Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[hwl]

I don't think that there was going to be much fuss from the Southern drivers about the expansion of DOO on their services. It exists already, and it's quite likely that every southern driver is trained to operate DOO services (if anyone could confirm?)

Indeed there is also question of how many similar disputes ASLEF could afford?

 

[infobleep]

No they are not, they are private property with an inferred right to access, that inferred right comes with some rules and regs that you agree to by entering that private property, if you break any of the rules or regs then that inferred right can be removed at any time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Our local one has decided to allow photographs, hence me stopping the kids swimming lessons, seeing people prancing around the pool taking pictures of all the kids has caused quite a stink down here.

Interesting. When staying with friends I Germany they asked if I'd take photos of their daughter in a baby swimming lessons. I obliged. I was in the water myself as well. I wouldn't dare do that over here though. Different culture.

Are the Germans wrong to tolerate such photography. That's too off topic for this thread.

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

While that may be true my reading of it is that ASLEF cannot call strike action to prevent members carrying there contractural duties. In this case it is 12 car DOO trains. The same argument probably applies to operating DOO trains over new routes. It would certainly apply over the Brighton main line where at the moment some trains are DOO and some are not.

So if ASLEF had better start a new ballot soon otherwise it will be too late. I note on the ASLEF website there is no mention as to what ASLEF intend to do next.

I imagine ASLEF are planning their next move carefully. They had better not rush it and get it wrong legally or it could cause more legal problems and costs. Equally though they do need to asert their legal right where it exists to the benefit if their members.

I remember when South West Trains took a prosecution out against someone regarding a tree. SWT lost. This suggests legal matters are complicated and it might even be that lawyers believed that ASLEF would win the legal battle.

As I wasn't present I can't say what happen but then neither can anyone else on here unless they were present.

Still there's one thing that's come out of this, lawyers make some more money.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Robertj21a]

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


I imagine ASLEF are planning their next move carefully. They had better not rush it and get it wrong legally or it could cause more legal problems and costs. Equally though they do need to asert their legal right where it exists to the benefit if their members.

I remember when South West Trains took a prosecution out against someone regarding a tree. SWT lost. This suggests legal matters are complicated and it might even be that lawyers believed that ASLEF would win the legal battle.

As I wasn't present I can't say what happen but then neither can anyone else on here unless they were present.

Still there's one thing that's come out of this, lawyers make some more money.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Anyone know who ASLEF or RMT actually use for legal advice ? They really do need to invest in getting the quality up.

 

[GadgetMan]

Since ASLEF ballots keep getting thrown out, perhaps other/additional methods need to be utilised in this battle.

Clearly lack of RDW volunteering and work to rule are causing them problems.

How about all Instructor Drivers resigning from the Instructor role and going back to being normal Drivers. It would be a tiny pay cut but means the TOC then has no obvious way of training new Drivers up. This would need to be something done by individual Drivers Instructors rather than Union backed to avoid further legal repercussions against the union.

 

[infobleep]

What's it's like being a signalman at the moment, on routes that GTR run on?

Must be fun with so many trains being cancelled or running out of sequence / path. Not to mention those being held in platforms and blocking lines.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I made a point way back in post 441 about agreements between companies and their employees, and whether such agreements have any legal validity if they're not incorporated into contracts of employment. Nobody offered any comment. But going forward I wonder if the unions, not just on the railway, may start seeking to make precisely such arrangements as part of pay negotiations. So for example at the next pay round ASLEF/RMT might say "we want X% + DOO only permitted on routes A, B & C, and all traincrew contracts amended accordingly." Assuming routes A, B & C are already passed for DOO then presumably a ballot over any dispute arising from such a claim would be perfectly valid.

