Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

bnm said:

+1 clown here. RMT were never going to win this battle. Pointless action for political reasons which has only succeeded in losing their members 4 weeks pay.

If those that disagree with the RMTs stance are clowns, what does that make those who blindly followed, and continue to believe, the RMTs industrial action strategy would, or will, work?

Click to expand...

A TU has a job to fight to protect its members jobs. Simple. The RMT had no other option but to do so

We will see how this pans out. I wonder if ASLEF members will strike to protect other union's job? Doubtful, with the assurances they've had. I cannot see the RMT gaining more than the ASLEF agreement with more IA and I suspect the question of DOO is now settled across the whole of England. If I were running Northern, Merseyrail and others I'd announce a plan to move to a similar arrangement soon on suitable routes while all this unpleasantness was fresh in people's minds. I should add my personal preference is for properly trained and functioning conductors on all trains but that is beside the point.

This is where the RMT need to get round the table with GTR and finalise what training an OBS will and won't have seeing as ASLEF hasn't, they should see the train out the platform and maintain Emergency protection. I'm intrigued but pleased to see the common sense approach that OBS will maintain dispatch competency in the event of poor CCTV images, possibly ASLEF could have gone further and requested there was a clause of 'I want an OBS dispatch at x because' in the event that an unstaffed station is overly busy etc. Finally, GTR need to keep to their promise of upgrading the equipment. I'm not against positive changes, and this agreement appears to make it difficult for the DfT to steamroll through with single man working, but I echo BestWesterns concerns about it being the thin edge of the wedge, and that the DfT hasn't bankrolled this to have no return.

Since when has a guard been a burden on the taxpayer? If TOCs are turning a profit and the government are still receiving payment from the TOC, then it has nothing to do with the taxpayer.

hungry said:

A TU has a job to fight to protect its members jobs. Simple. The RMT had no other option but to do so

Click to expand...

And how exactly have they protected their members. Their members already have been shown to be liars over their safety rubbish, have already lost salary, already lost face, already lost some benefits and ultimately some will lose their jobs over this. If that's protecting their members I'd hate to see the RMT attacking them!

hungry said:

A TU has a job to fight to protect its members jobs. Simple.

Click to expand...

Precisely

hungry said:

The RMT had no other option but to do so

Click to expand...

But the RMT had other options but failed to negotiate.

hungry said:

A TU has a job to fight to protect its members jobs. Simple. The RMT had no other option but to do so

Click to expand...

Remind me. How many jobs were under threat?

pompeyfan said:

Since when has a guard been a burden on the taxpayer? If TOCs are turning a profit and the government are still receiving payment from the TOC, then it has nothing to do with the taxpayer.

Click to expand...

In one sense your absolutely spot on, the cost of a guard is minimal when compared with the overall cost of running a railway. Then factor in monetary benefits they bring (revenue collection and protection) and then non measurable benefits like providing disabled assistance, customer service, safety aspects and guards on one sense pay for themselves.

However, big however, the costs tot the taxpayer of hundreds of people turning up late to high powered city jobs because their peak time train from Brighton has been cancelled due to a guard going late sick or AWOL is incalculatable. This then costs the TOC in fines, taxis maybe, and repayment of tickets. There is little more frustrating for a passenger having a train cancelled due to "train crew unavailability" then seeing the unit leaving the platform ECS to the destination!! This is ultimately what the dft want to end, and have achieved on the Southern, and it's now the model that will probably roll out on several other franchises. It's unfortunate, I don't agree with it, but it's modernisation and it's where we are.

sidmouth said:

Precisely

But the RMT had other options but failed to negotiate.

Click to expand...

What were they, that did not mean a reduction in the total number of staff?

What are you suggesting that the RMT should negotiate roles that make the future unsafe, and reduce the head count taking into account that also Southern want to close virtually all there ticket offices?

