Arriva Rail North DOO

[pemma]

Oh, interesting. When was the first ballot?

Edit: just looked in rmt website. Seems the ballot was announced on 12 September 2017

Which means, if the new changes reported are correct, that they can't call a strike in April 2018 without first re-balloting members.

 

[theironroad]

SWR have said they will keep guards on all trains too... just that the presence of one or not won’t be the absolute decider on a train running.

Granted they have been saying they will roster a second person. Unfortunately, not many frontline staff believe this will happen, especially when First group find they need to make cost savings down the line due to over egging the franchise bid numbers.

 

[woodmally]

Bit confused now. So will RMT have to reballot on Nothern or not. Given they balloted before the law changed. I for one am more pleased at the c change to the union legislation. Finally some common sense.

 

[theironroad]

Which means, if the new changes reported are correct, that they can't call a strike in April 2018 without first re-balloting members.

Seems the first AGA ballot was 12 September 2017 and the first SWR ballot was 4 October 2017.

These were the dates the ballot results were announced on the rmt website. I'd have to check whether this is the relevant date for the 6 months to commence. The swr proposed action is from 30/3 to 2/4, so guess it's ok.

 

[theironroad]

Bit confused now. So will RMT have to reballot on Nothern or not. Given they balloted before the law changed. I for one am more pleased at the c change to the union legislation. Finally some common sense.

No they wont have to reballot on Northern.

 

[pemma]

Seems the first AGA ballot was 12 September 2017 and the first SWR ballot was 4 October 2017.

These were the dates the ballot results were announced on the rmt website. I'd have to check whether this is the relevant date for the 6 months to commence. The swr proposed action is from 30/3 to 2/4, so guess it's ok.

Logically it should be 182 days rather than 6 months, to allow for some months being shorter than others.

 

[theironroad]

Logically it should be 182 days rather than 6 months, to allow for some months being shorter than others.

I've just looked at the government code of practice and it is 6 months from the date the ballot closes rather than when announced, though in practice they are often announced within 24 hours or the same day if the ballot closes at 1200.

The 6 months can be extended to 9 months with the agreement of the employer (eg to allow talks to progress) or if the original 6 month period was stalled by a court injunction preventing action for a period.

I can't see any TOC agreeing to an extension as the dispute seems intractable.

 

[CN75]

Granted they have been saying they will roster a second person. Unfortunately, not many frontline staff believe this will happen, especially when First group find they need to make cost savings down the line due to over egging the franchise bid numbers.

SWR have said they will keep a guard booked on every train they run and will hire more, but that the train will go without one if there is no alternative. Their franchise agreement will commit them to this with the DfT, or else they wouldn’t have said it in public - because that’s quite a statement about costs, guard employment and operation of their trains. If they did end up having to make cost savings, it would be on anything/anyone employed not in their agreement with the government. Presumably keeping guards rostered on every train will legally satisfy any judge ruling on the validity of the RMT’s legal pact about DOO with Stagecoach back in the SWT franchise.

And so the logic of the strikes falls over. If the guard’s job is always on watch and an agreement that SWR will not extend DOO would resolve it, presumably the RMT would settle the dispute on that agreement. Therefore, why can’t the offered promised agreement that the company would employ guards on all trains in their new operating model be counted on?

Looks as though at SWR the Southern situation will repeat and the driver’s union will end up doing the negotiating for the guards and win a pay rise for themselves. The re-ballot may however be a spanner in the works if it comes back with much more split support for strike action. And if this one doesn’t, the next might in six months, etc.

 

[Dave1987]

It was actually Cameron and Osborne who prevented Boris Johnson taking action against Uber because they believed in a free market.

Well I never heard about that. Wow how your opinions of an individual can change.

 

[harz99]

People, I thought this was the thread about Northern DOO? Seem to be getting rather off topic...

 

[theironroad]

SWR have said they will keep a guard booked on every train they run and will hire more, but that the train will go without one if there is no alternative. Their franchise agreement will commit them to this with the DfT, or else they wouldn’t have said it in public - because that’s quite a statement about costs, guard employment and operation of their trains. If they did end up having to make cost savings, it would be on anything/anyone employed not in their agreement with the government. Presumably keeping guards rostered on every train will legally satisfy any judge ruling on the validity of the RMT’s legal pact about DOO with Stagecoach back in the SWT franchise.

