Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[AlterEgo]

Clearly GTR now think they should, as they have agreed to talks with no preconditions attached but haven't invited any passengers along as far as I'm aware.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It's naive of you to think GTR reckon the unions should have a say.

Inviting the union and thinking they've a right to have a say are two quite different things! :roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

Unfortunately I can't see the talks coming to anything unless the DfT changes its stance on GTR .

I think there is movement for both sides, even with guards leaving the train, to be quite honest. I don't think this is a battle that the RMT can now win- it is obvious the orders are coming from above GTR, and DafT's deeper pockets can prolong the dispute longer than the strikers can.

But there are options for both sides to end the dispute without losing face, which is really the best that both sides can hope for now.

GTR will get their OBS, I think that is without doubt now, the question is whether the staff affected will be able to get guarantees about their position that actually mean something. GTR have been unwilling to provide any guarantee that you could post at the bank, everything has been hot air and wibble, so if they can actually come up with some cast-iron guarantees there may be movement. Even if they increase redundancy payments for people who don't want to become OBS it would be a start.

The RMT and TfL managed to come to a compromise about the ticket office closures- TfL got their closures, but the RMT staff got promises that actually meant something- and it was the same in Scotland between First Scotrail and the RMT when Airdrie-Bathgate opened.

 

[infobleep]

I think there is movement for both sides, even with guards leaving the train, to be quite honest. I don't think this is a battle that the RMT can now win- it is obvious the orders are coming from above GTR, and DafT's deeper pockets can prolong the dispute longer than the strikers can.

But there are options for both sides to end the dispute without losing face, which is really the best that both sides can hope for now.

GTR will get their OBS, I think that is without doubt now, the question is whether the staff affected will be able to get guarantees about their position that actually mean something. GTR have been unwilling to provide any guarantee that you could post at the bank, everything has been hot air and wibble, so if they can actually come up with some cast-iron guarantees there may be movement. Even if they increase redundancy payments for people who don't want to become OBS it would be a start.

The RMT and TfL managed to come to a compromise about the ticket office closures- TfL got their closures, but the RMT staff got promises that actually meant something- and it was the same in Scotland between First Scotrail and the RMT when Airdrie-Bathgate opened.

Would it have been possible to have these options much earlier? Or did it take time to figure out what the options could be. It is complicated after all.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[ah-media]

I am interested in people's views, especially right now the views of those defending Govia for their reasonings prior to not arranging to meet with no preconditions vers now agreeing to do so.

I don't work in the railways and despite my personal feelings on the whole subject, I am staying neutral in case I am seen to be talking out of my Jeremy Hunt on matters I know nothing about.

Call me a cynical old basket, but could this not be a calculated turn from GTR to side-step some of the strike action? If the strike is called off and then the talks "mysteriously" collapse on Friday, my understanding is that the RMT must then give at least a week's notice for more strikes....

They wouldn't start on a Saturday as they're not going to cause the major disruption required, so the earliest start date would be the 22nd August .... and IIRC, the new contracts are due to be imposed on the 21st August.

Coincidence?

Just my 2 cents worth ....

 

[infobleep]

I don't work in the railways and despite my personal feelings on the whole subject, I am staying neutral in case I am seen to be talking out of my Jeremy Hunt on matters I know nothing about.

Call me a cynical old basket, but could this not be a calculated turn from GTR to side-step some of the strike action? If the strike is called off and then the talks "mysteriously" collapse on Friday, my understanding is that the RMT must then give at least a week's notice for more strikes....

They wouldn't start on a Saturday as they're not going to cause the major disruption required, so the earliest start date would be the 22nd August .... and IIRC, the new contracts are due to be imposed on the 21st August.

Coincidence?

Just my 2 cents worth ....

I hasn't thought of that cynical ploy. I can see why they might wish to do that.

