ScotRail Industrial Relations issues (including conductor strike action)

[Bald Rick]

It would be dangerous to become reliant on that (and many seem to be!) because of course it is never guaranteed and could disappear at any time.

And a good way to guarantee a loss of income is to go on some form of industrial action that involves not working.

If either side works on the basis of assuming service cuts are coming and they then don't, both sides risk a lot of embarrassment and far greater consequences than if they'd done nothing...

But one side will know whether service cuts are coming (and when, and how deep), whereas the other side may not...

 

[the sniper]

But one side will know whether service cuts are coming (and when, and how deep), whereas the other side may not...

That should be true, but if things pick up quicker than expected and/or the Government's wishes change on a whim, the TOC will be thrown under the bus for trains cancelled due to a shortage of Guards. Nobody wants to be late nineties South West Trains.

I don't know about Scotrail specifically, but there are many TOCs in a rather precarious position resource wise on the Drivers side due to the training backlog. If it weren't for the RMT having been surprisingly agreeable over the early resumption of Guard training in many TOCs, they'd now have a far stronger hand.

 

[Starmill]

Government's wishes change on a whim, the TOC will be thrown under the bus for trains cancelled due to a shortage of Guards

The government and the TOC will soon be one and the same in Scotland, in name as well as in practice.

 

[43066]

And a good way to guarantee a loss of income is to go on some form of industrial action that involves not working.

Well yes, that’s certainly true.

It strikes me as a little bizarre that industrial relations law in this country places a union advising its members not to work voluntary overtime (which the company is under absolutely no obligation to offer) on a similar footing to full strike action. As I alluded to earlier I suspect the average “man on the street” would be surprised that this is the case.

In my case I’ll be happy to forego the income once things reopen and I have more constructive ways to dispose of my free time than spending it at work .

But one side will know whether service cuts are coming (and when, and how deep), whereas the other side may not...

I suspect very large service cuts indeed would need to take place before a workforce reduction was required. Certainly at my place (not Scotrail) overtime has remained freely available to those who want it - even at the height of the reductions in early 2020.

I’d never say never of course but, due to chronic under manning, operational grades on the railway strike me as a relatively safe place to be in terms of outright job security (albeit pay rises might be thin on the ground for the next couple of years).

 

[the sniper]

The government and the TOC will soon be one and the same in Scotland, in name as well as in practice.

True again, but we're not there yet.

 

[Starmill]

If it weren't for the RMT having been surprisingly agreeable over the early resumption of Guard training in many TOCs, they'd now have a far stronger hand.

Would they though? A stronger hand for what? Money to fund additional benefits or higher salaries? Money that could come only from public funds, and that the various governments won't hand over? Wheras completing training by agreement allows a greater possibility of customer recovery in the second half of 2021.

 

[Tomnick]

So because a mutually agreeable solution might not be perfect, we should do nothing?

Well, there's two options really: either employ sufficient staff that you're not relying on overtime to any great extent (in which case it's largely irrelevant whether there's a RDW premium or not), or keep running with vacancies and relying on overtime (which only works if you're offering enough to tempt staff to work that overtime). The latter's generally cheaper...

I was going for an even balance between them, so yes the increase would be just a few percentage points presumably.

Ah, fair enough - but I'm sure the union would prefer the increase in headcount alone, leaving the working week alone and indeed not changing the length of the average day (which would have its own implications).

I don't see why it's such a difficult solution to the current problem that's being suggested i.e. there's a structural lack of resource. The alternatives are fewer roles and a shrinking industry, or lower salaries.

Is that really the problem? Fewer people working more hours isn't really good in the bigger picture, with almost certainly increasing levels of unemployment, more automation, destaffing etc.. Employing too few people and relying on overtime is preferable from the company's point of view (and the staff, to some extent!), but to effectively enshrine that overtime in contracts with no pay in compensation (and then presumably allow staffing levels to decline further) sounds like the start of a slippery slope. There's other ways to seek productivity gains, e.g. looking at flexibility, movement off spare and all that.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect very large service cuts indeed would need to take place before a workforce reduction was required. Certainly at my place (not Scotrail) overtime has remained freely available to those who want it - even at the height of the reductions in early 2020.

