No it isn’t. The RMT is laying down a public challenge, which it says is simple. Except it isn’t. The RMT has put out a press release, which has been carefully thought out and checked. It has a number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and potential bear traps in it. The assumption therefore is that these are entirely intentional. I used to sign off on these for corporates on takeovers .... they were verified and went through a team to be checked.
It is a standard counsel cross-examination technique to ask one seemingly simple question and spin the answer to force others or to selectively use it/quote it later. If SWR did answer and fall for it, the RMT could well use it later.. “SWR committed to a guard on every single train. Publicly. Look. You can’t trust these people.” Etc. Etc.
I don’t know what the RMT’s intent Is. I am actually surprised you would see those demands as ludicrous though. I didn’t think they were. Because you could easily construct an argument to say that it’s all about safety and trains are safer with two crew (driver and a guard). ECS running from some stations, what happens if ECS stops at a platform at say CLJ at rush hour? Or say at Twickenham on a rugby day? The train will be safer with a guard and a driver than just a driver. As a passenger, I’d much rather see more people working than not, I’d rather see good trained staff doing a job. At the same time, I have to accept that if technology can make it safe enough and the remaining man (or woman) can safely deal, then there is an argument for having DOO. Personally I am not sure the systems are currently good enough and I don’t see how DOO can cope with all the different scenarios (wheelchair passengers, disruptive passengers, how revenue is maintained consistently. Assisting ill passengers, potential incidents where management but two trained people is better), but the RMT is not great at working with anyone to try to see what can be done. It always seems to just say “NO”. And it is regularly political about it. The RMT will no doubt say that is because they don’t trust the train cos or this Tory Government..... but how does that help passengers or membership. Especially when all the public sees is that the problem seemingly gets fixed elsewhere with more money for its members, which hangs those guards out to dry. That is where the RMT May get it wrong. It makes what it claims is a principled stand here, when elsewhere the answer to the same problem is to simply pay baksheesh.
On the conductor versus guard point, again, it is utterly peculiar that experts in the field use differing terms if they mean the same. I would not believe it was an accident. Basic verification shows me that, even in the annals of this site, other railwaymen have found it fairly easy to distinguish between the two in terms of role; as such I would be questioning why the RMT, as experts, had used different terms. And I’d be extremely cynical as to why.
As I intimated before, I don’t think that SWR is squeaky clean either. At all. But the RMT statement is, in my view, designed to get people to think it is as simple as it looks, and to paint SWR as unreasonable. But it is not that innocuous and because of its flaws, a simple answer to it could well offer the RMT future ammunition in their propaganda war with SWR.
The Trojans looked at the horse. They couldn’t see the down side..... whoops.
