ScotRail Industrial Relations issues (including conductor strike action)

[Deltic1961]

Or maybe just that the industry looks itself in the mirror and is realistic about future expectations?

 

[InOban]

The same Germany that used to import thousands of Turkish workers as gastarbeiter and who had less rights than German citizens to do jobs that Germans didn't want to do you mean? And whose low paid jobs are almost invariably carried out by eastern Europeans and other immigrants now? German is very similar to the UK/US in that regard.

The Germans still have much better funded technical schools than we do, although it may be that many of their students are the children of immigrants. Having a skilled trade is still a respected career.

The Pfizer vaccine wax developed by second generation arrivals from Turkey.

I assume that the, low paid jobs are filled by refugees although some of these are highly educated.

 

[43066]

Very true, but there also needs to be a thorough review of what is really needed. If routes are to remain relatively unchanged then - in my view - some economies need to be made. We seem to have an expensive railway to keep, and an expensive railway for passengers to use.

Just because the railway is expensive for passengers to use, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s *too expensive* in absolute terms. It might be very efficient and still very expensive for farepayers, or vice versa.

The reason fares consistently rise above the rate of inflation is because a political decision has been made to pass more and more of the cost of running the railway onto fare payers and away from the general taxpayer.

As someone who regularly tells this forum that you rarely use the railway and prefer to use your car, you presumably approve of the policy of keeping fares high, so that more of the cost is funded by those who actually use it?!

(I have no doubt you neither know nor care how efficient the railway is, your real beef is that you simply dislike the idea of railstaff having decent Ts and Cs).

 

[haggishunter]

Very true, but there also needs to be a thorough review of what is really needed. If routes are to remain relatively unchanged then - in my view - some economies need to be made. We seem to have an expensive railway to keep, and an expensive railway for passengers to use.

Scot Gov aspires to 20% modal shift from car to train by the end of this decade, it requires more trains operating not fewer and a lower cost and/or higher perceived value for would be passengers. To achieve this the railway in Scotland needs:

• Higher frequency services
• More resilient and reliable railway
• More efficient railway
• Better onboard facilities and ambience
• Improved onboard connectivity
• Within reason improved journey times - though better onboard connectivity and facilities can mitigate this need if services are robust and reliable

Clearly sorting out the industrial relations mess that Abellio currently represents is an important step to the reliability. but it seems from the outside that a significant modernisation of how the railway works is required to go along with the investment required for decarbonisation. The railway needs to be a full 7 day a week adequately staff resourced entity for starters.

However, I'd also say there needs to be at least some thought or look at how infrastructure work around decarbonisation could make route knowledge less critical - putting in the infrastructure such that there is a tech system of augmented route knowledge / info that provides a way to minimise disruption and keep at least some things moving when at present it can all grind to a halt. This isn't about seeking to debase safety critical staff roles, it's about how to maximise the resilience of the service the railway provides because that is going to be critical in getting people back and driving the modal shift desired.

Rather than the technology challenges it seems the biggest problem is going to be sorting out industrial relations, how to convince the likes of the RMT that progress can deliver growth on the railway that is good for everyone including the increased railway workforce that will be required.

 

[wobman]

Scot Gov aspires to 20% modal shift from car to train by the end of this decade, it requires more trains operating not fewer and a lower cost and/or higher perceived value for would be passengers. To achieve this the railway in Scotland needs:

• Higher frequency services
• More resilient and reliable railway
• More efficient railway
• Better onboard facilities and ambience
• Improved onboard connectivity
• Within reason improved journey times - though better onboard connectivity and facilities can mitigate this need if services are robust and reliable

Clearly sorting out the industrial relations mess that Abellio currently represents is an important step to the reliability. but it seems from the outside that a significant modernisation of how the railway works is required to go along with the investment required for decarbonisation. The railway needs to be a full 7 day a week adequately staff resourced entity for starters.

However, I'd also say there needs to be at least some thought or look at how infrastructure work around decarbonisation could make route knowledge less critical - putting in the infrastructure such that there is a tech system of augmented route knowledge / info that provides a way to minimise disruption and keep at least some things moving when at present it can all grind to a halt. This isn't about seeking to debase safety critical staff roles, it's about how to maximise the resilience of the service the railway provides because that is going to be critical in getting people back and driving the modal shift desired.

Rather than the technology challenges it seems the biggest problem is going to be sorting out industrial relations, how to convince the likes of the RMT that progress can deliver growth on the railway that is good for everyone including the increased railway workforce that will be required.

