"Pay back" clauses for train drivers

[43066]

Why should you not have any loyalty to an organisation that has taken you on in good faith and spent a lot of time and money training you up to do a job which presumably you were keen to do, and accepted the restrictions surrounding your post-qualified employment when signing your contract? Sounds a bit militant to me, did you feel a sense of achievement from 'sticking it to the man' or something similar?

Maybe because the pay was rubbish, and the environment was toxic? Best decision I’ve ever made. I now do better work, earn more money, and work with better people. I haven’t looked back since.

Nothing to do with being “militant” - sorry but that strikes me as a rather naive viewpoint. You do realise this is what everyone else in the commercial world outside the railway does!? It’s only in this industry where people moan about how awful everything is and never leave…

 

[12LDA28C]

If the work conditions are not what was expected or the employer pushes the limits of what is permissiable in the employment contract why should an employee stay? If an organisation has high turnover (Particularly if its higher than the rest of the induatry) that is an organisational failing and an indicator of low morale

That sounds like a good argument for doing your research and finding out exactly what you're getting into before signing a contract to me. If things were that bad I'd probably see out my PQ period and then look around for something better.

 

[matt_world2004]

That sounds like a good argument for doing your research and finding out exactly what you're getting into before signing a contract to me. If things were that bad I'd probably see out my PQ period and then look around for something better.

Sometimes things can't be gleaned from "Research" and can only be identified through experience, particularly if its a local issue within the organisation.

TfL is known for treating its employees well, but even in that organisation there are pockets of bullying harassment employment law skirting

If loads of people are voluntarily leaving an organisation that's a failure of that organisation not the employee leaving

One manager can completely change the culture of an organisation or department

 

[12LDA28C]

Sometimes things can't be gleaned from "Research" and can only be identified through experience, particularly if its a local issue within the organisation.

TfL is known for treating its employees well, but even in that organisation there are pockets of bullying harassment employment law skirting

If loads of people are voluntarily leaving an organisation that's a failure of that organisation not the employee leaving

One manager can completely change the culture of an organisation or department

Indeed, although I believe the original discussion was regarding GBRf which is strange as I know a GBRf driver and he couldn't be happier so there will always be differing viewpoints within any organisation.

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed, although I believe the original discussion was regarding GBRf which is strange as I know a GBRf driver and he couldn't be happier so there will always be differing viewpoints within any organisation.

Yes . But as pointed out in that original thread GBRF has higher churn compared to other operators within the industry that indicates either

1.)There's a failure at recruitment level to identify People who can thrive in rail freight 2.)There Is a failure at recruitment level to ensure candidates understand the conditions of working in the rail freight industry
3.)The companies working practices increase peoples.desire to leave

 

[43066]

Sounds a bit militant to me, did you feel a sense of achievement from 'sticking it to the man' or something similar?

(Noting @Horizon22 ‘s request)

Not at all, I was just doing what virtually everyone outside the railway industry takes for granted - moving jobs when it suited me. I moved to get away from a toxic environment, to do better work and to earn more money.

I would do exactly the same again tomorrow and I really don’t see why anyone should be offended by that, or look down on me for doing so!

Yes . But as pointed out in that original thread GBRF has higher churn compared to other operators within the industry that indicates either

1.)There's a failure at recruitment level to identify People who can thrive in rail freight 2.)There Is a failure at recruitment level to ensure candidates understand the conditions of working in the rail freight industry
3.)The companies working practices increase peoples.desire to leave

Absolutely. Especially at a trainee level. It’s ridiculous to imagine that anyone will really know a. Whether they’re suited to the job, or b. Whether that particular TOC or FOC is right for them.

The emphasis should be on the recruiters to get the right people through the door - they’re spoilt for choice of applicants as we know.

 

[12LDA28C]

Yes . But as pointed out in that original thread GBRF has higher churn compared to other operators within the industry that indicates either

1.)There's a failure at recruitment level to identify People who can thrive in rail freight 2.)There Is a failure at recruitment level to ensure candidates understand the conditions of working in the rail freight industry
3.)The companies working practices increase peoples.desire to leave

1.) and 2.) could quite possibly lead to 3.) Getting it right at recruitment stage is key.

The emphasis should be on the recruiters to get the right people through the door - they’re spoilt for choice of applicants as we know.

