Avanti and their current problems. What could be done to improve things?

[RJ]

To clarify any misinterpretation, my response to whoosh's post has quite correctly been identified as a reference to use (or misuse) of sick leave policies. But was a general reference and not implied to be in relation to what is happening at Avanti.

 

[TheEdge]

To clarify any misinterpretation, my response to whoosh's post has quite correctly been identified as a reference to use (or misuse) of sick leave policies. But was a general reference and not implied to be in relation to what is happening at Avanti.

Thats far from a railway issue only though is it?

Find me an industry or employer that doesn't have anyone misusing sick policies and I'll show you a liar.

 

[43066]

To clarify any misinterpretation, my response to whoosh's post has quite correctly been identified as a reference to use (or misuse) of sick leave policies. But was a general reference and not implied to be in relation to what is happening at Avanti.

No misinterpretation. You directly implied it was something unique to the railway:

There are numerous people on the railways who are on full pay without having to turn up to work. I know people personally who do it because lots of other people are doing it or because they've felt slighted by a manager.

It’s good that you can now admit this is nonsense.

 

[RJ]

Thats far from a railway issue only though is it?

Find me an industry or employer that doesn't have anyone misusing sick policies and I'll show you a liar.

Agreed.

No misinterpretation. You directly implied it was something unique to the railway:



It’s good that you can now admit this is nonsense.

I've already clarified my submissions.

 

[gazzaa2]

It seems that every other week there's a new thread on Avanti's issues and of those, they mostly seem to be centred around Liverpool and Scotland.

The main issue with Glasgow seems north of Preston.

The thing with the Glasgow/Liverpool is they're very high demand services but only one train an hour (Avanti was about to roll out a 2nd per hour to Liverpool pre-Covid as promised when they took over). If you have some cancellations you can be waiting 3 or 4 hours for a train which will then be crush loaded to the max and leave passengers on the platform. At least with Manchester if they have 2-3 cancellations they're waiting an hour for a train rather than several hours.

An odd suggestion on here that Avanti should do away with the Liverpool service and Liverpool passengers should just get a 4 or 8 car hourly service to Crewe via LNWR and then jump on what will already be a full train to Euston from probably Glasgow or Manchester whenever it turns up. Basically add plenty of time to their journey just to be stood for most/all of the way to London.

 

[ExRes]

But it’s the TOCs who have been asking ASLEF to agree to sanctioning RDW to suit their own purposes. ASLEF have consistently been in favour of more recruitment, Sundays inside and no reliance on overtime. It’s therefore hardly ASLEF’s fault when the TOCs can’t run their service due to not having enough staff!

Exactly, and after all these years ASLEF should be telling the TOCs to get lost and forcing them to recruit, that's something ASLEF should accept blame for

Unions would prefer full coverage, as that means more members.

Then why do they keep signing RDW agreements with the TOCs instead of recruiting to full strength?

There are many reasons staff refuse RD’s or OT. It’s summer, the kids are off. I know plenty who work a lot of RD all winter, then not at all during summer. You can’t blame people for wanting to take their days off or finish at the time they are supposed to.

I think you misunderstood my comment, I'm not blaming them at all just saying that they ARE usually blamed

 

[43066]

Abusing sick leave isn't really a loophole. For it to be a loophole, there first has to be some legality to it. It's an open back door that can't exactly be closed, but it's not a loophole.

Indeed. And that abuse is something that happens in all industries.

The railway has robust attendance at work procedures in place, just like most large employers. Being off long term sick can and does lead to various stages being triggered leading to eventual termination of employment. The unions’ involvement in this is merely to ensure the procedures are followed correctly.

Any talk of “loopholes” that are somehow unique to the railway is simply conspiracy theorist rubbish.

Exactly, and after all these years ASLEF should be telling the TOCs to get lost and forcing them to recruit, that's something ASLEF should accept blame for

I see where you’re coming from, but you’re looking at it the wrong way around, in my view. It’s for the TOCs, not the unions, to make decisions about their resourcing levels.

If ASLEF pulled RDW at every TOC as and when existing agreements expired, can you imagine the reaction when every TOC in the country became like Avanti is now? Grant Shapps (and many on here) would still be blaming everything on the staff not working their days off!

