• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

RMT in dispute with SWR regarding ‘guardian angels’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
who has decided that the "job needs doing"? Is it SWR or is it the DFT? I'm unclear on this.

It seems to be a national scheme led by the DfT, but details are sketchy. Presumably someone has decided it needs doing, but not enough to pay for it.

Also....if they are "unpaid volunteers".....how are they being "funded" by the DFT? As per my previous post, SWR would not be allowed to recruit 185 staff on contracts and onto the payroll of the company under the present agreements that the DFT have with Operating Companies.

I think the costs of the scheme are being funded by the DfT, and even unpaid volunteers have a cost attached.

All TOCs have the ability to bring in temporary or agency staff, although perhaps they will need DfT permission. But as DfT are pushing this scheme, it comes back to the same question: if the job needs doing, why isn't it paid?

IMO whether it's the DfT or SWR pushing it is a side issue. The whole DOO dispute on SWR was a DfT scheme, after all.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
So if you can find people willing and happy to do it without pay - why pay?

Which is, of course, exactly why the lower grades at SWR are worried enough to bring it to national RMT's attention.

"Why pay when someone will do it for free" is precisely the problem.

There are plenty who'll be as happy as a pig in poo if they've got a hi-viz tabard and the power to boss people around, so you could quite realistically replace all CSA-grade staff with volunteers. No wonder CSA-grade staff are worried.

What makes the rail industry any different to all the other companies, government bodies, and charities that use volunteers?

Charities using volunteers is not such a problem, because of the very nature of charitie, though is not without issue.

Where you get government bodies or profit-making companies using volunteers, that's where I get more uncomfortable. "Big Society" was basically a government initiative to get people off the payroll, as you see with "community libraries", run by volunteers that were previously paid staff. Or "community bus drivers" that replace proper bus services.

And that's before you get into the likes of Poundland using "work experience", through the DWP jobseeker schemes, to stack shelves despite having no intention of ever actually giving them a paid job.

In my own job I've seen volunteers being used as the reason for funders to cut our funding. We could just take on more volunteers if we need more staff.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Ok so looking at the past few points it sort of confirms my thinking, that no UK TOC has furloughed any of its staff. The likes of GC and Eurostar are outside of the normal arrangements and are presumably not receiving the support from the DFT either.
The bills are getting paid by the government regardless, meaning that there is/was no point in furloughing the staff as the same person will end up paying regardless.
 

Harlequin

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2017
Messages
38
Location
Petersfield
Could possibly be people wanting a foot in the door with the railway who also want something to do whilst furloughed? Rail staff get portayed as receiving disproportionately high salaries (not my view, I might add) and the way people have been treated by current employers might be leading them to explore a potential career change. I'd probably give it a go if I was in their position, were it not for the fact that colourblindness would likely rule me out of any permanent role.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,901
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
The bills are getting paid by the government regardless, meaning that there is/was no point in furloughing the staff as the same person will end up paying regardless.
Yes they have, at least one. It may be a money go round fiddle, but its happened.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Yes they have, at least one. It may be a money go round fiddle, but its happened.
I was replying to someone who said they had not. Which one - I was not aware of this?

It's known that TfL and LUL (including those providing services on behalf of these companies) have, but that is because these organisations do not get government funding for day-to-day operations.
 

Swimbar

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
376
Location
Wetherby
We have a conservative government who picked up many seats in areas where Labour would have expected to win. The likes of Cash and Prentis did more harm that good for the Labour cause.
The militancy of the RMT is not doing their membership any favours at the moment and inviting Government intervention sooner than later in restricting union activities.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Seems sensible but there is no way that the union would allow any 'surplus' railway office staff to undertake another role.
If HM Government were to invoke emergency powers to prevent strikes in the railway industry it would have popular support
The travelling public have had enough!

Still no answer to what you base this on. Perhaps you could set out the basis for your view.

The RMT are not in the real world - my opinion.
Thousands if not millions of people have no jobs to return to after lockdown - doesn't apply to railways so should be grateful in the current climate

Are they in a cocoon. The situation is dire in many areas not just the railways. They are not in the real world if they think that the Transport Sectors should not be affected and be exempt from any changes.

But that isnt their problem. Unions exist to advocate for and protect the rights of their members. Your problems or my problems aren't their problems. I cant believe this has to be set out!

We have a conservative government who picked up many seats in areas where Labour would have expected to win. The likes of Cash and Prentis did more harm that good for the Labour cause.
The militancy of the RMT is not doing their membership any favours at the moment and inviting Government intervention sooner than later in restricting union activities.

