Surely if you were with a friend who was disabled, you would help them to board without the need for station staff. I know I would.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
Surely if you were with a friend who was disabled, you would help them to board without the need for station staff. I know I would.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I'm certainly no expert in this field either, but an employer that recognises a trade union cannot just unilaterally impose a change. They have to consult. How productive this consultation is would be open to debate, but it has to be done. Changes cannot be unilaterally imposed.
An employer doesn't have to recognise a union, although the workforce can force an employer to recognise a union if enough of them agree. Employers who don't recognise unions will normally mutter darkly about economics if the workforce decides they do want a union to be recognised. So it doesn't happen very often.
Ineos' position was "accept these changes or we'll close the plant and make you all redundant". And legally they could. For all the wibble about "militant" trade unions "holding employers to ransom", the simple fact of the matter is that an employer holds all the aces in any negotiation.
It's the same here, GTR's position is "agree to be an OBS or we'll make you redundant". Legally they can do it. Where GTR are being naughty is in trying to duck out of making these people redundant, and paying them the appropriate compensation, which is where the bullying is coming in.
Strike action is effective where the cost to the employer is higher than agreeing a settlement. Where there's no cost to the employer it isn't effective. And as GTR are being underwritten by the government on this, strike action is ineffective. It's why I don't agree with the criticism of the RMT: their actions have been ineffective, but there isn't really a way that the RMT could have played this very much differently.
It's also why I don't understand the sudden need for GTR management to spend £130,000 on adverts which are, basically, gloating about how GTR hold all the aces. I don't see what GTR are hoping to achieve through this. GTR will need the remainder of their staff on board to deliver results in the franchise to 2021. Gloating and rubbing people's faces in it isn't going to achieve that. They need the drivers' goodwill here and this seems entirely counterproductive.
An employer doesn't have to recognise a union, although the workforce can force an employer to recognise a union if enough of them agree. Employers who don't recognise unions will normally mutter darkly about economics if the workforce decides they do want a union to be recognised. So it doesn't happen very often.
Ineos' position was "accept these changes or we'll close the plant and make you all redundant". And legally they could. For all the wibble about "militant" trade unions "holding employers to ransom", the simple fact of the matter is that an employer holds all the aces in any negotiation.
It's the same here, GTR's position is "agree to be an OBS or we'll make you redundant". Legally they can do it. Where GTR are being naughty is in trying to duck out of making these people redundant, and paying them the appropriate compensation, which is where the bullying is coming in.
Strike action is effective where the cost to the employer is higher than agreeing a settlement. Where there's no cost to the employer it isn't effective. And as GTR are being underwritten by the government on this, strike action is ineffective. It's why I don't agree with the criticism of the RMT: their actions have been ineffective, but there isn't really a way that the RMT could have played this very much differently.
It's also why I don't understand the sudden need for GTR management to spend £130,000 on adverts which are, basically, gloating about how GTR hold all the aces. I don't see what GTR are hoping to achieve through this. GTR will need the remainder of their staff on board to deliver results in the franchise to 2021. Gloating and rubbing people's faces in it isn't going to achieve that. They need the drivers' goodwill here and this seems entirely counterproductive.
Deepgreen
Established Member
Again - it's not GTR's call, but HMG's desire to see the union(s) damaged. HMG are controlling (or not) this entire debacle, and are simply using GTR as their channel in this instance.
How without a ramp?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It's certainly the only logical conclusion to make, that these adverts are all about Wilkinson's engorged ego, because nothing else makes sense. Especially as Wilkinson isn't quite intelligent enough to understand he hasn't won the battle yet. Upset drivers unwilling to go the extra mile can cause an awful lot more inconvenience between now and 2021...
Deepgreen
Established Member
It would depend on the level of disability - i.e. with or without wheelchair - and, if the latter, the degree of step/gap involved.
