Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[SJN]

Also, the second member of staff generally takes a lot of money for the company in revenue over the year. It's not as if we are a total drain on the company. I know my takings have exceeded my salary.

 

[Dave1987]

You can say that about many jobs though, security guards, train hosts on DLR, ushers in cinemas lifeguards in swimming pools etc Many doing jobs where the main part of their role is only required very occasionally, but when their primary role is needed it is needed.

A guards primary role is safety, much of the time that role may be able to be covered by someone else, but there will come an occasion when they are required, and that is when the problem will come.

Totally agree, modern airliners don't need two pilots to fly them under normal conditions but there are always two just in case.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also, the second member of staff generally takes a lot of money for the company in revenue over the year. It's not as if we are a total drain on the company. I know my takings have exceeded my salary.

If that were true, why would they want to get rid of the second member of staff?

Not included in your calculations are:

- Cost of employer's NI contributions
- Cost of insuring you
- Cost of Uniform
- Cost of messing facilities
- Cost of Pension contributions
- Cost of administering the pension
- Cost of managing you (they have to employ HR and management staff)
- Cost of your staff travel facilities (Admin fees to ATOC/lost revenue)
- Cost of lost days and lost operational function due to strike action


and so on and so on.

I've no figures, so I've not done the sums, but it's food for thought.

 

[Wolfie]

Quite right, but:

1) Do the railways make more money in profit from fares from disabled people than the cost of the reasonable adjustments?

Probably not, so

2) Legislation is required to ensure accessibility.

Nobody has yet been able to show that DOO is contrary to the Equality Act.

My bold

You are fully correct. Of course the legislation talks about making reasonable adjustments. What those are in a situation where DOO was in force prior to implementation of the legislation may not be the same as what those are where a company knowingly and deliberately takes steps retrograde to disabled access.

Methinks the Courts will have to decide and I am sure that litigation will follow - indeed, was I a betting man, I would suspect one or both of Leigh Day and/or Public Interest Lawyers (both Human Rights orientated solicitors which I have come across in my day job) will be the legally aided law firm involved in the litigation.

If that were true, why would they want to get rid of the second member of staff?

Not included in your calculations are:

- Cost of employer's NI contributions
- Cost of insuring you
- Cost of Uniform
- Cost of messing facilities
- Cost of Pension contributions
- Cost of administering the pension
- Cost of managing you (they have to employ HR and management staff)
- Cost of your staff travel facilities (Admin fees to ATOC/lost revenue)
- Cost of lost days and lost operational function due to strike action


and so on and so on.

I've no figures, so I've not done the sums, but it's food for thought.

You are absolutely correct. In my neck of the Civil Service the capitation rates which include all employment costs run at about 150-200% of the salary.

 

[Anvil1984]

Of course it would be and wouldnt be worth implementing but how else would the disabled passenger know where to position themselves if that was required. I don't think it should be implemented mind you.

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

Well it was stated that there were multiple disabled spaces but how would a disabled person know which one to go to? They are not mind readers.

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


You ring up whilst on the platform and then wait 24 hours for someone to come. In the mean time no one is allowed to move you as it's more than their jobs worth.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Regarding the multiple disabled areas I was speaking in my current conductor role. If working 2 or 3 units joined together (so 2/3 disabled spaces) and whilst doing platform duties you see a passenger in a wheelchair is at the other end to you l. you oftenhave to communicate to them to use another door and meet there, (you usually have to if the passenger thinks the Harrington Humps are where the wheelchair space is which makes them think the space is always there or if they are trying to go in the front unit but for multiple reasons they have to use the space in the rear).

If in a few years time and have my role converted to OBS / Ticket examiner then regardless of where the wheelchair user is I won't see them as I'll be too busy doing revenue as some members of this board want me to

 

[JamesTT]

The OBS should do what he considers reasonable, it's as simple as that.

If it were me, I would board the disabled passenger. The railway can sort out missed connections (including passengers needing assistance) in line with the Equality Act fairly easily.

If they decided to leave the person to wait for the next train and were taken to court. Then the judge on the case is particularly right wing and says the staff member acted in the best interests of the majority of their passengers. Wouldn't that set a precedent?

 

[Carlisle]

You can say that about many jobs though, security guards, train hosts on DLR, ushers in cinemas lifeguards in swimming pools etc Many doing jobs where the main part of their role is only required very occasionally, but when their primary role is needed it is needed.

A guards primary role is safety, much of the time that role may be able to be covered by someone else, but there will come an occasion when they are required, and that is when the problem will come.

