Arriva Rail North DOO

underbank · 23 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
It certainly wasn't the culture in the 70s.

Yes, I'm sure all those miners, shipyard workers, car factory workers, steel workers, etc., are really glad that they fought to keep their excessive pay and benefits. Oh, hang on, they caused the collapse of their industries and ended up unemployed.

RailUK Forums

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
Good points. I'm not sure why people give in to poor terms so easily either. It certainly wasn't the culture in the 70s. Maybe the financial crisis of the late 2000s made people panic about their job security to the point they are scared to rock the boat at work at all? Our government have done a heck of a lot of talking about the economy the economy the economy to the point that I feel some people are petrified and their life revolves around their minimum wage zero hours job at the local Pubman's Fayre Inn.

People have been force-fed the message by politicians the media that there is no money for anything thanks to austerity, so they should knuckle under and accept what they have. Of course, there is always public money for corporation tax cuts, regardless of how little effect they seem to have on economic performance.

underbank said:
Yes, I'm sure all those miners, shipyard workers, car factory workers, steel workers, etc., are really glad that they fought to keep their excessive pay and benefits. Oh, hang on, they caused the collapse of their industries and ended up unemployed.

No they didn't. Poor management, badly designed products, underinvestment, government policy and a vicious circle of economic decline did for those industries. As shown by the fact that workers in our surviving manufacturing industries seem to have reasonable pay and conditions without the companies collapsing as a result.

But I see that the good old British sport of 'blame the worker' is still popular. Particularly among those for whom ordinary working people always receive 'excessive pay and benefits'. What was wrong, gap between the poorest and the richest too narrow for your liking in the 70s ?

Killingworth · 23 Nov 2018

underbank said:
Yes, I'm sure all those miners, shipyard workers, car factory workers, steel workers, etc., are really glad that they fought to keep their excessive pay and benefits. Oh, hang on, they caused the collapse of their industries and ended up unemployed.

The same has happened in many white collar occupations too. Where are the door to door Prudential insurance sales men now?

However, in this dispute, after approaching 7,500 posts, all we've done is to prove that it is a complex issue and the parties concerned are the only ones who can resolve it.

All the rest is so much hot air, so unless there are any new facts we might as well move on.

In Northernland rail passengers must find some other way to travel on Northern routes on Saturdays until some unknown date, possibly into 2025, or longer.

That's a great prospect for those who have interest in encouraging greater use of rail services - presumably the vast majority of contributors to this forum.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

Starmill said:
You do realise that, while you can repeat this as many times as you like, it isn't true? Unless there is an agreement, the guards at Northern do not have job security. Cetrainly not for as long as 6 years in any case, as many of them they could feasibly be replaced within far less time than that.

So what exactly is the benefit of continuint to refuse a deal at Northern, with 40 odd strike days? More job security? I do not think so.

It doesn't matter how many times you wilfully miss the point. For so long as trains cannot run without guards, there is job security for the grade as a whole (that's what they're arguing over). Of course an individual guard might be replaced, but there's little chance of a TOC doing that on a whim if they'd just have to pay to train another

yorksrob · 23 Nov 2018

Killingworth said:
The same has happened in many white collar occupations too. Where are the door to door Prudential insurance sales men now?

However, in this dispute, after approaching 7,500 posts, all we've done is to prove that it is a complex issue and the parties concerned are the only ones who can resolve it.

All the rest is so much hot air, so unless there are any new facts we might as well move on.

In Northernland rail passengers must find some other way to travel on Northern routes on Saturdays until some unknown date, possibly into 2025, or longer.

That's a great prospect for those who have interest in encouraging greater use of rail services - presumably the vast majority of contributors to this forum.

I dread to think what effect this situation will have on the long term prosperity of the railway. By hook or by crook, something must happen to move the protagonists out of their comfort zones and resolve the issue.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

Ken H said:
As DOO works fine on TfL, Thameslink, Scotrail electrics, Chiltern, London Overground, heathrow Express, GWR locals from Paddington, C2C and some Greater Anglia, I am struggling to find a reason why DOO is unsafe on northern serv

no. but its the reality of the job market. especially as jobs are more and more at risk from automation.

Or we have the strict employment laws like the french have so no-one dares take on employees and youth unemployment is endemic. My client is looking to sell the french company because its uneconomic to run with the current staffing levels, but the cost of making people redundant means they cant make the thing profitable. Not been a very long queue of prospective buyers.... I suspect they will let it go bust... Then no-one has a job.

Sending 6 year olds up chimneys was once also the reality of the job market. Why can't we get out of this idiotic race to the bottom which benefits almost no-one ?