This.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes . But as pointed out in that original thread GBRF has higher churn compared to other operators within the industry that indicates either

1.)There's a failure at recruitment level to identify People who can thrive in rail freight 2.)There Is a failure at recruitment level to ensure candidates understand the conditions of working in the rail freight industry
3.)The companies working practices increase peoples.desire to leave

I would suggest #3 (if indeed it is true and not anecdotal). Driver positions are highly competitive, so the TOCs/FOCs pick the right people (#1) and there aren't streams of drivers who leave (thinking about it is a different matter!).

Freight driving (HH at least) is a different beast to passenger driving and some may not realise this until it is too late (#2)

 

[matt_world2004]

1.) and 2.) could quite possibly lead to 3.) Getting it right at recruitment stage is key.

You could have employees who have been ther years suddenly have their morale tank because a manager has been brought in that wants to make a name for themselves

In the department I work for morale tanked. Not even because the manager was particularly mean or a bully. But because they had no social awareness(They literally wanted staff to participate in a fun and games quiz at the end of a redundancy consultation meeting )

 

[Horizon22]

You could have employees who have been ther years suddenly have their morale tank because a manager has been brought in that wants to make a name for themselves

In the department I work for morale tanked. Not even because the manager was particularly mean or a bully. But because they had no social awareness(They literally wanted staff to participate in a fun and games quiz at the end of a redundancy consultation meeting )

There are poor managers everywhere (as there are good managers). This is not unique to the railway.

 

[matt_world2004]

There are poor managers everywhere (as there are good managers). This is not unique to the railway.

No it's not unique to the railway but if some departments have significantly higher churn than others or an unwillingness for staff to be flexible higher up managers need to ask what is going on in that department. Failure to do that can lead to contagion

You get too many managers who would boast about saving £200 by ensuring there were no longer tea and biscuits in the mess room. While ignoring the thousands it has cost by staff no longer willing to be flexible because he sent around a group email calling the staff greedy for eating £200 worth of tea and biscuits.

 

[43066]

You could have employees who have been ther years suddenly have their morale tank because a manager has been brought in that wants to make a name for themselves

In the department I work for morale tanked. Not even because the manager was particularly mean or a bully. But because they had no social awareness(They literally wanted staff to participate in a fun and games quiz at the end of a redundancy consultation meeting )

Absolutely. And sometimes if you’re in a toxic environment, particularly if it’s starting to affect your mental health, the best thing really is to look for pastures new.

There are poor managers everywhere (as there are good managers). This is not unique to the railway.

Certainly true, albeit there is more of a reluctance to leave in some quarters of the industry than you’d encounter in other sectors I’ve worked in. That is changing as more people from outside the industry join.

Of course it can also be difficult if you have significant ties locally, and are in an area with few alternative depots.

 

[matt_world2004]

Absolutely. And sometimes if you’re in a toxic environment, particularly if it’s starting to affect your mental health, the best thing really is to look for pastures new.

Which is why training bonds are bad. Do you really want a employee who is depressed /Stressed driving a train because they cannot buy out their training bond and want to leave. The number one cause of stress is feeling trapped in an environment /situation you cannot escape from or feeling of lack of control over one's life.

 

[43066]

Which is why training bonds are bad. Do you really want a employee who is depressed /Stressed driving a train because they cannot buy out their training bond and want to leave. The number one cause of stress is feeling trapped in an environment /situation you cannot escape from or feeling of lack of control over one's life.

Absolutely. And you especially don’t want people who are feeling like that driving trains around the national network.

My personal view is that the best way to prevent people from leaving is to treat them well and create a positive working environment so that they want to stay (some TOCs are rather better at this than others). If you’re having to threaten people with clauses like this, that says something negative about the culture.

It does sound like FOCs in particular are having a serious go at making these clauses enforceable, rather than just an empty threat, so it’s important for new applicants to carefully consider what they’re being asked to sign. For existing employees who have such a clause in their contract it’s worth getting proper legal advice on how enforceable or otherwise it is likely to be.

 

[Horizon22]

My personal view is that the best way to prevent people from leaving is to treat them well and create a positive working environment so that they want to stay (some TOCs are rather better at this than others). If you’re having to threaten people with clauses like this, that says something negative about the culture.

This is key; why have such a clause unless you think there's a risk of people leaving?

 

[12LDA28C]

You get too many managers who would boast about saving £200 by ensuring there were no longer tea and biscuits in the mess room. While ignoring the thousands it has cost by staff no longer willing to be flexible because he sent around a group email calling the staff greedy for eating £200 worth of tea and biscuits.

