If revenue duties don't benefit the guard why do guards get generous commission on the tickets they sell (including on excesses for those who bought the wrong ticket)?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Arriva Rail North DOO
- Thread starter Andrew32
- Start date
- Status
If revenue duties don't benefit the guard why do guards get generous commission on the tickets they sell (including on excesses for those who bought the wrong ticket)?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
I was responding to the preposterous suggestion that the TOC should encourage passengers not to show tickets to guards as some kind of protest against the RMT’s action.
Unless you agree with that approach ??
FGW passengers did organise a 'fares protest' but I don't think one against the RMT would work, the RMT would probably claim passengers are doing it in support of their members.
What an odd comment....
The commission is to encourage guards out of their area and patrol the train routinely. If you’ve already got a ticket and you’ve refused to show it then you’ve committed an offence as discussed. If you’ve not got a ticket and refuse to buy one you’re also committing an offence. There is no way that an active fares protest against guards would be justifiable.
Also, and I know you didn’t say it, but while I’m going off on one..
Not all RMT guards believe in the dispute, not all guards belong to the RMT, so does the person who suggested it want all RMT members to wear a ‘star of David’ type placard, so that the public can easily identify the ones they’re supposed to have an issue with?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There are a few. Saving money = lower fares long term. Also, DOO operation is faster than guarded operation (about 15 seconds or so is taken opening the local door before release, then closing it and ding ding-ding ding on departure), so on a long run stopping service you can take a few minutes off the running time.
Of course you still get the latter benefit if you switch to a "tram conductor"/OBS style of DOO.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, but if the TOC explicitly asked you to commit it they are hardly going to prosecute, are they? A guard can't prosecute on their own, and the CPS generally doesn't prosecute these offences.
It's a silly idea, but the above objection doesn't really wash.
A guard who can and does (and is managed to ensure it) work from within the train with intermediate door control panels and maybe even the driver releasing the doors vs a non safety-critical member of staff who can patrol the train? No real difference to the average member of the public, but an obvious safety implication and no incentive for the company to maintain staffing levels, spare cover etc. and actually provide that second member of staff on anything vaguely approaching all services.
Interesting you should mention money, do you genuinely think that the potential cost saving from deskilling traincrew and improved efficiency (no more jobs for a dozen, no more Hidden days) will be reflected in ticket prices, by either not increasing against RPI, or actually going down?
The point you make about time saving doesn’t really wash with me, because as I’ve mentioned before, I personally believe that new build stock could be safe for the drivers to do the doors, but you still retain that 2nd member of staff.
Agreed it’s a silly idea and I nibbled, but I just genuinely couldn’t see any organisation telling it’s customers to defy a specific byelaw. There’s a difference between not enforcing a law and telling someone to ignore the law.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, if you reduce operating costs, overall there will be one of these two things (or both in varying measure):-
1. A lower level of fare increases over time
2. A lower level of subsidy, therefore a lower level of tax increases over time.
You could indeed gain all the time savings by switching to OBS instead of guards, or some version of OBS with safety training. But not the financial ones.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you on the fact that passengers would receive the financial benefit of reduced numbers/skill. That money will be pocketed by the TOC and it’s parent company.
I’m glad we’re agreed though that the time saving can still be obtained, even with having a guard on each train, but the driver doing the dispatch.
I’m not convinced that the small time saving achieved by the driver closing the doors rather than the guard (only the five seconds or so that it takes for the local door to close) outweighs the increased risk (no matter how good the kit, it’s always going to be constrained by its fixed narrow viewing angle and with the risk associated with the driver’s workload increasing significantly in those few seconds) and the added potential for cancellation due to defective DOO equipment. Driver release, guard close still makes the most sense to me. Everything you take off the guard now just makes it easier to justify the ultimate aim of taking them off the train altogether.
Do you mean only allowing the guards to release the doors from the middle of the train, forcing all guards to be visible but not really helping those guards who are already visible e.g. if they've got to the front doing revenue duties, they have to walk back to the middle to do the door duties?
Do you reckon there's some sort of invisible forcefield that forces non safety critical staff to be visible that doesn't with a guard? ScotRail guards are barred from the cab except on 15x units because it's impossible to make PA announcements from the saloon.