I'm not entirely sure of how the employment law works in this area. I'm trying to go on a reps course next year to learn more about this in the mean time I'm doing a bit of research with the wonder of Google
I'm trying to cast my mind back to the Ineos Grangemouth dispute a few years ago between Unite and management over the future. Ineos wanted to end collective bargaining, close the final salary pension scheme and reduce salaries to secure the future. Ending collective bargaining is never a good negotiation tactic with unions and early on GTR tried to bring in the OBS grade on individual yearly contracts bypassing the union. Ineos played on peoples fear of losing a job as unlike the railway, the plant can close and production moved elsewhere. GTR can't decide to shut up shop at Barnham and the Coastway routes! At the time Unite seemed to be caught up in some political dispute over Falkirk selections (a reason why I dislike unions been too political) so took their eye off the ball. Ineos offered workers £15,000 one off payments for no union representation, no strikes and reduced salary/conditions. GTR have done things differently, trying to bribe staff with £2000 for signing onto a role that will ultimately disappear in the coming years. Trains will become less safer under DOO and passenger services IMHO will decline.
If people refuse to sign the new contract and get dismissed, I feel that some can claim for either a) No redundancy b) Unfair dismissal. As you mention the guards aren't entirely redundant as they have to operate certain types of traction. It's not a role that should suddenly disappear at the moment given that Southern have conveniently forgotten that it needs to consult ASLEF on extension to the DOO area under collective bargaining.
GTR and the DfT could have ended this dispute months ago if they agreed to the Scotrail solution. It could be argued the union under ACAS came up with a compromise agreement but GTR ignored it. The only winners again are the courts and law firms.
The point with the Ineos was that the negotiations ended with the workforce having a long term future with the management putting a lot of money into the plant. The Ineos workers now have safe jobs for the foreseeable future. As you say with the OBS there is no long term future in the role, Wilkinson pretty much said so at the Trans select committee. We all know that this is all the doing of Wilkinson, the DFT and HMG. If only we had an effective opposition at the moment. Wilkinson quite clearly said at the trans select committee that he has no interest in there being two members of staff on a train.
Last edited:
Even someone who isn't in a wheelchair may need to use a ramp. If there is no guard and no station staff how do they board the train?
Well all I'm going to say on the ramp/wheelchair subject is today I was working a train from Southampton to Barnham (Vic) and a wheelchair was placed on my train by the platform staff with a promise of a phone call to Havant to get her off. Needless to say when we got to Havant there was no-one and I used the on-train ramp to de-train the passenger*. No on train staff would mean the wheelchair user would then be off to either Chichester (where there are no platform staff, just barrier staff who come out when contacted), or Pat at Barnham.
Or she could have phoned 24 hours in advance and made sure she stuck to her booked trains. (but even then!!!!)
This is to say wheelchairs and co may be placed on a train at stations which are manned, but if the exit station is not manned, or manned, but not informed, or informed, but forget..... then all the manned stations in the world will not beat a person on the train who knows where the punter is going. I've had to use ramps, or perform other assistance to passengers at stations such as Victoria, even for booked passengers.
* needless to say I had returned to the wheelchair area by Havant in case this was so.
Or she could have phoned 24 hours in advance and made sure she stuck to her booked trains. (but even then!!!!)
This is to say wheelchairs and co may be placed on a train at stations which are manned, but if the exit station is not manned, or manned, but not informed, or informed, but forget..... then all the manned stations in the world will not beat a person on the train who knows where the punter is going. I've had to use ramps, or perform other assistance to passengers at stations such as Victoria, even for booked passengers.
* needless to say I had returned to the wheelchair area by Havant in case this was so.
Last edited:
Deepgreen
Established Member
Agreed. I was just responding to the point about a friend of the traveller being able to help in some circumstances. That, of course, doesn't make it the right scenario, which would be a member of staff, whether with or without a ramp, depending on the situation.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
No platform staff at Chichester? Crikey my grandad would turn in his Grave (Used to be Station Manager at Littlehampton and obviously visited Chichester etc. (I spent my best early childhood years with him til he was forced to retire through ill health)
So if there was a major issue on board (health or a disruptive/violent passenger) there'd have been no one on the service to intervene between stations?
What if the driver had become incapacitated in some way?
tsr
Established Member
Well, that's what they've been trying to allow all along...
(Don't know for sure, but... it could well have been down to a shortage of staff who are currently conductors, in which case they may have been allocated to trains elsewhere in the area which would otherwise have had to be cancelled.)
