Remaining DOO disputes?

[Carlisle]

Right. But the point is that in most cases, that the employer has gone "guard dispatch isn't working for us, let's try something else". They've been pushed to do so on a political basis. Therefore it doesn't really follow that this is about an employer - staff relationship

But its now around 20 years since the RMT began contacting all rail franchises insisting they sign written agreements not to introduce or extend DOO. The political angle you mention could only be considered relevant since the Mc Nulty report’s publication about 8 years ago.

 

[Robertj21a]

Right. But the point is that in most cases, that the employer has gone "guard dispatch isn't working for us, let's try something else". They've been pushed to do so on a political basis. Therefore it doesn't really follow that this is about an employer - staff relationship.

I also disagree with the premise that "Employers should decide and employees should put up with it". This is the attitude that leads to a demotivated workforce and it's regressive. There's a reason employer - union collective bargaining arrangements exist, and it's not simply to help employees do less work, or only do work they like.

I think the concern some people may have is that employees (and unions) seem to forget the needs of the employer. Sometimes, it appears that the employer is expected to do absolutely everything before the employee or union will even consider whether to comply, or go to dispute, threaten strikes etc.
In short, there may be occasions when the balance has moved too far away from the right of the employer to run the business as it needs to be run.

 

[Ashley Hill]

But its now around 20 years since the RMT began contacting all franchises insisting they sign written agreements not to introduce or extend DOO. The political angle you mention could only be considered relevant since the Mc Nulty report’s publication 8 years ago,

A franchisee can agree all they want but that agreement will only last as long as that franchise.

But the point is that in most cases, that the employer has gone "guard dispatch isn't working let's try something else.

And that's the issue. De-skill the guards for DCO. Less training,less or no route knowledge = less costs. Purely all for profiteering.

Can I ask in the railway are peoples contracts permanent or fixed term? I know in education it varies by each school/authority so is it the same on the railways?

At my TOC Traincrew are on permanent contract.

 

[43066]

Can I ask in the railway are peoples contracts permanent or fixed term? I know in education it varies by each school/authority so is it the same on the railways?

Generally permanent for operational safety critical grades.

But its now around 20 years since the RMT began contacting all franchises insisting they sign written agreements not to introduce or extend DOO. The political angle you mention could only be considered relevant since the Mc Nulty report 8 years ago,

One of the RMT’s key functions is to protect the jobs of the staff it represents, so it’s unsurprising that a union representing guards has long standing opposition to DOO. Indeed it would be remiss of it not to oppose it!

Someone above used the example of typing pools as a role that has been made redundant by advancing technology. The point made in response was that the guard’s role (where it remains) is still very much relevant to the modern railway, the drive to remove it is entirely political and driven by the DfT.

 

[Ashley Hill]

the drive to remove it is entirely political and driven by the DfT.

Where the government will end up paying the benefits to those who may be made redundant. So do they win?

 

[DorkingMain]

I think the concern some people may have is that employees (and unions) seem to forget the needs of the employer. Sometimes, it appears that the employer is expected to do absolutely everything before the employee or union will even consider whether to comply, or go to dispute, threaten strikes etc.
In short, there may be occasions when the balance has moved too far away from the right of the employer to run the business as it needs to be run.

I don't think the needs of the employer are forgotten, but it's not a union's job to worry about that, it's the employers - that's why there's a bargaining process.

Also important to consider - there is no NEED for DOO. It's a politically motivated choice that in most cases doesn't offer any cost or safety benefits.

 

[AgentGemini]

With respect, driver operation of doors is working well on numerous suburban services both here and around the world. It’s only union resistance which has prevented its wider roll out. My point is that it is for the employer (and its ultimate paymaster) to decide whether a role needs to exist, not the employee or their union. (I do agree that those required to operate the revised practice, in this case drivers, do need a say, but that is not the point under discussion).

What's your stake in this by the way?

Right. But the point is that in most cases, that the employer has gone "guard dispatch isn't working for us, let's try something else". They've been pushed to do so on a political basis. Therefore it doesn't really follow that this is about an employer - staff relationship.

I also disagree with the premise that "Employers should decide and employees should put up with it". This is the attitude that leads to a demotivated workforce and it's regressive. There's a reason employer - union collective bargaining arrangements exist, and it's not simply to help employees do less work, or only do work they like.

This for the win. People can go "hurr yea but in the real world..." but if you look out there, there's a reason so many services and providers both public and private are substandard - demotivated employees, because the employer has managed to claw back the whip hand and then proceed to crap over the employees. It's a race to the bottom.

Also guards and dispatch - the whole DOO thing is political. They claim it will save money but when you factor in failures of camera equipment, potential passenger issues from injuries to god forbid, deaths, is it worth it. No it is not.

