SWR: RMT ballot over role of guards *48 hour strike 8th/9th November*

[Robertj21a]

Robert, you appear to have missed my question earlier, what benefits do you see to the SWR franchise by them going DOO operation instead of driver release, guard close?

I haven't missed your question, more puzzled why it was directed at me.

Despite what others may think, I don't actually have strong views one way or the other. My role on this forum appears to have become one of just trying to keep a balance !
It's totally understandable that the majority of posters on the forum will be employed by the railway in some form or other - also that the majority will be Union members etc etc. As I've said before, there's rarely any input from the management side, so it sometimes appears to be a very one-sided debate.
I'm not employed in the rail industry but may be qualified to comment on some of the more general issues that arise and I may try to balance some of the more extreme views that can surface when the majority hear only one side of an issue.

 

[pompeyfan]

I haven't missed your question, more puzzled why it was directed at me.

Despite what others may think, I don't actually have strong views one way or the other. My role on this forum appears to have become one of just trying to keep a balance !
It's totally understandable that the majority of posters on the forum will be employed by the railway in some form or other - also that the majority will be Union members etc etc. As I've said before, there's rarely any input from the management side, so it sometimes appears to be a very one-sided debate.
I'm not employed in the rail industry but may be qualified to comment on some of the more general issues that arise and I may try to balance some of the more extreme views that can surface when the majority hear only one side of an issue.

That’s the reason I’m asking you, as someone who isn’t one sided, what benefits can you personally see that the toc might gain from going to DOO/DCO over driver release, guard dispatch?

I’d like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and I’d also agree that the RMT could have handled the situation differently, but I also see the point they’re coming from.

 

[Robertj21a]

That’s the reason I’m asking you, as someone who isn’t one sided, what benefits can you personally see that the toc might gain from going to DOO/DCO over driver release, guard dispatch?

I’d like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and I’d also agree that the RMT could have handled the situation differently, but I also see the point they’re coming from.

As I've already said, I don't have strong views on the subject.

If I was wearing a railway management hat I'd probably be looking at how Thameslink have been running 12-coach trains through the centre of London as DOO for very many years - and whether or not I could apply the same arrangements in part, whole, or not at all. However, as I'm not in the industry I don't have sufficient facts available to make any reasoned judgement.

If I worked for a PLC TOC, responsible for increasing shareholder value, I'd certainly be looking to see if I could reduce my staff costs without adverse impact on my passengers - but then the same would apply to a PLC in any industry.

There's no need to regurgitate the whole DOO debate !
.

 

[HowardGWR]

As I've already said, I don't have strong views on the subject.

If I was wearing a railway management hat I'd probably be looking at how Thameslink have been running 12-coach trains through the centre of London as DOO for very many years - and whether or not I could apply the same arrangements in part, whole, or not at all. However, as I'm not in the industry I don't have sufficient facts available to make any reasoned judgement.

If I worked for a PLC TOC, responsible for increasing shareholder value, I'd certainly be looking to see if I could reduce my staff costs without adverse impact on my passengers - but then the same would apply to a PLC in any industry.

There's no need to regurgitate the whole DOO debate !
.

Sums up my views too, so you are not alone. I'll just add that I can see that, if you are TOC management, you can still use the same number of staff who were guards on the local trains, and let's face it, most of what was the SR is essentially run like a tube or suburban service, to check that the punters have paid, where there are not barriered manned stations on the route. It seems to me that if TOCs have a contract whereby they get their money (AIUI e.g Southern GTR) whether the pax pay or not, I see no incentive for them to carry out this function properly -as I say, AIUI.

 

[BestWestern]

But Goldfish62 is quite right - the bottom line is that they do not run the railways (though may act as if they do).

The 'bottom line' is that there is a rather fine balancing act between management and unions. Countless times over the years the unions have impeded or prevented railway managers from carrying out their various wishes, with the result being the acceptance that a working partnership is generally more fruitful than relentlessly opposing one another.

So, whilst it is of course technically correct that the unions do not run the railways, the accuracy of that statement in the real world is open to question!

 

[Wombat]

I have a strong view on the subject: there should be a guard on the train until someone figures out a way to reliably provide assistance to disabled passengers, at all stations, in the absence of a guard. That said, presumably an advantage to the TOC of DOO is that they can still run a service if the guard is not present for some reason.

(I speak as someone outside the industry. I realise that nobody asked for my opinion but that doesn't usually stop me).

