Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[MikeWh]

If you can't get to work on time then its your own failure. People need to stop blaming the TOC's and the poor service because they cant plan a decent route to work. Not only that. Its pretty difficult to lose your job because you are late. How much continual lateness can be attributed to train delays to such an extent you get sacked ? Maybe if you work for Sports Direct.

Can I introduce you to a number of friends and acquaintances who commute from Surrey and Sussex using Southern. Trust me, if you repeat that being late for work is their fault in front of them then you will be decked. Several of them are seriously in fear of losing their jobs and there has been press coverage of at least one person who was actually sacked because of the trains.

Just about the only place in London where it is safe to work if you commute from the likes of Redhill is the Department for Transport. Think about it!

 

[redbutton]

I probably wouldn't have worded it like ComUtoR did but I have to agree that the hypothetical commuter should bear perhaps the smallest bit of responsibility for choosing to live somewhere that they can only get to work using a single route, or worse yet a branch line with 1tph and a tight connection.

I don't think I've ever lived anywhere without three different ways to get to work. Sometimes three modes of transport, even.

I get that some people really don't have a choice, but I think that the majority really do.

 

[transmanche]

I went to school, got some education, went to college, couldn't be bothered to go to uni and went out to work. I'm pulling in a £50kpa job that didn't need any qualifications.

I have friends that studied for years, got their Masters, worked in a McJob, finally entered their chosen careers and still earn less than me. Ask yourself. Who's the clever one ? All those years of training and your degree is worth Jack Shee.

That's fine, if all that matters to you is money. Other people measure their job/life satisfaction in ways other than purely financial.

 

[ComUtoR]

This cannot be a serious post! Surely??! Have you seen the state of the GTR network recently?

No it isn't and its something I have posted previously. Ultimately it is your responsibility to get yourself to work. I watched a really good news report a few months ago where people were choosing to change to the coach because the train service is awful. It took a little longer but you got a seat and it was cheaper. There is also many a comment from posters in this thread and others where they state that the railway is pricing out its customers and they will chose an alternative method.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I probably fit into that category you sneer at and probably don't earn as much as you do right now.

Please don't see it as a sneer against anyone who earns less than me. If anything your reading it completely wrong. I support anyone who is in work and support people for whatever their wage is. Please highlight where you feel that I have sneered at someone earning less Please reread and see that I am pushing people right to earn more and get paid what they feel is worth. Hence my many comments about Teachers not earning a decent wage. It is the others deriding the fact that Guards earn more, not me deriding others earn less.

You know what, I am probably no less happy than you with my job, for longer hours than you in most weeks. I don't envy your wages

.

My happiest job was when I worked 12hr days in a kitchen.

Don't knock people who are earning less than you do right now. That is, they may only be earning less than you do right now. Says nothing about the future.

Again, where have I knocked them ? Do you feel it is right that people are knocking the Guards because they earn more or the poster who said that the super high earners don't deserve it ? I think you have it wrong. I haven't knocked lower wages.

That is even based on the assumption that money is everything, which is a line of thought that makes me sad, so I can't even be arsed to go there.

Where have I said that money is everything ? It isn't me stating how unfair it is that Guards earn a decent wage ? Just because I support people getting paid a decent wage doesn't mean I believe money is everything. Why attack the one poster who supports better wages for every job but support those who believe the Guards are overpaid and under qualified and that other people in better jobs are inherently more deserving.

Congrats on the promotion.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's fine, if all that matters to you is money. Other people measure their job/life satisfaction in ways other than purely financial.

Yeah 'cause that what I said :roll: You might want to read upthread. I will defend people wages, regardless of what they earn or what they do.

I started life pretty much in the gutter, in a **** hole part of London. I got a decent education and worked pretty much all my life. My working life started out as a zero hour and I worked like a barsteward regardless. Worked my way up to Management and did quite well. Now I play choo choos.

I am very proud of that and now I'm finally on a decent wage in a decent job I suffer constant personal attacks about what I earn and that I don't deserve it. It took a while to be honest but I'm no longer hiding what I earn; its public domain anyway.

