New strike regulation possible

[Bromley boy]

Also don't forget MPs have to get to work. Do drivers on Chiltern want to start providing a 24 hour service? If not you might want to re-think your idea about them starting at 5:15am, otherwise MP's expenses will be go through the roof and we'll pay for that.

You do realise staff in many industries (including railstaff) are required to get to work at their own expense before public transport operates?

 

[AlterEgo]

Once May was selected as the PM, and the Tories took a huge step to the right I changed. I have already explained this.

The Tories were already right wing, especially economically. There is no such thing as a modern Tory government in favour of trade unionism.

All that has happened is the Tory party has become more nationalist and isolationist.

You know Cameron proposed a very similar bill and it was literally in his manifesto when you last voted Tory, right?

 

[MichaelAMW]

Forced to work. Where there are Sundays in our roster we are contractually obliged to work them. They are paid as overtime and are not included in 35 hour working week.

When we are on early shifts and there is not a train to to get us to work in time or home from a late shift we have to drive to work. We cannot claim any form of expenses to cover the cost of driving to or from work.

In the last couple of years some parts of our route have been remodelled and resignalled. Major changes have been made to two depots. We have had to learn the changes in our free time.

You mention above six and seven day weeks. What is your average working week, however? As far as I can tell, it's fairly universally 4 days per week plus, sometimes, those additional "compulsory overtime" - something of an oxymoron - Sundays from time to time. That, of course, I realise (source: cousin working out of Ipswich) can mean quite a large number of days in a row being worked, up to 10 sometimes, if you work the end of one week followed by the beginning of the next with the Sunday in between. I'd would imagine that the best way to describe things would be the number of days annually that are normal working days and the number that are compulsory overtime. Regardless of working patterns having a long string of days consecutively from time to time, a four-day week is fewer days annually than a teacher, that profession people love to criticise as having too few days working.

I would point out that most people get no subsidy for their journey to work and that most people who might call themselves a "professional" and earning around what a train driver does would expect to do a bit of "homework" from time to time. That reaches a level not far short of exploitation in the more extreme cases and people who have to go away overnight often get no time back for that. You aren't "forced" to work the Sundays, at least no more than you are "forced" to work your normal shifts from Monday to Saturday: both are in your contractual duties so both have to be worked, although it obviously means the notion of a "35-hour week" is a bit of a convenient shorthand way to describe what you do. I suspect the reality is that you are guaranteed the pay for the 35-hour bit and not necessarily the extra stuff, which the TOC could presumably vary as requirements change.

 

[Dave1987]

The Tories were already right wing, especially economically. There is no such thing as a modern Tory government in favour of trade unionism.

All that has happened is the Tory party has become more nationalist and isolationist.

You know Cameron proposed a very similar bill and it was literally in his manifesto when you last voted Tory, right?

Well maybe Cameron fooled me into thinking he and his Government actually cared about ordinary working class people then. His support of the EU certainly means he cared more about workers rights than May and her Government do, as workers rights are enshrined in EU law.

 

[Dave1987]

Is it possible for a member of the public to propose a bill to be passed for parliament? I would propose new parliamentary working hours bill.

Parliament will work alternate early and late weeks. Early's will commence at 0515 until 1315. Lates will commence 1500 until 2300. There will be one day off each week which can be any day Monday to Saturday. A late sitting on Saturday does not preclude an early sitting on Monday. All MP's must sign on each day at Parliament at or before the booked start time. Parliament will sit two Sundays a week as enforced overtime. Hours will be published 9am the Thursday before.
The speaker can amend the start time by up to an hour and the length of time sat for up to an hour with 24 hours notice. Hours can be amended for any reason, maintenance work, football matches, rock concerts.
One week in 8 start time will be 1200 'as required'. By 9am the Thursday the week before Speaker will publish the hours MP's will sit, the start time of which may vary +\- 3hours from 1200 and which day will be rest day.
All requests for annual leave will be accepted/refused by the speaker. No more than 5% of MP's maybe off any given day.
If the house is running late, MP's are obliged to finish the day's debates.
One break of a minimum of 40 minutes or two 20 minute breaks will be provided each day.
Working hours will be revised each 6 months as required by the Speaker.
All MP's will be required to live within 30 minutes of parliament.
Parliamentary assistants to be done away with. MP's will have to close their office doors behind them when they leave.
MP's should not consume alcohol within 12 hours of sitting in the house. Random compulsory drink and drugs testing will take place.
MP's will be tested annually on Parliamentary rules.
MP's will be required to undertaken routine medicals.
MP's will be required to attend Parliament even if no debates are tabled.
MP's will be allowed free travel on one operator. This will not include any service operated by TfL including the underground.
Attendance rates will be monitored and subject to disciplinary action should they fall below a certain level.
Mistakes and errors will be subject to disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal and or imprisonment.
As Parliament is an essential service (running the country!), industrial action by MP's is illegal.

