RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[kw12]

Last month the RSSB published a report of the "risk associated with train despatch".

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk...eport-risk-associated-with-train-dispatch.pdf

The report published findings from an analysis of "six years of recent safety data (2010-2015)" and "looked at all the relevant recorded incidents at the platform edge on the national rail network", together with the despath method (driver only from an unstaffed platform, driver and guard from an unstaffed platform, driver only from a staffed platform, or driver and guard from a staffed platform). In addition to "the risk to passengers as they enter and leave train carriages" the analysis included assessing "the risk of a collision following a SPAD from a platform starting signal".

The report concluded that "there is no additional risk for passengers boarding and alighting DCO/DOO trains, and indeed that trains without a guard actually appear to lower overall dispatch related safety risk to passengers".

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Last month the RSSB published a report of the "risk associated with train despatch".

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk...eport-risk-associated-with-train-dispatch.pdf

The report published findings from an analysis of "six years of recent safety data (2010-2015)" and "looked at all the relevant recorded incidents at the platform edge on the national rail network", together with the despath method (driver only from an unstaffed platform, driver and guard from an unstaffed platform, driver only from a staffed platform, or driver and guard from a staffed platform). In addition to "the risk to passengers as they enter and leave train carriages" the analysis included assessing "the risk of a collision following a SPAD from a platform starting signal".

The report concluded that "there is no additional risk for passengers boarding and alighting DCO/DOO trains, and indeed that trains without a guard actually appear to lower overall dispatch related safety risk to passengers".

Of course another *cough *cough "Independent" report. There needs to be a TRULY independent report as most staff take reports from the RSSB with a pinch of salt.

 

[HH]

Of course another *cough *cough "Independent" report. There needs to be a TRULY independent report as most staff take reports from the RSSB with a pinch of salt.

Nothing is TRULY Independent. Still, rather than just cast aspersions, what faults do you find with the data or their analysis of it?

 

[Camden]

Seems pretty balanced and evidence based to me. They even looked at SPADs.

 

[ivanhoe]

As somebody who is just a passenger, the Report seemed balanced. I understand the concerns of current Guards though, mainly through the eyes of serving Staff on this forum. Their issue is to really convince the general public on Merseyside. The closed nature of Merseyrail, means that it is difficult for any strike to seriously impact on the Merseyside Economy. Buses, Ferries ,Cars and indeed bikes can replace the train without serious impact on most people. Yes, it will inconvenience, but Merseyrail can put enough services to cover National Events such as the Grand National and The Open Golf. Merseyrail does not seriously impact on match day for football fans. Yes, some will be inconvenienced but it has little impact on the gates.
If you want to take this dispute to another level, you're going to have to consider an all out strike. Difficult to persuade members, I would agree, but the current dispute is not going anywhere unless the RMT is prepared to ramp it up. Is there any Middle Ground?

 

[northwichcat]

Of course another *cough *cough "Independent" report. There needs to be a TRULY independent report as most staff take reports from the RSSB with a pinch of salt.

I personally think the only way to get a truly independent report is for an organisation with no rail connections to do the report. However, then if people don't like the findings of the report they'll start using the author's lack of rail knowledge as a reason for dismissing the conclusions.

 

[northwichcat]

I understand the concerns of current Guards though, mainly through the eyes of serving Staff on this forum. Their issue is to really convince the general public on Merseyside. The closed nature of Merseyrail, means that it is difficult for any strike to seriously impact on the Merseyside Economy. Buses, Ferries ,Cars and indeed bikes can replace the train without serious impact on most people. Yes, it will inconvenience, but Merseyrail can put enough services to cover National Events such as the Grand National and The Open Golf. Merseyrail does not seriously impact on match day for football fans. Yes, some will be inconvenienced but it has little impact on the gates.
If you want to take this dispute to another level, you're going to have to consider an all out strike. Difficult to persuade members, I would agree, but the current dispute is not going anywhere unless the RMT is prepared to ramp it up. Is there any Middle Ground?

I don't follow your argument. The plan for Merseyrail is for some services to operate with only a driver on board and the details about which services will have additional security staff on board are vague. The Merseyrail strikes already have more public support than the Northern ones, many of the passengers who say they support the Northern ones wrongly presume Northern's plans are the same as Merseyrail's and the RMT calling Northern and Merseyrail strikes on the same day is part of the reason behind that.

