Arriva Rail North DOO

[Ken H]

I think if you were a railway manager you would quickly find yourself in a work to rule scenario, begging for staff to help you out of the hole you have dug yourself into. The railway runs on the goodwill of its staff to go above and beyond.

McDonalds staff went on strike. What did McD's do? they brought in customer pay terminals, cutting out jobs.

 

[B&I]

Probably yes because history tells us that if something looks too good to be true it always is. It would incentivise the industry to make it no longer true that trains couldn't run without guards and, as it is clearly possible, it would happen completely and not on just a percentage of the services. That is what happens in the real world where change is unstoppable and rational people know it. If you embrace change

Thank you for at least answering the question.

In my relatively short working life, all change I have seen is generally for the worse - reduced pay, reduced skills, reduced job security, increased workloads, poorer working conditions. Why are people so keen to embrace this, when it is generally to their detriment ? Whose interests are all these changes in, apart from a tiny percentage of increasingly rich people ? Can you really not understand why some people eg guards would choose to stand and fight, rather than skipping off merrily in whatever direction those in charge want them to go ?

 

[pt_mad]

There is no such thing as a guarantee of permanent job security.

A 6 year guarantee is more than most people have. The only guarantee most people have is their notice period.

Is that good enough to take out 35 year mortgage on? An agency job generally isn't enough. A permanent job is needed to take out a lot of finance. If someone has kids it means an 18 year committment to keeping them well looked after. 6 years and then job in jeopardy would not be enough.

Any of us could lose our job and end up on the streets within months. Some might think it might and could not happen to them but believe me it could. There's homeless people who've been in good jobs who've lost their job and who's family have broken up to be left with nothing.

 

[Ken H]

Thank you for at least answering the question.

In my relatively short working life, all change I have seen is generally for the worse - reduced pay, reduced skills, reduced job security, increased workloads, poorer working conditions. Why are people so keen to embrace this, when it is generally to their detriment ? Whose interests are all these changes in, apart from a tiny percentage of increasingly rich people ? Can you really not understand why some people eg guards would choose to stand and fight, rather than skipping off merrily in whatever direction those in charge want them to go ?

cos if you dont you end up with no job. I have kept working (outside rail) by keeping my skills up to date and relevant. And my contract rates have been the same for 7-8 years.

Maybe guards should look to be more like airline cabin staff. Mostly 100% customer, but with a small safety role.

Is that good enough to take out 35 year mortgage on? An agency job generally isn't enough. A permanent job is needed to take out a lot of finance. If someone has kids it means an 18 year committment to keeping them well looked after. 6 years and then job in jeopardy would not be enough.

Any of us could lose our job and end up on the streets within months. Some might think it might and could not happen to them but believe me it could. There's homeless people who've been in good jobs who've lost their job and who's family have broken up to be left with nothing.

so how does everyone in private industry cope? Management will downsize if they need to and its bye bye and you are gone.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, I accept that, certainly not ideal. But as many on here have pointed out, there is zero goodwill on Northern. Regular strikes aren't what the ordinary travelling public would consider to be a sign of goodwill - and they are the parties to this dispute who seem to be the least considered nowadays.

How would you react to 6 months notice of Arriva's intention to change your terms of employment so that you might be required to undertake OBS-type roles ?

I would probably very quickly go and find other employment as I don't believe anything the DFT says. If you took an OBS role you would likely find yourself either on the dole or with worse and worse pay and conditions as time went on as you are easily replaced with minimum wage contractors on zero hours contracts.

 

[pt_mad]

Thank you for at least answering the question.

In my relatively short working life, all change I have seen is generally for the worse - reduced pay, reduced skills, reduced job security, increased workloads, poorer working conditions. Why are people so keen to embrace this, when it is generally to their detriment ? Whose interests are all these changes in, apart from a tiny percentage of increasingly rich people ? Can you really not understand why some people eg guards would choose to stand and fight, rather than skipping off merrily in whatever direction those in charge want them to go ?

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.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't mind which way anybody plays it. I just think there's a lot of ridiculous comments on here from guards who seem to think their world will collapse if they don't have their job guaranteed for life - crazy !
I also feel that Arriva may now need to assert a bit of authority as the employer.

