RMT in dispute with SWR regarding ‘guardian angels’

[HSTEd]

Yes it really is a "How far does the crow fly?" type of question. I would hope by the end of July though.

For myself I will be surprised if the restrictions are lifted before christmas.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

For myself I will be surprised if the restrictions are lifted before christmas.

Wow - if that is the case the damage to the economy will be nearly as bad as WW2.

 

[Swimbar]

Wow - if that is the case the damage to the economy will be nearly as bad as WW2.

I think that's likely chose how much longer it goes on.

 

[matt_world2004]

I thought the type of organisations that you could volunteer for were strictly controlled under national minimum wage legislation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If SWR have furloughed any of their staff and these can be redeployed to where the volunteers will be allocated, then I do not agree with SWR's actions.

If they're furloughed at 80% I'd agree, if at 100% then they're being paid to do nothing so who cares?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't worry, most other unions are completely ineffective. Take solace in that. A union wishing to defend it's members, whatever next?

Are agency security staff able to join the RMT, and if so, how many actually have done?

The RMT likes mostly to defend its income by e.g. defending "the future of a grade" (you know which one I mean, but I don't want a debate on that in itself) - i.e. defending people who aren't even in a job yet.

Unions should be restricted to defending the actual jobs of their actual members - nothing more. Objecting to matters of company policy that do not directly affect those members (the current ones, not any theoretical future recruits) is way overstepping the mark.

Do these roles directly adversely affect any presently employed member of railway staff who would be an RMT member? The only one I can think of is if they're using volunteers rather than bringing back people who are on 80%/capped furlough, and I'd support them if they stated that was the issue. If however it doesn't affect such roles (i.e. the furloughed staff couldn't or wouldn't do this role, or the furlough is at 100% pay) then this is utterly irrelevant and they need to wind their neck in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the type of organisations that you could volunteer for were strictly controlled under national minimum wage legislation.

You can volunteer for whoever you like, so far as I know - but if you are paid anything at all, even in kind, then the minimum wage kicks in. This often comes up in discussion in Scouting, for example, where a Leader's kid getting free subs or camps comes very close to that line if it indeed doesn't cross it.

 

[Swimbar]

I thought the type of organisations that you could volunteer for were strictly controlled under national minimum wage legislation.

All volunteers of all types are exempt from the NLW.

 

[matt_world2004]

All volunteers of all types are exempt from the NLW.

I thought to be defined as a volunteer you had to work for a charity or other not for profit organisation. This was to stop private companies taking advantage of volunteers

Voluntary workers
Workers aren’t entitled to the minimum wage if both of the following apply:

they’re working for a charity, voluntary organisation, associated fund raising body or a statutory body
they don’t get paid, except for limited benefits (eg reasonable travel or lunch expenses)

Employment rights and pay for interns

Rights for interns and students in the workplace; work experience; work placements; rights to the National Minimum Wage.

www.gov.uk

 

[Swimbar]

I thought to be defined as a volunteer you had to work for a charity or other not for profit organisation. This was to stop private companies taking advantage of volunteers

Employment rights and pay for interns

Rights for interns and students in the workplace; work experience; work placements; rights to the National Minimum Wage.

www.gov.uk

The Dft is a statutory body

 

[matt_world2004]

The Dft is a statutory body

First MTR South Western Trains limited isn't though.

 

[Swimbar]

First MTR South Western Trains limited isn't though.

I suspect that technically they are recruited by the Dft - need a lawyer to sort this one?

 

[TUC]

Quite right too. Getting unpaid staff in to do a paid staff member's job just undermines everyone.

SWR are not a charity. Their directors are not unpaid. So why should their staff be?

If the job needs doing, pay someone to do it. There's no shortage of people who'd be glad of the cash.



Covid or no Covid, it's a professional industry and should be treated as a professional industry. It's not the Titfield Thunderbolt.

So there's no room for community spirit or kindness. Everything has a price. Who wants that world?

 

[TUC]

I hope the Government, given the special circumstances, passes a law outlawing any such action.

I'd rather tons of public and media disapproval pour down on thr union and they are shamed into changing their attitude. That would be far more effective than legislation.

 

[TUC]

So why can't those staff be paid?

Because us taxpayers are not a bottomless pit.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably the RMT feel the same way about all the volunteers in Community Rail Partnerships who help out at stations all over the network. Or the St Johns Ambulance. Or parents who help out at their kids school.

And before anyone says ‘but this is different’ - no it isn’t.

Free support to a charity and to public sector organisations are the examples you're offering. You claim there's no difference at all between that and free support to... a TOC?

A lot of organisations which offer their staff paid volunteering time have the policy in place to require it to be for a registered charity, specifically to prevent this kind of work from taking place on their dime.

 

[Starmill]

Because us taxpayers are not a bottomless pit.

