Drivers refuse to work overtime ?!

[notadriver]

a non story or something else ?

http://www.express.co.uk/travel/art...mutiny-overtime-rest-days-against-trade-union

Drivers on one of the busiest networks in the country are staging an unofficial work to rule in a row about pay.

But they have done it without involving their union, Aslef, amid claims that it works too closely with management.

Drivers on Southern rail, which carries about 450,000 passengers a day on routes between the South coast and London, are refusing to work overtime or on their rest days.

One source said: "This is a long-running dispute and drivers are fed up of waiting for a result. The union is too close to the management so drivers feel they have to take action on their own"

Services on Southern are already subject to repeated disruption....

 

[Agent_c]

Drivers refuse to work overtime, or TOC refuses to hire enough staff?

 

[NSEFAN]

Drivers refuse to work overtime, or TOC refuses to hire enough staff?

That's my thought too. As I understand it, Southern is particularly bad for running services with the absolute bare minimum provision. London Midland also seem to have a problem with convincing drivers to do rest day working.

 

[Agent_c]

That's my thought too. As I understand it, Southern is particularly bad for running services with the absolute bare minimum provision. London Midland also seem to have a problem with convincing drivers to do rest day working.

I can't say I like the idea of getting on a train with a driver who hasn't had the appropriate amount of rest. I don't want any micro-sleeps through a red signal.

 

[northwichcat]

Drivers refuse to work overtime, or TOC refuses to hire enough staff?

Few businesses employ enough staff to be able to properly cover holidays and potential illness without the people in work doing either extra hours or tasks outside of their job role. Would employees prefer to do extra when there's staff shortages or earn 10% less and see people sat around idle for many hours each day?

 

[Agent_c]

Few businesses employ enough staff to be able to properly cover holidays and potential illness without the people in work doing either extra hours or tasks outside of their job role.

There's a difference between it being occasional, and routine, and this very much gives the impression that its a routine thing.

 

[ExRes]

Personally I'm sick to the back teeth with all this 'refuse to work overtime', 'work to rule' and 'drivers strike' garbage, we used to get it every time we didn't want to work sundays on MML/EMT

Drivers, and all other staff come to that, have no requirement whatsoever to work more than their contracted hours if they don't wish to, end of story, full stop

 

[scott118]

good on them i say - how many toc's operate, relying on the 'good will' of drivers giving up their free time to drive another day? Yes there is the financial gain, however should they be unlucky to have an incident, are they better thought of, for giving up their free day to complete the companies daily diagrams?

 

[ainsworth74]

Quite. The clue is in the name 'overtime' as in more time than you would otherwise work. Equally I don't see how someone can really have much against working to rule as by the very definition they're working within the rules!

This is surely down to the TOC failing to employ sufficient personnel to run their services. It's one thing to ask for people to work overtime to cover illness or holiday (it isn't really practical to hire someone to cover in those circumstances) but another to actually plan to use overtime to run the service.

 

[northwichcat]

Drivers, and all other staff come to that, have no requirement whatsoever to work more than their contracted hours if they don't wish to, end of story, full stop

I don't know what the crew's contracts say but I don't think during disruption any professional crew member would walk off in the middle of nowhere if it gets to the end of their shift and the train is late, leaving the train abandoned and blocking the line.

 

[met331]

No drivers are not thought of any higher for working overtime.
Also If they work more than one rest day a month then they pay higher tax so why would we bother. I don't get enhancements for being away from my family more than I have to so why should I work overtime because my train company can't be bothered to hire enough drivers to run a basic service.
( my toc is actually good for operating it's service.) but there are many out there
That can't be bothered to train new drivers and expect existing drivers to pick up the slack because they believe they own us

 

[northwichcat]

Quite. The clue is in the name 'overtime' as in more time than you would otherwise work. Equally I don't see how someone can really have much against working to rule as by the very definition they're working within the rules!

