Remaining DOO disputes?

[craigybagel]

That's a very useful comment - thank you.

So perhaps it could be said that the reason the RMT/guards strikes on Southern (GTR) was less successful than it has been on other TOCs was that there already existed that platform infrastructure, thanks to the already existing DOO services (on Gatwick Express, I think)?

So then it would make sense (if you are of the view that striking does make sense, as the RMT clearly do) to strike early, well before the TOC (or the government, depending on how you look at it) has had the opportunity to install the necessary supporting infrastructure.

With Southern, it was more that the 377s already had external CCTV cameras, and indeed were already running DOO services on routes closer to London. AIUI they had to do a bit of work upgrading the lighting at certain stations, but other then that all they had to do to extend DOO to their longer distance routes was start using the onboard equipment that was already used on other routes. It's noteworthy that Southern still uses guards on all services worked by 313s and 171s as those units are lacking the cameras.

One other big difference between Southern and Northern, and indeed a lot of other franchises, is that Southern already had a DOO agreement in place in the drivers contracts, so that the drivers had no choice but to drive DOO on the new routes as instructed. It can't be introduced on Northern until the Drivers contracts there are amended in such a way as to include DOO - which might not be an easy task.

 

[tomoufc]

With Southern, it was more that the 377s already had external CCTV cameras, and indeed were already running DOO services on routes closer to London. AIUI they had to do a bit of work upgrading the lighting at certain stations, but other then that all they had to do to extend DOO to their longer distance routes was start using the onboard equipment that was already used on other routes. It's noteworthy that Southern still uses guards on all services worked by 313s and 171s as those units are lacking the cameras.

One other big difference between Southern and Northern, and indeed a lot of other franchises, is that Southern already had a DOO agreement in place in the drivers contracts, so that the drivers had no choice but to drive DOO on the new routes as instructed. It can't be introduced on Northern until the Drivers contracts there are amended in such a way as to include DOO - which might not be an easy task.

That brings up another point that has confused me somewhat - on Southern, the drivers did go on strike. The result of that was a 28% pay increase, although it did nothing to help the guards. But in all other disputes, ASLEF have not struck (although some drivers have refused to cross RMT picket lines, most notably on Merseyrail). I have seen people argue that ASLEF should have been striking alongside the RMT in those disputes, thus making strike action more effective. But, reading what you've said here, I'm struck that, whatever the politics of the situation, it could be the case that ASLEF are yet to be involved in the disputes, because their employers are yet to try to amend their contracts. In other words, after the Southern dispute, TOCs have gone for the guards first, and would then move on to dealing with the drivers later.

Although it may have been preferable for the RMT if ASLEF had joined their strike, the fact that drivers' contracts form another hurdle that TOC management would later have to cross to some extent limits the amount of time and money TOCs and the government have been able to put into defeating the guards on their own.

 

[Horizon22]

That brings up another point that has confused me somewhat - on Southern, the drivers did go on strike. The result of that was a 28% pay increase, although it did nothing to help the guards. But in all other disputes, ASLEF have not struck (although some drivers have refused to cross RMT picket lines, most notably on Merseyrail). I have seen people argue that ASLEF should have been striking alongside the RMT in those disputes, thus making strike action more effective. But, reading what you've said here, I'm struck that, whatever the politics of the situation, it could be the case that ASLEF are yet to be involved in the disputes, because their employers are yet to try to amend their contracts. In other words, after the Southern dispute, TOCs have gone for the guards first, and would then move on to dealing with the drivers later.

Although it may have been preferable for the RMT if ASLEF had joined their strike, the fact that drivers' contracts form another hurdle that TOC management would later have to cross to some extent limits the amount of time and money TOCs and the government have been able to put into defeating the guards on their own.

Without getting into another DOO debate that was widely seen as ASLEF selling out the RMT on the Southern debate. There was more than one day and the complete withdrawal of services that it caused seemed to focus minds somewhat.

 

[Neptune]

Wouldn't surprise me if Northern tried again, as "new Northern" isn't the same TOC so the agreement doesn't (I think) stand.

The agreement is carried over which OLR confirmed when taking over. ACAS talks are still ongoing (slowed down due to COVID) but the agreement still stands.