Southern OBSs appear to be little different in their appearance within the train to guards who were also barred from working from the cab in normal operations.
The idea that making these changes makes the guard more visible is actually a misnomer.
For example where I work the vast majority of stations are completely unstaffed with a help point that may work and possibly a signaller (and they're becoming much thinner on the ground).
Consequently my work assisting passengers on stations is every bit as important as walking backwards and forwards up and down the train saying tickets please like an automaton for 3 hours.
Door operations are the perfect opportunity to ensure I'm there and available on the platform right up until departure time whether it's to direct bicycles, pushchairs etc, assist wheelchair users or just answer the inevitable 'is this the train for' questions.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Wasn’t that about fare increases?
Those financial savings will take a very, very long time to be realised, though, especially if you end up in a GTR/OBS type scenario. The GTR dispute has cost an absolute fortune in public money and no doubt the Northern dispute will go the same way.
Viewed in light of these costs the DfT's drive for DOO does begin to look ideological rather than economic.
Yes but it was a passenger's protest, so shows how one could be done. If First Group are to believed most passengers actually showed both their actual ticket and the protest ticket and handed the protest tickets to RPIs.
I think the biggest barrier is getting the RMT to accept any form of change for existing guards. If Northern said we are proposing changes which would only driving staff are allowed to be in cabs while the train is in service and we'll make modifications so that door duties and announcements can be done from the saloon, do you think that the RMT will just say "OK, that's fine"?
Sure - as long as there's facilities provided for staff to be able to take personal needs like have a drink or a break on longer services I don't see the problem - you then have the cab available as a refuge in case of issues (it doesn't matter which one, the last time I needed to seek refuge from a violent oxygen thief I ended up locked in with the driver).
Sometimes I work on 15x units for 6 hours at a time with just a 20 minute turnaround which is occupied by kicking out passengers, locking up for the cleaners and being asked 45 times between the back of the train and the front 'is this the train to x' - on those services I make no apologies for disappearing for 15 minutes to eat my sandwiches and have a drink.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
That might work as a protest against fare increases (not that those are the fault of TOCs) by hitting the TOC where it hurts, but it makes absolutely no sense as a protest against industrial action.
Breaks are fine but some guards spend most of their time in the cab. I know regular rail users in Greater Manchester who when the strikes started thought most Northern services already opperated without guards. Thats damming on the work ethic of some of your colleagues.
If DOO is a compulsory part of ITTs then the opperating savings should be reflected in franchise bids, meaning that although passengers are unlikely to have fare cuts the governments income should increase. In the case of Merseyrail the £7m a year saved will pay for the majority of the cost of the new fleet and that in the long term will allow fare cuts. Its very understandable that some passengers don't mind deskilling with those results.
Both very good points actually.
In an ideal world I’d like driver release, guard close, but that could be something that’s surrendered as part of the negotiations.
I do wonder how we all go forwards in terms of negotiations across the country across the disputes.
It’s all well and good Pro-Doo people saying guards should shut up and lump it, and it’s all well and good anti-DOO saying the government should stop forcing this through and it goes back to how it was, but neither of those will happen.
Both sides need to sacrifice something, but from where I’m sat I can’t see any of the TOCs climbing down on this one, and if they’re not prepared to budge, why should the RMT? Both sides need to walk away from this dispute unhappy in the end, because that way neither of them have got what they want.
No one has yet answered my question, regarding drivers being contractually obliged to drive DOO/DCO or not. I assume no one actually has the answer to this?
cactustwirly
Established Member
More likely to be pocketed by the government by increased franchise premiums/reduced subsidy
I guess that's something we find out when the units arrive. In a fully commercial company, refusing to train on or operate new equipment would be a disciplinary matter which would lead to being transferred (possibly on a lower rate of pay) or shown the door.
The government could change legislation if is determined to, especially after brexit allowing removal or change of EU employment laws. Northern drivers have not striked over DOO yet and may follow Southern drivers if they are offered the same DOO rules and thirty pieces of silver.
