CrossCountry Train Managers striking in October

[12LDA28C]

I'm hearing rumours of XC TMs / guards taking strike action every Saturday in October. Nothing on the RMT website yet though - is anyone able to confirm?

 

[800001]

I'm hearing rumours of XC TMs / guards taking strike action every Saturday in October. Nothing on the RMT website yet though - is anyone able to confirm?

MANAGERS WORKING AS GUARDS - CROSS COUNTRY TRAINS

First and foremost, I would like to congratulate you and your colleagues for returning an overwhelming YES vote in the ballot for industrial action.

Your union’s National Executive Committee has now considered the matter and has taken the decision to call on all our Cross Country Trains Senior Conductor and Train Manager grade members to take industrial action.

Therefore, you and your colleagues are instructed not to book on for any shifts that commence between:

00.01 hours and 23.59 hours on Saturday 5th October 2024

00.01 hours and 23.59 hours on Saturday 12th October 2024

00.01 hours and 23.59 hours on Saturday 19th October 2024

00.01 hours and 23.59 hours on Saturday 26th October 2024

I ask you all to show your support and stand shoulder to shoulder during the days of industrial action. We must ensure we do not allow Cross Country to create a two-tier workforce. We must defend the safety critical role of the Guard and demand the company cease the process of managers working as contingency staff.

I trust this keeps you fully advised on the matter and I will, of course, keep you fully updated on any further developments.

UNITY IS STRENGTH

SUPPORT THE INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Yours sincerely

Michael Lynch

General Secretary

 

[12LDA28C]

Well that's pretty conclusive... I wonder how badly services will be affected? Will XC plan a reduced timetable or make ad hoc short notice cancellations on the day?

 

[800001]

Well that's pretty conclusive... I wonder how badly services will be affected? Will XC plan a reduced timetable or make ad hoc short notice cancellations on the day?

I can imagine a situation similar to the LNER drivers dispute. Where by XC agree to stop the use of managers operating trains except under exceptional circumstances, and that strike will be called off.

 

[Starmill]

I can imagine a situation similar to the LNER drivers dispute. Where by XC agree to stop the use of managers operating trains except under exceptional circumstances, and that strike will be called off.

Have RMT secured that agreement for guard roles anywhere? Most days when guard grades strike there are non-guard grades covering them, where guards are necessary.

 

[Peterthegreat]

So how many trains are typically worked by managers (and why?)

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Have RMT secured that agreement for guard roles anywhere? Most days when guard grades strike there are non-guard grades covering them, where guards are necessary.

Is this not to stop XC using management to cover vacant turns whilst not taking IA? I.e to cover staff shortages?

I don't think there's an issue per day with contingency to cover strikes

 

[Buffer stop]

I'm hearing Managers being paid £650 additional payment is an issue also.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Too short notice for the 5th of October now.

 

[185]

I have some sympathy for the staff here, as XC greedily often run far below minimum staffing levels, seemingly very few people ever sit spare. Morale is terrible and I am aware they really struggle to get overtime volunteers - staff loyalty has hit rock bottom. Speaking to staff, comments about abuse, fare evasion and ram-packed unworkable trains seem to be a daily issue which their couldn't-care-less Birmingham senior management neglect to acknowledge.

- At another operator, managers covering for staff at the "absolute last minute" (ie a guard gone sick mid-route) was considered acceptable to keep the job going.

- Using managers routinely to cover their own greed-caused resource shortages is, in my opinion a very different thing. Paying them an extra £650 fires the missile.

XC is a mess and needs to go.

 

[DDB]

I regularly travel between Nottingham and Derby which has both crosscountry and EMR services. The behaviour of the Guards are night and day different. EMR guards always at least walk the full length of their train helping passengers as required and generally do a full ticket check. The XC guards rarely leave the cab.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Too short notice for the 5th of October now.

How is it? I believe this circular went out on Friday to affected grades?

 

[PupCuff]

So, a strike because they don't want managers working trains, which will presumably on the strike days result in... managers working trains?

To some extent I sympathise with the issue as a whole but rather than framing it as wanting managers to stop working trains, which won't fix the underlying issue of staff shortages and provides an important backstop to deliver the service in exceptional circumstances, you'd be far better off pushing for a review of recruitment and training to make sure there's enough train managers available to cover the service in the first place.

