Arriva Rail North DOO

[Mathew S]

You did not answer the question. Do you believe railway staff are overpaid?

I'm not entirely sure, Dave1987, that focussing your attention on the personal views of one individual is going to further the subject of debate of this thread.

As a practical matter, railway staff are - like everyone else in employment - paid an amount which the competitive labour market has determined to be appropriate. Unless there's suddenly a shortage of people who want jobs on the railway, I doubt that's likely to change anytime soon. What will always change over time, however, is the particular value that is put on the range of skills and duties which have historically been within certain roles. If the railway can use new technology to do a job that previously needed a human to perform, then of course that's what they are going to do. Inevitably, that means that the skills/role which were previously needed to perform the duties now carried out by technology are valued at a lower level than was previously the case, or maybe even no longer required at all.

Change is hard, I understand that as I'm sure everyone else here also does. But modern, rapidly developing technology means that the pace of change is greater now than perhaps it has ever been. The days of a job for life are long gone. Indeed, I would suggest that the days when you could expect to stay in one role for more than five or ten years have probably now also passed; albeit with certain exceptions (eg. doctors).

Realistically, you, I, and everyone else must know that the days of guards - as the role has been in the past - on the railway are numbered, and have been for a long time. Advancing technology and automation, along with a need to keep down costs, has seen to that. I've been through a process of my job being revalued when I worked in education, as I'm sure have many others in other industries, and going through it is horrid, of course it is. But change is part of life. Live with it, embrace the new challenges that it brings, and you might even find that it's a good thing.

The issues, as I see them, which are up for discussion are:
1. Is the technology which is proposed to replace guards up to the task? and
2. What should happen to those people currently employed as guards who, at some point, may no longer be required?

I don't know enough to comment properly on point 1; however, as I've said before, the only evidence based research I've seen this far is clear that the technology is safe if it is used correctly (by both passengers and staff).

On point 2, though, Arriva have offered to ensure no compulsory redundancies and continued pay increases until the end of the current franchise - which is as long as they are legally able to make that offer for. I'm not sure that there's really any scope for Arriva to make any better offer than that, unless the RMT were to ask for some kind of financial settlement for guards who were going to have a change of role.

Speaking entirely personally now, I find it very difficult to understand what the RMT are hoping to get from striking. They know that the role of guard as it has been in the past will disappear at some point, whether it's now or in 5, or 10, years time. Given that the other option open to Arriva is, ultimately, to make all guards redundant and offer to re-employ them on new contracts, contracts which I'm sure would be lower paid that what they are on now, I would have thought that the least-worst option would be to take what's already on the table.

I've been (in fact still am, technically) a union rep, and even I can't bring myself to support the action the RMT are taking on this. How can I support something which, to me, seems like it's motivated by a desire to avoid change and modernisation, when they should be embracing it and making the most of the opportunities it has to offer? How can I support something which is pretty transparently politically motivated? How can I support something which even my limited understanding of history tells me is bad tactics, and completely doomed to fail?

Change is hard, but it happens. You can either make the most of it, or let it make mincemeat out of you.

 

[ComUtoR]

The issues, as I see them, which are up for discussion are:
1. Is the technology which is proposed to replace guards up to the task? and
2. What should happen to those people currently employed as guards who, at some point, may no longer be required?

3. Should trains have a second member of staff on board.
4. Do passengers need or even want that second member of staff.

For point 3. I think it is very debatable. On our Metro services there is no second member of staff and hasn't been for many years. On our Mainline services there is. What makes a Mainline service so special that they have a second staff member ? How useful is that second member of staff ? They are placating the Union and the Passenger by introducing the OBS grades and regularly state about a need to provide 'customer service' but this isn't across the board. Again, are Metro services not deserving of 'customer service' What about the assisted travel, VIPs etc ? A second member of staff has a benefit there. What about revenue protection ?

I know from personal experience that a second staff member can reduce delays and provide valued assistance where required. Personally, I feel that the end goal is to have no second member anywhere on any service and that frightens me. One the second member is not required' they can fade from existence. I believe the Union shares the same thoughts.

4. In my experience yes; hence the desire for an OBS role. Passengers still 'buy on board' and will still actively seek out the Guard. There is still an expectation to see them and many forumites moan about them passing in the back cab. If they weren't desired so much then why all the complaints when they aren't available ? When I listen to passengers and read many many threads on this forum, I always hear about a need for onboard customer service. Whenever I hear/read some of the things passengers say I do quietly think to myself about what will happen when onboard staff are gone.

 

[Carlisle]

Which is?