I think that, to recover some of the losses incurred during the Covid period, DOO will definitely be on the agenda again. The design of Northern's 195s and 331s, with the door buttons inside the saloon, has meant that a whole section of seating at both ends of the train has been roped off for staff use only. I don't know if any of the newer stock for other TOCs is the same.

The areas are cordoned off due to COVID to give staff travelling PASS a safe area to travel in (they obviously can’t use the cabs for travelling PASS at the mo). The same area is cordoned off on 333’s & 170’s and each cab has the banners for all other classes of unit should it be required. It is nothing to do with where the guards door controls are.

TPE have also done this on their units.

 

[craigybagel]

That brings up another point that has confused me somewhat - on Southern, the drivers did go on strike. The result of that was a 28% pay increase, although it did nothing to help the guards. But in all other disputes, ASLEF have not struck (although some drivers have refused to cross RMT picket lines, most notably on Merseyrail). I have seen people argue that ASLEF should have been striking alongside the RMT in those disputes, thus making strike action more effective. But, reading what you've said here, I'm struck that, whatever the politics of the situation, it could be the case that ASLEF are yet to be involved in the disputes, because their employers are yet to try to amend their contracts. In other words, after the Southern dispute, TOCs have gone for the guards first, and would then move on to dealing with the drivers later.

Although it may have been preferable for the RMT if ASLEF had joined their strike, the fact that drivers' contracts form another hurdle that TOC management would later have to cross to some extent limits the amount of time and money TOCs and the government have been able to put into defeating the guards on their own.

I'm open to correction on this from people down there who know better, but I don't think most of the ASLEF strike at Southern was about DOO per se.

They did have what they thought was an agreement to not run anything longer than 10 car trains as DOO, so when Gatwick Express tried to introduce 12 car 387s the drivers initially refused to drive them. This lead to a very expensive loss in court as it turned out the agreement wasn't actually enforceable.

DOO was already in existence at Southern across the South London metro network and along the Brighton main line, so the vast majority of drivers were already operating that way at least some of the time.

I thought the strike was more about pay and conditions in general - and as part of the negotiations that ended that dispute the current rules around DOO and the provision of OBS's at Southern was agreed to, as well as various other changes including a pay rise for the drivers.

 

[tomoufc]

I thought the strike was more about pay and conditions in general

That's not what I've read, but I am relying on old news reports, and journalists are as culpable as anyone of falling victim to the extreme complexities of that particular dispute.

 

[warwickshire]

I suspect that Transport for Wales on the Welsh Valley lines tram train would be high on the agenda as well especially as trams don't have them. Can quite see a OBS role here to, with only the very basics of safety training required.

 

[craigybagel]

That's not what I've read, but I am relying on old news reports, and journalists are as culpable as anyone of falling victim to the extreme complexities of that particular dispute.

They might well be more correct then me to be fair - I was watching from afar, and at the time as a member of a different Union. But Southern already had DOO in their drivers contracts so I'm not sure how much ASLEF could take argue against that at the time.

I suspect that Transport for Wales on the Welsh Valley lines tram train would be high on the agenda as well especially as trams don't have them. Can quite see a OBS role here to, with only the very basics of safety training required.

TfW in its original form had an agreement of no DOO throughout the 15 years of the franchise. As of 5 days ago of course that franchise is no longer in operation so whether or not that agreement remains is open to question.

The drivers there however have no DOO agreement in their contracts and aren't likely to accept one without a fight. And I suspect the Welsh assembly have even less energy for that fight right now than Westminster does, especially as they were one of the groups that pushed for no DOO in the original franchise.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or it could be the opposite - that the status quo is maintained. The reason I personally suspect that this is the most likely scenario is that the government has got much bigger fish to fry right now. Any attempt at bringing in DOO is going to cause chaos, the RMT will see to that. The government may well win in the end, and now is probably a good a time as any in their eyes to have that battle - but it's going to be a very expensive and very painful battle in the short term, and with all the other problems they've got to deal with right now I'm not convinced they've got the bottle for it.

