ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO

[A-driver]

Can you name one successful /profitable industry/company where management basically roll over and accept all the unions demands as your post seems to suggest they should here , cos I can't think of one

Define success. DOO isn't about saving an industry that's going under, it's about increasing profits at the cost of jobs and safety.

 

[HSTEd]

All this will achieve is that these unions will be broken by the government the second they attempt to resist DOO expansion.

You really think a pair of relatively small union contingents can succeed where the NUM failed? Those days are gone.

 

[A-driver]

All this will achieve is that these unions will be broken by the government the second they attempt to resist DOO expansion.

You really think a pair of relatively small union contingents can succeed where the NUM failed? Those days are gone.

Why? I don't think people understand what this statement is. It won't lead to indefinite strikes when DOO is announced-it means they won't be agreeing to expansion and won't be assisting TOCs to implement DOO. You won't get support from members of either Union for long term strikes over DOO.

 

[BestWestern]

Look at it this way - a TOC introduces a new (or cascaded) fleet of trains, over routes currently operated by Driver & Guard. Despite previous negotiations, disputes and Union statements etc, the TOC wants the Drivers to do the doors. Drivers & (Guards) Union refuse to operate the trains. That isn't a strike, blokes will still book on. But they have been instructed by their Union not to drive those trains. Messrooms full of blokes, very few wheels turning. Not much the management are going to do about that, really.

Aslef operate a system in many places of the Union officially sanctioning - or not sanctioning - certain things. For example Rest Day working, which will be sanctioned for a set period and then reviewed. If the Union becomes in dispute when the review is due, the working of Rest Days will not be sanctioned for the next period. And most members will support that. There is absolutely no reason why the Union cannot 'black' the working of trains, and instruct the membership not to take them out.

 

[HSTEd]

Look at it this way - a TOC introduces a new (or cascaded) fleet of trains, over routes currently operated by Driver & Guard. Despite previous negotiations, disputes and Union statements etc, the TOC wants the Drivers to do the doors. Drivers & Guards Unions both refuse to operate the trains. That isn't a strike, blokes will still book on. But they have been instructed by their Union not to drive those trains. Not much the management are going to do about that, really...

If it walks like a strike, talks like a strike and smells like a strike, it is a strike.
It will still look bad in the press.

"Fatcat rail staff REFUSE TO DRIVE NEW TRAINS" or something like that.
And I am not sure staff can arbitrarily refuse to perform their duties and expect to remain employed for very long.
The TOC would certainly have grounds to make them all redundant as they no longer require the old trains to be driven.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You really think a pair of relatively small union contingents can succeed where the NUM failed? Those days are gone.

It depends how you define success, really.

But yes, I think the railway trade unions are in a strong position to negotiate and the RMT in particular has a good track record of getting a good deal for their members.

 

[A-driver]

If it walks like a strike, talks like a strike and smells like a strike, it is a strike.
It will still look bad in the press.

"Fatcat rail staff REFUSE TO DRIVE NEW TRAINS" or something like that.
And I am not sure staff can arbitrarily refuse to perform their duties and expect to remain employed for very long.
The TOC would certainly have grounds to make them all redundant as they no longer require the old trains to be driven.

Wrong. A strike is very different to withdrawing goodwill. Forget public opinion-rail unions have NEVER had any public support. But have still won most disputes. Public opinion isn't needed by rail unions, if it was unions would have gone under decades ago.

TOCs can't just make drivers redundant. Who are they going to replace them with? Get rid of their workforce and tell passengers 'sorry, the next train will run in 20-24 months time when the first 8 of our newly recruited 3000 drivers have passed out...this is the real world we are living in.

Plus it's not a case of staff being redundant as the old trains don't exist-they are employed as train drivers, not as class 142train drivers etc. But they are employed on specific contracts. If that contract states they will drive the train with a guard operating doors then the only way of changing those contracts to bring in DOO or variants is to negotiate with the workforce. They can't just issue new contracts and force staff to sign them...largely for the reason I stated they can't make them redundant either!

 

[BestWestern]

If it walks like a strike, talks like a strike and smells like a strike, it is a strike.
It will still look bad in the press.

"Fatcat rail staff REFUSE TO DRIVE NEW TRAINS" or something like that.
And I am not sure staff can arbitrarily refuse to perform their duties and expect to remain employed for very long.
The TOC would certainly have grounds to make them all redundant as they no longer require the old trains to be driven.

Uh huh. And you think a TOC are likely to do that, do you?

If staff are attending work they are not striking. And the Unions care considerably more for their members than they do for the front page of the Metro.

