Arriva Rail North DOO

[Lemmy99uk]

Another thing, should DOO get forced through, then all the people that were qualified as guards will lose that safety critical status and become purely revenue / customer service based.
That means they can't then transfer (as a guard) to another company that still has guards, they could apply for a guards job of course but would have to go through all the recruitment process and training again, making it much harder to move on than it would have been previously.

You cannot ‘transfer’ from one TOC to another regardless of your current role. TOCs are required to advertise vacancies and you always have to go through the interview and selection process.

In some cases, a fully qualified ‘guard’ who is successful in getting a job at another company still has to start the training from scratch, in other cases there will be a ‘gap analysis’ or ‘training needs analysis’ performed to determine what courses are required.

 

[Overspeed110]

You cannot ‘transfer’ from one TOC to another regardless of your current role. TOCs are required to advertise vacancies and you always have to go through the interview and selection process.

In some cases, a fully qualified ‘guard’ who is successful in getting a job at another company still has to start the training from scratch, in other cases there will be a ‘gap analysis’ or ‘training needs analysis’ performed to determine what courses are required.

I've known plenty of guards who've got jobs at other TOCs, and all they've had to do is company induction, traction and route knowledge before going in the links. Never heard of any guard having to do the all the training from scratch as a complete new starter, it just doesn't happen.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I've known plenty of guards who've got jobs at other TOCs, and all they've had to do is company induction, traction and route knowledge before going in the links. Never heard of any guard having to do the all the training from scratch as a complete new starter, it just doesn't happen.

All of those guards will have applied for the post, had an interview and gone through any recruitment processes that particular TOC applies.

You cannot simply transfer from one TOC to another.

 

[driver_m]

You have just summed my recent points! Why is it do difficult to believe that people can have a different opinion to you without it being a negative reflection on their character? We are talking about on method of train opperation or another! Neither are any members jobs actually on the line at least for several years and quite possibly never.

I say it simply because it's how it comes across to me with aanumber of people Of course there are people who see it from an economics point of view. Or have a questioning mind, such as saying 'why should a guard have a job for life?' I get that. It's just that I don't think the pure economic argument is a good enough one to outweigh the damage done to the human factors such as a perception that its less safe in the train, i.e. antisocial behaviour, and the lowering of safety standards on the railway.

 

[Robertj21a]

I say it simply because it's how it comes across to me with aanumber of people Of course there are people who see it from an economics point of view. Or have a questioning mind, such as saying 'why should a guard have a job for life?' I get that. It's just that I don't think the pure economic argument is a good enough one to outweigh the damage done to the human factors such as a perception that its less safe in the train, i.e. antisocial behaviour, and the lowering of safety standards on the railway.

That's fine, no problem with that point of view. It just confirms that people can look at the same issues but still come up with opposing results. It would be very boring if we all agreed !

 

[Bletchleyite]

a perception that its less safe in the train, i.e. antisocial behaviour

That is a concern some of my family have on Merseyrail, but I would suggest that specific one may well be better met by two Byelaw Officers or similar (contracted security guards, essentially, responsible only for security and nothing else) per train who have no operational duties and are banned from the cabs (certainly in the evening) than one guard who may themselves feel threatened and therefore work solely from the cab.

 

[Overspeed110]

All of those guards will have applied for the post, had an interview and gone through any recruitment processes that particular TOC applies.

You cannot simply transfer from one TOC to another.

Obviously they have to apply, go for interview, do pointless tests ( from someone who would be already qualified as a guard point of view).

What a currently qualified guard doesnt have to do is redo all the training, from scratch, as you said.

So, once the guards role has gone and all competencies removed/expired, they are no longer a guard and as such any ex guard wanting to apply to another TOC to become a guard again would be treated as a new starter and then , should they get the job, would have to do the full training course again.

 

[driver_m]

That is a concern some of my family have on Merseyrail, but I would suggest that specific one may well be better met by two Byelaw Officers or similar (contracted security guards, essentially, responsible only for security and nothing else) per train who have no operational duties and are banned from the cabs (certainly in the evening) than one guard who may themselves feel threatened and therefore work solely from the cab.

I'd personally say you need both in that situation, rather than one or the other. A train guard is not a security guard. A trained 'heavy' is ideal for combating the anti social behaviour that you can get on any train. I think that the TOC's should pool resources into this to better target bad behaviour by sending out a team to patrol known trouble trains, and leave BTP to concentrate on the criminal activity that is lineside etc., but this behaviour where people are bailing out of trains now is a far bigger concern, and naturally so now with recent terror events which mean panic is far more likely.(just look at the exploding e-cig incident at Euston as an example) in my opinion, and I don't think it will be long before a major incident like this becomes a tragedy. Sure, it could happen on a fully staffed service but a DO one will leave a driver in an impossible situation.

