Drivers Ipads

[43066]

Thinking about it further, I suppose the teachers' 90% of an iPad was the equivalent of the drivers' cash payment as an incentive to adopt the change in technology and working practices. I didn't get a penny for all the extra work it caused me!

Yes, that’s a good point. The railway iPad I had at my last TOC wasn’t really any good for anything other than work stuff (much of the software was locked and from memory you couldn’t freely download apps etc.). It also had to be returned upon leaving. If the teachers could use it for personal stuff and keep it that’s clearly more of a benefit.

Can't speak for the teachers, but in spite of all the grumbles I can think of only one who left to start a different career. Two who worked for me as IT Technicians went on to become teachers.

I can think of a few ex teachers on the railway, although all became guards rather than drivers.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I'm long retired now and am not seeking work. I might be tempted into doing one of those driver experience days on a preserved railway though!

Can't speak for the teachers, but in spite of all the grumbles I can think of only one who left to start a different career. Two who worked for me as IT Technicians went on to become teachers.

I’ve got a few friends teaching both primary and secondary’s school levels and in 2 different parts of the country (rural wales and London) and the consensus is the same, morale is poor, the job has become unattractive, recruitment and retention is dire.
There’s a couple of new drivers at my depot who were teachers before and they don’t have much positive to say about it either.

They deserve so much better IMO.

 

[CapabilityB]

It’s more to do with a change in working practices and something that is over and above what’s listed in a job description. Management will have to negotiate with unions for any change in this and a one off payment to accept it will in most cases do the trick. If this wasn’t the case where would it end and what else could be imposed on the staff member?

Unions exist to protect their membership.

Is it in the job description that material relevant to the job will only ever be supplied on paper?

Interested to know how using an electronic device instead of paper changes the JD.

(For all I know, it does, though it'd be interesting to know how many pages long the JD is if it goes to that level of detail)

 

[dk1]

Is it in the job description that material relevant to the job will only ever be supplied on paper?

Interested to know how using an electronic device instead of paper changes the JD.

(For all I know, it does, though it'd be interesting to know how many pages long the JD is if it goes to that level of detail)

Our job description as train drivers has no clause saying we have to carry a tablet let alone use one. How many more times?

 

[CapabilityB]

Our job description as train drivers has no clause saying we have to carry a tablet let alone use one. How many more times?

Does it have a clause saying you have to exclusively use paper copies of information?

 

[En]

Is it in the job description that material relevant to the job will only ever be supplied on paper?

Interested to know how using an electronic device instead of paper changes the JD.

(For all I know, it does, though it'd be interesting to know how mexactly and has it not been updated in the past 20 any pages long the JD is if it goes to that level of detail)

that would be very interesting, also if any case law that an electronic document is not 'written communication'

 

[dk1]

Does it have a clause saying you have to exclusively use paper copies of information?

As I say I doesn’t have a clause that we have to accept a personal electronic device in the same way during the pandemic it doesn’t have a clause saying we don’t have to accept a daily temperature check or a weekly Covid test both of which we got paid for to allow driver training to continue in ‘bubbles’. Might as well open that can of worms again whilst we are at it. It may have cost the company a few bob at the time but we are reaping the rewards now as one of the most successful train operators in Britain who have had little or no traincrew shortages ever since on most of our network. As I’ve mentioned before, you only get what you pay for in life.

 

[En]

Our job description as train drivers has no clause saying we have to carry a tablet let alone use one. How many more times?

does it say you have to have access to certain documents and that the certain documents must be on paper ?
is there any case law that says providing policies, guidelines, regualtions via a tablet is not compliant with a requirement for written information.
You really do seem to cling to the view that the people questioning on this are somehow not people who may be Professionals and graduates, are not peopel who may be Accredited TU reps with significant experience of case work in whatever setting ?

 

[dk1]

does it say you haVE to have access to certain documents and that the certain documents must be on paper ?
is there any case law that says providing policies, guidelines, regualtions via a tablet is not compliant with a requirement for written information.
You really do seem to cling to the view that the peopel questioning on this are somehow not peopel who may be Professionals and graduates, are not peopel who may be Accredited TU reps with significant experience of case work in whatever setting ?

I’m not sure you are with that spelling. Our union fights our corner and gets the best deal possible for its members. That’s what we pay close to £40 each month for.