What would be the point of a union if they say ok we wont do anything but tell the membership the company want to reduce conductor numbers in the short term by 60% on the current existing arrangements with an eventual 100% DOO-P operation in the near future. They also want to close all the ticket offices however with the jobs GTR are proposing it will mean a net loss of around 400 on the headcount, are you happy with that? I am sure i would know what the answer will be and it wont be Yes sir go ahead we are happy about that. Imagine if you was one of those losing a job im sure you would be over the moon!

bnm said:

Remind me. How many jobs were under threat?

Click to expand...

Well we dont know, but i do know that some Guards on Southern have already left the industry whilst some have moved homes to work for another toc. Take into account the ticket office closures and once the dust has settled on this perhaps we will see a total headcount LESS then it was at the beginning of this dispute.

What have ticket office staff got to do with this dispute?

The RMT aren't taking industrial action because of any potential changes in ticket offices are they?

If they are then surely the TSSA would have something to say. I see no mention anywhere of TSSA being in dispute with GTR/Southern.

bnm said:

What have ticket office staff got to do with this dispute?

The RMT aren't taking industrial action because of any potential changes in ticket offices are they?

If they are then surely the TSSA would have something to say. I see no mention anywhere of TSSA being in dispute with GTR/Southern.

Click to expand...

Amazing that you only refer to my second paragragh and not say anything about the first and then try and turn it round like the above comment is the only thing i said!

I am looking at the big picture rather then having blinkers on.

Now i know that Guards on Southern have left the industry which is the answer to your original question. What have you got say about that then?

313103 said:

Amazing that you only refer to my second paragragh and not say anything about the first and then try and turn it round like the above comment is the only thing i said!

I am looking at the big picture rather then having blinkers on.

Now i know that Guards on Southern have left the industry which is the answer to your original question. What have you got say about that then?

Click to expand...

I'm puzzled. You say that guards n Southern have left the industry, surely that happens naturally all the time anyway ?

Isn't that why Southern have been recruiting fresh recruits into the OBS role ?

bnm said:

What have ticket office staff got to do with this dispute?

The RMT aren't taking industrial action because of any potential changes in ticket offices are they?

If they are then surely the TSSA would have something to say. I see no mention anywhere of TSSA being in dispute with GTR/Southern.

Click to expand...

I am fairly sure that at some point last year there was threatened action in connection with a ticket office dispute.

If I recall correctly Southern wanted to bring the ticket office staff out the ticket office in to the public areas to help with operating ticket machines etc.

That dispute as far as I know is currently shelved whilst a trial of the scheme is held at a number of stations.

As regards the RMT dispute where it went wrong was partly the public speaking of the RMT but also the heavy legal action Southern took against ASLEF. The intention I suspect being to keep ASLEF out of the dispute. ASLEF had great hurdles to cross to get a valid ballot held and it took several attempts and a number of court cases.

Personally I think the Southern members voting on this will be a lot 50:50 than many might expect. I think its possible to misjudge how fed up the staff are with the company and how much they dont want to do driver control.

Finally we reduce safety staff at our peril. We have more than one member of staff on duty at theatres, cinemas, shopping centres and other places where there are significant crowds of people. Many of those people are there primarily in case there is an emergency. I therefore fail to see why we do not require at least 2 people on a train.

One day there will be an incident and someone will be looking very carefully at the number of staff on board a train.

313103 said:

Now i know that Guards on Southern have left the industry which is the answer to your original question. What have you got say about that then?

Click to expand...

Did they do so voluntarily? If so, what's the point you're trying to make?

I'm still a little bit bemused. I asked on the Mick Whelan thread for an explanation as to why the ASLEF agreement has provoked this sort of reaction but I'm going to ask again here. My apologies if this post appears to be provocative, but I really would like to get to the bottom of this.

