Remaining DOO disputes?

[Carlisle]

How does that work on a long train of non-camera-fitted stock? Does the driver have to get out and look?

Maybe using either the door , droplight window, or assistance from platform staff (if available)

 

[Efini92]

As there’s presently no agreement for their use on northern, the body side camera equipment isn’t likely to be a regular part of current depot cleaning or maintenance schedules, & a considerable number of stations probably still require lighting upgrades.

It’s nothing to do with the cleanliness of the covers. They are just really poor cameras. They were poor when they were first delivered.

 

[RichardKing]

The rule book is explicit that Ecs passenger stock must be despatched correctly by checking the PTI. This includes a train stopped in a platform at a signal its not booked to stop at.

How does that work on a long train of non-camera-fitted stock? Does the driver have to get out and look?

Isn't it the case at certain TOCs (I've certainly seen it on Southern) that trains won't actually pull into a platform it's not due to call at whilst the starter signal has not cleared? This applies to both ECS and passenger services.

Obviously, this would be difficult to do on a curved platform where you cannot see the signal. Then again, a banner repeater would indicate whether or not the train has the road.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Isn't it the case at certain TOCs (I've certainly seen it on Southern) that trains won't actually pull into a platform it's not due to call at whilst the starter signal has not cleared? This applies to both ECS and passenger services.

This was/is also an instruction for slam door stock at my TOC. Some older drivers still do this with IETs but newer ones will pull right up to platform starter and then use the cameras before moving off. Is this a sign of things to come?

 

[387star]

OBS seem to love hiding in the back cab making one announcement then slamming the back door shut and strolling off. Nothing changes it seems.

 

[Carlisle]

It’s nothing to do with the cleanliness of the covers. They are just really poor cameras. They were poor when they were first delivered.

Ok, but given management & staff reps visited the manufacturing plant during construction, it slightly surprising northern accepted brand new trains with obvious faults

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok, but given management & staff reps visited the manufacturing plant during construction, it slightly surprising northern accepted brand new trains with obvious faults

I wouldn't say DOO cameras were anywhere near the top of the list of problems with this generation of CAF UK stock.

 

[Carlisle]

I wouldn't say DOO cameras were anywhere near the top of the list of problems with this generation of CAF UK stock.

I agree that’s true, however as Arriva’s original francihise commitments aimed for DCO on at least some routes fairly early on, you’d have thought decent cctv equipment would’ve been a relatively high priority for their new trains

 

[Efini92]

Ok, but given management & staff reps visited the manufacturing plant during construction, it slightly surprising northern accepted brand new trains with obvious faults

They were rushed into service with numerous faults. The ASLEF reps must have had too much sangria as the cab ergonomics are all wrong

 

[pompeyfan]

Has there been any update to the DCO dispute at SWR? It’s all gone a bit quiet

 

[dingdinger]

Has there been any update to the DCO dispute at SWR? It’s all gone a bit quiet

Refendum (rmt) taking place this week on a proposal agreed between rmt and swr for the new role of the guard. New proposal guarantees a guard on every train but on 701s the guard will have no role in the dispatch unless assisting a passenger. Also the non commercial grade would now have a new title of metro guard. Various other conditions in the proposal too.

 

[Ashley Hill]

on 701s the guard will have no role in the dispatch unless assisting a passenger

Which will then become the new standard on any new train introduced. It's the thin end of the wedge!

 

[pompeyfan]

Which will then become the new standard on any new train introduced. It's the thin end of the wedge!

I assume that applies for desiro and sprinter replacements too... sounds pretty boring to be honest.

 

[dingdinger]

I assume that applies for desiro and sprinter replacements too... sounds pretty boring to be honest.

I presume so as dco will be the companies preferred operation mode. I believe they want desiros to be driver open guard close in the next couple of years and I assume the converted 458s will be the same.

 

[DorkingMain]

Which will then become the new standard on any new train introduced. It's the thin end of the wedge!

ASLEF signed a deal agreeing to it over a year ago, so the decision was made the moment they did. But yes; the deal says 701s and all new/existing stock where practical.

 

[TEW]

ASLEF signed a deal agreeing to it over a year ago, so the decision was made the moment they did. But yes; the deal says 701s and all new/existing stock where practical.

Exactly. The RMT have attempted to make the best of a bad situation as far as they're concerned and have secured benefits for guards in return for accepting DCO, whilst retaining a guard on board every service.

 

[Ceat0908]

So will that mean that all SWR guards will then become commercial guards? what else will they do if they aren’t regularly dispatching

 

[dingdinger]

So will that mean that all SWR guards will then become commercial guards? what else will they do if they aren’t regularly dispatching

No, as I previously mentioned in the new proposal the non commercial grade will be called metro guards, and will have some extra customer service duties but won't be selling tickets.

 

[pompeyfan]

No, as I previously mentioned in the new proposal the non commercial grade will be called metro guards, and will have some extra customer service duties but won't be selling tickets.

Am I correct in thinking they’ll be provided with an Oyster/contactless reader? But in the event of no method of payment or a person who wants to buy a physical ticket they can’t do anything? Seems like it’s just going to cause extra conflict If I’m honest.

 

[AgentGemini]

Would like the above post.

