Arriva Rail North DOO

[Bletchleyite]

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.

This is actually where Universal Basic Income would make a difference. If you remove the *need* to work if you're happy living a very basic life[1], working much more flexibly becomes viable. Essentially, move the protections from employer to state.

I actually quite fancy the idea of doing "gig" economy and contract type work with a safety net like that.

[1] It should be enough to have a roof over your head (nothing fancy; a rented room for a single person, a small one bedroom flat for a couple etc) and to eat basic but healthy food cooked at home, and to clothe yourself in basic but acceptable clothes. Nothing more than that (no car, no foreign holidays, no satellite television etc), but equally nothing less.

 

[pemma]

Ow I can justify my salary quite easily thanks!

Can you? If you can you obviously don't want to share your justification.

and you hate the fact we don’t pay for our training.

No I'm saying the First Officers who have paid for their own training should be paid more the train drivers who have been paid to train. Paying for your own training is a risk and those who take the risk and it pays off should be rewarded for it, as there's a chance you pay for your training and then it doesn't lead to a long term career. The business who pays for your training needs to recoup their costs somehow.

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.

I recall you used to be one of the most pro-Conservative Party posters on here, constantly praising George Osborne even though he was making many people worse off. Then as soon as the Conservatives started reviewing the costs of running the railways you changed your tune. Although, that's typical for most people who have ever supported the Conservatives, not to care about how they attack the living standards of others but the second they think their living standards might be affected everything changes.

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?

How exactly does that relate to the future of Northern guards? You seem to have gone off on a huge tangent to try and justify using that term!

 

[Bromley boy]

No I'm saying the First Officers who have paid for their own training should be paid more the train drivers who have been paid to train.

Why should they? As someone who does neither job you seem to have a strange fixation with comparing train driver earnings to other completely unrelated jobs, revealing your own bias against train drivers' pay.

Whether someone pays for the training or not makes no difference to what they end up getting paid. Take the legal profession for example - the solicitors who end up working in the city earning the most don't pay for their own training (at least the vocational part of it). The ones who end up in high street firms most likely do and then earn a lot less.

For the record I know a first officer who earns just under the £100k mark. He paid for his own training. I certainly don't know any train drivers who earn £100k year.

Some train drivers earn more than some first officers, so do some secretaries! So what?!

How much do you earn, jcollins?

 

[Mathew S]

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.

I imagine the government would argue that they do help people. Not saying I agree with that statement, you understand, but that, I would predict, would be their response.

 

[pemma]

Why should they? As someone who does neither job you seem to have a strange fixation with comparing train driver earnings to other completely unrelated jobs, revealing your own bias against train drivers' pay.

You say a 'strange fixation' but that's how benchmarks for salaries are set. A guard is a more specialist role than an RPI so the guard should earn more, a driver is a more specialist role than a guard so the driver should earn more. If drivers earned less than guards then ASLEF would be able to say that their members have more specialist roles to justify a pay rise. However, comparisons between rail roles wouldn't be enough - if the RPIs are on £14,000 then you could argue £18,000 is a suitable guard salary but if RPIs are on £19,000 then £18,000 for a guard's salary would far too low, so that's why you have to make comparisons between different industries.

Whether someone pays for the training or not makes no difference to what they end up getting paid.

It may make no difference to what they do get paid but there's justification for paying those trained to do a role more than those who require on the job training, so they should be paid more.

the solicitors who end up working in the city earning the most don't pay for their own training (at least the vocational part of it). The ones who end up in high street firms most likely do and then earn a lot less.

By 'in the city' I presume you mean in central London where salaries need to be very high due to it being an expensive place to either live in or commute to. The other part of the equation is the most profitable businesses can afford to pay higher rates to attract the best talent, while those which can't afford to pay higher rates miss out on the best talent. SWR and Southern are the most profitable rail franchises, while ATW, Northern, Scotrail and Merseyrail are the basket case franchises. It might seem unfair that someone driving Sprinters for EMT is paid more than someone driving Sprinters for Northern but that's how things work in the private sector, while if the railways were in the public sector railway workers would have been subject to the government's pay cap.

so do some secretaries!

What type of secretary? Someone who sits in a school office writing letters on behalf of a head teacher, or someone who is company secretary (which is effectively a senior management role)?

How much do you earn, jcollins?

I answered that same question a couple of months ago and the short answer is a lot less than before the Brexit vote caused all the economic uncertainty. Yet the cost of the using public transport is going up.

 

[Bromley boy]

You say a 'strange fixation' but that's how benchmarks for salaries are set. A guard is a more specialist role than an RPI so the guard should earn more, a driver is a more specialist role than a guard so the driver should earn more. If drivers earned less than guards then ASLEF would be able to say that their members have more specialist roles to justify a pay rise. However, comparisons between rail roles wouldn't be enough - if the RPIs are on £14,000 then you could argue £18,000 is a suitable guard salary but if RPIs are on £19,000 then £18,000 for a guard's salary would far too low, so that's why you have to make comparisons between different industries.

