Arriva Rail North DOO

Killingworth · 10 Aug 2018

kw12 said:
As DfT are picking up the bill for strikes it should not make any difference to Northern's bottom line.

Exactly, there are 3 sides in this dispute and heads need knocking together so they all see the way this is leading.

My local station is/was achieving consistent 5% + annual passenger number increases, doubled in the last 7 years. We lost 10% of Northern trains over a recent month, added to those who don't turn up due to other cancellations or turn up very late, and we have some 2 hour gaps when other cities would expect half hourly. Fortunately we do get commuter time stops by two other TOCs (often 30 minutes late), but it all turns passengers off using the train.

It will be interesting to see how the figures for 2017/18 and then 2018/19 stack up - although the Northern TVM strikes more often than conductors, so that doesn't help the stats either!

RailUK Forums

scrapy · 10 Aug 2018

woodmally said:
So are there still talks happening then? I thought they had broken down thats why the strikes were called? Or am I wrong.

The RMT have called this strike action because they don't feel Northern are taking the talks seriously. Under the terms of reference for the talks they were supposed to have taken place with either David Brown or at director level with those who had authority to make decisions. Despite this Northern only sent lower level managers who claimed they couldn't make any decisions. There were also sessions that were cancelled by Northern without notice or the managers turned extremely late or had to leave early. The decision was taken by RMT that these talks were simply a delaying tactic to prevent further strike action. There are further talks scheduled for next Friday 17th. Whether these take place is anyone's guess.

Bletchleyite · 10 Aug 2018

If they really did do that that's quite disrespectful and arrogant, and I'd almost go so far as to say they *deserve* more strikes as a result.

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

Bletchleyite said:
If they really did do that that's quite disrespectful and arrogant, and I'd almost go so far as to say they *deserve* more strikes as a result.

Well if that is the case its very silly. As Northern can only play this tactic once. Its not going to happen again.

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

scrapy said:
The RMT have called this strike action because they don't feel Northern are taking the talks seriously. Under the terms of reference for the talks they were supposed to have taken place with either David Brown or at director level with those who had authority to make decisions. Despite this Northern only sent lower level managers who claimed they couldn't make any decisions. There were also sessions that were cancelled by Northern without notice or the managers turned extremely late or had to leave early. The decision was taken by RMT that these talks were simply a delaying tactic to prevent further strike action. There are further talks scheduled for next Friday 17th. Whether these take place is anyone's guess.

Actually this is a first. Me agreeing with RMT for once. I have not supported them throughout this dispute as A) I think they are on a lost cause and B) I dont see a problem with DOO. However this decision to pull out was a sound one. There is no point in talking to someone who has no power.

Moonshot · 10 Aug 2018

scrapy said:
The RMT have called this strike action because they don't feel Northern are taking the talks seriously. Under the terms of reference for the talks they were supposed to have taken place with either David Brown or at director level with those who had authority to make decisions. Despite this Northern only sent lower level managers who claimed they couldn't make any decisions. There were also sessions that were cancelled by Northern without notice or the managers turned extremely late or had to leave early. The decision was taken by RMT that these talks were simply a delaying tactic to prevent further strike action. There are further talks scheduled for next Friday 17th. Whether these take place is anyone's guess.

Who has told you that ?

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

Moonshot said:
Who has told you that ?

He may have got it from a reputable source or he may have drawn that logical conclusion from both the press release the RMT have given out and comments to that effect on their own Facebook page. I would say its accurate information.

Moonshot · 10 Aug 2018

woodmally said:
He may have got it from a reputable source or he may have drawn that logical conclusion from both the press release the RMT have given out and comments to that effect on their own Facebook page. I would say its accurate information.

I would say its not, because I work for them.

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

Moonshot said:
I would say its not, because I work for them.

Interesting. So RMT have no reason to pull out of the talks its just a publicity stunt then.

Moonshot · 10 Aug 2018

woodmally said:
Interesting. So RMT have no reason to pull out of the talks its just a publicity stunt then.

Talks are ongoing.

Killingworth · 10 Aug 2018

RMT say it's lack of good faith.

They avoid specifics, but this may overstate the position “German-owned Northern Rail want to run nearly half a million trains a year without a safety critical guard on board in a move that would wreck both safety and access ‎to services and they should listen to their front-line staff and pull back from that plan immediately." Maybe Northern might confirm it's only 250,000 trains a year, and most of them would have another member of staff aboard, and at least we'd have started examining that scenario!

The video certainly does make a powerful case. That said I've recently travelled on longer trains for further than those operated by Northern and not seen a conductor/guard/train manager from start to finish, even though they must have had them.

Andyh82 · 10 Aug 2018

Yet again with the “German owned” lined.

Yet Greater Anglia who get mentioned below as the saviour are also foreign owned!

Andyh82 · 10 Aug 2018

Moonshot said:
Strike action would dissapear overnight if there was a second ballot. An increasing number of guards are becoming very frustrated with the RMT.

Do the guards not get ballotted ahead of each set of strikes?

yorksrob · 10 Aug 2018

Can they still request formal arbitration through ACAS ? Absolutely disgusting if Northern management failed to send someone of appropriate seniority to negotiate.