Allowing competent professionals freedom to manage our railways long term future in the best way they know how, ideally working with the unions throughout the process, but as Bletchleyite points out in traditional industries like rail, 9 times out of 10 unions prefer simple conservatism ie little change, apart from wage increases at acceptable rates , so the relationship becomes deadlocked

 

[Mathew S]

3. Should trains have a second member of staff on board.
4. Do passengers need or even want that second member of staff.

For point 3. I think it is very debatable. On our Metro services there is no second member of staff and hasn't been for many years. On our Mainline services there is. What makes a Mainline service so special that they have a second staff member ? How useful is that second member of staff ? They are placating the Union and the Passenger by introducing the OBS grades and regularly state about a need to provide 'customer service' but this isn't across the board. Again, are Metro services not deserving of 'customer service' What about the assisted travel, VIPs etc ? A second member of staff has a benefit there. What about revenue protection ?

I know from personal experience that a second staff member can reduce delays and provide valued assistance where required. Personally, I feel that the end goal is to have no second member anywhere on any service and that frightens me. One the second member is not required' they can fade from existence. I believe the Union shares the same thoughts.

4. In my experience yes; hence the desire for an OBS role. Passengers still 'buy on board' and will still actively seek out the Guard. There is still an expectation to see them and many forumites moan about them passing in the back cab. If they weren't desired so much then why all the complaints when they aren't available ? When I listen to passengers and read many many threads on this forum, I always hear about a need for onboard customer service. Whenever I hear/read some of the things passengers say I do quietly think to myself about what will happen when onboard staff are gone.

I fully appreciate that there's a massive lack of trust which hampers the debate.
But as you say, passengers, it seems to me anyway, absolutely want and value a visible staff presence on trains. That, surely, is why the company is obliged to make reasonable endeavours to have that on every service?
I wouldn't want to take anything away from guards who are just doing their job as it currently is, but I would far rather have a visible staff presence in the body of the train, providing active support and service to customers. When I travel on Northern services between Wigan and Manchester, for example, it is the exception that I see the guard other than at stations when they're doing door duty. That needs to change.

 

[B&I]

Allowing competent professionals freedom to manage our railways long term future in the best way they know how, ideally working with the unions throughout the process, but as Bletchleyite points out in traditional industries like rail, 9 times out of 10 unions prefer simple conservatism ie little change, apart from wage increases at acceptable rates , so the relationship becomes deadlocked

Which 'competent professionals' had you in mind, bearing in mind that the major impetus for DOO has come from the DfT?

 

[muz379]

The issues, as I see them, which are up for discussion are:
1. Is the technology which is proposed to replace guards up to the task? and

The Technology to replace the guards role in operations might be there , and might be in use in other parts of the country so arguably up to the task .
But there are other elements of the job that cannot quite as easily be replaced by technology . Some passengers still want a member of staff to help them with connection information , maybe assist them with luggage , provide a reassuring presence and in some cases people want someone to complain to and to assist them when things go wrong . A prime example of when a guard is actually worth their weight in gold is after a train is involved in a fatality . When the driver has specific tasks they must do and might not be up to answering 101 questions from every single passenger for understandable reasons .

Given that the other option open to Arriva is, ultimately, to make all guards redundant and offer to re-employ them on new contracts, contracts which I'm sure would be lower paid that what they are on now, I would have thought that the least-worst option would be to take what's already on the table.

This option really is not available to Arriva , the infrastructure is not there to be able to operate every single train without a guard and nor is it going to be for some time .

Making all guards redundant and then offering some to return to the guards grade and some to another grade that is paid less would get messy quickly . Making them all redundant and offering some a guards job and some another grade without the operational responsibilities of the guards grade but paying them all the same would also get messy . This is not going to be something that a simple solution can be found to because there is going to be a requirement for some time for guards with the current operational competencies as some routes and traction are not going to be ready for DOO for years to come .

I suspect many of the striking staff think that if this option truly was easily available to them , this is the road they would go down like Southern did .

I wouldn't want to take anything away from guards who are just doing their job as it currently is, but I would far rather have a visible staff presence in the body of the train, providing active support and service to customers. When I travel on Northern services between Wigan and Manchester, for example, it is the exception that I see the guard other than at stations when they're doing door duty. That needs to change.

This is already part of the guards job description . And is not something that needs to change , if what you are saying is true then all that indicates is that the company are not ensuring that the staff are doing their jobs properly or dealing properly with instances of staff not doing their jobs properly

This element of the guards role could be enhanced tomorrow by the company committing to fitting intermediate door controls on all stock not currently fitted with them meaning guards could do their door duties from a wide range of places .

The union would not object to that and would probably welcome it with open arms and there would be an increase in staff morale which heavily impacts upon the level of customer service those staff then give . Revenue collection would increase as well .

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

And yet each and every press release drips with political statements, including attacks on specific politicians. Strikes are a political action, as is choosing to ignore or disbelieve Northern's assertion that jobs are safe until franchise end.

