Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Sprinter153]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train. A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime. Guards the same. That is why despite a 35 hour week the stats show drivers doing,say 42 hours a week,although only on the premises for 35 hours. It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption,such as Paddington yesterday.
Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

Would you like to read my post before jumping on your high horse? At no point did I say I expect extensive overtime to cover a small amount of work. It gets actively offered! I'm happy to help out, as are many, for just the standard remuneration. If it's offered though, would you say no?

It does happen!
I got offered 16 hours and a taxi home recently (not at my request!) for covering part of a standby turn as having it uncovered affects the roster clerk's KPIs!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm pretty sure that there is no redundancy. It is a mass dismissal and re-employment offer. There is a letter to the insolvency service up the thread somewhere. If it was redundancy and/or re-employment then it would be slightly different.

Happy to be corrected but I've heard or seen nothing mentioning any redundancy payments. Its accept or dole queue.

It is redundancy and the normal redundancy process should apply, but this will be contractual redundancy payments rather than anything above and beyond that. GTR can't* just sack people who refuse to become OBS because the OBS role is sufficiently different that it is effectively a new job. GTR have actually said as much in their internal communications, stating it is a "legal technicality" that everyone will be made redundant and then transferred to the new job.

*They may, of course, try this anyway and see who can afford to take them through the Employment Tribunal, a snip at £1200 a pop. And people who grudgingly keep working as an OBS will be deemed to have accepted the new role and will not be eligible for redundancy payments as guards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

Ah, but of course.

Interesting how you only pop up on this thread, isn't it.

Also fascinating how your "telling the truth" extends to (supposedly) disclosing redundancy payments to other guards who were affected in the past:

Yes but you got a £50,000 pay off from Silverlink too & a new job. The forum will only work well if we try to tell it like it is,not use it to bang a drum.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2527687&postcount=160

No doubt you're just "telling it like it is" now too :roll:

 

[ComUtoR]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding

So why is there no spare ?

,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train.

Why are they in the mess room ? If your booked other work then typically you are on a PNB.

A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime.

Tut tut. You are misrepresenting. If you are sitting about in the crew room for any reason (other than PNB) whilst booked on duty you are required to carry out instructions from a manager. It is not a negotiation. It is a requirement.

When you are "negotiating" you are doing so because you are asking for people to do things in their own time. Should that work be free ?

It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption

It is just as dispiriting to be expected to work extra for nothing and dispiriting that there just isn't enough staff to cover the work.

The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

How much is your time worth to you ? You couldn't pay me enough to lose time with my family. I don't work extra and I don't work rest days. My free time is precious. When I am at work I will be the best employee I possibly can. I will act professionally and often go the extra mile for my colleagues. When I'm off the clock then I'm dedicated to my family and friends. For me there is no price the company can offer.

The expectation for me to work in my personal time shouldn't happen. Employ the right staffing level and cast better rosters.

 

[Jonfun]

They should have negotiated that the OBS staff were classed as safety critical with full PTS, stock and GSMR training so they could assist to some extent in an emergency

You can't just "class" a member of staff as safety critical. They are safety critical if they perform a task which is safety critical. Assisting in an emergency situation is not a safety critical task.

 

[ComUtoR]

It is redundancy and the normal redundancy process should apply, but this will be contractual redundancy payments rather than anything above and beyond that.

The letter to the insolvency service stated it was dismissal and employment. The link is now dead :/

 

[Tetchytyke]

The letter to the insolvency service stated it was dismissal and employment. The link is now dead :/

An employer can dismiss someone for one of five reasons:

a reason related to an employee's conduct
a reason related to an employee's capability or qualifications for the job
because of a redundancy
because a statutory duty or restriction prohibited the employment being continued
some other substantial reason of a kind which justifies the dismissal.

There are obligations for collective negotiation where there is redundancy or a mass dismissal/re-engagement, and this negotiation must be meaningful. If the RMT refused to negotiate at all it can make the position more tricky, but GTR would need to show that they were attempting to meaningfully negotiate their position.

In this case it would either be redundancy or another substantial reason. This substantial reason could be, for instance a change to terms and conditions to protect the business, e.g. a change in working hours or a change in salary. It doesn't always need to be a hugely valid reason, "business reasons" covers a multitude of sins. But it shouldn't generally be used as a way of avoiding redundancy payments where, actually, the role has been removed.

GTR are trying to claim the OBS role is just a minor change to conditions, but really my opinion is that it is an entirely new job and the guards' roles have been made redundant. GTR originally said they were going to officially make people redundant then immediately re-engage them. People who accept the OBS role, even grudgingly, wouldn't be eligible for redundancy, obviously, but people who don't might have a claim for redundancy or unfair dismissal. But then the cost is £1200+legal fees, so how many could do it would be another question...