 

[Robertj21a]

I made a point way back in post 441 about agreements between companies and their employees, and whether such agreements have any legal validity if they're not incorporated into contracts of employment. Nobody offered any comment. But going forward I wonder if the unions, not just on the railway, may start seeking to make precisely such arrangements as part of pay negotiations. So for example at the next pay round ASLEF/RMT might say "we want X% + DOO only permitted on routes A, B & C, and all traincrew contracts amended accordingly." Assuming routes A, B & C are already passed for DOO then presumably a ballot over any dispute arising from such a claim would be perfectly valid.

Yes, that could be interesting. Of course, rather inevitably, any management team is not going to agree to such restrictions if there's no logical/safety reason.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, that could be interesting. Of course, rather inevitably, any management team is not going to agree to such restrictions if there's no logical/safety reason.

That would depend on how interested they are in avoiding disputes. Which could also depend on whether DfT/TS are taking the revenue hit on strike days.

Given ASLEF's national policy, in response to its members, is to oppose further DOO schemes I'm a little surprised at how small their involvement in the current issues has been so far, both on GTR and ScR. I wonder whether in practice their members are less willing to back up the policy drawn up on their behalf.

 

[Bald Rick]

£250,000 + their legal fees + GTR's legal fees. That's going to hurt.

It will be a lot more than £250k. Having seen legal bills for much more trivial matters at the High Court, I'd be surprised if the total for all their trips in the last few weeks was less than £1m. Someone else can work out what proportion of ASLEF annual income that is, but I guess it will be pretty significant.

 

[BRblue]

What's it's like being a signalman at the moment, on routes that GTR run on?

Must be fun with so many trains being cancelled or running out of sequence / path. Not to mention those being held in platforms and blocking lines.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It was great yesterday
I am not saying a word as I know all social media is being monitored, but it's not fun.

 

[Carlisle]

That would depend on how interested they are in avoiding disputes. Which could also depend on whether DfT/TS are taking the revenue hit on strike days

So fundimentally you'd like to have extremely powerful unions and rather weak management, but as I've said before I'm unaware of any major company run long term successfully on that basis nowadays but I'm willing to be corrected

 

[Southern]

The latest pathetic, grovelling letter from this sham of a company has arrived:

http://news.southernrailway.com/H/2/v200000155789d991c923895163efbb2b6/Html

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So fundamentally you'd like to have extremely powerful unions and rather weak management, but as I've said before I'm unaware of any major campany run long term successfully on that basis nowadays but I'm willing to be corrected

Not quite sure how you could infer that. But I certainly don't agree with the idea that companies should be free to impose their will on their employees regardless of the effects on those employees, especially if to do so requires running off to the courts as soon as any difficulty arises. In other words, negotiate, even if the two sides appear to have completely incompatible viewpoints. Or else have GTR's situation where the frontline staff now seem to dread even coming to work. With the resultant effect on customer service. Or maybe customer service doesn't actually matter so long as the bottom line reads well enough to generate bonuses. It's not union strength per se that matters, it's good employer/employee relations. Unions are rather useful in this regard within large companies. As for examples consider Nissan and Toyota's operations in this country.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not quite sure how you could infer that. But I certainly don't agree with the idea that companies should be free to impose their will on their employees regardless of the effects on those employees, especially if to do so requires running off to the courts as soon as any difficulty arises. In other words, negotiate, even if the two sides appear to have completely incompatible viewpoints. Or else have GTR's situation where the frontline staff now seem to dread even coming to work. With the resultant effect on customer service. Or maybe customer service doesn't actually matter so long as the bottom line reads well enough to generate bonuses. It's not union strength per se that matters, it's good employer/employee relations. Unions are rather useful in this regard within large companies. As for examples consider Nissan and Toyota's operations in this country.

I very much doubt that the likes of Nissan or Toyota will have agreed to restrictive arrangements being written in to any of their employment contracts !

Trade Unions can't expect management to include issues that restrict the way in which the business can be, legally, run. Flexibility is the key to many success stories - and staff benefit from their company being successful.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I very much doubt that the likes of Nissan or Toyota will have agreed to restrictive arrangements being written in to any of their employment contracts !