There’s a difference between a guarantee of no redundancies for ‘x’ years or for life (delete as appropriate) and merely seeking for things to stay as they are in the face of an apparently - on the face of it - largely pointless proposal to change things, though. I don’t think anyone can reasonably either seek or provide a guarantee of a job for life, but what they can do is protect what’s already there.

I am sure the new 319 operated services could be converted easily.
probably do Leeds/Bradford/Ilkley/Skipton electrics and Leeds-Domcaster locals too.
I assume its just installing CCTV on the platforms and put monitors in the cabs.
not sure any DMU services are suitable.

That sounds like the London Underground solution, but not something that’s on the table on the national network as I understand it. I doubt there’s space in the cab for the monitors as things stand anyway, nor would it be easy to fit the body side cameras that are currently preferred.

 

[pt_mad]

cos if you dont you end up with no job. I have kept working (outside rail) by keeping my skills up to date and relevant. And my contract rates have been the same for 7-8 years.

Maybe guards should look to be more like airline cabin staff. Mostly 100% customer, but with a small safety role.


so how does everyone in private industry cope? Management will downsize if they need to and its bye bye and you are gone.

Presumably, if management in these industries decides to downsize, they will make you redundant and not want to replace the role with another less well paid one. Redundancies would be announced and they'd go through due consultation process, involving trade unions where they are recognised. And there could be strikes.

If they are not unionised then that's up to the employees whether or not they wish to join a union.

It's a different thing when you've got an employer who proposes something else further down the line, new terms, in due course, but not quite yet because they need you at this very moment or they can't run. But when they are ready, they won't need your particular job role anymore. Yet other companies in different areas have decided to keep that role as a matter of principle, which seems a bit of a contradiction. Can't we at least try to imagine how these staff must be feeling?

 

[Confused52]

Thank you for at least answering the question.

In my relatively short working life, all change I have seen is generally for the worse - reduced pay, reduced skills, reduced job security, increased workloads, poorer working conditions. Why are people so keen to embrace this, when it is generally to their detriment ? Whose interests are all these changes in, apart from a tiny percentage of increasingly rich people ? Can you really not understand why some people eg guards would choose to stand and fight, rather than skipping off merrily in whatever direction those in charge want them to go ?

Of course I can understand, it is human nature. However it is also naïve and one learns to look for the thing that will endure in the face of the changes that you can see and go for that because it is rational whilst following your emotions only succeeds for a very few lucky people. I am sorry to say that the notion that it is in the interests of a very few rich people is a blinkered view since the savings in this case accrue to the taxpayer and are needed to boost public transport which will not supplant the car if it does not reduce unit costs whilst increasing services. As a nation we can no longer afford public transport to fail so the pressure to reduce costs will continue inexorably. However the technology is clear in that the OBS role is needed way beyond that of drivers and guards because of PRM. The current position of the RMT is wrong headed in terms of protecting jobs but all they can do to further their political objectives which seem to be ignored in this discussion.

 

[Ken H]

Presumably, if management in these industries decides to downsize, they will make you redundant and not want to replace the role with another less well paid one. Redundancies would be announced and they'd go through due consultation process, involving trade unions where they are recognised. And there could be strikes.

If they are not unionised then that's up to the employees whether or not they wish to join a union.

It's a different thing when you've got an enploemp who proposes something else further down the line, new terms, in due course, bit bit not quite yet because they need you at this very moment or they can't run. But when they are ready they won't need your job role anymore. Can't we at least try to imagine how these staff must be feeling?

Then management bribe them. I was told about redundancies in June. I was offered a move to another town which I didnt want to do for family reasons. They wanted me there till end of Jan so bunged me a wedge on top of wages to stay till then. Twas a nice Christmas that year!

 

[pt_mad]

Then management bribe them. I was told about redundancies in June. I was offered a move to another town which I didnt want to do for family reasons. They wanted me there till end of Jan so bunged me a wedge on top of wages to stay till then. Twas a nice Christmas that year!

Were you in a recognised union? Presumably if the redundancies involved multiple workers the union would have resisted and fought for the best for you?