 

[Wychwood93]

I'd personally say you need both in that situation, rather than one or the other. A train guard is not a security guard. A trained 'heavy' is ideal for combating the anti social behaviour that you can get on any train. I think that the TOC's should pool resources into this to better target bad behaviour by sending out a team to patrol known trouble trains, and leave BTP to concentrate on the criminal activity that is lineside etc., but this behaviour where people are bailing out of trains now is a far bigger concern, and naturally so now with recent terror events which mean panic is far more likely.(just look at the exploding e-cig incident at Euston as an example) in my opinion, and I don't think it will be long before a major incident like this becomes a tragedy. Sure, it could happen on a fully staffed service but a DO one will leave a driver in an impossible situation.

Security guards would be ideal for known 'troubled' services - even if a guard were there, it would be somewhat unfair to expect them to deal with certain situations. A guard in a Lewisham situation would be of little use once PAX had decided to bail out - there is only a limited amount of useful stuff they can do to stall the inevitable.

Security staff on trains abroad seem a tad more menacing than here at home - we have the 'pretend' BTP version of PCSOs - the 'seguridad' staff who appear on certain Spanish trains look the business. They pop up all over the place - the C1 Malaga-Fuengirola line is now DOO with Civia 464 units - the seguridad appear now and again, and then again and again.

Back here in Blighty I feel the PAX need to have a view of someone at least now and again. My own view, as ex-staff, is that many of the old functions of guards have gone anyway. No more parcels etc. to deal with. An intermodal service bowling along at up to 75 mph with 1000t on the hook does not need one - if anything happens the signalling will provide protection. For long and medium distance passenger services it is good to have somebody there - tickets, advice etc. I would subscribe to driver open and guard close for the doors in that situation. For suburban and indeed intraurban services it becomes more complex - certainly driver open. The driver stops at the mark and then opens - no more of the stop and guard gets out and looks up and down the platform to make sure the train is actually in the platform and then opens the doors.The nature of the route should dictate whether it is solely DOO or not - a very debatable point.

To refer back to a post I cannot recall - 'job for life' stuff. Way back in 1994 I was at Overline House in Southampton - NSE days. My senior Manager then, the Movements Manager, chose myself and some others to go to Waterloo with Railtrack (I was never offered the stay closer to home in Southampton option - whatever) - anyway, the aforementioned Manager said at around that time that 'there will be no more jobs for life' on the railway. How right he was.

I have the odd feeling that the thread of Arriva Rail North DOO has drifted on and off. As a newish Member of the Forum what really annoys me is the bitching - have a look at the Bournemouth Echo site for similar. Perhaps many other forums. I do not know. I joined this forum in the hope that there would be news and interesting comments - current insiders giving insights that do not appear in the railway press directly etc. Quite often in this thread, and others, it gets really silly - politics etc. when there is no need. I have seen a lot of useful stuff - many thanks to those who have managed that! I will stay with it for the while - no intention to leave or stay at the moment.

Thank you all for the good bits.

 

[IanXC]

Security staff on trains abroad seem a tad more menacing than here at home - we have the 'pretend' BTP version of PCSOs - the 'seguridad' staff who appear on certain Spanish trains look the business.

I'm not clear why BTP PCSOs should be deemed 'pretend'?

Unlike most other forces, BTP is one of only three forces to issue their PCSOs handcuffs, the other two being North Wales Police and Dyfed-Powys Police. This is in addition to leg restraints. The issuing of handcuffs to PCSOs has been controversial.[83] BTP PCSOs also utilise generally more powers than their counterparts in other forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Transport_Police#Police_Community_Support_Officers_(PCSO)

 

[Wychwood93]

I'm not clear why BTP PCSOs should be deemed 'pretend'?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Transport_Police#Police_Community_Support_Officers_(PCSO)

Sorry - the TOC versions was, with hindsight, what I actually intended. Not the BTP ones.

 

[woodmally]

Appologies in advance if this is the wrong thread. I am new to this forum. The reason I have joined is to get a better understanding of the current position over DOO and the strikes I endure for 14 days now on the Northern Network.