 

[CapabilityB]

As I say I doesn’t have a clause that we have to accept a personal electronic device in the same way during the pandemic it doesn’t have a clause saying we don’t have to accept a daily temperature check or a weekly Covid test both of which we got paid for to allow driver training to continue in ‘bubbles’. Might as well open that can of worms again whilst we are at it. It may have cost the company a few bob at the time but we are reaping the rewards now as one of the most successful train operators in Britain who have had little or no traincrew shortages ever since on most of our network. As I’ve mentioned before, you only get what you pay for in life.

I think you're just mis-using the term "job description", and maybe you mean something like "method of working". I don't know of any JDs that would go to the level of detail which would support the claims for change you are making, however a method of working may well do.

I don't think we'll agree on a change such as this requiring payments or not, I just always come back to thinking about what is best for the people paying money on a daily basis to use our trains, and the taxpayer money that supports the industry.

 

[En]

I’m not sure you are with that spelling. Our union fights our corner and gets the best deal possible for its members. That’s what we pay close to £40 each month for.

If I were you i'd avoid the Ad hominem attacks, and stick to the topic at hand.

You might also be well advised to careful around issues which may be related to Disability or Health Problems or otherwise impact on Dignity at Work type issues.

 

[dk1]

I think you're just mis-using the term "job description", and maybe you mean something like "method of working". I don't know of any JDs that would go to the level of detail which would support the claims for change you are making, however a method of working may well do.

Call it method of working if you like, it doesn’t really matter. If it’s not recognised by our local union reps in the depot agreements then it doesn’t happen. The company would have to negotiate with ASLEF to get it passed. The company as far as I am aware offered the payment so with their power and legal team wouldn’t do so if they felt it wasn’t necessary.

If I were you i'd avoid the Ad hominem attacks, and stick to the topic at hand.

You might also be well advised to careful around issues which may be related to Disability or Health Problems or otherwise impact on Dignity at Work type issues.

Cheers for the lecture.

 

[En]

I think you're just mis-using the term "job description", and maybe you mean something like "method of working". I don't know of any JDs that would go to the level of detail which would support the claims for change you are making, however a method of working may well do.

Indeed.

However i'm unsure that a relatively minor change to the method of work would necessarily trigger a skills payment (something which many organisations seek to avoid to the point of changing role titles and 'retiring' roles to new entrants ) or a renegotiation of the role.

There does seem to be a cognitive block that providing Gudelines, regulatiosn and updates via an electronic device is in some way drastically different to producing them on paper and sticking them in pigeon holes ... the charging issue is a bit of a red herring especially if provision is made to charge at work ( ambulance services get round that by making sure that there are USBs accessible to the crash secure places on the vehicles that tablets are supposed to be stored while on shift ( either in the saloon or in the cab locker)

 

[CapabilityB]

Call it method of working if you like, it doesn’t really matter. If it’s not recognised by our local union reps in the depot agreements then it doesn’t happen. The company would have to negotiate with ASLEF to get it passed. The company as far as I am aware offered the payment so with their power and legal team wouldn’t do so if they felt it wasn’t necessary.



Cheers for the lecture.

Ahh, ok. So it's the union reps, ASLEF, and "the company" who know the details behind the arguement for, and agreement of, any payment; and you have as little knowledge as the rest of us as to the reasoning or "validity"?

 

[NSEWonderer]

Some of the comparisons to other industries make no sense at all, especially considering the state those other industries are in due to the lack of actual union strength in them.

Argue all you want about a incentive paid to certain railway personnel to learn or use new devices but if their Union has been able to find a concrete reason somewhere and the said company has actually agreed a settlement then what exactly is the issue??

Sounds like certain people are too invested in something they've no actual relation too.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

(I’m a train driver and I do. Two very different careers, two very different working agreements)

Agreed, and I’m not suggesting they are the same. But Zoom and Teams weren’t in my method of working as face to face was the order of the day until Covid. Now, instead of slogging around the country and staying away from home, I sit in the dining room and Video Conference into customers. This has saved the company a lot of money on hotels, travel and subsistence expenses, and me a lot of time. As this wasn’t “part of my way of working”, should I have said I wasn’t using VC without extra pay, or should I welcome things that make my job easier as some drivers have suggested here?