This is surely down to the TOC failing to employ sufficient personnel to run their services. It's one thing to ask for people to work overtime to cover illness or holiday (it isn't really practical to hire someone to cover in those circumstances) but another to actually plan to use overtime to run the service.

One thing the Northern/TPE consultation mentioned is making Sundays part of the working week. I'm surprised that didn't get more attention but the RMT only seemed interested in the suggestion of DOO.

 

[met331]

J Collins your talking of a different situation. That's a delay not overtime. The overtime in the article implies working extra trains and restdays not getting a train back to Home Depot.
No driver would walk off except in exceptional circumstances like when control take the mickey and expect you to wait around for hours instead of getting you a relief

 

[ExRes]

I don't know what the crew's contracts say but I don't think during disruption any professional crew member would walk off in the middle of nowhere if it gets to the end of their shift and the train is late, leaving the train abandoned and blocking the line.

That is a totally different situation, I was under the impression we were talking about running a 'normal' service by overtime

I would have certainly have expected my P45 as a prize for 'leaving the train abandoned and blocking the line'

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't know what the crew's contracts say

You are obliged to carry out your duty till it ends. Late running inclusive.

but I don't think during disruption any professional crew member would walk off in the middle of nowhere if it gets to the end of their shift and the train is late

Bit of both.

If your late running and in a position where your able to go home then yes go home and end your day. If your diagram still has train work then the above applies. However; you cannot be asked to work over your booked time. If I'm sitting at a station where I can pass back and make my booking off time then I will do so. There is a kind of professionalism in place and many Drivers will tell you some story about a time where the service has gone to hell and back but and they worked "overtime"

leaving the train abandoned and blocking the line.

Against the rule book.


FYI until this year any late running due to disruption irrespective of how long was all unpaid. (on my TOC) It is still NOT fully paid and anything up to 20mins late is gratis.

 

[northwichcat]

That is a totally different situation, I was under the impression we were talking about running a 'normal' service by overtime

Your earlier post implied no-one in any job is required to ever work outside their contracted hours. I was trying to make the point there are exceptions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

FYI until this year any late running due to disruption irrespective of how long was all unpaid. (on my TOC) It is still NOT fully paid and anything up to 20mins late is gratis.

Unfortunately, that's common in other industries as well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As I understand it, Southern is particularly bad for running services with the absolute bare minimum provision. London Midland also seem to have a problem with convincing drivers to do rest day working.

Thameslink seem to be having a few issues too.

I can't think what the common denominator is in all this, except to say that Go-Ahead's rail profits are down this financial year and we can't have the fat cats losing their carton of cream.

 

[WCMLaddict]

One thing the Northern/TPE consultation mentioned is making Sundays part of the working week. I'm surprised that didn't get more attention but the RMT only seemed interested in the suggestion of DOO.

Could you please tell me more about that?

I'm totally baffled at how public consultation could suggest a change to staff work conditions...

 

[talltim]

No drivers are not thought of any higher for working overtime.
Also If they work more than one rest day a month then they pay higher tax so why would we bother.

I never understand this comment (not just from drivers). If you are paying more tax because you are doing overtime and earning more, you are still also taking home more.

 

[dk1]

As said, no driver would abandon the train as late running is part of the job. Planned overtime can not be enforced even if it's just 1 minute & any driver is within his or her rights to refuse to do the turn. So many TOCs & drivers for that matter rely on overtime but it's not compulsory.

 

[mtbox]

Personally I'm sick to the back teeth with all this 'refuse to work overtime', 'work to rule' and 'drivers strike' garbage, we used to get it every time we didn't want to work sundays on MML/EMT

Drivers, and all other staff come to that, have no requirement whatsoever to work more than their contracted hours if they don't wish to, end of story, full stop

Work to live.

Not

Live to work.

 

[Jamesb1974]

It has already been said, but there is absolutely no requirement to work overtime. We aren't talking about casual overtime due to delays/late running etc, but working your rest day. As far as I know, It doesn't say anywhere that you have to work overtime in any job, not just train driving.