The RMT have called a 72 hour strike for Merseyrail and already attempted to disrupt two major events. What do you mean by 'ramp it up', do you mean the RMT should break the law by getting non-Merseyrail members to strike to cause more dispution? If they do their members could legally be sacked without any entitlement to notice or redundancy pay, which would be a bad path to go down.

 

[footprints]

The Merseyrail strikes already have more public support than the Northern ones.

The RMT probably did have public support on Merseyside at the start of this dispute, however I think that evaporated in a flash when they chose to target Grand National day, exacerbated by the decision to then target the Open.

Deliberately seeking to undermine some of the biggest events in the city and region's calendar has been a PR disaster. You only have to read the comments on the latest Liverpool Echo article about the strikes, the overwhelming majority are criticising the RMT, to see how public opinion has shifted.

A few examples:

Sounds like another excuse for the guards to get a few days off work!! Just get back to work, and lets get the new trains!

Driver-only trains operate on many lines throughout the country without any problems. The whole of London Underground is driver only but don't tell that to the overpaid, underworked members of the rail unions. If they had their way, a rail operative would have to walk in front of every train waving a red flag.

The RMT should spend less time driving their members into strike action which leaves them financially worse off and much MUCH more time around the negotiation table getting suitable compromise for their members.
All this does is frustrate commuters and leave members financially worse off. Disgraceful.

THe RMT and their supporters, never letting a lie get in the way of a bloody good story.

RMT are pushing utter rubbish. Heard how guards save lives, deliver life saving first aid? Deal with criminals? Any passengers of Merseyrail ever seen this? I sure haven’t!

Here we go again with the RMT taking us back to the 70's and the Liverpool disease that gave Merseyside workers a bad name when we all thought that was a thing of the past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The RMT have called a 72 hour strike for Merseyrail and already attempted to disrupt two major events. What do you mean by 'ramp it up', do you mean the RMT should break the law by getting non-Merseyrail members to strike to cause more dispution? If they do their members could legally be sacked without any entitlement to notice or redundancy pay, which would be a bad path to go down.

I don't believe he means this, I believe he means an all-out strike of the guards, i.e. no work until there is agreement. That's totally legal, but is hard on the workers because they will receive no pay.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Not to mention Merseyrail are actively promoting their side of the argument, with signage etc. up at stations.

 

[grumblingalong]

The trouble with these report is, at risk of sounding slightly like a luddite, is that they only comprise reported data. They do not include the incidents that myself and fellow guards prevent day in day out without any need to report as we consider them perfectly normal, the data will change if DOO comes the norm to then show the real side of it.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't believe he means this, I believe he means an all-out strike of the guards, i.e. no work until there is agreement. That's totally legal, but is hard on the workers because they will receive no pay.

A strike doesn't mean all members have to go on strike even if the view that anyone crossing a picket line is scum is still the view of some RMT members. Too many days striking would also imply that guards can comfortably live on a fraction of their salary, which wouldn't help get the public on their side.

 

[northwichcat]

The trouble with these report is, at risk of sounding slightly like a luddite, is that they only comprise reported data. They do not include the incidents that myself and fellow guards prevent day in day out without any need to report as we consider them perfectly normal, the data will change if DOO comes the norm to then show the real side of it.

So do guards not record near misses?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So do guards not record near misses?

If we did that we would spend hours every day filling in tir's. We prevent so many accidents we do not even think about it, its just what we do.

 

[Moonshot]

If we did that we would spend hours every day filling in tir's. We prevent so many accidents we do not even think about it, its just what we do.

Which deosnt actually help ......there is a demand for evidence based reporting. I actually do this, but I dont spend hours every day filling in TIRs.

 

[Moonshot]

I personally think the only way to get a truly independent report is for an organisation with no rail connections to do the report. However, then if people don't like the findings of the report they'll start using the author's lack of rail knowledge as a reason for dismissing the conclusions.

Considering that the RSSB also produce our rule books, I can safely say that there is certainly no lacking of knowledge

 

[northwichcat]

Considering that the RSSB also produce our rule books, I can safely say that there is certainly no lacking of knowledge

I thought the RSSB was the organisation which the claims of not being properly independent related to, which is why I suggested you could get an external organisation without any rail connections.