My highlighting. The railway has, for the last year, been very, very expensive anyway. A strike about DOO (or anything else) would barely be any extra. Indeed depending who strikes (and therefore foregoes pay) it might actually be cheaper. The Government holds a very good hand at present, and can see the unions’ cards.

 

[craigybagel]

My highlighting. The railway has, for the last year, been very, very expensive anyway. A strike about DOO (or anything else) would barely be any extra. Indeed depending who strikes (and therefore foregoes pay) it might actually be cheaper. The Government holds a very good hand at present, and can see the unions’ cards.

Fair point. They would need to get in NOW though for that to work - if they leave it too long and passenger numbers start to rise again then the Governments position will get weaker by the day. Do they have the appetite for that battle right now?

 

[Bald Rick]

then the Governments position will get weaker by the day.

You might think. Alternatively, were any action to take place at a time when Government was easing restrictions, that would make the unions look rather foolish.

 

[tomoufc]

The SWR dispute is still live, Covid and 701 delays are delaying a resolution, but the deal SWR reached with the drivers means no train will run without a guard.

Thanks for this information. Do you know if it is in the public domain anywhere?

 

[43066]

I'm open to correction on this from people down there who know better, but I don't think most of the ASLEF strike at Southern was about DOO per se.

That’s correct. It wasn’t quite the “sell out” depicted in the press.

The ASLEF/GTR dispute was around a number of issues including pay, Ts and Cs (including the expansion of DOO), clarification of scope of the OBS role and others. DOO was already in the drivers’ contracts so there was no ability for ASLEF to strike to resist it.

 

[O L Leigh]

One of the things that often gets glossed over is the question of which union represents which grade. I heard a lot of comments from RMT members decrying the perceived inaction of ASLEF for not coming out in support of the guards, but that misses the important point that ASLEF represents drivers and not guards.

It also misses the important question of what steps are required to be taken before strike action can be mandated. ASLEF cannot simply call a strike citing solidarity with the RMT as such action would be illegal under union law, rendering the union open to legal action and their members to discipline for being, in effect, AWOL. That doesn't prevent ASLEF members acting individually based on their own conscience, however, by refusing to work overtime or rigorously enforcing their own terms and conditions, for example. As has been outlined above, ASLEF had their own issues with GTR/Southern and took what action they were legally mandated to take, but they could not have unilaterally defeated DOO.

 

[geoffk]

One of the things that often gets glossed over is the question of which union represents which grade. I heard a lot of comments from RMT members decrying the perceived inaction of ASLEF for not coming out in support of the guards, but that misses the important point that ASLEF represents drivers and not guards.

It also misses the important question of what steps are required to be taken before strike action can be mandated. ASLEF cannot simply call a strike citing solidarity with the RMT as such action would be illegal under union law, rendering the union open to legal action and their members to discipline for being, in effect, AWOL. That doesn't prevent ASLEF members acting individually based on their own conscience, however, by refusing to work overtime or rigorously enforcing their own terms and conditions, for example. As has been outlined above, ASLEF had their own issues with GTR/Southern and took what action they were legally mandated to take, but they could not have unilaterally defeated DOO.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never worked on the railway, but it seems that ASLEF will usually accept money to resolve a dispute while the RMT is more likely to take a stand on principle. The present RMT leader often seems to be fighting a lost cause whereas his predecessor Bob Crow only fought the battles he could win. And opposition DOO is probably a lost cause. Putting my tin hat on now!

 

[LowLevel]

One of the things that often gets glossed over is the question of which union represents which grade. I heard a lot of comments from RMT members decrying the perceived inaction of ASLEF for not coming out in support of the guards, but that misses the important point that ASLEF represents drivers and not guards.

It also misses the important question of what steps are required to be taken before strike action can be mandated. ASLEF cannot simply call a strike citing solidarity with the RMT as such action would be illegal under union law, rendering the union open to legal action and their members to discipline for being, in effect, AWOL. That doesn't prevent ASLEF members acting individually based on their own conscience, however, by refusing to work overtime or rigorously enforcing their own terms and conditions, for example. As has been outlined above, ASLEF had their own issues with GTR/Southern and took what action they were legally mandated to take, but they could not have unilaterally defeated DOO.