My background is that I have been brought up on the railways. My father was a Picow (Person In Charge of Work) for British Rail and then before he died private rail companies. I am a regular commuter on the Northern route to work.

However I cannot see how this issue can be resolved. Now although I am a supporter of DOO and don't agree with these strikes I do understand the RMT's point of view. I am angry of the tactics ie using the argument over passenger safety when the reality is its over future job losses. I do see what they are trying to achieve.

However what I don't understand is why they don't actually stop striking. Now I am putting myself in the shoes of the oponents of DOO here and an RMT comrade that supports strike action. This strike action will, in my humble opinion, never succeed.

Lets look at the different sides. Northern first of all have agreed a contract with DFT and as part of this agreement it is to implement DOO. Also they can manage to operate a skeleton service with scab workers on strike days. Even if Northern wanted to back down I don't see how they could given the contractual agreement.

The DFT are committed to implementing DOO and are prepared to put up with industrial unrest till its implemented as Northern are doing their dirty work for them.

The public cant do anything they just have to put up and shut up with the strikes.
So that leaves the RMT. What can the RMT do. They are already doing what they can ie striking and this is not changing anything. So will they continue to strike till DOO is implemented? Now even if I was a supporter of DOO and I voted for strike action I would now be thinking what am I achieving, nothing it seems. It seems now even Northern is refusing to talk to me over this as a leaked email from Northern to its workforce has shown (I saw one on Facebook a while ago). All these workers are doing is having days off and losing money and nothing is being achieved.

What can be done? Now although at the start I have made my views clear I would be more than willing to accept a guard on every train in exchange for no strikes and a punctual service but this is not being offered nor will it ever be. So I ask those on here that are supporters of this action one question? Why are you still taking this course of action and can you explain how, if ever you will succeed in stopping DOO with strike action. I cannot see it myself but would hope to be proved wrong.

 

[Dentonian]

Lets look at the different sides. Northern first of all have agreed a contract with DFT and as part of this agreement it is to implement DOO. Also they can manage to operate a skeleton service with scab workers on strike days. Even if Northern wanted to back down I don't see how they could given the contractual agreement.


The public cant do anything they just have to put up and shut up with the strikes.
.

My background is almost the opposite - and geographically this will show in my comments below - in that my background is buses, having never lived anywhere near a Rail station until I was 44 yo. Where I do align with you is that I know even less about the background, but agree I can't see any way the Unions can win.

When you say the public can't do anything but put up with the Strikes, I think that's a slight exaggeration in most cases. Most rail users will have a car, which may or may not be more expensive or inconvenient to use. And those of us that don't will most likely have a bus service with similar caveats - though inconvenient in a different way. Then there is the option of taking/changing Days Off if Strikes are only once or twice a month.
Then, there are the differing circumstances with different lines or even individual trains. I use the Hope Valley Line in to Manchester and on Strike days we have roughly half (less at peak times) the normal number of trains. However, the ones that do run are more punctual, albeit overcrowded. On normal days, poor reliabilty (due mainly to repeated "line equipment incursions near Marple"), poor punctuality and constant short-forming (EVERY night this week, with only yesterday producing an apology/explanation) meaning that Strikes hardly register as anything more inconvenient than "normal" days.

Would I be cynical in suggesting that passengers on some lines won't take their anger out on Northern management and/or push for a resolution, because they would hardly notice the difference if the Strikes ceased?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The DFT are committed to implementing DOO and are prepared to put up with industrial unrest till its implemented as Northern are doing their dirty work for them.

The public cant do anything they just have to put up and shut up with the strikes.

Part of the problem is that members of the public are not making their views known, either way, to the protagonists. If they did you can be sure that such communications would appear as part of the "propaganda" war. This is likely why union strikes generally seem to be repeated short period stoppages rather than something more sustained: it minimises the effect on the public. It is also more affordable to the participants of course!

So that leaves the RMT. What can the RMT do. They are already doing what they can ie striking and this is not changing anything. So will they continue to strike till DOO is implemented? Now even if I was a supporter of DOO and I voted for strike action I would now be thinking what am I achieving, nothing it seems. It seems now even Northern is refusing to talk to me over this as a leaked email from Northern to its workforce has shown (I saw one on Facebook a while ago). All these workers are doing is having days off and losing money and nothing is being achieved.

What can be done? Now although at the start I have made my views clear I would be more than willing to accept a guard on every train in exchange for no strikes and a punctual service but this is not being offered nor will it ever be. So I ask those on here that are supporters of this action one question? Why are you still taking this course of action and can you explain how, if ever you will succeed in stopping DOO with strike action. I cannot see it myself but would hope to be proved wrong.