Do not confuse the actions of union leaders with those of its members. Unions' national officials, by the very nature of their roles, will tend to be "political animals" and will naturally take every opportunity to make political statements. The fact that these particular statements are worded more strongly than you would hear from many individual members is therefore only to be expected. Even political parties have differences of opinion within their ranks: we would not have had a Brexit referendum without this!

RMT is not just the union of guards, it represents many other groups and not just in the railway industry. But at the moment its most far-reaching dispute, as regards future employment conditions of members, is over DOO. Remember too that each strike has to be balloted separately for each TOC even if the heart of the matter goes across several of them. From the point of view of the members voting in the strike ballots it's about a dispute with just that TOC; it can hardly be anything else especially as secondary action was outlawed many years ago. But given the far-reaching nature of the dispute it's inevitable that national union officials have become involved and therefore it's also inevitable that political statements will be made by them.

As for the issue of job security within the current franchise in the current climate that obviously looks very good from the outside. But what will happen in the next franchise? Before Arriva won the current franchise the RMT was looking to take action against DOO but was prevented from doing so as it actually would have been overt political action even though there was no doubt as to what was to come. If there is any way for the RMT to avoid such a situation re-occurring then they are surely right to do so; their job after all is to look after their members' interests as far as is possible. Hence them seeking to maintain the presence of a second safety critical member of staff on trains wherever they currently exist.

Sometimes it is necessary to see through the bluster of those most in the limelight. The most telling statements which underline what this and the other similar disputes are about are those uttered by Peter Wilkinson in his Croydon speech. If you agree with those statements, lacking in accuracy as they are, then naturally you will see this dispute as being a political one on the part of the RMT. But it works the other way around too.

 

[PR1Berske]

Do not confuse the actions of union leaders with those of its members. Unions' national officials, by the very nature of their roles, will tend to be "political animals" and will naturally take every opportunity to make political statements. The fact that these particular statements are worded more strongly than you would hear from many individual members is therefore only to be expected. Even political parties have differences of opinion within their ranks: we would not have had a Brexit referendum without this!

RMT is not just the union of guards, it represents many other groups and not just in the railway industry. But at the moment its most far-reaching dispute, as regards future employment conditions of members, is over DOO. Remember too that each strike has to be balloted separately for each TOC even if the heart of the matter goes across several of them. From the point of view of the members voting in the strike ballots it's about a dispute with just that TOC; it can hardly be anything else especially as secondary action was outlawed many years ago. But given the far-reaching nature of the dispute it's inevitable that national union officials have become involved and therefore it's also inevitable that political statements will be made by them.

As for the issue of job security within the current franchise in the current climate that obviously looks very good from the outside. But what will happen in the next franchise? Before Arriva won the current franchise the RMT was looking to take action against DOO but was prevented from doing so as it actually would have been overt political action even though there was no doubt as to what was to come. If there is any way for the RMT to avoid such a situation re-occurring then they are surely right to do so; their job after all is to look after their members' interests as far as is possible. Hence them seeking to maintain the presence of a second safety critical member of staff on trains wherever they currently exist.

Sometimes it is necessary to see through the bluster of those most in the limelight. The most telling statements which underline what this and the other similar disputes are about are those uttered by Peter Wilkinson in his Croydon speech. If you agree with those statements, lacking in accuracy as they are, then naturally you will see this dispute as being a political one on the part of the RMT. But it works the other way around too.

Shaw, an excellent post, and I thank you for it.

 

[LowLevel]

I've been (in fact still am, technically) a union rep, and even I can't bring myself to support the action the RMT are taking on this. How can I support something which, to me, seems like it's motivated by a desire to avoid change and modernisation, when they should be embracing it and making the most of the opportunities it has to offer? How can I support something which is pretty transparently politically motivated? How can I support something which even my limited understanding of history tells me is bad tactics, and completely doomed to fail?

Change is hard, but it happens. You can either make the most of it, or let it make mincemeat out of you.

Why oh why oh why do people keep trying to present the way things are going as a positive thing to be embraced?

How on earth can someone with a house to pay for and mouths to feed see going from a steady job with good pay to having to roll the dice every few years to see if you keep or lose everything as a good thing, regardless of what industry they're in or what they do?

Wake up man. Not all of us are thrusting individuals who are pushing for some sort of future with no guarantees of what life will bring.

Some of us just want boring lives where we work, pay our way, have somewhere to live and die at the end of it without any pretension to grandeur or particular success. I don't need a large house or car to be happy.

I need friends and somewhere to hang my hat and this relentless promotion of the gig economy as a good thing needs to be shown up for the rubbish it is.

As I say - wake up. People still keep chucking themselves under our trains and the world isn't working out for a lot of them.

Society needs to meet people's needs otherwise there's no point to it.