I wouldn't be too sure that the position is really any rosier for British workers than in less Wild Westish economies. We have colossal levels of underemployment, endemic casualisation, worse wage growth than anywhere in Europe but Greece, painfully high in-work poverty (with government having to spend immense amounts to make up.the shortfall), the worst productivity in the developed world, and high costs of living. For whose benefit ?

When you talk about employers who make the Victorians look compassionate, the best outcome for me would be for them to go out of business. There is a strong correlation between exploitative labour practices and selling rubbish anyway. People should instead be spending money with smaller businesses who are more likely to circulate it back into the wider economy, rather than using it to buy yachts.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

yorksrob said:
I dread to think what effect this situation will have on the long term prosperity of the railway. By hook or by crook, something must happen to move the protagonists out of their comfort zones and resolve the issue.

I agree, particularly if it was in conjunction with resolving the ongoing Horlicks of a service that drives passengers away the other 6 days of the week

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

Confused52 said:
No I was pointing out that you were not correct. It helps to get points across if they are correct! The statement about concern for the welfare of the common people was made up by you I am afraid.

You raised Universal Credit when I said that the current employment market allowed government to cut direct employment costs and cost of the dole. You raised Universal Credit, somewhat ellipitcally. I assume your point was that government pays people on low wages, and that you don't suffer from some form of Tourette's which causes you to shout out the names of benefits at random. I was suggesting that the malevolent incompetence of the Universal Credit fiasco was not a good advert for this government.

yorksrob · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
I agree, particularly if it was in conjunction with resolving the ongoing Horlicks of a service that drives passengers away the other 6 days of the week

This is true. The past year has been the worst I've known for various reasons, not nust the strike.

pt_mad · 23 Nov 2018

Was it ever likely the guards would quickly give up and agree away their safety critical status?

If they weren't going to strike over that, what would they strike over?

Couldn't they offer them the chance at driver positions as part of any package? Because if the aim is to downskill onboard staff but upskill drivers surely the guards should be offered a chance at keeping their skills that way?

pt_mad · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
It doesn't matter how many times you wilfully miss the point. For so long as trains cannot run without guards, there is job security for the grade as a whole (that's what they're arguing over). Of course an individual guard might be replaced, but there's little chance of a TOC doing that on a whim if they'd just have to pay to train another

Presumably the guards view may be that losing their safety status is on the cards so striking is the only action to make a stand. If they do manage to get some Anglia style deal or something which guarantees the second member in all circumstances, then they may perceive that as a victory and something better than they would have got had they given in straight away to the full plans.
Also it would completly secure their role for the long forseeable future, prob well beyond 6 years if the trains are dispatched with guards panels.

yorksrob · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
I agree, particularly if it was in conjunction with resolving the ongoing Horlicks of a service that drives passengers away the other 6 days of the week

Well indeed. It doesn't matter how early I tirn up for the Hallam line on Friday, it seems to be delayed or cancelled.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
Was it ever likely the guards would quickly give up and agree away their safety critical status?

If they weren't going to strike over that, what would they strike over

This is what I can't get over. Certain people on here seem not just opposed to the guards striking, but genuinely bewildered by the notion of anyone actually trying to protect their own economic welfare. I would't put myself forward as the world's bravest man, but have the British people really lost their backbone to that extent ?

PHILIPE · 23 Nov 2018

Wouldn't it be interesting if the passengers had a means of striking back at the Unions instead of having to be just the pawns in the dispute ?

Starmill · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
It doesn't matter how many times you wilfully miss the point. For so long as trains cannot run without guards, there is job security for the grade as a whole (that's what they're arguing over).

You should treat other posters with respect. How dare you turn up here and tell people what they should or should not think? You have little credibility in this matter given you absoultely cannot keep on topic and have peddled bizarre conspiracy theories while the rest of us try to understand the reality of the situation as passengers experience it, and what the external influences are.

Nobody has missed your point. Your point is just meaningless.

I made my point very clearly. A guarentee of employment for 6 years means nothing if the union rejcts it. As such this paves the way for the process to remove some onboard staff should they wish to. There is nothing stopping them.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

Starmill said:
You should treat other posters with respect. How dare you turn up here and tell people what they should or should not think? You have little credibility in this matter given you absoultely cannot keep on topic and have peddled bizarre conspiracy theories while the rest of us try to understand the reality of the situation as passengers experience it, and what the external influences are.

Nobody has missed your point. Your point is just meaningless.

I made my point very clearly. A guarentee of employment for 6 years means nothing if the union rejcts it. As such this paves the way for the process to remove some onboard staff should they wish to. There is nothing stopping them.