I like it!

 

[pemma]

You do realise staff in many industries (including railstaff) are required to get to work at their own expense before public transport operates?

Whatever people like @Panupreset think you can't compare MPs to train staff. All MPs have at least two different locations where they work. If anyone is expected to commute to two different workplaces which aren't close to each other without getting a travel allowance and requiring them to travel at times when public transport doesn't operate they've got a rubbish set of T&Cs - the kind of T&Cs any union would object to, if not call strikes over. It also ignores the fact parliament works by most/all MPs being there at the same time and the transport industry works by staff working different hours.

 

[Panupreset]

Like your cousin at Ipswich, we do not have the 4 day week. Our working week is Monday to Saturday, with one day off each week. Sunday's are additional to that. As an average you will have one rostered Sunday a month and one on a volunteer basis.
In general one weekend a month you will be off Saturday & Sunday. The other 3 on average you will work one or both days over the weekend. A late on a Saturday will be invariably be followed by an early on a Monday.
As you say variable rest day can mean frequent working 7-10 days on the trot.

As Drivers where I work we get no allowances for travelling to and from work outside of the hours when trains are running. Our union has accepted this condition, and as staff we accept it as part of the job. Also we can be required to do cross cover at other depots, although we have an agreement that an enhancement will be paid if you do so. In fact we have one depot where drivers turns are rostered to start/finish at one of two locations.

 

[Dave1987]

Whatever people like @Panupreset think you can't compare MPs to train staff. All MPs have at least two different locations where they work. If anyone is expected to commute to two different workplaces which aren't close to each other without getting a travel allowance and requiring them to travel at times when public transport doesn't operate they've got a rubbish set of T&Cs - the kind of T&Cs any union would object to, if not call strikes over. It also ignores the fact parliament works by most/all MPs being there at the same time and the transport industry works by staff working different hours.

Sorry I don’t buy that. MP’s can purchase a house in London and have the taxpayer pay any mortgage interest. They also have an extremely generous holiday allowance, subsidised restaurant and bar. They can claim vast amounts on expenses as well. They aren’t required to attend parliament to represent their constituents unless their party whip tells them to be at a vote and even then they can defy the whip.

 

[pemma]

Sorry I don’t buy that. MP’s can purchase a house in London and have the taxpayer pay any mortgage interest. They also have an extremely generous holiday allowance, subsidised restaurant and bar. They can claim vast amounts on expenses as well. They aren’t required to attend parliament to represent their constituents unless their party whip tells them to be at a vote and even then they can defy the whip.

There's certainly things which should be changed with regards to what MPs are allowed and what they should and shouldn't do. However, @Panupreset's idea is obviously an unworkable idea which is effectively saying there's downsides to working in the rail industry so if MPs dare to suggest changing our rights I think everyone of them should have the worst parts of our T&Cs enforced on them, even though that doing that would make parliament unworkable. Imagine if 75% of the MPs rostered to work the morning session were right wing and there was a vote on industrial action legislation during the morning session, you'd have them voting in favour a Boris Johnson amendment allowing the police to use water canons on picket lines if they get too vocal.

 

[pemma]

As Drivers where I work we get no allowances for travelling to and from work outside of the hours when trains are running. Our union has accepted this condition, and as staff we accept it as part of the job. Also we can be required to do cross cover at other depots, although we have an agreement that an enhancement will be paid if you do so. In fact we have one depot where drivers turns are rostered to start/finish at one of two locations.

I don't know where you work so let's pretend it's for SWR based in London. Would you like it if you were forced to travel to a Scotrail base for one day a week at your own expense, while one your colleagues only has to go to the other side of London to a GWR base?

