-
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!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well if Union members have cities those countries to learn from them and I don't agree with what they are learning then I don't agree. Doesn't change the fact I agree with them striking over the saftey of trains though.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Perhaps we could divert that to the railways rather than the hospitals.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Some great soundbites with "ideological joyride" but whether you love him or hate him, Corbyn's renationalisation idea isn't new. The government actually have a decent record of running TOCs in the past decade. East Coast was made into one of the best performing companies under DOR before Souter and Branson took it over, now in dispute with RMT. South Central after Connex (Charles Horton as Connex Operations Director
) was steadied when the government took it on and made improvements but then anything was an improvement over Connex. A YouGov poll put 52% of conservative voters supporting of both the railways and energy companies so it's not something that senior tories should really laugh about.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Shall I buzz in for 10? What do I win when I correctly name the party? If I also answer the question on strike pay do I get a special prize?
I've seen you mention once or twice your First in Mathematics, obtained 50 years ago in 1966 at Manchester University. That's greatI also have a first, gained much more recently, at a different university. I don't think either of those facts enhances the debate about graduate vs non graduate pay though.
As a general point I think Paul is right that there are now far too many graduates, many of whom have degrees which are of questionable value.
Of course this suits the government who can argue that more grads = a highly skilled/educated workforce. Employers know the reality that a 2:1 from Wolverhampton does not equal a 2:1 from UCL. This means the traditional high-paying graduate jobs are invariably still taken by high performing graduates from elite RG universities, an increasingly small proportion of the overall total.
As a result I reckon the concept of graduate pay is now illusory for a great many grads who find themselves bumping around in low wage jobs, earning a great deal less than many "working class" jobs such as tradespeople and saddled with £30k+ student debt to boot!
Last edited:
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
Strike on Thursday and Friday called off, announced by ACAS
DarloRich
Veteran Member
hopefully we can all agree that talks are a positive step in the right direction.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The increased marketisation of higher education has caused most of the problems, to be honest. Universities only get money if they have a bum on a seat, and this has had the consequence that they are much less choosy about who they admit than they ever used to be.
The top universities will still choose according to ability but there are many universities who will, without exaggerating, now take anyone. Students who do not have the academic capability for higher education cause more hassle than they are worth, but the top bods in the universities only see the income sheet and don't care about the rest.
It's something I particularly dislike about the sector, and it is why some universities have retention rates (i.e. the number of students who make it past year one) of barely 80%, with some courses having retention rates more like 60%.
ModernRailways
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 2,070
It should be noted that even though the strike action has been suspended the train strike timetable will continue.
Except those people came from the private sector...The ECML is one of the UK's most profitable routes.
The irony is there is more government control now than there ever was under BR, the network itself is nationalised and there has had to be some big reforms.
The pay rates now are multiples of what they were under BR, it's not just about profits.
Why do you think those pay rates "so high"?
Deepgreen
Established Member
Just for tomorrow, I think, and then the emergency timetable will resume on Friday. Southern have said they will try to insert some extra trains tomorrow as well.
Stop-start-investment, barriers to entry, niche industry, Unions striking for above inflation pay rises, competition between TOCs for trained staff as they like to save cash, incestious managers, giving into demands easy option, poor productivity in some areas and resistance to change, difficult to replace people, shortage of engineering and management talent.
How could you have constructive talks if you walk in with pre conditions ?
How would you fix this?
There's no magic answer, the internal management needs a complete cultural change, that will take many years. While this them/us goes on, there's no hope.
The biggest thing I would like to see is making the railway more attractive, across all grades to fresh talent (especially Engineering and Management) more outside training and more transferable skills.
More transferable skills would be good, frontline staff have fairly niche skills and experience.
I find that less and less - many railway workers now have had careers outside of the industry as well. I certainly have.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I have emboldened one of your reasons stated above and wonder if you really intended to phrase it as such, unless you are aware of such examples and wish to bring this matter to our attention. Unfortunately, examples of this type of behaviour do surface from time to time. How to address it is a matter for those with the required skill in the treatment of such a perversion.
Last edited:
PermitToTravel
Established Member
That's entirely their own business unless done at work 
I'd rather hope the poster was referring to nepotism, just in a rather more graphic way.
