So convenience is trumped by a need for union power.
Convenience for whom? I understand the desire of people who want to travel on Sundays, and if you look back at how the industry has changed you can see how this desire has been catered for by the increased level of service available compared to, say, 25 years ago. But in business, demand has to be balanced against cost and against the provider's needs also.
I think it's a bit simplistic to weigh "convenience" against "union power". Bringing in two tiers of contracts is a way of eroding terms and conditions; precisely the sorts of things that make the job physically and socially palatable to those who have to do it. Over time as older workers on the old contracts retire the new contract becomes the
de facto terms and conditions. I don't think that it's wrong to try to ensure that everyone works to the same terms and conditions because we all face the same demands on our time and on our wellbeing whether we are at the start of our careers or the end.
The rostering will be more complicated but already has to deal with different route and traction knowledge and all the hours restrictions so hardly a showstopper.
Believe me, it
is a showstopper.
Previously at my location the workforce was highly fragmented due to differences in route and traction knowledge and this caused mayhem. There could be four drivers sat spare but trains left at a stand because none of these spares had the required route or traction knowledge to work them. It was also highly wasteful for the company as it necessitated high levels of cross-cover from other depots and a heavy reliance on overtime. Steps have been taken to eradicate these differences with the aim of making it easier for us to cover our own work as well as giving us greater variety in our jobs.
I also don't believe that premium payments or enhanced overtime rates would immediately solve the problem. This has been implemented for another grade at my TOC in order to encourage greater up-take of Sunday work. This has been a roaring success, except that now my colleague would rather work a Sunday than overtime in the week. And so the problem has simply been moved from the weekend into the week.
I know that it is controversial and not universally popular, but to my mind the best compromise for covering Sunday work is "committed Sundays", where you are required to work a booked Sunday as overtime unless cover can be arranged. I'm very clear on my use of the word "compromise" because I know that it has a number of drawbacks, but it gives the TOCs the peace of mind that the work can be covered and the staff the ability to throw it in if they need to (although it is not necessarily guaranteed). Where Sundays are outside of the working week these days should be paid at whatever overtime rate is in effect at each company.
Bringing Sundays into the working week means that you
have to work them irrespective and can only guarantee to get them off by using your annual leave entitlement (which can still be declined in the event that your application is outside of the daily quota and/or the work cannot be covered). To my mind, and in spite of what ASLEF's views are, this only presents a benefit to the companies and not the staff. Ultimately ASLEF's reasons for supporting this have nothing to do with representing the wishes and desires of their members but rather because it will drive up depot establishments, increase employment and indirectly increase their revenue stream due to higher membership numbers.
That said, the real answer to staff shortages is to recruit more staff. But will the TOCs wear the costs?
**ASIDE**
As XC have been specifically named by the OP, I would like to point out that recent changes within XC to the way that staff are allocated to cover the work has had an impact on staff availability that have very little to do with Sunday working or overtime working in general. The service may not have changed but the way in which it is being delivered has.