On the other hand there is nothing stopping the drivers making that decision for themselves to not cross the picket line, if they feel so strongly about the matter. It was the drivers on MerseyRail and the West Coast depots on WMR refusing to cross picket lines en masse following their own principles and crucially without being organised that gave the respective management teams a pretty tremendous shock by all accounts and seemed to have forced a climb down. I understand Euston in particular was like a warzone.

There is form for it - the same depots on the WCML famously refused to drive their trains DOO in the 90s and defeated the roll out then too.

 

[O L Leigh]

Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never worked on the railway, but it seems that ASLEF will usually accept money to resolve a dispute while the RMT is more likely to take a stand on principle. The present RMT leader often seems to be fighting a lost cause whereas his predecessor Bob Crow only fought the battles he could win. And opposition DOO is probably a lost cause. Putting my tin hat on now!

I do think that we need to tread carefully with regards to this topic and try not to stray too far from the path, as there are tigers out there in the long grass and we run the risk of running to multiple pages of invective if we're not careful.

The GTR/Southern dispute with ASLEF was, as has been outlined above, about pay and conditions, only some of which were pertinent to DOO operation. Clearly the package that the company offered was sufficient to meet the aspirations of the membership, and so it was passed. That's different from saying that ASLEF took a bung to shut up and go away (not that I'm saying that was your suggestion).

On the other hand there is nothing stopping the drivers making that decision for themselves to not cross the picket line, if they feel so strongly about the matter. It was the drivers on MerseyRail and the West Coast depots on WMR refusing to cross picket lines en masse following their own principles and crucially without being organised that gave the respective management teams a pretty tremendous shock by all accounts and seemed to have forced a climb down. I understand Euston in particular was like a warzone.

There is form for it - the same depots on the WCML famously refused to drive their trains DOO in the 90s and defeated the roll out then too.

Yes of course. And I did say as much.

 

[Bald Rick]

Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never worked on the railway, but it seems that ASLEF will usually accept money to resolve a dispute while the RMT is more likely to take a stand on principle. The present RMT leader often seems to be fighting a lost cause whereas his predecessor Bob Crow only fought the battles he could win. And opposition DOO is probably a lost cause. Putting my tin hat on now!

Different circumstances.

Most unions will ‘accept the money’ where that is an option. RMT have done so on many other matters.

On the issue of DOO and ‘guards’, that’s not an option for the RMT. “Accepting the money” is of little use if the jobs don’t exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Different circumstances.

Most unions will ‘accept the money’ where that is an option. RMT have done so on many other matters.

On the issue of DOO and ‘guards’, that’s not an option for the RMT. “Accepting the money” is of little use if the jobs don’t exist.

Though there's "the jobs" and "the jobs". It isn't wide of the mark to suggest that DOO could be slowly phased in by ceasing to recruit guards, but all existing guards would keep their jobs (either as guards or as OBS etc) until they decided to leave of their own volition, with the TOC also offering voluntary (on a genuinely voluntary basis) or assistance in retraining e.g. to drivers for those who would find that attractive if they want to speed it along. However, the RMT seems more interested in protecting the grade overall than in simply defending the jobs of their existing members in those jobs, and for balance the TOCs just want to do it quickly.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm writing an article on the history of the DOO strikes.

Just noticed this in the OP. Can I ask who the article is for and where it might appear?

I think it might be worth raising the age-old warning of not relying too much on the media for a full, unbiased account. Bear in mind that the media will often reproduce highly partial press releases and that they will pander to the political and economic proclivities of their customer base (remember that the media exists largely for the purpose of shifting units as much as public opinion).

 

[PG]

However, the RMT seems more interested in protecting the grade overall than in simply defending the jobs of their existing members in those jobs, and for balance the TOCs just want to do it quickly.

If you follow that to a logical conclusion though then the RMT as a union would shrink, and thus be in a weaker negotiating position, if x number of members leave the union (because their jobs don't exist) so it's understandable why they are trying to protect the grade overall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you follow that to a logical conclusion though then the RMT as a union would shrink, and thus be in a weaker negotiating position, if x number of members leave the union (because their jobs don't exist) so it's understandable why they are trying to protect the grade overall.

Yes, that's a good point, didn't think of it that way.