I suspect the real issues were Brexit and the unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn.........................

Unless you mean that by supporting Corbyn the union "barons" ( you missed that one btw so I cant claim a bingo just yet) helped deliver the cack handed Johnson government. I might agree with you then
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Which is, of course, exactly why the lower grades at SWR are worried enough to bring it to national RMT's attention.

Did they? Are you sure about that? If so It seems to have been escalated very, very quickly, without any recourse to local resolution. Alternatively the RMT exec knew that this national proposal was coming, and have waited for the first operator to move before ‘going postal’.

Where you get government bodies or profit-making companies using volunteers, that's where I get more uncomfortable. "Big Society" was basically a government initiative to get people off the payroll, as you see with "community libraries", run by volunteers that were previously paid staff. Or "community bus drivers" that replace proper bus services.

And that's before you get into the likes of Poundland using "work experience", through the DWP jobseeker schemes, to stack shelves despite having no intention of ever actually giving them a paid job.

In my own job I've seen volunteers being used as the reason for funders to cut our funding. We could just take on more volunteers if we need more staff.

A fair opinion. But it doesn’t answer the question. Volunteers are engaged in many branches of commercial and non-commercial organisations, and have been for a long time. Including railways. It is an established part of society. So why is this particular issue any different ?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Did they? Are you sure about that? If so It seems to have been escalated very, very quickly, without any recourse to local resolution. Alternatively the RMT exec knew that this national proposal was coming, and have waited for the first operator to move before ‘going postal’.


Very happy to agree that the tactics the RMT use are often poor! I do think there is a point to make about job security for their members and whether, if a job is worth doing, it is worth paying for.

I am a very cynical person. I am paid to be cynical and have been during both of my careers so far. I simply cant see how this will not be stored away in the corporate memory banks and used later to shave a bit of the wage bill. I know I would do that! Perhaps private companies are more altruistic than I am. ;)
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
Seems sensible but there is no way that the union would allow any 'surplus' railway office staff to undertake another role.

You'll be disappointed to know that has happened elsewhere. Nearly 100 paid internal volunteers in one TOC alone. I'd be surprised if SWR haven't got enough keen managers and office staff willing to do it. They manage to find/spare enough willing to play trains when they need contingency Guards. What's the difference?

The RMT’s gripe, taken directly from their press release, seems to be that using unpaid people is “unsafe and dangerous”, and would put “the volunteers, our members, and the travelling public at risk”

Following that logic, If a member of the travelling public took a SWR train from Waterloo to Alton in early July the RMT deems it ‘unsafe and dangerous’ for a willing volunteer to show them the way through a one way system outside the station, or point them towards the ticket office, but has no view on the volunteer at Alton who will sell them a ticket on the Watercress line, or another volunteer that checks their ticket on the train to Alresford, or signal the train at Four Marks, etc etc?

How is it different?

Are there any heritage railways, unassociated with a charity, where there are paid employees represented by the RMT, with recognition for the grades they cover? If the RMT represented CSAs in Tesco, I'm sure they'd have something to say about Tesco using volunteers to man the queues outside. But they don't, they cover activities in TOCs.

What is it you're asking the RMT to object to on the Watercress line? That volunteers within what are normally nowadays very structured (for training/competency/manning purposes) charity organisations are carrying out their roles for free, or whether any risks for these volunteers have been assessed and properly planned for in the 'new normal' world? Maybe you'd value to RMTs opinion here, but it isn't within their jurisdiction.

I'd certainly feel far safer as a volunteer on a heritage railway than perhaps being the only person representing a TOC, manning a one way system on a suburban station. Do you think a 'Mr Angry' is going to readily appreciate that you're a volunteer and nothing to do with the TOC when their new one way system causes 'Mr Angry' to miss his train by seconds? "*Cough cough* 'I've gave you Covid blud"... What a nice day out.

As an example the reduction of staff at Wabtec gets the following response:-
"RMT'S executive will be considering a detailed response to the plans which are another sign of the kind of carnage that is being lined up for the engineering and transport sectors off the back of this pandemic."

Are they in a cocoon. The situation is dire in many areas not just the railways. They are not in the real world if they think that the Transport Sectors should not be affected and be exempt from any changes.

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

But you can ask that question for any volunteer, anywhere. As I have asked before, and not had an answer, What makes the rail industry any different to all the other companies, government bodies, and charities that use volunteers? Those are all jobs worth doing.

