Railway Industrial Disputes Mk2

[Snow1964]

Oh, and the reason that employers don’t employ enough staff to run the service without overtime working is simple, it’s significantly cheaper to have a smaller number of permanent staff working some overtime compared to employing the correct number of permanent full time employees.

It’s actually a two way gain, the employer saves on recruiting and training extra staff, and those who volunteer for overtime choose to receive extra money.

Now if employees only did their contracted hours (as is normal in some sectors of business) they employer wouldn’t even consider under resourcing its headcount.

That is why traditionally overtime was paid at incentive rates (often 1.5 times, sometimes double time) to encourage volunteering.

What seems to cause confusion is that some people have contracts which say things like must do 1700 hours annually with minimum of 200 on each day of the week as rostered. Therefore Sundays are part of the core hours.

Not everyone’s contract will be same, back in early 1980s I had a job in a supermarket and occasionally we restocked seasonal goods on a Sunday, it was voluntary overtime paid at double time, but now they open Sundays I suspect they have employed people who don’t get double time on Sundays. It is same with railways, for decades were very few trains on Sundays and it was all done as voluntary premium overtime. But nowadays modern all week operating means recently employed often have it in their core hours.

Can companies change conditions, generally no, but what many do is offer (can be not taken up, not mandatory) a promotion, and with new role comes new terms and conditions. It takes a few years but apart from those who want a simple life usually allows conversion of terms of employment.

A voluntary overtime ban would probably be more effective than occasional one day strikes, but for those used to the extra overtime money would cost them more (but conversely those who choose to do no overtime would not lose any money either).

 

[Goldfish62]

That's down to the powers that be actually sorting that out ....which will invariably mean recruiting more staff. And more expense ....and dearer tickets

I dare say if BR was still around it would have been sorted years ago. Privatisation resulted in comparatively little change in working practices due to risk aversion, which has simply stored up trouble as is now being experienced.

 

[Moonshot]

I dare say if BR was still around it would have been sorted years ago. Privatisation resulted in comparatively little change in working practices due to risk aversion, which has simply stored up trouble as is now being experienced.

Privatisation also saw an increase in both services and passenger numbers. It's only the last 12 month or so that has seen a dramatic increase in the number of industrial relations issues....caused by the lack of a payrise

 

[74A]

I dare say if BR was still around it would have been sorted years ago. Privatisation resulted in comparatively little change in working practices due to risk aversion, which has simply stored up trouble as is now being experienced.

If BR were still around drivers would be on much less money. Its only the privatisation nonsense that drove wages up as each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving for a TOC paying more. So you had a wage spiral

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can someone advise me of the dates that Parliament is striking over the summer because the MP's have decided not work their rest days? Thanks in advance.

I too would like to know which are the MP rest days.

 

[91108]

If BR were still around drivers would be on much less money. Its only the privatisation nonsense that drove wages up as each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving for a TOC paying more. So you had a wage spiral

Some TOCs didn’t want to the cost of training drivers so offered more money and then each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving.

 

[Moonshot]

If BR were still around drivers would be on much less money. Its only the privatisation nonsense that drove wages up as each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving for a TOC paying more. So you had a wage spiral

Good old market forces. Unions didn't have to try too hard to achieve some decent rises. Drivers especially....

 

[mandub]

It isn't a question of whether people want to. It should be recognised that the nature of public transport is that it is a seven day a week business by its very nature in terms of pssenger requirements. Plenty of other industries long ago reflected that. There is no logical reason why rail should be any different.

What do you propose for Avanti and Sunday working? No easy answers I can see.

- 7 day a week new contracts? Fair enough, my TOC is going this way. It will need DfT to agree new hiring of drivers to cover what is currently being done by overtime

- or do you mean drivers already employed at Avanti to be compelled to work overtime on as many Sundays as the company needs.
This presumably is a non starter

 

[74A]

- or do you mean drivers already employed at Avanti to be compelled to work overtime on as many Sundays as the company needs.
This presumably is a non ststarter

Avanti already have committed Sundays. Their issue is they don't have enough qualified drivers.

The amount of Sundays worked is in their rosters which is agreed with the unions. They can't be made to work any more than that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How well would it be received if TOC were to reschedule all Sunday services on a realistic basis that would be produced after discussions with the rail unions on the information provided by the unions to them after discussion with their membership? Everyone in the industry would have had a discussion input then.