And so the logic of the strikes falls over. If the guard’s job is always on watch and an agreement that SWR will not extend DOO would resolve it, presumably the RMT would settle the dispute on that agreement. Therefore, why can’t the offered promised agreement that the company would employ guards on all trains in their new operating model be counted on?

Looks as though at SWR the Southern situation will repeat and the driver’s union will end up doing the negotiating for the guards and win a pay rise for themselves. The re-ballot may however be a spanner in the works if it comes back with much more split support for strike action. And if this one doesn’t, the next might in six months, etc.

A cursory look through the franchise agreement shows no stipulation as to staffing requirements.

 

[Dave1987]

So is giving Northern guards a guarantee of employment with Northern on their existing pay grade with annual pay reviews until at least 2025 not offering them stability? If not how many years do you think employment needs to be guaranteed for to be considered stable?

This is all about the Government neutralising their union and as others have said giving the RMT no reason to exist. There can only be one reason for a Government wanting a union to be neutralised and that is because they want to make is easier to attack or completely get rid of the job. This is all about trust. And there is absolutely zero trust in the railway industry at the moment. A few guards I know view this whole situation as the Government hating the fact they are paid more that the Government deems they are worthy of being paid. I.E they should be on minimum wage. The Government should be selling these changes to the guards, not just laughing at them losing money.

 

[Dave1987]

People, I thought this was the thread about Northern DOO? Seem to be getting rather off topic...

It is all connected so is definitely on topic.

 

[theironroad]

People, I thought this was the thread about Northern DOO? Seem to be getting rather off topic...

Agreed there has been some drift into aga/swr, but the original ballot/ reballot rules are pertinent.

However, point taken

 

[Dave1987]

I'll give up now because I feel that it's you who will never 'get it'. Nobody has mentioned anything at all about training courses, let alone any costing a lot of money. People are more than capable of improving their qualifications at little cost but they need to make a bit of a personal effort to do the research for themselves and then put in a few hours. I get the impression that you feel it should be spoon fed by some government agency.
As I say, I'm now out on this one.

You know nothing about me at all. Enough with the personal insults thank you. I am probably more qualified than you are to keep myself in decent employment for the rest of my life. I worry for my colleagues though who are less academically gifted who are faced with losing their houses and livelihoods in the next 5-10 years, and its quite clear we have a Government who just don't give a damn as long as they are not on the dole queue.

 

[Dave1987]

Well, one of the things the Union could be doing is actually using some of their funds to assist staff who will find themselves out of the railway in the next X years. They could offer training or careers advice. M I don’t believe there will be many compulsory redundancies but I’m sure some staff will find new roles less fulfilling and therefore move naturally out of the industry. Very few people if any will move out of the rail industry into another one with the skills they have and be able to secure similar pay and conditions.

Nobody who works in this industry has a right to remain in it for life.

No but is that not just a reflection of our economy and society? That people are scared to lose the jobs they have because the pay and conditions of any job they could get out of the industry are nowhere near as good.

 

[CN75]

A cursory look through the franchise agreement shows no stipulation as to staffing requirements.

Not sure what you mean - if you mean the franchise agreement that exists between SWR and the DfT, nothing commercially sensitive like that detail about employee numbers will be visible to the public, it will all be redacted under he Freedom of Information Act.

SWR’s website:

“In 2019 we will start to introduce a new fleet of trains on to our surburban services. These trains will transform the travelling experience of many of our passengers, with air-conditioning, toilets, at seat charging points and improved WiFi. These new trains will be capable of being operated in a number of ways, one of which would see the driver open and close the doors, improving performance and allowing the Guard to concentrate on customer service. We have guaranteed that a Guard will be rostered to these trains, and that we will need more Guards during this franchise to deliver the additional service we plan to introduce. Despite these assurances the RMT remains in dispute and has now chosen to involve us in an on-going national dispute which suggests the role of the Guard is not guaranteed.”