 

[Carlisle]

I thought they had pushed for it although admittedly I'm not as well informed as I used to be.

IIRC the 2010 dispute the Scottish Gov wanted DOO? Is that right?

I think your correct, as following on from what I understand were pretty widely acknowledged as successful DCO operations that’d stood the test of time in Strathclyde & more recently the Bathgate line, Transport Scotland were keen to adopt similar operating methods on their next phase of newly electrified routes. However it’s coinciding with & hence comparison to the lengthy Southern dispute meant political considerations about outmanoeuvring Westminster ultimately trumped those of the Transport professionals preferred method of operation

 

[Bald Rick]

If you follow that to a logical conclusion though then the RMT as a union would shrink, and thus be in a weaker negotiating position, if x number of members leave the union (because their jobs don't exist) so it's understandable why they are trying to protect the grade overall.

Yes, that's a good point, didn't think of it that way.

And that’s part of what it is about. The RMT membership has been on a long term trend of shrinking, although it does sometimes claim to the the UKs fastest growing union (no doubt true when claimed).

 

[O L Leigh]

Hmm. I've never really been entirely convinced by that line of argument.

If you follow that to a logical conclusion though then the RMT as a union would shrink, and thus be in a weaker negotiating position, if x number of members leave the union (because their jobs don't exist) so it's understandable why they are trying to protect the grade overall.

From a union representation point of view it almost doesn't matter if the grade shrinks as the total numbers do not affect the strength of the negotiating position. What matters here is the proportion of the total number that they represent. If that proportion is, say, 85% it doesn't really matter whether there are 300 or 30 in the grade because the union still has a strong representation. The only thing that total numbers do affect is the ability to take disruptive action, as the impact will be smaller.

And this is where I think the unions need to sit up and take notice. The risk is that, through their dealings with the TOCs, they cease to be seen as representative and therefore relevant to their existing membership. If the unions are that bothered about ensuring that their coffers are nicely topped up with our membership subs they need to make sure that they remain relevant and do a good job at being truly representative, otherwise their memberships will become alienated and start to drift away resulting in a watering down of their negotiating position.

 

[PG]

From a union representation point of view it almost doesn't matter if the grade shrinks as the total numbers do not affect the strength of the negotiating position. What matters here is the proportion of the total number that they represent. If that proportion is, say, 85% it doesn't really matter whether there are 300 or 30 in the grade because the union still has a strong representation. The only thing that total numbers do affect is the ability to take disruptive action, as the impact will be smaller.

A good point, well made, which I hadn't realised. Thank you.

 

[O L Leigh]

A good point, well made, which I hadn't realised. Thank you.

Very happy to contribute. It's just nice to have a grown-up conversation on such matters for a change.

 

[Horizon22]

If you follow that to a logical conclusion though then the RMT as a union would shrink, and thus be in a weaker negotiating position, if x number of members leave the union (because their jobs don't exist) so it's understandable why they are trying to protect the grade overall.

A little off-topic but has the RMT still not recognised Southern OBS as a grade? Or has anyone else (TSSA?) taken up that mantle?

 

[pompeyfan]

I’ll happily hold my hand up and say I’m surprised the OBS grade is still going strong 4 years on and potentially I was wrong.

I am a little bit surprised that they’ve been used as competent persons in evacuation such as that between Netley and Sholing as well as the double fatality at three bridges as they are not PTS trained.

sadly the job has changed massively in those 4 years, with the job moving from safety, to revenue, to now glorified customer service and security. I still have my preferred of operation and believe a good proactive guard can do all three whilst being in full control of the doors but respect other people may not agree with this

 

[Bald Rick]

From a union representation point of view it almost doesn't matter if the grade shrinks as the total numbers do not affect the strength of the negotiating position. What matters here is the proportion of the total number that they represent. If that proportion is, say, 85% it doesn't really matter whether there are 300 or 30 in the grade because the union still has a strong representation. The only thing that total numbers do affect is the ability to take disruptive action, as the impact will be smaller.

I agree with that too - but total size does matter both in terms of relevance in the union movement generally, but also financial weight to be able support action. Like it or not, the RMT still operates in a similarly way to a business, and it needs income to function.