Considering such devices are integral to a cybersecurity role, I'd have thought that it would indeed make sense that you'd be expected to keep upto date with new technology(without additinal payment) as they'd bring new threats that you'd need to deal with aswell as newer solutions.

Yes. Could you please explain that to our bean counters?

It’s more to do with a change in working practices and something that is over and above what’s listed in a job description. Management will have to negotiate with unions for any change in this and a one off payment to accept it will in most cases do the trick. If this wasn’t the case where would it end and what else could be imposed on the staff member?

Unions exist to protect their membership.

In what way is it over and above? Unless I’m missing something, it’s just a different way or doing the same task, or has it added extra things in you didn’t have to do before?

No, it’s just the usual spurious comparisons with other industries (cherrypicking the worst aspects of each) and suggestions that rail staff don’t deserve something because others don’t get it.

I’m not suggesting they don’t get it, I don’t care either way as long as my train turns up - but I’m curious as to how it’s justified is all, and that means I will ask questions if you don’t mind?

Can't speak for the teachers, but in spite of all the grumbles I can think of only one who left to start a different career. Two who worked for me as IT Technicians went on to become teachers.

I’ve known lots of teachers over the years, and many experienced teachers are leaving for other jobs or taking early retirement, certainly in my area. Some of them (but not a lot) are doing bits of supply, but most are going into industry as trainers - they can’t believe they get things like paid overtime, and being expected to go home on time and not work evenings and weekends has really thrown some of them!

 

[GordonT]

As someone with purely an "armchair interest" in railways, my impression is that some of the previous posts in the thread seem to overlook the fact that drivers are the most important staff in railway operations and to quote from Gerard Fiennes book Fiennes on Rails "if we want .... safety, speed, frequency, punctuality, comfort and economy the driver on the day contributes far more than all the other grading of railwaymen put together. Therefore as the most important person in the business, namely running trains, the driver should be cherished."
In other words their importance as an elite workforce justifies more favourable consideration when it comes to the matter of the I-pads.
It's also worth remembering that for much of their shift they are effectively glued to their seat, continually observing signals and looking for danger and being prepared to react instantly. Not for him/her the ability to work 9-5 or flexi-time, or to work from home, or to answer a call of nature immediately it arises, or to wander to the office water-cooler on a whim and dozens of other quality of life issues which those not being paid for using I-pads take for granted. So personally I'm not moved, as some others appear to be, to begrudge train drivers a payment for using additional technology in line with their terms and conditions.

 

[12LDA28C]

Indeed.

However i'm unsure that a relatively minor change to the method of work would necessarily trigger a skills payment (something which many organisations seek to avoid to the point of changing role titles and 'retiring' roles to new entrants ) or a renegotiation of the role.

There does seem to be a cognitive block that providing Gudelines, regulatiosn and updates via an electronic device is in some way drastically different to producing them on paper and sticking them in pigeon holes ... the charging issue is a bit of a red herring especially if provision is made to charge at work ( ambulance services get round that by making sure that there are USBs accessible to the crash secure places on the vehicles that tablets are supposed to be stored while on shift ( either in the saloon or in the cab locker)

You seem to be suggesting that trains have charging points in the cab for drivers to use. Is this correct? Or should drivers be charging up their devices during their PNB if there are power points and chargers provided?

 

[NSEWonderer]

As someone with purely an "armchair interest" in railways, my impression is that some of the previous posts in the thread seem to overlook the fact that drivers are the most important staff in railway operations and to quote from Gerard Fiennes book Fiennes on Rails "if we want .... safety, speed, frequency, punctuality, comfort and economy the driver on the day contributes far more than all the other grading of railwaymen put together. Therefore as the most important person in the business, namely running trains, the driver should be cherished."
In other words their importance as an elite workforce justifies more favourable consideration when it comes to the matter of the I-pads.
It's also worth remembering that for much of their shift they are effectively glued to their seat, continually observing signals and looking for danger and being prepared to react instantly. Not for him/her the ability to work 9-5 or flexi-time, or to work from home, or to answer a call of nature immediately it arises, or to wander to the office water-cooler on a whim and dozens of other quality of life issues which those not being paid for using I-pads take for granted. So personally I'm not moved, as some others appear to be, to begrudge train drivers a payment for using additional technology in line with their terms and conditions.