 

[HSTEd]

Uh huh. And you think a TOC are likely to do that, do you?

With the Government spoiling for a fight with the unions and thus likely to support the TOC to the hilt.... yes.

If staff are attending work they are not striking. And the Unions care considerably more for their members than they do for the front page of the Metro.

LU has sent drivers home without pay because they refused to take trains into service as directed. Whatever you think about that noone tried to dispute the legality of the action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TOCs can't just make drivers redundant. Who are they going to replace them with? Get rid of their workforce and tell passengers 'sorry, the next train will run in 20-24 months time when the first 8 of our newly recruited 3000 drivers have passed out...this is the real world we are living in.

So all you can do is delay the inevitable? You can guarantee that any and all new drivers will have contracts requiring DOO as required by the TOC.
How long till natural wastage allows the required routes to be converted?
And how do you think the drivers will survive with no pay (as stated above?)?

I guarantee you the drivers would break before the operators.

 

[Bookd]

If it really came to a confrontation, which I hope it would not, they could do as Ronald Reagan did with air traffic controllers; when they refused to accept new terms he sacked the lot. He was prepared to accept the pain until he re-employed those who were willing to work on his terms and suffered disruption until new staff could be trained. (At that time I flew to California - in sight of land the whole way which was interesting!)

 

[Tetchytyke]

And I am not sure staff can arbitrarily refuse to perform their duties and expect to remain employed for very long.

A driver's duties does not include operation of the doors. The driver wouldn't be refusing to do anything. They'd be sitting in the cab waiting to move. Except they can't, as the doors are wide open.

The TOC would certainly have grounds to make them all redundant as they no longer require the old trains to be driven.

The TOC can change a driver's T&Cs and they can do this without negotiation if they so wish. If they do so they are leaving themselves open to widescale legal challenges or redundancy payments.

And that's before we ask if all the drivers have been sacked, who will drive the trains?

LU has sent drivers home without pay because they refused to take trains into service as directed. Whatever you think about that noone tried to dispute the legality of the action.

You cannot lawfully dock pay or discipline someone for refusing to act beyond the remit of their job.

As for the success of LU's bullyboy tactics, remind me how Night Tube is getting on? Or, for that matter, how the "revised working pattern" (i.e. not having platform staff check the terminating trains at Queens Park) on the Bakerloo Line worked?

 

[DarloRich]

I do love the usual suspects and their anti union wibble!

The TOC is NOT going to sack their drivers. They can not be replaced easily, quickly or cheaply. No drivers equals no trains. That industrial muscle really grates with some doesn't it?

What will happen is that a deal would be done after the usual posturing. I am also unsure as to the legality of sacking someone for doing their job. Does a JD for a driver extend to opening and closing doors?

 

[A-driver]

With the Government spoiling for a fight with the unions and thus likely to support the TOC to the hilt.... yes.


LU has sent drivers home without pay because they refused to take trains into service as directed. Whatever you think about that noone tried to dispute the legality of the action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So all you can do is delay the inevitable? You can guarantee that any and all new drivers will have contracts requiring DOO as required by the TOC.
How long till natural wastage allows the required routes to be converted?
And how do you think the drivers will survive with no pay (as stated above?)?

I guarantee you the drivers would break before the operators.

Firstly you can't employ new drivers on different contracts. Collective bargaining makes it difficult and the unions would never allow it. So natural wastage won't be an issue. And new drivers will have the same contracts as those already employed.

LUL threatened to send drivers home for not driving unprepped trains during the summer disputes-as far as I'm aware it never happened. And if it did it would lead to no trains running anyway. But you have failed to mention the steps before that-for staff to sign the new stock they need to be trained on them and sign that they feel competent to drive them. If the staff refuse to sign that due to the DOO issue then they won't be allowed to drive the units anyway.

Sorry to break it to you but they won't simply be able to force DOO through and sack any driver who refuse to go along with it. Far too many hurdles before even getting close to a hint of industrial action.

 

[Tetchytyke]

they could do as Ronald Reagan did with air traffic controllers; when they refused to accept new terms he sacked the lot.

The difference is that the law made it unlawful for government employees to strike, and allowed the government to forfeit their jobs if they did so.

It should also be remembered that "working to rule" is not strike action and nobody working to rule can lawfully be dismissed or disciplined.

If closing the doors isn't in the driver's JD then they don't close the doors. The train ain't going to move very far with all the doors open is it?

 

[455driver]

All this will achieve is that these unions will be broken by the government the second they attempt to resist DOO expansion.