Presumably that’s partly because of increased absence rates, and partly because the rosters haven’t been redrawn to reflect the reduced service, and traincrew have been less productive off a full roster which still needs filling.

I only know of two TOCs that have new rosters linked to the reduced service pattern, and one of those is now seriously over-personned. Of course they have to stay that way until the services changes become permanent - if indeed they do.

 

[Starmill]

to effectively enshrine that overtime in contracts with no pay in compensation (and then presumably allow staffing levels to dec

What I was getting at was that it's clear that the operation needs to become much more efficient, and this might be a sensible way to do it which doesn't put any individuals out significantly, such as by making conductors redundant. If we do nothing, the big picture is that the industry will find itself at best unable to grow, and at worst pared back by government. Industrial action makes this risk greater.

 

[scotraildriver]

A point which I think has been missed is that conductors are not, as of this week, working rostered Sundays. While still paid as overtime these are not voluntary, staff are contracted to work them. It is not only voluntary overtime which will stop, but compulsory Sundays. So it is, technically, strike action as staff are not working rostered work. The odd thing about this is that the company have stated they have enough guards so there is no requirement for an overtime payment. If that's the case why not keep it in place for the very few times it's required? It wouldn't cost much. On the other hand due to the massive training backlog of drivers - 200 odd trainees who have done nothing for a year, there will be a huge need for drivers to work overtime or the service will fall apart. Trainees need trained, trainers need covered. People have retired. It does seem odd that the company have denied all other grades an overtime enhancement, but at the same time saying it wouldn't be needed anyway.

 

[the sniper]

Would they though? A stronger hand for what? Money to fund additional benefits or higher salaries? Money that could come only from public funds, and that the various governments won't hand over? Wheras completing training by agreement allows a greater possibility of customer recovery in the second half of 2021.

You're not going to make people redundant if you're already short of people. If they were still short of Guards, the company would have had to give the same deal as they did to the Drivers, thus there'd be no dispute now. I'm not saying what RMT did was wrong though, they acted in good faith and as has been said, compulsory redundancies wouldn't have been on their cards and probably still aren't.

 

[Starmill]

You're not going to make people redundant if you're already short of people.

Short of people to run a 2019 timetable or to run a 2023 or 2024 timetable?

compulsory redundancies wouldn't have been on their cards and probably still aren't.

Well, that's your prediction, and you're perfectly entitled to it.

 

[InOban]

They are short of drivers because no trainee has been able to complete their assessments since you can't get two people in a cab.

 

[Bald Rick]

They are short of drivers because no trainee has been able to complete their assessments since you can't get two people in a cab.

How have other TOCs done it then? Plenty of drivers have been passed out elsewhere.

 

[43066]

Presumably that’s partly because of increased absence rates, and partly because the rosters haven’t been redrawn to reflect the reduced service, and traincrew have been less productive off a full roster which still needs filling.

I only know of two TOCs that have new rosters linked to the reduced service pattern, and one of those is now seriously over-personned. Of course they have to stay that way until the services changes become permanent - if indeed they do.

While I don’t pretend to be an expert on the finer points of diagramming my observation is that, while diagrams have certainly been chopped and changed and made less efficient to accommodate reduced services, it’s notable that this hasn't led to over manning. Training, hidden, route retention etc. all apply to limit the numbers available to cover the work on any given day. There are currently vacant lines of work in the roster, and indeed calls going out begging people to do overtime.

I don’t doubt things could be recast to make diagramming more efficient still, but the impression I get is that they run very, very close to the bone with numbers.

They are short of drivers because no trainee has been able to complete their assessments since you can't get two people in a cab.