 

[mandub]

Avanti already have committed Sundays. Their issue is they don't have enough qualified drivers.

The amount of Sundays worked is in their rosters which is agreed with the unions. They can't be made to work any more than that.

I know mate..same setup at my TOC.
Just seemed posters up the thread were suggesting even more Sundays should be done over and above the committed ones??

 

[TUC]

What do you propose for Avanti and Sunday working? No easy answers I can see.

- 7 day a week new contracts? Fair enough, my TOC is going this way. It will need DfT to agree new hiring of drivers to cover what is currently being done by overtime

- or do you mean drivers already employed at Avanti to be compelled to work overtime on as many Sundays as the company needs.
This presumably is a non starter

In terms of the latter, how did other industries make the move to seven day working?

How well would it be received if TOC were to reschedule all Sunday services on a realistic basis that would be produced after discussions with the rail unions on the information provided by the unions to them after discussion with their membership? Everyone in the industry would have had a discussion input then.

Where do passengers needs fit into that? They should be the overriding factor in determining service levels.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where do passengers needs fit into that? They should be the overriding factor in determining service levels.

That may well be the aspiration, but if Sunday rostering to provide the wherewithal stays as it currently stands, then realism must be faced.

 

[nuneatonmark]

All contracts relating to the core service, i.e. on board staff, drivers, signalling etc etc should be on 7 day a week contracts with the TOCs/Government hiring the right number of people to do the jobs. Relying on overtime and 'volunteering' is just ridiculous.

 

[Timetraveller]

Hey, why not everyone goto 7 day contracts, schools open 7 days a week, along with lawyers, office workers, Banks and all shops. Therefore no need for sunday hours trading. One weekend in 6 rostered off for everyone and therefore spread the Leisure Market during the full week. No overloading on Saturdays or Sundays.

 

[Starmill]

All contracts relating to the core service, i.e. on board staff, drivers, signalling etc etc should be on 7 day a week contracts with the TOCs/Government hiring the right number of people to do the jobs. Relying on overtime and 'volunteering' is just ridiculous.

Obviously this is certainly a desirable position but as is frequently pointed out there aren't enough hours in the business to cover that. Even if you extend weeks to 40 - 42 hours there still won't be enough.

 

[Annetts key]

It isn't a question of whether people want to. It should be recognised that the nature of public transport is that it is a seven day a week business by its very nature in terms of pssenger requirements. Plenty of other industries long ago reflected that. There is no logical reason why rail should be any different.

Don’t know about other industries, but for 24 hour, seven day a week cover, the function where I am needed four team leaders to cover one team per week in the past. At the time, Sunday was not part of the working week, but most worked three out of four to boost their wages.

Now Sundays are part of the working week, now we have six team leaders to cover one team per week.

By one team per week, I mean one team on duty at any time day or night over seven days. If the requirement is to have two teams on duty at any time, double the numbers of staff are needed.

Is there still overtime working? Yes, because they did not employ more people, so whenever anyone takes leave/holiday, attends training courses or is off sick, it has to be covered with overtime, as there are no longer any staff on spare turns.

All contracts relating to the core service, i.e. on board staff, drivers, signalling etc etc should be on 7 day a week contracts with the TOCs/Government hiring the right number of people to do the jobs. Relying on overtime and 'volunteering' is just ridiculous.

But the government are still stuck in the past. They want to reduce funding of the railways. So they say there is no extra money to pay the existing staff a modest pay rise, let alone have enough staff to reduce overtime working.

Hey, why not everyone goto 7 day contracts, schools open 7 days a week, along with lawyers, office workers, Banks and all shops. Therefore no need for sunday hours trading. One weekend in 6 rostered off for everyone and therefore spread the Leisure Market during the full week. No overloading on Saturdays or Sundays.

We live in a 24 hour a day / seven days a week world, so government including ministers, MPs and parliament should really all be run 24 hour a day / seven days a week, with government ministers at the very least working round the clock shifts.

 

[dk1]

Nobody wants to work weekends as overtime. It's that simple.

I would work every Sunday if I could so do not agree with that sweeping statement.

 

[43066]

Where do passengers needs fit into that? They should be the overriding factor in determining service levels.

Passengers aren’t able to drive trains and work as guards, last I checked.

