Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[Deepgreen]

I'm not saying that.

MD of TOC might approach Aslef rep saying "We have secured funding to provide a new service between x and y and to recruit 10 additional drivers. Unfortunately, there is no funding available to recruit 10 additional guards."

Aslef rep responds "No DOO."

In the end a compromise might be no DOO between the hours of x and y and only if the train formation doesn't exceed z and if a spare guard who signs the line is available than the service won't be DOO even between the DOO hours.



I hope Aslef or any union don't bring the railway to a grinding halt, especially if it's over not employing more guards over people losing jobs. If they do the Conservatives will gain support for anti-Trade Union legislation and it will probably rule out the chance of Corbyn getting in to 10 Downing Street.

Say, for example, 10 cars! I can't see a union signing up to something worded such that if such-and-such happens to be available on some occasions we might use them on this train, but they might not be so we won't then. I think they'll regard that as too woolly, and it effectively allows the use of DOO as often as the TOC likes on the basis that no guard is 'spare'.

 

[BestWestern]

I'm not saying that.

MD of TOC might approach Aslef rep saying "We have secured funding to provide a new service between x and y and to recruit 10 additional drivers. Unfortunately, there is no funding available to recruit 10 additional guards."

Aslef rep responds "No DOO."

In the end a compromise might be no DOO between the hours of x and y and only if the train formation doesn't exceed z and if a spare guard who signs the line is available than the service won't be DOO even between the DOO hours.



I hope Aslef or any union don't bring the railway to a grinding halt, especially if it's over not employing more guards over people losing jobs. If they do the Conservatives will gain support for anti-Trade Union legislation and it will probably rule out the chance of Corbyn getting in to 10 Downing Street.

You are thinking along the lines of train services being like bus routes; we have a new service and we need six buses and six people to drive them. On the railway things are far more integrated than that.

If a TOC introduces new services, the workload would be absorbed into what is already present; whichever depot or depots were involved would take on a few extra shifts to cover the work, which would very probably involve re-writing the existing diagrams to integrate whatever the new service is into the current rosters. There might be an increase in Drivers needed, but it would in most cases be minimal, unless you're talking of a sudden massive increase in services, which is highly unlikely. And the same concept would apply for Guards; the work would be added to what is already there. You cannot have a TOC who operate their trains in the proper fashion with Guards, suddenly start running the odd train here and there as DOO. Again, it just doesn't work that way! If it were a brand new route, then the same union principles of 'no DOO' would apply. If a TOC employed a new set of Drivers just to operate one line, the likely result is that the existing Drivers go on strike, because the company is disregarding the agreed bargaining processes, and is employing new staff on non-agreed terms and conditions.

A true story; Aslef withdrew rest day working at a TOC, over a range of issues. Services were uncovered, trains were cancelled. The company came up with a plan, to send out trainee Drivers with Driver Managers, under the pretence that it was connected with their training. Said Managers were discovered driving the trains to maintain services, while the trainees sat on the Secondman's side. Aslef quickly found out, words were had, and the practice ceased.

What the above demonstrates is that Aslef are in a very strong position when it comes to negotiating. Rather than blast through it, companies are more minded to try and 'get around' things. When discovered, the company are taken to task like naughty schoolchildren visiting the headmaster. Some may feel that situation is odd, some may feel it is outrightly wrong. Regardless, that's how it works. The running of a modern TOC is a joint effort between management and unions, and both sides are required to respect the other for things to run smoothly. It is arguably the union man who has the upper hand when opinions clash, not the manager.

 

[northwichcat]

I think they'll regard that as too woolly, and it effectively allows the use of DOO as often as the TOC likes on the basis that no guard is 'spare'.

I was meaning no DOO under any circumstances between two times, say between sunset and sunrise and DOO at other times but a spare guard will be used if available.

