Staff attitude to PRIV Boxes and Dating them

[maniacmartin]

I presume "colleagues" includes "your competitors' employees" in this instance , as TOCs are in direct competition on some routes. Most peoples definition of colleague means someone who works for the same company

 

[benk1342]

f I decide to let someone travel for free it is up to me . . . .

Is it up to you? This is a genuine question as a genuinely don't know what the scope of your discretion is. Is the company's official line that you have discretion to allow people to travel for free?

 

[yorkie]

...Most peoples definition of colleague means someone who works for the same company

I would see someone who is within the same overall organisation who is working with you to achieve a common goal, to be a colleague, even if they work for a separate company. It's common for catering staff, cleaners etc to work for a different company for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it up to you? This is a genuine question as a genuinely don't know what the scope of your discretion is. Is the company's official line that you have discretion to allow people to travel for free?

The guard is an 'authorised person' so yes, it is up to him.

 

[DJ737]

G'day
Back in the '80's when I had a BR Priv, I used to travel home from St.Pancras to Long Eaton every other weekend, this was just after they introduced "Weekend First" at £5 a trip.
The guard would come through and seeing my Priv ticket (it was £4.25 return in those days) 9 times out of 10 would tell me to put my money away, the other 1 out of 10 the guard asked why I had even bought a ticket at all
So it has always occurred, nothing new here.

Cheers
DJ737
Melbourne, Australia

 

[benk1342]

The guard is an 'authorised person' so yes, it is up to him.

In that case I think this is a simple issue. If guards officially have the authority to allow others to travel for free, then they are doing nothing wrong and should not be criticised.

Whether that is a good policy on the TOCs' part is a different question.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I presume "colleagues" includes "your competitors' employees" in this instance , as TOCs are in direct competition on some routes. Most peoples definition of colleague means someone who works for the same company

On lines where 2 TOC's run alongside each other, there is normally travel concessions granted to staff of the 2 TOC's to travel on each others' services, so your point is not very strong.

In my eyes, it is still one railway, I deal with ticketless passengers from other TOC's services and still collect revenue for that TOC and they would do the same for my TOC so I see it as one big family.

 

[dk1]

A good example is Ely to Cambridge. The route sees regular operation by FCC, GA & XC. It is generally understood that ALL operators staff travel facilities are valid on any train. I must admit i usually ask as it is good manners. I have never been refused & if i have bought a priv ticket, get a confused look from the conductor.

 

[TGV]

I always show my staff credentials and either pay for or offer to pay for a PRIV rate ticket. One example was getting on a train somewhere in Surrey (Farncombe possibly?) early on a Sunday morning - first train of the day. No ticket office open. Machines don't sell PRIV's. Approached the guard, showed my pass (1/4 fare) and asked for a single from Farncombe to Waterloo. He sold me a PRIV single from Vauxhall to Waterloo (all 45p of it) just so it would open the gates.

I appreciated the gesture and we had a nice chat for most of the journey.

Equally - when I've shown PRIV tickets to long distance operators, most of the time, they'll still throw food at me en route in 1st. Not literally of course.

In fact, most of the time when they come round to check tickets, I'll get the pass wallet out (which is where I keep the ticket), they'll see the staff card, just nod and not even bother to check it. I don't see that as not doing their job. It just feels respectful that they assume I'm honest enough to have purchased the correct fare.

 

[exile]

As a conductor has the authority to let someone travel for free (which applies to non-staff as well as staff passengers) does this have any limits? Would a TOC take a dim view of someone letting every Tom, Dick and Harry travel for nothing?

 

[Barn]

"Authorised person" is a concept in the NRCoC, which describes the contractual relationship between passenger and TOC. It's not relevant to the debate about when and how and why the guard should be exercising that power.

It's a bit like company law. Viewed through the eyes of a third party, a single director has the power to commit a company to any arrangement whatsoever, but that does not mean that he has in fact been authorised to do so by the rest of the board. Neither does it mean that a third party can take advantage of that power in bad faith when it knows the director is exceeding his authority.