Wow, I didn't realise it was a manager's responsibility to buy tea and biscuits for the drivers. Where I work the drivers buy their own and always have done to my knowledge. Clearly we have been hard done by! Maybe I could claim back the cash I've spent on teabags, biccies and doughnuts over the years.

 

[matt_world2004]

Wow, I didn't realise it was a manager's responsibility to buy tea and biscuits for the drivers. Where I work the drivers buy their own and always have done to my knowledge. Clearly we have been hard done by! Maybe I could claim back the cash I've spent on teabags, biccies and doughnuts over the years.

I didn't say it was. It was an illustrative example of how even a small insignificant change if handled poorly can upset people it wasn't the biscuits that upset the staff it was the email that called them greedy.

Staff member unwilling to be flexible because they feel insulted by an email and its tone , staff member less willing to do overtime. As a result freight company loses contracts because it cannot deliver produce in time

It is not the tough decisions that upset staff its how you deliver them

Smaller decisions like whether the mess room has tea and biscuits can have effects on people's willingness to be flexible if morale is already on shakey ground. The straw that broke the camels back , if you will

 

[LowLevel]

Wow, I didn't realise it was a manager's responsibility to buy tea and biscuits for the drivers. Where I work the drivers buy their own and always have done to my knowledge. Clearly we have been hard done by! Maybe I could claim back the cash I've spent on teabags, biccies and doughnuts over the years.

It can however be a small gesture that helps improve morale where it's a bit low for whatever reason.

Where I am tea, coffee, milk and sugar are in stock in large quantities for the complimentary first class offer on the trains, as well as a few biscuits, cakes and so on. You've always been allowed to make a hot drink with the company stock on board the Intercity trains, but we've always had to carry our own supplies otherwise.

It's been a crap few years and after a long time our mess rooms are finally getting a decent refurbishment. As a bit of a gesture we can order tea, coffee, milk and sugar from the catering service centre to stock the mess rooms and the managers have taken to having a little bowl of the snacks in their office so you can help yourself to some biscuits or a little cake if you want should you need to go and see them.

It's only a small thing but it does make the place nicer.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's been a crap few years and after a long time our mess rooms are finally getting a decent refurbishment. As a bit of a gesture we can order tea, coffee, milk and sugar from the catering service centre to stock the mess rooms and the managers have taken to having a little bowl of the snacks in their office so you can help yourself to some biscuits or a little cake if you want should you need to go and see them.

It's only a small thing but it does make the place nicer.

That sounds like a good idea. You're fortunate that you have catering on your trains, many suburban and commuter TOCs don't, of course. Although personally I believe a few more crap years are on the cards whilst the DfT are running the show.

I didn't say it was. It was an illustrative example of how even a small insignificant change if handled poorly can upset people it wasn't the biscuits that upset the staff it was the email that called them greedy.

Was that really the content of the email? That's pretty shocking if so. What was the manager thinking?

 

[LowLevel]

That sounds like a good idea. You're fortunate that you have catering on your trains, many suburban and commuter TOCs don't, of course. Although personally I believe a few more crap years are on the cards whilst the DfT are running the show.



Was that really the content of the email? That's pretty shocking if so. What was the manager thinking?

It's a nice thought and things relations wise are much better than the hole they were in 10 or so years back. Though despite signing many hundreds of miles of railway I am technically a "local" crew member who only works on 15x or 170 traction and thus if I want a brew, I have to bring it with me, excepting one route where if we're lucky we will get a trolley which has staff tea and coffee on it!

 

[matt_world2004]

That sounds like a good idea. You're fortunate that you have catering on your trains, many suburban and commuter TOCs don't, of course. Although personally I believe a few more crap years are on the cards whilst the DfT are running the show.



Was that really the content of the email? That's pretty shocking if so. What was the manager thinking?

That was not a real example:

The real example is a manger thinking its appropriate to host a quiz during a redundancy/transformation meeting.

And that is because it made rhe manager seem like they were inconsiderate/uncaring. The effect of a mishandled transformation with an inconsiderate communication during a redundancy process is that staff in my department have been on an effective work to rule for five years . This has crippled productivity. There are some staff who refuse to attend the six monthly away day because there is a quiz during it and it picks at the scab of old wounds

They would honestly be better closing down my whole department and reconstituting it with different staff now because the efforts to stem the anger and morale issues were too late to save morale and short of a leadership change there is always going to be an open hatred of managment in my department

 

[Teddyward]

My TOC is 4 weeks pay forfeiture for first 2 years. Nothing else. To my knowledge it has never been enforced.