As I see it, the agreement made by GTR with ASLEF guarantees that the normal method of working will be DOO with driver and OBS, that every train that previously had a conductor will now have an OBS, that depot establishments will be calculated on a ratio of two OBS to every one running turn and that OBSs will be allowed to retain or be trained to attain additional competencies with regards to despatch. This sets up a formula for staff numbers that should mean that the number of OBS will be the same or similar to the number of conductors irrespective of whatever exceptional circumstances are listed in the so far not released Appendix A. While I'm not exactly running up the bunting, what I'm failing to see is how this is a charter for the removal of on-train staff.

Or is it simply that ASLEF have reached an agreement with a demonstrably untrustworthy TOC who will welch on it at the first opportunity? If so, what's the point of reaching any agreement?

My position on DOO remains unchanged and I have argued both the safety issues against DOO and the financial justifications for retaining guards. All of this I stand firmly by.

However...

Clearly the question of whether or not DOO was coming in was off the table. GTR was simply not going to back away from that. Therefore ASLEF (and RMT in it's turn) have had to try and reach the best possible agreement under the circumstances that addresses the concerns over staffing levels and despatch. Clearly this agreement is far from optimal, but it clearly it is at least palatable. It is difficult for them to argue for the retention of guards after RMT had recommended that it's members accept the new contracts of employment and the OBS role, and impossible for them to argue that this step should be reversed. As I have said before, ASLEF does not represent the OBS grade and, therefore, has no mandate to negotiate on their behalf. That is the job of RMT. If the role of the OBS is to be secured for the long term and the duties and responsibilities of the grade are to be developed, that is for RMT to negotiate.

In order to pre-empt the inevitable question, I don't know which way I would vote in the ballot were I a driver at Southern. Without seeing the entire text of the proposal, together with the appendices to it, I cannot form a proper opinion. Certainly I would be mindful of issues surrounding safety and staffing and would want to weigh these in my deliberations.

However, I will say a few things about it, if I may. Firstly, I am relieved that there appears to be no financial incentive attached to this. Secondly, I am disappointed that the traction interlock circuit seems to have been considered so important in ensuring safe despatch, especially when reliance on this feature has been so roundly criticised by the RAIB. Thirdly, while it's hardly a ringing endorsement (or even an endorsement of any type), the proposed method of working seems better at least than historic methods of DOO working on routes such as West Anglia.

O L Leigh

bnm said:

What have ticket office staff got to do with this dispute?

Click to expand...

With this specific dispute, nothing. But, in the wider view, they will also be victims of the great unstaffed railway, as we all know very well.

BestWestern said:

With this specific dispute, nothing. But, in the wider view, they will also be victims of the great unstaffed railway, as we all know very well.

Click to expand...

Do we ? - presumably that's another personal point of view rather than a fact ?

I've read the entire proposed agreement including appendices that was kindly posted in post 11223, and from what I can tell it has more holes than swiss cheese.

The number of OBS staff employed is specified, but their working hours are not, so there is nothing stopping GTR reducing hours for new staff so that they can make tighter diagrams where OBSs are more likely to make it to their next train. There is no requirement for even a single OBS to be diagrammed on a spare turn, so a single illness/late OBS to work could result in a train running without an OBS.

It appears that OBSs will have no obligation or financial incentive to opt to undergo training to hold the competancy to assist in train dispatch, so why should they bother? It'd just be extra work and liability for no gain. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I can't see many new entrants opting for this. Drivers must also get permission from control every time the OBS is to use these skills. Is this so that control can pressurise them not to?

The so-called 'indemnity scheme' doesn't exist - there is only a promise that its feasibility will be explored, and then probably deemed unfeasible.

The Joint Working Party detailed in Appendix C appears to be toothless and has I can't see any mechanism to compel the company to act on its findings.

In appendix D, the statement "Both parties acknowledge that while the current systems meet industry safety standards," is a direct contradiction to ASLEF's previous press releases. The appendix provides no detail of what technology GTR must introduce or any timeframe which it must be completed by. In the meantime the old equipment must be used, for at least 8 more weeks. Further details are kicked into the long grass.