 

[MichaelAMW]

Like your cousin at Ipswich, we do not have the 4 day week. Our working week is Monday to Saturday, with one day off each week. Sunday's are additional to that. As an average you will have one rostered Sunday a month and one on a volunteer basis.
In general one weekend a month you will be off Saturday & Sunday. The other 3 on average you will work one or both days over the weekend. A late on a Saturday will be invariably be followed by an early on a Monday.
As you say variable rest day can mean frequent working 7-10 days on the trot.

As Drivers where I work we get no allowances for travelling to and from work outside of the hours when trains are running. Our union has accepted this condition, and as staff we accept it as part of the job. Also we can be required to do cross cover at other depots, although we have an agreement that an enhancement will be paid if you do so. In fact we have one depot where drivers turns are rostered to start/finish at one of two locations.

Thanks for that. Just for clarification are you saying your *average* working week is 5 days, ignoring the Sundays? My cousin usually does what you describe but they have an average 4-day week, which means the roster sort of saves up their rest days and (I'm guessing the exact frequency) every fifth week is completely off from the beginning of one weekend to the end of the next.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If its a war that is happening then its a war against passengers by the RMT. How many strikes have we seen. Its like there is permanent industrial action on the rail and tube network. And if you want to know about pointless strikes look no further than this. I dont even know why they were threatening to walk out. RMT wernt exactly clear https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43559271

You think that workplace justice is a poinless issue?

Think about what this refers to. All the procedures (sickness, capability, disciplinary) and how they can be inconsistantly applied by different managers. It is potentially a major inequality issue. I can perfectly understand why they feel as they do. HR policies are fundamental and are part of the employees T&Cs and should provide protection for both the employer and employee as long as they are being applied correctly.

 

[6Gman]

I would point out that most people get no subsidy for their journey to work and that most people who might call themselves a "professional" and earning around what a train driver does would expect to do a bit of "homework" from time to time. That reaches a level not far short of exploitation in the more extreme cases and people who have to go away overnight often get no time back for that.

Perhaps such people should get the protection of a union?

By the way, I worked on the railway and got no "subsidy" for my journey to work. Of what do you speak?

(I also took work home on a semi-regular basis.)

 

[Bromley boy]

If anyone is expected to commute to two different workplaces which aren't close to each other without getting a travel allowance and requiring them to travel at times when public transport doesn't operate they've got a rubbish set of T&Cs - the kind of T&Cs any union would object to,

Many rail staff have exactly this - for a fraction of what an MP earns. No strikes are being called!

There is one depot in particular which had a taxi agreement, people bought houses and designed commutes based on that, only for the company to unilaterally terminate it. The union has done nothing at all to prevent that.

Drivers based there now have to choose between paying for a cab or getting a nightbus to work (2hours plus for some!) Or simply leaving as many are - typical penny wise pound foolish railway management.

 

[pemma]

Many rail staff have exactly this - for a fraction of what an MP earns. No strikes are being called!

There is one depot in particular which had a taxi agreement, people bought houses and designed commutes based on that, only for the company to unilaterally terminate it. The union has done nothing at all to prevent that.

Drivers based there now have to choose between paying for a cab or getting a nightbus to work (2hours plus for some!) Or simply leaving as many are - typical penny wise pound foolish railway management.

What exactly do you mean by two different depots which aren't close to each other? The fact that you're talking about a nightbus suggests you mean two depots in two different parts of London, not one London working location and one in another party of the UK like I was alluding to.

 

[mpthomson]

Is it possible for a member of the public to propose a bill to be passed for parliament? I would propose new parliamentary working hours bill.

Parliament will work alternate early and late weeks. Early's will commence at 0515 until 1315. Lates will commence 1500 until 2300. There will be one day off each week which can be any day Monday to Saturday. A late sitting on Saturday does not preclude an early sitting on Monday. All MP's must sign on each day at Parliament at or before the booked start time. Parliament will sit two Sundays a week as enforced overtime. Hours will be published 9am the Thursday before.
The speaker can amend the start time by up to an hour and the length of time sat for up to an hour with 24 hours notice. Hours can be amended for any reason, maintenance work, football matches, rock concerts.
One week in 8 start time will be 1200 'as required'. By 9am the Thursday the week before Speaker will publish the hours MP's will sit, the start time of which may vary +\- 3hours from 1200 and which day will be rest day.
All requests for annual leave will be accepted/refused by the speaker. No more than 5% of MP's maybe off any given day.
If the house is running late, MP's are obliged to finish the day's debates.
One break of a minimum of 40 minutes or two 20 minute breaks will be provided each day.
Working hours will be revised each 6 months as required by the Speaker.
All MP's will be required to live within 30 minutes of parliament.
Parliamentary assistants to be done away with. MP's will have to close their office doors behind them when they leave.
MP's should not consume alcohol within 12 hours of sitting in the house. Random compulsory drink and drugs testing will take place.
MP's will be tested annually on Parliamentary rules.
MP's will be required to undertaken routine medicals.
MP's will be required to attend Parliament even if no debates are tabled.
MP's will be allowed free travel on one operator. This will not include any service operated by TfL including the underground.
Attendance rates will be monitored and subject to disciplinary action should they fall below a certain level.
Mistakes and errors will be subject to disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal and or imprisonment.
As Parliament is an essential service (running the country!), industrial action by MP's is illegal.

