Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[muz379]

What I’m getting at, is if they (where permitted) can change your shift start time (bring it forward) and compel you to work on a strike day that otherwise would have been a rest day for you.

Or alternatively change your shift to a later time (where permitted) and compel you to work on a strike day.

The other thing, and the job of a signaller is a good example, if there is a function where a small number of staff affect a significant part of the network, how is it going to work in practice.

In order to provide a minimum service level, could the company make as many as half the employees work?

I guess what you are getting at is if you had a Strike on the Monday that was not to book on for shifts between 00:01 and 23:59 . And you had a staff member with a book on for an 8 hour turn that was at 23:00 on the Monday day you could ammd the booking on time to 00:00 Tuesday .

Generally there are restrictions on why you can alter the booking on time of a fixed job for traincrew , so there would have to be a bona-fide reason that was not just the industrial action . Generally they can issue short term planning diagrams for engineering work . So it is unlikely that you could just alter the booking on time in this way . Ive heard reports that some Toc's did try doing this earlier in the dispute and were challenged on it .

The union does accept RDW but it's reasoning is usually for unusual amounts of sickness plus to cover training , not for the companies to under resource

So where I am RMT does not sanction RDW for Station Staff or Guards , so it is completely up to the individual choice with there being some who never work any voluntary overtime , some who do the odd bit and some who hammer it . Obviously the RMT's position is that there should be full employent . There have been bespoke agreements to pay enhanced RDW rates for specific things like learning new traction or new equipment to entice some of the members that never do RDW in for training .

Where I am ASLEF make agreements for RDW , in the whole time I have been there the RDW sanction from ASLEF has always been for training purposes . Of course as everywhere there has probably been some misuse of that by the company . But generally its been at times when industrial relations have been in a healthier place so some give or take has happened .

Having RDW available for training makes sense , say you get a whole new fleet of trains or a new route opens . For a period of time you are going to need to release drivers to go and train the new traction. Now most depot establishments will have a number built in for training but this will generally be for 1-1 stuff like those returning off long term sick or drivers moving links going out route learning .

With a whole new fleet or a new route to the depot you might want to release more than just 1 or 2 drivers at a time to do is more efficiently or to meet a date for introduction into service of the new route/traction . So RDW has a place for something like that where for a short period of time you need extra release above what is already built into the establishment calculator . And generally whilst you will have the same mix of those that dont do any overtime , those that do a bit and those that hammer it . Most will come in on RDW for training days as its something a bit different .

 

[Krokodil]

It handed Thatcher a victory on a plate.

Thatcher was better for the railways than most of the governments we've had since. Particularly this one.

The fact that people can't be bothered to do it shows that they are already well paid.

Er - no. Everyone is entitled to want to spend their days off with their family. This dispute is not merely about pay, it's about proposed changes to conditions.

So I don't think it's very reasonable to take a well paid job in a 24/7 service industry, then complain about the hours being too much.

No one is complaining about working the number of hours they are contracted to cover. No, people are saying that they don't want to come in on their day off because the company is short-staffed. It's different when relations are good, you feel more willing to spend time at work.

 

[12LDA28C]

Were that to be found out (and I don't doubt that in a strike situation it would be investigated for possible patterns) then it would mean the sack, and quite rightly so. "Pulling a sickie" is unacceptable. This is a very high risk strategy.

And about as likely to result in dismissal as 'pulling a sickie' is on any other day, which is zero. If you think managers have time to go round investigating every individual instance of sickness, even if they wanted to, you're very much mistaken.

So what's the constant argument over RDW then? The fact that people can't be bothered to do it shows that they are already well paid. There are plenty of people in safety critical roles on track who put up with a lot more for a lot less money.

If people don't want to work irregular and anti-social hours then go work in a 9-5 industry.

What a ridiculous statement. Why shouldn't rail staff have their Rest Days off work? Rest Days are there for a reason, to allow for rest and recovering from shiftwork. Are you forced to work on your days off in your job?

That's a fair point, but (as with any job) the job exists to run the railway not to suit the personal situation of the employee. Since this kind of thing comes with the job, if it doesn't suit then go do something else.

So rail staff should be forced to work on their rostered days off so that the railway runs better for passengers then yes? Wow.

So I don't think it's very reasonable to take a well paid job in a 24/7 service industry, then complain about the hours being too much.

