Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Starmill]

These suggestions that the DfT are covering GTR's strike costs. Any proof? It would seem a very unusual thing to write into a franchise contract. Even one that is of a management type.

As far as I'm aware the DfT take the risk on revenue only for the TSGN franchise. Costs to the business and associated risks are with GTR. So lose, lose for both of them. DfT's revenue stream is affected by the strike, and GTR incurs the costs of managing the strike.

No wonder GTR are looking to claw bake some of those costs by withdrawing staff perks. I agree that this is a petty thing to do, but it doesn't alter my opinion that the industrial action won't end favourably for the unions and their members.

It's more nuanced than that. DfT will expect the franchise to manage costs come what may, that's what they've been contracted to do (hence 'gross cost contract'). There's also the element whereby a strike will affect revenue too. And what's more it's very unlikely GTR would want to go ahead with a long protracted batte in this way if they weren't either sure it would cost them less in the long-run or they had been instructed to by the Government.

Or do you deny that DOO is in favour with them, given they've written it into the Northern franchise agreement, recently expanded it on c2c and given options on it on TP and most likely will on GW? What do you think the new West Mids, Anglia and very critically South Western ITTs will bring?

I agree that the action will almost certainly end badly for the staff. They are effectively screwed. But how would they or we be in a better position if they acquiesced?

You've also got to wonder, if they were to be victorious in delaying GTR's plan, would you still want to work for someone who treated you with such derisive contempt? You'd perhaps do it to pay the bills but not out of choice.

Many railway roles, but perhaps conductor more than most, are prone to people doing them to much less than the best of their ability and being effectively immune from consequences. Southern conductors were the least open to this of any I have ever met, doing the best job on average of the conductors I regularly meet with possible exception of ATW. Way to go for throwing all of that away, guys!

 

[TheEdge]

Quite.

And why stop there?

Perhaps drivers could issue fares to waiting passengers at unstaffed stations? After all, by definition they will be relatively lightly-used stations.

And if they're running early they could get a broom out and sweep the platform.

Stopped at a red? Get a cloth and give the lenses a wipe!

Quite, the modern railway. More trains, more passengers, higher fares, less staff.

 

[Antman]

I agree, unfortunately the noises GTR are making is a move towards a service where those two staff members are not guaranteed.

I would have no issue with a SE High Speed-style On Board Manager, who essentially retains some safety critical responsibilities - crucially a train cannot run without one but doors are driver controlled.

The downside is that high speed trains have to be cancelled if the train manager is unavailable.

 

[380101]

These suggestions that the DfT are covering GTR's strike costs. Any proof? It would seem a very unusual thing to write into a franchise contract. Even one that is of a management type.

As far as I'm aware the DfT take the risk on revenue only for the TSGN franchise. Costs to the business and associated risks are with GTR. So lose, lose for both of them. DfT's revenue stream is affected by the strike, and GTR incurs the costs of managing the strike.

No wonder GTR are looking to claw bake some of those costs by withdrawing staff perks. I agree that this is a petty thing to do, but it doesn't alter my opinion that the industrial action won't end favourably for the unions and their members.

It's very common to have the above written into franchise agreements. The Scottish government have it in the Scotrail franchise, where they will compensate the company for any loss of earnings due to industrial action. This is from a government that purports to stand up for working class people and is (rightly) staunchly against the Trade union bill. One of the many faces of SNP politics!

 

[bb21]

False equivalence.

Who said they were equivalent?

I was curious as to how much he really knows about the point I raised. I guess not much, which in itself is not really an issue, just that it puts his opinions in some background context. I gave a few examples earlier in the thread which could have prevented nasty incidents. Equally they might not have led to incidents, but since they were prevented, I guess we will never know.

There have been some incidents where guards have helped, there have been others where they have not. But please enlighten us? The proof of the pudding is if removing a guard has caused an overall rise in problems.

I'll tell you want I think will happen, is you will fight and fight this, making yourselves look totally unreasonable. You're half way there will trying to have unofficial industry action over the 12 car unit and making the statement no DOO under any circumstances. The employers will, in the end, simply enforce a new contract, and because you have been so unreasonable, the courts will agree with them. Safety won't stand because there is no real evidence. They just have to prove there was no other option. You don't have to sign it of course, new people will.. But the reality is, there are several hundred people applying for each of these roles. Most people will sign it because they will not have a job to go to with anything like the same rate of pay.

Easy tiger.

I am not a guard so I think your anger is misdirected.

I am happy to discuss certain aspects if I ever meet you in person. Unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss many of the things I know with people outside the railway industry due to confidentiality clauses. That is not really my job either. The RMT imo really should have done better in educating the general public what the guard's role is about and try and get them onside, but I don't think they are doing a very good job atm.