All of which misses one essential point (and yes, I get what you've done), which is that MPs are not employees of anyone.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Perhaps such people should get the protection of a union?

By the way, I worked on the railway and got no "subsidy" for my journey to work. Of what do you speak?

(I also took work home on a semi-regular basis.)

Yes, they probably should! I guess I am thinking of workplaces that have a attitude of "presentism", i.e. being there the longest is seen as a good thing, and that spills over into an expectation of unconstrained hours outside work, particularly in the sense of being "always on" when it comes to checking messages etc. Terrible culture.

My mention of subsidy was in response to Panupreset remarking that he got no allowance for the cost of getting to work when there were no trains running, and I am assuming s/he doesn't pay when they are. I just meant that it is very uncommon for anyone to get subsidised travel to work and the fact that many railway workers get it at any time is something of a generous perk, even if it isn't useful on every occasion. I realise that freight and Network Rail people who don't come from the BR era get no free travel, and I suppose it's equally no good if you don't commute on your own TOC, although I get the impression the "nod and a wink" arrangement is alive and well.

 

[sprunt]

most people who might call themselves a "professional" and earning around what a train driver does would expect to do a bit of "homework" from time to time. That reaches a level not far short of exploitation in the more extreme cases

It reaches a level identical to exploitation vary quickly IMO, however we're back with the race to the bottom again. The solution to such things isn't to make everyone else's working life like that.

 

[pt_mad]

In the case of both Northern and Merseyrail any DOO/DCO would come in alongside brand new trains being introduced, so it wouldn't be a case of no guards and nothing in return for the passengers.

Is passenger safety and accessibility are the number one concerns then a more constructive approach would be to work with TfN, BTP, local police forces, RUGs and disability groups to come up with a list of concerns. For instance, is there evidence that crime is higher on DOO trains, are vulnerable passengers more at risk at unstaffed stations or on DOO trains, if there isn't a guarantee of a second member of staff on all services would disabled people be able to use the train etc. It might not come up with the result the RMT want on all lines but it would then be strong evidence unlike the RMT bleating "DOO bad, guard good - we want an independent report done (not at our expense) to prove it as we don't believe the RSSB report which states DOO is safe if properly implemented."

The biggest problem with the RMT's DOO disputes is they've started a dispute with every new franchise - in some cases they've tried to start dispute with the old franchise over what's in the ITT for the next franchise. They've even tried to to start a dispute with franchises which had no plans to get rid of or change the guard role 'just in case.' Having the rep go to the new franchise holder to seek assurances is completely reasonable and expected but reporting it as a dispute with an evil private/foreign owned company (delete as applicable) and immediately balloting for a strike if a 100% guarantee for the duration of the franchise isn't given, is not using strike action as a last resort (the way it's suppose to be) and just proves Mick Cash has a big ego. I've been saying for a long time that if the RMT don't grow up the government will look at changing legislation which will make other trade union members suffer for Cash's arrogance, fortunately it sounds like this idea will only class public transport as an essential service opposed to making it harder for anyone to strike.

Thing is it's the government's job through the DFT to look at how DCO affects safety and the safety and accessibility for customers. Presumably they have done that and have decided they wish to push on, as they are writing it into franchises.

Disabled collectives themselves have put their concerns over to tocs over DCO by themselves bit it hasn't guaranteed the staff in many cases.