 

[Bookd]

The question arises of who runs the company - the owners, the management, or the staff (or perhaps the government as stakeholders). At the end of the day if people are not happy to work under the design laid down by the management they are welcome to resign (which I did from a previous job) but otherwise they are employed to do as they are told. If enough people left it would cause chaos, but then the management would have to either find new staff or change their plans. Think of Ronald Reagan when he sacked all of the air traffic controllers and started again.

 

[BestWestern]

The question arises of who runs the company - the owners, the management, or the staff (or perhaps the government as stakeholders). At the end of the day if people are not happy to work under the design laid down by the management they are welcome to resign (which I did from a previous job) but otherwise they are employed to do as they are told. If enough people left it would cause chaos, but then the management would have to either find new staff or change their plans. Think of Ronald Reagan when he sacked all of the air traffic controllers and started again.

And how successful would that be on the UK rail system?! No trains for a couple of years while all the new Drivers are put through school?

 

[neilm]

Yep, every morning around 0940 southbound (the latter two)

Interesting, how is the dispatch done then?

 

[northwichcat]

If a TOC introduces new services, the workload would be absorbed into what is already present; whichever depot or depots were involved would take on a few extra shifts to cover the work, which would very probably involve re-writing the existing diagrams to integrate whatever the new service is into the current rosters. There might be an increase in Drivers needed, but it would in most cases be minimal, unless you're talking of a sudden massive increase in services, which is highly unlikely. And the same concept would apply for Guards; the work would be added to what is already there. You cannot have a TOC who operate their trains in the proper fashion with Guards, suddenly start running the odd train here and there as DOO. Again, it just doesn't work that way! If it were a brand new route, then the same union principles of 'no DOO' would apply. If a TOC employed a new set of Drivers just to operate one line, the likely result is that the existing Drivers go on strike.

Northern might be unique but I'm aware my local line gets drivers based at Manchester Piccadilly and drivers based at Manchester Victoria, while the guards are based at Manchester Piccadilly and Buxton. Buxton drivers do not sign the line, neither do Victoria guards meaning driver and guard diagrams are completely different.

I didn't say what length the proposed new service was or what the frequency was so I'm surprised you think 10 extra drivers is too many. I accept the new drivers wouldn't be limited to the new routes but I'm also not saying the TOC will not negotiate with Aslef but you seem to be suggesting Aslef won't negotiate and if their demands aren't met they'll cripple the entire network. To me that doesn't sound like a Trade Union, that sounds like a mafia.

 

[BestWestern]

Northern might be unique but I'm aware my local line gets drivers based at Manchester Piccadilly and drivers based at Manchester Victoria, while the guards are based at Manchester Piccadilly and Buxton. Buxton drivers do not sign the line, neither do Victoria guards meaning driver and guard diagrams are completely different.

I didn't say what length the proposed new service was or what the frequency was so I'm surprised you think 10 extra drivers is too many. I accept the new drivers wouldn't be limited to the new routes but I'm also not saying the TOC will not negotiate with Aslef but you seem to be suggesting Aslef won't negotiate and if their demands aren't met they'll cripple the entire network. To me that doesn't sound like a Trade Union, that sounds like a mafia.

It's a Trade Union defending the basic principles of their workforce. That is what they are for. By the same token, you seem to suggest that any union must 'negotiate' to the point of giving in to management demands? Some things are cast iron. It is made very clear. The answer will always be No. Negotiate on whatever else you like, but not the basic principles.

 

[HLE]

The question arises of who runs the company - the owners, the management, or the staff (or perhaps the government as stakeholders). At the end of the day if people are not happy to work under the design laid down by the management they are welcome to resign (which I did from a previous job) but otherwise they are employed to do as they are told. If enough people left it would cause chaos, but then the management would have to either find new staff or change their plans. Think of Ronald Reagan when he sacked all of the air traffic controllers and started again.

So do as you are told or else?

Another example of how this country is returning to the Victorian era.

Up the union.

 

[Antman]

So do as you are told or else?

