"Pay back" clauses for train drivers

[Horizon22]

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.

Sure but I wouldn’t consider any of what you described as “joining just to get the key”.

There are of course some people that will go to extremes, but what I’m talking about is people that want to be a driver, but it’s easier to get in at say Southeastern but have almost no intention of staying beyond 1-2 years where they can get a “better” (money, culture, T&Cs, guarded) role as a qualified driver at another TOC. There’s plenty of evidence - some are on these forums! - of people doing that and I don’t begrudge people who have the opportunity to get a (in their opinion) better role. But it’s a structural industry issue.

Southeastern (again as an example) could rectify this if they wanted to by improving those terms although they might be happy with churning through internal applicants from stations / conductors. What probably won’t be great is adding such a clause to repay some salary if a driver was to leave within X years. If however it was a small amount (such as this post) it might perhaps be more palatable and understandable.

 

[43066]

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

Overall it sounds like incompetent management. Unfortunately parts of the railway are the same - often because management only go into their roles for the wrong reasons. Either because they want an easy life and to get away from shift work, or because they’re on a power trip.

That’s by no means all railway managers, but a reasonable % unfortunately. The industry still has a bit of a public sector mentality in some quarters.

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.

Absolutely, and good for you for leaving. It’s a straightforward commercial decision. TOCs owe you no loyalty and you owe them none. The suggestion otherwise is a strange attitude that simply doesn’t exist in the commercial world outside the railway.

You last paragraph is spot on. If you were to go and ask someone who works in professional services or the financial sector whether they have loyalty to their employer and they’d laugh at the concept!

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.

There’s often a backstory in cases like that eg perhaps they’ve previously got on the wrong side someone involved with the recruitment etc.

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.

It’s actually hard to train up and leave immediately, because you’ll generally need at least two years’ experience (and a recent record) before other TOCs will look at you.

 

[12LDA28C]

Southeastern (again as an example) could rectify this if they wanted to by improving those terms although they might be happy with churning through internal applicants from stations / conductors. What probably won’t be great is adding such a clause to repay some salary if a driver was to leave within X years. If however it was a small amount (such as this post) it might perhaps be more palatable and understandable.

Unfortunately the railway certainly is now in a position where the TOCs who pay less have trouble recruiting qualified drivers so advertise for trainees. Plenty of people apply with the express intention of getting their key and then moving on to a better paid TOC once qualified. Of course with the DfT calling the shots and holding the purse strings since Covid there is practically zero chance of the TOCs who pay drivers less being able to do anything about improving the salary to attract more staff. This is the reality of the modern railway.

 

[LowLevel]

Unfortunately the railway certainly is now in a position where the TOCs who pay less have trouble recruiting qualified drivers so advertise for trainees. Plenty of people apply with the express intention of getting their key and then moving on to a better paid TOC once qualified. Of course with the DfT calling the shots and holding the purse strings since Covid there is practically zero chance of the TOCs who pay drivers less being able to do anything about improving the salary to attract more staff. This is the reality of the modern railway.

That's the market in action, it's never been any different though. It even happens within companies, people going to less desirable depots and then moving elsewhere as soon as they can.

Same happened under BR with people being "depot tourists", applying for vacancies at places they thought had a decent chance of closure and then going there to get priority at their chosen depot under redundancy.

 

[12LDA28C]

That's the market in action, it's never been any different though. It even happens within companies, people going to less desirable depots and then moving elsewhere as soon as they can.

Indeed, and some TOCs have conditions in place that a driver has to be productive for a minimum length of time (e.g. 2 years) after qualification before transferring to another depot within the same TOC. No doubt some people will think that is also unfair.

 

[357]

Indeed, and some TOCs have conditions in place that a driver has to be productive for a minimum length of time (e.g. 2 years) after qualification before transferring to another depot within the same TOC. No doubt some people will think that is also unfair.

It was unfair at my previous TOC, because they were taking people off the street into one depot and forcing shunters to transfer to the other end of the route when they went onto the mainline. They were tied in for two years.