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

Call me a cynical old basket, but could this not be a calculated turn from GTR to side-step some of the strike action? If the strike is called off and then the talks "mysteriously" collapse on Friday, my understanding is that the RMT must then give at least a week's notice for more strikes....

They wouldn't start on a Saturday as they're not going to cause the major disruption required, so the earliest start date would be the 22nd August .... and IIRC, the new contracts are due to be imposed on the 21st August.

Coincidence?

Just my 2 cents worth ....

It's naive of you to think GTR reckon the unions should have a say.

Inviting the union and thinking they've a right to have a say are two quite different things! :roll:

Do you think ah-media's cynical suggestion has merit?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[maniacmartin]

I suspect the talks are going ahead now due to the considerable political pressure on GTR to be seen to be doing whatever is possible to resume normal service, especially with some of the most affected areas having Conservative MPs.

Of course it is easy to be seen to be compromising by agreeing to hold a meeting, and go into that meeting with every intention of not budging at all. If this is the intention, then by the time the union realise the meeting is just a way for GTR to buy time, it'll probably be too late to ballot and hold another strike before the OBS role is introduced.

 

[HH]

Do you think ah-media's cynical suggestion has merit?

None whatsoever. My cynical suggestion is that it at least gives the appearance of doing something and thereby gets the media and MPs off their backs.

 

[infobleep]

Sorry - I don't understand the parts in bold.

Apologies. There was a typo. I meant it might lead to a strike. Swing his leg is an expression that means not pulling your weight or may be saying your working when in fact your doing nothing of the sort.

It was known that a person was doing nothing at times they should have been working. That's not to say they didn't work, just not as much as they claimed to be doing. They didn't wish to do anything about it in case it lead to a strike.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

None whatsoever. My cynical suggestion is that it at least gives the appearance of doing something and thereby gets the media and MPs off their backs.

Exactly.

 

[Deepgreen]

Apologies. There was a typo. I meant it might lead to a strike. Swing his leg is an expression that means not pulling your weight or may be saying your working when in fact your doing nothing of the sort.

It was known that a person was doing nothing at times they should have been working. That's not to say they didn't work, just not as much as they claimed to be doing. They didn't wish to do anything about it in case it lead to a strike.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The expression, I think, is "swinging the lead", derived from a nautical job to test the sea depth by lowering a lead weight on a rope/chain over the side. It was regarded as an easy job - hence the expression. I think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect the talks are going ahead now due to the considerable political pressure on GTR to be seen to be doing whatever is possible to resume normal service, especially with some of the most affected areas having Conservative MPs.

Of course it is easy to be seen to be compromising by agreeing to hold a meeting, and go into that meeting with every intention of not budging at all. If this is the intention, then by the time the union realise the meeting is just a way for GTR to buy time, it'll probably be too late to ballot and hold another strike before the OBS role is introduced.

I don't think GTR itself has much say in the matter - the whole debacle is being orchestrated by HMG, and GTR is just the front-end public-facing element.

 

[infobleep]

The expression, I think, is "swinging the lead", derived from a nautical job to test the sea depth by lowering a lead weight on a rope/chain over the side. It was regarded as an easy job - hence the expression. I think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think GTR itself has much say in the matter - the whole debacle is being orchestrated by HMG, and GTR is just the front-end public-facing element.

Thanks for that. I may have misheard the expression years ago.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for that. I may have misheard the expression years ago.

There's another widely used expression with Naval origins; to "Show a leg". You possibly merged the two. I'll leave you to work it out as it's probably off topic for a rail forum...

 

[Flamingo]

I don't think GTR itself has much say in the matter - the whole debacle is being orchestrated by HMG, and GTR is just the front-end public-facing element.

It normally requires Sir Humphrys input to screw something up on this scale.

 

[Carlisle]

meeting is just a way for GTR to buy time, it'll probably be too late to ballot and hold another strike before the OBS role is introduced.