I'm certainly no specialist employment solicitor, and wouldn't want to be staking £1200 of my money on anything

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

This. Spot on mate

Here, Here

 

[DarloRich]

@Arctic Troll - it is meaningful consultation not negotiation that must take place

 

[BestWestern]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train. A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime. Guards the same. That is why despite a 35 hour week the stats show drivers doing,say 42 hours a week,although only on the premises for 35 hours. It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption,such as Paddington yesterday.
Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

Paddington yesterday....? What on earth are you talking about; Paddington was crippled with everything on a stop half the evening, and the messroom full of crews all waiting to head back to their home depots. Do you think they required bribing to get on a train and head towards home?

Go away man, you're ill-informed and spouting rubbish.

 

[tony6499]

A/R as mentioned on the letter are the spare turns/conductors, for as long as I can remember 30+ years very few are left spare on each day. The A/R are just spare turns (they call them As Required instead of spare , used to be 0600sp on the master roster but was changed to 0600A/R) and are booked duties on the weekly roster covering all the leave, sick and other known unavailability.

The Cover turns are numbered and stay on the weekly roster as such. So the Conductor manager telling the depot resource manager only to use As Required/Spare Conductors to cover uncovered work at their depot is going to be lucky to cover anything.

 

[LowLevel]

The last time I got any form of bung to do anything at work was a while back now. I was asked to come off my job finishing at 2230 with 3.5 hours notice to cover another depot's work due to sickness getting me home at the princely time of 0230. Unsurprisingly the roster clerk offered me a bit on top without me even asking.

On the other hand there have been several occasions that are more usual IE I'm just getting in my car to go home or similar and the phone rings to be begged to work another train as the guard has been assaulted - I've never turned them down or made daft demands yet. The only thing I occasionally ask for is a taxi to or from work if my original plans involved public transport. If they offer more that's up to them.

There are undoubtedly folks that won't do anything different without a bung but they're in the minority in my experience, most of us have some pride in keeping the job going.

Except of course when you treat the staff as GTR have, suing them etc, in which case if rosters rang I'd probably laugh and put the phone down if they offered me a weeks paid leave and a limo from work.

 

[Dave1987]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train. A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime. Guards the same. That is why despite a 35 hour week the stats show drivers doing,say 42 hours a week,although only on the premises for 35 hours. It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption,such as Paddington yesterday.
Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

Are you deliberately trying to cause an argument? You clearly have no clue what you are talking about at all. I have worked beyond the end of my diagram and been over an hour late home because the driver who was booked to relieve me is not available for whatever reason. And when I've agreed to do it the DTM has offered me extra pay for doing it! I've also heard of managers who have exactly the same attitude as you who have demanded a driver works extra than what his/her diagram has on it and they have been politely told no. The railway runs off goodwill. I've heard of a lot of new management starting in the railways who are just like you who find that staff just don't want to help them at all, wonder why!

 

[infobleep]

An employer can dismiss someone for one of five reasons:



There are obligations for collective negotiation where there is redundancy or a mass dismissal/re-engagement, and this negotiation must be meaningful. If the RMT refused to negotiate at all it can make the position more tricky, but GTR would need to show that they were attempting to meaningfully negotiate their position.

In this case it would either be redundancy or another substantial reason. This substantial reason could be, for instance a change to terms and conditions to protect the business, e.g. a change in working hours or a change in salary. It doesn't always need to be a hugely valid reason, "business reasons" covers a multitude of sins. But it shouldn't generally be used as a way of avoiding redundancy payments where, actually, the role has been removed.

GTR are trying to claim the OBS role is just a minor change to conditions, but really my opinion is that it is an entirely new job and the guards' roles have been made redundant. GTR originally said they were going to officially make people redundant then immediately re-engage them. People who accept the OBS role, even grudgingly, wouldn't be eligible for redundancy, obviously, but people who don't might have a claim for redundancy or unfair dismissal. But then the cost is £1200+legal fees, so how many could do it would be another question...

I'm certainly no specialist employment solicitor, and wouldn't want to be staking £1200 of my money on anything

Could their be a class action? Would that reduce the fees?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Flamingo]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train. A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime. Guards the same. That is why despite a 35 hour week the stats show drivers doing,say 42 hours a week,although only on the premises for 35 hours. It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption,such as Paddington yesterday.
Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

Well, if that's what you are finding in your role as a manager at Southern, why do you think that is? Some managers (like you) find they do not get any favours, and this is usually because they don't realise (or care) their stinking attitude antagonises people so that nobody wishes to help them out. Personally, if I was unfortunate enough to work for your company and you were my manager, I'd expect four hours overtime for the effort involved in saying "Good Morning" to you, and as regards favours, I wouldn't cross the road to urinate on you if you were on fire.

