Would there be support for a railway staffing increase?

[HH]

When I worked split shifts they were not fully paid, why would any bus company want to pay its staff 4 or 5 hours a day for doing nothing!

Also if it is fully paid what happens to the 40 (or whatever) hour week if they are doing 13 hour split shifts with 5 hours off in the middle?

I never said that split shifts were fully paid; I said that long shifts were fully paid.

As to the 40 hour week, surely as a driver you should know that this is an average, not the exact time for every week? Nothing to say that they have to work 5 days either.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two companies near to me have drivers who are split shifters....and they're not exactly independents either...ones a large coach operator who's buses in the midlands have started to become crimson...and another is a company who's name is shared with a type of jewelry...

Your piccie is of the RV1; so I assumed you meant in London. However, none of the companies operating TfL buses have a name shared by any sort of jewellery that I know (I checked on London Travelwatch in case I forgot one). National Express have been changing bus colours I know, but I didn't think they ran any London buses. I fear your clue has proved too cryptic for me!

Of course, even without split shifts, many bus drivers are paid poorly. In London I think that TfL should set some basic minimum T&Cs, and these ought to cover split shifts.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I never said that split shifts were fully paid; I said that long shifts were fully paid.

As to the 40 hour week, surely as a driver you should know that this is an average, not the exact time for every week? Nothing to say that they have to work 5 days either.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Your piccie is of the RV1; so I assumed you meant in London. However, none of the companies operating TfL buses have a name shared by any sort of jewellery that I know (I checked on London Travelwatch in case I forgot one). National Express have been changing bus colours I know, but I didn't think they ran any London buses. I fear your clue has proved too cryptic for me!

Of course, even without split shifts, many bus drivers are paid poorly. In London I think that TfL should set some basic minimum T&Cs, and these ought to cover split shifts.

I just like London stuff so that's why I have a London bus on my profile...even though I live in the midlands and was referring to NX west midlands and Rotala owned Diamond Bus

 

[HH]

I freely admit to not knowing owt about those operations. Do they have a lot of school services or something to cause the need for split shifts?

 

[TUC]

On the surface an increase in staff seems logical and the obvious response to that is the increase in costs. If we skip that unsolvable argument for a minute we need to look at rosters, depot distribution, link working, shift working, part time, and the dreaded casualization.

Huge culture change is needed rather than a simple increase in staff.

Surely employing staff, even on a Sundays-only basis, would be very likely to cost less than paying overtime costs?

 

[causton]

Surely employing staff, even on a Sundays-only basis, would be very likely to cost less than paying overtime costs?

Who would work only one day a week? And how long would it take to train them? Even someone like me spent about three months before I was passed out on my own and they'd sorted everything out, and that's for ticket office, I dread to think how long it would take before a driver was passed out that only trained on Sundays!

 

[notadriver]

I would consider a driver who had only trained for 1 day a week and then only drove 1 day a week unsafe.

 

[A-driver]

Surely employing staff, even on a Sundays-only basis, would be very likely to cost less than paying overtime costs?

It's not, quite simply. If it was then that's what the TOCs would do.

Im already employed so they already pay for my training, uniform, equipment, NI, management, ongoing training, holiday leave, medical assessments, recruitment costs etc. and paying me an extra £500 a week to work an extra 2 days is far cheaper than employing 2 other drivers on £900 per week plus all the above costs.

 

[HH]

I would consider a driver who had only trained for 1 day a week and then only drove 1 day a week unsafe.

I agree, but there are part-time drivers (at their own request).

I think A-driver has hit it on the head; hiring staff for 1 day a week is just too costly. For a driver it would make no sense at all; it costs over ten thousand pounds to test, select and train a driver (I've seen various estimates, but none less than £10k).

 

[notadriver]

I think it's closer to £80k. Those part time drivers would have trained full time and at least completed some years of full time driving before going part time.

 

[HH]

I think it's closer to £80k. Those part time drivers would have trained full time and at least completed some years of full time driving before going part time.

Absolutely they did.

I guess the cost depends on how you apportion management time and overhead, but it's certainly a lot just to run the selection process.

 

[DarloRich]

the issue with making Sundays part of the working week is that the TOC will have to "buy" the T&C's off the staff. That they don't want to do that should tell you how expensive that would be

 

[A-driver]

the issue with making Sundays part of the working week is that the TOC will have to "buy" the T&C's off the staff. That they don't want to do that should tell you how expensive that would be

Depends. If they spend 5k a year per driver for Sunday's then they can offer them 6k in the pay deal and many drivers will see the big advantage that it is pensionable and garunteed even if off sick or annual leave. Currently Sunday's are extra but not paid if you can't work them for leave or health. Generally the TOCs don't want to bring Sunday in as its too costly.