The route knowledge debate is better resolved but utilising better cross depot cover, that's until technology catches up with the advent of ertms across the UK.
It will obviously mean more depots and traincrew training on routes, but it pays off in the long term. Companies have tried utilising DAS but it's just an aid and not the solution tocs have found.

I agree the Scottish government should push for a 7 day a week railway, but you have to get the staff onside. It's a full change of Terms and Conditions, if they try to force it in they will just have disputes even worse than the current mess.

Some cities are realising that congestion charging road users and then ploughing the money back into better public transport is the future. Especially as there's a need for decarbonisation and cities are getting just too congested now.

 

[Goldfish62]

Rather than the technology challenges it seems the biggest problem is going to be sorting out industrial relations, how to convince the likes of the RMT that progress can deliver growth on the railway that is good for everyone including the increased railway workforce that will be required.

I can't see the RMT in their current form ever being convinced. The pursuit of a socialist revolution through industrial strength outweighs everything else.

 

[wobman]

I can't see the RMT in their current form ever being convinced. The pursuit of a socialist revolution through industrial strength outweighs everything else.

How is wanting correct payment for working overtime that was part of a deal a socialist revolution ??? Please explain

We go round in circles but Sundays are not a working day on ScotRail, they are covered by overtime.

 

[Starmill]

Scot Gov aspires to 20% modal shift from car to train by the end of this decade

Aspires. Indeed. I.e. they haven't funded it yet.

 

[Robertj21a]

Aspires. Indeed. I.e. they haven't funded it yet.

Plus, it would never be achieved anyway. A pipe dream.

 

[Facing Back]

How is wanting correct payment for working overtime that was part of a deal a socialist revolution ??? Please explain

We go round in circles but Sundays are not a working day on ScotRail, they are covered by overtime.

After ploughing through 940 or so posts on this topic, this appears to me to be just semantics.

I'm not sure what the difference between "having Sunday's inside the working week" and "committed overtime where all shifts on Sunday are covered by staff who are contractually obliged to work the overtime" is to the provision of the service. But then, I don't work on the railways, I just use them. But obviously not on a Sunday in Scotland.

Clearly you have a personal preference, which is of course your right, but if you join a company clearly committing to work x number's of Sundays as overtimes is it reasonable to get upset about it afterwards? By all means negotiate. I ask again, what difference does it make to the travelling public?

The RMT's charter seems fairly clear that they are targeting a socialist government. I'd have to assume that they make policy decisions with reference to that charter, just as my shamefully capitalist company references our strategic objectives before prioritising significant investment.

With all due respect to your passion on the subject, to an outsider, this looks like a made up argument by the RMT to pick a fight. If the recruitment of RMT grades achieved whatever targets were set to end enhanced overtime but that for Aslef grades didn't then I'm not struggling with the enhancement ending for RMT grades and not Aslef. If recruitment didn't meet agreed targets and the RMT actually said so I'd have some sympathy, but they haven't, the complaint is that the other lot keep their enhancement. I do not have any sympathy for the argument that, as there is still overtime required recruitment has not been sufficient. Most operational companies use a level of overtime as their "flex" for short term demand and to cover sickness and seasonal variations - as has been mentioned on this forum many times.

I am of course assuming that there was a target specified in the enhanced overtime agreement - perhaps I am being naive?

 

[Goldfish62]

How is wanting correct payment for working overtime that was part of a deal a socialist revolution ??? Please explain

You're looking at things through very narrow eyes. If you actually read the comment that I was replying to you might understand that your question to me is out of context.

What I was pointing out is that for the RMT leadership the pursuit of their brand of politics takes precedence over the bigger picture of what may benefit their members in the long term.

 

[alf]

How is wanting correct payment for working overtime that was part of a deal a socialist revolution ??? Please explain

We go round in circles but Sundays are not a working day on ScotRail, they are covered by overtime.

From the current RMT rule book. Agreed by all members.


objects
4. The objects of the Union shall be:-
(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

 

[wobman]

From the current RMT rule book. Agreed by all members.


objects
4. The objects of the Union shall be:-
(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

I think the priority is not a revolution to be honest it about getting the guards the pay they deserve for working overtime, a unions job is to represent its members not overthrow the government.......

 

[Robertj21a]

From the current RMT rule book. Agreed by all members.


objects
4. The objects of the Union shall be:-
(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

Ha ha, how wonderfully archaic.
It explains such a lot....

 

[Deltic1961]

(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

Just spat my tea back in the cup there ........what year is it again?

 

[Bald Rick]

From the current RMT rule book. Agreed by all members.

