There must be a cut-off point for the "TUPE" provisions to apply (although I can't be bothered trying to look it up). For example, Diamond couldn't just appoint 50 people on £3million salaries as drivers a week before the go-live date and force Go North West to take them on and honour it. Therefore it has to apply to people in-situ on date 'x'. Presumably the risk for Diamond in continuing to recruit is that they'd end up with drivers employed after date 'x' and be left with staff with no work and potentially having to make redundancy payments, unfair dismissal payments, trouble with unions and a whole host of headache for no particular benefit other than making TfGM look good.
Given that any staff with less than two years service can have their employment terminated, it's not really an issue
TfGM's imposition of franchising and removal of the previous commercial freedom for private companies to operate public transport services as they wish, is a diktat that is akin to the actions of a totalitarian state. A Polish neighbour of mine, who lived/worked under Communism in Poland and who now works as a manager for Stagecoach in Manchester, is deeply wary of TfGM's arbitrary actions. While it is not a threat to his personal freedom, it is a potential threat to his livelihood.
Other cities such as Oxford have adopted enhanced partnership schemes with local bus operators to work co-operatively with them to improve local bus services. By contrast, TfGM's behaviour towards operators such as Stagecoach can only be described as hostile, and is in line with the Orwellian phrase "big brother knows best".
The future bus network is also likely to lack commercial responsiveness so won't have the incentives to adapt where demand changes. There are a large number of infrequent slow roundabout routes in Greater Manchester that are barely used and really should be chopped, particularly outside core hours (Mon-Fri 0700-1900, Sat 0800-1800). Bus service development should be concentrated on main densely populated corridors where frequency, directness and increased speed (with bus priority measures) could make services attractive to potential customers and increase bus usage.
I think the view of the Orwellian state and Soviet Bloc direct control is a little strong!
However, the last paragraph is where my concerns lay. In Manchester, we are seeing the usual talk of bus barons, London style this and that, etc. The concern is that you will see a politicisation as we've seen in London. The lack of commercial awareness in the capital is likely to replicated, where the strongest services in Central London are being scaled back or axed entirely* whilst an increasing number of peripheral services in the suburbs place an evergrowing drain on the overall finances. As in London, I fear that you might see a slavish adherence to certain "rules" - no short workings that actually reflect the differences in passenger demand.
Unfortunately, Andy Burnham has sought to paint the issues of patronage decline solely of bus company making. Nothing about the impact of Metrolink (which I applaud but also recognise the abstraction from local bus services), nor the reluctance to do anything that might adversely impact voters, sorry, car drivers. I really do hope I'm wrong but we may see a more expensive (overall), overly bureaucratic network littered with sacred cows and overly political decisions. That is a concern.
* Before anyone suggests it, it's not because the tube network has suddenly improved or the impact of the Elizabeth Line. It is partly the introduction of cycle infrastructure (which conceptually, I actually support, but it has impacted bus travel times) but mainly to try to improve the finances.
Earn over £30k a year
Work for an awarding winning company and winner of 7 franchises in the first phase of franchising in GM! Visit https://buff.ly/3y4MgKy
