Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[northwichcat]

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.

You mean if there's two options:

Option A: DOO between sunrise and sunset
Option B: DOO between sunrise and sunset unless a spare guard is available

The unions would choose A over B?

Option B would have services planned for DOO but they can switch if a guard is available.

 

[infobleep]

We're all aware of your anti-Guard views; your comment here doesn't seem particularly relevant though. The battle is different this time, both unions have a clearly stated and very firm stance on the issue.

What was the stance for Second men from both unions?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

So passenger groups ha e raised objections to the station office closures. I wonder if they will raise objections to the DOO working?

I don't see what is wrong with trains having a guard.

Gatwick Express is suppose to be a premium service, yet whenever they do provide someone, they seem to be in Southern branded clothing and not Gatwick Express branded clothing.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[The Ham]

I have a question, IF it were possible for 80x's to run on the line with 10 coaches (260m long) then would there be a complaint from the union? As in theory the TOC would be keeping to the rules of the trains being no longer than 10 coaches long.

However the new units (12 coaches long) are somewhere about 250m long, which would make them shorter than the above trains. Therefore is the safety issue about the about the number of coaches (and therefore number of doors) or about the overall length of the train (it therefore being too far to safely see the last set of doors)?

 

[Domh245]

I have a question, IF it were possible for 80x's to run on the line with 10 coaches (260m long) then would there be a complaint from the union? As in theory the TOC would be keeping to the rules of the trains being no longer than 10 coaches long.

However the new units (12 coaches long) are somewhere about 250m long, which would make them shorter than the above trains. Therefore is the safety issue about the about the number of coaches (and therefore number of doors) or about the overall length of the train (it therefore being too far to safely see the last set of doors)?

I suspect that the main concern is with dispatch, so the number of doors involved. Given that in cab CCTV tends to be the preferred DOO system for newly built stock, the fact that it is 10 cars (20 doors) shouldn't be an issue. The length issue can't be disregarded though, because if you have to walk through the train to find an issue, it'd be quite difficult (especially as a 10 car 80x would be formed of 2x 5 car 80x!)

 

[313103]

You mean if there's two options:

Option A: DOO between sunrise and sunset
Option B: DOO between sunrise and sunset unless a spare guard is available

The unions would choose A over B?

Option B would have services planned for DOO but they can switch if a guard is available.

Sadly it isnt the unions who will ultimately make the decision and unless they do you will have the following options:

Option A: DOO throughout with no strings
or
Option B: DOO throughout with no strings

I think the management would choose both of these options as it gives them the flexibility they need to operate services and save staff wages in the process.

 

[FordFocus]

I am anti dinosaur rail unions. And anti those union members who go through their railway working life constantly antagonistic toward management. I know of no other industry where there is so little collaboration and consent between staff, management and unions. I'm also no fan of entrenched positions. They rarely succeed.

So when Gatwick Express management break agreements made with the unions that represent the workers and their contracts, how is that the unions fault? Surely it would be the managers fault for imposing it?

 

[Mojo]

This has just been posted on a Facebook group

Dear all

Following Andy Bindon’s letter last week I wanted to bring you an update on our union position surrounding the On-Board Supervisor role and the introduction of 12-car trains on Gatwick Express.

You may already know that we want to introduce a new role into GTR by July this year. This role would be an evolution of the current on board roles (revenue protection and conductor) and would be more focused on customer service.

On Southern services it would mean drivers operating the doors (on rolling stock equipped for it) freeing up the conductors on these trains. Across all routes it means providing additional training to all on board teams to create this newly evolved role.

The role would allow our on-train teams to spend a lot more time interacting with passengers, providing information, checking and selling tickets and providing reassurance on our services. The added flexibility of a role that is not linked to operational duties also means we can have our teams where they are needed most, so passengers are more likely to see a member of staff on board the train.

We are committed to having no compulsory redundancies as a result of our proposals. There will be a job in GTR for everyone who wants to work here and help us modernise the railway, our proposals are a natural evolution of a really important role.

Our aim was to consult meaningfully with the recognised trade unions, RMT, TSSA and ASLEF. Unfortunately, despite our attempts to consult not only on these changes but on many of the issues that are important to our conductor and revenue teams, the unions do not want to enter into meaningful discussions with us. Legally this now means we will be forced down the unfortunate road of having to make our conductor role redundant (on services where the drivers can operate the doors) and then re-employ those people into the new on board role. This is a regrettable position to be in and we want to make very clear that there will still be no compulsory redundancies. This is purely a legal obligation that has been placed on us in these circumstances.