It won’t be ‘agreed by all members’. It will have been agreed by the RMT leadership, possibly even to a vote of the members. There will be plenty of members who disagree with it. But that’s politics - you can’t agree with all policies of your favoured organisation.

I think the priority is not a revolution to be honest it about getting the guards the pay they deserve for working overtime

Now I’m confused. Are the guards getting paid for overtime in accordance with their contract and other agreements, or not?

 

[wobman]

It won’t be ‘agreed by all members’. It will have been agreed by the RMT leadership, possibly even to a vote of the members. There will be plenty of members who disagree with it. But that’s politics - you can’t agree with all policies of your favoured organisation.



Now I’m confused. Are the guards getting paid for overtime in accordance with their contract and other agreements, or not?

If you read back on the post it's explained in detail that there was a condition were a pay enhancement stopped at a stage for the guards, the conditions have been interpreted differently by both parties.
Things are never as black and white as many people seem to think.....

 

[43066]

Agreed by all members.

“Agreed by all members”? I take it you’ve asked them all, then?!

After ploughing through 940 or so posts on this topic, this appears to me to be just semantics.

Disputes of this nature (indeed virtually every contractual dispute of any kind) will boil down to “just semantics”. The legal profession does rather well out of this kind of thing! Semantics matter.

Clearly you have a personal preference, which is of course your right, but if you join a company clearly committing to work x number's of Sundays as overtimes is it reasonable to get upset about it afterwards? By all means negotiate. I ask again, what difference does it make to the travelling public?

Have committed Sundays in the first place very clearly isn’t what this dispute is about.

The RMT's charter seems fairly clear that they are targeting a socialist government. I'd have to assume that they make policy decisions with reference to that charter, just as my shamefully capitalist company references our strategic objectives before prioritising significant investment.

Plenty of RMT members don’t agree with this kind of thing at all, indeed I know some who are proud Tories. The fact is the RMT is the only game in town for union representation of certain railway grades.

If the recruitment of RMT grades achieved whatever targets were set to end enhanced overtime but that for Aslef grades didn't then I'm not struggling with the enhancement ending for RMT grades and not Aslef.

Fairly clearly, there’s a dispute as to whether what was actually achieved is the same or better than what was required by the agreement to be achieved. None of us can say more than that but, if there was a clear target which had been met, I rather suspect we would know about it from the company side.

I am of course assuming that there was a target specified in the enhanced overtime agreement - perhaps I am being naive?

If you adopt a binary approach of assuming: company management right, union wrong, then that does strike me as somewhat naive, yes.

Ha ha, how wonderfully archaic.
It explains such a lot....

Sometimes “archaic” can be a good thing. At least they’re keeping the “brave new world” of bus driver Ts and Cs (that you seem to know so much about ) out of the railway industry.

 

[Robertj21a]

“Agreed by all members”? I take it you’ve asked them all, then?!



Disputes of this nature (indeed virtually every contractual dispute of any kind) will boil down to “just semantics”. The legal profession does rather well out of this kind of thing! Semantics matter.



Have committed Sundays in the first place very clearly isn’t what this dispute is about.



Plenty of RMT members don’t agree with this kind of thing at all, indeed I know some who are proud Tories. The fact is the RMT is the only game in town for union representation of certain railway grades.



Fairly clearly, there’s a dispute as to whether what was actually achieved is the same or better than what was required by the agreement to be achieved. None of us can say more than that but, if there was a clear target which had been met, I rather suspect we would know about it from the company side.



If you adopt a binary approach of assuming: company management right, union wrong, then that does strike me as somewhat naive, yes.



Sometimes “archaic” can be a good thing. At least they’re keeping the “brave new world” of bus driver Ts and Cs (that you seem to know so much about ) out of the railway industry.

I thought you might have realised that I take quite an interest in Ts and Cs, and Unions, across many industries, not just transport related. Given the silliness often generated by the RMT it's no surprise that I find the rail industry quite an interesting one to watch.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Is it just me that's noticed cancellations due to train crew issues seem to be more widespread on Saturdays compared to the rest of the week?

It's never been this bad before, but it seems to be significantly impacting the DOO routes around Glasgow.

 

[Mag_seven]

Is it just me that's noticed cancellations due to train crew issues seem to be more widespread on Saturdays compared to the rest of the week?

Twas ever thus - I remember back in the 80s large lists of cancellations being displayed at the entrance to Glasgow Queen St low level on Saturday evenings. Who wants to work overtime on a Saturday evening?

