Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[InOban]

Thanks for that.

 

[carriageline]

Are you really? I somehow doubt you think trade unions can ever do any good at all.

I must admit I was hoping for a more constructive response but equally not surprised to receive a sarcastic answer.



If you read my previous post in its entirety you’ll find it answers your question about the reasons why trade union membership on the railway is generally a good idea, even for new entrants to the industry.

The ‘problem’ with unions is, people only ever see the bad stuff they do. In that I mean the strikes etc. Especially people external to the railway.

What goes under the radar is a lot of the stuff they do which benefits everyone. Some safety improvement stuff is driven by the union. The union reps are always involved early on, and drive, and feedback on, a lot of the change forwards and backwards. Of course, this could? be done without the union, but would it be as effective?

 

[kw12]

This seems to be the answer:



The 2016 Act extends the period of notice that trade unions must give prior to industrial action from the previous 7 days to 14 days, unless the employer agrees to seven days’ notice.

The legislation also sets a six-month expiry date on ballot mandates, which can be extended to nine months with the agreement of the employer; after this period industrial action will require a fresh ballot.

I believe the six month limit applies only to ballots that took place after the 2016 Act came into force last year and thus does not apply to the ballot on Southern (or the ballot on Northern). The first industrial action needs to be undertaken within a certain period after the ballot but, as far as I am aware, other than that there is no maximum period between industrial action (for example there is no need to re-ballot if there has been no industrial action for xx months).

 

[RichardKing]

https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2...ch-discriminates-against-disabled-passengers/ - not just the timetable changing, it seems, but also GTR's approach to dispatch.

2 things jump out at me:
-no mention of the OBS anywhere;
-the passage on ill passengers.

 

[tsr]

https://abcommuters.wordpress.com/2...ch-discriminates-against-disabled-passengers/ - not just the timetable changing, it seems, but also GTR's approach to dispatch.

2 things jump out at me:
-no mention of the OBS anywhere;
-the passage on ill passengers.

One problem is that said document, as with so much of late, has been written with Thameslink in mind and is simply incomplete for applications to Southern service provision. Thameslink services do not have OBSs - and although their Passenger Hosts are meant to be on those trains which diverge from the BML and were previously run by Southern, the Hosts are something of a mystery in terms of what they’re allowed to do, so it’s better to assume they won’t be permitted to help with all types of accessibility issues.

The document does contain many good points “under the surface”, but the tone makes it seem that many of those have not been introduced/emphasised with empathy for passengers in mind.

One point to the contrary is that various user groups and passengers have been complaining that the station staff at the origin must wait until the destination station confirms they can assist. There should be no complaint here, as this is entirely sensible. It basically eliminates the possibility of someone turning up on a train and having to go through the indignity or embarrassment of pushing the alarm to get assistance - or being over-carried. This procedure does need to be augmented by all staffed stations being easily contactable, and good staffing hours at least at nearby hubs (from which alternative staff or taxis can be arranged). But it’s probably best practice if we are in the overall sorry state where staff cannot be guaranteed on the train.

 

[RichardKing]

One problem is that said document, as with so much of late, has been written with Thameslink in mind and is simply incomplete for applications to Southern service provision. Thameslink services do not have OBSs - and although their Passenger Hosts are meant to be on those trains which diverge from the BML and were previously run by Southern, the Hosts are something of a mystery in terms of what they’re allowed to do, so it’s better to assume they won’t be permitted to help with all types of accessibility issues.

The document does contain many good points “under the surface”, but the tone makes it seem that many of those have not been introduced/emphasised with empathy for passengers in mind.

One point to the contrary is that various user groups and passengers have been complaining that the station staff at the origin must wait until the destination station confirms they can assist. There should be no complaint here, as this is entirely sensible. It basically eliminates the possibility of someone turning up on a train and having to go through the indignity or embarrassment of pushing the alarm to get assistance - or being over-carried. This procedure does need to be augmented by all staffed stations being easily contactable, and good staffing hours at least at nearby hubs (from which alternative staff or taxis can be arranged). But it’s probably best practice if we are in the overall sorry state where staff cannot be guaranteed on the train.

This is something I've noticed. A lot of the GTR PR content regarding DOO seems to be geared towards how Thameslink operates, as opposed to Southern. It's all very ambiguous.
I can, however, see the sense in the 20, 30, 40 dispatch model for right time departure, especially at stations like East Croydon where dispatch can longer.