All contracts relating to the core service, i.e. on board staff, drivers, signalling etc etc should be on 7 day a week contracts with the TOCs/Government hiring the right number of people to do the jobs. Relying on overtime and 'volunteering' is just ridiculous.

It won’t ever change, mark my words. Even under GBR the railway will continue to rely heavily on overtime.

I would work every Sunday if I could so do not agree with that sweeping statement.

I don’t mind them either! Albeit I preferred them at my old commuter TOC, longer distance trains are rammed on Sundays….

 

[Annetts key]

Just imagine the number of station overruns, SPADs and TPWS/AWS/ATP activations there would be if passengers were let loose driving trains…

Just like the number of misrouted trains is likely to be significantly higher as a proportion of trains run when the RMT signallers are on strike and managers are trying to operate the signal boxes/panels/PSBs/etc.

 

[Shrop]

Na, it's a highly skilled job where thousands fail recruitment so it's difficult to employ. With staff leaving because they don't get paid enough so turnover always exacerbates the issue.

Its not that hard to learn how to drink tea and push levers surely...

...and push colour coded buttons.

The driving is the easy part, a child could do it.

Maybe they could lower the entry requirent to 18.

I've always wondered about train driving. By the age of 12, I'd sat in the front of enough Swindon units behind the driver on my daily commute to school to know EXACTLY what he (never "she" in those days) was going to do, every bit of the way, including for every signal setting, station approach etc etc. But when I applied to drive trains at the age of 22, I was immediately excluded because I wore glasses, even though they gave me perfect vision, and have done for over 40 years since.

More recently, my son in law was flying planes full of passengers across the Atlantic to the USA at aged 20, but was refused a pint of shandy when he got there.

So, with addition of a career in road traffic management I have all sorts of views about driving, including how crazy many of our driving rules and regs are!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So for a near 24/7 railway, lets have:

Enough staff on the payroll to run the service, including weekends - or,
Continued agreements in place to pay overtime for staff who wish to work. And from some of the comments here, many staff are perfectly happy to work weekends

Why is this so difficult (for the government)!?

I understand each TOC is different, but why not just have Sunday working contracted into the working week for new recruits (e.g. you may be asked to work 1-2 Sundays in 4) and keep it as overtime for legacy staff?

Again, is this so difficult?

 

[387star]

Any news on ASLEF talks ? Is it just pay or is there a move to DOO contracts etc

 

[HSTEd]

I understand each TOC is different, but why not just have Sunday working contracted into the working week for new recruits (e.g. you may be asked to work 1-2 Sundays in 4) and keep it as overtime for legacy staff?

Ultimately this would take 20 years to improve the current situation significantly, certainly no significant improvement would be noticeable until long after the current funding issues have been settled one way or another.

 

[Annetts key]

Why is this so difficult (for the government)!?

Because the government (a) appear to have great difficulty understanding the real world outside, (b) they want everything done on the cheap unless forced to do different, (c) they often prefer to impose rather than negotiating properly and (d) the ordinary workers and the unions that represent them are often ignored.

There are plenty of examples of (a) around. Political dogma and the treasury see to (b). (c) again is political dogma, we were elected so we can do what we want as we have a mandate. (d) because the industry (like some of the rest of the country) is stuck in a top down approach to most things.

Funnily enough, most unions (and options vary widely about this), prefer the correct number of full time staff to be employed without excessive amounts of overtime having to be worked. But in negotiations, often the employer wants something for not very much in return.

 

[Starmill]

Why is this so difficult (for the government)!?

It's mainly because they want to spend less, significantly less.

Again, is this so difficult?

It's certainly not impossible. If you can come up with the subsidy to pay for it.

 

[ashkeba]

Passengers aren’t able to drive trains and work as guards, last I checked.

I am confident most passengers are able to drive trains or work as guards, but often not safely so they are not allowed to do so! This is another "be careful what you wish for" because if drivers push back too far, a fool like Shapps might weaken the requirements in order to replace drivers with cheaper ones. It is only passenger-plebs who will die, maybe long after Shapps has been sacked.

 

[whoosh]

With railway management bosses like Avanti and Shapps posting derogatory and false comments about their staff on social media it’s no surprise they’re struggling to find volunteers for overtime.

If I worked for Avanti, I’d be pulling all my future rest days, working my rostered hours and not a minute more. The good will ship has well and truly sailed

I think that's the aim. I think the government wants to incite unofficial action so it can go, "See, look at them - hooligans!"