 

[gazzaa2]

The rumour mill from what I’m hearing from drivers at Avanti seems to suggest a 4tph Euston timetable from the 16/08 if drivers continue not to work RDs. It was put forward as more of a threat from what I’ve been told.

August's a write off now anyway with holidays etc, it's whether it settles down a bit by September with more staff in and cost of living over the winter, added to ongoing strikes, makes more do overtime.

 

[LOL The Irony]

At least with Manchester if they have 2-3 cancellations they're waiting an hour for a train rather than several hours.

Manchester also has the benefit of several services that continue to stations that allow connections to London, so all 3 being cancelled isn't the end of the world.

 

[RJ]

I think there was an element of "wow, we work for Virgin, that's like the big planes, we'll put up with it". Working for a third-rate Scottish bus company doesn't have quite the same cachet.

I worked at VT for a period and a lot of things about it were great. However some policies were less enjoyable, like not being eligible for a pass to travel on the trains for leisure and almost always having increased workload to cover for absent staff. RDW was paid at the basic rate. The brand alone wasn't enough to overlook these things.

Since put in 10+ years of happy service with bus company owned TOCs which retain their favourable T&Cs. Even if the public perception of these type of operators is "third rate bus company", staff treatment and morale tends to be pretty good on the whole.

 

[NoOnesFool]

I worked at VT for a period and a lot of things about it were great. However some policies were less enjoyable, like not being eligible for a pass to travel on the trains for leisure and almost always having increased workload to cover for absent staff. RDW was paid at the basic rate. The brand alone wasn't enough to overlook these things.

Since put in 10+ years of happy service with bus company owned TOCs which retain their favourable T&Cs. Even if the public perception of these type of operators is "third rate bus company", staff treatment and morale tends to be pretty good on the whole.

Wow, I thougnt that all in house staff had leisure travel passes. I thought it was a universal industry policy that TOC employed staff get it. May I ask what nature your role was and does this apply to all employees? You don't have to be specific if you'd prefer to remain annonymous.

 

[RJ]

Wow, I thougnt that all in house staff had leisure travel passes. I thought it was a universal industry policy that TOC employed staff get it. May I ask what nature your role was and does this apply to all employees? You don't have to be specific if you'd prefer to remain annonymous.

It was because at the time they were employing people on rolling fixed term contracts - even though they went on for a while, anyone on such a contract was excluded from the Virgin Tribe scheme which administered the free travel passes. Still had a Priv which was endorsed with the contract end date and when it was extended, I got another with an updated endorsement

 

[bramling]

Then why do they keep signing RDW agreements with the TOCs instead of recruiting to full strength?

Resourcing is not the responsibility of the unions. It is for the TOCs to manage.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unions would prefer full coverage, as that means more members.

The unions would, yes.

The members wouldn’t though, as most (if not all) like being able to work rest days and do overtime to earn extra money.

But the unions represent the members wishes, don’t they?


Meanwhile I was speaking to a driver today in a company with a Rest Day ban in place. He desperately wants to work some rest days, so I suggested he talk to his rep about it. “Can’t do that, that would look bad, and we can’t ever suggest to the reps that we do something against what they decide”

Resourcing is not the responsibility of the unions. It is for the TOCs to manage.

Except for those TOCs where the union reps write the rosters, and thus influence the amount of resource required.

 

[LowLevel]

Personally I'm glad that outwith balloted for industrial action the RMT leave us to make our own choices on overtime. The ASLEF way of banning it unless they agree it doesn't suit.

 

[duncanp]

The unions would, yes.

The members wouldn’t though, as most (if not all) like being able to work rest days and do overtime to earn extra money.

But the unions represent the members wishes, don’t they?

Doesn't this give the unions a bit of a dilemma?

The unions want something which, if implemented, would lower the average take home pay of their members who do work rest days and overtime.

And with the **** from the cost of living crisis about to hit the fan, I am not sure that many union members relish the prospect of lower earnings over the winter. (due to RDW and overtime bans, as well as strikes)

There comes a point when the union has to question whether continuing with industrial action is going to achieve anything worthwile for their members.

