Avanti and their current problems. What could be done to improve things?

[Moonshot]

They’ll always be overtime.

Possibly......but timetabling services in tandem with normal staff diagrams without overtime is the way to go. Obviously more expensive in terms of staff costs, but judging by what was discussed at the TSC meeting the other week, it seems all parties are actually happy with that. Sundays inside is almost certain to happen for everyone in the not too distant future, unless the committed ones are sufficient.

 

[dk1]

Possibly......but timetabling services in tandem with normal staff diagrams without overtime is the way to go. Obviously more expensive in terms of staff costs, but judging by what was discussed at the TSC meeting the other week, it seems all parties are actually happy with that. Sundays inside is almost certain to happen for everyone in the not too distant future, unless the committed ones are sufficient.

Not at my TOC. Many drivers want it but apparently it’s not affordable. Then again at GA we have very few if any problems with staffing even Sundays.

 

[Carlisle]

Avanti management really have got themselves into a pickle...

Yes they have a bit, but they’re not completely stupid either. They’ll be well aware that the huge growth of WhatsApp & other chat groups make unofficial action such as is being alleged, potentially far easier to coordinate than it used to be, although whether senior management making these rather awkward industrial relations arguments public, advances the wider debate at all, I’m not sure.

 

[muz379]

Possibly......but timetabling services in tandem with normal staff diagrams without overtime is the way to go. Obviously more expensive in terms of staff costs, but judging by what was discussed at the TSC meeting the other week, it seems all parties are actually happy with that. Sundays inside is almost certain to happen for everyone in the not too distant future, unless the committed ones are sufficient.

I think the DFT/RDG looking to reduce costs will cynically go for committed over inside the working week . Bringing them inside the working week has a huge cost in increasing headcounts . Committed can be done with the current headcounts .

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I go to the pub and get thoroughly drunk on my days off personally.

And then home for some difficulty.

I’m sure the Avanti drivers are grateful that the media is gaslighting them massively with chatter about unofficial strikes.

 

[43066]

Read the bit where I say if the allegations have no substance, then the union should take legal action. Come on mate, keep up!!

What legal action specifically and how much would it cost? As I said, just running to court isn’t necessarily a straight forward option.

Seriously though, I would be interested to hear from someone within the union, or it's membership say 100% that nothing like that which Avanti are alleging is occurring off radar as it were.

There’s at least one Avanti west coast driver commenting on this thread who has confirmed it’s nonsense.

You brought up the subject of risk to staff. Nothing agitates people more than a service falling apart at the seams, including strikes. I know the official TUC line is that the entire population are busy banging pots on Thursday nights in support of the industrial action, but its really not that black and white. The great British public's patience will only stretch too far, and a few more "train drivers on £50K+ want inflation busting* pay rise" headlines and lots will turn against the strike.

We are talking specifically about completely unfounded allegations of “unofficial” action here - I’m not sure why your rehashing your arguments against taking industrial action at all? They’re off topic and I’ve explained why I don’t agree with them (and will be voting accordingly when balloted) countless times.

Once again I have a suspicion that you’re using the “British public” as a rather obvious proxy for your personal views…

They really don't. I'm afraid you faith in the public nodding in agreement with the strikes and all its growing dramas when they find out all their trains home are cancelled because of "a lack of train crew" is totally misplaced. People panic and get angry when the local Co-op runs out of bread, how do you think ever growing rounds of action will be received, especially when the nice weather turns back to being British?

You’ve misunderstood. I’m explaining why I think false accusations of ongoing industrial action might be more likely to lead to risk or assault than specifically defined official action notified in advance. Most people can understand that a lack of train crew is not anything to do with industrial action, it’s to do with not employing enough staff. The government/TOC are - very obviously - attempting to use the current industrial relations climate to obfuscate the underlying issue.

You can spin anything: “NHS waiting lists are growing ever longer because nurses and doctors are engaged in unofficial industrial action by by not working on their days off”. That would also be nonsense - its funny how one group of workers can do no wrong while on the railway we’re apparently regarded as the scum of the Earth.