 

[Wrexhamfc]

Indeed, although I believe the original discussion was regarding GBRf which is strange as I know a GBRf driver and he couldn't be happier so there will always be differing viewpoints within any organisation.

As of last year, 30% of GBRf staff could not see themselves working at GBRf in a year's time.
This is probably not because of mandatory retirement as GBRf don't have a mandatory retirement age.

There are some GBRf drivers desperate to Leave or have left and it is because of the rostering.

Some might question whether GBRf have the highest Training Agreement fees and whether that is because that is the only way they can keep people working for them.

 

[66701GBRF]

My understanding is that indenturement which is to work for a certain employer because you are indebted to that employer was made illegal in the UK in 1917. Contracts do not override law. All too often we see employers skirt right upto the limit of what is legally permissable and sometimes beyond that. Taking advantage of light touch regulation or the fact that employees do not have the confidence to complain, or the expense to take the organisation to an employment tribunal. Often it is a fatality that highlights these organisational failings and the rail industry is no exemption to that.

A quick Google search will tell that these clauses are legal. With caveats.

Payback clause

Click to view on map Payback clause is a legal instrument that allows employers to bind employees for a certain period of time in compensation for the employer’s investment in employees’ training. In fact, employees are free to move to another company but if they terminate the employment...

www.cedefop.europa.eu

Payback clause is a legal instrument that allows employers to bind employees for a certain period of time in compensation for the employer’s investment in employees’ training. In fact, employees are free to move to another company but if they terminate the employment relationship within the agreed retention period they can be requested to reimburse (a share of) the cost of training.

Repayment clauses - Crossland Employment Solicitors

Overview What is a repayment clause? What can be repaid/clawed back? Is the repayment clause enforceable? Case law on repayment clauses Drafting...

www.crosslandsolicitors.com

IS THE REPAYMENT CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE?

• Employees may argue that these clauses are unlawful penalty clauses and/or amount to unlawful restraint of trade and the business cannot therefore enforce them. However, that is not necessarily correct.
• These clauses will be enforceable if they are a ‘genuine liquidated damages clause’. Conversely, if the clause is a ‘penalty clause’ and unlawfully restricts the individual from working, it will not be enforceable.
• A liquidated damages clause compensates the wronged person for the breach of contract. In comparison, a penalty clause is penal because the innocent party requires payment of a sum which is typically more substantial than the damages they could recover in common law, with the intention of deterring the employee (for example) from breaching the contract.
• However, don’t simply dismiss a clause’s enforceability simply because it isn’t, on initial reading, a genuine pre-estimate of loss. You need to consider the context of the situation, whether this is a complex situation where the innocent party might have a legitimate interest for wanting the contract to be performed properly, and the employee might have taken legal advice and negotiated the terms of the repayment clause.
• Such a clause could still be an enforceable repayment clause. In 2015 the Supreme Court in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and Parking Eye v Beavis said that repayment clauses will not necessarily be penal (and therefore unenforceable) simply because they are not a pre-estimate of loss or are a deterrent. Rather, whether the clause is enforceable will depend on whether the ‘means by which the contracting party’s conduct is to be influenced are “unconscionable” or “extravagant” by reference to some norm’.

CASE LAW ON REPAYMENT CLAUSES

• The courts have shown that liquidated damages clauses can be made validly between employer and employee. Some examples are set out below.
• Proportional repayment of training fees if the employee leaves within a certain timeframe (Neil v Strathclyde Regional Council [1984] IRLR 14 and Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla [2013] EAT 0440/12).
• An employer had to pay a senior employee one year’s salary if he was unlawfully dismissed because of the high value his employer put on his services and loyalty, even though the sum in question was greater than the loss suffered by the company. (Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946).
• Clawback of wages for failure to work notice period was enforceable in Li v First Marine Solutions Ltd [2014] EATS 0045/13. The EAT, albeit uneasily, agreed it was not a penalty clause, taking into consideration the seniority of the individual, their high salary and the difficulty and cost the business would incur in replacing her. The EAT noted the parties’ intention was important, i.e. whether the clause was to be a penalty clause, a liquidated damages clause or a deduction clause.
• The courts have taken a robust approach towards employees who have benefitted from a contract but then try to have the damages clause deemed unenforceable as a penalty clause. For example, in Iman-Sadeque v BlueBay Asset Management (Services) Ltd [2013] IRLR 344, the High Court noted that the contract (a compromise agreement) was not penal because it contained rights and obligations which could be to the advantage and disadvantage of either party, and to which both had freely agreed to enter into, and it was also possible that the employee’s breach could result in greater losses for the company than the repayment sum identified in the contract.