If you would like to find out more about the On-Board Supervisor role and our current position we have uploaded all the relevant documents onto our intranets:
PLATFORM: Home > Our Service > Operational Information > Operations Transformation > Transforming the Train Experience
SOUTHERN: Home > Departments > Operations > Major Programmes > Transforming the Train Experience

So, we remain committed to introducing the new role because we feel it is the right thing to do to in order to bring a more modern approach to how we run this franchise while developing our teams through more training and new skills. We value highly our on board teams and the essential service they provide to our passengers and we must be pragmatic about keeping up with developments of technology and customer expectations. Our aim is to modernise the role, bringing flexibility and operational benefits.

Our conductors have been balloted for strike action surrounding these proposals; any industrial action would clearly have a significant impact on the business and our passengers. The ballot is due to close on 19 April and we’ll provide further updates on the results when we know more.

Update on Gatwick Express

On Friday, ASLEF wrote to Gatwick Express announcing it intends to ballot for strike action against the introduction of the new 12-car fleet. The Gatwick Express trains have been operated by drivers, without conductors for many years, but the introduction of the new fleet is being viewed as an extension to Driver Only Operation by the unions. The introduction of new more reliable trains with better facilities and more carriages is a key part of the solution to improving the rail service for our passengers, and we are disappointed that ASLEF has taken this position.

We urge ASLEF to reconsider and put our passengers first. These trains are much better with WiFi, more space for luggage and are fully accessible. Clearly this position may impact our service over the coming weeks and we want to keep you in the loop as these situations unfold.

Commitments to our people

Our people commitments aim to bring reassurance to affected colleagues as we continue to discuss and agree our plans to modernise the railway. Though times of change can be unnerving we hope these commitments show we are dedicated to making things better.
· There will be a job for everyone who wants to be part of GTR and who is willing to help us to modernise and transform our business
· The roles will be more varied and you’ll be trained in all the skills and behaviours to succeed in your new roles
· The changes will happen without any compulsory redundancies or reduction in salaries
· We will listen to you and involve you as much as we can to evolve and refine the plans
· You will have the right tools and information to do your job and we’ll make sure you’re safe while you’re doing it

We will bring you more details as soon as we are able to and we welcome any questions you have. Please continue to send your questions to communications@gtrailway.com.

Kind regards

Alex Foulds
Passenger Services Director - Southern

 

[cjmillsnun]

This has just been posted on a Facebook group

Evolution... Demote guards so they are little more than revenue collectors. Dump all the safety on the driver... :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Evolution... Demote guards so they are little more than revenue collectors. Dump all the safety on the driver... :roll:

Heaven forbid it did happen but I wonder what the GTR management response would be if an operational incident happened as a result of them trying to force it through?

They are trying to be very clever though with no redundancies and trying to appease the public by saying there will be an on-board role specifically for customer service. The "not linked to operational duties" would also suggest no PTS or rules competency at all. So they will basically be RPI's.

 

[ExRes]

The "not linked to operational duties" would also suggest no PTS or rules competency at all. So they will basically be RPI's.

Sort of like the Gatwick Express Senior Conductor grade in the 90s I think .....

 

[LowLevel]

It's war then I guess! If there's no PTS, no route knowledge and no traction knowledge it's a degradation. End.

 

[spangles]

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

Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT, said: "The French-backed owners of the basket-case GTR franchise seem to be determined to wage war on their staff and passengers alike, and it is about time the politicians stepped in, terminated their contract and let the public sector have a go at running these crucial commuter routes in and out of London."

Language and rhetoric like the above is why the unions lose sympathy. Of what relevance is it that Keolis is french. In addition, was it no only yesterday that Simon Weller of ASLEF stated

"The driver-only operation is a legacy of the shoestring economics of British Rail."

The unions need to decide if they want nationalisation or not. RMT above say its needed but ASLEF seem to imply in the quote that it led to problems.

 

[sarahj]

ahh, it's been an odd day. I've seen the new contract and its a killer. More hours, no overtime, no rest days, commission cut to the bone, no hidden. Ticket rules that would make the D&P threads explode.

The last group who were this 'grade', were the gatwick express lot after we took them over, and what happened to them.

Oh well, the fun begins.

