They have different contracts. This can be seen as a contractual dispute.
I don't believe the same employer argument stacks up. By that logic if they took over another TOC then they could automatically change it to DOO. My employer runs both DOO and Guards but it is widely accepted that DOO will not and should be extended further. All of us drive 12 cars so why does one part of the company have Guards and the others don't ?
The argument can also be flipped on its head. Southern/GatEx run with Guards so why shouldn't Thameslink ? Why is the argument to extend DOO further rather than extend Guards further ?
Contracts can be changed.
As for why Thameslink shouldn't have guards, well the DfT have decided against guards it seems.
they might well be the same employer now, but they werent were they? as i understand it, this is 3 sets of term and conditions being forced into 1 set of terms and conditions by gtr, which is out of order
Why is it out of order? I don't see the drivers/guards standing up for other grades who have changes done to them.
Wouldn't TUPE apply to the contracts anyway? Thereby Southern drivers are not bound by the terms and conditions of Thames link because they have never provided them with any contract. The original contract is taken over and it is for the new employer to renegotiate that. If the agreement was between the drivers and Thames link then it is still only between them. Not the Southern drivers. We still have different agreements on GWR from previous companies.
TUPE means you transfer. Doesn't mean you keep the same T&C but you must have similar terms and conditions. However that is not set in stone for ever more.
WOW... I think you have one of the worst cases of "I'm alright Jack" I have come across.
Let's not worry about the guards who may well end up losing their jobs, let's not worry about the disabled who will no longer be able to turn up and go and lets not worry about the impact on guards and drivers across the UK who will also be affected by the outcome of this dispute.
:roll:
So you've ignored the point I made of why can Thameslink drivers do it but not Southern/GatEx? I'd like an answer from you on this.
Why can the disabled only be helped by a guard? Are you against platform staff keeping their job then?
Do you understand what local agreements are? If they are going to go back on the local agreements with Aslef then there could be consequences. The union will have various agreements in place from everything from spare shift movements to walking times. If the company are allowed to just go against the local agreements they don't want any longer, why shouldn't the union just tear up the other agreements that they aren't keen on?
How can you justify a union agreeing with one part of a company to do something and not another? Especially when you are talking about the only different being the logo on a drivers uniform. Which is what this debate is all about.
But Southern drivers DIDN'T agree, FCC drivers did. It doesn't matter that they merged and work for the same firm. There was no choice in the matter for either party. And there has been no attempt to harmonise the terms of employment which are arguably better on the Thameslink/Great Northern side. Southern staff are being asked to swallow the disadvantages of the other party without its advantages.
No ASLEF agreed to allow its Thameslink drivers to drive 12 car DOO service. Don't lose sight here that ALSEF agreed to their use.
So if the terms are so bad why aren't the drivers talking to the company about keeping terms similar rather than no we won't d it attitude.
To extend the position held by class 377/5:
We immediately return to the by terms and conditions of employment (red book) which means:
On promotion the man with the longest service gets the job regardless of ability
On displacement those men with the most service get the pick of jobs
Time served in grade not ability become the key to any issue
Women have no rights
I am sure you wouldn't like that! The point being things change and so agreements also have to change - just because ddo was agreed in 198* doesn't mean it is right now
That's no my position at all. I do believe in fair and honest treatment of both sides. E
None of the units used by SWT (Inc the 707s that will enter service next year) use GPS for the SDO system currently in use. Nor are there any safeguards against a wrong side door release....
Well there is I suppose, it's called a 'Guard'.
The 707s can use GPS and ASDO for right side release. If SWT is not wanting to use these feature than that's SWT choice which seems to be making sure its actions ensure a future for guards unlike other TOCs.
Firstly Gatex T&C's state 10 car DOO max, TL is 12 car max
Secondly it's not over the same route Gatex is via clapham, TL is via herne hill.
T&C can and do change. Lets not forget that 12 car DOO on TL is a fairly new thing.
Actually your wrong. TL has the right to operate (track access) Victoria to Brighton service in up to 12 car formations during disruption (2tph protected aths last time I checked).
I'm very well aware of the routes operated, but I'm also aware of all the alternative routes we are authorised and what restrictions are placed on use including what SE drivers can do with TL stock, ie my route knowledge extends to the SEML down to Sevenoaks via Hither Green.
Because they are a different brand.
Well if the Brighton line has 12 cars then surely a president has been set and all other lines should go to 12 cars regardless of local conditions!!!
Well if the same union has allowed 12 car working, trying to stop 12 car DOO is a bit to late as the horse has bolted many years ago on
ASLEF watch.
Cheers.