Appendix E (Restoration of Positive Relationships) is all filler and contains no detail of what GTR will do or how.

There is a sweetener for the union protecting the livelihood of freight drivers being made redundant, but this isn't really relevant to the issues raised by GTR drivers and I don't see why its included in this agreement.

I can't see that ASLEF have really negotiated anything of substance at all in this agreement.

a_c_skinner said:

We will see how this pans out. I wonder if ASLEF members will strike to protect other union's job? Doubtful, with the assurances they've had. I cannot see the RMT gaining more than the ASLEF agreement with more IA and I suspect the question of DOO is now settled across the whole of England. If I were running Northern, Merseyrail and others I'd announce a plan to move to a similar arrangement soon on suitable routes while all this unpleasantness was fresh in people's minds. I should add my personal preference is for properly trained and functioning conductors on all trains but that is beside the point.

Click to expand...

The point in bold came up in our messroom the other week. Dont know is the honest answer, interestingly however my own employer ( Northern ) are taking on guards in the traditional sense right now, and thats despite a committment to 50% DOO by the end of the franchise.

One more point to add is that the public were told by GTR that this 'modernisation' would mean that all Southern trains would have an OBS, even those previously true DOO such as Southern Metro. However, the proposed ASLEF agreement explicitly excludes these services, and my own experience recently on them is that they pretty much don't run with OBS.

maniacmartin said:

One more point to add is that the public were told by GTR that this 'modernisation' would mean that all Southern trains would have an OBS, even those previously true DOO such as Southern Metro. However, the proposed ASLEF agreement explicitly excludes these services, and my own experience recently on them is that they pretty much don't run with OBS.

Click to expand...

Not that I know this, but in terms of carriages, what is the biggest length of train that can run with just the driver on board when in passenger service ?

I would just like to remind you that this is a proposed agreement with ASLEF. Therefore, expecting it to outline the details of the OBS grade is erroneous, especially when such matters have not been negotiated with the relevant staff-side representatives.

maniacmartin said:

The number of OBS staff employed is specified, but their working hours are not, so there is nothing stopping GTR reducing hours for new staff so that they can make tighter diagrams where OBSs are more likely to make it to their next train. There is no requirement for even a single OBS to be diagrammed on a spare turn, so a single illness/late OBS to work could result in a train running without an OBS.

Click to expand...

The availability of cover is a function of the number of staff employed, depot establishment (for those not familiar with the term, this means the number of staff per depot), diagramming and rostering. The proposal guarantees coverage of trains that previously had conductors and the formula for calculating depot establishments therefore guaranteeing a certain size of workforce. It may be that GTR may decide to tighten up the OBS diagrams, but the depot establishments would indicate that there should be adequate spare cover.

However, such matters are for RMT to negotiate and monitor. It is not for ASLEF to police such matters.

maniacmartin said:

It appears that OBSs will have no obligation or financial incentive to opt to undergo training to hold the competancy to assist in train dispatch, so why should they bother? It'd just be extra work and liability for no gain. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I can't see many new entrants opting for this. Drivers must also get permission from control every time the OBS is to use these skills. Is this so that control can pressurise them not to?

Click to expand...

Again, this is for RMT to negotiate, not ASLEF.

maniacmartin said:

The so-called 'indemnity scheme' doesn't exist - there is only a promise that its feasibility will be explored, and then probably deemed unfeasible.

Click to expand...

The details of this are still to be established. The proposed agreement is only to look into it. Perhaps it will be considered unworkable. I'm certainly not aware of any similar scheme on other TOCs, but until it's looked at no-one can know for sure.

maniacmartin said:

The Joint Working Party detailed in Appendix C appears to be toothless and has I can't see any mechanism to compel the company to act on its findings.

Click to expand...