 

[Robertj21a]

Why oh why oh why do people keep trying to present the way things are going as a positive thing to be embraced?

How on earth can someone with a house to pay for and mouths to feed see going from a steady job with good pay to having to roll the dice every few years to see if you keep or lose everything as a good thing, regardless of what industry they're in or what they do?

Wake up man. Not all of us are thrusting individuals who are pushing for some sort of future with no guarantees of what life will bring.

Some of us just want boring lives where we work, pay our way, have somewhere to live and die at the end of it without any pretension to grandeur or particular success. I don't need a large house or car to be happy.

I need friends and somewhere to hang my hat and this relentless promotion of the gig economy as a good thing needs to be shown up for the rubbish it is.

As I say - wake up. People still keep chucking themselves under our trains and the world isn't working out for a lot of them.

Society needs to meet people's needs otherwise there's no point to it.

Understood, but people also need to recognise the needs of others, including employers trying to keep businesses afloat.
Many people would like to have secure, permanent, jobs throughout their lives but that's rarely possible these days.

 

[pemma]

You did not answer the question. Do you believe railway staff are overpaid?

Compared to other transport industry staff, on board railway staff get well above the average. For instance, Southern drivers earn more than most first officers earn despite it being the latter who pay for their own training and the former getting paid while they learn. I accept some transport staff are poorly paid, in particular bus drivers. However, when people like yourself seem unable to justify the claim that the railways are "one of the last industries that has decent pay/conditions & pensions" and the only evidence being a vague meaningless 'race to the bottom' claim and constantly attack managers who don't earn that much than the drivers they manage I'm not convinced people like yourself can justify your own salaries.

 

[pemma]

How on earth can someone with a house to pay for and mouths to feed see going from a steady job with good pay to having to roll the dice every few years to see if you keep or lose everything as a good thing, regardless of what industry they're in or what they do?

The world's changing. If people get guaranteed employment and a guarantee that their roles won't change then people will end up being employed to do things which aren't required and everything costs more as a result. For example, imagine if banks kept the same number of branches and cashiers despite the introduction of ATMs and Internet Banking. It would have meant people being paid to effectively do nothing constructive and you pay via a lower saving rates or a higher mortgage/loan rate.

 

[LowLevel]

Understood, but people also need to recognise the needs of others, including employers trying to keep businesses afloat.
Many people would like to have secure, permanent, jobs throughout their lives but that's rarely possible these days.

I absolutely do not deny that - merely the fact that I appear to be told on a regularly basis to embrace my personal security being eroded as a person who doesn't seek high office or power as a positive thing.

The world's changing. If people get guaranteed employment and a guarantee that their roles won't change then people will end up being employed to do things which aren't required and everything costs more as a result. For example, imagine if banks kept the same number of branches and cashiers despite the introduction of ATMs and Internet Banking. It would have meant people being paid to effectively do nothing constructive and you pay via a lower saving rates or a higher mortgage/loan rate.

Can someone give me an answer as to why having stable employment has become unsustainable? I genuinely don't understand how we have moved from being in a position to offer it to not. Why is job creation and fulfilment not a priority?

What actually occurred to the world to make the stability of existence of the lower end of the workforce such a seeming irrelevance?

I could understand if in such jobs you could afford to buy someone to live outright or at least manage a steady rent with some back for a rainy day. But instead it seems that being increasingly unaffordable but also less stable and certain is being actively developed.

I would genuinely love some answers as to why the world has to be this way because I really can't get my head around it and I find it really rather annoying.

As a species we seem to be advancing in healthcare etc - and that's great. Everything else I can't see what I'm getting out of it other than more worry about the future and a borderline addiction to smartphones.

 

[pemma]

Can someone give me an answer as to why having stable employment has become unsustainable? I genuinely don't understand how we have moved from being in a position to offer it to not. Why is job creation and fulfilment not a priority?

What has actually changed? The railways got rid of the fireman role altogether, as well as significantly scaling back operations as a result of the Beeching cuts. How did those changes happen if everyone had a guarantee of not only employment but that they would remain in their existing role?

a borderline addiction to smartphones.

Which of course creates jobs.

 

[LowLevel]

What has actually changed? The railways got rid of the fireman role altogether, as well as significantly scaling back operations as a result of the Beeching cuts. How did those changes happen if everyone had a guarantee of not only employment but that they would remain in their existing role?



Which of course creates jobs.

We are going waaaaaay off topic here but I'm not really on about the railways so much (mass redundancy was very much a thing in the 60s there and has been there on a small scale since) but the rest of the the place as well - it seems to have been quietly accepted that big chunks of the country where industry has been withdrawn are to be left as pits of deprivation with a bit of poor quality agency work or nothing.