I suspect that, whatever the attitude of some local managers, it is not TOC policy to offer free unlimited travel to all staff from anywhere in the National Rail family. I also suspect that all guards know this. That's why I have most respect for people like Clip who ate at least upfront about it.

 

[455driver]

So what does the TOC get in return when one of their employees permits someone to travel without paying for a ticket. Umm, nothing.

So what do Tesco, Asda etc get from letting their staff "buy" their shopping at cost price?
What do Halifax/ LLoyds TSB/ Santander etc get from allowing their staff mortgages and loans at preferential rates?

Oh thats right nothing, but no doubt that is okay because the wages/ conditions/ whatever are worse but the rich/ greedy railstaff shouldnt get anything, and the TOC card is effectively nothing bearing in mind how DaFT have increased the walk up fares to ridiculous amounts and its now cheaper for us to get an advanced ticket than get a priv!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I presume "colleagues" includes "your competitors' employees" in this instance , as TOCs are in direct competition on some routes.

When it was BR it was one big organisation, then some pen pushers decided to privytise it so their Barrister/ solicitor mates could make obscene amounts of money out of the franchise go round process.

Which routes have genuine/ serious competition then.
That is 2 or more TOCs having the same numbers of trains with similar running times and fares as each other!
That is competition, the current situation is nothing of the sort hence Virmin WC having the "no competition" clause in the contract which seems to go against everything privytisation was supposed to be about!

Most peoples definition of colleague means someone who works for the same company

See sentence above!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thats all i wanted to know its just that there could be problems with some staff allowing it and others not and some staff getting upset about it.

Not likely, 99.99% would just pay up without a cross word and they would STILL help out if needed in an emergency!
Its the way the railways work.

 

[Smudger105e]

I always fill in my boxes when traveling. I have never used all of them up in a year yet.

I work for DBS. DBS own Arriva. Why do my (non-safeguarded) colleagues not get free travel on Arriva Trains? Why don't all DBS employees get free travel on Arriva Bus services?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So what does the TOC get in return when one of their employees permits someone to travel without paying for a ticket. Umm, nothing....

Free trained assistance in the event of an emergency.

 

[maniacmartin]

So what do Tesco, Asda etc get from letting their staff "buy" their shopping at cost price?
What do Halifax/ LLoyds TSB/ Santander etc get from allowing their staff mortgages and loans at preferential rates?

The point is not what the company gets out of offering such perks, but that the perks have been authorised by the company in those cases, whereas that is not the case for all inter-TOC staff travel as far as I am aware

Which routes have genuine/ serious competition then.
That is 2 or more TOCs having the same numbers of trains with similar running times and fares as each other!

I don't think that they have to be running the same number of trains and fares (or even routes) to be in competition. My local corner shop competes with Tesco to sell me bread and milk, despite being much smaller operation. Whilst I agree that the franchise setup doesn't encourage very strong competition, there is still competition on some flows. For a journey of London to Cambridge, I can go by FCC or Greater Anglia. One way is slower, but has a cheaper TOC-restricted ticket available, for which the revenue is divided up differently.

 

[island]

The point is not what the company gets out of offering such perks, but that the perks have been authorised by the company in those cases, whereas that is not the case for all inter-TOC staff travel as far as I am aware

It seems to have at least implicit approval in many cases.

 

[benk1342]

So what do Tesco, Asda etc get from letting their staff "buy" their shopping at cost price?

In Tesco's case, it's not at cost, but rather a flat 10% off across the board. Granted in some cases on low-margin products this means the employee is getting it at below cost, but the majority of the time the company is still making a profit.

The difference is that the 10%-off benefit is Tesco's official, open policy for staff discount. That is a decision that their management, board of directors, and (theoretically) shareholders have signed off on.