But it's safe to say that we probably disagree on many things atm, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Hmm. If, as a moderator of these boards, they are your views, then how can me - and other members of this forum - be sure that they are being moderated fairly?

The board did not gain popularity by being biased. If you feel that way, you can always appeal for a ruling by a different member of staff, and if still dissatisfied, you can vote with your feet, and so can the others.

I stand to gain nothing from being biased, and everything from the forum thriving, so hopefully that is a good enough justification.

 

[313103]

Quite.

And why stop there?

Perhaps drivers could issue fares to waiting passengers at unstaffed stations? After all, by definition they will be relatively lightly-used stations.

And if they're running early they could get a broom out and sweep the platform.

Stopped at a red? Get a cloth and give the lenses a wipe!

Now if there was a like button this would get it, mind you there are some on here who actually think it should be done.

 

[455driver]

These suggestions that the DfT are covering GTR's strike costs. Any proof? It would seem a very unusual thing to write into a franchise contract. Even one that is of a management type.

It was also written into the GWR contract (8 days of strike action would be covered I think it was), I did see a copy of the letter but wasnt allowed a copy, I wonder why?

 

[Starmill]

I can't comment on moderation issues, but I'm not staff and I am frequently critical of the staff I see on a regular basis doing a poor job. This has earnt me bruises in the past. Doesn't stop me from defending them against the execrable treatment of GTR and agreeing broadly with their cause, if perhams not the details. Mainly because I have seen many staff doing an excellent job, and wish more were like that (one or two I know through their roles, one or two through the forum and more than one or two were Southern Conductors!).

 

[Agent_c]

I believe all passengers appreciate the presence of a conductor/guard/ticket inspector/"train manager" etc somewhere on the train and I don't particularly care whether his duties include opening or closing the doors In fact if it allowed him to perform continuous passenger assistance more effectively then so much the better. So if DOO did not involve any redundancies and included assurances that all trains would retain a minimum of two staff with one in the passenger area at all times I'd be in favour of it. What are Southern proposing?

I used to think that, until I was corrected on here as to the Guards role vs a mere ticket examiner.

The key difference is safety training. A pure ticket guy is lucky if he gets adequate training on working out what ticket is valid (not a slight on them, but the inadequate training that's evidenced in D&P)

The Guard, or Conductor if you must, is also safety trained. That means that he's qualified to help you trackside, where the public normally ort not go. He can tell you if you need to leave the train, and if you do, where its safe to go.

He's also an extra pair of eyes for the driver. He's got his head out the window looking at the doors when the drivers looking for a signal - he'll see the late running customerrun up and try and push the button when the Driver's about to get moving, and can signal to stop - maybe saving a life. If the views obsctructed or if the suns in the wrong spot, he can get out and move, the CCTV camera cannot.

 

[bnm]

It was also written into the GWR contract (8 days of strike action would be covered I think it was), I did see a copy of the letter but wasnt allowed a copy, I wonder why?

I've now read the TSGN Franchise Agreement and it does appear that the Secretary of State (cf DfT) is liable for GTR's losses in the event of Industrial Action.

Backed by Treasury, those are deep pockets to try and empty. Another reason why I think the unions aims are doomed to failure.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The RMT imo really should have done better in educating the general public what the guard's role is about and try and get them onside, but I don't think they are doing a very good job atm.

I think this a real issue, the unions as a whole are not doing enough to show that this is a safety issue and explaining why. I have read a number of quotes where they have referred to the changes being done in the name of profit. There is in my opinion no doubt that the changes are to reduce costs and improve profitability etc but that doesn't automatically make them bad.

What does make them bad is that they will not improve customer service, in fact they are likely to make worse, whilst also raising what I believe common sense says are greater safety issues. DOO may be safe, however we are running longer trains with more passengers in a more litigious society and that makes be believe it will cause issues.

Incidentally the MP for Wealden has posted on her Facebook page that she supports GTR.

 

[Agent_c]

I think this a real issue, the unions as a whole are not doing enough to show that this is a safety issue and explaining why. I have read a number of quotes where they have referred to the changes being done in the name of profit. There is in my opinion no doubt that the changes are to reduce costs and improve profitability etc but that doesn't automatically make them bad.

What does make them bad is that they will not improve customer service, in fact they are likely to make worse, whilst also raising what I believe common sense says are greater safety issues. DOO may be safe, however we are running longer trains with more passengers in a more litigious society and that makes be believe it will cause issues.

Incidentally the MP for Wealden has posted on her Facebook page that she supports GTR.