While some would say take it or leave it, others would say going mainline at one of the other TOCs/FOCs nearby would be spitting in the face of the TOC who chose to give them the life-changing experience of becoming a shunter!

 

[Horizon22]

While some would say take it or leave it, others would say going mainline at one of the other TOCs/FOCs nearby would be spitting in the face of the TOC who chose to give them the life-changing experience of becoming a shunter!

As devil’s advocate do you have to owe your TOC (or any company) anything? You do what is best for you if the opportunity arises.

 

[357]

As devil’s advocate do you have to owe your TOC (or any company) anything? You do what is best for you if the opportunity arises.

Absolutely what I said earlier in this thread and exactly what I have done my entire career. The loyalty in our industry seems to be a throw back to BR days when it was all one company.

 

[12LDA28C]

Absolutely what I said earlier in this thread and exactly what I have done my entire career. The loyalty in our industry seems to be a throw back to BR days when it was all one company.

That statement literally says it all. 'Loyalty' is seen as old-fashioned. What a sad indictment of the railway industry today or maybe even modern society as a whole.

 

[matt_world2004]

That statement literally says it all. 'Loyalty' is seen as old-fashioned. What a sad indictment of the railway industry today or maybe even modern society as a whole.

Your employer won't have loyalty to you, so why should you have loyalty to them

 

[357]

That statement literally says it all. 'Loyalty' is seen as old-fashioned. What a sad indictment of the railway industry today or maybe even modern society as a whole.

Look at the treatment of drivers who have developing medical conditions, or problems in their personal life, or have issues doing the job.

That shows how much loyalty the companies have to the staff.

Have you forgotten three years ago when there was serious talk of passenger TOCs having to make drivers redundant by now?

 

[dk1]

Your employer won't have loyalty to you, so why should you have loyalty to them

When applying to become a driver under Anglia Railways in 98 they tried to get me to agree not to leave for 2 years after training. The LDC got Hold of it & went light as I’d been continually employed since 1984 under BR. It was all torn up never spoken about again lol.

 

[Mattydo]

deleted

 

[12LDA28C]

Look at the treatment of drivers who have developing medical conditions, or problems in their personal life, or have issues doing the job.

That shows how much loyalty the companies have to the staff.

Have you forgotten three years ago when there was serious talk of passenger TOCs having to make drivers redundant by now?

I can only speak from experience. If you have issues at your TOC then maybe you should bring these to light or consider moving elsewhere. Where I work, drivers who have medical issues, or problems in their personal life have been given time off, given their own accommodated roster to alleviate any medical issues and supported by their manager. Sounds like there's a bit of a 'them and us' culture where you are which doesn't sound great but don't assume that is industry-wide unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Whilst I still respect and indeed get on with my immediate managers, I have no feelings of loyalty towards the large corporations or government entities that run TOCs and FOCs in the UK. These aren't family businesses. Indeed with the vast majority of training costs being recouped from government apprenticeship schemes and wages paid by the DfT these days, it's even harder to feel loyalty towards what is essentially a management company run purely in the interests of share holders.

I believe a TOC can claim back £15-20k from the Government per 'apprentice driver'. That may sound a lot of money to you but I can assure you it is certainly not 'the vast majority of training costs', nowhere near.

Your employer won't have loyalty to you, so why should you have loyalty to them

If you feel you've been treated well and supported when you needed it, why wouldn't you? Again, I can only speak from experience but it seems there's plenty of rail staff on this thread who seem to actively resent their employer, which is rather a shame.

 

[43066]

If you have issues at your TOC then maybe you should bring these to light or consider moving elsewhere.

And that’s exactly what people will do. Yet yesterday you described that as “morally wrong” and “militant”.

That may sound a lot of money to you but I can assure you it is certainly not 'the vast majority of training costs', nowhere near.