The above statement is naive, simplistic and simply doesn’t reflect how things work in the real world. It’s also factually incorrect. At my TOC RPIs earn about the same as guards.

You coming on here and saying pilots pay for their own training therefore should be paid more than train drivers is a completely meaningless and irrelevant statement.

The fact of the matter is that some airline pilots earn in the £20ks, a lot less than most train drivers, also a lot less than some junior admin roles. The fact they’ve paid for their own training makes no difference (google the colgan air crash if you want to read something eye opening about how little some pilots earn).

I must say I think it’s rather arrogant of you to decree what you think the salary for a job you’ve never even done should be. It just reveals your own bias.

It may make no difference to what they do get paid but there's justification for paying those trained to do a role more than those who require on the job training, so they should be paid more.

You can say it should make a difference until you’re blue in the face. I’ve given several examples from different industries to show that in fact paying for your own training often means very little in terms of earnings.

By 'in the city' I presume you mean in central London where salaries need to be very high due to it being an expensive place to either live in or commute to. The other part of the equation is the most profitable businesses can afford to pay higher rates to attract the best talent, while those which can't afford to pay higher rates miss out on the best talent. SWR and Southern are the most profitable rail franchises, while ATW, Northern, Scotrail and Merseyrail are the basket case franchises. It might seem unfair that someone driving Sprinters for EMT is paid more than someone driving Sprinters for Northern but that's how things work in the private sector, while if the railways were in the public sector railway workers would have been subject to the government's pay cap.

Wrong again! In the legal sector salaries tend to be higher in London, but not in every case. There are some very talented people in the legal profession (and other industries) who don’t pursue high earnings. You need better grades to become a modestly paid academic than you do to become a highly paid city solicitor, for example.

You’re also incorrect on train driver earnings. They have little to do with the profitability of the TOCs in question. The market is heavily distorted by collective bargaining agreements (not always in an upwards direction!). I couldn’t join another TOC and ask to be paid £10k more than their current drivers are on, for example.

What type of secretary? Someone who sits in a school office writing letters on behalf of a head teacher, or someone who is company secretary (which is effectively a senior management role)?

I mean secretary in the diary management/PA sense. Some of them earn £60k+; admittedly secretaries earning at that level will sit on a trading floors looking after MDs rather than in school offices looking after head teachers, but it’s essentially the same job. No doubt you believe they should be paid less than that, in your infinite wisdom.

I wouldn’t describe a company secretary as a senior management role. It’s more of a senior admin/governance role.

I answered that same question a couple of months ago and the short answer is a lot less than before the Brexit vote caused all the economic uncertainty. Yet the cost of the using public transport is going up.

An even shorter answer would be to give the figure!

Why don’t you tell the forum what you earn and what job you do. Then we can tell you whether we think you should be earning more or less.

 

[pemma]

Post removed. I shouldn't have responded to trolling from @Bromley boy.

 

[Carlisle]

if the railways operated as a proper privatised companies that's what would happen - those wanting the highest salaries would have to go to the most profitable franchises and the franchises at the bottom of the chain would struggle to hold on to their staff because they would be paid considerably less than staff at other TOCs.

If that was the case virtually every industry oopertiing in an openly competitive market eg buses , coaches, taxis, manufacturing , retail, hospitality etc would struggle to retain staff in the poorer UK, regions as they’d almost all be chasing superior wages in more wealthy parts, The fact It doesn’t happen on a major scale must indicate a market has developed relevant to the area and as Bromley Boy says the vast amount of collective bargaining agreements for train drivers etc mean a functioning market of any sort doesn’t really exist, just comparisons with the other few UK TOCs &FOCs when negotiating wages

 

[pemma]

^ Many bus companies do struggle to recruit and keep drivers.

 

[Carlisle]

^ Many bus companies do struggle to recruit and keep drivers.

True but that’s a problem both in the north and the south and London

 

[Bromley boy]

Replace all the instances of 'incorrect' and 'wrong' with "I don't agree with you" and your post will start to make some sense. If we take what you said literally than most managers are in no position to set salaries if they haven't done the job they are setting the salary for, while union leaders would be in no position to argue the offer is too low unless they've done the job themselves.

Well, no.

You made some statements about what you think people should be paid, based on irrelevant factors such as paying for their own training. I gave some factual examples to show how your ignorant opinions on what people should be paid have zero relevance to what people are actually paid for any given job.

