Ways of preventing Northern etc becoming "driver training camps" (or making that OK)?

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ons-getting-worse.236733/page-20#post-6174988:

Unfortunately, as I've said in previous posts, Northern can't build passenger numbers when their drivers are leaving at a faster rate than they can recruit and train new ones.

There is no easy answer to this. In an ideal world, the new GBR - if it ever happens - would have a single salary level for all drivers....just as BR did.

Did it?

Under GBR I can see a solution to that, though, without bringing salaries in line. Well, I can see a few:

1. Accept that this happens and just throw resources at setting up driver training schools at the regional TOCs, and require repayment of the training costs within a specified period if a driver leaves either voluntarily or due to misconduct (five years, perhaps). Obviously if made redundant (unlikely) this would be waived. If the IC TOC wants to take them on, as part of doing so they'd pay that off because otherwise they'd not get the staff.

2. Impose a passenger-industry-wide approach to salaries that bases them on experience rather than on exactly what you're driving.

3. Factor in a training levy as part of National Rail Contracts and simply have a single national contract for driver training, with TOCs not able to conduct this themselves.

I think I favour (1) because it solves the problem *and* also gets the money back from any driver who goes to a commercial FOC or abroad. It's very, very common in many industries, both transport (e.g. bus and lorry) and things like IT - it's certainly in my contract.

 

[Halish Railway]

I do wonder if various operators were merged (As has been suggested with TPE and Northern), the driving job would be more rewarding if there was a greater mix of routes, with one day a driver work a long-distance high-speed service and the next day a local stopping service, increasing staff availability for local services and improving resilience by increasing route and traction knowledge.

With Northern it doesn’t help that a lot of express workings no longer exist, e.g. the fast Manchester Airport to Liverpool Lime Street service being withdrawn, the Manchester Airport to Blackpool North services being turned into Deathstoppers and various express services not materialising, e.g. Bradford Interchange to Nottingham via Wakefield Westgate and Middlesbrough to Carlisle via Stillington.

Say if Northern’s Northeast services were merged with LNER, existing Newcastle based LNER staff would only need to learn 2 new types of traction and they already have some of the route knowledge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With Northern it doesn’t help that a lot of express workings no longer exist, e.g. the fast Manchester Airport to Liverpool Lime Street service being withdrawn, the Manchester Airport to Blackpool North services being turned into Deathstoppers

There's still the Barrow and Windermere, to be fair. The other fast has become the TPE - back in the 90s the Scottish services were two a day.

 

[DanNCL]

Say if Northern’s Northeast services were merged with LNER, existing Newcastle based LNER staff would only need to learn 2 new types of traction and they already have some of the route knowledge.

Newcastle LNER drivers sign all of the routes Newcastle Northern crews sign apart from the short section between Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe, and the short shunt onto the Blyth & Tyne at Morpeth.

My own view is that the North East part of northern either needs to become part of LNER or become a standalone operation. It’s continued presence as part of Northern makes no sense and there seems to be a lack of local knowledge of the North East by some of those in management at Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My own view is that the North East part of northern either needs to become part of LNER or become a standalone operation. It’s continued presence as part of Northern makes no sense and there seems to be a lack of local knowledge of the North East by some of those in management at Northern.

It does seem to me like the merger of Regional Railways North West and North East hasn't really gone that well, though it's for debate which side comes off worst in it all.

I suppose the War of the Roses is after all still ongoing

 

[Nick Ashwell]

In a world without the unions or restrictive employment laws (both of which exist for good reason), you make it like an old military contract, you've got to buy yourself out. This stops people leaving before they've repaid their training.

Back in the real world however, there's no real way to prevent this without leveling out contracts nationally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a world without the unions or restrictive employment laws (both of which exist for good reason), you make it like an old military contract, you've got to buy yourself out. This stops people leaving before they've repaid their training.

Back in the real world however, there's no real way to prevent this without leveling out contracts nationally.

It might be that the unions wouldn't allow it, but it's not illegal. It's in my contract and you see it all over the place.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

It might be that the unions wouldn't allow it, but it's not illegal. It's in my contract and you see it all over the place.

But enforceability is the issue.

The same as non compete clauses, you just can't enforce it, especially if you can't do the job without the training.

My last contract had exactly the same, didn't stop me walking

 

[AngusH]

You could have a common fund model. (this is kind of like 3 in the list above, but not exactly)

Funding for training comes from a common pool that all companies employing drivers contribute to in proportion to the number of drivers they employ.
Approved training can be paid for out of the pool, directly to train companies or possibly authorised third parties (training academies etc)

Nothing is paid by the drivers themselves and they would have nothing to do with the funding.


This doesn't handle the case of a driver moving outside the UK though.

 

[JamesT]

But enforceability is the issue.

The same as non compete clauses, you just can't enforce it, especially if you can't do the job without the training.

My last contract had exactly the same, didn't stop me walking

Depends how belligerent the employer is feeling, there’s the option of the courts if they really want to claw it back, e.g. https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/12/national-law-firm-pursues-ex-trainees-for-9000-lpc-fees/

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Depends how belligerent the employer is feeling, there’s the option of the courts if they really want to claw it back, e.g. https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/12/national-law-firm-pursues-ex-trainees-for-9000-lpc-fees/

But nothing there says it went to court.