I work hard and enjoy my job. And finally I have a decent work/life balance. It has taken my entire working life to achieve this. I thank the Union and all the hard work it takes to keep fighting for terms and conditions.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's just not an option for someone with £6k sunk into a season ticket to refund it and start getting a long distance coach to commute.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And where's the work/life balance for people who choose to get the coach instead? That's up to two hours extra travel time every day. What about those who need to start work before it is convenient to get the coach? How many people can coaches transport between London and Brighton every day? (Clue: not even close to the number of season ticket holders)

How much will someone lose if they refund a £6k season ticket half way through its validity? What if they only have their ticket thanks to a season ticket loan facility from work?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If you can't get to work on time then its your own failure. People need to stop blaming the TOC's and the poor service because they cant plan a decent route to work. Not only that. Its pretty difficult to lose your job because you are late. How much continual lateness can be attributed to train delays to such an extent you get sacked ? Maybe if you work for Sports Direct.

What!!???

I have an employee who lives in East Grinstead and has to get up at the crack of dawn to come to work. Living at the end of the line, his only choice is getting a Southern service. He doesn't have a choice of another TOC/other branded service (e.g. TL) unless he gets a taxi to Three Bridges.

If he can't get to work on time because his trains are cancelled, that isn't his fault.

 

[highdyke]

No it isn't and its something I have posted previously. Ultimately it is your responsibility to get yourself to work. I watched a really good news report a few months ago where people were choosing to change to the coach because the train service is awful. It took a little longer but you got a seat and it was cheaper. There is also many a comment from posters in this thread and others where they state that the railway is pricing out its customers and they will chose an alternative method.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You would be correct except:

• Many people cannot afford cars, especially with high rents/house prices
• Some people cannot drive: Young, old, sick and disabled, those on nights out due to drink laws.
• Buses and coaches are often too slow, and services tend to shut down early
• In London (as well as other major cities) the railway have a monopoly, 80% of people arrive by rail/tube into central London. There is no other way to realistically move this traffic, there isn't the road capacity or parking. A million cars is 2,800 miles of stationary traffic.
  
• To my mind this begs the question whether industrial action shouldn't have more checks and balances.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the infrastructure of the country to actually work, both in terms of employer or employee expectations. Business positions itself, mainly because of materials, services, and access to labour/customers (which implies transport provision) you cannot expect zero backlash/economic damage if someone just decides to withdraw that service. London would never have existed without its ports, and wouldn't have grown to what it is today or have international importance complete with the jobs on offer, without its rails, airports and roads.

 

[Robertj21a]

You would be correct except:

• Many people cannot afford cars, especially with high rents/house prices
• Some people cannot drive: Young, old, sick and disabled, those on nights out due to drink laws.
• Buses and coaches are often too slow, and services tend to shut down early
• In London (as well as other major cities) the railway have a monopoly, 80% of people arrive by rail/tube into central London. There is no other way to realistically move this traffic, there isn't the road capacity or parking. A million cars is 2,800 miles of stationary traffic.
  
• To my mind this begs the question whether industrial action shouldn't have more checks and balances.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the infrastructure of the country to actually work, both in terms of employer or employee expectations. Business positions itself, mainly because of materials, services, and access to labour/customers (which implies transport provision) you cannot expect zero backlash/economic damage if someone just decides to withdraw that service. London would never have existed without its ports, and wouldn't have grown to what it is today or have international importance complete with the jobs on offer, without its rails, airports and roads.

Well said, good summary.

.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Well, not sure that nights out are relevant, but otherwise completely agreed.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I probably wouldn't have worded it like ComUtoR did but I have to agree that the hypothetical commuter should bear perhaps the smallest bit of responsibility for choosing to live somewhere that they can only get to work using a single route.

And using my East Grinstead example, Southern used to be an excellent company with a reliable train service which is precisely the reason my employee moved there in the first place.

It's not his fault if the tables have turned since and Southern can't run a half decent service

 

[Deepgreen]

No it isn't and its something I have posted previously. Ultimately it is your responsibility to get yourself to work.

This is confusing - you say it wasn't a serious post, but then make the same statement again.

It is a well entrenched behaviour to assess the transport facilities on offer when deciding where to live - are you now saying that this criterion should be ignored and all should live within walking distance of their job, on the basis that any or all of the transport options may suddenly cease to be viable owing to mismanagement/industrial action, etc? That would hugely limit the choices for people and for businesses seeking employees.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I must admit I dont really get this idea of being sacked for being late due to trains.

I commute on Southern and am occasionally late either due to a cancelled train of because it has been delayed. I am lucky because my boss knows that trains can be late.

However ig I know I have to be in the office for a meeting at 9 or as I am catching a train out of London again I know there is a risk my SOuthern train will be late. I therefore travel on a train earlier than the one I need to catch as that gives me some flexibility if something goes wrong.

If I was constantly being late for work then I would catch an earlier traun.