Or the readers could say "they are whinging about pay rises but won't work any bloody overtime to earn it, on their wages".

As if £50-60k is *that* much money.

There are plenty of jealous idiots who despise anyone who earns more than themselves out there, it’s true. It’s hardly worth worrying about what people like that think.

They’ll be well aware that the huge growth of WhatsApp & other chat groups make unofficial action such as is being alleged, potentially far easier to coordinate than it used to be

That just sounds like another unfounded allegation. Shock horror could it possibly be as simple as that if you destroy goodwill of a workforce enough they won’t want to spend a second more than they have to at work?! I’m sure you won’t entertain such a simple possibility because it doesn’t fit with your view of the world where everything is the fault of the unions and train crew…

Also rather shows how all the “minimum service level” nonsense will likely be quite ineffective in practice. It’s perfectly possible to absolutely devastate the service simply by cutting back on overtime, without any taking any industrial action whatsoever.

 

[Snow1964]

Was reported on the radio 2 news sometime this afternoon that “avanti are proposing a reduced service due to their drivers refusing to work overtime”.

Are they refusing or choosing not to ?

Quite a fundamental difference, as first one is a definite decision by employee.

The second is not any form of dispute, but suggests the business is not making it attractive to do so. So is in employers control.

ASLEF should really be explaining the difference clearly for those who are carelessly using the terms interchangeably.

 

[43066]

Possibly......but timetabling services in tandem with normal staff diagrams without overtime is the way to go. Obviously more expensive in terms of staff costs, but judging by what was discussed at the TSC meeting the other week, it seems all parties are actually happy with that. Sundays inside is almost certain to happen for everyone in the not too distant future, unless the committed ones are sufficient.

That may be what ASLEF want but it’s not the way to go as far as the industry is concerned, simply because it will cost a lot more than the current arrangements. We know that GBR has proposed committed Sundays as the benchmark for those without Sundays in their working week - ie reliance on overtime. The service would not function without significant amounts of overtime being worked. That was the case under BR, all through privatisation and there isn’t any sign of it changing now.

 

[Amos]

Are they refusing or choosing not to ?

Quite a fundamental difference, as first one is a definite decision by employee.

The second is not any form of dispute, but suggests the business is not making it attractive to do so. So is in employers control.

ASLEF should really be explaining the difference clearly for those who are carelessly using the terms interchangeably.

It was stated that they are refusing.However,I think this was more a case of poor editing, and the bbc have simply put out something that was sent to them.

 

[Bantamzen]

What legal action specifically and how much would it cost? As I said, just running to court isn’t necessarily a straight forward option.

How would I know what cost? I know it isn't straightforward, but if there are potential consequences as a result of the allegations and they are untrue the union may not have a choice. I thought you were all about protecting the members?

There’s at least one Avanti west coast driver commenting on this thread who has confirmed it’s nonsense.

I must confess I must have missed that.

We are talking specifically about completely unfounded allegations of “unofficial” action here - I’m not sure why your rehashing your arguments against taking industrial action at all? They’re off topic and I’ve explained why I don’t agree with them (and will be voting accordingly when balloted) countless times.

Well as of this moment they are not unfounded. And that is critical.

Once again I have a suspicion that you’re using the “British public” as a rather obvious proxy for your personal views…

<yet another wrong answer Claxton>

You’ve misunderstood. I’m explaining why I think false accusations of ongoing industrial action might be more likely to lead to risk or assault than specifically defined official action notified in advance. Most people can understand that a lack of train crew is not anything to do with industrial action, it’s to do with not employing enough staff. The government/TOC are - very obviously - attempting to use the current industrial relations climate to obfuscate the underlying issue.

Why are allegation more likely to cause staff problems. I'd say the number one potential flashpoint would be the punters on the ground seeing the word 'Cancelled due to lack of staff' against their train service. Not that I would ever condone anything ever being said to staff let alone done, but the potential is much more likely there than as a result of these Tweets.