Pure Employment Law Merger 2023 - Mayo Wynne Baxter

www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk

Having a well trained workforce is in everyone’s interest – the employers, the employees, and for the good of the economy as a whole. Employers have long invested considerable sums on training their workforces, but as the cost of training courses rises, and as employees tend to move jobs more often than in the past, many employers are reluctant to invest large sums in training employees who may then move on and possibly let a competitor benefit from the skills the employee has gained. One way of reducing the risk of employees leaving soon after they have been on courses, or at least to reduce the financial cost of them leaving, is to require the employee to repay some or all of the training costs to the employer.

We are frequently asked to draft this type of agreement for employers, and to advise on whether they are enforceable. As usual, the answer to the question of whether the agreement is enforceable is that it will depend on the circumstances, and on how well the agreement has been drafted. The enforceability of an agreement to repay training costs can really be challenged on two legal bases: first because they are a penalty clause, and second because they are in restraint of trade. I will look at each of these in turn.

Penalty Clause​

In law, a provision that a party to a contract has to pay the other party to the contract a stipulated amount in the event of specified event, for example a breach of contract or an employee leaving their employment, will only be enforceable if the amount that the party has to pay is a genuine pre-estimate of the other party’s loss. In terms of the effect of this doctrine on an agreement for the repayment of training costs, it will be for the employer to show that the amount they are asking the employee to repay is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss.

For example, if an employer sends someone on a course which costs the employer £2,000, and the employee leaves their employment immediately after the course finishes, then the employer has received no benefit from their investment and, with a properly drafted agreement in place, could legitimately recover the £2,000. If however, the employee left their employment after say 3 years, then clearly the employer has had the benefit of the training for 3 years, so if they sought to recover the £2,000 then that would be unenforceable as it would not reflect the employer’s loss. It would also be likely to be unenforceable as being in restraint of trade and we will look at that below. If, however, the agreement is properly drafted, then the employer will normally be able to recover a proportion of the cost on a scale which reduces over time so that after, say, 1 year from the course finishing they would have to repay 50%, and after 2 years nothing. The figures in the sliding scale will depend on the costs involved, and this is something we can advise on when drafting agreements.

In some cases employers seek to recover costs for “on the job” training, and this is far harder for them to quantify the cost of this. It has been reported that some large firms, such as Capita and FDM, are putting some employees through training schemes which cost very little, but which the firm is requiring people leaving their employment after completing the courses to repay much larger sums, reportedly up to £18,500. On the face of it this would be a penalty clause, and also in restraint of trade, and therefore would be illegal and unenforceable. We understand that a legal challenge to these types of clauses is being launched.

Restraint of Trade​

As stated above, the other basis on which a repayment of training costs provision may be unenforceable is if it is in restraint of trade. The courts will permit employers to protect their legitimate business interests by, for example, enforcing well drafted and reasonable post-employment restrictions, but they will not allow employers to unreasonably prevent an employee changing their employment if they wish. Training course repayment provisions, even where they are a genuine pre-estimate of loss, can still be void as being in restraint of trade if the effect of them is to prevent the employee changing job. Certainly, it seems likely that the sorts of provisions reportedly put in place by the likes of Capita would have the effect of preventing employees leaving their employment, so may well be held to be unenforceable.

 

[Snow1964]

It's not illegal to do that is it though?

From GBRFs modern slavery statement

"We do not tolerate the use of forced, bonded, compulsory
or child labour."

If you are required to buy yourself out of an employment contract it is a form of bonded labour

Which is why nowadays it is usually a separate contract from employment contract.

Will be worded as something like a Personal Training loan, with a repayment schedule, but repayment is waived after 2 or 3 years of continuous employment with the company.

But as there are also regulations about making loans, and enforcing them, if done poorly it is just chasing someone for outstanding money. Not always done.