Who's complaining about the hours being too much? That's not what is being argued here. I'd like to see you work the shifts some staff do and then be happy to give up your rostered days off to help the railway run better.

 

[74A]

There is no proposal to force staff to work their Rest Days

 

[12LDA28C]

There is no proposal to force staff to work their Rest Days

Has anyone said there is?

 

[dk1]

There is no proposal to force staff to work their Rest Days

Good job as it wouldn’t succeed in a million years.

 

[LowLevel]

There is no proposal to force staff to work their Rest Days

Clicking your fingers and declaring those days have changed at short notice so stuff any plans you may have made amounts to the same thing.

 

[irish_rail]

There is no proposal to force staff to work their Rest Days

Yet ironically that is EXACTLY one of the things Dft is expecting of rail staff. Namely Sundays. At many TOCs, Sundays are voluntary, but Dft wants to force us to work them as overtime. Its moves like this which are why these daft deals don't ever stand a hope of getting through, not the money. And to be clear, I like many others would be happy to work Sundays within the working week ( ie if I work the Sunday I have another day off during the week) but being forced to work sunday which is currently a rest day is an absolute line in the sand.

 

[dk1]

Yet ironically that is EXACTLY one of the things Dft is expecting of rail staff. Namely Sundays. At many TOCs, Sundays are voluntary, but Dft wants to force us to work them as overtime. Its moves like this which are why these daft deals don't ever stand a hope of getting through, not the money. And to be clear, I like many others would be happy to work Sundays within the working week ( ie if I work the Sunday I have another day off during the week) but being forced to work sunday which is currently a rest day is an absolute line in the sand.

Committed Sundays and RDW are very different things.

 

[irish_rail]

Committed Sundays and RDW are very different things.

But if Sunday is currently a rest day, and it then becomes a day I am compelled to work on top of the 5 days I am already working that week, then I see it as one and the same.

 

[Parjon]

Clicking your fingers and declaring those days have changed at short notice so stuff any plans you may have made amounts to the same thing.

For days I read trains there for a moment. It will be interesting to see what kind of train service exists when all this has settled down. My feeling is fewer jobs, fewer trains.

 

[dk1]

But if Sunday is currently a rest day, and it then becomes a day I am compelled to work on top of the 5 days I am already working that week, then I see it as one and the same.

We are polar opposites then. Sunday working is very different to me. Unless I or the DTM can find cover if I am declined then I am coming into work. That is not the case on a free day.

 

[irish_rail]

We are polar opposites then. Sunday working is very different to me. Unless I or the DTM can find cover if I am declined then I am coming into work. That is not the case on a free day.

So I am currently in an infinitely better position than you. Surely this should not be a race to the bottom. We should be looking at getting the Sunday as part of the normal working week, that way everyone is happy, the passenger, the worker, everyone except perhaps the Dft.

 

[dk1]

So I am currently in an infinitely better position than you. Surely this should not be a race to the bottom. We should be looking at getting the Sunday as part of the normal working week, that way everyone is happy, the passenger, the worker, everyone except perhaps the Dft.

Not quite sure what you mean. I use ‘race to the bottom’ so much on here. It has to be a happy fair medium to suit all ends.

Sundays in the working week don’t come cheap.

 

[Annetts key]

Rather than making staff potentially work six days in a week, surely train operating company employees should have the same arrangements as staff where the normal working week is any day of the week. In other words, if your company wants an employee to work a turn on a Sunday, it’s counted as part of your normal contracted hours. And hence you only work a maximum of five days in a week.

Something similar to the following, which was lifted from an existing Network Rail document:

Hours rostered for work may include any period during the 7-day week.

For payroll and rostering purposes, a standard working week means a calendar week.

No more than five shifts will be rostered in any week.

A minimum of two days free from duty will be identified on the roster within each week.

 

[irish_rail]

Not quite sure what you mean. I use ‘race to the bottom’ so much on here. It has to be a happy fair medium to suit all ends.

Sundays in the working week don’t come cheap.

When I signed up, Sundays where (and still are) voluntary. Surely if that changes, that has a major impact on my life and the life of my family, especially if it means I am working 6 days a week against my will. Surely as a fellow Aslef member you can understand and support this?! Surely you should be questioning why you don't enjoy the same benefit i do?.

Surely train operating company employees should have the same arrangements as staff where the normal working week is any day of the week. In other words, if your company wants an employee to work a turn on a Sunday, it’s counted as part of your normal contracted hours. And hence you only work a maximum of five days in a week.