Trade Unions can't expect management to include issues that restrict the way in which the business can be, legally, run. Flexibility is the key to many success stories - and staff benefit from their company being successful.

Totally agree! But nevertheless the working conditions that exist were negotiated. In fact ISTR that union reps were taken to Japan to see for themselves how things could work in practice.

The situation on our railways is the need to reform. Do it through mutual co-operation and it will, perhaps reluctantly, be accepted. Impose it and you get the mess that is GTR. The trick is what is called "change management" and our railways have nearly always been absolutely hopeless at it. This is underlined by Claire Perry describing Charles Horton as very experienced top drawer management, not a view that would be shared by anyone that had to live through the Connex years.

 

[74A]

The situation on our railways is the need to reform. Do it through mutual co-operation and it will, perhaps reluctantly, be accepted.

No it won't. The RMT has made it clear on numerous occasions that they will no accept ANY changes to despatch arrangements. Even drivers opening the doors. Tell me how it can be changed unless by imposition.

 

[Robertj21a]

No it won't. The RMT has made it clear on numerous occasions that they will no accept ANY changes to despatch arrangements. Even drivers opening the doors. Tell me how it can be changed unless by imposition.

Fair enough. If the RMT really won't accept ANY such changes then it's the duty of the management to do whatever is necessary to keep the business on a firm, profitable, footing. If you're a PLC then that's their legal responsibility. If the RMT refuse changes then the management will impose them. What else do you expect - the company needs to survive !

 

[Bromley boy]

Fair enough. If the RMT really won't accept ANY such changes then it's the duty of the management to do whatever is necessary to keep the business on a firm, profitable, footing. If you're a PLC then that's their legal responsibility. If the RMT refuse changes then the management will impose them. What else do you expect - the company needs to survive !

It's naive in the extreme to presume that any supposed savings from the elimination of the guards' role are necessary for the company's survival or continued profitability.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's naive in the extreme to presume that any supposed savings from the elimination of the guards' role are necessary for the company's survival or continued profitability.

I quite agree that the elimination of the guard's role in itself is not going to be particularly significant to the company's finances. My assumption was that, if the RMT totally refused to accept ANY such changes then the management will be forced to go ahead regardless. Presumably, the RMT will then opt for lengthy strike action, putting the company at risk.

 

[Wolfie]

I quite agree that the elimination of the guard's role in itself is not going to be particularly significant to the company's finances. My assumption was that, if the RMT totally refused to accept ANY such changes then the management will be forced to go ahead regardless. Presumably, the RMT will then opt for lengthy strike action, putting the company at risk.

If your scenario is accurate what have RMT got to lose? The services currently 'franchised' (the actual meaning of that term has been done to death) to GTR will have to continue regardless of the franchisee. If GTR are completely inflexible RMT may as well do their damnedest to kill the company as doing so has zero impact on the employment of their members. TUPE means that whoever takes over inherits the workforce...

 

[Bromley boy]

I quite agree that the elimination of the guard's role in itself is not going to be particularly significant to the company's finances. My assumption was that, if the RMT totally refused to accept ANY such changes then the management will be forced to go ahead regardless. Presumably, the RMT will then opt for lengthy strike action, putting the company at risk.

If you acknowledge the elimination of the guards' role is insignificant from a cost perspective, why should the company be forced to press ahead with the proposed changes?

Given the trivial savings involved I suspect an ideologically motivated, DFT backed statement of intent to keep the oiks in their place, with precisely zero benefit to the travelling public.

 

[Robertj21a]

If your scenario is accurate what have RMT got to lose? The services currently 'franchised' (the actual meaning of that term has been done to death) to GTR will have to continue regardless of the franchisee. If GTR are completely inflexible RMT may as well do their damnedest to kill the company as doing so has zero impact on the employment of their members. TUPE means that whoever takes over inherits the workforce...