 

[pt_mad]

Of course I can understand, it is human nature. However it is also naïve and one learns to look for the thing that will endure in the face of the changes that you can see and go for that because it is rational whilst following your emotions only succeeds for a very few lucky people. I am sorry to say that the notion that it is in the interests of a very few rich people is a blinkered view since the savings in this case accrue to the taxpayer and are needed to boost public transport which will not supplant the car if it does not reduce unit costs whilst increasing services. As a nation we can no longer afford public transport to fail so the pressure to reduce costs will continue inexorably. However the technology is clear in that the OBS role is needed way beyond that of drivers and guards because of PRM. The current position of the RMT is wrong headed in terms of protecting jobs but all they can do to further their political objectives which seem to be ignored in this discussion.

Two problems with that are that a privatised railway should achieve better staffing by nature and better investment was one of the sells which went for privatisation in the first place.

The other is that there are operators now which have committed to keeping a safety trained guard on every train as a matter of principle. And others giving the idea that they are outdated or not needed in the modern railway.

It is surely a matter of choice, in that, if the DFT and the TOC wanted to, they could keep guards and operate with the same that they do now, with no further disruption. Like TfW have. It appears to be a choice rather than the inevitable.

 

[Basher]

I do not have any strong views on this dispute, but just travelled from Preston to St Annes . There were no ticket checks at Preston, the conductor on the service was only to be seen to open the doors, the quality of the anouncments had bit to be desired.To the passengers he need not be there, the driver could have opened the doors. The best way to preserve a job is to be proactive, tell passengers to stop smoking on platform's, feet of seats etc don't just turn a blind eye.

 

[B&I]

The government does not want anyone on the dole queue because they have to pay you instead of you paying them tax.

The wonderful thing abour casualised employment is that governments don't need to pay people dole, but no-one else needa to pay them either

 

[Confused52]

Two problems with that are that a privatised railway should achieve better staffing by nature and better investment was one of the sells which went for privatisation in the first place.

The other is that there are operators now which have committed to keeping a safety trained guard on every train as a matter of principle. And others giving the idea that they are outdated or not needed in the modern railway.

It is surely a matter of choice, in that, if the DFT and the TOC wanted to, they could keep guards and operate with the same that they do now, with no further disruption. Like TfW have. It appears to be a choice rather than the inevitable.

Not sure what criterion you are using for better staffing but better investment was only designed in via the ROSCOs to reduce the PSBR. The investment by franchises wasn't really an obvious design aim and I think DB investment in Chiltern surprised many. To be clear I suggest that long term the drivers role can be more easily eliminated than an OBS, so the current argument about guards is likely to be seen as an error with hindsight ( of 20 years or so). In essence the present hiatus is not the correct change but the problem is that no change is possible so making some change may seem more important than what that change is. The wrong change will be sorted out later but without change of some kind the justification for more public transport has to be kicked down the road and the public will suffer. The ossification of the railway is the real problem.

 

[Basher]

Oh a PS to my last post, there was no heating on the train going to Preston. No apology was given, just some tale that the unit had been stood in the sidings before it reached St Annes when I asked. Considering the train had just come from Preston it takes a bit of beliving.

 

[B&I]

So, you don't actually have a single example ! Why make such a song and dance about something that doesn't exist ?

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 ?

Also, it's a bit rich accusing me.of making a song and dance about this when you've been on this thread pretty much every time I've looked at it, which is on and off for months now. Do you even live in Northern territory ?

 

[Confused52]

The wonderful thing abour casualised employment is that governments don't need to pay people dole, but no-one else needa to pay them either

The amount of Universal Credit is calculated on income received in a qualifying period not whether you had a contract or not, and eventually you may receive the money.

 

[B&I]

The amount of Universal Credit is calculated on income received in a qualifying period not whether you had a contract or not, and eventually you may receive the money.

You are actually putting forward Universal Credit as evidence in support of this government's concern for the welfare of ordinary people ? Words fail me

 

[B&I]

McDonalds staff went on strike. What did McD's do? they brought in customer pay terminals, cutting out jobs.