It's been said on here many times that safety training is still very much going to be part of the OBS role, it just won't be safety critical in the traditional sense

 

[Dave1987]

It's been said on here many times that safety training is still very much going to be part of the OBS role, it just won't be safety critical in the traditional sense

That's not what Peter Wilkinson was alluding to at the transport select committee! When pressed by the chair about two safety critical staff onboard he just kept saying over and over again that other trains on the network operate with only a driver onboard. Wilkinson certainly seems to want only the driver to be safety trained. I would hazard a guess that the OBS role was created to stop the union using job losses against the DFT.

 

[HLE]

Also, the second member of staff generally takes a lot of money for the company in revenue over the year. It's not as if we are a total drain on the company. I know my takings have exceeded my salary.

3 fold!!

 

[Phil.]

Totally agree, modern airliners don't need two pilots to fly them under normal conditions but there are always two just in case.

In 1966 a transatlantic (VC-10/Boeing 707/Douglas DC-8) would have had four engines and four flight crew.
Fifty years later there are two engines (Airbus A330/Boeing 777) and two flight crew.
it's progress with safety. Something the rail unions are in denial about.

 

[AlterEgo]

Totally agree, modern airliners don't need two pilots to fly them under normal conditions but there are always two just in case.

Could you explain how this is in any way relevant to DOO?

The driver and the guard have two entirely different roles.

Two pilots have exactly the same role, and the reason there are two is for redundancy in case of incapacitation.

 

[Class377/5]

Could you explain how this is in any way relevant to DOO?

The driver and the guard have two entirely different roles.

Two pilots have exactly the same role, and the reason there are two is for redundancy in case of incapacitation.

Indeed, comparison with airlines is useless as a plane with an issue won't be stopped in mid flight but a train will be (barring major infrastructure and/or unit failure) brought to a stand. Hence why airplanes need two pilots and why railways need a single driver.

Trying to compare the two to make a safety point is useless. Comparing trains to coaches/buses is more sensible (but not idea either).

 

[Dave1987]

In 1966 a transatlantic (VC-10/Boeing 707/Douglas DC-8) would have had four engines and four flight crew.
Fifty years later there are two engines (Airbus A330/Boeing 777) and two flight crew.
it's progress with safety. Something the rail unions are in denial about.

In the 60's trains would have had driver, second man, guard, ticket inspectors. Rail unions are not in denial about anything. In the modern world where the public have to be protected from their own stupidity and drivers and guards are ending up in court for incidents is it any wonder the unions are taking the stance they are? You have to cover yourself all the time now. Huge amounts of time is lost at stations where as a DOO driver looking at monitors you check, double check and triple check before you close the doors and the depart.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, comparison with airlines is useless as a plane with an issue won't be stopped in mid flight but a train will be (barring major infrastructure and/or unit failure) brought to a stand. Hence why airplanes need two pilots and why railways need a single driver.

Trying to compare the two to make a safety point is useless. Comparing trains to coaches/buses is more sensible (but not idea either).

No it's not. Under normal flight conditions an airliner could be flown single pilot. With modern airliners the checklists are electronic. The main reason there are two pilots is for emergency situations. Same with trains. Fully safety trained guards come into their own in emergency situations. And in the modern world where the possibility of passengers detraining of their own accord is high, if the driver is down on the track dealing with the problem having a guard to deal with the passengers is a god send. And that's without going into the dispatch arguments.

 

[Carlisle]

That's not what Peter Wilkinson was alluding to at the transport select committee! When pressed by the chair about two safety critical staff onboard he just kept saying over and over again that other trains on the network operate with only a driver onboard. Wilkinson certainly seems to want only the driver to be safety trained. I would hazard a guess that the OBS role was created to stop the union using job losses against the DFT.

I saw Paul Maynard who to be fair did emphasise the importance of good and comprehensive safety training for rail staff , haven't seen Mr Wilkinsons performance yet

 

[Deepgreen]

In the 60's trains would have had driver, second man, guard, ticket inspectors. Rail unions are not in denial about anything. In the modern world where the public have to be protected from their own stupidity and drivers and guards are ending up in court for incidents is it any wonder the unions are taking the stance they are? You have to cover yourself all the time now. Huge amounts of time is lost at stations where as a DOO driver looking at monitors you check, double check and triple check before you close the doors and the depart.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No it's not. Under normal flight conditions an airliner could be flown single pilot. With modern airliners the checklists are electronic. The main reason there are two pilots is for emergency situations. Same with trains. Fully safety trained guards come into their own in emergency situations. And in the modern world where the possibility of passengers detraining of their own accord is high, if the driver is down on the track dealing with the problem having a guard to deal with the passengers is a god send. And that's without going into the dispatch arguments.