Seems a great starting place for the RMT to negotiate the finer detail about rostering in every train, pay rises, numbers of jobs etc and have the whole lot tied up in a legal document satisfactory to the fears of members and to SWR?

 

[theironroad]

Not sure what you mean - if you mean the franchise agreement that exists between SWR and the DfT, nothing commercially sensitive like that detail about employee numbers will be visible to the public, it will all be redacted under he Freedom of Information Act.

SWR’s website:

“In 2019 we will start to introduce a new fleet of trains on to our surburban services. These trains will transform the travelling experience of many of our passengers, with air-conditioning, toilets, at seat charging points and improved WiFi. These new trains will be capable of being operated in a number of ways, one of which would see the driver open and close the doors, improving performance and allowing the Guard to concentrate on customer service. We have guaranteed that a Guard will be rostered to these trains, and that we will need more Guards during this franchise to deliver the additional service we plan to introduce. Despite these assurances the RMT remains in dispute and has now chosen to involve us in an on-going national dispute which suggests the role of the Guard is not guaranteed.”

Seems a great starting place for the RMT to negotiate the finer detail about rostering in every train, pay rises, numbers of jobs etc and have the whole lot tied up in a legal document satisfactory to the fears of members and to SWR?

Well 802 pages of the agreement are available, but it's possible that parts are not published.

There's lots of semantics pushed out in the PR battle, about guaranteeing guards and new trains, but most people in these roles accept that the overall number of guards will reduce as coverage for absence etc will be taken out of the roster and it will become more accepted and normal for trains to run doo. There is no reason for swr to be exempted from the government's plans to bring in doo nationally and while swr guards won't be fired overnight ,there will be a slow but steady attrition rate .

 

[LowLevel]

Not sure what you mean - if you mean the franchise agreement that exists between SWR and the DfT, nothing commercially sensitive like that detail about employee numbers will be visible to the public, it will all be redacted under he Freedom of Information Act.

SWR’s website:

“In 2019 we will start to introduce a new fleet of trains on to our surburban services. These trains will transform the travelling experience of many of our passengers, with air-conditioning, toilets, at seat charging points and improved WiFi. These new trains will be capable of being operated in a number of ways, one of which would see the driver open and close the doors, improving performance and allowing the Guard to concentrate on customer service. We have guaranteed that a Guard will be rostered to these trains, and that we will need more Guards during this franchise to deliver the additional service we plan to introduce. Despite these assurances the RMT remains in dispute and has now chosen to involve us in an on-going national dispute which suggests the role of the Guard is not guaranteed.”

Seems a great starting place for the RMT to negotiate the finer detail about rostering in every train, pay rises, numbers of jobs etc and have the whole lot tied up in a legal document satisfactory to the fears of members and to SWR?

To be fair both sides can play that game. What SWR are actually proposing is no different to what other TOCs are proposing. They've just dressed it up differently. If the member of on board crew isn't operating the doors and the train can clear off without them (and you can guarantee that they won't be the only changes) then by definition they are no longer guards. Thus you're into DCO/DOO.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I was simply making the point a number of Northern passengers don't know the RMT is a union representing rail workers who can call industrial action against the operator. The RMT are keen to make the unverified claim that the passengers support them so I'm just giving information which helps build a complete picture.

Except you gave no detailed information at all! Though you did concede that some passengers are tweeting in support of guards and made no mention of passengers tweeting in support of DOO.

Yes I suppose it is laughable as passengers know not to expect trains on Boxing Day unless they hear otherwise, yet 3 weeks before Maundy Thursday this year passengers were still expecting a full Thursday service to be operated on Maundy Thursday this year and some will have booked advance tickets 9 weeks before the RMT announced a strike.

By that logic not only should strikes be banned but also anything else that might cause disruption to everyday life. Do you think you are King Canute?

The term DOO is misleading to ordinary passengers. If they hear 'driver only' they automatically think the driver will be the only person on board, while some passengers think existing guards are nothing more than ticket inspectors.