 

[Domh245]

The unions need to decide if they want nationalisation or not. RMT above say its needed but ASLEF seem to imply in the quote that it led to problems.

But obviously it would be better nowadays, just cos? On a slightly more serious note, DOO was a partially a consequence of BR being run on a shoestring, leading to cost cutting with staff and infrastructure. RMT will always prefer a nationalised railway, but in this case I don't think it would really change much. GoVia are being paid a fee to run the railway within strictly set out guidelines by the DfT. Quite why DOR would be any better when it would have the same politicians forcing moves like this, I don't know.

ahh, it's been an odd day. I've seen the new contract and its a killer. More hours, no overtime, no rest days, commission cut to the bone, no hidden. Ticket rules that would make the D&P threads explode.

The last group who were this 'grade', were the gatwick express lot after we took them over, and what happened to them.

Oh well, the fun begins.

Oh dear. I suspect that this will cause the brown stuff to really hit the fan.

 

[LowLevel]

ahh, it's been an odd day. I've seen the new contract and its a killer. More hours, no overtime, no rest days, commission cut to the bone, no hidden. Ticket rules that would make the D&P threads explode.

The last group who were this 'grade', were the gatwick express lot after we took them over, and what happened to them.

Oh well, the fun begins.

If that's the case as presented I wish you good luck and fortune, and I shall be keeping my fingers crossed for the managers involved to meet with a few nasty accidents as karma for a particularly dirty trick.

 

[Dave1987]

ahh, it's been an odd day. I've seen the new contract and its a killer. More hours, no overtime, no rest days, commission cut to the bone, no hidden. Ticket rules that would make the D&P threads explode.

The last group who were this 'grade', were the gatwick express lot after we took them over, and what happened to them.

Oh well, the fun begins.

I really do wish you all the best in this.

 

[Bishopstone]

It's interesting timing for an industrial relations meltdown, with two new fleets of trains to introduce within a month, and the EU referendum in June.

Either GTR and DFT have discussed every detail and resolved to see this through to the bitter end - whatever the interim consequences in terms of strikes etc - or they have stumbled into a crisis in the most ill-prepared fashion.

Assuming the ballots sanction industrial action, it will be interesting to see whether a 'review' is pulled out of the GTR/DFT hat, buying a truce beyond 23 June.

 

[spangles]

If that's the case as presented I wish you good luck and fortune, and I shall be keeping my fingers crossed for the managers involved to meet with a few nasty accidents as karma for a particularly dirty trick. Drop dead.

Come on now. It's fair enough for you to to have a serious disagreement with the management and of course understandable, but I think your 'drop dead' comment is completely unacceptable. Managers are still people. Would you want someone wishing death on you or your family?

 

[LowLevel]

I stand by it. I'm sick to the back teeth of going to bed at night worrying if I'll have a job soon because of these career people with an agenda. They don't have to do this, they choose to, and kicking people while they're down with a PR friendly soundbite masking a rubbish contract. If of course the crews would be employed on the same terms as GTRs publicity would have you believe I would of course retract my comment.

If however it is as Sarah presents, as per my previous post, that they'll be welcome with open arms if they sign their lives away or alternatively they're redundant then you need to realise this is people's lives being played with and that's the kind of emotion you generate as a result.

I'm sorry if this causes offence but I'm approaching the end of my tether. Several years of speculation and then this seemingly disgraceful behaviour are the cause.

To reiterate, as long as what Sarah said regarding the contracts being imposed isn't true I'll retract. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm far beyond normal contempt and if someone was doing it to me then all bets would be off.

 

[Skimble19]

It's war then I guess! If there's no PTS, no route knowledge and no traction knowledge it's a degradation. End.

PTS will still be required for all On Board Supervisors unless they have specific medical reasons stopping them obtaining / retaining it..

GTR really do seem determined to turn the entire workforce against them.. First station staff, now on board staff. Wonder who will be next on the hit list.

For anyone internal reading this post, there is a whole tonne of documents regarding the changes on Platform and (I assume) Southern Net that I would advise you to read when you can.

 

[gray1404]

Ticket rules that would make the D&P threads explode.

Can GTR make up their own ticket rules? Details please.....

