-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But that is based on the RMT coming to agreement about the OBS. They point blank refuse to do so. Makes planning future requirements difficult so its not surprising they don't have enough staff.
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
Southern is quite unique in the way the franchise is financed. The DFT holds all the cards.
It is not in the interests of Southern, or any other TOC to run a train with no staff other than the driver. Disabled passengers would suffer, passengers would suffer, passengers don't want it anyhow, and neither do the TOC's.
This dispute is purely about the safety critical role. As a conductor myself with Northernrail, I couldn't give a hoot if I opened the doors or not. In fact, there are times I wish I didn't have to. We do care about our passengers, and there is nothing worse than having to break off dealing with a passenger issue to open the doors. Not only that, I'm fed up of the risk of prosecution should something go wrong during dispatch, and be deemed at fault.
The issue is protection of the line in the event of an emergency. The Mcnulty report deemed the guard needing to protect as low, so low it was a risk worth taking. Well only time will tell on that one, but I'm curious to read the report of the Watford landslip derailment. However money talks, and the bottom line is this. The government accepts that lives lost through not having a safety critical staff member other than the driver, is a risk worth taking. Well, it's yours and your loved ones lives they are playing with.
The biggest single issue that TOC's are concerned with is fines for late trains and cancelled trains. If they can remove half the risk of that train not running they will grab it with both hands, that is what this is really all about. A train cannot run without a driver, but if it can run without a conductor, that's a win win situation for them.
Stop kidding yourself it is about passengers experience and well being. They don't give a hoot about you. But if DOO comes to my neck of the woods I will embrace it. Because if I don't have to protect the line and still being paid the same, it is one less worry for me.
It is not in the interests of Southern, or any other TOC to run a train with no staff other than the driver. Disabled passengers would suffer, passengers would suffer, passengers don't want it anyhow, and neither do the TOC's.
This dispute is purely about the safety critical role. As a conductor myself with Northernrail, I couldn't give a hoot if I opened the doors or not. In fact, there are times I wish I didn't have to. We do care about our passengers, and there is nothing worse than having to break off dealing with a passenger issue to open the doors. Not only that, I'm fed up of the risk of prosecution should something go wrong during dispatch, and be deemed at fault.
The issue is protection of the line in the event of an emergency. The Mcnulty report deemed the guard needing to protect as low, so low it was a risk worth taking. Well only time will tell on that one, but I'm curious to read the report of the Watford landslip derailment. However money talks, and the bottom line is this. The government accepts that lives lost through not having a safety critical staff member other than the driver, is a risk worth taking. Well, it's yours and your loved ones lives they are playing with.
The biggest single issue that TOC's are concerned with is fines for late trains and cancelled trains. If they can remove half the risk of that train not running they will grab it with both hands, that is what this is really all about. A train cannot run without a driver, but if it can run without a conductor, that's a win win situation for them.
Stop kidding yourself it is about passengers experience and well being. They don't give a hoot about you. But if DOO comes to my neck of the woods I will embrace it. Because if I don't have to protect the line and still being paid the same, it is one less worry for me.
What about freight trains, Empty Coaching stock, Light Loco etc. Protection of the line comes way down the list.
..but if the guard no longer operates the doors or doesnt have to protect the line then basically the guards job will be defunct and in theory you could be replaced by staff on close to minimum wage or even agency staff........that i believe is DfTs aim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
you are protecting YOUR train, so as a passenger service it is high on the list!
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
Although what you say is true. No TOC ever wants to run a train with just a driver. The risks are just too great. They always, always, want a second member of staff in some capacity.
Fire, collision, disruptive or violent passengers, crime in general, disable assist, the list goes on and on.
I can just imagine one of the last trains out of Leeds on a Saturday night with nobody other than the driver. It would never leave the station, trust me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, quite true. However, they do want a high level of competency in their staff. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. You should see some of the STM agency staff around Yorkshire. I wouldn't put them in charge of a play pen.
There is no desire to dumb down what the passenger has come to expect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Driver protects. Even I as a conductor with 15 years experience will admit the likelyhood of protecting is small. But you just never know what tomorrow will bring do you.
There are quite a lot of agency staff who have replaced staff on barriers down here... They have poor attitude, no railway knowledge, no geographical knowledge and in some cases they cant speak clear english...... but they are only on £7.80 per hour...or whatever it is. Thats ok then according to the DfT.
No reason why they wouldnt want to stick them as OBSs instead of guards.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
How did they get the job if they can't speak clear English ? Did they think they were applying for a job milking cows ?
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
I know the argument that if the safety critical role goes, you could just employ somebody on the minimum wage holds true in theory. No doubt as a result in the coming years it will have an effect. This is where the RMT's battles need to lie, not on lost causes.
As for trains with just drivers. I once went on an awards dinner and sat next to the finance director of a TOC. We got chatting and he said this. "We don't want less staff looking after customers, we want more and better" What's more, I believed him.
His criticism was with the drivers high wages and ability to hold the TOC's to ransom if you really want to know. He did say."We would have driverless trains if we could with a conductor on board.
As for trains with just drivers. I once went on an awards dinner and sat next to the finance director of a TOC. We got chatting and he said this. "We don't want less staff looking after customers, we want more and better" What's more, I believed him.
His criticism was with the drivers high wages and ability to hold the TOC's to ransom if you really want to know. He did say."We would have driverless trains if we could with a conductor on board.
Last edited:
because they are agency staff and companies themselves are not interviewing them
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
Agency's don't care as long as they get paid. The number of complaints regarding them is astonishing.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Surely the TOC can make it a condition with agencies that any staff the agency send forward must have a good command of the English language for positions in which the applicant will be in direct communication with passengers.
