possible.

 

[furnessvale]

My sentiments exactly, not a care in the world about passengers. Organisations like that deserve to go under as quickly as possible.

As an aside, do you consider the RMT to be an "organisation", or is that definition confined to Northern and the current management of DfT?

 

[DaveB10780]

As an aside, do you consider the RMT to be an "organisation", or is that definition confined to Northern and the current management of DfT?

Definitely including the RMT, they are a key part of the problem. Northern and Dft are not covering themselves in glory either, The fact that customers are continually affected by these power struggles seems to have been forgotten by all protagonists. I do have a special sadness for the guards who have leaders who seem to delight in creating as much inflammatory material as possible, rather than try and solve the problem of running trains.

 

[Overspeed110]

So why is opening and closing the doors (and the if that's in the rule book why does it not happen everywhere) make passengers more safe than say being trained in emergency aid. the rule book can be changed.. that's what this is all about - the claim by the RMT is that by not opening and closing the doors its less safe for passengers.

Thats the root of the argument. Yet they are not fighting for the rule book to be changed to make the 2nd person on board trained in emergency aid.

My job relies on following changing legislation - I adapt and have to use the new rules in my job.

"Opening and closing the doors" is not the "root" of the argument at all, but it is part of it.

The main reason for the dispute is Northern want to start running trains with no second person aboard who will be PTS trained / safety critical. Yes I'm aware of the recent statements from TfN etc, but nothing has been guaranteed yet by anyone, least of all Northern.

Another reason that a second PTS trained / safety critical member of staff needs to remain on every train is to look after the passengers should the driver become incapacitated / traumatised either through injury /suicide etc. There have been quite a few incidents that fall into this category over the last few years, the guard is there in these situations to take control, prevent such things as passengers letting themselves off the train, summon assistance and let the passengers know what is going on.

Also, should this DOO nonsense be pushed through and trains start to run without another person on board, (theres no guarantee of this yet, regardless of the latest fluffy press releases), who helps elderly / disabled passengers on and off the trains? Who is there on the trains that people can go to should there be a problem?

I totally agree with the reasons behind this dispute and hope that Northern / TfN and the RMT can at some point thrash out an agreement that keeps a second safety critical person on EVERY train.