I work through some truly awful places and I'm not exaggerating when I say I've ended up paying regular's fares for them or turning a blind eye to them being a bit short when it comes to the end of the month before. I always tell them to put it in a charity box when they have it. It can be horrible.

There's always been people who have had to shuffle 3 jobs to keep afloat but that's expanding ever further and the competition for the worst work can be ruthless.

I'm not actually worried about my future regardless of what happens - I don't want my job to change but despite my wearing my heart on my sleeve here I have a bit more experience of it than most and have been involved in driving it. I'm a hard worker, I'm flexible and I learn fast. I'm also well presented, friendly and streetwise, plus I really do care. To that end there will probably continue to be a job for me of some sort regardless. I've been bugged for the last 5 years about going into management or training and assessing, or train driving or whatever but I enjoy frontline customer service too much. Other people are less capable of adapting and I genuinely worry for them, especially when they have kids etc.

 

[B&I]

The world's changing. If people get guaranteed employment and a guarantee that their roles won't change then people will end up being employed to do things which aren't required and everything costs more as a result. For example, imagine if banks kept the same number of branches and cashiers despite the introduction of ATMs and Internet Banking. It would have meant people being paid to effectively do nothing constructive and you pay via a lower saving rates or a higher mortgage/loan rate.

This argument would be easier to accept if any savings from technological advances and efficiency savings were ever passed on to customers.

 

[B&I]

We are going waaaaaay off topic here but I'm not really on about the railways so much (mass redundancy was very much a thing in the 60s there and has been there on a small scale since) but the rest of the the place as well - it seems to have been quietly accepted that big chunks of the country where industry has been withdrawn are to be left as pits of deprivation with a bit of poor quality agency work or nothing.

I work through some truly awful places and I'm not exaggerating when I say I've ended up paying regular's fares for them or turning a blind eye to them being a bit short when it comes to the end of the month before. I always tell them to put it in a charity box when they have it. It can be horrible.

There's always been people who have had to shuffle 3 jobs to keep afloat but that's expanding ever further and the competition for the worst work can be ruthless.

A combination of different things happened. British industry lost its competitive advantage through lazy, complacent and incompetent management, not helped in later years by poor labour relations. The behaviour of certain unions discredited the whole union movement, and perhaps the working class generally. The country's longstanding snobbery towards people who do anythibg useful for a living discouraged talented people from careers in industry and allied professions, and discouraged interest and investment generally. Technological advance rendered some industries obsolete, and made others uncompetitive, particularly when combined with chronic underinvestment in industry. Certain members of the middle class got alarmed about working class people with secure and well-paid jobs, and the populstion more generally came to associate rising wages in certain fields with galloping inflation, despite them being only part of the cause. Unsuccessful attempts at state intervention in industry promoted the idea that certain industries were beyond redemption. The usual vultures saw the chance of making a fast buck through asset stripping. A certain type of politician emerged who saw widespread deindustrialisation as either a necessary side effect of their economic dogma, or a desirable means of breaking the unions and / or the economic power of the working class, with state intervention to correct its effecrs seen as anathema.

 

[the sniper]

if it doesn't mean they can't leave their rail industry and get another job which pays the same sort of level with the skills they have at Northern? Is there a shortage of well paid jobs outside the rail industry or do the guards earn more than they are worth? Note I didn't say guards are paid more than they are worth, I said that's one possible reason for why they wouldn't be able to get similar pay with their skills outside the rail industry. However, based on your response I suspect you think that's the real reason but you'd rather act outraged that I suggested it opposed to admitting it is the reason, as you failed to give another reason that's the only logical conclusion!

Some individuals may not be able to get jobs that pay the same or better or succeed in getting jobs they want to do, so will just continue in the OBS style role as they can't afford to give up the wage. Some individuals will be willing/able to afford a drop in wage to do a more preferable job, in or out of the industry, to avoid being an OBS. Other individuals will succeed in getting alternative jobs that pay the same or better. Nobody can know who'll succeed and who'll fail though. Before you say it, I know, we don't need another economics lesson, this is entirely standard. But that doesn't change the fact that many people resent being put in a position where they feel they'll need to leave, having lost their original job though no fault of their own, with little or no desire to do the OBS style role. Hence why people will strike, even if the can't save the Guard grade. You originally said in Post 2282 "many people would fail to see why their journeys were being disrupted in 2017 if the offer of a second person on board all trains and all guards guaranteed employment until at least 2025 was on the table". I like LowLevel offered an answer to this, as maybe people here and in general suffer from only reading press releases from the TOCs/DfT/RMT, without having any idea what individuals are saying in the messrooms.

And of course there'll be people who are up for doing the OBS role. I'm saying it's not a black and white issue though, which some people don't seem to recognise.