Something similar to the following, which was lifted from an existing Network Rail document:

Exactly this. I'm happy to work sunday provided its as part of a 5 day week. 6 day weeks are too tiring when the alarm is going off at 3 am every day!

 

[Horizon22]

But if Sunday is currently a rest day, and it then becomes a day I am compelled to work on top of the 5 days I am already working that week, then I see it as one and the same.

Is it REALLY a rest day then? I don't think you can count a committed Sunday as a rest day, and personally I never did.

Bringing Sunday's into the working week necessitates a roster overhaul at anywhere that doesn't have it anyway; of course this also needs more employees something the DfT almost certainly knows but has their head in the sand about.

 

[74A]

I thought most drivers work a 4 day week so working Sunday just brings it back to 5 ?

 

[irish_rail]

I thought most drivers work a 4 day week so working Sunday just brings it back to 5 ?

Depends by depot. I work 5 days a week, it varies. Let's not forget the fatigue factor here. Most passengers don't want to be on a train if they know the driver is knackered. This is what the Dft conveniently forget. We are not robots.

Is it REALLY a rest day then? I don't think you can count a committed Sunday as a rest day, and personally I never did.

Bringing Sunday's into the working week necessitates a roster overhaul at anywhere that doesn't have it anyway; of course this also needs more employees something the DfT almost certainly knows but has their head in the sand about.

In which case every other week id be doing a 6 day week. This isn't conducive to being well rested for duty.

 

[Horizon22]

In which case every other week id be doing a 6 day week. This isn't conducive to being well rested for duty.

Did you not read where rosters would have to be recast?

 

[Sonik]

When I signed up, Sundays where (and still are) voluntary.

I find this very surprising, does your TOC not run trains at weekends?

The are are loads of people who do shift work (e.g. Nurses, Distribution, Utilities, IT) who are expected to do a working week within a 24/7 framework, sometimes swapping between days/nights/weekends each week

So I'm not really sure why anyone in the rail industry finds OOH working so controversial, (while acknowledging that total hours worked and a stable roster are clearly important issues)

The fact is that since privatisation, and even more so since the government started directly meddling in the railways, the work-life balance for many employees has been getting worse. This is a combination of things, one is due to money or rather, the lack of it, one is due to ideology, and one is due to impractical ideas on how to run and maintain the railways.

It’s not that employees don’t know that they will be required to work irregular and anti-social hours. It’s more that the amount of working work irregular and anti-social hour is increasing each year.

Indeed, some of us remember the utter chaos of the Railtrack days!

I don't disagree at all on total hours, I think most of the issues are down to deliberate under staffing. TOCs should be subjected to some sort of rule on minimum staffing

But having no compulsory weekend working clearly isn't compatible with a seven day service.

 

[Irascible]

Who's the defendant if there's an incident & the court case is trying to prove the required minimum staff level isn't actually sufficient?

Actually, are there any upper limits to the required minimum? is there anything stopping someone saying "well, we need 100%! suck it up, unions". That would be particularily unhealthy for future employment levels, but still someone's stupid enough to suggest it.

 

[bramling]

I find this very surprising, does your TOC not run trains at weekends?

The are are loads of people who do shift work (e.g. Nurses, Distribution, Utilities, IT) who are expected to do a working week within a 24/7 framework, sometimes swapping between days/nights/weekends each week

So I'm not really sure why anyone in the rail industry finds OOH working so controversial, (while acknowledging that total hours worked and a stable roster are clearly important issues)

It isn’t quite so surprising when one considers that not so many years ago Sundays were very quiet days on the railway. Where extra capacity was required it was, where possible, done by running longer trains so that the need for extra staff was minimised.

You can also probably add in the fact that there also tended to be an increase in weekday services over that time as well, naturally there was always a consideration that weekday, and peak in particular, services were more important, so resources would be directed in that direction.

So bearing in mind the above, in many cases you have a situation where working arrangements have been done to fit around this. Add in that the industry has had its own incentives for keeping Sunday outside the working week, firstly that peak services were simply considered more important, but mainly that it meant you didn’t need such a big headcount - therefore allowing significant savings where the big costs of recruiting, training and retaining someone are avoided.