Managers working trains to cover occasional gaps, industrial action etc has been there certainly in the decade or so I've been in the industry and no doubt was in place for some time before, though "occasional" is starting to do some heavy lifting for some TOCs weekend services more recently and I would say probably does point to poor management of staffing levels.

I don't know whether any do, but it does feel like percentage of trains worked by a contingent manager each week/period/whatever would be a useful KPI to monitor overall TM staffing issues, as in effect it's a performance near miss, it's saying "this would otherwise have been a cancellation due to lack of traincrew"

 

[Harpo]

I’d not attack XC’s management unless anyone can prove that DfT micromanagement played no part in this cluster duck.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have some sympathy for the staff here, as XC greedily often run far below minimum staffing levels, seemingly very few people ever sit spare. Morale is terrible and I am aware they really struggle to get overtime volunteers - staff loyalty has hit rock bottom. Speaking to staff, comments about abuse, fare evasion and ram-packed unworkable trains seem to be a daily issue which their couldn't-care-less Birmingham senior management neglect to acknowledge.

- At another operator, managers covering for staff at the "absolute last minute" (ie a guard gone sick mid-route) was considered acceptable to keep the job going.

- Using managers routinely to cover their own greed-caused resource shortages is, in my opinion a very different thing. Paying them an extra £650 fires the missile.

XC is a mess and needs to go.

Failure to acknowledge the issues is a fair comment and would clearly have a corrosive impact on staff morale but how much of that is actually within the gift of XC's management to resolve?

The "original sin" as it were of the XC franchise occurred back in the early 2000s with Virgin ordering and the Strategic Rail Authority signing off on the titchy Voyagers. It seems unlikely that 20 years later anyone involved in that decision remains in post at XC? The failure to then deal with chronic shortage of capacity primarily (though not exclusively, XC never did make as much use of their HSTs as they could have done) with the DfT specifications (way back in 2007 and then in the Direct Awards in the later parts of the 2010s and early 2020s) and indeed DfT (or really HM Treasury) cost cutting by ditching the HSTs with no replacement. Staff levels similarly are a matter determined by the DfT, XC might not have been recruiting to full establishment levels but that establishment is of course something which the DfT exercises a tremendous amount of control. Quite apart from the last two years of industrial strife driven primarily by the DfT and their then political bosses and its impact on staff morale. It's not as if XC could have made a separate pay deal when that was being driven by the DfT/HMT.

XC is a mess and change is required but what do you think would change if XC were disposed of? The issues with the operation originate outside of the present management (even if they're not managing the constraints as well as perhaps they could) and until there is a change of those outside factors I don't see how the situation will improve.

I'm also not sure it's greed? At this point Arriva are simply collecting their fee for running the operation. Saving money by staffing below establishment levels isn't earning them anything unlike when XC was a proper franchise taking full revenue risk.

 

[LowLevel]

So, a strike because they don't want managers working trains, which will presumably on the strike days result in... managers working trains?

To some extent I sympathise with the issue as a whole but rather than framing it as wanting managers to stop working trains, which won't fix the underlying issue of staff shortages and provides an important backstop to deliver the service in exceptional circumstances, you'd be far better off pushing for a review of recruitment and training to make sure there's enough train managers available to cover the service in the first place.

Managers working trains to cover occasional gaps, industrial action etc has been there certainly in the decade or so I've been in the industry and no doubt was in place for some time before, though "occasional" is starting to do some heavy lifting for some TOCs weekend services more recently and I would say probably does point to poor management of staffing levels.

I don't know whether any do, but it does feel like percentage of trains worked by a contingent manager each week/period/whatever would be a useful KPI to monitor overall TM staffing issues, as in effect it's a performance near miss, it's saying "this would otherwise have been a cancellation due to lack of traincrew"

I believe the straw that has broken the camel's back is the significant extra payment made to managers undertaking this work, which isn't available to the actual train crews for working overtime themselves, despite for example most in that position not having revenue training so not covering all elements of the job role.

Some managers don't help matters by trundling around boasting about how much money they're making out of it in front of the train crew.