You really think a pair of relatively small union contingents can succeed where the NUM failed? Those days are gone.

The NUM never had a ballot for strike action though did they, Arthur Scargill said 'everyone out' and they did, unfortunately a lot of miners were not happy with the situation and decided to go back to work, now of course there would be a ballot in which the membership have their say and the above situation wont occur!

Maybe you should look into the miners strike, you might learn about the differences between then and now.

Oh the coal industry needed to modernise due to the availability of cheap/subsidised foreign coal at the time something not relevant to the rail industry which is carrying more and more passengers every year!

 

[HSTEd]

Firstly you can't employ new drivers on different contracts. Collective bargaining makes it difficult and the unions would never allow it. So natural wastage won't be an issue. And new drivers will have the same contracts as those already employed.

What are the unions going to do? Strike?

How long can they keep that up?
And since strikes in sympathy are almost impossible to do now, it would not be a national strike and would progress TOC by TOC as the government crushed each section of the union in turn.

LUL threatened to send drivers home for not driving unprepped trains during the summer disputes-as far as I'm aware it never happened. And if it did it would lead to no trains running anyway. But you have failed to mention the steps before that-for staff to sign the new stock they need to be trained on them and sign that they feel competent to drive them. If the staff refuse to sign that due to the DOO issue then they won't be allowed to drive the units anyway.

At which point the railway has no further use for them and they would be subject to redundancy if the employer required it.
Saying that they can't be made redundant if the railway has no use for them is a very dangerous precedent that would make running any kind of business impossible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If closing the doors isn't in the driver's JD then they don't close the doors. The train ain't going to move very far with all the doors open is it?

Then how are they going to complete the requisite training on the new DOO operated units? If they refuse to complete the training and sign the relevant paperwork they are surplus to requirements and the railway is perfectly entitled to make them redundant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What will happen is that a deal would be done after the usual posturing. I am also unsure as to the legality of sacking someone for doing their job. Does a JD for a driver extend to opening and closing doors?

The qualification documents for the new DOO units would simply include the requirement to do the doors - if they refuse to do the doors then they would be unable to qualify for the new units.

At which point drivers that don't do doors would not be required on those routes and would be subject to compulsory redundancy.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they refuse to complete the training and sign the relevant paperwork they are surplus to requirements and the railway is perfectly entitled to make them redundant.

The TOC can make them redundant if their job no longer exists. And an unwillingness to accept a new JD could mean their job no longer exists.

It isn't quite as simple as "drive this or we'll fire you" though.

I can't see any TOC making their drivers redundant...

 

[HSTEd]

The NUM never had a ballot for strike action though did they, Arthur Scargill said 'everyone out' and they did, unfortunately a lot of miners were not happy with the situation and decided to go back to work, now of course there would be a ballot in which the membership have their say and the above situation wont occur!

And? In the end it makes no difference what the legal position is.
A strike without public support is doomed.
Even with public support it is very unlikely to succeed. We are watching the BMAs position slowly crumble as we speak.

Oh the coal industry needed to modernise due to the availability of cheap/subsidised foreign coal at the time something not relevant to the rail industry which is carrying more and more passengers every year!

And does so because it is haemmorhaging money. Far more money than the NCB could ever dream of recieving in support.


And remember this process could proceed TOC by TOC or even depot by depot. After all there would be nowhere near enough places for large scale internal redeployments so the majority of the staff who did not accept the new JD would end up redundant.
And the Government might simply pay for additional training resources just to break the union once and for all.

 

[DarloRich]

The qualification documents for the new DOO units would simply include the requirement to do the doors - if they refuse to do the doors then they would be unable to qualify for the new units.

At which point drivers that don't do doors would not be required on those routes and would be subject to compulsory redundancy.

but it isn't simply a case of parachuting a new contract onto drivers. They may well like to do that but have to do a deal with the unions first or create all manner of unpleasantness all round

 

[HSTEd]

but it isn't simply a case of parachuting a new contract onto drivers. They may well like to do that but have to do a deal with the unions first or create all manner of unpleasantness all round

And? The government can likely survive that unpleasentness - the drivers can't.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And? In the end it makes no difference what the legal position is.

Except it does.

A strike without public support is doomed.

No strikes have public support.

We are watching the BMAs position slowly crumble as we speak.

Are we?

And remember this process could proceed TOC by TOC or even depot by depot. After all there would be nowhere near enough places for large scale internal redeployments so the majority of the staff who did not accept the new JD would end up redundant.

Except no TOC would make all their drivers redundant, and if you did it depot by depot you would have to all large scale internal redeployments- remember that employers can, and should, include all people of the same grade in a redundancy situation.