The difficulty that has arisen is that somewhere along the line a material change has occurred in that there has been a significant increase in demand for Sunday services, but in the rail industry there is a tendency for people to stay for very many years in one job. Indeed it’s quite possible to find people in one job for 30 or even 40 years. So suddenly changing someone’s terms of employment is a problem, especially if the powers that be want to do it without spending money.

The NHS isn’t a great comparison on this one - ever been into a hospital on a Sunday? Far from being a 24/7 service, you’ll find most hospitals are pretty dead on a weekend. Likewise try seeing a GP. Meanwhile, I tried to make a transfer payment from one of my building societies on Friday evening, guess what it won’t be happening until Monday. It seems 24/7 society is a bit like Animal Farm, in that everything is 24/7 but some people are more 24/7 than others.

Also worth remembering that many people just don’t like working weekends. You can provide whatever remuneration you like, but people still don’t like it. Having weekends as RDW might actually help in some cases as if people don’t do the weekend then they don’t get the money. LU doesn’t do planned overtime/RDW for drivers, yet they can often have just as much trouble covering all shifts at weekends - especially at high-demand times like public holidays, school holidays, nice weather, big sports fixtures, etc. People disliking weekend work isn’t unique to the railway by any means, I’ve seen enough over the years to know this goes beyond the railway industry, and as such probably won’t ever by fully reconciled, except probably one way and that’s to pay very high premium levels of pay and to make weekend work *much* more attractive to staff. But do passengers want to pay for this in terms of premium fares to match?

But having no compulsory weekend working clearly isn't compatible with a seven day service.

I’d say it’s more not compatible with running a seven-day service where there is an expectation of weekends having a similar level of staff requirement relative to weekdays.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

There is nothing in the proposals to prevent all 52 Sundays being rostered in a year. There is, however, a clause that says management can decide a few days before who is needed and who isn’t, and those who aren’t needed won’t be paid.

So staff could be expected to work 51 Sundays a year (the only guaranteed Sunday off is middle of two weeks summer annual leave), but also could lose out on up to 51 days pay, without any ability to make plans or book a Sunday off.

****. That.

 

[Sonik]

Also worth remembering that many people just don’t like working weekends. You can provide whatever remuneration you like, but people still don’t like it. Having weekends as RDW might actually help in some cases as if people don’t do the weekend then they don’t get the money. LU doesn’t do planned overtime/RDW for drivers, yet they can often have just as much trouble covering all shifts at weekends - especially at high-demand times like public holidays, school holidays, nice weather, big sports fixtures, etc. People disliking weekend work isn’t unique to the railway by any means, I’ve seen enough over the years to know this goes beyond the railway industry, and as such probably won’t ever by fully reconciled, except probably one way and that’s to pay very high premium levels of pay and to make weekend work *much* more attractive to staff. But do passengers want to pay for this in terms of premium fares to match?

Thanks for the very detailed explanation!

I'm well aware of the difficulties of getting enough people to cover OOH for any price, plus jobs being booked and canceled at short notice, because these are all things I've dealt with for decades. On infrastructure, there are many guys and gals out in all weathers every night and weekend, and albeit that's pretty much what they signed up for, many will still find it rather galling that the often rather better paid TOC staff complain about doing the same. The difference I guess is that the legacy infrastructure organisation got totally smashed to bits by Railtrack, and that was by no means a good thing, but there was as a consequence a substantial reset in terms of expectations on both sides. Elements of 'flexible working' do sometimes lead to safety issues, because contract staff in particular have little leverage or ability to challenge, and chronic staff shortages often leave teams struggling with workload.

The bottom line is that changes do need to happen, and some people will inevitably be unhappy, but tight budgets and the adversarial approach to negotiations makes it very difficult.

Such transitional difficulties are not unique to the railway, so people do need to be very clear about the many issues to avoid coming across as privileged in their demands.

 

[Bantamzen]

There is nothing in the proposals to prevent all 52 Sundays being rostered in a year. There is, however, a clause that says management can decide a few days before who is needed and who isn’t, and those who aren’t needed won’t be paid.

So staff could be expected to work 51 Sundays a year (the only guaranteed Sunday off is middle of two weeks summer annual leave), but also could lose out on up to 51 days pay, without any ability to make plans or book a Sunday off.

****. That.

Just how likely is that simply because it is not specified in the proposals that you can't be rostered for 51 Sundays? Services already see rail services so that's not something new, and don't the unions check rostas anyway so there would still be protection against something that extreme.