And on the issue of unofficial action, the unions need to be very clear on what is and isn't considered part of the industrial action. For example a conversation between staff i the messroom about all agreeing not to work rest days may seem fair enough, but if done up and down the country it could well be seen as unofficial action. Like I said I don't know the exact legislation surrounding strikes these days, but unions have to be very careful not to step over the line, and if some union officials on the ground get involved that might appear to some to be organised by the union.

Its not the 80s any more, you can't just shout "everybody out". For unions there is a legislative and legal minefield to tread through, one set up by successive governments. Unions have to be mindful of what they organise, and ensure members don't take it further. One wrong move and the strike, and by proxy any ongoing negotiations could collapse, probably along with the whole operation.

You can spin anything: “NHS waiting lists are growing ever longer because nurses and doctors are engaged in unofficial industrial action by by not working on their days off”. That would also be nonsense - its funny how one group of workers can do no wrong while on the railway we’re apparently regarded as the scum of the Earth.

Are nurses and doctors engaged in unofficial action? And nobody is considering you the scum of the Earth, you do get a bit dramatic sometimes....

As if £50-60k is *that* much money.

There are plenty of jealous idiots who despise anyone who earns more than themselves out there, it’s true. It’s hardly worth worrying about what people like that think.

For most people in this country it is though, just saying. But besides that, please look at the context I used it in.

That just sounds like another unfounded allegation. Shock horror could it possibly be as simple as that if you destroy goodwill of a workforce enough they won’t want to spend a second more than they have to at work?! I’m sure that doesn’t fit with your view of the world where everything is the fault of the unions and train crew…

As per the above, if it goes beyond the scope of the industrial action it can have consequences. I'm sure your local rep could give you more information on this.

Also rather shows how all the “minimum service level” nonsense will likely be quite ineffective in practice. It’s perfectly possible to absolutely devastate the service simply by cutting back on overtime, without any taking any industrial action whatsoever.

Don't be so quick to dismiss this as a possibility, even if it seems impracticable. Governments don't always see in terms of practicable, you may have noticed this over the last two and a half years for example.

 

[Moonshot]

That may be what ASLEF want but it’s not the way to go as far as the industry is concerned, simply because it will cost a lot more than the current arrangements. We know that GBR has proposed committed Sundays as the benchmark for those without Sundays in their working week - ie reliance on overtime. The service would not function without significant amounts of overtime being worked. That was the case under BR, all through privatisation and there isn’t any sign of it changing now.

Surely if ASLEF are stating that, then the membership would simply follow? If that went to a vote, would Sundays inside ( where it doesn't currently exist ) actually become reality?

 

[43066]

How would I know what cost? I know it isn't straightforward, but if there are potential consequences as a result of the allegations and they are untrue the union may not have a choice. I thought you were all about protecting the members?

I’m sure all options are being considered. I certainly don’t think it’s safe to assume that not going to court implies that there’s any substance to what is being alleged. If anything common sense would suggest the opposite is more likely. Avanti are being supported by the government, so have access to an effectively bottomless pit of money. They would have been the first to run to court to obtain injunctive relief to attack the union if they had true evidence of “unofficial action”.

I must confess I must have missed that.

One of the regular posters. I’m not going to indicate who because it’s supposed to be an anonymous forum, but it’s fairly clear who it is from following their posts on the forum.

Well as of this moment they are not unfounded. And that is critical.

They are completely and utterly unfounded. All that’s happened is that Avanti have annoyed their workforce and found that people are doing the bare minimum, not working overtime etc. Frankly given how they’ve doubled down on these scurrilous accusations I expect things will get worse before they get better!

<yet another wrong answer Claxton>

The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

Why are allegation more likely to cause staff problems. I'd say the number one potential flashpoint would be the punters on the ground seeing the word 'Cancelled due to lack of staff' against their train service. Not that I would ever condone anything ever being said to staff let alone done, but the potential is much more likely there than as a result of these Tweets.