And the Government might simply pay for additional training resources just to break the union once and for all.

They won't, and even if they do, they take months to train up. No train services for a year? That'd hurt the shareholders.

 

[DarloRich]

And? The government can likely survive that unpleasentness - the drivers can't.

i am sure they could. Although no trains for about a year might try the patience of everyone involved.

 

[455driver]

And? In the end it makes no difference what the legal position is.
A strike without public support is doomed.
Even with public support it is very unlikely to succeed. We are watching the BMAs position slowly crumble as we speak.

And does so because it is haemmorhaging money. Far more money than the NCB could ever dream of recieving in support.


And remember this process could proceed TOC by TOC or even depot by depot. After all there would be nowhere near enough places for large scale internal redeployments so the majority of the staff who did not accept the new JD would end up redundant.
And the Government might simply pay for additional training resources just to break the union once and for all.

So you are saying I need to rollover otherwise I will be sacked?

 

[FordFocus]

Can you name one successful /profitable industry/company where management basically roll over and accept all the unions demands as your post seems to suggest they should here , cos I can't think of one

Scotrail dispute over pay - Overtime ban - Company rolled over
Northern Rail Conductors Strikes at the turn of the decade of bank holidays - Company rolled over any paid future substitute bank holidays
FCC 0% pay offer, ASLEF withdrew rest day working and overtime, emergency timetables implemented, new pay offer made and accepted
TPE Drivers strike a couple of years ago, threat of strike over pay offer as head office ordered another 0% pay offer. Company rolled over and strike called off.

To name a few
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No need to strike over DOO for drivers.

If DOO-P isn't in your contract, you don't do it. The company can negotiate with the appropriate unions about implementing it but with no collective agreement for changes to terms and conditions between the unions and the company then you can order as much rolling stock fitted with it as you like.

I presume the suggestion from Arctic Troll of making an entire workforce of drivers redundant with a new contract issued was sarcasm

 

[Carlisle]

i am sure they could. Although no trains for about a year might try the patience of everyone involved.

Let's be realistic, this is 2016 not the 1926 miners general strike or something, people have families, mortgages etc so I'm sure it would be far from 100% of a TOCs drivers that would ultimately choose compulsory redundancy over DOO or DCD

 

[BestWestern]

Scotrail dispute over pay - Overtime ban - Company rolled over

FCC 0% pay offer, ASLEF withdrew rest day working and overtime, emergency timetables implemented, new pay offer made and accepted

And there we are - a Union can exercise it's feelings long before a strike is required.

Unless you actually work on the railway it is perhaps difficult to appreciate quite how much of what happens day to day is reliant upon people agreeing to do things they don't have to. Rest days ans sunday working (entirely optional in many cases), count for an awful lot in many depots. Aslef can, has done and easily would do again impose a work to rule or withdraw rest day working. That alone would be deeply disruptive. Daily cancellations and, potentially, barely anything moving every sunday. We have seen it on FCC and it was rather effective. And as for the management cracking first; unlikely. With outcry from rail users, the Government's backhanded, shady and devious support for all this attacking of rail staff would soon disappear, as the gutless bunch they are give in to public pressure, berate the train operator and pretend that the whole thing has nothing at all to do with them (rolling stock shortages, anyone...?!)

 

[ComUtoR]

And I am not sure staff can arbitrarily refuse to perform their duties and expect to remain employed for very long.

I am allowed to refuse if I deem any action unsafe. We recently had 12 car DOO introduced and a number of Drivers refused to work them.

We also have Drivers who do not sign some specific traction but are still able to perform their duties as a Driver. Any Driver who refused DOO could feasible be moved to a different depot or simply not sign certain traction.


*edit*

As for Unions striking over conditions and changes to terms and conditions etc it will be interesting to see what happens with the situation with Junior Doctors. A strike which does have some public support.

 

[BestWestern]

Let's be realistic, this is 2016 not the 1926 miners general strike or something, people have families, mortgages etc so I'm sure it would be far from 100% of a TOCs drivers that would ultimately choose compulsory redundancy over DOO or DCD

Let's be realistic - no TOC is going to wholesale make every Driver redundant, so it really isn't an issue they'll ever have to consider :roll:

 

[muz379]

If closing the doors isn't in the driver's JD then they don't close the doors. The train ain't going to move very far with all the doors open is it?

Opening the doors is also not in their job description at most tocs that operate with guards . So the train will be running but the doors wont be opening at any stations

The guard’s role was traditionally a safety one, therein lies the conundrum for the modern railway.