If paying people doing this job £8.72 / hour is genuinely something you have a taxpayer value issue with, I'd hate for you to see some of the stuff the Prime Minister has recently been spending your money on...

 

[Bald Rick]

Because the RMT doesn't represent the many branches of commercial and non-commercial organisations. Why is any issue ever different to any other issue?

I didn’t say ‘why is this different for the RMT’. I know who they represent.

What I mean is that for those who are agreeing with the RMT, why is it any different.

1) The RMT say that volunteers on the railway is unsafe and dangerous. I strongly disagree. Some posters here may agree with the RMT. But Let’s say I’m wrong, then by definition volunteers on any railway must be dangerous, and therefore we should close down all heritage lines, and stop any community rail partnerships, etc.

2) Alternatively the RMT position might be that having volunteers is wrong because they are working without pay. Again, I strongly disagree. But some posters on here do agree. Let’s say, again, that I’m wrong; therefore by definition any volunteers working without pay is wrong, and we should all stop volunteering.

My question for those agreeing with the RMT is, is it 1) or 2) or both? Either way I strongly disagree with you, and think you should have a good think about it.

If the position is volunteering is wrong on the railway, and other volunteering is irrelevant, my question is therefore: why is the railway different?

OK, a view from someone who was "inside " the industry during the Olympics in 2012.

There was considerable pressure placed on area and HQ staff to "volunteer" to be travel champions during the Olympics. For the most part higher management was met with apathy as most staff had two or three hours commuting per day in addition to a days work. Many of us had been planning changes to engineering works, services and maintenance schedules for the previous five or six years and were completely p***ed off with the Olympics.

From what I could gather there was a reasonable briefing for emergencies at the station(s) where you would volunteer but very little info on how passengers should travel to Stratford. ( And even less how to get home avoiding transport pinch points.) The failure for the first few days came with the great British public who wandered around like lost sheep and didn't ask or look at the signs. Initially no one told them to look for mauve tabards!

I worked for one week finalising a CPPP and preparing the next DPPP and then hid somewhere beyond Fort William for the other week

I must say this is completely opposite to my experience, and frankly disappointing. Everyone I met during the pink/mauve shirt days really, really enjoyed it. None felt pressured to sign up, all had great fun and made great friends, and all felt they were well briefed. I know because I asked about 100 of them. Many of the people I met whilst doing this are now lifelong friends. Long days, yes (especially for those of us doing double shifts), but not hard work, and an experience I will cherish. I’d also happily do it again, and do so unpaid.

 

[Bald Rick]

Free support to a charity and to public sector organisations are the examples you're offering. You claim there's no difference at all between that and free support to... a TOC?

I’m not sure if you missed it, but the railway has been a public sector organisation for 3 months.

Nevertheless, personally I find their corporate status irrelevant. If a volunteer wants to volunteer, that is surely up to them. Clearly some people will be less inclined to volunteer for a commercial enterprise than for a charity. That’s up to them too. I know others disagree.

 

[Goldfish62]

Fine, let them strike if they want. There's vast over-provision of train services currently anyway and I can't see a situation any time soon when the pre-Covid timetable will be needed.

 

[Starmill]

SWR is part of a £20bn public service called the railway system.

I don’t see the difference, if the railway is a public service, which I believe it is.

The problem is that as desirable as you might think that is, the government doesn't see it that way. They've spent a decade trying to force the railway to become self-funding, doing a great deal of harm to the public interest in the process, and operate as a business not as a public service. They haven't yet abandoned this policy. The BBC, NHS and services and school services are, like the railway, now, publicly funded. Those organisations only mission is to serve the public - and to spend public money only in their interest. The railway industry, even now, funded almost entirely by public money, isn't in anything like this position. The government also haven't made any indication that they will change the model yet either. There are hundreds of ways in which this manifests itself. The NHS does not abuse the law by threatening to prosecute its service users because that's a very easy way to generate cash, for example.

I’m not sure if you missed it, but the railway has been a public sector organisation for 3 months.

Glib comments aren't exactly helpful are they? You've still got this wrong, anyway.

A better analogy for the new mother railway is a powerful Quango - like HMRC, only even more dodgy than they are. I wonder if there are people queueing to up to volunteer to collect our taxes.

Nevertheless, personally I find their corporate status irrelevant.

A matter for you. But certainly also a matter which a trade union is empowered to raise, in the public interest. Even one with an appalling track record of acting in it themselves.

 

[TUC]

If paying people doing this job £8.72 / hour is genuinely something you have a taxpayer value issue with, I'd hate for you to see some of the stuff the Prime Minister has recently been spending your money on...

I meant this current situation has cost us more than enough. No more.

Besides what kind of people want to stop others from giving of their time freely?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Fine, let them strike if they want. There's vast over-provision of train services currently anyway and I can't see a situation any time soon when the pre-Covid timetable will be needed.