What I am trying to discern is whether:

(a) It is the TOCs' official, open policy (which, for example, their press office would confirm) that their guards may use their discretion to allow other rail staff to travel for free. If so, as has been suggested above, then as I said they are doing nothing wrong and should not be criticised.

(b) The guards have received permission from their supervisors to do it, but upper management isn't on board. In that case I still think the guards aren't doing anything wrong, though it is an issue that ought to be addressed internally.

(c) The guards do it because they believe that it is the right thing to do, but if they asked their supervisors they would be told not to. In that case they shouldn't do it. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with the idea of staff travelling for free or that they don't deserve to; I'm just saying that part of having a job and working for a company is you are supposed to do what your boss tells you and follow the rules.

 

[MichaelAMW]

In general terms, most employers do not provide free, across-the-board access to whatever it is they make, sell, provide etc. Some employers make certain concessions to their staff, but most don't, e.g. civil servants still pay income tax, local govt officers still pay council tax etc. There is no obvious reason why the railway is a special case: there *is* a concession provided to staff and there is no reason why that should not be satisfactory. Beyond that, staff are simply avoiding paying the fare due and the guard/conductor/RPI involved is complicit in that.

The notion, mentioned earlier, of this arrangement providing free help to on-train staff in the event of trouble is specious at best. I doubt a member of staff on a train would refuse to help if they happened to have the valid ticket that the byelaws requires. They are free help insomuch as individually they are willing to help.

 

[benk1342]

In general terms, most employers do not provide free, across-the-board access to whatever it is they make, sell, provide etc.

My current employer does provide me free, across-the-board access to its product. Like the railway it is a service where the marginal cost of one additional user (me) is very low, but where the company is theoretically missing out on the revenue it would gain if I paid to use the service.

But the reason I have access is not because some colleague said "oh go on then" and gave me a log-in. I have access because it is the company's official policy that I should. That is a decision that the company is entitled to make, as it is the company's service to do with as it pleases.

My question therefore remains: is it the TOCs' policy that their guards may allow other staff to travel for free? Or is it the individual guards making the decision to do so, in contravention of their employers' policies?

Any question of what is fair or right is separate.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

99.9 percent of staff do it because we have respect for each other, look out for each other and its one of the few perks we have left. The railway is a somewhat special place to work for as we are "all in it together" unlike the cameron and his cronies. Not many workplaces are like that except maybe the police and fire brigade and the forces. I know a minority of the public don't like us for it (personally I couldn't care less). Easily the majority of us won't change as it one of numerous things that bind us together. Most of us still see it as one railway and that will never change.

 

[benk1342]

. . . its one of the few perks we have left.

So---it is a perk that is conferred by your employer? That's fine then---no objection here, and I don't see why the public would "not like you for it" as you say.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Its more of a tradition, if management were concerned there would be memo's etc flying around but there never is and I know Northern are actively pursuing a deal that would make it official seems to be the odd stumbling block in the way. To be blunt its more enthusiasts that seem to have more of a problem with it which surprises me no end

 

[Tracky]

I think another point is in the North of England and North Wales boundries and franchises have changed frequently. People you consider as close collegues have overnight become employees of other operators. With this in mind if you work a train into Manchester in the morning you will carry employees of First, Northern, Virgin and Cross Country. When they started out they might have been travelling on their own trains but due to the changes in operator on some routes, it may no longer be the case.

 

[GB]

To be blunt its more enthusiasts that seem to have more of a problem with it.....

..untill they get a job on the railways and find themselves in such a situation of course.:roll:

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The notion, mentioned earlier, of this arrangement providing free help to on-train staff in the event of trouble is specious at best. I doubt a member of staff on a train would refuse to help if they happened to have the valid ticket that the byelaws requires. They are free help insomuch as individually they are willing to help.