The point you are refusing to recognise is this. Before DOO reared its head the guard grade had job security. If DOO had not been put forward, that would still have been the case. No issue would have arisen about the position over the next 6 years as the position would ha e remained as it had been for decades.

As for the rest, I suggest you take a step back and question what it is about this issue, and in particular people trying to set it into its wider political and economic context, which causes you to behave the way you do. Perhaps that way you might learn to treat others with rhe respect you demand from them, and stop trying every means you can think of to stop people expressing opinions you don't like. 'How dare I', indeed.

pt_mad · 23 Nov 2018

I suppose a key question in the debate is, by striking, could the guards eventually end up with a deal which was better than the deal they would have got, had they given up and agreed straight away?

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
I suppose a key question in the debate is, by striking, could the guards eventually end up with a deal which was better than the deal they would have got, had they given in and agreed straight away?

As with all counterfactual situations, it's probably impossiblr to say. Depressing though that industrial relations continue to descend into either brinkmanship or subjugation, and that consultation and co-operation seem not to exist

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

PHILIPE said:
Wouldn't it be interesting if the passengers had a means of striking back at the Unions instead of having to be just the pawns in the dispute ?

How about permitting them.some way of striking at Northern, the DfT and the government for the day to day shambles of the railway service they provide ?

Starmill · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
The point you are refusing to recognise is this. Before DOO reared its head the guard grade had job security.

This is looking back to the 1970s. We have told you again and again that the world at the end of the 1970s is not now, regardless of how much you want it to be.

The jobs are not secure, regardless of how much more they go on strike will not make them more secure, and your ideas will not change that. A deal is all that will set out terms going into the future. A deal seems to be less likely than ever.

B&I · 23 Nov 2018

Starmill said:
This is looking back to the 1970s. We have told you again and again that the world at the end of the 1970s is not now, regardless of how much you want it to be.

The jobs are not secure, regardless of how much more they go on strike will not make them more secure, and your ideas will not change that. A deal is all that will set out terms going into the future. A deal seems to be less likely than ever.

And I, and others, have pointed out to you and whomever else you're speaking on behalf of that the guards are in an unusual position in terms of bargaining power because, at present, the trains can't run without them

pt_mad · 23 Nov 2018

On a hyperthetical note, if driverless trains were proposed at some time during the next 10 years, and were ordered, would the drivers on affected route likely go on strike? What about if they were offered positions in technical jobs, maintaining the train systems? Would there be huge strikes, or would it be accepted pretty quick? If the former, then it's no surprise or big shock we are faced with the kind of industrial relations meltdown that is being seen here in the name of evolving technology.

Starmill · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
And I, and others, have pointed out to you and whomever else you're speaking on behalf of that the guards are in an unusual position in terms of bargaining power because, at present, the trains can't run without them

So what? You think that the guards deserve longer than 6 years guarantee for their jobs, and that they should strike to get it. Fair enough. They're entitled to do so.

Everyone else has tried to explain that this is a fruitless position. Within 6 years a significant compliment of the guards could be removed from post. If enough new rolling stock were ordered, they probably all could be. This would happen either through dismissal, resignation, redundancy or a new contract for a different role being offered. This process will probably begin soon after the first new trains enter passenger service, a matter of months away, not 6 years.

If the union negotiated a deal for the guards, they would have a legally binding guarantee of what would happen to them. If they do not, as it seems they will not, they will have their job for as long as the company needs them only. How long do you think that will be? For most of them, it will be significantly less than 6 years.

This has been explained enough times now though so I'm afraid I'd you still don't get it that's the end of the matter.

pt_mad · 23 Nov 2018

Starmill said:
So what? You think that the guards deserve longer than 6 years guarantee for their jobs, and that they should strike to get it. Fair enough. They're entitled to do so.

Everyone else has tried to explain that this is a fruitless position. Within 6 years a significant compliment of the guards could be removed from post. If enough new rolling stock were ordered, they probably all could be. This would happen either through dismissal, resignation, redundancy or a new contract for a different role being offered. This process will probably begin soon after the first new trains enter passenger service, a matter of months away, not 6 years.

If the union negotiated a deal for the guards, they would have a legally binding guarantee of what would happen to them. If they do not, as it seems they will not, they will have their job for as long as the company needs them only. How long do you think that will be? For most of them, it will be significantly less than 6 years.

This has been explained enough times now though so I'm afraid I'd you still don't get it that's the end of the matter.

I suppose the question is, if the union were offered a deal where the second member of staff was guaranteed on every train, no exceptions, but was not involved in dispatch, would that deal be accepted? Sort of a la Javlin class 395 train manager style.

If the answer is yes then maybe this could be what the RMT are pressing for?