Why would they need to ballot again ? If talks fail the surely the original ballot and dispute is simply back on

 

[speedy_sticks]

I suspect the talks are going ahead now due to the considerable political pressure on GTR to be seen to be doing whatever is possible to resume normal service, especially with some of the most affected areas having Conservative MPs.

Of course it is easy to be seen to be compromising by agreeing to hold a meeting, and go into that meeting with every intention of not budging at all. If this is the intention, then by the time the union realise the meeting is just a way for GTR to buy time, it'll probably be too late to ballot and hold another strike before the OBS role is introduced.

I spoke to a trainer and he says he doesn't think OBS will start happening until December because of the lack of numbers.

He also clarified that OBS job role still hasn't been finalised, just incredible! GTR knew they would have to do this since bidding for franchise spec was issued in 2014?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

At my end standards are really poor. Some guards have to be coaxed to walk through even once on a journey. Some people take empty Avantix bags to make it look like they have one to any passing managers (and when caught the response is 'they can't make me walk through/check tickets'). Platforms are not observed when dispatching by many either.

It makes me weep. I rather like my job. I do it quite well, so the passengers tell me. I firmly believe in the value of the Guards role and I am developing myself professionally (to try and justify my salary by not being 'unskilled and overpaid' like some here believe). But the people with some of the most contempt for the role aren't my managers, or their managers, it's a number of my colleagues.

And many of the worst offenders are union reps. A lot of the worst offenders are also the most prolific wavers of yellow anti-DOO badges. If you want to make a stand about DOO, do it by proving your worth and driving up standards, not doing what you can get away with.

My company has a fair few skivers, and lazy layabouts who seem to think they are paid for playing with their phone in the back cab, but not quite as bad as you describe here. I agree though about the worst culprits often being union reps or anti DOO people!

But for every Guard that Sprinter describes, there are many who do the job to the best of their ability. They are let down by poor management of the guards who take the **** - if I was cynical, I'd say that there are those in the industry who WANT the poor guards to continue with bad habits and barely adequate performance, as this will eventually allow the grade to be discontinued with.

But again, I would stress, the bad guards are in the minority. There are many who are doing a good job, in some cases with the support of their manager, in some cases despite their manager.

Exactly. There are some bad eggs, just s their are in any grade and company and industry, it is just more in the eye at the minute due to everything that is going on.

Management of the lazy people is horrendous though. Management do absolutely nothing about the people who are lazy and do nothing, which in turn breeds annoyance from others - "why should I work when he does nothing and gets away with it?". All they need to do is venture out of the cab occasionally and give someone a free first class upgrade, or make some humorous PA announcement, which results in a passenger putting a nice tweet on twitter, and the company showers them with praise and adulation - much to the annoyance of the people who work hard and conscientiously all the time.

The interesting thing I find is though that at our place generally as well, we get on pretty well between management and the staff. There's the inevitable arguments around pay talks time as we sit and watch the drivers get another gold deal and we're lucky to get what's left, and occasionally they'll do something particularly daft and wind us up, or we will make a fuss over something silly.

But by and large on a day to day basis things are pretty cordial. The company for example due to staff shortages at a remote depot with a small complement is basically currently relying on guards from another depot staying in hotels to cover their work despite the lack of a lodging agreement. Yet we get on with it and take our turn to keep the trains running.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had a phone call from the TCS or rosters asking me to change my shift or come in at short notice (the record is less than an hour from doing my weekly shop over 10 miles away to being on a train to avoid it's cancellation) and generally speaking I and most others will oblige if we can (sometimes you have to say no and that's life).

Equally when I've been a few minutes late or had problems that require my shifts to change or short notice leave, it's never been an issue.

It suits us and it suits the management. No doubt either side finds the other exasperating from time to time but by and large we get on with keeping the job going with a fleet of very tired trains and a whole host of other issues.

The thing with these disputes and those companies affected is that good will is destroyed. The whole doing it cloak and dagger with the Government pulling the strings stinks and has ruined what is at times a very delicate balance. The approach is terrible and especially in the case of GTR the damage may well be irreparable across pretty much all grades.