Are you sure that’s why? Trainees are currently being trained and passed out at many TOCs.

 

[Tomnick]

Presumably that’s partly because of increased absence rates, and partly because the rosters haven’t been redrawn to reflect the reduced service, and traincrew have been less productive off a full roster which still needs filling.

I only know of two TOCs that have new rosters linked to the reduced service pattern, and one of those is now seriously over-personned. Of course they have to stay that way until the services changes become permanent - if indeed they do.

We've just issued our second emergency base roster since January. It doesn't change much though - there's still the same number of people in the links, and traincrew reverting to spare because of a cancelled turn can pick up something that's uncovered for whatever reason. All that the emergency rosters do is give everyone a little more certainty, effectively pre-rostering turns that'd otherwise have to be done on a weekly basis. The issues of drivers not signing their booked work (because road learning has been so limited, and trainees passed out with limited route knowledge just to get them productive, etc.) will remain. Meanwhile, preparations for May continue, with more turns than before to fit into the links...

What I was getting at was that it's clear that the operation needs to become much more efficient, and this might be a sensible way to do it which doesn't put any individuals out significantly, such as by making conductors redundant. If we do nothing, the big picture is that the industry will find itself at best unable to grow, and at worst pared back by government. Industrial action makes this risk greater.

The same number of people working more hours doesn't really equal greater efficiency though, especially if you're still paying the same hourly rate. Greater efficiency comes from being able to get more work into someone's day, whether that's from greater flexibility on break parameters, getting someone else to prep units, that sort of thing!

 

[scotraildriver]

The training Academy has had to follow the same Scotgov guidance as schools, so reopened last Monday. (along with primary and limited secondary schools) Training is now underway again.

 

[alangla]

But one side will know whether service cuts are coming (and when, and how deep), whereas the other side may not...

Have a look at Realtimetrains for dates in late May (I.e. after the restrictions are supposed to be largely gone and things are largely “normal”) - lots of places around Strathclyde at least have half the 2019 evening service. There doesn’t seem to be a return to “normal” coming, at least not imminently.

 

[bluesfromagun]

I can simplify the dispute for you, to this;

Conductor salary: 62.5% of driver salary.

Conductor 10hr WRD: 46% of driver enhanced rate.

Conductor 8hr WRD: 37.3% of driver enhanced rate.

This is because the drivers have an enhanced WRD payment is regardless of whether it is 3hrs or 12hrs - its a flat fee. Conductors get their own standard non-enhanced hourly rate, with a minimum of eight hours payment. So you can see why they have stopped doing WRD.

Note that Sundays are not part of the working week with ScotRail for traincrew, so although 'booked', they are a kind of overtime hence why the Conductors are withdrawing their labour on them.
The actual payments for Sundays are separate to the WRD agreements, and are enhanced for all grades.

 

[43066]

Conductors get their own standard non-enhanced hourly rate, with a minimum of eight hours payment.

And this is probably the crux of it?

A good point was made above about this type of arrangement. Where is the incentive to cover a longer shift as overtime when a snip turn will pay just as much??

 

[northernbelle]

This is bafflingly silly action to take when there are some very difficult conversations going on with the treasury about spiralling costs and overheads.

The negotiations for drivers and conductors are separate - largely by different unions for different pay grades and different T&Cs. If the commentary is to be believed, the driver pay rise is a legacy agreement from pre-Covid times, whereas the RMT is asking for a new negotiation.

 

[Highlandspring]

The training Academy has had to follow the same Scotgov guidance as schools, so reopened last Monday. (along with primary and limited secondary schools) Training is now underway again.

(Off topic...) Interesting. The NR Signaller school at Shettleston has been running courses throughout, even during the first lockdown.

 

[scotraildriver]

(Off topic...) Interesting. The NR Signaller school at Shettleston has been running courses throughout, even during the first lockdown.