So guards are unhappy working for Northern as guards but want the role to stay exactly how it is? :roll:

I don't think work place grievances with an employer or its practices are exclusive to the railway or specifically to the Guard grade. Even if that were the case, I don't see how being demoted can be seen as the solution to anyone's issues...

 

[pemma]

You originally said in Post 2282 "many people would fail to see why their journeys were being disrupted in 2017 if the offer of a second person on board all trains and all guards guaranteed employment until at least 2025 was on the table". I like LowLevel offered an answer to this, as maybe people here and in general suffer from only reading press releases from the TOCs/DfT/RMT, without having any idea what individuals are saying in the messrooms.

But what the constant strikes are doing? Forcing some people who rely on the railways to lose the jobs they have. Unlike guards who may get moved to different roles these people will probably have to accept both a pay cut and a demotion when they get a job closer to home, as well as losing continuous employment which affects things like potential redundancy pay, paternal leave, sick pay, bonuses etc. There is an option of industrial action short of strike action, strike action is supposed to be a last resort if all else fails - how could it have reached that stage when the construction on the first train which could be capable of DOO operation hadn't even started? Given what the RMT did with SWR we know they think strike action can be a first resort to make a political point.

I don't think work place grievances with an employer or its practices are exclusive to the railway or specifically to the Guard grade. Even if that were the case, I don't see how being demoted can be seen as the solution to anyone's issues...

If it wasn't for the RMT's attitude they could be talking to Northern to try and get their members a better role. All the franchise agreement says is on some services the driver is to have responsibility of the doors and dispatch. Is that duty alone really enough to make the difference between guards wanting to work on trains and them wanting to leave? Is there no duty or training a guard could be given which they don't have currently?

 

[Carlisle]

Sometimes it is necessary to see through the bluster of those most in the limelight. The most telling statements which underline what this and the other similar disputes are about are those uttered by Peter Wilkinson in his Croydon speech. If you agree with those statements, lacking in accuracy as they are, then naturally you will see this dispute as being a political one on the part of the RMT. But it works the other way around too.

As pointed out many many times bafore on here the RMT anti DOO campaign/ballots/ strikes begun before that speech, so as stupid and foolish and misleading as the speech was, the RMT along with their ASLEF brothers had decided to go down the industrial action route if govt didn’t back down before and regardless of what he’d said that evening, and it’s a bit of an insult to people’s intelligene on here to claim otherwise

 

[the sniper]

But what the constant strikes are doing?

Attempting to deliver the promised mutually assured destruction that protected the Grade in most places for the last 20 years?

It's the only way people can express the strength of their feeling against what's happening and the way the DfT has conspired to achieve it.

There is an option of industrial action short of strike action, strike action is supposed to be a last resort if all else fails - how could it have reached that stage when the construction on the first train which could be capable of DOO operation hadn't even started? Given what the RMT did with SWR we know they think strike action can be a first resort to make a political point.

Personally I think action short of a strike could be more disruptive over a greater period of time than sporadic strikes, look at how Southern fell apart. Such is the amount of overtime done on the railway by many in most TOCs, a lot of people would lose more money by doing work to rule/a rest day ban than by striking.

All the franchise agreement says is on some services the driver is to have responsibility of the doors and dispatch.

Haven't Northern refused the idea of there being a second safety critical member of staff on every train too, leaving aside the door issue...?

Is that duty alone really enough to make the difference between guards wanting to work on trains and them wanting to leave? Is there no duty or training a guard could be given which they don't have currently?

Depends how much the nature of the job changes. There are many ways that situation can play out. The end picture is far from clear.

As pointed out many many times bafore on here the RMT anti DOO campaign/ballots/ strikes begun before that speech, so as stupid and foolish and misleading as the speech was, the RMT along with their ASLEF brothers had decided to go down the industrial action route if govt didn’t back down before and regardless of what he’d said,and it’s francly an insult to people’s intelligence on here to claim otherwise

I haven't been reading the forum much lately, probably for the best if that's what I've missed.

Peter Wilkinson made his comments on 18 February 2016. The result of the first ballot for strike action on Southern by the RMT was only announced on 19 April 2016... I believe the first strike was 26 April 2016.

Had there been an anti-DOO publicity campaign prior to this? Yes. Broadly in reaction to the McNaulty report of May 2011, which stated "The default position for all rail services on the GB rail network should be DOO". How could the RMT not react?

Peter Wilkinson mealy confirmed all the preconceptions of how the DfT would deal with this issue...

 

[Robertj21a]

Attempting to deliver the promised mutually assured destruction that protected the Grade in most places for the last 20 years?