And the guards role can be retained as a safety critical role whilst also encompassing other duties . Guards never used to perform revenue duties , now apart from tocs with non comercial guards guards will engage in revenue duties .

Most people accept there is a very small possibility of a freak set of circumstances that may conspire to create more danger to the train. Unfortunately, statistics, facts and safety cases are not on the side of the retention of guards to prevent accidents.

Funny that because recently there have been a number of incidents at the platform train interface that have led to or had the potential to lead to death or serious injury . Including one which is resulting in a guard being prosecuted

What statistics are you privy to with this reference anyway ?

Firstly, most guards, during their career will (thankfully) never carry out emergency protection. This only occurs in very exception circumstances when then controlling signalbox cannot protect trains.

You are right most guards or drivers for that matter will not carry out emergency protection . However many guards I know including myself have given that all important 1 on the buzzer which has stopped a potential serious incident from occurring and quite possibly saved someone from death or life changing injuries .

In other words, in monetary terms, providing guards does not offer good value for money/greater safety on today’s railway, in fact may even diminish it in an overall context. They may have more of a commercial case taking on other roles.

So me in my role as a guard
Collecting 3-4 times my annual salary in fares , as well as loading wheelchair passengers on and off the train , stopping a serious PTI incident from occurring ,Summoning police assistance when a number of drunk football fans decided to start smashing a train up . Is not providing value for money to my TOC .

lets think about just the claim arising out of a serious PTI incident , how much would that cost the TOC in relation to my salary ?

At the very best the safety/performance gain is very marginal, easily countered by enhanced DOO as a result of providing pass-com communication to controllers as well as all staff (safety critical or not) could carry panic alarms with GPS co-ordinates or mobile triangulation. Dwell times tend to be increased with guard operation, and the need for guards to operate doors takes them away from commercial duties.

Care to substantiate your claim that dwell times increase with guard operation . Just today I managed to reduce dwell time at a station by signalling to a passenger to step behind the yellow train and away from the train whilst It departs .Not something a driver in a cab would be able to do as easily .

More to the point railways are a very controlled environment, signallers are in charge of safety of the line. Conversely, the bus industry has one person in charge of boarding, fare collection, driving, on roads that for the most part do not have controllers. Although like the railways do have a service controller to assist during incidents. Even so, the bus industry has a very similar level of passenger safety to rail.

Few guards on this forum can post a situation where they have become involved in full train protection, because it is a very rare occurrence. This is why DOO-P works in the heavily trafficked London and the SE, with little or no degradation in safety standards.
.

Railways are very controlled when everything is running smooth , however to the untrained passenger when something has gone drastically wrong they can be a very dangerous environment .

This is why your bus industry is wrong , nobody needs a qualification to walk down the road , which is what busses run on . But you do need to be qualified and examined for your competency to work on or near a railway line .

As for DOO-P working in heavily trafficked london .How will it work on rural branch lines with masses of unmanned stations with old stupidly low platforms and being miles away from anywhere .

 

[A-driver]

What are the unions going to do? Strike?



How long can they keep that up?

And since strikes in sympathy are almost impossible to do now, it would not be a national strike and would progress TOC by TOC as the government crushed each section of the union in turn.





At which point the railway has no further use for them and they would be subject to redundancy if the employer required it.

Saying that they can't be made redundant if the railway has no use for them is a very dangerous precedent that would make running any kind of business impossible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




Then how are they going to complete the requisite training on the new DOO operated units? If they refuse to complete the training and sign the relevant paperwork they are surplus to requirements and the railway is perfectly entitled to make them redundant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




The qualification documents for the new DOO units would simply include the requirement to do the doors - if they refuse to do the doors then they would be unable to qualify for the new units.



At which point drivers that don't do doors would not be required on those routes and would be subject to compulsory redundancy.

It's difficult answering posts from you because you don't have the basic understanding of what you are attempting to argue. Clearly your definition of redundancy is a long way off the mark. None of the things you mention could be dealt with by redundancy. Changes to the working requirements are not the same as no longer needing train drivers and so redundancy isn't an option.

I highly doubt these things would lead to strikes-they would lead to the union and it's solicitors taking the TOC (orDfT) to court for breeches of employment law in making people redundant for te reasons you state and winning.

And you are yet to answer what TOCs do in the 2-3years it will take having sacked all their drivers to re-hire enough to run a service. Clearly you are not thinking before typing.

As I say, the gaps in your knowledge of the topic you are attempting to argue make it very tedious and difficult to answer your posts now.