I will however answer your question:

Because it’s a short term, temporary, new (and different) role, where people will be willing to fill the role without pay. So if you can find people willing and happy to do it without pay - why pay? Believe it or not, some people would rather *not* be paid for volunteering. I wouldn’t dream of wanting to be paid for the volunteering I do (and I do the work that could be done by someone who is paid).

That question relies on us accepting that:
*It's short term/temporary.
*A sufficiently different role, that isn't/couldn't be done by a paid employee.
 

PupCuff

Member
Joined
27 Feb 2020
Messages
498
Location
Nottingham
Also....if they are "unpaid volunteers".....how are they being "funded" by the DFT? As per my previous post, SWR would not be allowed to recruit 185 staff on contracts and onto the payroll of the company under the present agreements that the DFT have with Operating Companies.

I'm not sure if I've interpreted your post correctly, if you mean if they're unpaid, where is the cost to fund; there will need to be people paid to manage and train the volunteers (it would be unlikely you would be able to get sufficient volunteers with the right experience and time to commit to dealing wit the management side of things, certainly not in the short term anyway), plus the increased workload on the management and support staff behind the scenes rostering them, putting together briefings, dealing with complaints, reviewing/investigating accidents they've had etc. Potentially things like additional welfare facilities (messroom capacities etc), uniform costs and any PPE etc.
 

jettofab

Member
Joined
2 May 2020
Messages
46
Location
North West
A fair opinion. But it doesn’t answer the question. Volunteers are engaged in many branches of commercial and non-commercial organisations, and have been for a long time. Including railways. It is an established part of society. So why is this particular issue any different ?

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?
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
I'm not sure if I've interpreted your post correctly, if you mean if they're unpaid, where is the cost to fund; there will need to be people paid to manage and train the volunteers (it would be unlikely you would be able to get sufficient volunteers with the right experience and time to commit to dealing wit the management side of things, certainly not in the short term anyway), plus the increased workload on the management and support staff behind the scenes rostering them, putting together briefings, dealing with complaints, reviewing/investigating accidents they've had etc. Potentially things like additional welfare facilities (messroom capacities etc), uniform costs and any PPE etc.
Yes, I realise that, should have really asked "What" were the costs to fund.
All those things you talk about, rostering, complaints, uniform, messroom, training etc, is it planned that SWR do this or are these staff being parachuted in, all ready to go, and all managed by the DFT (or contractor) rather than by SWR.

This is where i'm struggling....and definitely struggling with the whole "SWR should pay them" argument if they're not, and are never going to be SWR staff.
 

Swimbar

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
376
Location
Wetherby
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?
Because in other industries employers and unions work together to solve problems.
Clearly the RMT thinks confrontation is the way forward on any issue without trying to solve it first.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
You'll be disappointed to know that has happened elsewhere. Nearly 100 paid internal volunteers in one TOC alone. I'd be surprised if SWR haven't got enough keen managers and office staff willing to do it. They manage to find/spare enough willing to play trains when they need contingency Guards. What's the difference?

Aren't the Managers and office staff unionised too? Managers certainly, usually TSSA. A company can't just impose new roles and T's and C's on them without having to go through the same machinery as they would with the RMT for example.
Contingency Guards, at least in my company, was a voluntary additional role, incentivised by the payment of extra money for carrying out such duties, and paid a yearly "retainer" fee to remain competent.
 

Romsey

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
334
Location
Near bridge 200
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
 

PupCuff

Member
Joined
27 Feb 2020
Messages
498
Location
Nottingham
Yes, I realise that, should have really asked "What" were the costs to fund.
All those things you talk about, rostering, complaints, uniform, messroom, training etc, is it planned that SWR do this or are these staff being parachuted in, all ready to go, and all managed by the DFT (or contractor) rather than by SWR.

This is where i'm struggling....and definitely struggling with the whole "SWR should pay them" argument if they're not, and are never going to be SWR staff.
To be honest with such scant details of the actual proposals in the public domain it's simply impossible to say what the plan is; though if they are going to be working on SWR stations it's still SWR who will receive the complaints if the customer service delivery goes wrong, and SWR will have safety management responsibilities should they suffer an accident for instance. Depending on the specifics of the arrangements they may well have additional management obligations too.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
If so It seems to have been escalated very, very quickly, without any recourse to local resolution.