 

[DarloRich]

Depends. If they spend 5k a year per driver for Sunday's then they can offer them 6k in the pay deal and many drivers will see the big advantage that it is pensionable and garunteed even if off sick or annual leave. Currently Sunday's are extra but not paid if you can't work them for leave or health. Generally the TOCs don't want to bring Sunday in as its too costly.

that is what they should do if they want to change things. I dont think they want to

 

[HH]

Depends. If they spend 5k a year per driver for Sunday's then they can offer them 6k in the pay deal and many drivers will see the big advantage that it is pensionable and garunteed even if off sick or annual leave. Currently Sunday's are extra but not paid if you can't work them for leave or health. Generally the TOCs don't want to bring Sunday in as its too costly.

Another issue is that ASLEF would prefer the week to stay at 35 hours so that the number of drivers (and therefore ASLEF members) increases. If that didn't complicate things enough, quite a lot of drivers don't want to work Sundays. I did an analysis at one TOC and found that c.40% of the drivers hadn't worked a Sunday in the previous 6 months.

However it can be done; LOROL did it. I don't know the details of the deal, but they are on a 35 hour week and their pay looks around £8k more than their neighbours. OFC TfL will have paid for that...

 

[TDK]

The only time I would even consider Sundays in the working week would be if the hours remained at 35 hours and a 4 day week then you would get hell of a lot more rest days off that would suit both the grabbers and the drivers who want to work as little for their basic wage, anything else will never get past the negotiation stage unless copious amounts of money are offered.

The company I work for have committed Sundays however if you want one off there isn't normally a problem as many volunteer for extras, if Sundays were in the working week you wouldn't be able to do this.

Many drivers who have never worked Sundays are permanently exempt from working any even if they are committed what would happen to those drivers?

As long as the Sundays are covered the companies are happy with them outside the working week the only downfall is people not volunteering hence some jobs would have to be cancelled that would mean trains being cancelled.

 

[HH]

Many drivers who have never worked Sundays are permanently exempt from working any even if they are committed what would happen to those drivers?

As long as the Sundays are covered the companies are happy with them outside the working week the only downfall is people not volunteering hence some jobs would have to be cancelled that would mean trains being cancelled.

LOROL have exempt drivers I believe, but not as many as I would have expected. I imagine that they may be happy with 4 from 7, as you indicated.

Not having cancellations is the main driver for including Sundays. It tends to wind up politicians...

 

[Robertj21a]

Why can't new trainee staff be brought in on different Terms and Conditions, that include Sundays as a working day ?

 

[theageofthetra]

I was recently speaking to a couple of London bus drivers and in that world you have new drivers on vastly worse T & C's to existing staff. It has been a disaster for staff retention with in some cases new drivers walking out not long after passing out.

 

[A-driver]

Why can't new trainee staff be brought in on different Terms and Conditions, that include Sundays as a working day ?

Quite simply because that is a slippery slope to eroding pay and conditions away and so the unions (quite rightly) stand firm against it. New starters could be offered a contract for a 40hour week (instead of 35), 37k a year(instead of 47) etc and after a number of years, as the existing drivers retire, you find that all the benifits drivers have worked to achieve over the past number of decades have gone.

But you have ignored what has already been posted here which is that the reason Sunday working isn't imposed isn't because drivers don't want it but because TOCs won't pay for the extra staff. The union would prefer Sunday's come inside as it increases the number of jobs.

 

[Robertj21a]

Quite simply because that is a slippery slope to eroding pay and conditions away and so the unions (quite rightly) stand firm against it. New starters could be offered a contract for a 40hour week (instead of 35), 37k a year(instead of 47) etc and after a number of years, as the existing drivers retire, you find that all the benifits drivers have worked to achieve over the past number of decades have gone.

But you have ignored what has already been posted here which is that the reason Sunday working isn't imposed isn't because drivers don't want it but because TOCs won't pay for the extra staff. The union would prefer Sunday's come inside as it increases the number of jobs.

How have I ignored what has already been posted here ? - you say that the TOCs won't pay for the extra staff but my assumption was that that was on the basis of the existing pay scales, T's and C's etc.

 

[A-driver]

How have I ignored what has already been posted here ? - you say that the TOCs won't pay for the extra staff but my assumption was that that was on the basis of the existing pay scales, T's and C's etc.