Absolutely. Drivers are an expensive in demand resource. All the more reason why TOCs should ensure they retain their drivers by fostering a decent working environment.

there's plenty of rail staff on this thread who seem to actively resent their employer, which is rather a shame.

I have moved from a bad one to a good one. Even then any loyalty I feel is only to the colleagues and managers I work with on an individual level - not to the TOC itself which, as noted above, is really just a management company these days, owned by a faceless multinational transport conglomerate.

 

[Mattydo]

Deleted

 

[12LDA28C]

And that’s exactly what people will do. Yet yesterday you described that as “morally wrong” and “militant”.

That was in direct response to @357 who has clearly already done that at least once (during their PQ period) and yet seemingly is still not happy where they work. No training costs incurred at their current employer, presumably so any training costs recoupment clause does not apply.

It is closer to £24K. I've heard some interesting figures for training costs thrown around but I find it hard to believe that the direct costs of training are close to the 100k I hear some mention, when a Commercial Pilot can be trained and type rated on a passenger Jet for around £45k of direct costs.

I imagine the vast majority of the cost involved is wages. Which vary greatly for trainees themselves and, as I mentioned, are not a cost borne by the "franchise" holder directly any longer.

Training salary for the apprentice driver, wages for the trainers, Driving Instructors, Assessors, training premises and equipment, indirect costs such as other drivers covering the instructor's turn when they are released for instructing duties and so on.


I appreciate rail staff are now effectively working for the Government which is less than ideal given the total sh*tshow they are, however there are still some decent places to work which somehow still manage to foster a good working environment despite the current situation.

 

[Mattydo]

deleted

 

[43066]

That was in direct response to @357 who has clearly already done that at least once (during their PQ period) and yet seemingly is still not happy where they work. No training costs incurred at their current employer, presumably so any training costs recruitment clause does not apply.

But as you have said, you can only speak from your own experience. It sounds like you’re somewhere decent (and if it’s where I think it is, that certainly matches with what I’ve heard from others), but don’t assume that some places aren’t bad enough for people to vote with their feet as soon as they can leave. Loyalty really doesn’t come into it in that situation.

know it's not cheap but there is a reason even traditional "head hunters" are taking on trainees now, and if you chat to your apprenticeship team at some point, you'll find that it's a financial choice.

Don’t forget the need for new drivers is partly structural: the pool of existing drivers is diminishing through retirements - lots are in their fifties and sixties - and the overall complement is increasing (Covid has caused a blip
in this, but generally numbers will rise over the next few years as services are intensified).

Circa £100k was the figure quoted when I trained by people in a position to know. Intuitively it doesn’t seem unreasonable, as an overall cost to the business from street to passing out, once everything is taken into account.

 

[LowLevel]

The loyalty thing is funny. I've always been proud to work for "The railway". I have always been well treated by my managers. I wear my uniform with pride and I do my best to provide an honest day's work for my wages. I feel like they're there for me, I've had help when I've had problems, and I've been showered with praise for the good work I've done, been given prizes etc. It's been largely fine at an individual level.

As a grade group however the previous owning group spent over 10 years trying to force us into contract variations to save money, sneaking changes in to naive new starters, and on occasion suing our trade union.

There is no such thing as corporate loyalty and if you think there is you're daft. This isn't Mr Jones' erstwhile shoe factory which has been in the same family for generations and sends all the employees a hamper at Christmas, it's multi national public transport companies.

 

[12LDA28C]

But as you have said, you can only speak from your own experience. It sounds like you’re somewhere decent (and if it’s where I think it is, that certainly matches with what I’ve heard from others), but don’t assume that some places aren’t bad enough for people to vote with their feet as soon as they can leave. Loyalty really doesn’t come into it in that situation.

Fair enough. I'll give an example of something to illustrate support of staff... the company paid for a driver to have a private cataract operation because the waiting time to have the op on the NHS was ludicrously long. Of course the benefit to the company was that the driver returned to work much quicker and had much less time sick / off track but they didn't have to do that. This is the kind of thing that engenders a sense of loyalty amongst some people.