There's also the selection issue - people work hard to get a responsible job as a train guard. I know of more than a few cases in the industry where people have failed selection repeatedly for an actual senior conductor/train manager position, gone for jobs elsewhere in the business and then provided they pass the more basic requirements to be a contingency guard and are happy to work during strikes (they obviously do the psychometrics but not the full ordeal of the group exercise and all that stuff) they're ushered into guarding trains with welcome arms.

"Contingency" train crews are in broad terms never going to be popular amongst their regular colleagues (in general terms, rather than as individuals) and given Cross Country's crews are on the militant side it's not that hard to see why they're kicking off, whether you think it's worthwhile or not.

Personally it's not something I feel strongly about - but I know for a fact within my own TOC some managers have been guilty of rubbing people up (to quote one "keep on striking, I support you entirely - you're paying for my next cruise!").

 

[43096]

I'm hearing Managers being paid £650 additional payment is an issue also.

Which to be blunt is absolutely no business of anyone except the people directly involved.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I believe the straw that has broken the camel's back is the significant extra payment made to managers undertaking this work, which isn't available to the actual train crews for working overtime themselves, despite for example most in that position not having revenue training so not covering all elements of the job role.

Absolutely! Probably find guards would be doing the necessary RDW for a £150-200 payment. Paying managers £500-650 for time is wasteful and further ruins the low morale.

How things like this ever get signed off I don't know. Abellio tried to utilise management grades as daily cover, didn't last thankfully and should not ever become industry standard.

 

[Starmill]

Is this not to stop XC using management to cover vacant turns whilst not taking IA? I.e to cover staff shortages?

I don't think there's an issue per day with contingency to cover strikes

Of course, fair enough. If it's usual for agreements to be written in that way?

 

[185]

I'm also not sure it's greed? At this point Arriva are simply collecting their fee for running the operation. Saving money by staffing below establishment levels isn't earning them anything unlike when XC was a proper franchise taking full revenue risk.

I disagree, back when full revenue risk occurred, one TOC removed Station spare GPRs leading to a station being locked up and passengers crossing the track accessing the platform. Despite the changes, not a lot has changed with these TOCs - aka contractors.

Nowadays the DfT doesn't micromanage the current TOCs, and it's been mentioned on a number of occasions that a flat fee is paid to the TOC regardless of if they are fully staffed or have piles of roster lines marked <vacancy>. Thus, as in the holy book of Avanti (old testament, chapter three, verse five) "Roll up, roll-up get your free money here... too good to be true even if we underperform" - it is in the TOCs financial interest to remove as much expenditure as possible (inc staff) and keep taking the same amount from govt to increase profit.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Of course, fair enough. If it's usual for agreements to be written in that way?

Not sure, I know it was attempted to be 'worked into' our (WMT) CRI around 2018 but was objected to and never formally used.

I'd have to check the wording but ours is basically along the lines of contingency train crew may only work during industrial action for the relevent union. Managers may only work trains to ensure their competency and to manage competency of others.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I disagree, back when full revenue risk occurred, one TOC removed Station spare GPRs leading to a station being locked up and passengers crossing the track accessing the platform. Despite the changes, not a lot has changed with these TOCs - aka contractors.

Nowadays the DfT doesn't micromanage the current TOCs, and it's been mentioned on a number of occasions that a flat fee is paid to the TOC regardless of if they are fully staffed or have piles of roster lines marked <vacancy>. Thus, as in the holy book of Avanti (old testament, chapter three, verse five) "Roll up, roll-up get your free money here... too good to be true even if we underperform" - it is in the TOCs financial interest to remove as much expenditure as possible (inc staff) and keep taking the same amount from govt to increase profit.

It isn’t in the TOCs financial interest to do that because there is no extra profit to be had. The DfT effectively pays all the bills now so whether the TOC reduces cost or not doesn’t affect anything. TOC profit and loss remains with the DfT. The only way the Owning Group gets any money is through the fixed and contract performance related fees.

What is pertinent is that the TOC has to keep to the DfT budget and that means keeping to the staffing, recruitment and training levels they mandate for each TOC as part of the annual business plan process.

 

[ainsworth74]

I disagree, back when full revenue risk occurred, one TOC removed Station spare GPRs leading to a station being locked up and passengers crossing the track accessing the platform. Despite the changes, not a lot has changed with these TOCs - aka contractors.