If BR were still around drivers would be on much less money. Its only the privatisation nonsense that drove wages up as each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving for a TOC paying more. So you had a wage spiral

Some TOCs didn’t want to the cost of training drivers so offered more money and then each TOC had to increase their wages to stop drivers leaving.

Good old market forces. Unions didn't have to try too hard to achieve some decent rises. Drivers especially....

Take Kings Cross. Privatisation came along and the drivers got to chose who they worked for in seniority order. As the Intercity work paid the most as mileage payments were made then, all the most senior drivers went to GNER.

That left WAGN with the least senior, which included VACANCIES....

GNER set to work with a Driver Restructuring Initiative, which got rid of mileage payments (which were quite a lot - just a Doncaster and back was worth an additional 5 hours 20 minutes of pay as a mileage allowance), as well as other enhancements, and replaced it with a higher clean salary. As part of the higher clean salary it was also agreed for only one driver to be provided above 110mph (it was two beforehand).
Getting rid of the need for two drivers and only having one, meant that some were offered voluntary severance.

Soon though, they needed to increase services. So they recruited qualified drivers. Some of them came from WAGN.

That left WAGN with more VACANCIES....
WAGN, with it's VACANCIES at the bottom of it's seniority list at Kings Cross, then had retirements at places like Cambridge, Kings Lynn, and Peterborough, so people disappearing off the top of the list as well, and drivers moved to the space created at those depots by transferring from Kings Cross and either not commuting to work anymore (because they already lived near the other depots) or moving out of London to a larger or cheaper property.

So that of course left WAGN with more VACANCIES...

So they recruited.

Then WAGN needed to increase their services.
So that left WAGN with VACANCIES.

WAGN got taken over by First Capital Connect, and when First Capital Connect left with GTR taking over, there were more vacancies than agreed in their "returning the keys agreement" because it was cheaper to pay the fine involved, than to have driver headcount at the specified amount.



A similar story in other parts of the country.

All contracts relating to the core service, i.e. on board staff, drivers, signalling etc etc should be on 7 day a week contracts with the TOCs/Government hiring the right number of people to do the jobs. Relying on overtime and 'volunteering' is just ridiculous.

GNER did with all grades under Chris Garnett, bringing Sundays into the working week. There is still rest day work on all days of the week.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've always wondered about train driving. By the age of 12, I'd sat in the front of enough Swindon units behind the driver on my daily commute to school to know EXACTLY what he (never "she" in those days) was going to do, every bit of the way, including for every signal setting, station approach etc etc. But when I applied to drive trains at the age of 22, I was immediately excluded because I wore glasses, even though they gave me perfect vision, and have done for over 40 years since.

More recently, my son in law was flying planes full of passengers across the Atlantic to the USA at aged 20, but was refused a pint of shandy when he got there.

So, with addition of a career in road traffic management I have all sorts of views about driving, including how crazy many of our driving rules and regs are!

First up, congratulations go to your son-in-law for taking the co-pilot's seat on a trans-Atlantic flight at his age. That's simply amazing, he'll have an amazing career in front of him.

Getting back on topic, I have to say I have a tremendous amount of respect for the men & women that work the railways, especially those at the sharp end working those services everyday. And I don't have a problem with them wanting the best that they can get from their careers, but there also has to be some realism here. Right now the economic situation is looking dire for all of us, and I'm certain we'd all love an inflation busting pay rise to counter it. But the bottom line is that these strikes are not only hurting the passengers, but those businesses that rely on said punters being tipped off the trains. And the expectation of better-than-inflation pay rises will simply translate into higher fares, leading to fewer passengers, leading to more disputes on the railways, ultimately leading to fewer service needed, and fewer staff needed to run them.

Sometimes you have to know when it is better to take a step back today in order to take a few more forward tomorrow.

 

[74A]

Yes and then WAGN had to increase driver salaries to try and stop the flow of drivers leaving. In the real world Inter City drivers would be paid more than Regional. They drove longer trains with more passengers which brought in more revenue

You can do the math. One driver driving an 8 coach train is cheaper than 4 drivers driving 4 trains of 2 coaches.

ASLEF had them over a barrel. If they wanted their money from the franchise the companies had to keep giving pay rises. Now the government has taken over they just look at the cost and how much drivers are earning and said no pay rise.

They can negotiate on productivity but as ASLEF have said no more DOO I'm not sure what else there is.