 

[357]

That was in direct response to @357 who has clearly already done that at least once (during their PQ period) and yet seemingly is still not happy where they work. No training costs incurred at their current employer, presumably so any training costs recruitment clause does not apply.

I'm very happy where I am now.

 

[Horizon22]

That statement literally says it all. 'Loyalty' is seen as old-fashioned. What a sad indictment of the railway industry today or maybe even modern society as a whole.

Perhaps, but maybe it’s just changing times. People just don’t stay at the same company for 20 years any more, and I know nobody of my generation and even slightly order that has or plans to. The only exception is ironically the railway to some regard, but even then not always the same company and certainly not the same role. Train driving is very, very rare in that regard.

the company paid for a driver to have a private cataract operation because the waiting time to have the op on the NHS was ludicrously long. Of course the benefit to the company was that the driver returned to work much quicker and had much less time sick / off track but they didn't have to do that. This is the kind of thing that engenders a sense of loyalty amongst some people.

That isn’t loyalty - the company is absolutely getting something out of this. If they have to pay a driver either way (unproductive or not), and that’s what it takes to get their moneys worth out of that driver, they’ll do it.

 

[12LDA28C]

The only exception is ironically the railway to some regard, but even then not always the same company and certainly not the same role. Train driving is very, very rare in that regard.

Indeed. I know many drivers who have worked for the same company for 30 years plus and have no plans to leave until they retire and don't really have a bad word to say about the company. Again, just my experience.

I'm very happy where I am now.

That's good to hear.

 

[357]

Fair enough. I'll give an example of something to illustrate support of staff... the company paid for a driver to have a private cataract operation because the waiting time to have the op on the NHS was ludicrously long. Of course the benefit to the company was that the driver returned to work much quicker and had much less time sick / off track but they didn't have to do that. This is the kind of thing that engenders a sense of loyalty amongst some people.

That's great, but many companies would do exactly what I saw happen to a driver in the same situation - play silly games to try and get the driver to resign.

 

[12LDA28C]

That isn’t loyalty - the company is absolutely getting something out of this. If they have to pay a driver either way (unproductive or not), and that’s what it takes to get their moneys worth out of that driver, they’ll do it.

Of course, but the question is would something similar happen elsewhere?

 

[Horizon22]

Circa £100k was the figure quoted when I trained by people in a position to know. Intuitively it doesn’t seem unreasonable, as an overall cost to the business from street to passing out, once everything is taken into account.

Generally across the board it is quite expensive to hire new people, normally more so than say giving someone experienced a pay rise. But people tend to look at direct costs and have a a complete blind spot to all the indirect ones.

Of course, but the question is would something similar happen elsewhere?

Depends on the value of the employee. Again blunt wording, but ultimately this is what they’d do. I’m sure most might just sack them (or encourage a resignation), if it was legal to do so and they wouldn’t end up embroiled in a employment tribunal.

Ultimately HR when push comes to shove is on the company’s side, not yours.

 

[12LDA28C]

That's great, but many companies would do exactly what I saw happen to a driver in the same situation - play silly games to try and get the driver to resign.

Then that is poor management and quite possibly victimisation.

 

[matt_world2004]

If you feel you've been treated well and supported when you needed it, why wouldn't you? Again, I can only speak from experience but it seems there's plenty of rail staff on this thread who seem to actively resent their employer, which is rather a shame.

If you feel like you have been treated well by your employer you wouldn't be looking to leave anyway.

Only yesterday I had to reject a roster because it had a shift that was 10 hours without a break or access to a toilet employers absolutely would exploit employees if they believe they could get away with it.

 

[Horizon22]

If you feel like you have been treated well by your employer you wouldn't be looking to leave anyway

Agreed. I like my current employer and there's decent prospects, good T&Cs and it pays well. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm "loyal". To me loyalty is sort of a "no matter what" attitude, which is certainly not one I think many have if it was to if what the company was doing was to affect you negatively at a personal level.