But that is all directly DCO related and doesn't have any bearing or the staff's right to strike in the UK, and the reasons which include reasons of wanting to protect their jobs, their livelihoods, the likelyness their job will actually be required in the future, whether or not they will even be required as a guarantee as part of the operation of the railway or an optional extra, whether they will lose their safety accreditation and become ticket clerks, whether there is reasonable need to change established working practices and methods which have been established since the railway began and which the railway has run fine with until now. Add to that the issues you mentioned about accessibility in terms of staff may not be guaranteed in future as they are currently, and potential vulnerability for many customers travelling alone when the only staff could be the driver. The DFT knows going against all that is going to cause mass grief for staff and the public. They have weighed up the for and against and seem to have decided on some or many occasions it's worth pressing on.

The point was made that in exchange for the DCO dispute the public will get new trains. True. But do the public accept that as compensation for suffering over the dispute? Or would they rather the TOC just put an end to it by keeping things as they are, introducing the planned new trains but keeping the established method of operation as it is today? We all knows guards panels can be fitted to all the new stock if ordered.

One final add, it makes the whole thing look more daft in England because the Welsh government are guaranteeing the guard and supporting it, Scotland also support the second member as being essential, the intercity tocs have widely decided to keep the guard now so it's just some tocs and not others. It fits some but not others which just seems unfair to those who live in the areas where the DFT have decided this operation should exist.

If there is a viable reason why the current method of operation with a guard is not suitable in the future then why arent the DFT proposing it's withdrawal as standard for all Tocs and all countries in the UK? They're having a job explaining why it's ok in some areas like the North but not in the South West or Wales.

 

[B&I]

All of which misses one essential point (and yes, I get what you've done), which is that MPs are not employees of anyone.

Aren't they employees of us, the people ? Much as they seem to forget who's supposed to be serving whom, most of the time

 

[B&I]

EDIT: in addition to the UK’s impending departure from the EU I’m also fully in favour of repealing the HRA and leaving the ECHR. I simply don’t think it’s necessary in the U.K., and only serves to provide a “criminals’ charter”.

The irony of this in the context of a discussion of how the ECHR / HRA protects trade union rights is staggering

 

[B&I]

I don't propose anything. But it stands to reason that TOCs who are unwilling or unable to provide a defined minimum service would have to be subjected to fairly stiff penalties.

So where's the legislation proposing that ? After all, if the railways are an essential public service, then anything which prevents them operating should be banned

 

[MichaelAMW]

It reaches a level identical to exploitation vary quickly IMO, however we're back with the race to the bottom again. The solution to such things isn't to make everyone else's working life like that.

Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean the occasional bit of extra isn't acceptable in a well-paid job. I think this sub-topic started with talk of studying resignalling arrangements, which can only occur very rarely and it might even be that some unhurried reading at home is actually the best environment for learning. When it's "day in, day out" the situation has moved on from going the occasional extra mile to unpaid, unavoidable, daily overtime. There's your race to the bottom as it's trying to get, say, 50 people's work out of 40 actual people. The mere fact that a train driver mostly drives trains and can only drive one at a time avoids any possibility of a bit extra becoming anything near exploitation.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

One final add, it makes the whole thing look more daft in England because the Welsh government are guaranteeing the guard and supporting it, Scotland also support the second member as being essential, the intercity tocs have widely decided to keep the guard now so it's just some tocs and not others. It fits some but not others which just seems unfair to those who live in the areas where the DFT have decided this operation should exist.

If there is a viable reason why the current method of operation with a guard is not suitable in the future then why arent the DFT proposing it's withdrawal as standard for all Tocs and all countries in the UK? They're having a job explaining why it's ok in some areas like the North but not in the South West or Wales.

Think back to the McNulty Report. Commissioned by Labour, delivered to the coalition who duly shelved it, then dusted down again when a true blue Tory government took office with Peter Wilkinson kicking off the current shenanigans with his infamous Croydon speech. McNulty stated that DOO should be the default method of operation for all trains: metro, suburban, inter-city and rural. He also opined that platform dispatchers are a complete waste of money despite the fact that some locations on DOO networks require them to maintain safety.

I have no doubt that right wing Tories are determined to see universal DOO in due course. It can't be achieved overnight so the inter-city TOCs will be left alone for now. But all new stock (apart from Caley sleepers) is delivered in DOO capable form regardless of its current desirability. The devolved areas may well be able to do things differently but for England this is only going one way as long as the current lot stay in power. And of course resistance can be undermined somewhat if a way can be found to ban strikes.