 

[Watershed]

Personally I'm glad that outwith balloted for industrial action the RMT leave us to make our own choices on overtime. The ASLEF way of banning it unless they agree it doesn't suit.

Agreed; there are many 'interesting' things that go on in the rail industry but this has got to be one of the most bizarre. Why should the reps (i.e. the most militant people) of your union get to decide whether you can earn a bit of extra overtime?

If I follow the link in post #1 it shows a better service tomorrow than today; the first Liverpool departure cancelled tomorrow is the 19:47 departure. 16:07 and 17:00 to Liverpool from London cancelled also. So why was today, Thursday, so bad in comparison?

It's just down to luck as to which turns fall uncovered and whether anyone is willing to work a rest day to cover.

 

[whoosh]

Except for those TOCs where the union reps write the rosters, and thus influence the amount of resource required.

You know that the union don't just make up the base roster and that's it - that's the published roster?

You know management have to agree the roster? Management will want maximum spare cover (spare turns to be able to be allocated to the maximum number of duties as possible).
It's the management who have to sign it off as being okay to publish.

A union rep creating a roster is only to make it as palatable as possible (as it covers work that starts and finishes at all times of the day).

 

[ComUtoR]

Then why do they keep signing RDW agreements with the TOCs instead of recruiting to full strength?

I do not believe you understand what a rest day agreement is, what it does, and what it gets used for.

I think you misunderstood my comment, I'm not blaming them at all just saying that they ARE usually blamed

I don't think there is misunderstanding. Your comment directly blames them

it's the drivers refusing to work RDs and OT who are to blame,

What you could have said is "Drivers refusing rest day working often get blamed" The problem is always, as that now notorious Tweet from Grant Shapps shows. Rest days are voluntary, they are there to help protect against fatigue, they are contractual, they are a basic employment right, and *slavery died out years ago. You cannot blame someone for not working extra of in their personal time.

Except for those TOCs where the union reps write the rosters, and thus influence the amount of resource required.

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. This isn't the whole truth to what is happening.

Lets take my TOC as an example. There is a fixed calculation for the establishment level. This doesn't change, hence the term 'fixed' What you do is calculate the establishment level and then start building the roster. Again, the roster is broken down into specific calculations of how many 'SPare' turns there are and how many rest days there are. All these are fixed by the Drivers contract.

It doesn't matter who "writes" the roster. The end result is already pre determined. The reality is that rosters will get 'agreed' Reps and **Management will work together to agree diagrams and base rosters. This is actually a very good thing as its a positive working relationship between Union and TOC. It's also a very good psychological tactic employed by the TOCs. Because the Union does the roster, blame can be shifted to them. We have turns that pass to another depot, bring out a unit, drive about all day, then drop the unit back to the depot, and then we pass back. This isn't efficient but because the Union helps and works with the roster clerks, we can kick that diagram to the other depot. The Union doesn't create the Diagrams; Train Planning does.

Just because the Union may be "writing" the roster, doesn't mean they are determining the resources. What may happen, but generally doesn't. Is that there is conflict between TOC/Union. That Diagram mentioned above needs to be kicked back but the TOC will often dig in because of these fixed calculations that exist. The depot can't have that diagram because it would push their ATL (Average Turn Length) over their limit so we get a really stupid, inefficient diagram and it destroys productivity. It's good when there is a decent working relationship between TOC/Union because these inefficiencies tend to get addressed but there is always going to be a need to ensure that the roster and its diagrams are 'legal'

Not forgetting that after the roster gets created, it then goes to Health and Safety reps to check for fatigue index issues.

As I've said on numerous occasions. Rostering is broken, horribly inefficient, and not productive. To blame people for not working overtime is somewhere between laughable, ignorant, and outright offensive. To highlight how inefficient rostering is... Even during the height of COVID with barely a service to mention, we still used ***RDW to cover work. Even now you still get days where you can have SPare Drivers sitting around and someone working a rest day.











*yes , modern slavery exists.
**typically a roster clerk
***Rest Day Working*


*its all getting a little too Pratchett...