 

[Robertj21a]

The 'bottom line' is that there is a rather fine balancing act between management and unions. Countless times over the years the unions have impeded or prevented railway managers from carrying out their various wishes, with the result being the acceptance that a working partnership is generally more fruitful than relentlessly opposing one another.

So, whilst it is of course technically correct that the unions do not run the railways, the accuracy of that statement in the real world is open to question!

It's not - really, it's not !

Unions do not run the railways (but they may think they do). They are not paid to run the railways, nor do they have sufficient authority to run the railways.

Not too surprisingly, the only people empowered to run any particular TOC is the management team appointed to do that job - but then you knew that !.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will all senior managers at all TOCs and FOCs have worked their way up the ranks?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Will all senior managers at all TOCs and FOCs have worked their way up the ranks?

No. Like most firms there will be graduate programmes.

 

[pompeyfan]

I have a strong view on the subject: there should be a guard on the train until someone figures out a way to reliably provide assistance to disabled passengers, at all stations, in the absence of a guard. That said, presumably an advantage to the TOC of DOO is that they can still run a service if the guard is not present for some reason.

(I speak as someone outside the industry. I realise that nobody asked for my opinion but that doesn't usually stop me).

There would be nothing to stop agency or minimum wage staff being brought in to do that exact task.

 

[Malcolmffc]

The obvious and reasonable compromise is introduce DOO with guards becoming OBS. Absurd that trains have to be cancelled due to lack of guards.

 

[Monty]

The obvious and reasonable compromise is introduce DOO with guards becoming OBS. Absurd that trains have to be cancelled due to lack of guards.

Not really sure how this argument is relevant, SWT/SWR has never really had an issue with trains being fully crewed.

 

[BestWestern]

The obvious and reasonable compromise is introduce DOO with guards becoming OBS. Absurd that trains have to be cancelled due to lack of guards.

Yes, that's worked superbly well on Southern... :roll:

 

[BestWestern]

It's not - really, it's not !

Unions do not run the railways (but they may think they do). They are not paid to run the railways, nor do they have sufficient authority to run the railways.

Not too surprisingly, the only people empowered to run any particular TOC is the management team appointed to do that job - but then you knew that !.

I can assure you it is.

With the greatest of respect, some posters here have their views and opinions on certain things, and some posters have their views and opinions and the benefit of being inside the industry and seeing how it operates every day. The unions have a very deep involvement in the day to day running of the railway. That isn't opinion, it's fact. They do an awful lot more than just represent staff who've been naughty and call the odd strike ballot here and there.

 

[Robertj21a]

I can assure you it is.

With the greatest of respect, some posters here have their views and opinions on certain things, and some posters have their views and opinions and the benefit of being inside the industry and seeing how it operates every day. The unions have a very deep involvement in the day to day running of the railway. That isn't opinion, it's fact. They do an awful lot more than just represent staff who've been naughty and call the odd strike ballot here and there.

You are, presumably, referring to how the railways run day in, day out - the practical, 'technical' and operational issues. I am referring to the legalities and formal requirements - that is down to the respective managements.

 

[Goldfish62]

I can assure you it is.

With the greatest of respect, some posters here have their views and opinions on certain things, and some posters have their views and opinions and the benefit of being inside the industry and seeing how it operates every day. The unions have a very deep involvement in the day to day running of the railway. That isn't opinion, it's fact. They do an awful lot more than just represent staff who've been naughty and call the odd strike ballot here and there.

I do understand where you're coming from and I know all the excellent work behind the scenes thst TU reps do do in any industry where there is strong representation. However, ultimately those arrangements are only in place because they were decided by management, be it currently or under BR.

 

[pompeyfan]

Not really sure how this argument is relevant, SWT/SWR has never really had an issue with trains being fully crewed.

Got to agree, full crew working might cost more but it has its benefits. SWT built the network to be resilient in that department. Occasionally people do go sick, but there seems to be enough flexibility in terms of spare and cover turns. I suppose the removal of them would increase profit, sorry, I mean efficiency.

 

[BestWestern]

I do understand where you're coming from and I know all the excellent work behind the scenes thst TU reps do do in any industry where there is strong representation. However, ultimately those arrangements are only in place because they were decided by management, be it currently or under BR.

Union involvement wasn't 'decided' by anybody within recent memory, it stretches back generations - ASLEF was founded in 1880! Management have scarecely had a choice about union involvement, the staff sign up of their own accord and from then on the employer has little realistic choice but to involve them. If you asked senior management if they'd prefer a railway with no union presence, they'd bite your hand off! The 'arrangements' you mention generally involve unions because those unions approve most things that directly involve staff, and reps will frequently find themselves in a 'fail to agree' situation which requires negotiation to resolve.