And what would the public make of the term "Driver Controlled Operation"? Most likely they would say that they thought that's what happens already, who else is currently controlling the operation of the train if not the driver? A better term might be NGT: Non Guarded Trains. At least that would be honest as to the intentions towards the futures of those currently in that role and make it clear that in the future any on-board staff, whether On Board Supervisors, Customer Experience Agents or any other name that gets dreamed up, will be nothing more than glorified shop keepers.

You'll of course recall that RMT balloted members employed by Northern Rail over plans for an undecided future operator to potentially change the guard's role. The RMT were politely told by Northern Rail they had no plans to change the role of the guards and if they wanted to dispute what a future operator may do they will have to wait until the future operator takes over in accordance with trade union legislation. The RMT refused to back down against Northern Rail until Northern Rail threatened to take them to court if the strike went ahead. It's obvious the RMT are very keen to try and bend the rules if they can get away with it and to exploit any loopholes within trade union legislation and rather than seeking proper advice of what loopholes are available, they just try it anyway and see if anyone objects!

RMT officials, just like those of any other union, are expected to react to the concerns raised by the members. And given that the possibility of future DOO was mentioned in the consultation for the franchise renewal it is no surprise that RMT members were raising their concerns even while Abellio was still the franchise holder. As for your last sentence that's no different to what many employers, including, from time to time, the TOCs, attempt to do to their employees. This whole dispute could be settled much more quickly if the DfT was honest about who is actually driving DOO (many TOC managers are unconvinced) and sat down in negotiation with the RMT instead of making the reluctant TOCs do their dirty work for them.

 

[Bromley boy]

Delete

 

[CN75]

This whole dispute could be settled much more quickly if the DfT was honest about who is actually driving DOO (many TOC managers are unconvinced) and sat down in negotiation with the RMT instead of making the reluctant TOCs do their dirty work for them.

That isn’t quite how it works though. The DfT state what they want to see in a franchise in a range of aspects. Then the owning groups put together bids that meet these objectives for their best price and quality ratio and the DfT get to make their choice. Managers and employees who work at the company involved get no say in this process or any of the commitments made to the DfT.

Once the DfT has chosen the contract offer it likes the most, it awards the franchise and the promises made by the company offering the contract become commercial and failing to deliver them costs legal financial penalties or forces them to spend more money in compensation. For instance, ‘we will put plug sockets in all trains by 2019’ would be contractual, not optional or dependent on if there is any cash. Not doing it makes the company in breach of their contract. It’s down to the managers at the TOC to put into place what they have been contracted to by their owning company’s bid. They can scratch their heads, disagree with the issue they have to implement (like DCO) but they can’t change it. The best they can do is interpret the detail of the agreed bid so that the result in practice meets the contract with the DfT on one hand and works for the company on the other.

In fact, the franchise for Northern explicitly said that the bids had to meet 50% of trains DCO. Presumably, the DfT thought that otherwise all of the bidders might just not offer any changes on the status quo. Perhaps Northern was rightly seen as the most challenging.

None of the other franchise tenders offered by the DfT have required a contracted number on new DOO services. They have just talked about efficient working being looked on favourably. Therefore for all the other TOCs, it was the bidding companies that made the offers to introduce DOO to various levels to appeal to the DfT to choose their bids. GTR, GA, SWR are clearly implementing promises their owning groups made in the bids, now contracted in their agreements, about how they would operate trains with cameras on the side of them with drivers in full control - and how they would use the guards differently, which will be their own separate commitments.

The RMT are keeping it simple for the press releases and blaming the government because it’s the most straightforward message, but in fact negotiating with either the TOC or the DfT will get them nowhere as neither actually has the option to cancel parts of their contract just because they don’t like them. In fact, the contracts are working just as the DfT and TOCs intended with the RMT striking, the contingency plans working on the strike days, and the financial impacts being picked up by the government.

 

[pemma]

Except you gave no detailed information at all! Though you did concede that some passengers are tweeting in support of guards and made no mention of passengers tweeting in support of DOO.