In my case (I can't speak for others) the only time I would ask for "a free ride" is if the journey could be made for free, but where the timetable means the next service would not be free. For example, I have free travel with Northern, so I might ask a TPE guard if I can go from Manchester Piccadilly to Preston on their train with my Northern staff pass (so for those who think "staff getting free rides" deprives the company of revenue, in my case, they don't). The guard saying no simply means I get the next train rather than that one. Therefore, in effect, by saying no they are turning down my assistance if they should need it (and for those who think "staff getting free rides" deprives the company of revenue, in my case, they don't).

Staff might not refuse to help, but they *might* wait to be asked rather than volunteering.

....To be blunt its more enthusiasts that seem to have more of a problem with it whuich surprises me no end

That is my experience to be honest, 'regular passengers' tend to think the benefits apply the same way all over, rather than free travel for part of the country by a certain operator and discounted travel for anything else. I mean, how stupid does it sound if a TPE guard says that they can go from Manchester to Preston for free on the faster, quieter, more comfortable blue trains, but have to pay to use the slower, noisier purple trains that use the very same tracks?

 

[exile]

Ah - "one railway". So if I use a VT only ticket on a London Midland train that'll be OK will it?

Can some staff here try to imagine why passengers, subject to UFNs and worse for honest mistakes, might object to staff being given free travel when not actually entitled to it?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Ah - "one railway". So if I use a VT only ticket on a London Midland train that'll be OK will it?

Can some staff here try to imagine why passengers, subject to UFNs and worse for honest mistakes, might object to staff being given free travel when not actually entitled to it?

The Traincrew/RPI's are NOT responsible for the mess that is privatisation! complain to the people who privatised the railways and NOT the staff who have to deal with the ridiculous rules say in and day out. I personally will not UFN etc. for an honest mistake. point your ire in the direction of the fat cats and not us

 

[maniacmartin]

The Traincrew/RPI's are NOT responsible for the mess that is privatisation! complain to the people who privatised the railways and NOT the staff who have to deal with the ridiculous rules say in and day out. I personally will not UFN etc. for an honest mistake. point your ire in the direction of the fat cats and not us

I think the point that exile was making wasn't whether privatisation is good or bad, but that the your approach isn't consistent. It's "one railway" when its staff travelling, but separate TOCs when customers are travelling

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think the point that exile was making wasn't whether privatisation is good or bad, but that the your approach isn't consistent. It's "one railway" when its staff travelling, but separate TOCs when customers are travelling

But where the money men see every each way to screw passengers out of money we will (when we can) make it as cheap as reasonably possible (Splits, different tickets etc. etc.) we know what the Directors want to do, but even they are not greedy enough to attempt to stop it as they know they can't and would lower morale to such a low point that it would backfire on them royally in THEIR pockets

and I know what exile was trying to say, however BEFORE privatisation there was none of this you Vs. Them Malarchy like the companies try and do now

 

[island]

Its more of a tradition, if management were concerned there would be memo's etc flying around but there never is and I know Northern are actively pursuing a deal that would make it official seems to be the odd stumbling block in the way. To be blunt its more enthusiasts that seem to have more of a problem with it which surprises me no end

I think this might be down to taxation. Officially giving free travel might be taxed as a perk, but if it is down to a nod and a wink, or staff discretion, or everybody knows you don't charge up priv holders, or whatever, then the taxman won't come knocking. A similar arrangement applies with life insurance written under trust. It is not taxable on the recipient of the payout as legally the trustees have discretion as to whom to pay it to.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think this might be down to taxation. Officially giving free travel might be taxed as a perk, but if it is down to a nod and a wink, or staff discretion, or everybody knows you don't charge up priv holders, or whatever, then the taxman won't come knocking. A similar arrangement applies with life insurance written under trust. It is not taxable on the recipient of the payout as legally the trustees have discretion as to whom to pay it to.

Interesting take on it, would make a lot of sense, as I have said numerous times no one in the actual companies seem even remotely concerned by it, I have never known anyone to be disciplined on any TOC, so makes a lot of sense. Nice one island