Indeed. Overall we have quite good relations and are flexible at our spot. We are very understaffed at many depots and everyone is shuffling around to cover all sorts - infact I've just had a phone call from Traincrew Control asking me to move my hours tomorrow to cover another depot's work, which I cam quite happy to agree to as overall the TCC is good to us on the day.

It is the driver's who are always on the verge of dispute. As I write this I am listening to a group of drivers in the mess room moaning on about "breach of agreements" and how a strike is needed again, because of some very trivial argument with rosters about a minute or two here and there, or how spare drivers are actually being marked up to uncovered duties rather than using rest day drivers paid overtime. Shock horror, spare drivers actually having to drive!

Of course, if the lazy ones are seen to get away with it, some others will think "Why should I bother". But that's a management failure, IMO.

Indeed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But for every Guard that Sprinter describes, there are many who do the job to the best of their ability. They are let down by poor management of the guards who take the **** - if I was cynical, I'd say that there are those in the industry who WANT the poor guards to continue with bad habits and barely adequate performance, as this will eventually allow the grade to be discontinued with.

But again, I would stress, the bad guards are in the minority. There are many who are doing a good job, in some cases with the support of their manager, in some cases despite their manager.

If the management were to take action against those "bad guards" (your words, not mine), can you give your honest view as to how you would see the union reacting to such a situation.

 

[OliverS]

Of course, if the lazy ones are seen to get away with it, some others will think "Why should I bother". But that's a management failure, IMO.

The problem for management is the cost of stopping them getting away with it can be very high. For instance, suppose there is a particularly lazy member of staff who the company would be best rid of because they don't collect revenue and by not doing so lower staff morale. The management spend a lot of hours accumulating evidence of under-performance, an official warning is given which takes meetings with management and union reps etc. Cost this up at £100 per hour for management time (this is pay, benefits and opportunity cost), plus consultation costs with lawyers.

Then more management time for the assessing of the agreed performance improvements, then the member of staff is dismissed. They challenge at an employment tribunal. Costs are now 6 figures. At this point I'll relate a story I heard about the NHS where most of the above had happened. The employee had a drink problem, because the NHS trust had never offered to help with this the unfair dismissal case was lost and the employee re-instated. So for a 6 figure sum nothing changed.

How much does it cost to keep that member of staff on? Well the accountants can only see the lost revenue they didn't collect. The damage to morale is much harder to value. So if management judge that cost lower than the 6 figure risk of trying to get rid of them then unfortunately management are correct to duck the issue.

But what should the union do in this case? If they want to support the majority of their members then they should help management get rid of the lazy member of staff. But that would be failing that individual, which doesn't seem fair or right.

 

[DarloRich]

If the management were to take action against those "bad guards" (your words, not mine), can you give your honest view as to how you would see the union reacting to such a situation.

Paul - you live in a world where you see every disagreement as a potential strike. The rest of us with some actual experience of these situations have a little more balance. In any event an all out strike over one sacking (unless so grossly unfair as to be unjust and with the potential to set precedent) simply wouldn't happen. You might get a depot or section on strike over one person but even then rarely. Again it would have to be manifestly & demonstrably unfair that the individual was sacked.

IF a company simply sacked an employee without following the mutually agreed processes for discipline, performance management, health management etc then I imagine any union would be unhappy. They would back an appeal and win. If a manager follows the agreed process and procedure all the union can do is offer mitigation and try to reduce the sentence.

The biggest problem is that those processes aren't followed at all and an employee is suddenly sacked. That is what causes the problems. It is incumbent on all managers ( and I am one) to follow company process fairly! You or I would expect nothing less in such a situation.