I've mentioned passengers who say they against DOO many times before, which is why I specifically mentioned why the using the term 'driver only operation' gives passengers a false impression - many thing on a 'driver only' train the only way to get the attention of staff is to press an emergency button to talk to the driver, despite the fact Northern 'DCO' services will usually have a second member of staff on board. I've never once heard the RMT giving the media the argument many guards give on here that the issue with 'DCO' isn't the number of staff who might be on board but what training the second member of staff will get, despite them constantly saying 'driver only trains' not even 'driver only operation.' Why do you think that is? It's obvious the RMT want to mislead the passengers so they can claim passengers support them.

By that logic not only should strikes be banned but also anything else that might cause disruption to everyday life. Do you think you are King Canute?

You've claimed the RMT choosing to strike on two non-consecutive days in the same week minimises disruption to passengers. I don't agree and have given reasons why, there's no need to go off on one because you don't want to hear the viewpoint of passengers.

And what would the public make of the term "Driver Controlled Operation"? Most likely they would say that they thought that's what happens already, who else is currently controlling the operation of the train if not the driver? A better term might be NGT: Non Guarded Trains. At least that would be honest as to the intentions towards the futures of those currently in that role and make it clear that in the future any on-board staff, whether On Board Supervisors, Customer Experience Agents or any other name that gets dreamed up, will be nothing more than glorified shop keepers.

A better term for Northern to use would be 'new trains with customer service staff instead of guards.' It then gives the full picture - passengers who continue to get 150s on their line continue to get guards, passengers who get new trains get on board staff but not guards. Then it's up to the operator to explain what features the new trains have which mean they can be safely operated without guards and the RMT to make the argument why that's not as safe.

RMT officials, just like those of any other union, are expected to react to the concerns raised by the members. And given that the possibility of future DOO was mentioned in the consultation for the franchise renewal it is no surprise that RMT members were raising their concerns even while Abellio was still the franchise holder. As for your last sentence that's no different to what many employers, including, from time to time, the TOCs, attempt to do to their employees. This whole dispute could be settled much more quickly if the DfT was honest about who is actually driving DOO (many TOC managers are unconvinced) and sat down in negotiation with the RMT instead of making the reluctant TOCs do their dirty work for them.

One problem is the RMT are quick to throw questions at new operators and to threaten industrial action if they don't get the answer they want. Yet when DfT produce lengthy consultation documents, the RMT are very slow to react. For instance, the Northern consultation included a mention of destaffing ticket offices, this was dismissed before the ITT was issued and when the franchise was awarded it was mentioned the number of station staff will actually increase. Yet what did the RMT do on the day the franchise started - they went on about a greedy German company wanting to get rid of ticket office staff! I wouldn't be surprised if the RMT missed the opportunity to respond to the consultation and didn't realise there was a mention of door and dispatch duties transferring to the driver until after the consultation closed.

 

[pemma]

In fact, the franchise for Northern explicitly said that the bids had to meet 50% of trains DCO. Presumably, the DfT thought that otherwise all of the bidders might just not offer any changes on the status quo. Perhaps Northern was rightly seen as the most challenging.

While it's not official there's a strong rumour if Abellio had won we'd have seen a far greater number of new trains with local services becoming DCO services and regional routes keeping guards. End result the same target would have been met but Abellio wouldn't have needed as many guards as Arriva will.

 

[Robertj21a]

That isn’t quite how it works though. The DfT state what they want to see in a franchise in a range of aspects. Then the owning groups put together bids that meet these objectives for their best price and quality ratio and the DfT get to make their choice. Managers and employees who work at the company involved get no say in this process or any of the commitments made to the DfT.

Once the DfT has chosen the contract offer it likes the most, it awards the franchise and the promises made by the company offering the contract become commercial and failing to deliver them costs legal financial penalties or forces them to spend more money in compensation. For instance, ‘we will put plug sockets in all trains by 2019’ would be contractual, not optional or dependent on if there is any cash. Not doing it makes the company in breach of their contract. It’s down to the managers at the TOC to put into place what they have been contracted to by their owning company’s bid. They can scratch their heads, disagree with the issue they have to implement (like DCO) but they can’t change it. The best they can do is interpret the detail of the agreed bid so that the result in practice meets the contract with the DfT on one hand and works for the company on the other.