I think the school "could" have opened for classroom training but as in cab training couldn't happen there wasn't much point in doing all the classroom work with 200 trainees then they couldn't do practical work. After a year they would potentially have forgotten what they needed to know.

 

[Carlisle]

It strikes me as a little bizarre that industrial relations law in this country places a union advising its members not to work voluntary overtime (which the company is under absolutely no obligation to offer) on a similar footing to full strike action. As I alluded to earlier I suspect the average “man on the street” would be surprised that this is the case.

Given the phrase ‘work to rule’ seems to have been around for almost as long as the term ‘strike’ itself, I’d be surprised if the above is correct..

 

[43066]

Given the phrase ‘work to rule’ seems to have been around for almost as long as the term ‘strike’ itself, I’d be surprised if the above is correct..

Surely for most people the concept of going on strike (withdrawal of labour, in breach of an employment contract) is a fundamentally different animal to simply choosing not to work voluntary overtime, though?!

Certainly from an employer’s perspective the second scenario can easily be avoided by simply employing enough staff in the first place.

 

[dctraindriver]

Presumably that’s partly because of increased absence rates, and partly because the rosters haven’t been redrawn to reflect the reduced service, and traincrew have been less productive off a full roster which still needs filling.

I only know of two TOCs that have new rosters linked to the reduced service pattern, and one of those is now seriously over-personned. Of course they have to stay that way until the services changes become permanent - if indeed they do.

Which TOC is over personnel numbers for the new roster?

 

[47271]

Most posts on here have been from within the industry. Here's the passenger view.

Pre Covid I covered around 70k miles a year by rail for work, a lot of it by Scotrail. I haven't been on a train since early December, but public health setbacks permitting, all the signs are that we'll be on the move again in May.

If this sort of behaviour persists to the extent that the service becomes noticeably unreliable then I'll be off. I've got a company car and no sentimental attachment to the service.

Meanwhile they can strike all they like and I won't see any difference. What exactly are they trying to achieve?

 

[Carlisle]

Surely for most people the concept of going on strike (withdrawal of labour, in breach of an employment contract) is a fundamentally different animal to simply choosing not to work voluntary overtime, though?!

Maybe your right & that’s the majority view nowadays, but over the years various kinds of ‘work to rule’ have also happened fairly regularly, with results ranging from highly effective to barely worthwhile as with outcomes of traditional strikes

 

[43066]

Most posts on here have been from within the industry. Here's the passenger view.

Pre Covid I covered around 70k miles a year by rail for work, a lot of it by Scotrail. I haven't been on a train since early December, but public health setbacks permitting, all the signs are that we'll be on the move again in May.

If this sort of behaviour persists to the extent that the service becomes noticeably unreliable then I'll be off. I've got a company car and no sentimental attachment to the service.

Meanwhile they can strike all they like and I won't see any difference. What exactly are they trying to achieve?

Quite simply, the union is trying to achieve the best outcome for its members. The membership is who they are answerable to, not the public at large, not the TOC and not the government.

That said, your wider point is an excellent one, and is one which many of us in the industry are concerned about. There is a wider need to attract people back to using the railway after months of ridiculous scaremongering by the government and the TOCs themselves.

There is a perception within the industry (certainly the operational bits of it) that the railway exists in a world of its own, and that the wider economic picture is irrelevant. Rightly or wrongly that’s a viewpoint that has proven accurate so far.

This dispute (note, not strike) is a separate issue to that, though. The railways were well patronised prior to Covid and there’s no reason to suppose that they won’t be again, a few months hence.

 

[CentralTrainer]

How? So you’d rather people paid minimum wage and screwed over by companies by out sourcing rather than paid a good wage for a job that needs to be done? Minimum wage shouldn’t be paid just cause it can.

It’s a great example of the “politics of envy” and “race to the bottom” brigade who have been conditioned by the media and the government to think that way.
Seems to have worked an absolute treat there.