Strike action taking place following a legal ballot is not guerilla warfare , its perfectly legal protected action . You might not like that , but you really ought get over it
Whilst guards do get commission on the tickets they sell , the toc loses out a lot more if they dont decide to sell any tickets . Some lines if would be perfectly easy for the travelling public to fairly legitimately make free journeys if the guard did not decide to carry out revenue protection
The commission is as a way of encouraging it , but still largely benefiting the toc .
Ive said it multiple times about this dispute . If it was not for the DFT standing in the way the best solution to deliver the performance benefits northern are trying to sell DOO as would be drivers releasing , and guards closing from intermediate door panels .
This franchise is not going to reduce the operating costs substantially in introducing DCO because they have guaranteed the current compliment of staff a job and are still going to need guards in their traditional role for some routes and stock which just adds expense and complication to management and rostering .
Its only in future franchises when the idea eventaully does crop up to get rid of the second member of staff on the trains or switch it to an agency staff function because the role has been completely deskilled . They are basically just doing the DFT's dirty work in paving the way for de staffing or deskilling .
Hell you could improve morale overnight and lead to an increase in productivity by guaranteeing to fit all stock with intermediate door panels and allowing guards to do their doors from them .
I work some stock that has door controls by every set of doors , it is much easier to protect revenue and provide a visible presence on that stock . It would not even need to be as extensive as every set of doors , say 15x's could just have them installed at the middle sets of doors as well as at cab ends .
This has been done to death ,
Those guards that remain in the back cab for no good reason are not doing their jobs properly . That neds dealing with by the company using processes already in place . An example of good reason to not be able to patrol the train would be overcrowding , making a phone call to control about a fault or service disruption , or ringing a shift manager to let them know you or the driver are going to be late for the next job .
I dont see the logic that just because certain people are not doing their jobs properly we should eliminate the whole grade .
At some stations RPIs direct anyone who hasn't been given an opportunity to buy a ticket to the normal ticket office person at the station, so on occasions guards not selling tickets might mean more revenue for the TOC, even if the passenger would likely prefer to pay during their journey than to have to queue up after they've completed it.
That’s the key thing that many seem to overlook (and that’s what the government are banking on) - the RMT’s dispute *has* to be with Northern, formally, but in reality it’s the DfT who are pulling the strings whilst Northern are stuck in the middle, relatively powerless. I’ve noticed that Northern seem to be pushing that fact out a little more recently, whereas all TOCs involved have been reluctant to mention the DfT’s role and their contractual constraints until now. Especially with more and more talks of franchises being handed back, just how much dirty work are Arriva (and others) prepared to do for the government before they say that enough’s enough? I suspect that the government’s approach would be different if they could no longer hide in the shadows, politically protected by the TOCs.
I’d like to think that the RMT would happily work towards a solution where intermediate door controls are provided (as they are on the 319s, with the cab controls taken out of use?), so guards can provide all the customer service and revenue protection benefits without losing any (or many) of the safety benefits.
I’d like to think that the RMT would happily work towards a solution where intermediate door controls are provided (as they are on the 319s, with the cab controls taken out of use?), so guards can provide all the customer service and revenue protection benefits without losing any (or many) of the safety benefits.
I appreciate that, but their contract will likely say ‘standard method of operation is...’
I suppose they could always do what Southern did to their guards and 90 days them but I couldn’t imagine that being very popular.
There is no chance of the Tories agreeing to that. They are determined to defeat the RMT and have until at least June 2022. RMT have already been sold out by ASLEF on Southern and Merseyside Labour on Merseyrail. The best solution would be to cut the RMT out of the loop and negotiate with ASLEF to introduce DCO under the Southern rules combined with infrastructure changes and a big pay rise for drivers to buy them off.
I don’t think many see the ‘Southern arrangement’ as any more than a short-term stepping stone to near-complete destaffing of trains. The Tories are determined to beat the unions, but they can only hope to do so by hiding behind the TOCs and pretending that it’s nothing to do with them. I don’t think they’d be able to continue as they are if the majority of the public realised that the extensive disruption that they’re suffering is because of the Tories’ ideological desire to destroy the unions rather than anything that’ll actually benefit them. They’re already treading a very fine line and can’t afford to throw away any more support from their voters.
- Status