I don’t see anything wrong with saying “Cancelled due to lack of staff”’, so long as it’s truthful. It doesn’t imply fault on behalf of the staff themselves (and by definition cannot be the fault of those staff who are physically present!). Even your average half witted, slack jawed oik, of the kind who think it’s acceptable to go around assaulting train crew, can see that!

Contrast with “your trains are cancelled due to drivers taking unofficial strike action”. Which implies staff/their union are acting improperly and potentially illegally.

And on the issue of unofficial action, the unions need to be very clear on what is and isn't considered part of the industrial action. For example a conversation between staff i the messroom about all agreeing not to work rest days may seem fair enough, but if done up and down the country it could well be seen as unofficial action. Like I said I don't know the exact legislation surrounding strikes these days, but unions have to be very careful not to step over the line, and if some union officials on the ground get involved that might appear to some to be organised by the union.

No it would not be seen as fair enough and if you were caught having such a conversation you could find yourself up on an disciplinary charge on the basis that you’re inciting unofficial action. That is the warning that was been dished out by ASLEF reps at my previous TOC when conversations along those lines were overheard.

Any conversations along these lines on work WhatsApp groups would be highly risky because the evidence is all there in writing so there’s no deniability. It then only takes one person with a grudge/trying to make an name for themselves (and there’s at least one in every depot) to take it into the office.

Its not the 80s any more, you can't just shout "everybody out". For unions there is a legislative and legal minefield to tread through, one set up by successive governments. Unions have to be mindful of what they organise, and ensure members don't take it further. One wrong move and the strike, and by proxy any ongoing negotiations could collapse, probably along with the whole operation.

But we aren’t talking about strike action or action short of a strike here.

Are nurses and doctors engaged in unofficial action? And nobody is considering you the scum of the Earth

No and neither are the train crew. Of course NHS staff have also (rightly) been given a pay rise so there’s no need for them to take action.

But why is it the problems on the railway is always blamed on overpaid staff/unions whereas the NHS is always underfunded despite budgets constantly increasing, nurses on 3 day weeks and GPs trousering £100k+ average earnings despite often not seeing patients?!

As per the above, if it goes beyond the scope of the industrial action it can have consequences. I'm sure your local rep could give you more information on this.

What is being alleged is not in the scope of industrial action. It is absolutely not allowed for ASLEF to encourage people not to work overtime etc unless this is part of official action which has been balloted for. Quite the opposite, during our recent guard’s dispute ASLEF went out of their way to make it clear that it was not our dispute and they we should continue to attend work in the normal way.

For most people in this country it is though, just saying. But besides that, please look at the context I used it in.

That’s not my fault nor that of my colleagues. It’s utterly irrelevant what other people earn.

Don't be so quick to dismiss this as a possibility, even if it seems impracticable. Governments don't always see in terms of practicable, you may have noticed this over the last two and a half years for example.

I rather suspect they know it isn’t practicable. If it was effective it would already have been introduced. How exactly do you impose “minimum service obligations” when the organisations providing the service aren’t employing enough staff to provide said service without heavy reliance on overtime?!

Surely if ASLEF are stating that, then the membership would simply follow? If that went to a vote, would Sundays inside ( where it doesn't currently exist ) actually become reality?

I’m sure a lot of ASLEF members would happily bring Sundays inside for a suitable increase, yes. The sticking point is that there are many who won’t want their Sundays brought inside even for extra money and simply want to continue to work as per the contracts they signed.

The position of the RMT on this is largely the same I’d imagine?

 

[Carlisle]

That just sounds like another unfounded allegation. Shock horror could it possibly be as simple as that if you destroy goodwill of a workforce enough they won’t want to spend a second more than they have to at work?! I’m sure you won’t entertain such a simple possibility because it doesn’t fit with your view of the world where everything is the fault of the unions and train crew…

If their customer facing staff ( at the coal face) are declining RDW in equal or greater proportions to drivers (who mostly work alone) then your theory’s likely correct or if that’s not actually the case I might be onto something

 

[muz379]

Surely if ASLEF are stating that, then the membership would simply follow? If that went to a vote, would Sundays inside ( where it doesn't currently exist ) actually become reality?

