Arriva Rail North DOO

RMT leaders should (in theory at least) only be representing what their members want. It follows that sufficient members are, presumably, happy to go along with the policies outlined by their leaders. From previous comments, it appears that a number of the ordinary members may have a range of concerns - but not enough to warrant them standing for election themselves.

 

And just to clarify my views, I include the DfT as one of the main protagonists in this dispute.

 

Have you done a First Aid course recently? The bulk of it these days is about preserving life until professional help arrives. So, like the need for a guard in general, it would come into its own in the event of a major incident more than someone who's cut themselves asking for a plaster.

As for insurance, the TOC can of course take a policy that indemnifies the employee. These policies are incredibly common and they already will have something like that for things other than First Aid.

 

They would indemnify the employee for any civil action but not for any action such as criminal negligence or manslaughter.

 

The overriding view of the judiciary is that First Aiders will not be prosecuted for doing their best within their level of training. It would kill people to do otherwise.

 

couldnt agree more

 

Agreed. All parties (other than the individual guards themselves - so I mean Northern, the DfT and the RMT, in no particular order) are coming across as a shower of the proverbial - selfish, militant and old-fashioned, the lot of them.

 

I disagree. I think many of the individual guards come over as precisely that. Why otherwise are they supporting the strikes? If guards embraced the OBS role with enthusiasm and dealt with the central issue of whether they were in danger of losing their job, they would then have my full respect. Trying to keep their jobs by insisting they must close doors on the new units and that those trains may not depart when an OBS does not turn up, is just not a credible stance.

 

Agreed - but, presumably, the guards affected could get the RMT leaders to modify their policy (if they so wished) ?

 

Basically your point has merit. Standing for the LLC though will not hold sway on union policy, it would just make people supporting the action view them as scabs if they stood, got elected, then preached a different viewpoint.
But there lies the rub of the green. You see many are happy to go along with the action, for now. The RMT played a blinder. Calling Saturday strikes was very popular, I'm not aware of a single guard who is upset at throwing in a Saturday late, and some of the more discerning passengers who think their borish Saturday night behaviour is acceptable are to blame for this. But the fact that Northern are struggling to run services on a Saturday is giving the action new emphasis also.

But then we come to the action in general. I'm beginning to feel a little like I'm being used as a tank in a battle. Just keep rolling them on in the hope of winning the bigger fight. I don't like this government, I'll admit to that. Anything where I can play my part in making 'Graylings' life a misery has merit with me. But there has to come a point where everyone has to be asked about what they want and what they will accept, and I'm very sceptical that the RMT will ask this question.

Neither do I like Arriva. This is a terrible lot with no idea whatsoever. Driven purely by financial gain where both the staff and passengers alike are the enemy, and the only people who matter are those in the DFT signing their cheques. 'Proud to be Northern' is their staff motto, everyone is ashamed at the moment to be Northern.

Public opinion is easily funneled. The government did this with the doctors. Feed lots of stories about them abandoning patients whilst they protest about their hours, and the public takes the governments side. There is absolutely no chance this tactic will cut any ice with railway workers. That is because TOC's are private affairs now and not public bodies. Nobody dies if they can't go to watch Bradford city lose again on a Saturday afternoon.

So what is the answer to this conundrum. I have no idea. As a guard who last week hoped I would be working this, I'm stumped as to where this will go or for how long it will be tolerated. But I'll say this. When you don't trust the management, don't trust the government, it leaves only one other organisation to trust, and that is your union.

 

Which ironically shows how well it was spun as it was about contract terms, not hours, which are limited by law.

 

Hours, contract terms, does it really matter. It is the fact that everyone wanted them to work, but nobody really cared about them having a life. That is funneling, and this government is very good at it.

 

Since when did public opinion have any influence in this dispute - the parties concerned don't seem to give a fig about public opinion.

 

For the very reasons I mentioned. The RMT don't care I'll admit that. Mick Cash isn't going to be troubled by the cancellation of the 1729 to 'Man Vic' as he rolls out of his office in London.
Grayling isn't going to be bothered from the back of his ministerial limo, knowing he can shell out millions of taxpayers money in secret to keep his ideology going
Arriva don't care either, because despite their dismal failure the government will be too embarrassed to see another TOC fail so they will be bankrolled no matter how incompetent they actually are.

Welcome to the world of politics.

 

Personally, I wouldn't trust any of the 3.

The DfT and Arriva come out of this badly, but so does the RMT. I'm not sure I would trust them to do what would truly be in the guard's interests - they're already getting nowhere (as expected) and yet guards have lost a lot of money - with more to forego through 2019.

 

Aren’t we all getting too hung up on Mr Grayling, who admittedly I’m no fan of either.. Its really an ideological battle between those at the top who believe the industry will ultimately be better off by implementing these changes (many of which its widely acknowledged should’ve happened long ago if TOCs could have covered the cost of strikes) and the RMT who believes the union and their members interests are much better served if the changes don’t take place. Patrick McLaughlin was at the helm for much of the almost identical Southern dispute anyway.

 

You have obviously never met Grayling. I did years ago before he was an MP and was underwhelmed. He did not strike me as an ideologue at all he just has a penchant for cutting costs wherever he can, as he tried at Justice too. The policy is really unlikely to originate from Grayling so it will not change because it is more likely that the Civil Service, the real force in UK government, wants to be more effective in spending. The Tory hatred is a way of keeping people onside even though they have, relatively speaking, poured money into the railways - it is what the unions complain about. Cuts in Network Rail budgets are because it was nationalised and had be counted in the Public Sector Borrowing requirement again, that is not a Tory rule it is the OECD requirement for public accounts! A nationalised railway will get less money allocated to guarantees on rolling stock rental and buying it outright would push up the PSBR. A lot of the rhetoric is a con - I cannot believe Grayling has an ideology but it suits the unions to say he has; but we don't have to be deceived.