It's an easy argument for the employee in this situation to make, correctly, that they are being restricted in their freedom of labour, and if they can't afford say the 9000 as mentioned, it wouldn't be recovered anyways.

Keeping someone in job they don't want to be in is a recipe for disaster and lawsuits. If in the example above, the employee only has £500 in their bank account, is it fair they are told to repay the 9k? No, because that forces them to either be unemployed or continue working for their current employer against their will, which is a major issue for freedom of labour as mentioned above.

A good example of this was my last employer, where my boss told me to do a training course because someone else couldn't make it. If he'd attempted to come after me for the money it would have been an easy defence in my part. Was the training course required for my role in Accounts Package Support? Yes. Therefore, if I couldn't do the job without it, then the employer is entirely liable as they should have had me sign a fixed term contract if they were legitimately going to require me to stay after the training. In the end i left my resignation on my desk, walked the five miles home, and ignored the calls and texts begging me to come back. This was still a better look for them than trying to chase me for money!

As a very messy subject, I may recommend this article https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/repayment-of-training-costs-is-it-legal/

 

[WAB]

Say if Northern’s Northeast services were merged with LNER, existing Newcastle based LNER staff would only need to learn 2 new types of traction and they already have some of the route knowledge.

Ah, my ongoing hobby horse... however, you could pretty much guarantee if the Newcastle area of Northern were taken in, it would be ignored within the management structure. You might as well go the whole hog and integrate the ops side nationally, building in accountability for all services as you go. If you need to separate out the routes/traction, put different links in and allocate according to need rather than how much money you have to bribe.

I can see a depot merging approach being useful for Aberdeen/Inverness/Fort William for LNER/XC/CS/ScotRail (and pretty much everywhere on the extremities of the XC network!), Holyhead for Avanti/TfW, East West Rail, etc. and you could probably economise on spare coverage, or build in additional resilience based on your tastes.

Personally, I think drivers salaries need to be decided nationally (with allowances for unpopular depots) to avoid this poaching set-up, but I somehow doubt the unions would give up that particular money tree...

 

[whoosh]

How about - just throwing it out there - making it a nice place to work?

I work DOO trains now, for more money and with mostly better conditions than at the Intercity TOC I was once at.

BR might've paid the same basic rate for all drivers, but 'mileage' was paid which on Intercity long distance work could be considerable. Kings Cross to Doncaster and back paid an additional 5h20 as mileage. DOO on any part of the diagram - just fetching the train out of the sidings, paid £9.80 per shift back in 1996, which was equivalent at the time of about an extra 1h40.

I don't think 'poaching' is a problem. The only time it was, was in the early days of privatisation when retirements took place of the most senior drivers (who had naturally picked the Intercity TOCs for the mileage, which later became a higher salary) and there was an increase in the service being run by all TOCs.

The TOCs with the junior drivers, naturally ended up at the beginning with quite a few drivers called 'Vacancy' (because they were the least senior drivers!), needed more drivers to run more trains, and then lost some to the Intercity TOCs.

If you look at West Midlands and Thameslink and C2C, are there that many leaving to go to Avanti, Cross Country, and LNER these days? I don't think there are.

 

[baz962]

How about - just throwing it out there - making it a nice place to work?

I work DOO trains now, for more money and with mostly better conditions than at the Intercity TOC I was once at.

BR might've paid the same basic rate for all drivers, but 'mileage' was paid which on Intercity long distance work could be considerable. Kings Cross to Doncaster and back paid an additional 5h20 as mileage. DOO on any part of the diagram - just fetching the train out of the sidings, paid £9.80 per shift back in 1996, which was equivalent at the time of about an extra 1h40.

I don't think 'poaching' is a problem. The only time it was, was in the early days of privatisation when retirements took place of the most senior drivers (who had naturally picked the Intercity TOCs for the mileage, which later became a higher salary) and there was an increase in the service being run by all TOCs.

The TOCs with the junior drivers, naturally ended up at the beginning with quite a few drivers called 'Vacancy' (because they were the least senior drivers!), needed more drivers to run more trains, and then lost some to the Intercity TOCs.

If you look at West Midlands and Thameslink and C2C, are there that many leaving to go to Avanti, Cross Country, and LNER these days? I don't think there are.

My inter city toc recently advertised for qualified drivers. Apparently had around 40 apply. We seem to get quite a few greater Anglia. Also quite a few from overground and crossrail and a couple from Thameslink .

 

[Meerkat]

Isn't it a good thing for drivers to be able to move around and earn more?

 

[baz962]

Isn't it a good thing for drivers to be able to move around and earn more?

For drivers yes. But it isn't to stop moving around as such. Good if you need to move for family reasons etc, but not great for the public if trains keep getting cancelled due to train crew shortages and they are losing staff just for the money.

 

[Meerkat]

For drivers yes. But it isn't to stop moving around as such. Good if you need to move for family reasons etc, but not great for the public if trains keep getting cancelled due to train crew shortages and they are losing staff just for the money.

It’s the company’s choice - pay more or pay for more lots of training.
I don’t agree with striking for money, but on the same lines I don’t think drivers should suffer employers colluding to fix salaries rather than paying what it takes to recruit and retain enough good drivers.