The membership wouldn't necessarilly follow , there will be a range of views .

 

[43066]

If their customer facing staff ( at the coal face) are declining RDW in equal or greater proportions to drivers (who mostly work alone) then your theory’s likely correct or if that’s not actually the case I might be onto something

Only if those staff are relied on for RDW as the same extent as drivers in the first place, which they aren’t because drivers are more expensive, (and even then it wouldn’t prove anything), so no. You aren’t on to anything. You’re just making up conspiracy theories to fit your anti union/staff view as usual.

I suppose the Avanti driver who has stated there is no unofficial action must also be lying...

I’m curious: what would actually have to happen for you to believe Avanti and Grant Shapps are telling lies!? You seem to just slavishly follow whatever they put out.

 

[Moonshot]

The membership wouldn't necessarilly follow , there will be a range of views .

Yes that's what I find as well. So is it fair to say that some staff are actually quite happy working the committed Sundays as overtime rather than have them in the working week?

 

[muz379]

Yes that's what I find as well. So is it fair to say that some staff are actually quite happy working the committed Sundays as overtime rather than have them in the working week?

Ive only ever known traincrew who have committed sundays currently so that might skew the view somewhat but Im sure some staff would want that , there will be staff that want them in the week and all range of views . Ultimately though I think ASLEF will struggle to get TOCS working to the RDG/DFT guidance to agree to bringing them inside the week without an increase in the hours of the working week which ASLEF also won't agree too . Ultimately I think by default theyll end up being committed .

 

[Carlisle]

I’m curious: what would actually have to happen for you to believe Avanti and Grant Shapps are telling lies!? You seem to just slavishly follow whatever they put out.

I’d rather all current rail disputes were settled without any further strikes or any new legislation. however power & expectations on all sides probably make that virtually impossible as of today .

 

[Bantamzen]

Contrast with “your trains are cancelled due to drivers taking unofficial strike action”. Which implies staff/their union are acting improperly and potentially illegally.

No it would not be seen as fair enough and if you were caught having such a conversation you could find yourself up on an disciplinary charge on the basis that you’re inciting unofficial action. That is the warning that was been dished out by ASLEF reps at my previous TOC when conversations along those lines were overheard.

Any conversations along these lines on work WhatsApp groups would be highly risky because the evidence is all there in writing so there’s no deniability. It then only takes one person with a grudge/trying to make an name for themselves (and there’s at least one in every depot) to take it into the office.

Herein is a possible reason for this escalation in hostilities. If it were a few staff members rattling sabres, then fair dos use the standard in-house disciplinary procedures & the unions reps can represent their members as usual. However if this rolls into lots of staff organising, even using social media to do so then this is exactly the sort of thing TOCs, DafT and even ministers will be keeping their beady eyes open for. Anything to challenge the legitimacy of the strike ballot, and thus undermine the whole dispute. If, and I emphasise if, there is anything more than a few staff trying to get others to take unofficial action then the union needs to jump on it and close those conversations down. Because that is gold dust for the current government.

I may not agree with the timing of this dispute, but this could encourage the government to further legislate against unions, all unions.

 

[43066]

Herein is a possible reason for this escalation in hostilities. If it were a few staff members rattling sabres, then fair dos use the standard in-house disciplinary procedures & the unions reps can represent their members as usual. However if this rolls into lots of staff organising, even using social media to do so then this is exactly the sort of thing TOCs, DafT and even ministers will be keeping their beady eyes open for. Anything to challenge the legitimacy of the strike ballot, and thus undermine the whole dispute. If, and I emphasise if, there is anything more than a few staff trying to get others to take unofficial action then the union needs to jump on it and close those conversations down. Because that is gold dust for the current government.