Occasionally, I will be offered an extra hour (or couple of hours) overtime by resources as a goodwill gesture for helping out by moving (up to 12 hours), coming in at short notice (my record is 60 minutes and starting the train from my local station) or extending a shift, but not every time, or even the majority of them. This also happens in other industries. As that move can often result in extra travel or childcare costs, I view it as compensation for those costs.

I have never been offered (or asked for) four hours overtime for 15 minutes work, but if I was, I don't work for a charity and I'm not a volunteer.

 

[ungreat]

Well, if that's what you are finding in your role as a manager at Southern, why do you think that is? Some managers (like you) find they do not get any favours, and this is usually because they don't realise (or care) their stinking attitude antagonises people so that nobody wishes to help them out. Personally, if I was unfortunate enough to work for your company and you were my manager, I'd expect four hours overtime for the effort involved in saying "Good Morning" to you, and as regards favours, I wouldn't cross the road to urinate on you if you were on fire.

Occasionally, I will be offered an extra hour (or couple of hours) overtime by resources as a goodwill gesture for helping out by moving (up to 12 hours), coming in at short notice (my record is 60 minutes and starting the train from my local station) or extending a shift, but not every time, or even the majority of them. This also happens in other industries. As that move can often result in extra travel or childcare costs, I view it as compensation for those costs.

I have never been offered (or asked for) four hours overtime for 15 minutes work, but if I was, I don't work for a charity and I'm not a volunteer.

Thats made my day that has!!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Management see Cover turns as wasted money as you can, and often do, sit about all day doing nothing but watch telly. You need to increase SP turns to be sufficient to cover operational needs and still have a couple of people sitting spare for service recovery.

Without people sitting about either "spare" or "cover" then service recovery is almost impossible. It just takes a single person ringing in sick and you get a whole diagram uncovered and the knock on effect can be severe. This refusal by TOC's to keep staffing levels high and refusing to have people sitting around just in case is why the service crumbles at the slightest nudge

This sort of thinking is very much a bus industry thing and has crept into the railway since the bus owning groups became involved with franchising. One of the most obvious changes since bus operations were commercialised is that bean counters take a very dim view of unused stand-by seeing it as avoidable unproductive time. But as explained this completely destroys the ability to cope with unexpected disruption on the day whether due to higher than usual absenteeism or operational problems.

So the Conductor manager telling the depot resource manager only to use As Required/Spare Conductors to cover uncovered work at their depot is going to be lucky to cover anything.

Nail. Head.

 

[TheEdge]

So that non rail readers can understand what goes on,if there is no spare to move a train say into a siding,a manager has to find drivers in the mess room who are allocated to other work but just sitting in the room & ask them to spend 15 mins to move the train. A negotiation goes on,with drivers saying no,or OK I'll do it for 4 hours overtime. Guards the same. That is why despite a 35 hour week the stats show drivers doing,say 42 hours a week,although only on the premises for 35 hours. It is dispiriting for managers to have to beg staff to cover for drivers/guards who have gone sick during the job or more likely are unavailable due to disruption,such as Paddington yesterday.
Now stand back & await the response from the usual suspects to a hidden truth that adds greatly to railway costs & limits flexibility. The poster who prompted this expects 16 hours pay to cover a few hours of an uncovered duty.

I was going to write a reply but now I'm just wondering if it Dyan or Charles...

 

[craigy68]

I'm puzzled to know what a further strike by Southern conductors next will achieve, as GTR have already stated that the OBS roles are happening regardless.

GTR will push through what ever changes they want irrespective of whether the staff & unions agree to them.

We are finding that is going to be the same for the Station Host roles.

Next will be platform dispatch.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was going to write a reply but now I'm just wondering if it Dyan or Charles...

Given the lack of intelligence and understanding, I'm going with Connex Charlie.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could their be a class action? Would that reduce the fees?

You'd hope that the trade union could help a few, as sort of a test case, but the fees prevent the trade unions from helping everyone. But Tribunal decisions are not binding on other tribunals, so you couldn't just stick one through and rely on that with everyone else.

 

[D1009]

Don't you think it's odd that the press will print the 'normal' RMT class warfare/foreign railway offerings but not one that explains their/staffs side of the dispute?

Free press my arris.

We do have a free press. However, it is a free press with a (largely) right wing agenda. Including the most popular newspaper in the country.

Actually it's not just the right wing press that's doing it.

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7f06-Workers-slam-dirty-tricks-Southern-rail#.V2QMOtIrLIV

 

[Carlisle]

I don't work extra and I don't work rest days. .