 

[bramling]

Thanks for the very detailed explanation!

I'm well aware of the difficulties of getting people to cover OOH for any price because it's something I've had to deal with for decades. On the railway, there are many guys and gals out on infrastructure in all weathers every night and weekend, and albeit that's pretty much what they signed up for, many will find it rather galling that the often rather better paid TOC staff complain about doing the same. The difference I guess is that the legacy infrastructure organisation got smashed to bits by Railtrack, and that was by no means a good thing, but there was as a consequence a substantial reset in terms of expectations on both sides. And elements of 'flexible working' often lead to safety issues, because contract staff often have little leverage.

The bottom line is that changes do need to happen, and some people will inevitably be unhappy, but the adversarial approach to negotiations makes it very difficult. Such transitional difficulties are not unique to the railway.

I certainly agree that the infrastructure side has seen things develop in a different way. Completely agree about it changing as a result of privatisation in different ways to how TOCs have. However there’s possibly a key difference in that infrastructure was always 24/7, there hasn’t been such a need for more Sunday working as it was always, to a greater or lesser extent, there.

Also worth adding that weekend renewals work doesn’t always come cheap either. I know people who perform roles such as signal testing who essentially come in for such work on weekends and do *very* well out of it.

 

[dk1]

When I signed up, Sundays where (and still are) voluntary. Surely if that changes, that has a major impact on my life and the life of my family, especially if it means I am working 6 days a week against my will. Surely as a fellow Aslef member you can understand and support this?! Surely you should be questioning why you don't enjoy the same benefit i do?.

But you wouldn’t necessarily be working a 6 day week. I have a committed Sunday 19 times a year and have a double rest day every week so it’s never more than 5 days. If Sundays came into the working week then that would not really change depending how the roster was constructed. Personally I am happy to work Sundays probably over any other day of the week and it comes with the job. I knew that from the day I applied to be a driver.

 

[LowLevel]

Thanks for the very detailed explanation!

I'm well aware of the difficulties of getting enough people to cover OOH for any price, plus jobs being booked and canceled at short notice, because these are things I've dealt with for decades. On infrastructure, there are many guys and gals out in all weathers every night and weekend, and albeit that's pretty much what they signed up for, many will still find it rather galling that the often rather better paid TOC staff complain about doing the same. The difference I guess is that the legacy infrastructure organisation got smashed to bits by Railtrack, and that was by no means a good thing, but there was as a consequence a substantial reset in terms of expectations on both sides. Elements of 'flexible working' do sometimes lead to safety issues, because contract staff in particular have little leverage or ability to challenge, and chronic staff shortages often leave teams struggling with workload.

The bottom line is that changes do need to happen, and some people will inevitably be unhappy, but the adversarial approach to negotiations makes it very difficult. Such transitional difficulties are not unique to the railway.

The difference here being that hitherto such changes and negotiations would have been accompanied by a decent pay rise to compensate, and this time it's the wholesale change but bolted on to a real terms pay cut to boot.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Just how likely is that simply because it is not specified in the proposals that you can't be rostered for 51 Sundays? Services already see rail services so that's not something new, and don't the unions check rostas anyway so there would still be protection against something that extreme.

Yes, unions do check and build rosters at the moment, but another clause of the ‘pay deal’ is that that role is taken away and rosters will be built by management instead.

If it isn’t accurately specified against, then it’ll almost certainly happen at some point. That’s my experience.

But you wouldn’t necessarily be working a 6 day week. I have a committed Sunday 19 times a year and have a double rest day every week so it’s never more than 5 days. If Sundays came into the working week then that would not really change depending how the roster was constructed. Personally I am happy to work Sundays probably over any other day of the week and it comes with the job. I knew that from the day I applied to be a driver.

If you already work a five day week (one RD a week) with Sundays outside then forcing Sundays as overtime means you’re doing six days a week, whereas if they were correctly brought into the working week then you’d still be doing five, you’d just have an extra day off midweek.

No problem at all with working Sundays (indeed I’m working today and this is my 20th Sunday worked of the year already), but I don’t want to be forced to work every single one, and I want the option to not come in if I have something really important on (such as weekend break for my sister’s wedding next year).

If there was some kind of clause whereby for every extra Sunday worked you could guarantee a booked one off then I wouldn’t be so anti it. Though that would only work on current rosters, not a hypothetical one with all 52 Sundays rostered.