The disruption won't be significant. It'll give the TOCs enough certainty to plan and run an emergency timetable with a reduced but consistent service.Time for an indefinite overtime ban. Less burden on the members and significant disruption. Win-win.
Sounds like a nice win for ASLEF when you put it like that. And an utter fail for Mark Harper and the rest of the Conservatives that preside over the railways.The disruption won't be significant. It'll give the TOCs enough certainty to plan and run an emergency timetable with a reduced but consistent service.
I guess because Sunday is the biggest earner for those that choose to work.Any reason that Aslef can't include the Sunday for Drivers who have Sundays outside the working week and not committed?
It's a bit of a debate at out place and no one has a straight answer.
Zero cancellations on Avanti so far today with no changes to the timetable since the overtime ban was announced. Does that sound like a nice win for ASLEF too?Sounds like a nice win for ASLEF when you put it like that. And an utter fail for Mark Harper and the rest of the Conservatives that preside over the railways.
I don't think it would be that big a win, personally. It'd be much harder to keep it in the news, certainly, and a well-planned emergency timetable probably wouldn't be all that disruptive in most cases.Sounds like a nice win for ASLEF when you put it like that. And an utter fail for Mark Harper and the rest of the Conservatives that preside over the railways.
I guess that it's just rather a minefield, potentially in legal terms too.Any reason that Aslef can't include the Sunday for Drivers who have Sundays outside the working week and not committed?
It's a bit of a debate at out place and no one has a straight answer.
I guess it's because if Sundays are committed by the contract of service, Aslef can't ask people to throw them all in without calling strike action. If they're not committed, people can still freely choose to go not available for work, even if they're not called on to take action short of a strike. It is much simpler that way and protects them from any challenges. It will still cause disruption at places where they have rubbish Sunday cover.Any reason that Aslef can't include the Sunday for Drivers who have Sundays outside the working week and not committed?
It's a bit of a debate at out place and no one has a straight answer.
Avanti are running a much reduced service this week due to engineering anyway.Zero cancellations on Avanti so far today with no changes to the timetable since the overtime ban was announced. Does that sound like a nice win for ASLEF too?
Engineering work means Avanti's plan doesn't need anything like the usual number of drivers though doesn't it? Sure the changes haven't been made since the action short of a strike was announced, but that's a one time thing.Zero cancellations on Avanti so far today with no changes to the timetable since the overtime ban was announced. Does that sound like a nice win for ASLEF too?
Plenty significant on parts of the SWR and GTR network, especially where connections don't work as a result.The disruption won't be significant. It'll give the TOCs enough certainty to plan and run an emergency timetable with a reduced but consistent service.
It'll be uneven though. I've yet to notice a significant impact around here during previous ASLEF overtime bans.Time for an indefinite overtime ban. Less burden on the members and significant disruption. Win-win.
The disruption won't be significant. It'll give the TOCs enough certainty to plan and run an emergency timetable with a reduced but consistent service.
They've run full timetables with no cancellations throughout the previous overtime bans this summer too.Engineering work means Avanti's plan doesn't need anything like the usual number of drivers though doesn't it? Sure the changes haven't been made since the action short of a strike was announced, but that's a one time thing.
Danger with that is that if it dragged on the government and the TOCs may use it as an excuse not to reinstate normal timetables when/if the dispute is settled. With the reductions on GTR and SWR that would certainly be a big win for the government in their quest to run down the railways.The disruption won't be significant. It'll give the TOCs enough certainty to plan and run an emergency timetable with a reduced but consistent service.
Danger with that is that if it dragged on the government and the TOCs may use it as an excuse not to reinstate normal timetables when/if the dispute is settled. With the reductions on GTR and SWR that would certainly be a big win for the government in their quest to run down the railways.
Getting by isn't quite what I'd call the effect on my commute and if the appalling timetable was made permanent then I'll have consider a career change.Exactly my thoughts. If - for example - people seem to be able to get by with 1 GN train an hour between Ely and Cambridge rather than 2, and 3 GN/TL an hour between Cambridge and London rather than 6, then future timetables may look considerably more like 1 and 3 than the current 2 and 6. Which wouldn't seem to be much of a success for passengers or ASLEF, though the government will save a bit more money.
Depends on the operator, as others have said the GTR timetable is very significantly reduced. With some people at stations closer to London denied boarding. Many routes are circa 50% normal service.In that case, from a passenger perspective, bring it on!
Who wins twice, sounds delusionalTime for an indefinite overtime ban. Less burden on the members and significant disruption. Win-win.
Getting by isn't quite what I'd call the effect on my commute and if the appalling timetable was made permanent then I'll have consider a career change.
I think it may be time to write to GTR asking for compensation on my season ticket!
Depends on the operator, as others have said the GTR timetable is very significantly reduced. With some people at stations closer to London denied boarding. Many routes are circa 50% normal service.
That would be exactly the same as if they had recruited more drivers. Unless they employ more or as you say reduce the number of services , there will always be overtime. If they do either of those things you have enough drivers to cover annual leave and sick leave , but when no one is on leave and not many people sick you have quite a few drivers sitting around spare while getting paid.I do find it ironic that ASLEF say that train companies rely on RDW because they don't employ enough staff to run the normal timetable, and then it is ASLEF who agree to RDW agreements to enable companies to carry out more training and get new recruits in, but then it is ASLEF who pull overtime thereby disrupting the course to solving the problem that they say there is!
As mentioned above, maybe companies will introduce timetables which they are confident they can run without needing overtime and then i'm sure that ASLEF will be happy, after all isn't it in their charter to seek an end to institutionalised overtime? Also, what are the chances of the companies pulling these rest day working agreements entirely if they are not being used every other week due to this action?
The old days when you had all the jobs covered and another load of traincrew sat spare in the messroom drinking tea and playing cards!That would be exactly the same as if they had recruited more drivers. Unless they employ more or as you say reduce the number of services , there will always be overtime. If they do either of those things you have enough drivers to cover annual leave and sick leave , but when no one is on leave and not many people sick you have quite a few drivers sitting around spare while getting paid.
More than one million public sector workers, including teachers, police and doctors, have been offered pay rises of between 5%-7%, the government says.