I'll have to confess I read it in a right-wing newspaper, hopefully this issue can be swiftly dealt with.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/08/both-unions-and-train-companies-have-gone-off-the-rails/
Meanwhile a left-wing newspaper has found out something even more disturbing.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/railway-worker-charged-14trillion-tax-8603513?
Last edited:
Does that mean that some staff will get paid even though they aren't doing any work because there are too few trains running?
No apologies for copying & pasting this readers comment from a Guardian article today.
"Part of the problem is that the government has an ideological move to get rid of guards on trains (and also remove platform dispatch staff and close ticket offices at the same time), in order to crush the RMT union - and also to push all liability (and prosecutions) for passenger accidents on the platform onto drivers (the one grade they can't get yet get rid of), in an attempt to weaken ASLEF morale, and also deflect any blame from managers . It appears to me that Southern management (as idiotic and useless as they are) are just doing the bidding of the Tories, and being used as a convenient scapegoat.
The guards' dispute is much much more complicated than is made out in the media, where it is described as "who presses a door close button". In reality the main issue is "who is liable for train dispatch from platforms" - which is a safety critical activity, which if not done properly, can lead to injury and death - and significant jail terms for rail staff, let alone dismissal and loss of pension. The Rail Accident Investigation Board dealt with 10 such serious dispatch incidents in the last 5 years, of which 8 were on trains where there was no onboard guard monitoring the dispatch, and the bulk were at unstaffed stations, with no platform staff either.
There are two court cases which have put the frighteners up all rail staff. Firstly the Liverpool James Street incident, where a young woman fell under a train at a platform and was killed. The guard involved got 5 years for manslaughter. Similarly there is another case going through the courts, again where a passenger fell under the train, whilst attempting to board as the doors were closing. The guard involved did not move the train, but instead followed all procedures to the letter, and was commended by his employers. However the CPS sought to charge him under a law from 1861, and the case is ongoing.
It is not surprising from these rulings, than drivers in ASLEF do not wish to take on the added responsibility of dispatching trains from platforms (particularly as now trains are much longer, stations and platforms much busier, and sentencing much higher than in the old days of British Rail when the original driver only schemes came in). Additionally on many DOO trains, platform staff are still responsible for the dispatch on busy stations, but the push is also to get rid of them, thus making the driver solely responsible for everything.
CCTV in the cab cannot provide the same view and field of vision that a guard stood at an appropriate position on the platform can provide. Equally if a driver is worried about drunks / late runners on a platform, he is not concentrating on the track ahead, which can and has led to signals being passed at red off platforms, and also puts track workers and users of station crossing at risk. The driver has no communication with passengers on the platform without leaving the cab, shutting the desk down and walking back to deal with them. However this presents a severe distraction risk, - not to mention a massive delay and there have been many cases where driver have got into alterations with drunks and then had a safety incident as their mind has not been on driving, and instead wound up abusive behaviour. A guard meanwhile can remain at the safest position on the train when dispatching to observe platform behaviour, rather than hoping that drunks move away when they return to the cab.
It seems to me that for these problems to be resolved the government need to stop their ideological war on railway staff and to stop blaming them for the mistakes that happen when they are put into rat traps such as the above situations. Removing the franchise from Southern won't necessarily change much, despite the incompetency of managers, since the Department for Transport want to push the de-staffing of railways across the board, and it is likely most of the same managers will just be shifted to any new franchise.
When Gatwick Express went DOO, the actual train dispatch was controlled by platform staff, not drivers, and the guards were redeployed as customer hosts / ticket examiners. They were soon dispensed with, as were the catering staff, and the move now is for the driver to dispatch longer trains with more doors, without station dispatch staff. Southern have said that their preferred method of dispatch is via CCTV - not platform staff, and that there will not be a guaranteed on board service host on trains. Looking at what happened with Gatwick Express, it is no surprise that the staff are extremely worried about their future - as are drivers for taking liability for what happens on platforms.
DOO will not improve anything for passengers, never will never has done. There will be no fare decreases, customer service staff onboard have been whittled down to zero on many operators that have gone DOO, and drivers are not in a position to deal with passengers effectively
"
"Part of the problem is that the government has an ideological move to get rid of guards on trains (and also remove platform dispatch staff and close ticket offices at the same time), in order to crush the RMT union - and also to push all liability (and prosecutions) for passenger accidents on the platform onto drivers (the one grade they can't get yet get rid of), in an attempt to weaken ASLEF morale, and also deflect any blame from managers . It appears to me that Southern management (as idiotic and useless as they are) are just doing the bidding of the Tories, and being used as a convenient scapegoat.