This wasn't related to GTR as such, it was a more general issue. If you look back you will see that it started out as a comment as to whether agreements should be written into contracts of employment.

 

[bengley]

Word is going around at the depots that the lighting at stations along the East and West Coastways is inadequate for the use of the in-cab screens on the 377s (they do require a very good, bright light throughout the entire platform to give a sufficient view)

Apparently Network Rail are not willing to foot the bill to upgrade the lighting.

 

[D1009]

Word is going around at the depots that the lighting at stations along the East and West Coastways is inadequate for the use of the in-cab screens on the 377s (they do require a very good, bright light throughout the entire platform to give a sufficient view)

Apparently Network Rail are not willing to foot the bill to upgrade the lighting.

So what would be more expensive to upgrade, the cameras/screens or the lighting?

 

[dcsprior]

I made a point way back in post 441 about agreements between companies and their employees, and whether such agreements have any legal validity if they're not incorporated into contracts of employment. Nobody offered any comment. But going forward I wonder if the unions, not just on the railway, may start seeking to make precisely such arrangements as part of pay negotiations. So for example at the next pay round ASLEF/RMT might say "we want X% + DOO only permitted on routes A, B & C, and all traincrew contracts amended accordingly." Assuming routes A, B & C are already passed for DOO then presumably a ballot over any dispute arising from such a claim would be perfectly valid.

I wonder if unions may also try to get all non-salary benefits enshrined in contract - so that in future TOCs can't take retaliatory action of withdrawing travel passes, free parking, etc. whenever someone strikes. That would seem to me more likely to be something they could convince the employer to agree with than the above.

Like most on here, I think the way this dispute has been handled by GTR has been appalling - they've attempted to bully their staff, and use their customers as pawns (including me - I spend ~£50/week on their service). I wish someone with some clout would make them stop doing this.

When it comes to the issue of DOO itself however, I don't know enough to have a well informed opinion on it. To me as a layman, logic says it is less safe than guard operation when all else remains the same, but I'm sure it's not as simple as that - for instance could the cost of guard operation pay for other safety improvements that would save more deaths/injuries?

If this is as important as the debate on here suggests, then perhaps it's not something that should be left up to companies that have a vested interest in cutting costs (or, in the interest of balance to unions who also have a vested interest). Perhaps a group of safety experts could be convened to examine all the evidence properly, with representation from unions, DfT, TOCs, passenger groups, disability advocacy groups, etc - with both sides agreeing at the outset to accept the result?

 

[74A]

Word is going around at the depots that the lighting at stations along the East and West Coastways is inadequate for the use of the in-cab screens on the 377s (they do require a very good, bright light throughout the entire platform to give a sufficient view)

Apparently Network Rail are not willing to foot the bill to upgrade the lighting.

The standard for Lighting in DOO conditions is set out by the RSSB. If a station does not meet this standard then DOO cannot be used.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wish someone with some clout would make them stop doing this.

Someone with clout is making them do this.

 

[bengley]

The standard for Lighting in DOO conditions is set out by the RSSB. If a station does not meet this standard then DOO cannot be used.

Indeed - currently none of the stations in the proposals (off the Brighton Main Line) have any DOO services, so this could prove to be a problem - especially as the lighting was upgraded to LED fairly recently anyway!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

And now doubt there would be complaints from nearby residents with regard to any new lighting being too bright especially as some of the stations along the west coastway are fairly close together and run through substantial residential areas

 

[craigy68]

If this is as important as the debate on here suggests, then perhaps it's not something that should be left up to companies that have a vested interest in cutting costs (or, in the interest of balance to unions who also have a vested interest). Perhaps a group of safety experts could be convened to examine all the evidence properly, with representation from unions, DfT, TOCs, passenger groups, disability advocacy groups, etc - with both sides agreeing at the outset to accept the result?

Well said !! And until then press the 'pause' button ... One can only wish !!