I may not agree with the timing of this dispute, but this could encourage the government to further legislate against unions, all unions.

I think you’re in danger of conflating the current dispute giving rise to Saturday’s strike with these allegations. There is absolutely no evidence of “unofficial organising”. The obvious explanation for what’s going on is simply that Avanti don’t employ anything like enough drivers, people are annoyed and therefore doing the minimum.

It’s also summertime and there are more enjoyable ways to spend one’s time than sitting in the cab of a train.

If, and I emphasise if, there is anything more than a few staff trying to get others to take unofficial action then the union needs to jump on it and close those conversations down. Because that is gold dust for the current government.

You’re quite right (even I can admit it on the rare occasions when it happens ). If that’s the case, in my experience, they would indeed jump on it for the exact reasons you say. I genuinely don’t think that’s what’s happening.

 

[CAF397]

Avanti not running any trains on Saturday during the ASLEF strikes. Would expect a handful of services to be run using Driver Managers, as a token gesture?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Herein is a possible reason for this escalation in hostilities. If it were a few staff members rattling sabres, then fair dos use the standard in-house disciplinary procedures & the unions reps can represent their members as usual. However if this rolls into lots of staff organising, even using social media to do so then this is exactly the sort of thing TOCs, DafT and even ministers will be keeping their beady eyes open for. Anything to challenge the legitimacy of the strike ballot, and thus undermine the whole dispute. If, and I emphasise if, there is anything more than a few staff trying to get others to take unofficial action then the union needs to jump on it and close those conversations down. Because that is gold dust for the current government.

Is it actually illegal for staff to agree together not to do something (working overtime) that is totally optional anyway? I didn't think it was, hence the whole "organising a BBQ" thing when there's a dispute going on.

 

[43066]

Is it actually illegal for staff to agree together not to do something (working overtime) that is totally optional anyway? I didn't think it was, hence the whole "organising a BBQ" thing when there's a dispute going on.

Yes, agreeing not do do overtime (ie working to rule) is a form of industrial action and needs to be balloted for, basically. You could also be dismissed for gross misconduct if you were (say) caught trying to persuade others not to work rest days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, agreeing not do do overtime (ie working to rule) is a form of industrial action and needs to be balloted for, basically. You could also be dismissed for gross misconduct if you were (say) caught trying to persuade others not to work rest days.

Is that why the "BBQs" get organised, then? As organising a BBQ to which you "just happen" to invite a large chunk of a particular type of staff is just an event for your friends, isn't it? And of course Sundays are a normal day for that sort of activity. Ahem.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think you’re in danger of conflating the current dispute giving rise to Saturday’s strike with these allegations. There is absolutely no evidence of “unofficial organising”. The obvious explanation for what’s going on is simply that Avanti don’t employ anything like enough drivers, people are annoyed and therefore doing the minimum.

It’s also summertime and there are more enjoyable ways to spend one’s time than sitting in the cab of a train.



You’re quite right (even I can admit it on the rare occasions when it happens ). If that’s the case, in my experience, they would indeed jump on it for the exact reasons you say. I genuinely don’t think that’s what’s happening.

I fully accept that it may well not be happening on any scale, and that it could be Avanti management trying it on (possibly back by DafT). And if so the union would do well to at least start seeking legal advice, which I'm sure they are. But clearly Avanti are not backing down thus far so we probably need to see what plays out.

Is it actually illegal for staff to agree together not to do something (working overtime) that is totally optional anyway? I didn't think it was, hence the whole "organising a BBQ" thing when there's a dispute going on.

I'm a little too far out of the loop these days to give an accurate response even just as a general principle, let alone specific to Avanti. But its not unusual for management, and where appropriate governments to pick through the fine details of the law as to what constitutes unlawful action. Its why unions are often very careful in communicating what constitutes strike action, and what those choosing to follow the industrial action should & should not do. Its clear this is particular allegation is controversial to say the least. Individual drivers (for example) opting not to take overtime or work rest days is obviously well within the normal scope. A few drivers chatting among themselves about not doing them would also generally be OK I would imagine.