Bevan Price · 23 Nov 2018

B&I said:
It has been pointed out numerous times by me and other people that the guards have, as a grade, job security, for so long as trains require guards to operate. That's what you're asking them to trade in for an unenforceable promise of employment of some sort for 6 years. Now it doesn't seem that you feel that they or anyone else should have any job security at all, but are you really incapable of understanding why they might not agree ?

I think that nobody wants people to lose their jobs, but in my opinion, Mr Cash and some of his flock are going the right way to ensure that jobs will be destroyed. How will they manage if DfT insists that, in addition to new trains, all existing stock is to be converted to DOO ? Yes, that would be expensive, but it is an option that should never be ruled out.... (and there will soon be a pool of surplus trains that could be converted without disrupting normal services,)

Starmill · 24 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
I suppose the question is, if the union were offered a deal where the second member of staff was guaranteed on every train, no exceptions, but was not involved in dispatch, would that deal be accepted? Sort of a la Javlin class 395 train manager style.

If the answer is yes then maybe this could be what the RMT are pressing for?

This is the crucial question and I think the answer to the dispute could lie here. Of course, we won't get to it because we don't know how acceptable such an arrangement is to Northern or RMT, only that it's completely unacceptable to the government.

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2018

pt_mad said:
I suppose the question is, if the union were offered a deal where the second member of staff was guaranteed on every train, no exceptions, but was not involved in dispatch, would that deal be accepted? Sort of a la Javlin class 395 train manager style.

If the answer is yes then maybe this could be what the RMT are pressing for?

The RMT has already ruled that out. Mick Cash says he wants a safety-critical guard on every train - and he repeats that before, and at, any meetings. We might all recognise that a DOO+OBS arrangement may well be the best way forward but, unfortunately, the dinosaur RMT are still more concerned about guaranteeing the very specific role of a guard for years ahead.

No employer wants an inflexible workforce at any time, particularly not one that lives as though it's the 1980s, but that's all down to the RMT approach to life - and they can't blame their own attitude on the DfT, government or any TOC !!

DaveB10780 · 24 Nov 2018

PHILIPE said:
Wouldn't it be interesting if the passengers had a means of striking back at the Unions instead of having to be just the pawns in the dispute ?

Exactly the point, the majority suffer greatly due to the actions of a small minority. We are completely disenfranchised and just want all the parties to sit down and sort it out without all the inflammatory rhetoric. If this is not possible then the leaders digging ever deeper holes should resign and let some others get on with it. As a start how about stopping all the strikes please and agreeing to talks.

a_c_skinner · 24 Nov 2018

The thing that will do most for the employees and the RMT and everyone else is a railway on which people want to travel, well run, modern, efficient. It is why BMC isn't making cars here any more but Toyota is and offering better T&C than BMC ever did.

The current situation is just damaging the whole system and whilst it might not have been created by the staff side it was managed by them in a very precipitate way. This attempt to secure jobs risks doing just the opposite. Ultimately it will be bad for the staff side across the railway, all grades, all crafts.

yorksrob said:
I dread to think what effect this situation will have on the long term prosperity of the railway

underbank · 24 Nov 2018

B&I said:
Sending 6 year olds up chimneys was once also the reality of the job market. Why can't we get out of this idiotic race to the bottom which benefits almost no-one

Because the world has changed. We're now competing in a global economy. We're in a technological revolution. It's cheaper to make stuff in China/Japan and ship it here. Western economies in general are having to adapt to a new world where we're not the richest/wealthiest countries anymore - the world's wealth is moving to the previously underdeveloped countries. That means an inevitable reduction in living standards in the West. The UK is already living well beyond its means and having to borrow huge sums of money to maintain our illusion of wealth. We simply can't afford to stand still and carry on doing things the way they were always done. We have to change and adapt. After all it's a mere accident of birth that we're all here in the UK and enjoying a relatively good standard of living compared with many millions on the planet - as globalisation continues, we have to accept that living standards of people in underdeveloped countries will rise and ours will fall as a consequence. It's all now about how we adapt to this brave new world and those trying desperately to cling to outdated working practices and a sense of self entitlement are divorced from reality. Unless you want protectionism, closed borders, etc., the genie is out of the bottle and adaptations are necessary which some people won't like. I don't agree "it benefits no one" - we are all enjoying much cheaper "stuff" due to cheap foreign labour, cheap fuel, etc - if we didn't have the race to the bottom and globalisation, yes, we may have more well paid jobs, but the price of "stuff" would be an awful lot higher, meaning we'd have less money or less stuff. You can't just pick on things in isolation when you're a small cog in the big wheel of globalisation and international trade.

Arriva Rail North DOO

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member