Yeah of course it's true back in the day that various TOCs tried various wheezes to squeeze more money out of their operations, often times to cover for the, shall we say, heroic financial assumptions made by bid teams! I'm less convinced that that's still the case.

Nowadays the DfT doesn't micromanage the current TOCs, and it's been mentioned on a number of occasions that a flat fee is paid to the TOC regardless of if they are fully staffed or have piles of roster lines marked <vacancy>. Thus, as in the holy book of Avanti (old testament, chapter three, verse five) "Roll up, roll-up get your free money here... too good to be true even if we underperform" - it is in the TOCs financial interest to remove as much expenditure as possible (inc staff) and keep taking the same amount from govt to increase profit.

But that isn't how it works? The owning group gets paid a flat fee, doesn't matter whether the TOC itself is fantastically profitable or a complete basket case they'll keep getting their fee (hence Avanti's comments about money for old rope, doesn't matter how dire things get they get their fee) at the agreed upon rate. CrossCountry could be making £1bn per week in pure juicy profit and Arriva would still be getting their same old fee. I don't see the motivation that they have to squeeze until he pips squeak unlike the old days. They're just there to deliver the service using the establishment levels that have been set and agree with the DfT (HM Treasury).

 

[Horizon22]

I can imagine a situation similar to the LNER drivers dispute. Where by XC agree to stop the use of managers operating trains except under exceptional circumstances, and that strike will be called off.

Is that what the dispute is about?

Ironically going on strike will lead to managers working trains! Especially if they have a decent number of "contingency" TMs trained up, which is something several TOCs do. Would still be a reduced service though.

In my mind, there's a difference between covering lots of vacant terms with manager overtime on an almost daily basis if it isn't offered to regular staff, and getting managers in on overtime to keep the job running as a last resort and on strike days. I can see how the lines could get blurred though.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

If there is a vacancy at a TOC in operational/front line role it's because the DfT have instructed that position.

TOCs are told to have X number of conductors, Y number of drivers. If it falls below, then TOCs can recruit back up to that number, but even then, likely need authority if it's a fair few jobs.

I'm surprised that some posters on this forum still aren't able to reconcile that a TOC requires DfT approval or oversight for virtually everything. That includes detail like agreeing P-coding strategies etc. Some TOCs have virtually no delegated authority to the extent that the stationery supplies order needs DfT consent.

 

[Russel]

What are the chances of these being called off?

 

[Horizon22]

Personally it's not something I feel strongly about - but I know for a fact within my own TOC some managers have been guilty of rubbing people up (to quote one "keep on striking, I support you entirely - you're paying for my next cruise!").

This is also part of it, managers and other colleagues boasting about it or showing off is a poor look. Offer to help out, get paid accordingly, keep up the competencies but that should really be the end of it. Although you can't stop company chatter!

 

[rocrat]

I regularly travel between Nottingham and Derby which has both crosscountry and EMR services. The behaviour of the Guards are night and day different. EMR guards always at least walk the full length of their train helping passengers as required and generally do a full ticket check. The XC guards rarely leave the cab.

This. EMR guards are next level though and by far the best of any TOC. I have a lot of respect for EMR staff.

 

[Ashley Hill]

When I’ve observed managers and other contingency staff working as guards I’ve noticed that they are often dressed in casual clothing due to not having uniforms issued. If it wasn’t for a lanyard tucked into their pocket you wouldn’t know them. Neither do they perform revenue duties as they are not trained. Apart from making polite announcements they seldom engage with passengers. If guards worked trains in the same manner questions would be asked!

 

[azOOOOOma]

When I’ve observed managers and other contingency staff working as guards I’ve noticed that they are often dressed in casual clothing due to not having uniforms issued. If it wasn’t for a lanyard tucked into their pocket you wouldn’t know them. Neither do they perform revenue duties as they are not trained. Apart from making polite announcements they seldom engage with passengers. If guards worked trains in the same manner questions would be asked!

That’s a pretty poor show. Could they not maybe wear a high vis vest? I know on the planes you could operate in plain clothes in extremis as long as you had a high vis vest on and passengers were informed that you were operating crew. How are the punters meant to ‘see it, say it, sorted’ when they can’t identify who to say it to?