Welcome to the Southern Metro (or at least the bits which don't have an OBS/assisting conductor)!
Exactly as predicted by quite a few of us on this topic. Sadly there seems to be a number of people who are believing the Southern propaganda that the OBS was simply a guard that didn't operate doors but spent more time checking tickets. It's been Day 2 of the DOO extension project and already there are trains without a OBS on them.
The staffing shortage was IMHO deliberate to save cash rather than actually filling out vacancies. No benefits to passengers and in certain terms a decrease in safety.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Correct.
Driver incapacitated relies on the Driver Safety Device (DSD) been activated and the signaller then trying to establish contact with him/her.
So an aeroplane is like a train?
My friend doesn't require assistance.
I appreciate that there are many advantages of having guards / on board staff on a train, but I don't think it's unsafe to operate a service without a guard. Yes, it may be very slightly less safe, but not unsafe when compared to the risks of everyday life.
Clutching at straws
Not really what do cabin crew do that a guard doesn't?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yup it transports people from A to B except by air instead of rails.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I totally disagree. Then what do I know I'm just a driver who does the job day in day out :roll:
As others have already pointed out, the Scotrail solution is identical to how Southern currently operates its Electrostars on guarded services anyway, so after attempting to battle months of industrial action and bad publicity what would've been the point in them ending up with a deal for no change whatsoever ?
Last edited:
Mordac
Established Member
Can someone explain how GTR could have possibly guaranteed the guards' status after 2021? Wouldn't that involve them binding their successor in the franchise?
What's bad about the Scotrail deal that Southern don't like?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They can't and in fairness to them (rare) they never said it was guaranteed after 2021.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Not enough money goes back to the shareholders/DaFT (I can't remember anymore)
That would probably have been dependant on whether the unions were willing to concede some ground in allowing drivers to close the doors, clearly they weren't in the Scotrail deal
Last edited:
ah-media
Member
I understand the concern from drivers (such as Dave1987) that they believe that DOO is unsafe. I don't work in the industry and I really don't want to be telling people that they are right or wrong - I'm trying to get my head around the facts.
So, just doing "back of a fag packet" maths ... There are (give or take) 22,500 trains per day according to Network Rail. Say 25% is freight, that means that on your average day, there are just under 17,000 passenger train diagrams.
The figures I have seen suggest that DOO is operated on around 30% of all passenger services, so that is a little more than 5,000 DOO diagrams run every day in the UK.
If DOO is so unsafe, how can 35,000 trains run a week with no injuries or fatalities?
I understand that this is not the whole argument, but this is the RMT's argument - safety will decrease ... but has safety decreased in the last year? The last 5 years? Has there been a sharp increase in the number of injuries and deaths on the railway due to DOO?
Totally understand this is an emotive subject but I'm struggling to see how the facts back up the argument that DOO is explicitly more unsafe.
So, just doing "back of a fag packet" maths ... There are (give or take) 22,500 trains per day according to Network Rail. Say 25% is freight, that means that on your average day, there are just under 17,000 passenger train diagrams.
The figures I have seen suggest that DOO is operated on around 30% of all passenger services, so that is a little more than 5,000 DOO diagrams run every day in the UK.
If DOO is so unsafe, how can 35,000 trains run a week with no injuries or fatalities?
I understand that this is not the whole argument, but this is the RMT's argument - safety will decrease ... but has safety decreased in the last year? The last 5 years? Has there been a sharp increase in the number of injuries and deaths on the railway due to DOO?
Totally understand this is an emotive subject but I'm struggling to see how the facts back up the argument that DOO is explicitly more unsafe.
How about making ramps available for any passenger to use. The insist that disabled passengers can only travel if accompanied by another human. This human would use the ramp.
I am being facetious of course
On a different note, I see in the Evening Standard that Southern Rail bosses are considering legal action. They got GTRs view but not RMTs.
Inbthe same news report they said that the RMT were to make an official complaint to Twitter over Southern's Twitter campaign to get people to voice their views against the RMT. They say it was designed to incur aggression and violence.
Whilst quoting the RMT, they didn't quite GTR for their views.
Still at least they quoted each side, even if not getting the other sides response.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
- Status