Of course, most of us on here know what the solution to the accessibility problem is; sadly, the solution has been removed! It's a very unfortunate situation to be in where so-called modernisation means customers who require assistance to board/alight trains may have to use taxis to complete their journey.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Well it looks like everyones fears on what DOO would cause have come true... Taking the second person off the trains and they are being replaced with a 'trial' where mobile assistance teams are provided by Ontrak Recruitment (GTR agency supplier) instead of properly trained company staff. Where was our second person we were promised. GTR and their attitudes towards disabled passengers is disgraceful.

 

[Emmsie]

Well it looks like everyones fears on what DOO would cause have come true... Taking the second person off the trains and they are being replaced with a 'trial' where mobile assistance teams are provided by Ontrak Recruitment (GTR agency supplier) instead of properly trained company staff. Where was our second person we were promised. GTR and their attitudes towards disabled passengers is disgraceful.

I can see this being an absolute disaster, its totally unacceptable to ask a passenger needing assistance to rock up somewhere like Woldingham 20 minutes before the train arrives in the hope that a member of staff will show to help board them. What planet are these people on that come up with stuff like this.

 

[tsr]

I can see this being an absolute disaster, its totally unacceptable to ask a passenger needing assistance to rock up somewhere like Woldingham 20 minutes before the train arrives in the hope that a member of staff will show to help board them. What planet are these people on that come up with stuff like this.

I’ll await results of this scheme with, shall we say, some considerable interest...

What this means in practice is that anyone wanting a TL train at the semi-staffed East Grinstead line stations could be put off travelling on them at all, and instead of waiting for them, they’ll just get the half-hourly Southern service instead, as it’s still rather more likely than not that an OBS will be on one of those.

Turning up 20 minutes before the train is actually surprisingly common in that area (quite a lot of people on the Oxted lines are crazily obsessed about which door and seat they use, to the point that there are people waiting at 0430 for a service which commences in some cases well over an hour later...!!!).

However, I reckon few people would do it if someone had to be sent from a remote location to ensure they’d make it onboard anyway. You’d wait for the parallel half-hourly Victoria service and get somebody to call ahead to help you change trains at East Croydon or something similar. Bear in mind the Southern services to Victoria run through the day, and the TL services are peak-only extras, and currently much less reliable.

 

[Carlisle]

GTR and their attitudes towards disabled passengers is disgraceful.

Given the RMT have stood by for many a year with barely a murmur whilst thousands of railway jobs have been outsourced or hived off in various forms by TOCs etc I think they’ll come across as extremely insincere if they suddenly try to make a huge deal out of this one merely as it happens to contain elements of the traditional guards role

 

[IanXC]

I must say I am left wondering whether asking someone needing assistance to arrive 20 minutes before departure, or even be barred from boarding because no one can confirm they can be assisted at their destination is entirely compatible with the Equality Act.

 

[Clip]

I must say I am left wondering whether asking someone needing assistance to arrive 20 minutes before departure, or even be barred from boarding because no one can confirm they can be assisted at their destination is entirely compatible with the Equality Act.

Which section?

Is this forums now team and members now saying that arriving at a station with enough time spare for your train shouldn't happen whether you are disabled or not?

I can see where they are coming from(due to my OUTRAGED at Southern being turned off) as they could have someone on a previous train who would be there to greet them and assure them of the trains progress and then help them on the train,a bit like assistance you get at terminals and the possibility of travel with them to their destination and help them off at the other the other end too.

But I guess it's better to slate them without knowing the details than it is to think a little about what it may be

 

[Domh245]

I must say I am left wondering whether asking someone needing assistance to arrive 20 minutes before departure, or even be barred from boarding because no one can confirm they can be assisted at their destination is entirely compatible with the Equality Act.

My inkling would be no, and it comes at a poor time as the House of Lords were debating disabled access on the railway on Thursday (24th) in light of the notice to staff sent by GTR about not putting persons of reduced mobility on the train if it would delay the train. Perhaps people need to bring this to their attention as well?

 

[Tractor2018]

Given the RMT have stood by for many a year with barely a murmur whilst thousands of railway jobs have been outsourced or hived off in various forms by TOCs etc I think they’ll come across as extremely insincere if they suddenly try to make a huge deal out of this one merely as it happens to contain elements of the traditional guards role

Yeah.........I can just see the passenger who can't board without assistance through lack of a guard saying to themselves 'i'd rather take the moral high ground and be left behind on this platform, than helped onto a train by one of those insincere RMT members'. Jeezo.