However, it is true that pilot and co-pilot roles are broadly similar, and purposely have a high degree of redundancy to allow for incapacity, whereas driver and guard are not such similar roles.

 

[Dave1987]

However, it is true that pilot and co-pilot roles are broadly similar, and purposely have a high degree of redundancy to allow for incapacity, whereas driver and guard are not such similar roles.

When it comes to emergency situations the roles and training of a driver and guard are broadly similar. A fully trained guard should be able to assist a driver in an emergency situation.

 

[speedy_sticks]

If they decided to leave the person to wait for the next train and were taken to court. Then the judge on the case is particularly right wing and says the staff member acted in the best interests of the majority of their passengers. Wouldn't that set a precedent?

Like what is currently happening on the bus? Simple answer is that the disabled person would win because where as their is only one spot for a disabled person to go in a bus, they can really go anywhere on a train. Ideally though in the accessible area!

 

[Deepgreen]

When it comes to emergency situations the roles and training of a driver and guard are broadly similar. A fully trained guard should be able to assist a driver in an emergency situation.

Understood and agreed, but I was really referring to normal roles.

 

[HH]

I saw Paul Maynard who to be fair did emphasise the importance of good and comprehensive safety training for rail staff , haven't seen Mr Wilkinsons performance yet

I doubt whether you'll be as impressed. In fact I'd be astonished if you were. The man has no shame.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There are two pilots because if one is incapacitated then the plane has to land without a pilot. If a train driver is incapacitated the train stops. There is still risk, but it can hardly be seen to be at the same level.

 

[AlterEgo]

A more appropriate comparison to the guard would be cabin crew. Customer facing, safety critical staff.

 

[BestWestern]

A more appropriate comparison to the guard would be cabin crew. Customer facing, safety critical staff.

Indeed it would. And you'll struggle to find an airliner in passenger service without them. In fact, I believe there are mandated minimum numbers depending on the number of passengers? Why then does a train, with potentially far more people on it who may be far less disciplined, require absolutely nothing?

We could continue; in a mid-air emergency situation what do a cabin crew realistically do which will genuinely be 'life or death'? They are very, very highly unlikely to be able to take any action whatsoever which will save life if the aircraft crashes. You could suggest that they only really play a role if there is an emerency on the ground. When you're in the air it's down to the pilots and Lady Luck. And when you're on the ground, you have access to all the staff and emergency services you could ever need. So sod it, why not take the risk and have planes with fully secure cabins, and go pilot-only, and we can all have cheap holidays?!

Now perhaps someone could explain why that suggestion is utterly outragous, but on the railway DOO is eminently safe?

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed it would. And you'll struggle to find an airliner in passenger service without them. In fact, I believe there are mandated minimum numbers depending on the number of passengers? Why then does a train, with potentially far more people on it who may be far less disciplined, require absolutely nothing?

We could continue; in a mid-air emergency situation what do a cabin crew realistically do which will genuinely be 'life or death'? They are very, very highly unlikely to be able to take any action whatsoever which will save life if the aircraft crashes. You could suggest that they only really play a role if there is an emerency on the ground. When you're in the air it's down to the pilots and Lady Luck. And when you're on the ground, you have access to all the staff and emergency services you could ever need. So sod it, why not take the risk and have planes with fully secure cabins, and go pilot-only, and we can all have cheap holidays?!

Now perhaps someone could explain why that suggestion is utterly outragous, but on the railway DOO is eminently safe?

A few things.

There are flights without cabin crew. They're generally much smaller aircraft with few passengers (such as flights in the Scottish islands). It isn't practical to carry cabin crew on these aircraft.

Cabin crew are the public face of the airline and have duties above and beyond the "helping in emergencies" facet of their role. They secure the cabin, they serve food and drinks, they sell ancillary products, they are the airline's ambassadors. But, they're often paid a hell of a lot less than rail staff, on much poorer contracts.

What is crucial to the continued survival of cabin crew in 2016 is the public's expectations; they expect cabin crew to be present and they provide reassurance in an uncertain environment.

The same can't be said of the guard. Where routes have been made DOO, the National Passenger Survey doesn't show a marked decline in the perception of personal security on board. Therefore, there's no link made by punters between their safety and the presence of a guard. Most people are very familiar with taking trains. There is no established "fear of trains" as there is with flying. Taking a train is a mundane activity and this is because frankly it is a very safe thing to do.

 

[physics34]

A more appropriate comparison to the guard would be cabin crew. Customer facing, safety critical staff.

100% agree and this comparison should be pushed more by the unions.