If I were the Union, I'd mock up a faux newspaper detailing events that turned out for the best because of a guard, and maybe events that would have been different with a guard.

Leave some of those on a few trains, hand em out just outside of stations...

 

[bb21]

I think this a real issue, the unions as a whole are not doing enough to show that this is a safety issue and explaining why. I have read a number of quotes where they have referred to the changes being done in the name of profit. There is in my opinion no doubt that the changes are to reduce costs and improve profitability etc but that doesn't automatically make them bad.

What does make them bad is that they will not improve customer service, in fact they are likely to make worse, whilst also raising what I believe common sense says are greater safety issues. DOO may be safe, however we are running longer trains with more passengers in a more litigious society and that makes be believe it will cause issues.

Incidentally the MP for Wealden has posted on her Facebook page that she supports GTR.

I have not managed to read the last 100 posts or so so someone else might have dissected it better than me. I am personally disappointed at the latest attempt by the RMT at an open letter addressed to the general public, and a few of the guards I know feel the same.

If I were the Union, I'd mock up a faux newspaper detailing events that turned out for the best because of a guard, and maybe events that would have been different with a guard.

Leave some of those on a few trains, hand em out just outside of stations...

It does seem to be a very negative campaign they are fighting, which could also have contributed to a negative feeling amongst some of the general public. A campaign focusing on the positives would have been much better imo.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I have not managed to read the last 100 posts or so so someone else might have dissected it better than me. I am personally disappointed at the latest attempt by the RMT at an open letter addressed to the general public, and a few of the guards I know feel the same.



It does seem to be a very negative campaign they are fighting, which could also have contributed to a negative feeling amongst some of the general public. A campaign focusing on the positives would have been much better imo.

I have read all the posts in the thread, although some not as well as others but I think discussion on that letter got derailed and discussion over who should position the disabled ramps took place instead.

Personally I thought the letter was ok, and whilst I saw some negative comment on here I think that is more from a staff view and not a passengers. I do think they should have been doing more to explain their position though as my experience is that passengers do understand why the unions are concerned about these changes if the reasons are explained to them.

 

[PakRail]

I have read all the posts in the thread, although some not as well as others but I think discussion on that letter got derailed and discussion over who should position the disabled ramps took place instead.

Personally I thought the letter was ok, and whilst I saw some negative comment on here I think that is more from a staff view and not a passengers. I do think they should have been doing more to explain their position though as my experience is that passengers do understand why the unions are concerned about these changes if the reasons are explained to them.

As Union man myself I have to say that the RMT open letter was not as well presented as GTRs spread in todays Metro and Evening Standard written by Mr Horton himself.

Members of the public are sympathetic to conductors when they know how much losing the safety critical element can mean. The issue is that most people would have seen the GTR newspaper spread and this couple with delays to their journeys will not be very receptive to the anti-doo rhetoric.

Public support is compulsory for the RMT to be successful.

 

[Robertj21a]

I have not managed to read the last 100 posts or so so someone else might have dissected it better than me. I am personally disappointed at the latest attempt by the RMT at an open letter addressed to the general public, and a few of the guards I know feel the same.



It does seem to be a very negative campaign they are fighting, which could also have contributed to a negative feeling amongst some of the general public. A campaign focusing on the positives would have been much better imo.

It always seems to me that the RMT has never recovered from the loss of Bob Crow. Whether you liked him or not, he always had the knack of explaining an issue clearly, and getting the media fully involved. The current lot are quite poor by comparison and need to communicate far better.

 

[68000]

I realise it got buried in multiple pages of valid posts on the consequences of disabled access to trains of DOO but any response to my post quoted above from the pro DOO ppl?

I don't understand, are you really saying that you cannot use the TOC phone book on your GSM-R to contact your TOC to find out what is happening during disruption? or even contact the signaller?

 

[Domh245]

I don't understand, are you really saying that you cannot use the TOC phone book on your GSM-R to contact your TOC to find out what is happening during disruption? or even contact the signaller?

If every driver had to individually ring up control to ask what is happening, not a lot would get done, especially on lines as congested as the BML! My understanding is that control tend to send text messages as a general broadcast which can be picked up by Guards on their blackberry or other communication device. Drivers can't access them effectively because they aren't sent over GSM-R and turning their phone on and off again (with associated rigmarole involving securing the cab) to access them would take far too long.

 

[PakRail]

Yes the RMT leadership seems to split after the departure of Bob Crow.

One half believes in being hard-line and militant, not ceding an inch.

The other is more open to negotiation and receptive to proposal.

In my opinion going in hard and confrontational rather than adopting a more cautious approach never wins any favours.