The enforcement mechanism is by reference to the Company Council and the collective bargaining agreement. If the TOC and union fail to agree then this would be dealt with in the same way as any other failure to agree.

maniacmartin said:

In appendix D, the statement "Both parties acknowledge that while the current systems meet industry safety standards," is a direct contradiction to ASLEF's previous press releases. The appendix provides no detail of what technology GTR must introduce or any timeframe which it must be completed by. In the meantime the old equipment must be used, for at least 8 more weeks. Further details are kicked into the long grass.

Click to expand...

Agreeing that existing equipment meets industry standard is not contradictory. Even where equipment meets industry standard, DOO despatch is still less safe than guard despatch, as has been discussed at great length. I would imagine that deciding the upgrades and timescales to deliver them will be the work of the Joint Working Party.

Besides, you quote out of context. The full quote is below.

The parties acknowledge that some of the equipment, although meeting industry standards, is capable of updating. The intention of the company is to provide the driver with an improved image quality in line with more recent compatible rolling stock.

Click to expand...

maniacmartin said:

Appendix E (Restoration of Positive Relationships) is all filler and contains no detail of what GTR will do or how.

Click to expand...

Are we reading the same document? There's actually quite a lot in there, such as a new drivers agreement replacing the existing DRI and a commitment to look at flexible and family-friendly working arrangements.

maniacmartin said:

I can't see that ASLEF have really negotiated anything of substance at all in this agreement.

Click to expand...

I agree that the details are still to be worked out, but what they have negotiated is a process and procedure together with a commitment from the company to take such matters seriously. I agree that I would have preferred something that rejects DOO outright, but under the circumstances it looks like a reasonable first step.

maniacmartin said:

One more point to add is that the public were told by GTR that this 'modernisation' would mean that all Southern trains would have an OBS, even those previously true DOO such as Southern Metro. However, the proposed ASLEF agreement explicitly excludes these services, and my own experience recently on them is that they pretty much don't run with OBS.

Click to expand...

That's something for RMT to negotiate. The scope of this agreement covers the expansion of DOO working on Southern onto other routes, which is what this dispute has been about.

O L Leigh

Moonshot said:

The point in bold came up in our messroom the other week. Dont know is the honest answer, interestingly however my own employer ( Northern ) are taking on guards in the traditional sense right now, and thats despite a committment to 50% DOO by the end of the franchise.

Click to expand...

Northern is not southern. For starters they have no DOO at all at present, so any staff they do take on have to be guards.

But there are also other factors with Northern. Arrive have taken on a very big project here. It will all fail miserably if they do not raise income by a considerable amount. Yes DOO might create some income, but the number of stations where access to trains on the Northern network is too easy without a ticket, or there is no ticket facilities at all is a huge number. It will be of no benefit if savings on DOO are wiped out by ticketless travel increases, they will have to strike the right balance.

I work for Northern, and I know DOO will come on some routes. But I also think Arriva will be far more sensible in the application than GTR have been. It is not in their interest to destroy staff morale completely. What does it benefit a company if the face that actually deals with the customer is a sour face? I work better and pull in more revenue when I'm happy.

As for the RMT and DOO. I really hope they take a more pragmatic stance with Northern. There are opportunities here to reach a sensible and lasting deal that will benefit the workforce, the company, and most of all the passengers. I'm not too keen on the RMT's sabre rattling at the moment when I do believe Northern when they say "At this point in time, we just do not know what we are doing"

Perhaps I am lacking the context of working in the railway industry where nothing is quite as it seems for an outsider. I am wary however, given the GatEx agreement was recently picked apart by GTR when it suited them

wingsoveryorks said:

Northern is not southern. For starters they have no DOO at all at present, so any staff they do take on have to be guards.