That would be my solution too. Let them ballot and let them strike. Lets see how it all pans out.

 

[TUC]

That would be my solution too. Let them ballot and let them strike. Lets see how it all pans out.

I agree.

 

[sheff1]

I didn’t say ‘why is this different for the RMT’. I know who they represent.

What I mean is that for those who are agreeing with the RMT, why is it any different.

1) The RMT say that volunteers on the railway is unsafe and dangerous. I strongly disagree. Some posters here may agree with the RMT. But Let’s say I’m wrong, then by definition volunteers on any railway must be dangerous, and therefore we should close down all heritage lines, and stop any community rail partnerships, etc.

2) Alternatively the RMT position might be that having volunteers is wrong because they are working without pay. Again, I strongly disagree. But some posters on here do agree. Let’s say, again, that I’m wrong; therefore by definition any volunteers working without pay is wrong, and we should all stop volunteering.

My question for those agreeing with the RMT is, is it 1) or 2) or both? Either way I strongly disagree with you, and think you should have a good think about it.

If the position is volunteering is wrong on the railway, and other volunteering is irrelevant, my question is therefore: why is the railway different?

Although 1) might have some merit, in some circumstances, I will just talk about 2). It is clear to me that if there is a requirement for people to direct passengers at stations that role should be performed by paid staff. Such work is completely different to, say, volunteeers who maintain the flower beds at Hindley who (i) do not direct passengers and (ii) perform a role which has not been specified as a requirement, it is just a 'nice to have' {whether it should be a requirement is another discussion altogether}.

When you then move to people volunteering in Charity shops and the like that is different again. Such people are giving their time to raise funds for a cause they agree with, not undertaking a role which has been specified as necessary by a commercial body or government department.

Going back to the railways, people volunteering their time to man an historical information stand about the local railway (as I have seen at places such as Carlisle) are very different to those charged with providing information about live railway running, ticketing etc at the same station. The former is not something I would expect a TOC to be responsible for, the latter should very much be a TOC responsibilty, and be performed by paid staff.

 

[Darandio]

Do we know the exact duties being carried out by these volunteers? Or are things like live information and ticketing just being added for drama?

 

[Swimbar]

I'd rather tons of public and media disapproval pour down on thr union and they are shamed into changing their attitude. That would be far more effective than legislation.

It doesn't seem to bother the RMT what the public and media think given past performances.
Sending a letter threatening a ballot on strike action clearly means they have no intention of sorting out the matter amicably as they have immediately jumped any number of steps available to them to discuss the matter with management.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although 1) might have some merit, in some circumstances, I will just talk about 2). It is clear to me that if there is a requirement for people to direct passengers at stations that role should be performed by paid staff. Such work is completely different to, say, volunteeers who maintain the flower beds at Hindley who (i) do not direct passengers and (ii) perform a role which has not been specified as a requirement, it is just a 'nice to have' {whether it should be a requirement is another discussion altogether}.

Ok fair enough. That’s your opinion.

I think the issue is that it hasn’t been made clear what these roles actually are, and whether they are fulfilling a role that has been specified as a requirement in the contract between the procurer and the supplier. It is my understanding that they are not. I might be wrong.

Nevertheless, it still seems extraordinarily gun-jumping of the RMT to head straight to a ballot when the facts are evidently not clear, and there seems to have been no attempt to seek clarification from SWR or the DfT. Of course it may well be the case that the facts may not have been made clear by the latter parties; but that doesn’t detract from the need to act reasonably and request clarification before deciding on next steps.

 

[Starmill]

Nevertheless, it still seems extraordinarily gun-jumping of the RMT to head straight to a ballot when the facts are evidently not clear, and there seems to have been no attempt to seek clarification from SWR or the DfT. Of course it may well be the case that the facts may not have been made clear by the latter parties; but that doesn’t detract from the need to act reasonably and request clarification before deciding on next steps.

Standard RMT though.

 

[sheff1]

Ok fair enough. That’s your opinion.

I think the issue is that it hasn’t been made clear what these roles actually are, and whether they are fulfilling a role that has been specified as a requirement in the contract between the procurer and the supplier. It is my understanding that they are not. I might be wrong.

Nevertheless, it still seems extraordinarily gun-jumping of the RMT to head straight to a ballot when the facts are evidently not clear, and there seems to have been no attempt to seek clarification from SWR or the DfT. Of course it may well be the case that the facts may not have been made clear by the latter parties; but that doesn’t detract from the need to act reasonably and request clarification before deciding on next steps.

Indeed. As I said in my initial post on the subject(#32), in the absence of a SWR / DfT statement I can only form an opinion based on taking the RMT statement at face value. If / when SWR / DfT do make a statement it might cause me to change my opinion.