 

[Monty]

Refendum (rmt) taking place this week on a proposal agreed between rmt and swr for the new role of the guard. New proposal guarantees a guard on every train but on 701s the guard will have no role in the dispatch unless assisting a passenger. Also the non commercial grade would now have a new title of metro guard. Various other conditions in the proposal too.

There are a *lot* of changes being proposed, have promptly told the company and the union to do one. We will be giving so much up for nothing more than a slightly reduced working week.

 

[flitwickbeds]

There are a *lot* of changes being proposed, have promptly told the company and the union to do one. We will be giving so much up for nothing more than a slightly reduced working week.

What are you giving up, and how many hours will the working week reduce to?

 

[Snow1964]

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.

40 years since first DOO dispute started, there cannot be that many guards left still working, who started the role before the disputes started.

All the complexities have been created by a union desperate to retain membership numbers, and thus subscription income, so the union bosses don't have to live like paupers.

You won't find many new complexities that didn't exist when the Bedpan (Bedford-St Pancras) debate started. Most complexities are rehashing or varying what was agreed by 1984, its not about the principle anymore, just fine detail. There is no technical reason why something that meets agreed conditions on one route, cannot be applied to another route.

The media will tend to print only what (selective and biased) information is released to them, very unlikely to send a reporter to get the back story for last couple of decades, so using media reports exclusively for explanation could lead to wrong history being collated.

 

[Ashley Hill]

All the complexities have been created by a union desperate to retain membership numbers, and thus subscription income, so the union bosses don't have to live like paupers.

Whilst that may be a common view,faced with a chance of your job desccription changing for the worse I'd be glad of the RMT representing me. Often what other TOCs agree to sets a precedent for others to follow. Remember that not all guards want to be drivers and none of us want to be expendable glorified ticket examiners. For me it's not always about the money, it's the quality of work and job satisfaction too.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Remember that not all guards want to be drivers and none of us want to be expendable glorified ticket examiners. For me it's not always about the money, it's the quality of work and job satisfaction too.

It's worth remembering that the primary role of employment is to provide a service to an employer in exchange for a salary. Without that contribution of a value-added service, the reason for employment is lost. If the employer no longer feels that the service provided is in line with their business needs, and thus adds little value, then continuation of that role purely to provide job satisfaction will become unsustainable in the long term.

I don't see many typing pools in offices these days. Similarly I wouldn't encourage training to be a typesetter for a newspaper, satisfying as a job it probably no doubt was until the 1980s. Are we to suggest that employers should be paying armies of typists to do a job that no longer exists, purely because they like doing it?

We come back to the point that it is an unreasonable expectation to enter employment at 18 and expect to go through your working life to 67 without your employer making necessary changes to the type of work you do to keep up to date, just because you happen to like the job you currently do. Ultimately it is for the employer to determine what contribution you can usefully make to the organisation's success, not the employee, nor a union.

 

[O L Leigh]

You won't find many new complexities that didn't exist when the Bedpan (Bedford-St Pancras) debate started. Most complexities are rehashing or varying what was agreed by 1984, its not about the principle anymore, just fine detail. There is no technical reason why something that meets agreed conditions on one route, cannot be applied to another route.

The problem is that this statement is not true. The safety culture has moved on a very long way since 1982, particularly with regard to dispatch. The conditions of operation that were agreed back then have altered dramatically over the subsequent four decades and no DOO scheme would be agreed now based on the principles of the agreements struck in the 80s.

Just to head-off the inevitable question about why then it is that schemes that were agreed back then have been permitted to continue in the face of changing requirements, part of it is because of it being a legacy agreement and part due to improvements in technology and working practices. The workload on a driver of a legacy DOO unit such as a Cl317 is now much higher than it would have been when those units were first in service in the 1980s.

 

[DorkingMain]

It's worth remembering that the primary role of employment is to provide a service to an employer in exchange for a salary. Without that contribution of a value-added service, the reason for employment is lost. If the employer no longer feels that the service provided is in line with their business needs, and thus adds little value, then continuation of that role purely to provide job satisfaction will become unsustainable in the long term.

I don't see many typing pools in offices these days. Similarly I wouldn't encourage training to be a typesetter for a newspaper, satisfying as a job it probably no doubt was until the 1980s. Are we to suggest that employers should be paying armies of typists to do a job that no longer exists, purely because they like doing it?

We come back to the point that it is an unreasonable expectation to enter employment at 18 and expect to go through your working life to 67 without your employer making necessary changes to the type of work you do to keep up to date, just because you happen to like the job you currently do. Ultimately it is for the employer to determine what contribution you can usefully make to the organisation's success, not the employee, nor a union.

This is a complete non-sequitur because the role of guards in dispatch is something that works perfectly well. It's not an archaic practice that's holding the railway back, nor is it a job role that no longer needs to exist. There's a very questionable safety case for DOO dispatch, or the benefits it provides. Almost all recent DOO disputes have been ideological, and pushed by central government, not because the employer decided they weren't getting value out of the guards role.

 

[Brissle Girl]

This is a complete non-sequitur because the role of guards in dispatch is something that works perfectly well. It's not an archaic practice that's holding the railway back, nor is it a job role that no longer needs to exist. There's a very questionable safety case for DOO dispatch, or the benefits it provides. Almost all recent DOO disputes have been ideological, and pushed by central government, not because the employer decided they weren't getting value out of the guards role.

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).

 

[DorkingMain]

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).

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.

 

[londonteacher]

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?