It is not talked about much but a significant issue behind the scenes is the attitude of ASLEF members. One thing made crystal clear some years ago, as this fight was inevitable, was that if RMT members wanted any support from their ASLEF colleagues they would first need to demonstrate their own willingness to defend themselves. Of course the DfT/Northern are well aware of this so will try to avoid making an issue of it with ASLEF for as long as possible. In other words these strikes will likely continue until the delivery of new DOO-capable trains drags ASLEF into the argument. Unless RMT members decide before then that they have had enough the dispute will not be brought to a head until that happens. It's also not clear what sort of solution would bring ASLEF to an agreement; will it require a particular amount of money or something else? And what if the majority of ASLEF members decide not to entertain DOO under any circumstances? Right now we simply don't know. But if ASLEF members are suggesting to their RMT colleagues that they will resist DOO tooth and nail as and when they are forced to then maybe RMT members believe their current strikes, hopeless as they may appear to outsiders, are worthwhile in the long-term.

In the meantime if you have a crystal ball can I have the lottery numbers please?!

 

[pemma]

Part of the problem is that members of the public are not making their views known, either way, to the protagonists. If they did you can be sure that such communications would appear as part of the "propaganda" war. This is likely why union strikes generally seem to be repeated short period stoppages rather than something more sustained: it minimises the effect on the public. It is also more affordable to the participants of course!

If you look at Twitter there's probably more tweets from passengers who don't know how an industrial dispute works than tweets in support of the RMT's actions. The number of passengers who think that Northern are the ones calling strikes because they don't want to do what the government is telling them to do or who think that Northern could say to their guards "Guys don't go on strike" to prevent a strike happening is shocking.

I'm not sure how you think striking on a Monday, then on a Thursday in the same week minimises the effect on the public. For those who work evenings and need to get the train to work they either need to swap shifts or book two non-consecutive days off in the same week. RMT members (and ASLEF members) are always telling us they would be against changes to Boxing Day working because it reduces the amount of time they can spend with family, yet a strike on Maundy Thursday is reducing the amount of time some people can spend with family over Easter.

Of course the DfT/Northern are well aware of this so will try to avoid making an issue of it with ASLEF for as long as possible. In other words these strikes will likely continue until the delivery of new DOO-capable trains drags ASLEF into the argument.

Until a sufficient number of new trains are available Northern can't introduce DCO, we all knew that the earliest DCO could happen was 2019. The RMT choose to start a dispute because they wanted it to last as long as possible and wanted it to run concurrently with other DOO disputes e.g. they don't want Southern resolved before a Northern dispute start and Northern resolved before a Merseyrail dispute starts.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If you look at Twitter there's probably more tweets from passengers who don't know how an industrial dispute works than tweets in support of the RMT's actions. The number of passengers who think that Northern are the ones calling strikes because they don't want to do what the government is telling them to do or who think that Northern could say to their guards "Guys don't go on strike" to prevent a strike happening is shocking.

I'm not on Twitter so I won't be looking. But if the public really are so ignorant about how industrial disputes are conducted that's hardly the responsibility of the protagonists to rectify. It's surely the media's job but of course they'd rather just criticize trade unions for daring to strike in the first place.

I'm not sure how you think striking on a Monday, then on a Thursday in the same week minimises the effect on the public. For those who work evenings and need to get the train to work they either need to swap shifts or book two non-consecutive days off in the same week. RMT members (and ASLEF members) are always telling us they would be against changes to Boxing Day working because it reduces the amount of time they can spend with family, yet a strike on Maundy Thursday is reducing the amount of time some people can spend with family over Easter.

Of course it minimises the effect; the strikes could have been 3-day affairs or even indefinite. Almost any actual strike is going to inconvenience somebody. And what proportion of the wider public are reliant on railways to get to work? A significant proportion around London but elsewhere not so many.

Your comparison with Boxing Day is quite laughable, it would only make sense if RMT members were seeking to strike every Maundy Thursday.

Until a sufficient number of new trains are available Northern can't introduce DCO, we all knew that the earliest DCO could happen was 2019. The RMT choose to start a dispute because they wanted it to last as long as possible and wanted it to run concurrently with other DOO disputes e.g. they don't want Southern resolved before a Northern dispute start and Northern resolved before a Merseyrail dispute starts.

DCO and DOO are one and the same. I'm not fooled and I doubt anyone else on this forum is either.