12 car train from Eastbourne to Victoria, 1 hour 40 mins, full and standing =
1300 passengers......... 1 crew.(...if they get their way)

Airbus A319 from Gatwick to Dublin, 1 hour =
100 passengers.........6 crew.

There would be uproar if cabin crew were replaced.

ALso what should be pushed home is the combined ticket money taken for everyone on the train* which EASILY deserves more members of staff!!!!!!

(* including an average fare from season ticket holders).

 

[AlterEgo]

100% agree and this comparison should be pushed more by the unions.

12 car train from Eastbourne to Victoria, full and standing =
1300 passengers......... 1 crew.

Airbus A319 from Gatwick to Dublin =
100 passengers.........6 crew.

ALso what should be pushed home is the combined ticket money taken for everyone on the train* which EASILY deserves more members of staff!!!!!!

(* including an average fare from season ticket holders).

I'm not sure I follow your line about money taken "deserving more members of staff". Could you elaborate?

Yes, the RMT ought to be a lot cleverer with their comms. They're continuing to push outdated lines which fail to resonate with passengers. They don't reach out to Government in a constructive manner.

Unfortunately, the RMT is run by old-style socialists and has a unique internal culture which renders the Union itself resistant to change.

Have the RMT surveyed passengers to see what they feel? What sort of integrated approach do they take to campaigns? It seems from the outside that it's just senior RMT spokespeople parroting 30 year old lines.

 

[speedy_sticks]

A few things.

There are flights without cabin crew. They're generally much smaller aircraft with few passengers (such as flights in the Scottish islands). It isn't practical to carry cabin crew on these aircraft.

Cabin crew are the public face of the airline and have duties above and beyond the "helping in emergencies" facet of their role. They secure the cabin, they serve food and drinks, they sell ancillary products, they are the airline's ambassadors. But, they're often paid a hell of a lot less than rail staff, on much poorer contracts.

What is crucial to the continued survival of cabin crew in 2016 is the public's expectations; they expect cabin crew to be present and they provide reassurance in an uncertain environment.

The same can't be said of the guard. Where routes have been made DOO, the National Passenger Survey doesn't show a marked decline in the perception of personal security on board. Therefore, there's no link made by punters between their safety and the presence of a guard. Most people are very familiar with taking trains. There is no established "fear of trains" as there is with flying. Taking a train is a mundane activity and this is because frankly it is a very safe thing to do.

FACT is that the OBS role has been deliberately gummed down so they can be removed easily.

They are of little use to the disabled and vulnerable as the OBS role is drawn up at the moment.

 

[AlterEgo]

There would be uproar if cabin crew were replaced.

Yet there isn't uproar about DOO. People are mostly peed off at the strike.

Minds should be focused on why the RMT have failed to engage the passengers (the people who, according to their bumph, they're most concerned about [!]).

 

[Robertj21a]

100% agree and this comparison should be pushed more by the unions.

12 car train from Eastbourne to Victoria, 1 hour 40 mins, full and standing =
1300 passengers......... 1 crew.(...if they get their way)

Airbus A319 from Gatwick to Dublin, 1 hour =
100 passengers.........6 crew.

There would be uproar if cabin crew were replaced.

ALso what should be pushed home is the combined ticket money taken for everyone on the train* which EASILY deserves more members of staff!!!!!!

(* including an average fare from season ticket holders).

If the staff and Unions feel that safety is the number one issue then that is what they should be labouring at every opportunity. Don't waste time on distractions, which only allow critics to avoid the key issue.

I can't help but think that Bob Crow would have had all this sorted many months ago, the RMT really needs to become far more professional in how they deal with management and the media.

 

[Dave1987]

Yet there isn't uproar about DOO. [BPeople are mostly peed off at the strike][/B].

Minds should be focused on why the RMT have failed to engage the passengers (the people who, according to their bumph, they're most concerned about [!]).

No people are peed off with the TOC and govt for moving the goalposts and letting them off the hook. Lots and lots sympathise with the guards as they realise the OBS role is prime for the chop in the future.

 

[AlterEgo]

No people are peed off with the TOC and govt for moving the goalposts and letting them off the hook. Lots and lots sympathise with the guards as they realise the OBS role is prime for the chop in the future.

So why do we have lots of DOO lines, if passengers are supposedly being successfully mobilised by the unions?

 

[Domh245]

So why do we have lots of DOO lines, if passengers are supposedly being successfully mobilised by the unions?

Unions aren't claiming credit for passengers' opposition to this? As for why there are more DOO lines which transitioned smoothly, it's probably because very few have converted in recent times (post privatisation where passenger numbers have been as high as they have) as cack-handedly as Southern