 

[Moonshot]

I thought the RSSB was the organisation which the claims of not being properly independent related to, which is why I suggested you could get an external organisation without any rail connections.

Well as was pointed out earlier, nothing is ever truly independent. RSSB set the rule book standards, which generally have historical evidence to back them up.

 

[northwichcat]

TUC have backed the RMT over the Merseyrail dispute. However, the RMT haven't returned the favour as they have attacked the TUC over their desire to retain the benefits of the single European market.

 

[craigybagel]

TUC have backed the RMT over the Merseyrail dispute. However, the RMT haven't returned the favour as they have attacked the TUC over their desire to retain the benefits of the single European market.

And? People are allowed have differing opinions - there is more than one union after all. It's also worth pointing out that I suspect judging by messroom talk a strong majority of railstaff were Pro Brexit (although not be personally I hasten to add).

 

[northwichcat]

And? People are allowed have differing opinions - there is more than one union after all. It's also worth pointing out that I suspect judging by messroom talk a strong majority of railstaff were Pro Brexit (although not be personally I hasten to add).

I simply pointed out the situation. The RMT seem to think Brexit will mean more trains built in the UK, yet when Bombardier don't even bid for some contracts or offer a vastly inferior product to some other manufacturers I don't see how they will be able to get more contracts post-Brexit.

 

[daikilo]

I simply pointed out the situation. The RMT seem to think Brexit will mean more trains built in the UK, yet when Bombardier don't even bid for some contracts or offer a vastly inferior product to some other manufacturers I don't see how they will be able to get more contracts post-Brexit.

If trans-border tarrifs are introduced and if they are say 30% then a Derby train could be cheaper than an import. This simply means that if a TOC wants to buy say a CAF or Hitachi train then it will be more expenive.

Note that the Brexit rule will only apply in this case to CAF, with Hitachi being outside Europe and possibly inside UK.

 

[northwichcat]

What about Alstom and Siemens?

CAF will soon have a UK facility.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Taxation/VAT works on components as well as final delivery.
Bombardier includes many EU components on its UK-assembled trains (eg traction packages, TMS, ETCS etc).
Same for Alstom/CAF trains "built in Britain". Siemens is at least honest and is squarely German.
Hitachi imports nearly all its components for Newton Aycliffe from Japan (outside EU but subject to single market tariffs).
If you had to build a "total British train" (with all the options offered by the foreign majors), you would have a hard job sourcing all the bits, whatever the tariff situation.
They will probably come from China.
For a vision of post-Brexit hi-tech manufacturing, see James Dyson, a prominent Brexit supporter.
A decent design capability in the UK, but all manufacturing in the Far East.

 

[Ianigsy]

TUC have backed the RMT over the Merseyrail dispute. However, the RMT haven't returned the favour as they have attacked the TUC over their desire to retain the benefits of the single European market.

I'd expect the TUC to support any union conducting a dispute within the law. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're going to see eye to eye with every union on broader issues- the RMT can afford to take a more protectionist line but there's a more immediate need to protect workers in sectors like manufacturing who can be laid off at short notice if their employers lose business in the EU.

 

[Goldfish62]

And? People are allowed have differing opinions - there is more than one union after all. It's also worth pointing out that I suspect judging by messroom talk a strong majority of railstaff were Pro Brexit (although not be personally I hasten to add).

Based on my rail staff friends I'd say the complete opposite. A couple have even left the RMT because of it.

 

[Goldfish62]

I simply pointed out the situation. The RMT seem to think Brexit will mean more trains built in the UK, yet when Bombardier don't even bid for some contracts or offer a vastly inferior product to some other manufacturers I don't see how they will be able to get more contracts post-Brexit.

I have thought it's more to do with the national executive's extreme political ideology that any consideration of benefits to their members.

 

[gavin]

Southern, Merseyrail, Arriva Rail North and Greater Anglia are going on strike on October 3rd & 5th

 

[PR1Berske]

Southern, Merseyrail, Arriva Rail North and Greater Anglia are going on strike on October 3rd & 5th

The quote from Merseyrail (or merseytravel, I think) is "The RMT don't want Liverpool to succeed" by calling the strikes at the time of Lime Street being closed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect that means the only service that will operate is a Central to SP non stop shuttle.