I didn't mean SWR do pay the most because they are the most profitable franchise, I meant if the railways operated as a proper privatised companies that's what would happen - those wanting the highest salaries would have to go to the most profitable franchises and the franchises at the bottom of the chain would struggle to hold on to their staff because they would be paid considerably less than staff at other TOCs. If TOCs didn't have DfT as a financial guarantor some would be able to offer nothing better than a trainpay freeze and the unions could strike all they want and it wouldn't make any positive difference.

But again this simply isn’t how things work. How profitable a company is doesn’t, of itself, dictate how much its employees earn. I’ve worked for several private sector organisations. My salary has never been index-linked to my employer’s profitability,
to my knowledge.

I've never heard of a secretary earning £30k, never mind £60k -

Good heavens - something jcollins has never heard of - what a surprise. They’re out there, I can assure you.

I’m fully aware of what a company secretary is and does, but thanks for the explanation.

At the moment I have no proper employment contract so the answer is anything up from £0. I did have a full time web developer contract with a digital marketing agency until the Brexit vote meant practically all the B2C companies starting tightening their budgets, moving to low cost agencies and bringing things in house which left the agency I was working for with practically no work.

You’re still dodging the question! What taxable earnings figure did you put onto your tax return for last year?

I’m so sorry to hear you’ve taken an earnings hit due to the brexit vote. Although I would observe, as an overpaid (in your opinion) train driver who voted leave, what goes around comes around.

 

[pemma]

Post removed. I shouldn't have responded to trolling from @Bromley boy.

 

[Chester1]

Well, no.

You made some statements about what you think people should be paid, based on irrelevant factors such as paying for their own training. I gave some factual examples to show how your ignorant opinions on what people should be paid have zero relevance to what people are actually paid for any given job.



But again this simply isn’t how things work. How profitable a company is doesn’t, of itself, dictate how much its employees earn. I’ve worked for several private sector organisations. My salary has never been index-linked to my employer’s profitability,
to my knowledge.



Good heavens - something jcollins has never heard of - what a surprise. They’re out there, I can assure you.

I’m fully aware of what a company secretary is and does, but thanks for the explanation.



You’re still dodging the question! What taxable earnings figure did you put onto your tax return for last year?

I’m so sorry to hear you’ve taken an earnings hit due to the brexit vote. Although I would observe, as an overpaid (in your opinion) train driver who voted leave, what goes around comes around.

That is a very abnoxious post. Perhaps you should learn the difference between someone criticising pay in an industry and insulting you personally. If I took all criticism of civil servants pay and conditions personally I would be very bitter.

 

[Wombat]

I’m so sorry to hear you’ve taken an earnings hit due to the brexit vote. Although I would observe, as an overpaid (in your opinion) train driver who voted leave, what goes around comes around.

Oh dear.

 

[pemma]

Northern still haven't published emergency timetables for the 3rd March. It looks like today they removed all the normal scheduled train services from the online systems.

 

[QueensCurve]

Sorry for starting another thread, my phone won't let me highlight the search option, please direct to any existing thread if required.

RMT Members today received confirmation that Arriva Rail North intended to implement DOO when new rolling stock is delivered.

A proposal to run services like Scotrail has been rejected by the transport secretary who is in control, what now for the future of guards bearing in mind what's happening down south?

Difficult to see how that is going to work on rural routes with unstaffed stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Difficult to see how that is going to work on rural routes with unstaffed stations.

The new stock isn't going to operate primarily on rural routes with unstaffed stations. Where it does, a non-safety-critical ticket sales person will most probably be provided, or at a minimum TVMs.

 

[Chester1]

Has Arriva announced its plans for 195 and 331s yet? Presumably to meet the franchise requirements they will need to be DOO/DCO and seem to be on target for entering service in December so Arriva must announce DOO or extract concessions from DfT soon?

 

[pemma]

Has Arriva announced its plans for 195 and 331s yet? Presumably to meet the franchise requirements they will need to be DOO/DCO and seem to be on target for entering service in December so Arriva must announce DOO or extract concessions from DfT soon?

Based on a previous post the 195s and 331s can be operated with or without a guard so DCO doesn't have to start as soon as the new trains entering service. I think Arriva have a franchise obligation to implement DCO by the end of 2019.

 

[Chester1]

Based on a previous post the 195s and 331s can be operated with or without a guard so DCO doesn't have to start as soon as the new trains entering service. I think Arriva have a franchise obligation to implement DCO by the end of 2019.

I guess they think that it will be easier to introduce DCO once all the relevant drivers have sufficient experience of the units, leaving them with the choice to refuse to continue to drive them or accept DCO (and presumably more money too, like the Southern drivers).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I guess they think that it will be easier to introduce DCO once all the relevant drivers have sufficient experience of the units, leaving them with the choice to refuse to continue to drive them or accept DCO (and presumably more money too, like the Southern drivers).