Another example of how this country is returning to the Victorian era.

Up the union.

Well that is how it works in most industries

 

[northwichcat]

It's a Trade Union defending the basic principles of their workforce. That is what they are for. By the same token, you seem to suggest that any union must 'negotiate' to the point of giving in to management demands? Some things are cast iron. It is made very clear. The answer will always be No. Negotiate on whatever else you like, but not the basic principles.

I'm saying they'll have to meet somewhere in the middle. The Trade Union may want no DOO, the TOC might want DOO - the compromise is DOO but only under certain conditions. Possibly concluding certain lines and certain times of days aren't suitable for DOO.

One thing that you seem to be overlooking is Aslef have agreed to DOO before so it can't be a basic principle. DOO isn't exactly the same as driverless trains!

 

[Carlisle]

. It is arguably the union man who has the upper hand when opinions clash, not the manager.

historically that's probably more likely to be the exception than the norm.For a start the last major prolonged national Drivers strike in 1982 didn't really result in a major Union victory, however are you now suggesting with the railways much increased usage nowadays that ASLEF can virtually bring down the government if it chose to

 

[BestWestern]

I'm saying they'll have to meet somewhere in the middle. The Trade Union may want no DOO, the TOC might want DOO - the compromise is DOO but only under certain conditions. Possibly concluding certain lines and certain times of days aren't suitable for DOO.

One thing that you seem to be overlooking is Aslef have agreed to DOO before so it can't be a basic principle. DOO isn't exactly the same as driverless trains!

Lots of issues needing explanation there...

DOO have a current policy of no extension of DOO. This was not always the case, and past agreements were made under different circumstances. Such agreements are not possible in the current climate.

As for 'part DOO'; the simple fact is that no company could ever be trusted not to seek to abuse such an agreement. Getting shot of Guards is, regretfully, the holy grail in many management offices, and agreeing to the gradual creep of DOO is a compromise too far. The no DOO campaign isn't just about jobs, there is a genuine feeling that it poses safety risks which are no longer acceptable.

 

[Agent_c]

The question arises of who runs the company - the owners, the management, or the staff (or perhaps the government as stakeholders). At the end of the day if people are not happy to work under the design laid down by the management they are welcome to resign (which I did from a previous job) but otherwise they are employed to do as they are told. If enough people left it would cause chaos, but then the management would have to either find new staff or change their plans. Think of Ronald Reagan when he sacked all of the air traffic controllers and started again.

I'm sorry, no, that's just excusing poor management and/or poor Union negotiators, probably both.

The correct response is to work in a collaborative way between those who do the work, and those who need the work to be done.

Whenever a strike, lockout or Regan style replacement, it means at least one party has failed to do their job.

Disagreements happen, and can happen for a long time, but when both parties have the right attitude there's no reason for even a long difficult disagreement to end up in industrial action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm saying they'll have to meet somewhere in the middle. The Trade Union may want no DOO, the TOC might want DOO - the compromise is DOO but only under certain conditions. Possibly concluding certain lines and certain times of days aren't suitable for DOO.

One thing that you seem to be overlooking is Aslef have agreed to DOO before so it can't be a basic principle. DOO isn't exactly the same as driverless trains!

If you have a position today, you're not bedded to it forever. It may have been in the past ASLEF wasn't in a position to meaningfully oppose, may have been given certain guarantees, or may not have seen the extent of the problem of allowing a little DOO.

 

[northwichcat]

If you have a position today, you're not bedded to it forever. It may have been in the past ASLEF wasn't in a position to meaningfully oppose, may have been given certain guarantees, or may not have seen the extent of the problem of allowing a little DOO.

I agree your position can change but BestWestern was arguing no DOO is a basic principle. If you change your basic principles there needs to be strong evidence for it like a long list of injuries that have occurred as a direct result of DOO. Aslef seems to have change their view to support the RMT who are very scared about the long term future of guards, opposed to because of driver or passenger concerns.