 

[wobman]

Most tocs run under complement of staff to save money, but when sickness and leave is high and there's recruitment issues it creates the inevitable cancellations.
That's why tocs rely on overtime but sometimes there's not enough volunteers to cover the work or there's other issues like route knowledge etc

 

[Taunton]

Just because the railway is expensive for passengers to use, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s *too expensive* in absolute terms. It might be very efficient and still very expensive for farepayers, or vice versa.

The reason fares consistently rise above the rate of inflation is because a political decision has been made to pass more and more of the cost of running the railway onto fare payers and away from the general taxpayer.

As someone who regularly tells this forum that you rarely use the railway and prefer to use your car, you presumably approve of the policy of keeping fares high, so that more of the cost is funded by those who actually use it?!

(I have no doubt you neither know nor care how efficient the railway is, your real beef is that you simply dislike the idea of railstaff having decent Ts and Cs).

That's not really true. Current difficulties aside, the overall government support for the railway, long term, has in fact risen. So have fares risen more than inflation. This is all despite the number of passengers also rising, which you would have thought would allow some economy in these, especially as the number of seats provided in the fleet has in no way risen with the number of passengers.

The real issue is that the overall costs of provision have skyrocketed. There does need to be some proper analysis of how all this has happened, because it flies in the face of conventional economic and business theory. The trouble is that any such analysis is likely to be corrupted by the initial prejudices (in the correct sense of the word) of whoever commissions or reviews it.

Twas ever thus - I remember back in the 80s large lists of cancellations being displayed at the entrance to Glasgow Queen St low level on Saturday evenings. Who wants to work overtime on a Saturday evening?

Indeed. I remember likewise an enormous list of cancellations at Glasgow Central one Saturday afternoon when Scotland were playing England at Hampden.

 

[JamesT]

That's not really true. Current difficulties aside, the overall government support for the railway, long term, has in fact risen. So have fares risen more than inflation. This is all despite the number of passengers also rising, which you would have thought would allow some economy in these, especially as the number of seats provided in the fleet has in no way risen with the number of passengers.

The real issue is that the overall costs of provision have skyrocketed. There does need to be some proper analysis of how all this has happened, because it flies in the face of conventional economic and business theory. The trouble is that any such analysis is likely to be corrupted by the initial prejudices (in the correct sense of the word) of whoever commissions or reviews it.

It’s now 10 years old, but wasn’t that the basis of the McNulty review?

Rail Value for Money study | Office of Rail and Road

This study puts forward a wide range of recommendations focused on creating an industry environment which encourages cost reduction, changes which deliver new efficiencies, and mechanisms to drive implementation. The Study estimates that implementing these recommendations could deliver savings...

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[Starmill]

It’s now 10 years old, but wasn’t that the basis of the McNulty review?

Rail Value for Money study | Office of Rail and Road

This study puts forward a wide range of recommendations focused on creating an industry environment which encourages cost reduction, changes which deliver new efficiencies, and mechanisms to drive implementation. The Study estimates that implementing these recommendations could deliver savings...

www.orr.gov.uk

And most of McNulty's recommendations were essentially ignored.

 

[Deltic1961]

Most tocs run under complement of staff to save money

But still charge top dollar for tickets. Proves the system is completely broken.

 

[320320]

Is it just me that's noticed cancellations due to train crew issues seem to be more widespread on Saturdays compared to the rest of the week?

It's never been this bad before, but it seems to be significantly impacting the DOO routes around Glasgow.

Most drivers I know, myself included, will make themselves available for RDW on the mon/tues and wed/ thurs rest days and take off the fri/sat, especially on the back shifts.

 

[wobman]

But still charge top dollar for tickets. Proves the system is completely broken.

Private business come into the railway to make money, that's what the Tories wanted with privatisation

 

[Bald Rick]

If you read back on the post it's explained in detail that there was a condition were a pay enhancement stopped at a stage for the guards, the conditions have been interpreted differently by both parties.
Things are never as black and white as many people seem to think.....

But have they been interpreted differently? I have never seen the RMTs interpretation of the agreement.

It just seems that the RMT official up there - who is known to be belligerent - is looking for a fight, and his members are paying the price in lost earnings. And of course the passengegers who we do this all for are inconvenienced.

 

[dk1]

Most drivers I know, myself included, will make themselves available for RDW on the mon/tues and wed/ thurs rest days and take off the fri/sat, especially on the back shifts.

Exactly. We get enough rostered awful shifts on Fridays/Saturdays so ain’t going to volunteer for any extra suffering.