RMT should have at least gone to the negotiating table to at least hear out GTR's proposal. This would have endeared them more to the public and members on the fence and strike action would have been a last resort rather than the first port of call.

 

[68000]

If every driver had to individually ring up control to ask what is happening, not a lot would get done, especially on lines as congested as the BML! My understanding is that control tend to send text messages as a general broadcast which can be picked up by Guards on their blackberry or other communication device. Drivers can't access them effectively because they aren't sent over GSM-R and turning their phone on and off again (with associated rigmarole involving securing the cab) to access them would take far too long.

In that context, I see the issue and the functionality is there on GSM-R to be used - berth triggered broadcast on GSM-R.

 

[Domh245]

In that context, I see the issue and the functionality is there on GSM-R to be used - berth triggered broadcast on GSM-R.

(If my understanding of where controls tend to be based) That'd still require control to send information to the relevant ROCs and hoping that the plans don't change in the meantime. I mean - sure there is functionality, but practically, it's a lot more difficult. It tends to work on LU because the signallers and control staff are in the same room, but on the mainline, they aren't. Additionally, what is the character limit for those broadcasts?

I do wonder if a DAS system could help here though. I know certain forum members talk about how they refuse to have it on in the cab, but if control could remotely send information to it for them to check once they've come to a stop it might be quicker than GSM-R? Or do you still need to secure the cab for checking it?

 

[ComUtoR]

In that context, I see the issue and the functionality is there on GSM-R to be used - berth triggered broadcast on GSM-R.

Birth triggered messages are only allowed to be used in specific circumstances.

 

[Phil.]

If I were the Union, I'd mock up a faux newspaper detailing events that turned out for the best because of a guard, and maybe events that would have been different with a guard.

Leave some of those on a few trains, hand em out just outside of stations...

You cannot even begin to understand the world of bother a union would cause pulling a stunt like that.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Incidentally I see that a driver on a c2c driver has been taken unwell this evening on a service. Is that a DOO line? Be interesting to find out what happened, and who called for assistance etc.

Obviously I hope that they are OK and make a speedy recovery but it is interesting that this has arisen in light of the discussion a few (well a lot) posts back.

 

[Flange Squeal]

If what is going around online this evening is true, the driver tragically won't be making a recovery. One can only hope it is not true and just exaggeration given how prominent DOO discussion is at the moment.

 

[Agent_c]

You cannot even begin to understand the world of bother a union would cause pulling a stunt like that.

Surely there isn't a rule about communicating a political message (about the value of guards) on public land, that just happens to be outside a station. The JW's are allowed to spread a religious message.

I can already read the ECHR case now.

And if a member of the public who was not a union official just happened to take a copy to read, and leave it on a seat... I can't see any crime being committed there, or any way the union could be held to be responsible for that.

 

[bb21]

If what is going around online this evening is true, the driver tragically won't be making a recovery. One can only hope it is not true and just exaggeration given how prominent DOO discussion is at the moment.

Without revealing too much, the latest update at 0015 does not make for good reading.

Thoughts with his family and friends.

 

[PakRail]

Incidentally I see that a driver on a c2c driver has been taken unwell this evening on a service. Is that a DOO line? Be interesting to find out what happened, and who called for assistance etc.

Obviously I hope that they are OK and make a speedy recovery but it is interesting that this has arisen in light of the discussion a few (well a lot) posts back.

My thoughts are with the driver and his family. Luckily he fell ill at a station and BTP were able to assist but this is a DOO line and if this was out on the routes could have been worse.

 

[JamesTT]

In my personal opinion I agree that the union should have gone to the negotiating table. The belief is that the OBS role will be made redundant by the time the franchise is up, I reckon the RMT are just doing their best to stall its introduction and give their members a few extra months for the redundancy calculation. Considering the high court injuction has come out saying 12 car Gatwick Express trains can run DOO. How likely is it they will say a 4 car to Littlehampton, Bognor, or Eastbourne must have a conductor to operate the doors. There is one incident that the RMT are using to cite DOO dispatch as dangerous, the one at Hayes. However there are high profile incidents both in the Liverpool area that involved trains with guards. I am sorry but the relevant safety authorities do not deem drivers operating the doors to be unsafe. The RMT need to get round the negotiating table and negotiate the terms and conditions for the OBS role and also cement an agreement regards job security. I would also go as far as saying they get written into OBS staff contracts a calculation for redundancy payments, that would be TUPE over to a new TOC, if the role still exists in 2021, that is far greater than the statuory minimum

 

[NSEFAN]

I can already read the ECHR case now.

Well isn't it awfully convenient that Auntie May wants us out of the ECHR, because it "binds the hands of parliament".