In fact, the franchise for Northern explicitly said that the bids had to meet 50% of trains DCO. Presumably, the DfT thought that otherwise all of the bidders might just not offer any changes on the status quo. Perhaps Northern was rightly seen as the most challenging.

None of the other franchise tenders offered by the DfT have required a contracted number on new DOO services. They have just talked about efficient working being looked on favourably. Therefore for all the other TOCs, it was the bidding companies that made the offers to introduce DOO to various levels to appeal to the DfT to choose their bids. GTR, GA, SWR are clearly implementing promises their owning groups made in the bids, now contracted in their agreements, about how they would operate trains with cameras on the side of them with drivers in full control - and how they would use the guards differently, which will be their own separate commitments.

The RMT are keeping it simple for the press releases and blaming the government because it’s the most straightforward message, but in fact negotiating with either the TOC or the DfT will get them nowhere as neither actually has the option to cancel parts of their contract just because they don’t like them. In fact, the contracts are working just as the DfT and TOCs intended with the RMT striking, the contingency plans working on the strike days, and the financial impacts being picked up by the government.

Good, clear, explanation of the facts. Thanks.

 

[yorkie]

...A few guards I know view this whole situation as the Government hating the fact they are paid more that the Government deems they are worthy of being paid. I.E they should be on minimum wage...

I don't have time to read the rest of this thread but this was pointed out to me.

I think making comments like that completely undermines your credibility totally. If you're prepared to come out with such nonsense then I will have to take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

 

[Dave1987]

I don't have time to read the rest of this thread but this was pointed out to me.

I think making comments like that completely undermines your credibility totally. If you're prepared to come out with such nonsense then I will have to take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

Why am I not surprised.....

 

[Dave1987]

@yorkie im wondering if the individual that “pointed out” that post was the same individual who said as a driver I’m vastly overpaid and can’t possibly justify my salary despite (AFAIK) the fact they have never done my job. I rarely give any credence to anything I read on this forum especially from certain forum members. You may believe that post “undermines my credibility” but that’s one of the many things I hear from my friends who are guards. They expect their wages to be downgraded and downgraded until they are eventually on minimum wage. And with no union to back them up as the Government wants to get rid of their union there won’t be anything to stop their pay and standards of living being constantly eroded. If this isn’t the case then maybe the bloody Government should be doing more to win them over!

 

[pemma]

@yorkie im wondering if the individual that “pointed out” that post was the same individual who said as a driver I’m vastly overpaid and can’t possibly justify my salary despite (AFAIK) the fact they have never done my job.

How many times do I have to say - I suggested either drivers are overpaid or there's equivalent jobs outside the rail industry are underpaid. A few people, including yourself obviously think the latter isn't the case but that's your opinion, not mine.

 

[XDM]

@yorkie im wondering if the individual that “pointed out” that post was the same individual who said as a driver I’m vastly overpaid and can’t possibly justify my salary despite (AFAIK) the fact they have never done my job. I rarely give any credence to anything I read on this forum especially from certain forum members. You may believe that post “undermines my credibility” but that’s one of the many things I hear from my friends who are guards. If this isn’t the case then maybe the bloody Government should be doing more to win them over!

Most of us expect this section to be about Arriva North DOO, not about you & your problems & your swearing. Thank heavens I am not a bobby at the other end of the signal telephone having to listen to you.

Much useful information about DOO & balloting rules has been made available to readers here by other posters but your life & its travails are not interesting & are driving sensible people away.
That said,about 46% of all British Rail mileage is now DOO, following the sensible Southern agreement with ASLEF. It runs safely & economically & I had a trip today from Whitton to Clapham Junction on SW trains & then onto Stratford via London Overground. It took the SW guard an average of 8 seconds to open the doors from her cosy resting place in the rear cab. We heard or saw nothing of her on the journey. The door shut to wheels moving,including the jingle bells, took an average 16 seconds.

On London Overground the driver opened the doors in less than a second from stop & had the his wheels moving always 2 seconds from doors closed.

What is not to want from DOO. Faster journeys, potentially fewer units & lower costs. And of course less confusion from just one well trained driver knowing what to do & when to do it, so safer too.