Where lurches into the murk is in the detail of exactly what members were balloted for. Having not seen the ballot papers, I can't comment further on that. But for example if the ballot didn't call for an all out ban on rest day working, it cannot then be used as a form of organised action thereafter without a further, successful ballot. And this includes staff deciding to stop working them without union mandate. This was hopefully made clear in the documentation that went out to all members along with the ballot papers.

 

[muz379]

Withdrawing rest day working be it declared industrial action by the union following a balot , independent organisation by a number of staff in the grade or even just coinincidental like if there is a major football fixture etc is not "unofficial strike action" . And to call it such has rightly caused a great deal of anger .

If a withdrawal of RDW is declared officially following a ballot with the thresholds and mandate met then it is industrial action short of a strike .

 

[Bantamzen]

Withdrawing rest day working be it declared industrial action by the union following a balot , independent organisation by a number of staff in the grade or even just coinincidental like if there is a major football fixture etc is not "unofficial strike action" . And to call it such has rightly caused a great deal of anger .

If a withdrawal of RDW is declared officially following a ballot with the thresholds and mandate met then it is industrial action short of a strike .

Part of your first sentence is not correct as I understand it. If a load of staff just up sticks and went to the football, the employer would potentially have reason to challenge it. And that is certainly not going to be on any union ballot paper. If however RDW is included, then organising not to work it is within scope of the ballot.

But, and this is an important but, unions need to ensure their members stick to the letter of the ballot. And thus far all we don't know the exact nature of Avanti's allegations. They clearly believe there is an infringement, but if it is them just trying it on, or if they indeed have found one (could well be some weird loophole, that has happened before) we can only wait to see.

 

[Bald Rick]

The obvious explanation for what’s going on is simply that Avanti don’t employ anything like enough drivers, people are annoyed and therefore doing the minimum.

Clearly Avanti have a shortage of drivers (and other traincrew). But this hasn’t happened overnight.

What has happened, suddenly, is that Avanti traincrew have now (almost) completely stopped working rest days. They have all decided to do this at the same time. So either there have been discussions between them ‘behind the scenes’, or alternatively it‘s a coincidence that several hundred people all independently chose to not do something they have been doing, at the same time. I know what I think, but will keep my views to myself, as I know a couple of Avanti drivers.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes that's what I find as well. So is it fair to say that some staff are actually quite happy working the committed Sundays as overtime rather than have them in the working week?

You are muddling the terminology, which causes confusion.

A committed Sunday is contractual, (It is part of agreed contract hours) and possibly by chance the Sunday pay rate just happens to be the same as an overtime rate, but importantly it is not overtime.

If someone volunteers to work a Sunday (or any day of the week at time when not contractually scheduled to work) and receives overtime pay for it, that is completely different, they can choose to volunteer or not offer to do it, it is employees choice.

What is happening is that many who used to work overtime, have individually chosen not to, yes they might have mentioned it to colleagues, but that does not make it an official dispute. If a Union had ordered no overtime (often called work to rule) then that would need to be a properly announced action following a ballot.

The only complaint the company could make is if employees were not doing their basic contracted work (or in layman’s language, skiving). There is also usually an integrity clause in an employment contract so deliberately organising against your employer is likely to be a serious disciplinary offence (but no idea if this has happened )

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly Avanti have a shortage of drivers (and other traincrew). But this hasn’t happened overnight.

What has happened, suddenly, is that Avanti traincrew have now (almost) completely stopped working rest days. They have all decided to do this at the same time. So either there have been discussions between them ‘behind the scenes’, or alternatively it‘s a coincidence that several hundred people all independently chose to not do something they have been doing, at the same time. I know what I think, but will keep my views to myself, as I know a couple of Avanti drivers.

I think it's not entirely implausible that they mostly did it individually owing to the utterly disgusting attitude being displayed by the senior management, even if a few had originally talked together about it.