I do accept the argument about longer formations not being suitable for DOO but for Aslef to reject any DOO (even on a 2/3 car working) in one part of the country when they've accepted it on 10/12 car workings elsewhere makes no sense. To me the Northern DCO proposal has logic, while DOO on tripled up formations on the South East doesn't make much sense.

 

[tsr]

That's what I was going to mention, so why is there any need for a guard on the train?

As above, there are reasons such as infrastructure sign-offs and suchlike, but my real clue was with the words "out of course". A 10 coach train is frankly absurdly long for a driver to be expected to be going solo in dealing with a passcom, fire, door problem, ill passenger etc. However 12 coaches goes even further and should the train have to stop out of course at (say, for example) Horley or Merstham, you're expecting them to deal with a fault and self-dispatch afterwards whilst maintaining the professional driving policy too. This workload is horrendous and it's very surprising TL drivers ever agreed to it; many of those drivers want conductors/guards now, and no representative of the workforce such as a trade union will be insane enough to allow DOO to be extended any further on GTR or elsewhere. In addition, customer service is also more important than ever and having sporadic RPIs / onboard hosts / whatever will mean that passengers will be less informed and less able to access all aspects of the train service... and on a rammed 12 coach train, such as a GX service stopping additionally during disruption, that's a lot of passengers. You're also looking at potentially ~200 more people for a 12 coach 387 consist rather than 10 coaches of 442 stock.

 

[absolutelymilk]

I'm saying they'll have to meet somewhere in the middle. The Trade Union may want no DOO, the TOC might want DOO - the compromise is DOO but only under certain conditions. Possibly concluding certain lines and certain times of days aren't suitable for DOO.

Or more likely, DOO at all times but with a hefty pay increase...

 

[Antman]

As above, there are reasons such as infrastructure sign-offs and suchlike, but my real clue was with the words "out of course". A 10 coach train is frankly absurdly long for a driver to be expected to be going solo in dealing with a passcom, fire, door problem, ill passenger etc. However 12 coaches goes even further and should the train have to stop out of course at (say, for example) Horley or Merstham, you're expecting them to deal with a fault and self-dispatch afterwards whilst maintaining the professional driving policy too. This workload is horrendous and it's very surprising TL drivers ever agreed to it; many of those drivers want conductors/guards now, and no representative of the workforce such as a trade union will be insane enough to allow DOO to be extended any further on GTR or elsewhere. In addition, customer service is also more important than ever and having sporadic RPIs / onboard hosts / whatever will mean that passengers will be less informed and less able to access all aspects of the train service... and on a rammed 12 coach train, such as a GX service stopping additionally during disruption, that's a lot of passengers. You're also looking at potentially ~200 more people for a 12 coach 387 consist rather than 10 coaches of 442 stock.

Yes I can appreciate a 10/12 car train being difficult for a driver to dispatch but we are talking about a train that would normally run non stop between Victoria and Gatwick.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Does the Gatwick Express have it's own depot, set of links, maintenance facilities etc?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Where there are platform staff, which goes back to my question does a Gatex Driver ever need to dispatch the train himself?

They don't... Yet... But why have trains with DOO cameras been ordered... It would not surprise me if GTR decide to do away with platform dispatch staff in future...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or more likely, DOO at all times but with a hefty pay increase...

Both RMT and ASLEF are opposed to any extension of DOO. This is one of the things they agree on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry, no, that's just excusing poor management and/or poor Union negotiators, probably both.

The correct response is to work in a collaborative way between those who do the work, and those who need the work to be done.

Whenever a strike, lockout or Regan style replacement, it means at least one party has failed to do their job.

Disagreements happen, and can happen for a long time, but when both parties have the right attitude there's no reason for even a long difficult disagreement to end up in industrial action.