 

[the sniper]

Well at least the couple of usual suspects on here will be happy to see Sarah potentially joining the race to the bottom... Don't worry lads, save the real party in your pants for just a couple of years, that'll be when GTR suddenly realise that they don't need the glorified Ticket Examiners formerly known as Conductors, conveniently finding that they can just get rid of them all without any trouble at all. I'm sure you'll applaud the success of the management, even without actually benefiting yourselves in any way at all. Hey, at least all those progress blocking union scum will be out of work and no longer acting as a blot on GTR's accounts... :roll:

Best of luck to you all down there Sarah. Your battle will be ours before too long, no doubt. The more they burn us, the greater our resolve will become.

 

[island]

Can GTR make up their own ticket rules? Details please.....

Presumably it means something like a crackdown on discounted tickets being sold on board and the like.

 

[jopsuk]

Language and rhetoric like the above is why the unions lose sympathy. Of what relevance is it that Keolis is french. In addition, was it no only yesterday that Simon Weller of ASLEF stated
The unions need to decide if they want nationalisation or not. RMT above say its needed but ASLEF seem to imply in the quote that it led to problems.

Especially daft as Go-Ahead, the majority stakeholder, are Newcastle based and as British as can be.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably it means something like a crackdown on discounted tickets being sold on board and the like.

I think this is more likely than GTR making changes to policy generally, although they're widely regarded as being a bit fast and loose generally with it so I might not rule out changes to fares. Perhaps it also includes things like guards issuing Penalty Fares?

 

[Robertj21a]

I stand by it. I'm sick to the back teeth of going to bed at night worrying if I'll have a job soon because of these career people with an agenda. They don't have to do this, they choose to, and kicking people while they're down with a PR friendly soundbite masking a rubbish contract. If of course the crews would be employed on the same terms as GTRs publicity would have you believe I would of course retract my comment.

If however it is as Sarah presents, as per my previous post, that they'll be welcome with open arms if they sign their lives away or alternatively they're redundant then you need to realise this is people's lives being played with and that's the kind of emotion you generate as a result. Thus if that particularly nasty card is indeed being played, then yes, I would dearly love the architect to drop dead as they're not fit to live among normal humans with morals.

I'm sorry if this causes offence but I'm approaching the end of my tether. Several years of speculation and then this seemingly disgraceful behaviour are the cause.

To reiterate, as long as what Sarah said regarding the contracts being imposed isn't true I'll retract. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm far beyond normal contempt and if someone was doing it to me then all bets would be off.

Yes, it causes offence - and you did that intentionally.

In practice, all you have done is to bring in some irrational (rather immature) comments to what had been a sensible, mature, discussion.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, it causes offence - and you did that intentionally.

In practice, all you have done is to bring in some irrational (rather immature) comments to what had been a sensible, mature, discussion.

For the record, it doesn't offend me. Nor would it offend GTR's Conductors who are on the edge of having their livelihoods decimated. Nor those Guards who underwent the same mistreatment at London Overground a few years back.

With respect, perhaps reserve the criticism of somebody in such a position. A reduced income in a Mickey Mouse job with no guaranteed future, or the Doll queue - it isn't a particularly nice position to be staring in the face, is it?

 

[Robertj21a]

For the record, it doesn't offend me. Nor would it offend GTR's Conductors who are on the edge of having their livelihoods decimated. Nor those Guards who underwent the same mistreatment at London Overground a few years back.

With respect, perhaps reserve the criticism of somebody in such a position. A reduced income in a Mickey Mouse job with no guaranteed future, or the Doll queue - it isn't a particularly nice position to be staring in the face, is it?

Wishing anyone dead should be offensive to most human beings. That's why we fight terrorism.

This thread needs to concentrate on the key issues and not get sidetracked with individual grievances.

 

[TheEdge]

Wishing anyone dead should be offensive to most human beings. That's why we fight terrorism.

This thread needs to concentrate on the key issues and not get sidetracked with individual grievances.

Godwins law approaching!

Surely you can understand on a forum full of guards including GTR ones this is the sort of thing that is going to stir up some deep and hard held feelings?

 

[BestWestern]

PTS will still be required for all On Board Supervisors unless they have specific medical reasons stopping them obtaining / retaining it...

I would hazard a guess that it is highly doubtful PTS would be retained on a long term basis; it is something which adds cost when setting salaries and training courses. If some staff within a particular grade don't need to have it, it is sadly logical that eventually none will. Retaining some degree of existing Guards training has been offered as an attempt to sweeten the pill in previous similar situations. It is utterly meaningless; what is there to prevent it being taken away six months down the line?