Fine that's your personal choice ,however some on here frequently claim the railway relies far too much on staff goodwill then a few posts later reveal they never work rest days or overtime anyway

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'm puzzled to know what a further strike by Southern conductors next will achieve, as GTR have already stated that the OBS roles are happening regardless.

GTR will push through what ever changes they want irrespective of whether the staff & unions agree to them.

We are finding that is going to be the same for the Station Host roles.

Next will be platform dispatch.

You have to fight. For a change it seems the travelling public are on the guards side. The majority have seen through GTR's blame game and when they realise its the government pulling the strings and the local MP's realise that this will be losing many many voters in their heartland things may change. MP's don't care for people but they do care for their gravy train/votes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fine that's your personal choice ,however some on here frequently claim the railway relies far too much on staff goodwill then a few posts later reveal they never work rest days or overtime anyway

In my depot ooop North its very rare that there is no Rest Day Working is available. Most TOC's have cut spare turns down to the bare bone, when that works its great for the company but when it goes t*ts up it can cause absolute chaos. It only takes a couple of Train Crew to be out of position to cause numerous cancellations. With GTR they have destroyed the very core of what keeps a railway running successfully Goodwill and Respect. The Public Know this thats why for a change the majority are on the side of the staff and GTR have not got a clue who else to blame.

 

[BestWestern]

Thats made my day that has!!

Seconded!

Much respect, Brother.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Fine that's your personal choice ,however some on here frequently claim the railway relies far too much on staff goodwill then a few posts later reveal they never work rest days or overtime anyway

The reality is that there is a spectrum. A small number will work every hour they legally can, raking in plenty of overtime and moaning if/when it dries up. The opposite type have nothing to do with any extra hours and refuse all offers/inducements. In between are the significant number whose decisions and actions make all the difference. If goodwill is healthy then there is no problem in finding sufficient numbers willing to do the extra. But if goodwill is poor (non-existent at GTR right now) then it's highly unlikely that there will be enough people willing to do the hours necessary to keep the job going. Solution is either recruit up to the number required to fill up the rosters or make sure that goodwill is maintained. GTR is doing neither.

 

[Haywain]

Actually it's not just the right wing press that's doing it.

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7f06-Workers-slam-dirty-tricks-Southern-rail#.V2QMOtIrLIV

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what point you are making. the Morning Star article seems to be reporting the staff/union side of things whereas the previous comments were about the press ignoring that side.

 

[ajb690]

Out of interest - and purely becuase I'm an Uckfield commuter - what's happening to the conductors on the 171s? I know they will remain as "conductors" and still have to do the doors, but will they also retain the safety critical role? Or is Southern going to try and make them become OBS' who also open and close the doors?

drew

 

[craigy68]

You have to fight. For a change it seems the travelling public are on the guards side. The majority have seen through GTR's blame game and when they realise its the government pulling the strings and the local MP's realise that this will be losing many many voters in their heartland things may change. MP's don't care for people but they do care for their gravy train/votes.

In spite of ten's of thousands of people writing to Transport Focus/London Travelwatch/DFT/MP's protesting to the changes, GTR are proceeding with the Station Host roles regardless

 

[Haywain]

In spite of ten's of thousands of people writing to Transport Focus/London Travelwatch/DFT/MP's protesting to the changes, GTR are proceeding with the Station Host roles regardless

 

[JamesTT]

Rather than reply to each individual comment on my last most I will try and address them in one,

1. I have seen the list of proposals RMT suggested. They were in an email sent to conductors

2.The proposals were basically along the NO DOO NO OBS line

3.Regards OBS being safety critical and if they were a train wouldn't run if they were booked to work it. What I was referring to more was that the Terms and Conditions should include the rest and break periods that safety critical workers get.

4. If all trains purely on BML does not have conductors that would mean less conductors are needed and would represent a cost saving. Alternatively those trains could run with an OBS on trains

5. Certain routes are not signed off for DOO(P) and various equipment upgrades are required. This will give NR time to upgrade the station lighting etc between now and the end of the franchise.

 

[craigy68]

They are, but the plans have been amended, timescales changed and assurances given over some points that were unclear. But there is no requirement for a public consultation over changes to staffing of trains.

My understanding is that a public consultation was required as part of schedule 17, in respect of ticket offices.

In ALL the GTR blurb it advises that stations will be 'staffed' from First to Last. When asked how this will be possible, when staff use the train to commute to work, management response is non existent. When asked if there will be night staff to cover this, responses are non existent.

On the coal face all the staff briefs show that the Station Role will be implemented regardless.

Our station is actually 'losing' hours in its overal staffing, but that never gets released into the public domain.