The dispute has started because RMT members have voted for it as per trade union legislation. The days when union leaders could call their members out without discussion or ballot have long since gone. I think you know it so I don't understand why you try to make such an implication. A more relevant point would be to ask why industrial relations at Northern (and elsewhere) are so poor that RMT members were so prepared to make the issue into a dispute so soon.

 

[Sonic1982]

I'm not on Twitter so I won't be looking. But if the public really are so ignorant about how industrial disputes are conducted that's hardly the responsibility of the protagonists to rectify. It's surely the media's job but of course they'd rather just criticize trade unions for daring to strike in the first place.



Of course it minimises the effect; the strikes could have been 3-day affairs or even indefinite. Almost any actual strike is going to inconvenience somebody. And what proportion of the wider public are reliant on railways to get to work? A significant proportion around London but elsewhere not so many.

Your comparison with Boxing Day is quite laughable, it would only make sense if RMT members were seeking to strike every Maundy Thursday.



DCO and DOO are one and the same. I'm not fooled and I doubt anyone else on this forum is either.

The dispute has started because RMT members have voted for it as per trade union legislation. The days when union leaders could call their members out without discussion or ballot have long since gone. I think you know it so I don't understand why you try to make such an implication. A more relevant point would be to ask why industrial relations at Northern (and elsewhere) are so poor that RMT members were so prepared to make the issue into a dispute so soon.

Well said that man.

 

[kw12]

So that leaves the RMT. What can the RMT do. They are already doing what they can ie striking and this is not changing anything. So will they continue to strike till DOO is implemented? Now even if I was a supporter of DOO and I voted for strike action I would now be thinking what am I achieving, nothing it seems. It seems now even Northern is refusing to talk to me over this as a leaked email from Northern to its workforce has shown (I saw one on Facebook a while ago). All these workers are doing is having days off and losing money and nothing is being achieved.

What can be done? Now although at the start I have made my views clear I would be more than willing to accept a guard on every train in exchange for no strikes and a punctual service but this is not being offered nor will it ever be. So I ask those on here that are supporters of this action one question? Why are you still taking this course of action and can you explain how, if ever you will succeed in stopping DOO with strike action. I cannot see it myself but would hope to be proved wrong.

The RMT has continued to strike on Southern over 14 months since the extension of DOO there. So, presumably the RMT will continue to strike on Northern after the implementation of DOO on Northern, not just until it is implemented.

 

[pemma]

I'm not on Twitter so I won't be looking. But if the public really are so ignorant about how industrial disputes are conducted that's hardly the responsibility of the protagonists to rectify. It's surely the media's job but of course they'd rather just criticize trade unions for daring to strike in the first place.

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.

Your comparison with Boxing Day is quite laughable, it would only make sense if RMT members were seeking to strike every Maundy Thursday.

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.

DCO and DOO are one and the same. I'm not fooled and I doubt anyone else on this forum is either.

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.

The dispute has started because RMT members have voted for it as per trade union legislation. The days when union leaders could call their members out without discussion or ballot have long since gone. I think you know it so I don't understand why you try to make such an implication. A more relevant point would be to ask why industrial relations at Northern (and elsewhere) are so poor that RMT members were so prepared to make the issue into a dispute so soon.

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!

 

[woodmally]

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.



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.



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.



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!

If I remember rightly about this. The reason the strike failed wasnt that they had to accept what Northern was saying but over the vote counting of the ballot. If memory serves me correct they didnt keep accurate records of who could and couldnt vote in the strike so the government ruled that strike illegal. It did seem a pointless strike anyway as that franchise had no power over the next one or what they would and wouldnt agree with the government.

 

[CN75]

The dispute has started because RMT members have voted for it as per trade union legislation. The days when union leaders could call their members out without discussion or ballot have long since gone. I think you know it so I don't understand why you try to make such an implication. A more relevant point would be to ask why industrial relations at Northern (and elsewhere) are so poor that RMT members were so prepared to make the issue into a dispute so soon.

Yes and No - the RMT will not accept a re-ballot at Northern as they might well lose their mandate for strike action. That is not so different from the union calling members out without discussion.

The RMT also has saving the guard’s job from any changes as it’s primary motive on any issue anywhere, because the guard’s job is the key to their power for negotiating on all grades. Therefore the RMT will have had every reason to make the industrial relations atmosphere at any of the companies as bad as possible to support the confrontational situation that gets them into industrial action.