And do you consider that a positive step ? Assert your rights, get automated out of existence ?

 

[theblackwatch]

Civil servants, firemen, police officers, doctors, in fact any clinical part of the NHS, soldiers sailors and airmen.

None have been made redundant. Some may of been offered to go and accepted but they are examples.

That is incorrect. I have had two employers in the civil service as a civil servant. In the first, I, along with several hundred others, was made redundant when the site I worked at closed. In my more recent employment, there have been redundancies (not just 'voluntary severance' packages - had a few of them with a 'if we don't get enough volunteers, we'll make some people compulsory redundant') on several occasions.

Out of interest, what was your source for your claim?

 

[Starmill]

That sounds like the London Underground solution, but not something that’s on the table on the national network as I understand it.

That's how class 345s are driven, as I understand it, using the platform to train CCTV. It seems to me to be the safest way possible to monitor the platform-train interface when closing the doors and completing the safety check. So...

 

[Robertj21a]

The DFT could very very easily solve all this by saying the future franchises will be required to keep on board staffing levels to a specific amount. They won't so its pretty clear the DFT want conductors down on the dole queue.

That wouldn't help though. Anybody agreeing to commit on board staffing levels to a specific amount still doesn't reach the 'safety-critical guard on every train' that the RMT state is an essential requirement. If, as I've said on numerous occasions, the RMT would consider removing this blanket requirement (and by all means replace it with a contractually-tight alternative) then they should, presumably, then be able to easily evidence why an OBS-type role can't work on Northern. Then they can go back to Northern with the hard evidence and say 'Told you so!'. It's the fact that the RMT won't consider *anything at all* that they are, rightly, seen as unco-operative dinosaurs.

 

[Robertj21a]

Is that good enough to take out 35 year mortgage on? An agency job generally isn't enough. A permanent job is needed to take out a lot of finance. If someone has kids it means an 18 year committment to keeping them well looked after. 6 years and then job in jeopardy would not be enough.

Any of us could lose our job and end up on the streets within months. Some might think it might and could not happen to them but believe me it could. There's homeless people who've been in good jobs who've lost their job and who's family have broken up to be left with nothing.

Of course it's good enough to take out a 35-year mortgage!. How on earth do you think the 'ordinary' (non-rail) workers obtain their mortgages when many will only be on one or three month's notice ?

 

[Eccles1983]

That is incorrect. I have had two employers in the civil service as a civil servant. In the first, I, along with several hundred others, was made redundant when the site I worked at closed. In my more recent employment, there have been redundancies (not just 'voluntary severance' packages - had a few of them with a 'if we don't get enough volunteers, we'll make some people compulsory redundant') on several occasions.

Out of interest, what was your source for your claim?

Well I stand corrected.

Anything to say about the rest of the occupations I put?

 

[Robertj21a]

Civil servants, firemen, police officers, doctors, in fact any clinical part of the NHS, soldiers sailors and airmen.

None have been made redundant. Some may of been offered to go and accepted but they are examples.

I'm not sure you are correct, but you may wish to come back on that. As far as I'm aware (willing to be proved wrong) NONE of those jobs have permanent job security.

 

[Starmill]

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.

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.

 

[Confused52]

You are actually putting forward Universal Credit as evidence in support of this government's concern for the welfare of ordinary people ? Words fail me

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.

 

[theblackwatch]

Well I stand corrected.

Anything to say about the rest of the occupations I put?

No, I've no experience of them - I'm not one to make things up!

 

[Ken H]

That wouldn't help though. Anybody agreeing to commit on board staffing levels to a specific amount still doesn't reach the 'safety-critical guard on every train' that the RMT state is an essential requirement. If, as I've said on numerous occasions, the RMT would consider removing this blanket requirement (and by all means replace it with a contractually-tight alternative) then they should, presumably, then be able to easily evidence why an OBS-type role can't work on Northern. Then they can go back to Northern with the hard evidence and say 'Told you so!'. It's the fact that the RMT won't consider *anything at all* that they are, rightly, seen as unco-operative dinosaurs.

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

And do you consider that a positive step ? Assert your rights, get automated out of existence ?

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.