But there are also other factors with Northern. Arrive have taken on a very big project here. It will all fail miserably if they do not raise income by a considerable amount. Yes DOO might create some income, but the number of stations where access to trains on the Northern network is too easy without a ticket, or there is no ticket facilities at all is a huge number. It will be of no benefit if savings on DOO are wiped out by ticketless travel increases, they will have to strike the right balance.

I work for Northern, and I know DOO will come on some routes. But I also think Arriva will be far more sensible in the application than GTR have been. It is not in their interest to destroy staff morale completely. What does it benefit a company if the face that actually deals with the customer is a sour face? I work better and pull in more revenue when I'm happy.

As for the RMT and DOO. I really hope they take a more pragmatic stance with Northern. There are opportunities here to reach a sensible and lasting deal that will benefit the workforce, the company, and most of all the passengers. I'm not too keen on the RMT's sabre rattling at the moment when I do believe Northern when they say "At this point in time, we just do not know what we are doing"

Click to expand...

It depends what way you look at things. If you are a conductor or the RMT it must be infuriating to see another union in cohorts with TOC basically degrade the job role. It will be interesting to see just how much training those OBS will get as part of the role. Obvious word is 'Option' which suggests that many will not be safety critical.

I agree with you on Northern. Hopefully lessons have been learned and there is a more amicable agreement reached. They've already offered 2 staff on all times...but as we've seen with Southern the devil is in the detail.

danbarnstall said:

If you are a conductor or the RMT it must be infuriating to see another union in cohorts with TOC basically degrade the job role.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to take issue with this point.

It was not ASLEF that downgraded the conductors to OBSs. That was RMT when they advised their members to accept the new contracts of employment. This was the step that effectively downgraded this role, and it pre-dates the proposed agreement with ASLEF by quite a large amount. ASLEF cannot agree with GTR that conductors must be retained when the grade no longer exists (except on certain routes).

O L Leigh

danbarnstall said:

It depends what way you look at things. If you are a conductor or the RMT it must be infuriating to see another union in cohorts with TOC basically degrade the job role. It will be interesting to see just how much training those OBS will get as part of the role. Obvious word is 'Option' which suggests that many will not be safety critical.

I agree with you on Northern. Hopefully lessons have been learned and there is a more amicable agreement reached. They've already offered 2 staff on all times...but as we've seen with Southern the devil is in the detail.

Click to expand...

ASLEF aren't there to protect any grades apart from drivers.

It's astonishingly naive to think otherwise!

danbarnstall said:

It depends what way you look at things. If you are a conductor or the RMT it must be infuriating to see another union in cohorts with TOC basically degrade the job role. It will be interesting to see just how much training those OBS will get as part of the role. Obvious word is 'Option' which suggests that many will not be safety critical.

I agree with you on Northern. Hopefully lessons have been learned and there is a more amicable agreement reached. They've already offered 2 staff on all times...but as we've seen with Southern the devil is in the detail.

Click to expand...

Infuriating yes. But lets be honest here, The ASLEF executive have let their own members down more than the conductor grade.

As for safety critical, look. At the end of the day who is the real beneficiary of a safety critical conductor. It is the travelling public. When all said and done, if I'm not safety critical I have no responsibility to ensure the train is protected in a section M situation. I then become a passenger, and I know how to get out of a train better than most passengers do.

We can argue black is white all day, but the bottom line is this. Fares are not coming down, but safety in an emergency is. Do I care enough? Not really, The whole episode and seeing how little support we get from the public convinces me not to care about their safety too much. I'll sell a few tickets up to retirement if that is what they want me to do.

wingsoveryorks said:

Do I care enough? Not really, The whole episode and seeing how little support we get from the public convinces me not to care about their safety too much.

Click to expand...

What a fabulous attitude as usual.

AlterEgo said:

What a fabulous attitude as usual.

Click to expand...

Well what do you expect. Swinging from the trees for people who don't give a sh**. Problem with you is that you want to attack the guards grade, but can't handle the thought that they might just stop caring. Get real and join us in the world of grown ups.