In reality many rail staff have traditionally gone to their union rather than their employer first on many subjects and often taken instructions from the union to do or not to do something the employer has asked them to do. This gives the impression the union is the group with the real power, so if they say strike, you strike. That working environment is by any comparable industry standards old fashioned and there’s a solid line of reasons why any company or the government would want to change that.

 

[woodmally]

Yes and No - the RMT will not accept a re-ballot at Northern as they might well lose their mandate for strike action. That is not so different from the union calling members out without discussion.

The RMT also has saving the guard’s job from any changes as it’s primary motive on any issue anywhere, because the guard’s job is the key to their power for negotiating on all grades. Therefore the RMT will have had every reason to make the industrial relations atmosphere at any of the companies as bad as possible to support the confrontational situation that gets them into industrial action.

In reality many rail staff have traditionally gone to their union rather than their employer first on many subjects and often taken instructions from the union to do or not to do something the employer has asked them to do. This gives the impression the union is the group with the real power, so if they say strike, you strike. That working environment is by any comparable industry standards old fashioned and there’s a solid line of reasons why any company or the government would want to change that.

I read this before and was shocked. So am I right in thinking that these strikes that are being called are because of one ballot. And they dont have to re ballot members every time they call a strike?

 

[Tom Quinne]

I've known plenty of guards who've got jobs at other TOCs, and all they've had to do is company induction, traction and route knowledge before going in the links. Never heard of any guard having to do the all the training from scratch as a complete new starter, it just doesn't happen.

It does, GWR being one.

 

[theironroad]

I read this before and was shocked. So am I right in thinking that these strikes that are being called are because of one ballot. And they dont have to re ballot members every time they call a strike?

Why shocked? That was the law at the time and the core issue hasn't changed, that being that Northern want to get rid of the guards jobs.

However, the law has changed and a new ballot has to be held every 6 months for the action to continue.

Edit: just to clarify northern,southern and merseyrail don't need to reballot as their ballots were valid before the new law took effect. the rmt/Swr guards dispute is the first ballot that will have to adhere to the new rules about reballoting.

Edit: swr ballot was announced 3/10/17 and abellio greater Anglia 12/9/17 , so aga seem to be first to reballot.

 

[CN75]

I read this before and was shocked. So am I right in thinking that these strikes that are being called are because of one ballot. And they dont have to re ballot members every time they call a strike?

The RMT have used a ballot result from April 2016 to keep strikes ongoing at Southern. It’s two years and forty strikes on now, and a sizeable amount of the staff who work there in the affected grades didn’t vote in that ballot. The company have claimed the RMT has not put any offers it ever made to a ballot, suggesting the RMT thought they might lose the mandate.

At Northern, the RMT’s ballot from February 2017 is the mandate for the strikes until now and there is no time limit on it. No re-ballot needed there, which is where (depending on your view), instructions from the union leaders get less and less democratic for the affected members.

In March 2017, the law changed for future ballots, so the RMT are obliged to re-ballot all the SWR guards on whether they want to keep on undertaking strike action every six months.

 

[pemma]

If I remember rightly about this. The reason the strike failed wasnt that they had to accept what Northern was saying but over the vote counting of the ballot. If memory serves me correct they didnt keep accurate records of who could and couldnt vote in the strike so the government ruled that strike illegal. It did seem a pointless strike anyway as that franchise had no power over the next one or what they would and wouldnt agree with the government.

It's illegal to strike unless the dispute is against what your current employer has done, is doing or plans to do. Note with SWR they balloted members within a week of SWR members having completed TUPE from SWT.

 

[kw12]

In March 2017, the law changed for future ballots, so the RMT are obliged to re-ballot all the SWR guards on whether they want to keep on undertaking strike action every six months.

And on Greater Anglia RMT is currently undertaking such a re-ballot.

 

[theironroad]

It's illegal to strike unless the dispute is against what your current employer has done, is doing or plans to do. Note with SWR they balloted members within a week of SWR members having completed TUPE from SWT.

To be fair, stagecoach had given an undertaking when they operated Swt to keep guards. The issue only arose when first group wouldn't give the same undertaking. The rmt had been seeking those assurances from FG long before the transfer date.

 

[theironroad]

And on Greater Anglia RMT is currently undertaking such a re-ballot.

Oh, interesting. When was the first ballot?

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

 

[CN75]

To be fair, stagecoach had given an undertaking when they operated Swt to keep guards. The issue only arose when first group wouldn't give the same undertaking. The rmt had been seeking those assurances from FG long before the transfer date.

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.