Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by Puffing Devil, 20 Apr 2019.
Sundays aren't (weren't) flat rate, there was an enhancement.
So how long is the new agreement for?
Until end July if new deal is rejected by ASLEF members. If deal accepted then it will last until deal is implemented.
Just to update that this bridging agreement comes to an end this Sunday after ASLEF members have rejected by a large margin a proposed deal for Sundays in the working week. Unless a new temporary agreement is drawn up then it is likely to be back to driver shortages on Sundays in the west from 21st.
It really is important that whatever revised model of franchising emerges removes any sense of the government being the banker of last resort, so that all these restrictive practices can be washed away by business necessity, in the same way that bus deregulation had a similarly beneficial effect.
Obviously this thread is re Sunday shortages.
But just to clarify, the new deal has indeed been rejected today 63.5% to 33.5%, but this rejection wasn't just about Sundays in the working week.
Lots on the East must have voted against as well and they already have Sundays in the week. It was a wide ranging harmonisation deal with lots of proposed changes and drivers voted against it for lots of different reasons.
Not to divert from the thread but this is true. Lots of others factors leading to it being rejected. Sunday's shouldn't change in the immediate so I wouldn't worry
Our inherent fear of change (including myself on many occasions ) alongside a large number of long serving staff surely make such harmonisation deals extremely difficult to ever get voted through, as has been seen on numerous other TOCs & the old Northern.
If Northern want to get Sundays in the working week on the west they should present a deal for that alone and not try to attach it to a full harmonisation across the 2 regions.
What other business would put up with one region continuing to pretend to be two? It is a disgraceful waste of public money.
I do wonder how close we are to seeing what Local Authorities did a few years ago when unions were blocking harmonisation and modernisation, ie. these are the new contracts, sign them and keep working for us, or don't sign them, in which case here's your notice.
That's isn't to far off what happened with Southern over guards.
Drivers though, pretty safe
I don't understand why though. I mean, is there really a shortage of people who want the job? I know training takes aeons, but seriously?
No there’s not a shortage of people who wants the job but these new people who do come in the job will sign up to the union because they see the benefits and strengths it has and certainly won’t want to be contributory factors to the job potentially turning into horrible conditions that they may have just ran away from. And so it goes on
Just create new terms and conditions for new staff and let the old ones wither on the vine.
Except as has been noted when this suggestion has been made before, the Unions vehemently object to differing contracts like that so it would almost certainly set off another round of industrial action.
This has happened in other industries. Local Authorities, education, the NHS, all have been through that process (often known as Job Evaluation). In *all* of those industries, there was strife with the unions, there were some strikes, and plenty of staff chose the option of leaving. But, in the long run, the exercise was successful and new contracts were introduced. I fail to see why the railways should be a special case.
All industries where people are deemed to be underpaid and overworked. All industries where they are failing to attract new staff and industries where they are blowing through their budgets and are wasting money and overspending.
The railway shouldn't be a 'special case' but it does have its own reasons why you can't and shouldn't just screw over employees. Do you not care about those who were and would be affected by such disgraceful actions by an employer or do you support said action ? Should we just offer a new set of terms with a pay scale set at minimum wage for everyone ?
You have a workforce who decided 65/35 against the new contracts. Imagine what would happen if your workforce decided not to accept your new contract.
You have to cancel hundreds, potentially thousands of services every day
You are no understaffed and recruitment and replacement is 100-150k+ per employee
You now have to pay a boat load of overtime to cover services, training and other costs
Goodwill is gone
Reputation is gone
It's far easier and cheaper to incrementally move towards harmonization over time. You could offer a new entrant contract and you could offer a huge carrot to enable a single clause deal. Or you could screw people over at a huge cost to yourself.
I have friends in both Education and the NHS so I have seen what happens to those on the ground. I have also previous mentioned about my own experience of forcing contract changes through disgraceful employment practices. There is an easy way and a hard way. Unfortunately the 'easy way' isn't pleasant.
Who is going to train this new breed on different contracts?
As your senior drivers would refuse to instruct.
If you are happy for effectively 2-5 years of disruption and complete working to rule with an overtime ban, training ban and other implications then lobby your MP.
I shan't hold my breath.