 

[Bald Rick]

I must admit I dont really get this idea of being sacked for being late due to trains.

I commute on Southern and am occasionally late either due to a cancelled train of because it has been delayed. I am lucky because my boss knows that trains can be late.

However ig I know I have to be in the office for a meeting at 9 or as I am catching a train out of London again I know there is a risk my SOuthern train will be late. I therefore travel on a train earlier than the one I need to catch as that gives me some flexibility if something goes wrong.

If I was constantly being late for work then I would catch an earlier traun.

Exactly.

Those without short memories may remember a time about 7-8 years ago when FCC were short of TL drivers, partly (IIRC) due to an industrial dispute and resultant overtime ban. On TL north we had weeks, possibly months of an emergency timetable, with the peak service cut by about 30%. (Sound familiar?)

For that period I got up about 40 minutes earlier so I could be sure to get on a train that got me to work on time.

 

[infobleep]

Exactly.

Those without short memories may remember a time about 7-8 years ago when FCC were short of TL drivers, partly (IIRC) due to an industrial dispute and resultant overtime ban. On TL north we had weeks, possibly months of an emergency timetable, with the peak service cut by about 30%. (Sound familiar?)

For that period I got up about 40 minutes earlier so I could be sure to get on a train that got me to work on time.

What happens if one has to catch two trains and one if them is hourly if not two hourly. That makes it much harder when traveling.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Chrisgr31]

What happens if one has to catch two trains and one if them is hourly if not two hourly. That makes it much harder when traveling.

Had that happen after Cowden, a 2 hourly service changing at Oxted. I drove part way instead to a station near the M25.

 

[infobleep]

Had that happen after Cowden, a 2 hourly service changing at Oxted. I drove part way instead to a station near the M25.

That's great if you have a car and can drive.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[JamesTT]

Routes with less frequent trains and limited alternatives do have a lower season ticket price. I suppose the difference can go towards the occasional taxi, bus fare or extension to travel on an alternative route, to facilitate arriving to work on time

 

[AlterEgo]

Routes with less frequent trains and limited alternatives do have a lower season ticket price. I suppose the difference can go towards the occasional taxi, bus fare or extension to travel on an alternative route, to facilitate arriving to work on time

Try telling that to someone who paid £5k for their ticket - "oh it could be more expensive!"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's great if you have a car and can drive.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quite!

 

[infobleep]

Routes with less frequent trains and limited alternatives do have a lower season ticket price. I suppose the difference can go towards the occasional taxi, bus fare or extension to travel on an alternative route, to facilitate arriving to work on time

Is that the case for all stations with lower frequencys. Balcombe use to have Southern only and First Capital Connect season tickets.

If you got a Southern only season
, you could travel to London during the Monday to Friday peaks and maybe late at night or very early in the morning and all day Sunday. Not sure about the Saturday though.

If you got the First Capital Connect only season ticket, you could travel Monday to Saturday but not Sundays. Not sure about how frequent the service was during the peak season though. I assume it was much the same.

I doubt either of them were significantly cheaper to make it worth the hassle of less trains and on certain days no trains at all.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Bishopstone]

I must admit I dont really get this idea of being sacked for being late due to trains.

I suppose dismissing an employee for being late is easier to quantify, and evidence, than dismissing them for being truculent and unproductive. And it's kinder to their feelings, because they get to blame GTR/RMT for their downfall.

I suggest there are some roles - eg being a keyholder for a retail outlet, or a receptionist for a conference centre where guests arrive from 08.30 - that are incompatible with long distance commuting, and always have been.

 

[redbutton]

That's great if you have a car and can drive.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I think that's the point, though. Ultimately it's an individual's choice to live somewhere knowing they rely on an hourly service with no backup plan.

Even at the best of times, trains can be disrupted or cancelled at short notice.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think that's the point, though. Ultimately it's an individual's choice to live somewhere knowing they rely on an hourly service with no backup plan.

Even at the best of times, trains can be disrupted or cancelled at short notice.

Indeed so, but it's the frequency of failure that is key here - occasional problems are to be expected, but daily issues should not be expected and are not acceptable.

 

[al78]

I think that's the point, though. Ultimately it's an individual's choice to live somewhere knowing they rely on an hourly service with no backup plan.

Even at the best of times, trains can be disrupted or cancelled at short notice.