Overtime is what it says. 'Over' your time that you are normally contracted to work. In every place I've ever worked (in both the public and private sectors), overtime is voluntary. You volunteer to work it if you feel that you need the extra money. If you don't want to work it, you don't work it. Operators shouldn't be providing their services based solely on drivers volunteering to work overtime. It is dangerous (increased fatigue levels), expensive (rest day rate is generally higher than normal time rate) and is bad business practice (no contingency built in for people not wanting to work o/t).

I don't know what the crew's contracts say but I don't think during disruption any professional crew member would walk off in the middle of nowhere if it gets to the end of their shift and the train is late, leaving the train abandoned and blocking the line.

As already pointed out, this is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. No driver just 'bails out' because they don't feel like staying on. There are agreements and commitments arranged between ASLEF and the Tocs/Focs. While I can't speak for other operators, DBS have a late running commitment that ties in with the maximum length of shift you can work.

Maximum turn length is 11.5 hours with no driving after the 11th hour. There is a 2 hour late running commitment on jobs up to 9 hours in length. So, a driver on a 9 hour turn subject to delays would have a commitment to stay with it until he/she reached the 11 hour cut off and then have no further commitment to stay. In addition, he/she would also be complying with the agreement reached by the company and ASLEF which is based on fatigue levels as calculated on an industry wide fatigue index. (I think that's right. I'll check it for accuracy later).

Hopefully, control would be aware of the issue well before this and have come up with a plan for that driver to get relief, but it can and does happen that trains get left awaiting relief. And it isn't down to a lack of professionalism, it is simply working to the rules that are there to protect everyone from a fatigue related accident occurring.

 

[asylumxl]

As said, no driver would abandon the train as late running is part of the job. Planned overtime can not be enforced even if it's just 1 minute & any driver is within his or her rights to refuse to do the turn. So many TOCs & drivers for that matter rely on overtime but it's not compulsory.

Someone previously mentioned that it was against the rule book to abandon your train blocking the line. I'm guessing this doesn't apply at terminals?



I had experience one evening of a Meridian being routed in to the wrong platform at St Pancras, or something to that effect. This meant an incoming service couldn't fit in the platform and the other platforms were occupied by stabled trains. The driver flat out refused to move the train (not a criticism) and walked off. It took a while before someone was found who could do the move.



So what is the consensus on such things?

 

[dk1]

Someone previously mentioned that it was against the rule book to abandon your train blocking the line. I'm guessing this doesn't apply at terminals?



I had experience one evening of a Meridian being routed in to the wrong platform at St Pancras, or something to that effect. This meant an incoming service couldn't fit in the platform and the other platforms were occupied by stabled trains. The driver flat out refused to move the train (not a criticism) and walked off. It took a while before someone was found who could do the move.



So what is the consensus on such things?

Most drivers would help & I personally, unless had something on, would help out my duty crew manager or control. It is over & above the diagram so would be perfectly in order to refuse.

 

[theblackwatch]

Overtime is what it says. 'Over' your time that you are normally contracted to work. In every place I've ever worked (in both the public and private sectors), overtime is voluntary. You volunteer to work it if you feel that you need the extra money. If you don't want to work it, you don't work it. Operators shouldn't be providing their services based solely on drivers volunteering to work overtime. It is dangerous (increased fatigue levels), expensive (rest day rate is generally higher than normal time rate) and is bad business practice (no contingency built in for people not wanting to work o/t).

I quite agree. I don't work in the rail industry, but where I do work, on occasions we are asked if we want to work overtime, for example if we are particularly busy or there is a special project needs to be finished within a timescale. There is no compulsion to work overtime, and out of the six people who work in my office, three of them never do it at all. I will work it if it suits me, but sometimes I have plans outside of my work, as I'm sure many rail staff will.

 

[Bodiddly]

I never understand this comment (not just from drivers). If you are paying more tax because you are doing overtime and earning more, you are still also taking home more.