EDIT - OBVIOUSLY any decent policy will have grounds for instant dismissal but they should be for the most serious offences and being laggardly doesn't meet that threshold IMHO

 

[Flamingo]

If the management were to take action against those "bad guards" (your words, not mine), can you give your honest view as to how you would see the union reacting to such a situation.

I would see the union not doing a lot. Staff get pulled up on occasions, 99% of the time the only involvement of the union is the rep as prisoners friend if it went to formal hearing. This might happen over a specific incident, but general underperforming is rarely pulled up. This is due to many factors, not least of which is the shift pattern, which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to track an individual

In all my time I have known one strike at one depot over a sacking (again over a specific incident - I'm not going in to the rights or wrongs of that, suffice to say that I would doubt if it would result in a strike again). I have known several sackings. Some re-instated on appeal. Some the union opposed (with the support of the members of the branch), some were allowed to happen, shall we say.

The way it is set up, a strike over an individual dismissal would be only the depot involved, and the grade involved, and that is all that would vote on it, or go out on strike.

 

[FordFocus]

What's the state of play of the network for DOO expansion. Does it meet the group standards yeT?

 

[craigybagel]

I would see the union not doing a lot. Staff get pulled up on occasions, 99% of the time the only involvement of the union is the rep as prisoners friend if it went to formal hearing. This might happen over a specific incident, but general underperforming is rarely pulled up. This is due to many factors, not least of which is the shift pattern, which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to track an individual

In all my time I have known one strike at one depot over a sacking (again over a specific incident - I'm not going in to the rights or wrongs of that, suffice to say that I would doubt if it would result in a strike again). I have known several sackings. Some re-instated on appeal. Some the union opposed (with the support of the members of the branch), some were allowed to happen, shall we say.

The way it is set up, a strike over an individual dismissal would be only the depot involved, and the grade involved, and that is all that would vote on it, or go out on strike.

Indeed, it's been similar at our place. Plenty of people get sacked across all grades without a murmur from the relevant union (including at least 1 guard for not doing all of their duties) but the only time there's been industrial action has been when management hasn't followed the correct procedures or been entirely fair....and even then it's been localised rather than TOC-wide.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul - you live in a world where you see every disagreement as a potential strike.

Be so kind as to read my posting again, as all I was asking was something that seemed to be mentioned by Flamingo in one of his postings.

After recent postings of mine, I was so very careful not to mention or even to allude to strike action. All I asked was how the union would react when what I took Flamingo appeared to suggest.

However, Flamingo has actually responded to my posting in a very considerate manner.

 

[Flamingo]

Be so kind as to read my posting again, as all I was asking was something that seemed to be mentioned by Flamingo in one of his postings.

After recent postings of mine, I was so very careful not to mention or even to allude to strike action. All I asked was how the union would react when what I took Flamingo appeared to suggest.

However, Flamingo has actually responded to my posting in a very considerate manner.

Expanding a bit on the apparent reluctance to "take on" a depot rep, anybody outside the industry would never believe how closely a depot manager and depot rep work together over H&S, rosters, A/L, and a host of other day-to-day issues that in other industries are purely a management role. I couldn't believe it when I started.

I can think of many depot managers who were union reps. The joke is that Union Rep is a route into management.

If one is working that closely with somebody (and indeed depending on their co-operation for the smooth running of the depot), can you see the temptation for a manager not to upset the apple cart to enquire over (for example), why said rep has lower takings than others of the grade?

Mind you, I know many reps who are punctilious about their duties, as they do not want to be subject to the accusation of swinging the lead because they can.

 

[FordFocus]

I know about half a dozen reps that have gone from train crew - rep - manager - train crew and back to a union rep.

 

[infobleep]

I would see the union not doing a lot. Staff get pulled up on occasions, 99% of the time the only involvement of the union is the rep as prisoners friend if it went to formal hearing. This might happen over a specific incident, but general underperforming is rarely pulled up. This is due to many factors, not least of which is the shift pattern, which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to track an individual

In all my time I have known one strike at one depot over a sacking (again over a specific incident - I'm not going in to the rights or wrongs of that, suffice to say that I would doubt if it would result in a strike again). I have known several sackings. Some re-instated on appeal. Some the union opposed (with the support of the members of the branch), some were allowed to happen, shall we say.