I suspect the horrific industrial relations at SWR are behind "going postal". When your employer and the DfT have spent the last few years trying to screw over guards, it's no wonder that there's no trust and every inclination to go nuclear and do it early.

So why is this particular issue any different ?

It isn't particularly, just most people roll with the good news story of volunteers rather than standing up for workers' rights. Your examples of bus drivers and librarians being a case in point, everyone cooing over the volunteers rather than questioning why paid jobs have become voluntary ones.

"Volunteers save library" is a nicer story than "council sacks paid staff and knows muggins will the same job for nowt".

As for more commercial settings, unpaid "internships" are regularly criticised for being exploitative.

I simply cant see how this will not be stored away in the corporate memory banks and used later to shave a bit of the wage bill. I know I would do that!

If I needed to trim the wage bill, the first jobs I'd bin off would be those that could be done by volunteers. It's common sense.

Maybe the DfT are more altruistic than I :lol:
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Shouldn't the DfT and the top brass at TOCs be leading by example and taking pay cuts or forgoing their salaries altogether before the lower paid end of the railway spectrum see their jobs done by volunteers and worry about their futures?

That would be real leadership indeed. OT but that is exactly what Ed Bastian CEO of Delta Air Lines has done - forego his salary. Leadership by example is very powerful indeed imho.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Believe it or not, some people would rather *not* be paid for volunteering. I wouldn’t dream of wanting to be paid for the volunteering I do (and I do the work that could be done by someone who is paid).
Yes - in all cases I can think of, if I volunteer I don't want to be paid. I am hoping when I retire back to the UK to apply to work for The Samaritans. I definitely will NOT want paying. And working for The Samaritans - especially on railways is a job that needs doing and is worthwhile and may prevent suicides. I would not want Mick Cash poking his bl***y nose in.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
I don't mind volunteers particularly as long as they do what they're told, don't get out of their depth and are properly vetted. We have some excellent people who help us out on a voluntary basis because they love the railway in their local area. They have often done excellent work resurrecting it from the manky state BR left it in. Same goes for some of the office staff that come and help.

My least favourite type are (some, but not all) actually people who are used to working in positions where they're the ones in authority. Some of them are very good and relish being the ones told what to do for a change and put in a good days graft. Others who are used to being "leaders" try to run the show and it's unpleasant having to kick them down a notch or two.
 

jettofab

Member
Joined
2 May 2020
Messages
46
Location
North West
Because in other industries employers and unions work together to solve problems.
Clearly the RMT thinks confrontation is the way forward on any issue without trying to solve it first.

I explained to you about the emergency links and amendments to agreements. You didn't acknowledge that. Do you genuinely not understand that people are worried about their jobs?
 

Swimbar

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
376
Location
Wetherby
I explained to you about the emergency links and amendments to agreements. You didn't acknowledge that. Do you genuinely not understand that people are worried about their jobs?
I see no reason for anybody to be worried about their jobs because volunteers are going to be used to cover a short term problem.
Whole thing is being blown out of all proportion by the union.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I see no reason for anybody to be worried about their jobs because volunteers are going to be used to cover a short term problem.
Whole thing is being blown out of all proportion by the union.

Short term until when.
 

lordbusiness

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2014
Messages
187
I see no reason for anybody to be worried about their jobs because volunteers are going to be used to cover a short term problem.
Whole thing is being blown out of all proportion by the union.
Correct.

Someone suggests to Grant Shapps that because there might be a problem with queue management and social distancing at some large stations a volunteer organisation could assist like at the Olympics, while at the same time showing the country pulling together and giving some people something to do.
GS says good idea- make it happen.
Industry say actually we can cope and we don't need them, this is fed back through the RDG.
RMT are not consulted/ informed at an early enough stage, get p****d off.and throw their teddies.
RDG water down the TOC response because they don't want to upset GS because he's paying the Bills and the DFT doesn't listen to the RDG anyway.
TOCs are left trying to sort it out and holding the baby.
TOCs fail to communicate properly to the workforce what the volunteers will be used for and the workforce get worried- a couple of hours a day at peak times, outside stations and only where staff who cannot do their normal job due to covid19 are not available to assist in queue management or require additional augmentation.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
It's always rather odd to hear people in unionised industries claiming not to understand the motivations of the unions in their industry. It smacks of being disingenuous. You can be anti-union, but you know exactly why they take a particular stance. To ask why the RMT doesn't take a stance on mythical volunteers at supermarkets is stretching credulity somewhat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top