 

[Carlisle]

Yeah.........I can just see the passenger who can't board without assistance through lack of a guard saying to themselves 'i'd rather take the moral high ground and be left behind on this platform, than helped onto a train by one of those insincere RMT members'. Jeezo.

I’d have thought It extremely beneficial to maintain the moral high ground, especially during such lengthy high profile national campaigns like the current RMT anti DOO strategy they’ve been sticking rigidly to for the last 3or 4 years, otherwise they risk allegations particularly from the likes of right wing media of merely using others misfortune mostly to further their own personal gain.

 

[al78]

I can see this being an absolute disaster, its totally unacceptable to ask a passenger needing assistance to rock up somewhere like Woldingham 20 minutes before the train arrives in the hope that a member of staff will show to help board them. What planet are these people on that come up with stuff like this.

They are not disabled, nor know anyone who is, so they don't have a clue about what it is like. Similar reason why many cycle lanes make cycling more dangerous, the authorities designing them have never ridden a bicycle, so have no clue on the safety issues, they only know how to put a tick in a box.

Perhaps there should be a law which states anyone who is designing services or infrastructure for vulnerable people must have had direct experience with those vulnerable people or situations.

 

[theironroad]

They are not disabled, nor know anyone who is, so they don't have a clue about what it is like. Similar reason why many cycle lanes make cycling more dangerous, the authorities designing them have never ridden a bicycle, so have no clue on the safety issues, they only know how to put a tick in a box.

Perhaps there should be a law which states anyone who is designing services or infrastructure for vulnerable people must have had direct experience with those vulnerable people or situations.

A lot of unfounded assertions there.

How do you know if the people planning these things are not disabled, know disabled people or are cyclists?

 

[al78]

A lot of unfounded assertions there.

How do you know if the people planning these things are not disabled, know disabled people or are cyclists?

Firstly, on a probability basis, it is most likely, since a minority of the population are disabled to the extent that they choose to travel by train and require staff assistance to use a train. Secondly, if they were disabled, or had experience with those who are disabled, they would design decent systems to cater for the disabled, rather than the standard UK crapness that often happens when giving lip service to minorities.

Same reasoning applies to those who design cycle facilities. A small minority of the population cycle regularly on the roads as a form of utility transport, so it is very likely those responsible for designing cycle facilites don't understand cyclists needs, and just go with the standard feeling and emotion answer of segregated facilities, or painting a white line on the side of the road or on the pavement, then calling is a cycle facility, which frequently dumps the cyclist back on the road at a hazaredous spot like a junction, or requires cyclists to interact with pedestrians, dogs, smart-phone-dumb-users. If they cycled regularly on the roads, and understood good cyclecraft, they would not design such poor and dangerous facilities. See here for plenty of examples (http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/index.htm).

 

[theironroad]

Firstly, on a probability basis, it is most likely, since a minority of the population are disabled to the extent that they choose to travel by train and require staff assistance to use a train. Secondly, if they were disabled, or had experience with those who are disabled, they would design decent systems to cater for the disabled, rather than the standard UK crapness that often happens when giving lip service to minorities.

Same reasoning applies to those who design cycle facilities. A small minority of the population cycle regularly on the roads as a form of utility transport, so it is very likely those responsible for designing cycle facilites don't understand cyclists needs, and just go with the standard feeling and emotion answer of segregated facilities, or painting a white line on the side of the road or on the pavement, then calling is a cycle facility, which frequently dumps the cyclist back on the road at a hazaredous spot like a junction, or requires cyclists to interact with pedestrians, dogs, smart-phone-dumb-users. If they cycled regularly on the roads, and understood good cyclecraft, they would not design such poor and dangerous facilities. See here for plenty of examples (http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/index.htm).

I'd agree on the basis of probability, some or most of the people planning these things aren't disabled/cyclists, less so knowing someone who had a disability. Unfortunately that's not what you said originally, it was a blanket assertion.

 

[The Ham]

Firstly, on a probability basis, it is most likely, since a minority of the population are disabled to the extent that they choose to travel by train and require staff assistance to use a train. Secondly, if they were disabled, or had experience with those who are disabled, they would design decent systems to cater for the disabled, rather than the standard UK crapness that often happens when giving lip service to minorities.