 

[DorkingMain]

This for the win. People can go "hurr yea but in the real world..." but if you look out there, there's a reason so many services and providers both public and private are substandard - demotivated employees, because the employer has managed to claw back the whip hand and then proceed to crap over the employees. It's a race to the bottom.

Also guards and dispatch - the whole DOO thing is political. They claim it will save money but when you factor in failures of camera equipment, potential passenger issues from injuries to god forbid, deaths, is it worth it. No it is not.

The thing that always interested me was that the TOCs that went from "proper" guards to degraded guards roles like OBS etc - they never ended up saving much on staffing costs anyway. Most of the old guards ended up on similar terms and similar pay, but with a greater focus on revenue protection (not that this doesn't help save money, but it's a diminishing return). The drivers also in turn got a massive pay rise for taking on the doors.

There's a reason most TOCs were quite happy not to touch the issue until the DfT went rampaging in with their motivations to deal with those pesky rail unions. The "unions are holding everyone back" narrative is just tabloid drivel, quite frankly. Accountability is not a zero sum game - sometimes it takes one side to make the other realise problems that it could benefit both sides to solve.

 

[pompeyfan]

There was a document released a few years ago stating DCO was actually safer than guard operation because there was fewer SOL incidents.

when you take out RTS against a red I’m not surprised to be honest.

I would be interested to see whether movements against a danger aspect after station duties is higher on DCO/DOO or guarded though but that figure isn’t available.

 

[londonteacher]

Thanks @Ashley Hill and @43066

I don't know much about railway employment rights as you can imagine being a teacher!

 

[Carlisle]

The point made in response was that the guard’s role (where it remains) is still very much relevant to the modern railway, the drive to remove it is entirely political

A quick google search suggests very similar industrial relations challenges exist in this sector worldwide., the New York subway for instance.

 

[Undiscovered]

There was a document released a few years ago stating DCO was actually safer than guard operation because there was fewer SOL incidents.

when you take out RTS against a red I’m not surprised to be honest.

I would be interested to see whether movements against a danger aspect after station duties is higher on DCO/DOO or guarded though but that figure isn’t available.

Stats are misleading.
How many of those incidents are recorded purely because the guard has seen them, and therefore has to report it?
If the driver is driving, he can't see it. Therefore, there is no incident.

My presence can also prevent incidents, as I can choose not to release the doors at a station platform, if I see someone behaving oddly/dangerously. A driver might not see that, as they're targetting the stop marker.

If you have two sets of eyes, it also keeps you both honest, which I can say I am. If you've only got one, then, well, what's a little error on an empty train...

 

[DorkingMain]

Stats are misleading.
How many of those incidents are recorded purely because the guard has seen them, and therefore has to report it?
If the driver is driving, he can't see it. Therefore, there is no incident.

My presence can also prevent incidents, as I can choose not to release the doors at a station platform, if I see someone behaving oddly/dangerously. A driver might not see that, as they're targetting the stop marker.

If you have two sets of eyes, it also keeps you both honest, which I can say I am. If you've only got one, then, well, what's a little error on an empty train...

The first part is particularly significant in the context of stop short + release incidence. With a guard + driver it becomes very evident this has happened - the driver will stop short, and even if they don't notice they have, the guard might notice before releasing. And if they don't, they'll almost certainly notice after releasing.

Meanwhile there's been DOO stop short and release incidents where the driver has gone on several stops without realising, sometimes in the belief they're driving a shorter formation than they actually are. Unless someone spots this happening there's a good chance it never ends up in any statistics and the driver is never pulled up on it.

Bells on red incidents without associated SPAD were also included in the statistics as safety of the line incidents. Of course with DOO there's no possibility of this happening - but it doesn't mean there's no possibility of *someone* shutting the doors and starting against a red, just that it won't be the guard that causes it. The number of times a guard has given bells on a red and the driver has actually had a SPAD are absolutely minimal.

 

[Undiscovered]

The first part is particularly significant in the context of stop short + release incidence.

And with PTI too. Unless it happens at the exact moment a driver is checking that camera, and it is in the field of view, it's missed. At least I can spot the after effects of the person on the platform and render assistance if needed, rather than just heading off.

 

[pompeyfan]

Bells on red incidents without associated SPAD were also included in the statistics as safety of the line incidents. Of course with DOO there's no possibility of this happening - but it doesn't mean there's no possibility of *someone* shutting the doors and starting against a red, just that it won't be the guard that causes it. The number of times a guard has given bells on a red and the driver has actually had a SPAD are absolutely minimal.

That’s kind of the point I was trying to make but you put it better.

there are still a surprisingly high amount of guard operated door irregularities though.

regardless, RMT and it’s members have decided that eventually they’re happy to be rid of door duties.