Very well said, another point by @snookertam, I somewhat agree with is from another similar thread and I feel is relevant here by:

Link To Quoted Post

Again it’s not about who needs what, it’s about whether drivers can force an extra payment for a change in working practices. People keep adopting a moral approach to this, when it simply comes down to who has the most power. The way the drivers see it is that if they give in on the slightest ground it could be the thin end of the wedge in terms of their wider pay and conditions, so will squeeze everything as far as they can.

When comparing to other industries, workplaces where extra payments etc do not happen, this is only because the workforces in these places don’t adopt the approach of train drivers. It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter of who has the most power between workforce and management.

 

[43066]

Call it method of working if you like, it doesn’t really matter. If it’s not recognised by our local union reps in the depot agreements then it doesn’t happen. The company would have to negotiate with ASLEF to get it passed. The company as far as I am aware offered the payment so with their power and legal team wouldn’t do so if they felt it wasn’t necessary.

This really is the top and bottom of it. The unions are heavily involved in most aspects of traincrew working, and changes to those practices require agreement. Whether we refer to these agreements as “job descriptions”, “local agreements” etc. doesn’t really matter, and is just playing with semantics.

Ahh, ok. So it's the union reps, ASLEF, and "the company" who know the details behind the arguement for, and agreement of, any payment; and you have as little knowledge as the rest of us as to the reasoning or "validity"?

What detail are you searching for, here? I’m honestly not sure what more can be said, beyond what @dk1 has most ably outlined above. What happens in other industries isn’t relevant and has no bearing on the situation.

As this wasn’t “part of my way of working”, should I have said I wasn’t using VC without extra pay, or should I welcome things that make my job easier as some drivers have suggested here?

What’s wrong with both welcoming the change but also wanting extra payment for it? Surely the two aren’t mutually exclusive. After all, absent voluntary roles which are out of scope for this discussion, we all go to work primarily to get paid.

I’m not suggesting they don’t get it, I don’t care either way as long as my train turns up - but I’m curious as to how it’s justified is all, and that means I will ask questions if you don’t mind?

Fair enough - and my comment was meant generally rather than being aimed at you in particular. Hopefully this thread has been illuminating. As experience has shown over the past couple of years, trains tend to turn up more reliably when due process is followed and agreements are adhered to.

It’s odd that this issue preoccupies people, given that the amounts involved are pretty tiny. It’s generally a payment once every few years, for an amount equal to one rest day. The savings achieved by the employer will then be accumulated forevermore, as I pointed out upthread.

It's also worth remembering that for much of their shift they are effectively glued to their seat, continually observing signals and looking for danger and being prepared to react instantly. Not for him/her the ability to work 9-5 or flexi-time, or to work from home, or to answer a call of nature immediately it arises, or to wander to the office water-cooler on a whim and dozens of other quality of life issues which those not being paid for using I-pads take for granted. So personally I'm not moved, as some others appear to be, to begrudge train drivers a payment for using additional technology in line with their terms and conditions.

Great post. Of course this last paragraph highlights the inability of drivers to control their own workload - hence the fundamental importance of negotiating Ts and Cs with the employer via the union. It’s totally different to doing a project based professional type role, for example.

 

[dk1]

As someone with purely an "armchair interest" in railways, my impression is that some of the previous posts in the thread seem to overlook the fact that drivers are the most important staff in railway operations and to quote from Gerard Fiennes book Fiennes on Rails "if we want .... safety, speed, frequency, punctuality, comfort and economy the driver on the day contributes far more than all the other grading of railwaymen put together. Therefore as the most important person in the business, namely running trains, the driver should be cherished."
In other words their importance as an elite workforce justifies more favourable consideration when it comes to the matter of the I-pads.
It's also worth remembering that for much of their shift they are effectively glued to their seat, continually observing signals and looking for danger and being prepared to react instantly. Not for him/her the ability to work 9-5 or flexi-time, or to work from home, or to answer a call of nature immediately it arises, or to wander to the office water-cooler on a whim and dozens of other quality of life issues which those not being paid for using I-pads take for granted. So personally I'm not moved, as some others appear to be, to begrudge train drivers a payment for using additional technology in line with their terms and conditions.

A very well written response. I am at a loss too to understand why anybody would begrudge anyone getting a payment for something additional. For anybody else who gets anything in any other employment my attitude would be good luck you you rather than the complete dismissal witnessed on this thread.