This. So much this. If management want the best from their workers, then they have to work with them, not against them. Unions also need to know that in order for them to get the best for their workers, the company has to be successful, and therefore they should work with the management to keep productivity as high as they can.

 

[HLE]

Well that is how it works in most industries

From personal past experiences and through discussions with people from other 'professions' I stand by what I said.

 

[sarahj]

The TL trains that stop at Hassocks etc, they have employed someone to come out and dispatch. I've seen them in action while in civvies getting off a 12 coach TL. I was NOT impressed with their actions.

 

[kieron]

Well what other sort of "progress" could be meant. Because if it was "progress" that was of benefit to the workforce then there would be no dispute.

It's not as black and white as all that. Imagine the staff at one depot were being relocated to another depot a few miles away, with the conditions during working being roughly equivalent before and after the move.

Some staff will be able to get to and from the new place more easily than the old. Some will find the reverse. While the management would have to provide appropriate support to staff who are particularly badly affected by this, the change itself isn't good or bad. It's just a change.

 

[Antman]

The TL trains that stop at Hassocks etc, they have employed someone to come out and dispatch. I've seen them in action while in civvies getting off a 12 coach TL. I was NOT impressed with their actions.

In what way were you not impressed?

 

[LowLevel]

I should imagine they're agency staff on minimum wage as was advertised simply to get around the agreement. Pay peanuts and get monkeys.

 

[Deepgreen]

I was meaning no DOO under any circumstances between two times, say between sunset and sunrise and DOO at other times but a spare guard will be used if available.

Understood, but I suspect that any hint of "if" in the agreement would cause it to be rejected on the basis of precedence - i.e. the TOC is happy to run certain trains either with or without a guard depending upon who happens to be available at the time. This would indicate that the guard is considered as a luxury, rather than a necessity. I don't think the unions would sign up to such an "if".

 

[northwichcat]

Understood, but I suspect that any hint of "if" in the agreement would cause it to be rejected on the basis of precedence - i.e. the TOC is happy to run certain trains either with or without a guard depending upon who happens to be available at the time. This would indicate that the guard is considered as a luxury, rather than a necessity. I don't think the unions would sign up to such an "if".

Well apparently I was wrongly under the impression the unions would prefer DOO to be avoided where possible opposed to having all services DOO. :roll:

 

[Deepgreen]

Well apparently I was wrongly under the impression the unions would prefer DOO to be avoided where possible opposed to having all services DOO. :roll:

Indeed they would but I don't think they would settle for "if a guard happened to be available" - I may be wrong but my feeling is that they will want a concrete commitment to provide a guard rather than just the possibility. I imagine trains will require rostering as DOO or crewed to have been completed well before the availability of a spare happens to surface.

 

[sarahj]

Well from July they may find it hard to provide a guard.

 

[63a]

Just seen this -
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14427371.Southern_and_Thameslink_staff_balloted_over_strike_action/

A leading rail operator is embroiled in a series of industrial disputes which could flare up in the coming weeks on some of the country's busiest routes.

Govia Thameslink (GTR), which runs Thameslink, Southern Railway, Gatwick Express and Great Northern, is facing strike ballots by the country's biggest rail unions in separate rows over driver-only operation of trains, the role of guards, and the future of ticket offices.

The disputes are over new, longer trains on the Gatwick Express, the role of guards on Southern, and plans to close more than 80 ticket offices across the franchise, with staff moving on to station concourses to help passengers.

The company, a joint venture between the Go-Ahead Group and Keolis, maintains its plans aim to make staff more visible and of greater assistance to passengers.

Passenger groups have raised objections to the ticket office plans, which GTR says it is dealing with.

One of the new 12-car trains on the Gatwick Express was introduced last weekend, but it left without any passengers after objections from the driver.

The next 12-car service is due to leave London Victoria on Monday, but unless a deal is reached with the drivers' union Aslef, it is doubtful if it will run.

Aslef is planning to ballot its members for strikes,...