There is a difference between very occasional disruption which lasts no more than a day or two, and weeks to months of disruption caused by the cumulative combination of sickness and industrial action, which is rare and involves not just delays, but cancelled services as well. I agree that there is a case on an individual scale to assess whether it is really a good idea to live 50 miles from work just to earn a few thousand more (much of which will get swallowed up in transportation costs), but it is not fair or reasonable to pass judgement on anyones decisions without objectively looking at their life circumstances at the very least.

 

[yorkie]

There are some bizarre claims being made, but this is all rather off-topic.

I think that's the point, though. Ultimately it's an individual's choice to live somewhere knowing they rely on an hourly service with no backup plan.

If central London businesses want all their staff to be based near the office, they're going to have to pay significantly higher wages than would otherwise be the case, as otherwise no-one would be able to afford to work for them!

Commuting is essential, and without it your job may not exist...

Even at the best of times, trains can be disrupted or cancelled at short notice.

The "best of times" in many parts of GTR-land haven't been seen for over a year!

 

[infobleep]

May I also point out that GTR don't employ enough staff.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[philthetube]

I suppose dismissing an employee for being late is easier to quantify, and evidence, than dismissing them for being truculent and unproductive. And it's kinder to their feelings, because they get to blame GTR/RMT for their downfall.

I suggest there are some roles - eg being a key-holder for a retail outlet, or a receptionist for a conference centre where guests arrive from 08.30 - that are incompatible with long distance commuting, and always have been.

The majority of key holder job, and even positions like teachers bus drivers etc. who are in time critical positions cannot afford to to live in London, unless lucky enough to have council / housing association accomodation

 

[AlterEgo]

There are some bizarre claims being made, but this is all rather off-topic.

If central London businesses want all their staff to be based near the office, they're going to have to pay significantly higher wages than would otherwise be the case, as otherwise no-one would be able to afford to work for them!

Commuting is essential, and without it your job may not exist...

The "best of times" in many parts of GTR-land haven't been seen for over a year!

How very true.

I look forward to my employer paying me the wages to live within walking distance of Westminster.

 

[highdyke]

If central London businesses want all their staff to be based near the office, they're going to have to pay significantly higher wages than would otherwise be the case, as otherwise no-one would be able to afford to work for them!
!

Indeed, London could not exist in the way it does without its railways. The city is more of less built around rail and bus, a comparative more car based north American city would be aprox 4-6 times less dense to house a similar number of people. We're talking about a conurbation analogous to the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metroplex, which covers 9, 286 square miles - Greater London is 607 square miles and the Southeast is 7, 373 square miles. In other words, the SE of England would be continuous urban sprawl and would still be subject to massive congestion.

The geography of the Southeast is reliant on railways, those commuter towns live off the wealth generated in London. Even towns like Milton Keynes and Reading who have to an extent their own economy, have businesses positioned in them because of fast links to London.

Conversely, my understanding is, all those light industrial estates built in the 60s, 70s and 80s have huge problems getting staff as the jobs are relatively low paid and are these places are not served by public transport. People cannot afford cars to commute to them. This is why immigrant labour is popular, and bands of people will club together to get cheap cars and vans to get there.

Raising wages in order for people to live in London is probably out of the question. The average house prices in London as a whole is pushing 500k. In inner London, far higher. A 500k house requires you to have a deposit of pushing £100k and a household income of about the same. You would still be reliant on the tube, rail and bus network to commute in even then. More demand would push prices up higher and lead to a far more high-rise city eventually. Which in turn would need far more metro lines to cope.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed, London could not exist in the way it does without its railways. The city is more of less built around rail and bus

Much of North-West London exists solely because of the railway.

I agree about people leaving contingency time, but expecting people to leave an hour's contingency for a 20-minute journey is madness.

Routes with less frequent trains and limited alternatives do have a lower season ticket price.

Do they?

They didn't when I lived in Apsley, the station that London Midland forgot.

 

[JamesTT]

Is that the case for all stations with lower frequencys. Balcombe use to have Southern only and First Capital Connect season tickets.

If you got a Southern only season
, you could travel to London during the Monday to Friday peaks and maybe late at night or very early in the morning and all day Sunday. Not sure about the Saturday though.

If you got the First Capital Connect only season ticket, you could travel Monday to Saturday but not Sundays. Not sure about how frequent the service was during the peak season though. I assume it was much the same.

I doubt either of them were significantly cheaper to make it worth the hassle of less trains and on certain days no trains at all.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I was referring more to the difference between prices on the Uckfield and East Grinstead lines, compared to those on the BML. But savings made by having a Thameslink only ticket could be put towards traveling on a GX or SN service if necessary and during disruption tickets are generally passed on each others trains