 

I wonder if the guards feel that they would benefit if the whole rail network was to be nationalised ?

 

Depends what kind of Government is in charge ultimately. A nationalised Railway would make it easier for Unions and all Rail grades to co-ordinate industrial action which was probably a major reason for privatising it in the first place.

 

I have always been confused that people somehow seem to purely associate Conservative politicians with DOO.
It’s first manifestation in the UK was the Victoria Line, whose operating model was introduced under the Wilson government.
The same government established the PTAs and PTEs that tended to be dominated by Labour thinking in large conurbations. So Tyne Wear decided to go for a driver-only Metro to replace ‘traditional’ BR operating practices. The Greater Glasgow PTA went for a driver-only Glasgow Underground.
The prototype BR DOO project on the St Pancras-Bedford Line was authorised by a Labour government in November 1976.
Later on the Labour-dominated Strathclyde PTA (which had replaced Greater Glasgow) was fed up with BR methods and costs alongside driver-only buses and Underground and after deciding to stop supporting the Kilmacolm line (to prove they wern’t bluffing) initiated the Strathclyde Rail Review, one of the main outcomes of which was BR being committed to introducing DOO on the Glasgow Electric services. (It was, of course, Chris Green as the BR Scottish Region General Manager who had to get the project under way and he subsequently brought a similar ‘network’ DOO model to Network South East.)
More recently the McNulty Review was initiated by a Labour Secretary of State for Transport and recommended that DOO be established as the default operating model (albeit reporting after Labour had lost the 2010 election).
Is there really anything to choose between the two main parties when it comes to deciding which one has been keener on DOO?

 

Excellent post. All spot on.

But is it okay if I keep on hating Grayling.

 

There are many reasons to dislike him that have nothing to do with DOO, so I don't see why not

 

One of them being that he is propping up the fayling Mayling.

 

A very interesting post, thanks.
I cant help thinking had the RMT put half the time and effort into opposing privatisation as they’ve done in fighting DOO over the last 4 or 5 years, then it might never have been completed or at the very least been seriously delayed as potential operators would’ve been scared off, However as rail industry wages were pretty poor in those days such a campaign probably seemed far less attractive then.

 

Feel free but he really doesn't deserve your attention!

 

Its quite possible to retain someone with the training for those rare emergency situations but also have them patrol the train fairly regularly . The second person on board all Northern trains who is currently trained for emergency eventualities should already be doing that . And if they are not(which I accept happens) they should be brought to task , if there are security concerns on certain routes (i know I have raised some) these should be addressed by the provision of travel safety officers or BTP resources . Patroling the train is already part of the role . It could also be made easier by fitting intermediate door controls on traction types that dont currently have them .

We have had trains coming into the franchise from other tocs with intermediate door controls which would make it even easier to carry out revenue duties or patrol the train and operate the doors without having to go back and forth . Guess what happened to those intermediate door control panels ?

That is right , covered up and told not to use .


What makes you think that a guard that sits on their behind in the back cab all day as a guard not making any announcements and being rude and unprofessional with customers when they do venture out is going to behave any differently if you change their job title from "Conductor" to "OBS" or worse yet make them a roving "RPI"

I dont know on what basis you are making the claim that it would be the reverse in 99.9% of cases . But I suspect it is not a factual one .

I dont necessarily think a payment would be needed . In my experience it did used to form part of the training but it was dropped and it was never something that payment was mentioned for previously. As long as the initial training and refresher training is done in work time it would be just like any other kind of off train brief or training

As you say though , it's seen as a nice to have . However in the privatised railway model the cost of initial training and maintaining competency means it cannot be justified on financial grounds .

Firstly the RMT is not just campaigning to retain the dispatch competencies of the guard , they are in dispute because they want to retain all of the competencies , the dispatch competencies are just a small part of the overall training a guard has to keep passengers safe in a range of situations . Its not just about opening and closing the doors as much as that is what the TOC and DFT want you to think this boils down to .

as has been mentioned the provision of first aid training is not a rulebook requirement so as far as the RSSB is concerned it is not an essential component of a guards competencies , nor is it mandated by the ORR who regulates the industry . So it is down to individual TOC's what training in addition to the minimum competencies that they provide guards with . in this case the decision is not to provide first aid training .

The RMT at a local level has on more than one occasion raised it with the company that it would aspire for conductors to have first aid training and the response was that the cost of providing training and maintaining the competency is too high .But with it being something that has never actually been mandated and reversed like the provision of a guard , or subject to a local agreement and so included in terms and conditions there may be some argument that a dispute over it would fall foul of the definition of a trade dispute as per s244 TULRCA 1992 . In that case it would not be possible to have a trade dispute over non provision of first aid training .

 

If the RMT are still intend on prolonging the dispute up here I’d suggest producing a fairly compelling argument explaining why door closure Is such a red line for them whereas colleagues on Merseyrail, Greater Anglia and SWR are willing to be more flexible Their present stance simply compounds that age old image some have of northerners being rather more stubborn than others

 

every little village has a defibrillator now. maybe trains should have them fitted too.
(OR are they there already?)

 

They have them at large stations, but AFAIK not on trains. Due to the safety culture there must be a trained operator to use them and like first aid it is expensive (in people's time mostly) to keep people trained up.

 

so how does that work in a village of 350 people? To get the code to open it you dial 999. they give you the code and talk you through how to use it. No-one needs training.