 

[Bromley boy]

Think back to the McNulty Report. Commissioned by Labour, delivered to the coalition who duly shelved it, then dusted down again when a true blue Tory government took office with Peter Wilkinson kicking off the current shenanigans with his infamous Croydon speech. McNulty stated that DOO should be the default method of operation for all trains: metro, suburban, inter-city and rural. He also opined that platform dispatchers are a complete waste of money despite the fact that some locations on DOO networks require them to maintain safety.

I have no doubt that right wing Tories are determined to see universal DOO in due course. It can't be achieved overnight so the inter-city TOCs will be left alone for now. But all new stock (apart from Caley sleepers) is delivered in DOO capable form regardless of its current desirability. The devolved areas may well be able to do things differently but for England this is only going one way as long as the current lot stay in power. And of course resistance can be undermined somewhat if a way can be found to ban strikes.

Agreed.

It’s difficult to see these disputes as anything other than political in nature, given the enormous cost, for relatively little (if any) operational benefit or cost savings.

With Brexit on its plate, it might be hoped the government would have bigger fish to fry, at least for the next few years. It does seem that the current disputes aren’t being fought as hard from the TOC/DfT’s side.

 

[Bromley boy]

What exactly do you mean by two different depots which aren't close to each other? The fact that you're talking about a nightbus suggests you mean two depots in two different parts of London, not one London working location and one in another party of the UK like I was alluding to.

Different depots within London, but not necessarily that close together, which staff (generally not drivers admittedly) may be required to attend before/after public transport is operating (other than slow, unpleasant nightbuses usually full of drunks).

The general point was that, despite the perception of some on here, being in a trade union doesn’t prevent some pretty dubious and unscrupulous practices.

How would you feel if you took a job involving anti social hours, at a location you couldn’t drive to, on the understanding that taxis were to be provided, and then your employer turned round and revoked this? That’s exactly what has happened at the location I have in mind and the union hasn’t been able to prevent it.

 

[6Gman]

My mention of subsidy was in response to Panupreset remarking that he got no allowance for the cost of getting to work when there were no trains running, and I am assuming s/he doesn't pay when they are. I just meant that it is very uncommon for anyone to get subsidised travel to work and the fact that many railway workers get it at any time is something of a generous perk, even if it isn't useful on every occasion. I realise that freight and Network Rail people who don't come from the BR era get no free travel, and I suppose it's equally no good if you don't commute on your own TOC, although I get the impression the "nod and a wink" arrangement is alive and well.

Not sure of current arrangements, but in BR days it was made abundantly clear that privilege travel facilities were for leisure travel only and not for residential travel. There may have been some limited help for residential travel - I honestly don't know as I never travelled to work by train.

I'd also suggest that quite a lot of employers offer perks to staff within their own areas of business. For example I often see supermarket staff getting a checkout discount; airline staff get various discounts; etc. If you work in transport the perks are likely to be transport-related.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not sure of current arrangements, but in BR days it was made abundantly clear that privilege travel facilities were for leisure travel only and not for residential travel. There may have been some limited help for residential travel - I honestly don't know as I never travelled to work by train.

It’s also true that, despite travel concessions, the vast majority of drivers and other rail staff have to run a car in order to get to work at anti-social times (even if you can pass in to some shifts there will be many where you have to drive due to early start/late finishes).

This erodes the value of the perk somewhat - someone doing a more “normal” job might pay for a season ticket but could do without a car altogether, especially in the London area.

 

[pemma]

Different depots within London, but not necessarily that close together, which staff (generally not drivers admittedly) may be required to attend before/after public transport is operating (other than slow, unpleasant nightbuses usually full of drunks).

The general point was that, despite the perception of some on here, being in a trade union doesn’t prevent some pretty dubious and unscrupulous practices.

How would you feel if you took a job involving anti social hours, at a location you couldn’t drive to, on the understanding that taxis were to be provided, and then your employer turned round and revoked this? That’s exactly what has happened at the location I have in mind and the union hasn’t been able to prevent it.

Why did no-one ask for it to be included as part of the contract, or does unionisation of contracts prevent that?

 

[Carlisle]

Not sure of current arrangements, but in BR days it was made abundantly clear that privilege travel facilities were for leisure travel only and not for residential travel. There may have been some limited help for residential travel - I honestly don't know as I never travelled to work by train.
.

In my day you paid weekly out of your wages for a privelage rate season ticket from your local station to work,although latterly I recall BR made them free.