Yes, existing pay scales would of course remain. You can't just turn around to your workforce and tell them they will now be working extra days without offering compensation for this. I know some employers do but that doesn't mean it is right and the rail unions are completely right to resist such detrimental changes. As I say, the unions are all for Sunday's being inside but for the reasons I stated in my last post, they would never allow new starters to be brought in on lesser T&Cs.

 

[notadriver]

I was recently speaking to a couple of London bus drivers and in that world you have new drivers on vastly worse T & C's to existing staff. It has been a disaster for staff retention with in some cases new drivers walking out not long after passing out.

I don't know why they do things like this - it's not going to attract good people to that industry and only causes resentment when the inevitable comparison is made with the railway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why can't new trainee staff be brought in on different Terms and Conditions, that include Sundays as a working day ?

This is exactly what has happened in the pcv world with starter rates of less than £10 an hour while the lucky senior drivers there are on around £15 an hour (in London) a rate which new drivers can't get until they've done 10 years in some cases.

 

[goatie]

As most old timers know the problem for the railway was privatisation, with the breakup of a national intergrated broke the link of pecking order of staff and pay.
we had companies outbid each other to get/keep train drivers
a friend on the OHL (not a supervisor just one of the guys) got a 50% payrise over night to keep the guys working for the maintainer (12k to 18K)
this sort of thing was going on in lots of grades, (and good luck to the guy's) never saw that good rises on Railtrack/Network rail
many of the new guy's that came on board in "management posts" managed to fill their boots "as the railway had to pay for talent"
we have guys with no or little educational qualifications getting £100k (including their overtime) which is good for them, but not for the railway as a whole
we have this bonus system, that gives the staff crumbs but gives managers Jam, if they stopped the bonus, staff would lose a few hundred, managers would lose 10's to 100's of thousands, and the railway would gain, maybe a few more staff, or better equipment

 

[Greenback]

How have I ignored what has already been posted here ? - you say that the TOCs won't pay for the extra staff but my assumption was that that was on the basis of the existing pay scales, T's and C's etc.

It's cheaper for TOC's to pay overtime than it is to recruit enough extra staff to move to having Sundays included in the working week where that isn't currently the case. ASLEF has been in favour of including Sundays for years, and has been working towards it, although it's fair to say that some drivers prefer to keep Sundays outside.

I think it's sometimes forgotten or overlooked that franchises are for a limited period, and for a TOC to bring Sundays inside it would mean a lot of investment up front, which they may never see a return on in the short or medium term, hence the reluctance to make such a move.

 

[HH]

I think it's sometimes forgotten or overlooked that franchises are for a limited period, and for a TOC to bring Sundays inside it would mean a lot of investment up front, which they may never see a return on in the short or medium term, hence the reluctance to make such a move.

Precisely so, especially when you factor in the cost of strike action. Which may be why the DfT have decided to start specifying DOO in the ITT...

 

[tony6499]

If a TOC gets a limited time franchise and some were 5 years etc what is the point in them spending thousands+ recruiting and training staff when they could lose their franchise in a couple of years time ? It's cheaper to try and make do with minimal recruitment and rely on overtime etc

 

[A-driver]

If a TOC gets a limited time franchise and some were 5 years etc what is the point in them spending thousands+ recruiting and training staff when they could lose their franchise in a couple of years time ? It's cheaper to try and make do with minimal recruitment and rely on overtime etc

Absolutely. And in fact, as a certain cross London commuter operator showed when leaving, it's sometimes also more financially beneficial to pay DfT penalties than hand a franchise back fully staffed with full working trains and leave the next operator to sort out the mess...

 

[HH]

Absolutely. And in fact, as a certain cross London commuter operator showed when leaving, it's sometimes also more financially beneficial to pay DfT penalties than hand a franchise back fully staffed with full working trains and leave the next operator to sort out the mess...

I think that was down more to incompetence than planning, knowing those involved.

 

[A-driver]

I think that was down more to incompetence than planning, knowing those involved.

Perhaps, but the penalties were still less than the cost would have been to fix the various issues. Turns a penalty into a business decision which misses the point of a penalty somewhat!

 

[Carlisle]

Precisely so, especially when you factor in the cost of strike action. Which may be why the DfT have decided to start specifying DOO in the ITT...

Yes I can remember RMT obtained Scotrail documents during the Airdrie-Bathgate line DOO dispute stating originally they intended to use conductors as the franchise didnt have enough time left to recoup the cost of potential strikes. without financial help from Transport Scotland