Same reasoning applies to those who design cycle facilities. A small minority of the population cycle regularly on the roads as a form of utility transport, so it is very likely those responsible for designing cycle facilites don't understand cyclists needs, and just go with the standard feeling and emotion answer of segregated facilities, or painting a white line on the side of the road or on the pavement, then calling is a cycle facility, which frequently dumps the cyclist back on the road at a hazaredous spot like a junction, or requires cyclists to interact with pedestrians, dogs, smart-phone-dumb-users. If they cycled regularly on the roads, and understood good cyclecraft, they would not design such poor and dangerous facilities. See here for plenty of examples (http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/index.htm).

The problem with cycle facilities is that those that design them know what they are supposed to do. For instance the facility of the month for April 2018 is a "jug handle" which is designed for those crossing to the off road cycle route on the other side of the road.

Now as a cyclist I wouldn't use such a facility as you've got to cross two lanes of traffic, is rather turn right like you would "normally". As a designer (I'm a Highway Engineer) I wouldn't propose them in that situation, as they should really be used for road crossings where there's facilities (crossing islands or Toucans).

 

[387star]

Not sure SN OBS have been PTS trained yet some six months into the agreement

 

[Domh245]

Not sure SN OBS have been PTS trained yet some six months into the agreement

What about the upgrades to the camera systems - has that happened as well?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

And no progress on dispatch training in the event of camera failure...

I am starting to think it was all just a whitewash and a way of ASLEF and GTR getting the DOO agreement through. They may as well of cleared the routes for DOO and trained the OBS as a non dispatching Safety Critical Guard running without them in the exceptional circumstances similar to the new Anglia agreement. At least they would then have clearly defined competencies and responsibilities but no GTR wanted to do it their own way.

 

[Carlisle]

Not sure SN OBS have been PTS trained yet some six months into the agreement

I’m not sure either, but is it currently any genuine concern or business of organisations like the RMT, who so far refuse to recognise or represent the grade anyway.

 

[387star]

Interesting news..

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/members...MEpXbHIYuGHm297wV8z7va3xTTwmRDzKHKyHfI9NdHn5M

27th March 2019 Our Ref: BR2/20/2 Southern Agree to meet RMT on Recognition for OBS Staff Dear Colleague, Recognition On-Board Supervisors – Southern (GTR) I am writing to you today with great news that we have made a breakthrough in our fight for recognition for OBS staff. Southern has agreed to meet with RMT on Monday 8th April to discuss this matter and I am pleased to say they are doing so without any pre-conditions. As you know the grade was introduced during a long and bitter dispute over the extension of DOO and our fight to retain Guards with safety critical responsibilities. Recognition and representation for OBS staff falls naturally under the umbrella of this union, these are grades that would in the past have been under a machinery of negotiation where the RMT had sole recognition and we have tried to represent you since the grades inception. You and many of your colleagues have remained loyal to the RMT and have also encouraged new staff to join, obviously I thank you for that. This is a positive move in the very important fight to ensure you have the best recognition possible, agreed machinery, local representatives, and everything else that goes with being in the RMT – the natural union for your grade. I would like to personally thank you for the loyalty you have shown the RMT during this difficult period and hopefully we will reach agreement with Southern on the 8th April. I will keep you informed of developments as they happen. In the meantime, I would ask that you speak to colleagues in your depot who are not in the RMT and ask them to join. Unity is Strength Best wishes, Mick Cash General Secretary

 

[Clip]

I thought people on here said at the time that the RMT didnt want to represent the grade?

If thats true what has changed?

 

[Class 170101]

I'm confused by that. Should they not have been recognised already having previously been guards?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm confused by that. Should they not have been recognised already having previously been guards?

I too may have been confused somewhere along the way, but I thought RMT originally wouldn’t admit OBS grades?

 

[Kite159]

So they finally admit to the existence of the OBS role, probably saw their subscriptions dropping with all those new staff being unable to join as the job role wasn't recognised.

 

[Dave1987]

So they finally admit to the existence of the OBS role, probably saw their subscriptions dropping with all those new staff being unable to join as the job role wasn't recognised.

That is a very cynical view. Or it could be that the management are due to start pay negotiations and the OBS were the only grade that they had no one to negotiate with which is very precarious position for a grade you have created. The "without preconditions" is hugely significant as the RMT may be able to implement collective bargaining with other grades now.