Eccles1983 · 10 Aug 2018

Moonshot said:
I would say its not, because I work for them.

I disagree.

Heard it from a RMT honcho today. It's very accurate.

kw12 · 10 Aug 2018

yorksrob said:
Can they still request formal arbitration through ACAS ?

RMT can request it. However, Northern will not take part unless RMT present new proposals.

pemma · 10 Aug 2018

Killingworth said:
RMT say it's lack of good faith.

They avoid specifics, but this may overstate the position “German-owned Northern Rail want to run nearly half a million trains a year without a safety critical guard on board in a move that would wreck both safety and access ‎to services and they should listen to their front-line staff and pull back from that plan immediately." Maybe Northern might confirm it's only 250,000 trains a year, and most of them would have another member of staff aboard, and at least we'd have started examining that scenario!

The video certainly does make a powerful case. That said I've recently travelled on longer trains for further than those operated by Northern and not seen a conductor/guard/train manager from start to finish, even though they must have had them.

The mileage and the type of services are more important than the number of services. Do the RMT really think a guard-less Liverpool to Bradford to Leeds services has equal weighting to a guard-less Piccadilly to Hazel Grove service?

pemma · 10 Aug 2018

Andyh82 said:
Do the guards not get ballotted ahead of each set of strikes?

No. The last RMT Northern ballot was in 2016 which means they can go calling strikes until 2025 without having any further ballots, as the law adding an expiry date to ballots only came in to effect in March 2017. However, the RMT still have to announce Northern strikes 2 weeks in advance as the ballot being in 2016 doesn't exempt them from that new requirement, announcing them one week in advance of planned talks is a sort of loophole.

Anvil1984 · 10 Aug 2018

Eccles1983 said:
I disagree.

Heard it from a RMT honcho today. It's very accurate.

It’s also in an email sent to to Northern Conductors by the RMT and a copy has been copied and pasted on the employee Facebook page.

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

Anvil1984 said:
It’s also in an email sent to to Northern Conductors by the RMT and a copy has been copied and pasted on the employee Facebook page.

Are you sure you cant both be right? Are the RMT usually that upfront. Or are they saying one thing publicly but working behind the scenes privately? It seems a bit silly to continue to talk with Northern, as someone said on here talks are continuing, even though they are sending people without power to these meetings. The only way that would be the case is if they still are talking but want to pile on the pressure during neogtiations. If you are right though why continue with the talks if Northern are not sending the right people to the table?

Anvil1984 · 10 Aug 2018

I definitely know what has been posted unfortunately can’t copy and paste it but it definitely comes from RMT stating that the negotiation team came late, left early and took the Michael (my words) requesting numerous unnecessary adjournments

a_c_skinner · 10 Aug 2018

This is back to the future, the IR of the 1970s. That helped no one. Think British Leyland.

Both sides.

Killingworth · 10 Aug 2018

jcollins said:
No. The last RMT Northern ballot was in 2016 which means they can go calling strikes until 2025 without having any further ballots, as the law adding an expiry date to ballots only came in to effect in March 2017. However, the RMT still have to announce Northern strikes 2 weeks in advance as the ballot being in 2016 doesn't exempt them from that new requirement, announcing them one week in advance of planned talks is a sort of loophole.

For RMT's sake Northern had better not be stripped of their franchise!

Robertj21a · 10 Aug 2018

I wonder if Northern would describe it quite differently ?

Jonfun · 10 Aug 2018

jcollins said:
The LGBT community are particularly annoyed with the RMT announcing a strike which coincides with Manchester Pride.

Are we?

woodmally · 10 Aug 2018

Anvil1984 said:
I definitely know what has been posted unfortunately can’t copy and paste it but it definitely comes from RMT stating that the negotiation team came late, left early and took the Michael (my words) requesting numerous unnecessary adjournments

So why the heck are they continuing with the negotiations. Surely if they are not getting anywhere abandoning the talks and continuing the strike action would be the best course of action. But doing both doesnt strengthen their case.

yorksrob · 10 Aug 2018

kw12 said:
RMT can request it. However, Northern will not take part unless RMT present new proposals.

I can't help wonder why there isn't some mechanism to force both sides into it, particularly where a vital public service is at stake.

pemma · 10 Aug 2018

Jonfun said:
Are we?

An angry Mancuian on the radio said it was outrageous to call a rail strike coinciding with Pride and that no one had the right to disrupt a celebration of all things LGBQT

Geeves · 10 Aug 2018

I am at a loss to find the original message from Mick Cash but I can back up Anvil, Eccles1983 et al, that it seems like Northern management want the talks to fail -

Walking out of meetings early
Leaving the RMT members sat in a room for hours a time waiting
No senior management present

Great progress!

Killingworth · 10 Aug 2018

yorksrob said:
I can't help wonder why there isn't some mechanism to force both sides into it, particularly where a vital public service is at stake.

There probably is for new disputes, see; https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/583582/Annex_A_Draft_40__guidance.pdf

The public service clause looks clear enough to those who see it should apply to rail workers, but is sufficiently provocative to have the potential to be the cause of a much bigger industrial dispute. I suspect Northern don't want to try it out in court, and nor does the government when they have enough bigger problems on their hands.

Arriva Rail North DOO

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member