 

[BestWestern]

You are, presumably, referring to how the railways run day in, day out - the practical, 'technical' and operational issues. I am referring to the legalities and formal requirements - that is down to the respective managements.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'legalities and formal requirements'? The requirements of any franchise are stipulated by the DfT in the franchise specifications, and the legalities are of course dealt with by the law. Where TOCs wish to introduce sweeping changes for whatever reason, the unions will be involved. If there is a significant issue, there will be a dispute.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'legalities and formal requirements'? The requirements of any franchise are stipulated by the DfT in the franchise specifications, and the legalities are of course dealt with by the law. Where TOCs wish to introduce sweeping changes for whatever reason, the unions will be involved. If there is a significant issue, there will be a dispute.

I despair. I think it would be better if I just gave up !

It seems that a TOC has little need for any management, nobody is needed to have overall responsibility for anything at all, - apparently the Unions do everything.......

 

[Monty]

I despair. I think it would be better if I just gave up !

It seems that a TOC has little need for any management, nobody is needed to have overall responsibility for anything at all, - apparently the Unions do everything.......

That's not what he said and you know it, you are just being melodramatic for the sake of it.

 

[Carlisle]

what benefits can you personally see that the toc might gain from going to DOO/DCO over driver release, guard dispatch?

I suspect the TOC would claim It’d have more time and resources to devote to the customer service role, ie more staff/ better training/ staff visibility etc if it didn’t have to devote a considerable amount of time and money to maintaining full operational competence for every one of its guards in addition to all of its drivers, given technology has allowed this a short distance away for over 30 years allready

 

[Robertj21a]

That's not what he said and you know it, you are just being melodramatic for the sake of it.

Well thanks for that. I'm clearly being very thick then. Perhaps he, or you, would like to explain what he said ?

What do you feel that management are employed to do ?

 

[BestWestern]

Well thanks for that. I'm clearly being very thick then. Perhaps he, or you, would like to explain what he said ?

What do you feel that management are employed to do ?

Management are employed to manage. The point is, however, that they manage mostly within a framework which is agreed with the unions. The unions watch very closely, and if agreements are broken or arrangements breached, the unions take action. The management have a very limited scope of what they can do without union agreement. Ergo, it is a reasonable contention that, to a significant degree, the unions do play a part in running the railways. There is a lot that management would very much like to do, but are prevented by the unions.

 

[Robertj21a]

Management are employed to manage. The point is, however, that they manage mostly within a framework which is agreed with the unions. The unions watch very closely, and if agreements are broken or arrangements breached, the unions take action. The management have a very limited scope of what they can do without union agreement. Ergo, it is a reasonable contention that, to a significant degree, the unions do play a part in running the railways. There is a lot that management would very much like to do, but are prevented by the unions.

Thanks for that, much clearer now. I don't really agree with much of what you've written but it's no point in pursuing the point now. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[HH]

...full crew working might cost more but it has its benefits...

The benefits are arguable. FCW was introduced by SWT after NR said they'd pay for it in order to help with performance. Performance in the areas affected by traincrew did increase for a while, but then went into reverse and NR will no longer subsidise it.

 

[Pumbaa]

Delete.

 

[TEW]

The benefits are arguable. FCW was introduced by SWT after NR said they'd pay for it in order to help with performance. Performance in the areas affected by traincrew did increase for a while, but then went into reverse and NR will no longer subsidise it.

I understand the arguments that FCW working may be less efficient but I do understand how it could possibly be worse from a performance perspective.

 

[313103]

Thanks for that, much clearer now. I don't really agree with much of what you've written but it's no point in pursuing the point now. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Whether you agree with it or not is not the point. You also do not have to agree to disagree either. What Best Western is saying is FACT. The only way you find that out if you dont believe a word of what is being said is to become an employee of a toc.

 

[Carlisle]

Whether you agree with it or not is not the point. You also do not have to agree to disagree either. What Best Western is saying is FACT. The only way you find that out if you dont believe a word of what is being said is to become an employee of a toc.

Best Western is referring to a honeymoon period shortly after privatisation when the unions held virtually all the cards till very recently, TOCs didn’t have much of a clue how to take them on, so they didn’t bother in most cases, it was never like that in BR days for better or for worse as I’m sure your well aware