It's the only way people can express the strength of their feeling against what's happening and the way the DfT has conspired to achieve it.
Personally I think action short of a strike could be more disruptive over a greater period of time than sporadic strikes, look at how Southern fell apart. Such is the amount of overtime done on the railway by many in most TOCs, a lot of people would lose more money by doing work to rule/a rest day ban than by striking.
Haven't Northern refused the idea of there being a second safety critical member of staff on every train too, leaving aside the door issue...?
Depends how much the nature of the job changes. There are many ways that situation can play out. The end picture is far from clear.

I haven't been reading the forum much lately, probably for the best if that's what I've missed.
Peter Wilkinson made his comments on 18 February 2016. The result of the first ballot for strike action on Southern by the RMT was only announced on 19 April 2016... I believe the first strike was 26 April 2016.

Had there been an anti-DOO publicity campaign prior to this? Yes. Broadly in reaction to the McNaulty report of May 2011, which stated "The default position for all rail services on the GB rail network should be DOO". How could the RMT not react?
Peter Wilkinson mealy confirmed all the preconceptions of how the DfT would deal with this issue...

So, from what you say, the RMT has been actively anti-DOO from about May 2011.

It's now 2018 - have they achieved anything yet ?

 

[superhands]

Scotrail and GWR

 

[Sonic1982]

So, from what you say, the RMT has been actively anti-DOO from about May 2011.

It's now 2018 - have they achieved anything yet ?

Apart from securing deals to protect the Guards grade on ScotRail and in Wales you forgot to mention that, it’s quite clear that this Tory government are hell bent on delivering DOO on as many Toc’s as they can in England, how can it be that deals could be reached in Scotland and Wales, any of the pro DOO lot want to answer that?

 

[pemma]

Apart from securing deals to protect the Guards grade on ScotRail and in Wales you forgot to mention that, it’s quite clear that this Tory government are hell bent on delivering DOO on as many Toc’s as they can in England, how can it be that deals could be reached in Scotland and Wales, any of the pro DOO lot want to answer that?

The Welsh agreement is worthless. They have an agreement that heavy rail services will retain guards, despite the place where DOO is most likely being Valley Lines where conversion to light rail is a real possibility. If DOO on Valley Lines happens it would be down to the Labour party who claim they are against DOO, just like DOO on Merseyrail. However, don't worry if Labour allow DOO the TUSC will put up candidates for election in those areas, split the left wing vote and allow the Conservatives in (as happened in the 2015 General Election) :roll:

Aren't there also existing DOO services on Scotrail services meaning the agreement is that there won't be further expansion of DOO?

 

[pemma]

Attempting to deliver the promised mutually assured destruction that protected the Grade in most places for the last 20 years?

It's the only way people can express the strength of their feeling against what's happening and the way the DfT has conspired to achieve it.

I know what the RMT think they are trying to achieve, I wasn't asking it as a question which needed to be answered but using it to say what the strikes are doing to the people who rely on the railways. Hence why the question was followed by the part of the answer the RMT members seem to forget.

 

[coppercapped]

Attempting to deliver the promised mutually assured destruction that protected the Grade in most places for the last 20 years?

It's the only way people can express the strength of their feeling against what's happening and the way the DfT has conspired to achieve it.



Personally I think action short of a strike could be more disruptive over a greater period of time than sporadic strikes, look at how Southern fell apart. Such is the amount of overtime done on the railway by many in most TOCs, a lot of people would lose more money by doing work to rule/a rest day ban than by striking.



Haven't Northern refused the idea of there being a second safety critical member of staff on every train too, leaving aside the door issue...?



Depends how much the nature of the job changes. There are many ways that situation can play out. The end picture is far from clear.



I haven't been reading the forum much lately, probably for the best if that's what I've missed.

Peter Wilkinson made his comments on 18 February 2016. The result of the first ballot for strike action on Southern by the RMT was only announced on 19 April 2016... I believe the first strike was 26 April 2016.

Had there been an anti-DOO publicity campaign prior to this? Yes. Broadly in reaction to the McNaulty report of May 2011, which stated "The default position for all rail services on the GB rail network should be DOO". How could the RMT not react?

Peter Wilkinson mealy confirmed all the preconceptions of how the DfT would deal with this issue...

I should just like to add a point to your timeline. The joint ASLEF/RMT statement on DOO was issued on 27th November 2015. It thus pre-dates Peter Wilkinson's somewhat intemperate remarks in the February of the following year.

 

[pemma]

I should just like to add a point to your timeline. The joint ASLEF/RMT statement on DOO was issued on 27th November 2015. It thus pre-dates Peter Wilkinson's somewhat intemperate remarks in the February of the following year.

Worth noting since than ASLEF have shown they are willing to accept further DOO if their members get paid more to take on extra responsibility.