 

[Bald Rick]

A union rep creating a roster is only to make it as palatable as possible (as it covers work that starts and finishes at all times of the day).

No doubt.

Though in most other industries with shift work, there are people who have the specific job of designing rosters, rather than taking a lot of people out of their (rather well paid) normal job to do it.

 

[357]

What could you realistically do, other than a double Birmingham?

Double Liverpool?

 

[ComUtoR]

Though in most other industries with shift work, there are people who have the specific job of designing rosters, rather than taking a lot of people out of their (rather well paid) normal job to do it.

Or just chuck the whole shebang through Tracsis and see what it vomits out.

 

[The Planner]

And when TPE fails as it often does nowadays? What then?

You are knackered, but that is seperate to suggesting the WCML runs at 2tph.

 

[the sniper]

You know that the union don't just make up the base roster and that's it - that's the published roster?

You know management have to agree the roster? Management will want maximum spare cover (spare turns to be able to be allocated to the maximum number of duties as possible).
It's the management who have to sign it off as being okay to publish.

A union rep creating a roster is only to make it as palatable as possible (as it covers work that starts and finishes at all times of the day).

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. This isn't the whole truth to what is happening.

I can't imagine it's a misunderstanding. A misrepresentation, more like, that might deceive a causal observer. Thank you for providing some clarity for the audience.

 

[Bald Rick]

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. This isn't the whole truth to what is happening.

Of course arrangements and practices for rostering vary significantly between TOCs. I’ll freely admit I don’t know the detail at every one of them.

 

[whoosh]

No doubt.

Though in most other industries with shift work, there are people who have the specific job of designing rosters, rather than taking a lot of people out of their (rather well paid) normal job to do it.

Well... I suppose when there's two roster changes a year, that it is probably better to release a rep for a couple of weeks for each of those times, rather than find someone clerical who already has other work to do it, or to just employ someone for those two weeks.

Especially as a rep might later point out that the duties involving a rarely driven route aren't spread out throughout the roster, or that
a later AM shift could be placed on the Monday following the latest PM Saturday, or any such improvements or tinkering - why not just let the rep do it?

It's not like the management could say, "We'll take that into consideration in the next roster", when all the diagrams change anyway, so the next roster would be completely different.


There are often drivers who pair up to swap, so ideally need to be placed on lines that facilitate this. It's quite a task all in all.

I think it's less of a hassle for management to let a rep create one, and then them sign it off. But they do check it. And they do have criteria about spare cover that they want met.


And also, despite computers used in creating diagrams (the actual work content 'duties'), there are often mistakes found by the reps when scrutinising them.
Better to find out before the roster's finalised, and have them changed, I'd say!

 

[Bald Rick]

Well... I suppose when there's two roster changes a year, that it is probably better to release a rep for a couple of weeks for each of those times, rather than find someone clerical who already has other work to do it, or to just employ someone for those two weeks.

Some TOCs release scores of reps for weeks at a time…

 

[londonmidland]

Quite a few alterations and cancellations to services tomorrow. I expect these to be announced public shortly, if not done already. It also highlights the suggestion that the title of this thread should be amended, to keep up to date with the on-going disruption to Avanti services.

 

[Trackman]

Unbelievable and very sad frankly. Time something was done , DFT need to sanction staffing increases , this is ridiculous.

Indeed it is.
The lottery doesn't work anymore, I'm looking now for trends now to see if there a possibility of a service running.
à la 20:15 and 21:15 from Picc to Euston are cancelled tomorrow.

As for rosters mentioned up thread.. totally baffling (I'm not a driver)
Thing is, when I use to speak to them (roster clerks) about rail employees .. better not say anything else, lets just say it's very puzzling.

 

[ComUtoR]

Some TOCs release scores of reps for weeks at a time…

We have two reps per depot. They will all get released during rostering and scrutineering time. Some depots will do this pretty quick, some take numerous days of negotiation and discussion. Two Drivers out of 70+ at my depot who get released for Union duties has a very minimal impact on the service. You might say that the roster is designed for this exact situation.

Again, this relationship between TOC/Union is a positive one and should be supported.