It's a fact that when you get to a certain earnings level, you pay most of it to the taxman. Why bother working extra shifts when you see no real benefit?
What you will find are a lot of railwaypeople will work extra shifts if they are asked nicely and not told they are doing it.
I want doesn't get in most workplaces nowadays.

 

[SkinnyDave]

It has already been said, but there is absolutely no requirement to work overtime. We aren't talking about casual overtime due to delays/late running etc, but working your rest day. As far as I know, It doesn't say anywhere that you have to work overtime in any job, not just train driving.

Overtime is what it says. 'Over' your time that you are normally contracted to work. In every place I've ever worked (in both the public and private sectors), overtime is voluntary. You volunteer to work it if you feel that you need the extra money. If you don't want to work it, you don't work it. Operators shouldn't be providing their services based solely on drivers volunteering to work overtime. It is dangerous (increased fatigue levels), expensive (rest day rate is generally higher than normal time rate) and is bad business practice (no contingency built in for people not wanting to work o/t).



As already pointed out, this is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. No driver just 'bails out' because they don't feel like staying on. There are agreements and commitments arranged between ASLEF and the Tocs/Focs. While I can't speak for other operators, DBS have a late running commitment that ties in with the maximum length of shift you can work.

Maximum turn length is 11.5 hours with no driving after the 11th hour. There is a 2 hour late running commitment on jobs up to 9 hours in length. So, a driver on a 9 hour turn subject to delays would have a commitment to stay with it until he/she reached the 11 hour cut off and then have no further commitment to stay. In addition, he/she would also be complying with the agreement reached by the company and ASLEF which is based on fatigue levels as calculated on an industry wide fatigue index.

Hopefully, control would be aware of the issue well before this and have come up with a plan for that driver to get relief, but it can and does happen that trains get left awaiting relief. And it isn't down to a lack of professionalism, it is simply working to the rules that are there to protect everyone from a fatigue related accident occurring.

Do DBS drivers still get paid for the extra 2 hours should they be delayed on a 9 hour turn?

 

[scott118]

Someone previously mentioned that it was against the rule book to abandon your train blocking the line. I'm guessing this doesn't apply at terminals?



I had experience one evening of a Meridian being routed in to the wrong platform at St Pancras, or something to that effect. This meant an incoming service couldn't fit in the platform and the other platforms were occupied by stabled trains. The driver flat out refused to move the train (not a criticism) and walked off. It took a while before someone was found who could do the move.



So what is the consensus on such things?

Old school BR driver? end of their diagram? bare minimum PNB? many reasons as to why they can refuse to do so...

 

[Jamesb1974]

Do DBS drivers still get paid for the extra 2 hours should they be delayed on a 9 hour turn?

As far as I am aware, yes. A driver's journal/docket gets submitted detailing your diagrammed start/finish times and your actual start/finish times.

 

[A-driver]

Someone previously mentioned that it was against the rule book to abandon your train blocking the line. I'm guessing this doesn't apply at terminals?



I had experience one evening of a Meridian being routed in to the wrong platform at St Pancras, or something to that effect. This meant an incoming service couldn't fit in the platform and the other platforms were occupied by stabled trains. The driver flat out refused to move the train (not a criticism) and walked off. It took a while before someone was found who could do the move.



So what is the consensus on such things?

Don't really see the issue with the driver refusing-if they are finished and have plans etc then it's their right. The driver wasn't responsible for the initial wrong routing and shunting to another platform is likely to take the best part of 20mins realistically so if they have a train to catch, kids to collect from school/childcare, something arranged after work, car to pick up from garage etc then they are likely to refuse. As said, if it was blocking a running line then very different but in a terminal it's not down to the driver.

If it was blocking a running line then generally a driver will agree to move the train out the way (at a relief point like Hitchin, many drivers will agree to move the unit out the platform and into the up yard but no further. That gets it out of the way of the running lines.