 

[Dave1987]

Compared to other transport industry staff, on board railway staff get well above the average. For instance, Southern drivers earn more than most first officers earn despite it being the latter who pay for their own training and the former getting paid while they learn. I accept some transport staff are poorly paid, in particular bus drivers. However, when people like yourself seem unable to justify the claim that the railways are "one of the last industries that has decent pay/conditions & pensions" and the only evidence being a vague meaningless 'race to the bottom' claim and constantly attack managers who don't earn that much than the drivers they manage I'm not convinced people like yourself can justify your own salaries.

Ow I can justify my salary quite easily thanks! So the answer is yes you believe that rail staff are way over paid and you hate the fact we don’t pay for our training. If you want to start on the aviation analogies then I would be careful as there are a few of us on here who have a wealth of knowledge on the aviation industry and aviation in general.

And yes the railways are the last bastion of decent pay and conditions. I have friends who work in many other private industries and they tell me their pay and conditions are constantly being attacked and downgraded. They have all told me to keep hold of the pay and conditions I have because once they are gone it is quite literally a race to the bottom.

A fitter I used to work with in a different industry years ago spoke to me a few weeks back. He is about to be made redundant. He has two options accept a job on less money for more hours or leave the industry all together and get even worse money for the same hours as he does now but he will actually get to see his family. How is that not a ‘race to the bottom’ exactly?

But it seems your main gripe with rail staff is we are paid too much and cannot justify our salaries. Well at least we have cleared that up. Explains a lot of your prejudices!

 

[Dave1987]

I'm not entirely sure, Dave1987, that focussing your attention on the personal views of one individual is going to further the subject of debate of this thread.

As a practical matter, railway staff are - like everyone else in employment - paid an amount which the competitive labour market has determined to be appropriate. Unless there's suddenly a shortage of people who want jobs on the railway, I doubt that's likely to change anytime soon. What will always change over time, however, is the particular value that is put on the range of skills and duties which have historically been within certain roles. If the railway can use new technology to do a job that previously needed a human to perform, then of course that's what they are going to do. Inevitably, that means that the skills/role which were previously needed to perform the duties now carried out by technology are valued at a lower level than was previously the case, or maybe even no longer required at all.

Change is hard, I understand that as I'm sure everyone else here also does. But modern, rapidly developing technology means that the pace of change is greater now than perhaps it has ever been. The days of a job for life are long gone. Indeed, I would suggest that the days when you could expect to stay in one role for more than five or ten years have probably now also passed; albeit with certain exceptions (eg. doctors).

Realistically, you, I, and everyone else must know that the days of guards - as the role has been in the past - on the railway are numbered, and have been for a long time. Advancing technology and automation, along with a need to keep down costs, has seen to that. I've been through a process of my job being revalued when I worked in education, as I'm sure have many others in other industries, and going through it is horrid, of course it is. But change is part of life. Live with it, embrace the new challenges that it brings, and you might even find that it's a good thing.

The issues, as I see them, which are up for discussion are:
1. Is the technology which is proposed to replace guards up to the task? and
2. What should happen to those people currently employed as guards who, at some point, may no longer be required?

I don't know enough to comment properly on point 1; however, as I've said before, the only evidence based research I've seen this far is clear that the technology is safe if it is used correctly (by both passengers and staff).

On point 2, though, Arriva have offered to ensure no compulsory redundancies and continued pay increases until the end of the current franchise - which is as long as they are legally able to make that offer for. I'm not sure that there's really any scope for Arriva to make any better offer than that, unless the RMT were to ask for some kind of financial settlement for guards who were going to have a change of role.

Speaking entirely personally now, I find it very difficult to understand what the RMT are hoping to get from striking. They know that the role of guard as it has been in the past will disappear at some point, whether it's now or in 5, or 10, years time. Given that the other option open to Arriva is, ultimately, to make all guards redundant and offer to re-employ them on new contracts, contracts which I'm sure would be lower paid that what they are on now, I would have thought that the least-worst option would be to take what's already on the table.

I've been (in fact still am, technically) a union rep, and even I can't bring myself to support the action the RMT are taking on this. How can I support something which, to me, seems like it's motivated by a desire to avoid change and modernisation, when they should be embracing it and making the most of the opportunities it has to offer? How can I support something which is pretty transparently politically motivated? How can I support something which even my limited understanding of history tells me is bad tactics, and completely doomed to fail?

Change is hard, but it happens. You can either make the most of it, or let it make mincemeat out of you.

If people have to adapt etc etc why does the Government not just stop telling people to ‘embrace automation’ blah blah blah and actually help people adapt to the way the economy is changing. Because a lot of people are extremely anxious about their futures and that of their families. If people have no job security because they are not entitled to job security in the “new economy” there is no way they can demand decent wage increases. So people’s incomes will go down and down and down. Or you have decent trade unions who can use collective bargaining. Precisely the institutions that this Government is trying to destroy.