There is also the possibility that ASLEF will take the same view as they did with the 319s ie refusing to work them at all with door controls in the cabs.

 

[pemma]

All new trains will have the facility of releasing doors from the cab, whether they are being used for DOO or not. If ASLEF refuse to work new trains and it leaves Northern passengers without new trains or enhanced services, train crews will become a hate figure in the North plus the Conservatives will get increased support for any change to laws regarding industrial action.

 

[Eccles1983]

All new trains will have the facility of releasing doors from the cab, whether they are being used for DOO or not. If ASLEF refuse to work new trains and it leaves Northern passengers without new trains or enhanced services, train crews will become a hate figure in the North plus the Conservatives will get increased support for any change to laws regarding industrial action.

Wishful thinking.

How about the union says simply disconnect the button in the cab? Like they did with all 150 varients and 319's.

Then if the goverment or ARN say no, they cannot blame the crew.

As much as you want to try to paint this as a drivers problem it really isnt.

Until they come to the union with a proposal then no DOO will happen.

 

[Chester1]

There is also the possibility that ASLEF will take the same view as they did with the 319s ie refusing to work them at all with door controls in the cabs.

All new trains will have the facility of releasing doors from the cab, whether they are being used for DOO or not. If ASLEF refuse to work new trains and it leaves Northern passengers without new trains or enhanced services, train crews will become a hate figure in the North plus the Conservatives will get increased support for any change to laws regarding industrial action.

I very much doubt ASLEF is that militant. They may have legal grounds to refuse to drive them as DCO but to refuse to drive them full stop when they already drive trains with door controls in the cab? Even if they legally can it would cause huge anger and backfire by playing to the Tory stereotype of unions. ASLEF is probably going to wait until Arriva announce their plans before deciding a course of action and has more sense than to try to veto the trains entering service, even though its a step closer to DCO.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

All new trains will have the facility of releasing doors from the cab, whether they are being used for DOO or not. If ASLEF refuse to work new trains and it leaves Northern passengers without new trains or enhanced services, train crews will become a hate figure in the North plus the Conservatives will get increased support for any change to laws regarding industrial action.

The Facility will be for Drivers Only release from the cab, Guards from the Saloon like the 319's. ASLE&F will just do what they want regardless of who gets in their way. Just wave the money in front of the majority newer drivers and they will accept it.

 

[pemma]

Wishful thinking.

How about the union says simply disconnect the button in the cab? Like they did with all 150 varients and 319's.

Then if the goverment or ARN say no, they cannot blame the crew.

As much as you want to try to paint this as a drivers problem it really isnt.

Until they come to the union with a proposal then no DOO will happen.

I'm not sure why it's wishful thinking. While I don't like the idea that an essential public service can be non-existent on a particular day due to industrial action I don't think it's right for all union members to suffer because one union grows too big for it's boots. Like I said in previous posts reforming the ways MPs are elected is more important than reforming union laws.

It's the ROSCOs who want all new trains fitted with DOO equipment to be future proofed, even the TPE 397s will have DOO equipment despite TPE not requesting it. I imagine Porterbrook didn't care about the DOO equipment on the 319s anymore than the third rail equipment.

What ever you think if Northern say "We have new trains available for service but the driver's union is refusing to drive them because they have equipment for DCO even though there are no plans to use that equipment until a proper plan is in place and it's been agreed by the union. Consequently we have had to cancel planned improvements and keep old smaller trains in service longer." The public won't be blaming Northern, Chris Grayling or DfT.

 

[74A]

I very much doubt ASLEF is that militant. They may have legal grounds to refuse to drive them as DCO but to refuse to drive them full stop when they already drive trains with door controls in the cab?

they don't have legal grounds to refuse to drive them DOO. As was shown when the Southern driver refused to drive a 12 car Gatwick Express.

 

[8J]

they don't have legal grounds to refuse to drive them DOO. As was shown when the Southern driver refused to drive a 12 car Gatwick Express.

Incorrect. Doo was already part of their contract on GatEX. It is not on Northern

 

[74A]

Incorrect. Doo was already part of their contract on GatEX. It is not on Northern

Well DOO was agreed for all drivers under BR so I would assume its in the Northern Contract somewhere. I suspect it will be up to the lawyers to sort it out.

 

[Eccles1983]

The Facility will be for Drivers Only release from the cab, Guards from the Saloon like the 319's. ASLE&F will just do what they want regardless of who gets in their way. Just wave the money in front of the majority newer drivers and they will accept it.

Ah,
That old chestnut.

It's what lets guards down in this dispute. You want to be more careful in lashing this slur about, as when it comes down to it the guards will need the drivers to do their fighting for them.

Especially the newer drivers, considering the large amount on newer drivers who are now employed. Silly shouts like this will do nothing to help.