The guards' dispute is much much more complicated than is made out in the media, where it is described as "who presses a door close button". In reality the main issue is "who is liable for train dispatch from platforms" - which is a safety critical activity, which if not done properly, can lead to injury and death - and significant jail terms for rail staff, let alone dismissal and loss of pension. The Rail Accident Investigation Board dealt with 10 such serious dispatch incidents in the last 5 years, of which 8 were on trains where there was no onboard guard monitoring the dispatch, and the bulk were at unstaffed stations, with no platform staff either.
There are two court cases which have put the frighteners up all rail staff. Firstly the Liverpool James Street incident, where a young woman fell under a train at a platform and was killed. The guard involved got 5 years for manslaughter. Similarly there is another case going through the courts, again where a passenger fell under the train, whilst attempting to board as the doors were closing. The guard involved did not move the train, but instead followed all procedures to the letter, and was commended by his employers. However the CPS sought to charge him under a law from 1861, and the case is ongoing.
It is not surprising from these rulings, than drivers in ASLEF do not wish to take on the added responsibility of dispatching trains from platforms (particularly as now trains are much longer, stations and platforms much busier, and sentencing much higher than in the old days of British Rail when the original driver only schemes came in). Additionally on many DOO trains, platform staff are still responsible for the dispatch on busy stations, but the push is also to get rid of them, thus making the driver solely responsible for everything.
CCTV in the cab cannot provide the same view and field of vision that a guard stood at an appropriate position on the platform can provide. Equally if a driver is worried about drunks / late runners on a platform, he is not concentrating on the track ahead, which can and has led to signals being passed at red off platforms, and also puts track workers and users of station crossing at risk. The driver has no communication with passengers on the platform without leaving the cab, shutting the desk down and walking back to deal with them. However this presents a severe distraction risk, - not to mention a massive delay and there have been many cases where driver have got into alterations with drunks and then had a safety incident as their mind has not been on driving, and instead wound up abusive behaviour. A guard meanwhile can remain at the safest position on the train when dispatching to observe platform behaviour, rather than hoping that drunks move away when they return to the cab.
It seems to me that for these problems to be resolved the government need to stop their ideological war on railway staff and to stop blaming them for the mistakes that happen when they are put into rat traps such as the above situations. Removing the franchise from Southern won't necessarily change much, despite the incompetency of managers, since the Department for Transport want to push the de-staffing of railways across the board, and it is likely most of the same managers will just be shifted to any new franchise.
When Gatwick Express went DOO, the actual train dispatch was controlled by platform staff, not drivers, and the guards were redeployed as customer hosts / ticket examiners. They were soon dispensed with, as were the catering staff, and the move now is for the driver to dispatch longer trains with more doors, without station dispatch staff. Southern have said that their preferred method of dispatch is via CCTV - not platform staff, and that there will not be a guaranteed on board service host on trains. Looking at what happened with Gatwick Express, it is no surprise that the staff are extremely worried about their future - as are drivers for taking liability for what happens on platforms.
DOO will not improve anything for passengers, never will never has done. There will be no fare decreases, customer service staff onboard have been whittled down to zero on many operators that have gone DOO, and drivers are not in a position to deal with passengers effectively
"
RMT spokesman going head to head with a Tory MP on Channel 4 news now.
If the member of staff is available to work but the employer fails to provide them with work then they should still be paid.
A lot of front line recently who have joined have experience in retail or hospitality so the talent is there. Long gone are the days of a boy cleaning engines at the age of 15 and been promoted to driving at a later age.
My TOC has pretty good relations between staff and managers. A few bad eggs from both sides but recently an influx of managers from outside the industry have appeared in senior positions. One senior manager has decided that there are too many drivers and has put a pause on recruitment. At the same time he's got a bit confused as to why the overtime bill has gone up, so he is in the process of cutting that. The director in charge of above him has started to notice a pattern of train cancellations due to train crew shortages and questions are been asked from the boardroom. So fresh talent isn't always the answer, a manager below him who's been on the railway for many years explained to him he needs to pay the correct overtime to get people in or make sure establishments are fully staffed to cope with annual leave and sickness.
So why didn't Southern just allow the strike to continue until the weekend, and talk then?
- Status