The way it is set up, a strike over an individual dismissal would be only the depot involved, and the grade involved, and that is all that would vote on it, or go out on strike.

Why were some allowed to happen and others not? Is it simply due to the CA t the ones allowed to happen were fair dismissals?

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

The problem for management is the cost of stopping them getting away with it can be very high. For instance, suppose there is a particularly lazy member of staff who the company would be best rid of because they don't collect revenue and by not doing so lower staff morale. The management spend a lot of hours accumulating evidence of under-performance, an official warning is given which takes meetings with management and union reps etc. Cost this up at £100 per hour for management time (this is pay, benefits and opportunity cost), plus consultation costs with lawyers.

Then more management time for the assessing of the agreed performance improvements, then the member of staff is dismissed. They challenge at an employment tribunal. Costs are now 6 figures. At this point I'll relate a story I heard about the NHS where most of the above had happened. The employee had a drink problem, because the NHS trust had never offered to help with this the unfair dismissal case was lost and the employee re-instated. So for a 6 figure sum nothing changed.

How much does it cost to keep that member of staff on? Well the accountants can only see the lost revenue they didn't collect. The damage to morale is much harder to value. So if management judge that cost lower than the 6 figure risk of trying to get rid of them then unfortunately management are correct to duck the issue.

But what should the union do in this case? If they want to support the majority of their members then they should help management get rid of the lazy member of staff. But that would be failing that individual, which doesn't seem fair or right.

Well perhaps the NHS should ha helped him with his drink problem.. After all doesn't the NHS help members of the public with their drink problems? The only difference I can see is that this member of the public also happens to work for them.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Flamingo]

Why were some allowed to happen and others not? Is it simply due to the CA t the ones allowed to happen were fair dismissals?

Some actions are easier to defend than others. Sometimes people do something (or several somethings) that will demonstrate their unsuitability for a role.

Don't forget, the people being asked to vote by the union on potential action are the colleagues of the employee in trouble, and will know the individual involved...

 

[JamesTT]

In the event of a trap and drag incident or similar, is any compensation paid out of the company revenue or via the public liability insurance? In the event it is the latter will GTR's premium be increased due to extension of DOO(P) and will the rise in premium cost be lesser or greater than the pay roll for guards?

I have a feeling this could be how potential consequences could be monetised.

 

[DarloRich]

Be so kind as to read my posting again, as all I was asking was something that seemed to be mentioned by Flamingo in one of his postings.

After recent postings of mine, I was so very careful not to mention or even to allude to strike action. All I asked was how the union would react when what I took Flamingo appeared to suggest.

However, Flamingo has actually responded to my posting in a very considerate manner.

Paul - I read all of your postings very carefully as one has to try to decide what your actual question is I gave you the same answer as Flamingo based on my experience of being a union rep. I would bet that if you met me you would be surprised how much we agree on!

You also miss the point that the union wont do anything if you aren't a member injustice or not.

 

[tony6499]

For a Conductor to be dismissed under poor performance there would have to be considerable meetings, coaching plans and other documented action before the trigger is pulled on them and if they had ignored all warnings and had no excuse as to why there was no improvement then the union if indeed they were a member would not support any industrial action and I doubt they would even support a tribunal if the process of dismissal was carried out correctly.

When I was staff rep a few years ago there wasn't one manager on the Conductors side who understood train crew rosters or the principles of diagramming hence every roster change they would simply dump the work on us and tell us to get on with it. I doubt many managers especially those from outside the railway would have much understanding either, even when I would be asked to teach a manager or a new staff rep the principles very few would be able to take it on board what was required to complete a roster that complied with all agreements and was able to cover all trains etc.