 

[newtownmgr]

Personally i wouldn’t touch GBRf with a barge pole. They look atractive as they have a variety of work & if you’re lucky enough a variety of traction, but the latter does seem to be limited to the same few drivers. As stated above some will only see the ££’s and will put up with anything, that’s fine & all credit to them.

As regards the TOC’s and paying money back. Most training for drivers off the street has been bankrolled by the government for years, so therefore the TOC’s have not been liable so can’t really go after you if you leave to go elsewhere as the money has still been used to good effect. I suppose if you were to leave the industry all together, then they may come after you on behalf of the dft.

 

[357]

Maybe because the pay was rubbish, and the environment was toxic? Best decision I’ve ever made. I now do better work, earn more money, and work with better people. I haven’t looked back since.

Nothing to do with being “militant” - sorry but that strikes me as a rather naive viewpoint. You do realise this is what everyone else in the commercial world outside the railway does!? It’s only in this industry where people moan about how awful everything is and never leave…

Absolutely agree. I left my training TOC during my PQA period after multiple issues with the toxic working environment, alongside a change in personal circumstances.

I'd been a shunter with them, I felt I'd done my time. I'd decided even before passing out that I was going to leave but just needed to decide the when and how.

Having also run my own business for some years, I don't agree at all with the "trainees owe the TOC something" mentality.

My business was doing guided tours of somewhere that requires lots of certifications, qualifications, and safety rules to follow. Once a guide had these qualifications they were theirs and could easily transfer between tour operators.

A couple of times as a business decision I had to hire trainees instead of poaching. While my preference was always to hire experienced guides from other companies (attracting them with better conditions and a higher salary), sometimes this wasn't possible.

It was me who needed the staff and for whatever reason couldn't attract qualified staff. The trainees had a lower salary and didn't have some of the perks that qualified staff has such as taxis to/from home. That's how I got the money back that I'd paid for their training.

TOCs don't decide out of the kindness of their own heart that they want to give you the opportunity of a lifetime. They have trains to run and need someone to drive them. If they were so concerned about people leaving them some of the TOCs would fix their working environment and the issues drivers there have been dealing with for years.

You are only there to make them money and I can guarantee within 3 months of you leaving, apart from your immediate managers, nobody higher up will even remember your name.

 

[baz962]

This is key; why have such a clause unless you think there's a risk of people leaving?

I guess the one thing I would add though is that the railway is quite unique in that even if a particular toc/foc treats people quite well, you still have people joining just to get the key. People who might have moved to train and then get back to the family or who want passenger work but trained with a foc or vice versa. I don't think it's as simple as treating people well.

 

[Horizon22]

I guess the one thing I would add though is that the railway is quite unique in that even if a particular toc/foc treats people quite well, you still have people joining just to get the key. People who might have moved to train and then get back to the family or who want passenger work but trained with a foc or vice versa. I don't think it's as simple as treating people well.

But they wouldn't be "joining to get the key" if there wasn't some issue with that TOC/FOC - they would just be joining regularly and it would be a company that others would not caution against them joining.

People don't "join to get the key" at GWR or Greater Anglia or Elizabeth line (there may be exceptions) but an oft-quoted one where they do is Southeastern. There is evidently some fundamental problem (most quote pay, poor T&Cs and the heavy DOO nature) at that company. Treating someone well comes into having the right environment you are correct, but also the right type of workload, which is renumerated accordingly.

 

[baz962]

But they wouldn't be "joining to get the key" if there wasn't some issue with that TOC/FOC - they would just be joining regularly and it would be a company that others would not caution against them joining.

People don't "join to get the key" at GWR or Greater Anglia or Elizabeth line (there may be exceptions) but an oft-quoted one where they do is Southeastern. There is evidently some fundamental problem (most quote pay, poor T&Cs and the heavy DOO nature) at that company. Treating someone well comes into having the right environment you are correct, but also the right type of workload, which is renumerated accordingly.

I understand what you are trying to say that at some companies people say they are joining to get the key and leave because that company pays less or whatever. However I do know many people that have passed the psychometric testing and sitting in talent pools that don't want to wait or risk the passes running out. Some people join a company just because they want trainees, but don't want to relocate permanently and will move in with someone near that depot to do the training with the intention of moving tocs as soon as possible. Although we naturally think people leave to go to the so called better tocs I know more than a few that go to the so called worse tocs for whatever reason. I know of an ex Eurostar now mainline UK who was desperate to go Southeastern. Doesn't care for the drop in money or worse work , but lives south of London and doesn't want to relocate or travel.