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
I can only speak for Northernrail. I can't speak for down south. But up here the only time Northernrail get involved with the agency staff themselves is when they mess up, and the agency is told to get rid. I can only think of one agency staff member who Northern took on the books. Speaks for itself really.
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
STM around my neck of the woods.
Other posters have said previously on here that quite a few of the STM and the previous contractors staff have since joined Northern
Last edited:
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
Previous contractor staff did do quite well, that's true. I personally have only known one STM taken on, and he went to 'Gateline'
That said. I can think of one or two others I would take on if I was in HR.
tsr
Established Member
Southern (pre-GTR) used to use some agencies as quasi recruitment companies, recommending to certain temporary staff that they apply for various jobs in the relevant areas. Other agencies used to seem more in line with the stereotypical ideas of a temporary workforce whom the company had little to no interest in employing permanently. Indeed I am aware of a number of instances where former agency staff were taken on as permanent employees in the last couple of years before GTR - and funnily enough this includes one or two conductors. It was a different but still quite interesting picture with the extensive, pretty much in-house option of First Rail Support providing temporary & part-time staff used by FCC for work such as replacement buses and crowd control. FRS staff generally seemed less well-briefed but maybe that's because I generally came across them around the South end of the Southern network, whereas perhaps they were more familiar with Thameslink operations around central London and the MML. Nowadays there seems to be real variety in which agencies are used, some of which I am less familiar with, but others remaining which are longstanding, such as Ontrak. I note that one of the better ones, ATA, has recently made a comeback, from what I can see.
Since the formation of GTR I have noticed there seems to be somewhat less engagement with agency staff working around the Southern network, though I have to say that those staff I've come across have been no more or less committed and knowledgeable than under the old Southern franchise, when evened out and accounting for natural variations. Until the blue-vested "security" staff appeared (most of whom would appear to actually be agency customer service employees in security uniforms, from what they've told me), it also seemed that if anything, slightly fewer agency staff were being employed in non-safety-critical roles, though I don't have any numbers to hand. What I have noticed is a number of agency staff employed over the last year or so to dispatch trains on at least a medium-term, but seemingly not permanent, basis - for example, a member of staff who dispatches 8 & 10 coach 171s on Platform 1 at Hurst Green will work a reasonable shift and may be needed for up to 5 days a week at the moment, yet despite the fact that those formations are likely to remain for quite some time, some folks are not being employed permanently to dispatch them. Whether the eventual plan is to roll out conductor/driver monitors (as appropriate) when funds and approvals allow, or whether it harks back to the old policy of using agency work as a sort of vocational pre-interview test for permanent employment, remains to be seen. I have my doubts about the latter.
Southern and agencies do seem to tend to work together quite well to weed out those who don't make a positive impression, but for non-safety-related roles it seems harder to gather evidence, though monitoring always seems to me to have been fairly tight. It's certainly worth making comments (good or bad) to any station management you see, or via customer services, as although it may not seem like there is much of a response, it is actually taken seriously. I know some people will have bad experiences and I know that for anyone who's had tales to tell of the legendary behaviour of certain agencies in the North, this might seem far-fetched. What can I say? Some people give the industry a bad name when it's trying to cover work in the ways so prescribed by the franchise, or the bean-counters, or the HR policies, or at specific times of demand, or...!
With regards to the OBS role, I'm afraid I can see a time when, if the DfT so agree, GTR might want agencies to cover certain trains. This may be down to a number of factors; more rather than fewer conductors leaving than expected, and a low take up of vacancies due to people of the right calibre not being attracted by the company's public reputation; requirements of internal/DfT-specified audits for how often a train can be boarded without an OBS being present to assist, or for announcement quality, or for revenue collection, etc.; you get the picture. I have no doubt that some sort of overall competency will be needed to undertake the role, just as agency dispatchers have to have role-specific training and location-based inductions. I have no idea what the entry criteria would be, but I am pretty sure that things like "a good standard of English", probably quietly screened by subtle means of things like telephone conversations and "induction" receptionists, would feature. But there'll always be some issues which slip through the net and if this is not a safety-critical role, can we reasonably expect detailed psychometric analysis to always take place? Sadly, probably not. The real challenge will come when resource managers and other grades hardened by years of dealing with crew come up against agency OBSs who don't respond in line with protocol. If they are sceptical they will say so, if standards are not met they will highlight it, and if the OBSs can be turned away from duty, they will be. So it may be less easier than just borrowing some bloke off STM, or G4S, or anyone else.
Since the formation of GTR I have noticed there seems to be somewhat less engagement with agency staff working around the Southern network, though I have to say that those staff I've come across have been no more or less committed and knowledgeable than under the old Southern franchise, when evened out and accounting for natural variations. Until the blue-vested "security" staff appeared (most of whom would appear to actually be agency customer service employees in security uniforms, from what they've told me), it also seemed that if anything, slightly fewer agency staff were being employed in non-safety-critical roles, though I don't have any numbers to hand. What I have noticed is a number of agency staff employed over the last year or so to dispatch trains on at least a medium-term, but seemingly not permanent, basis - for example, a member of staff who dispatches 8 & 10 coach 171s on Platform 1 at Hurst Green will work a reasonable shift and may be needed for up to 5 days a week at the moment, yet despite the fact that those formations are likely to remain for quite some time, some folks are not being employed permanently to dispatch them. Whether the eventual plan is to roll out conductor/driver monitors (as appropriate) when funds and approvals allow, or whether it harks back to the old policy of using agency work as a sort of vocational pre-interview test for permanent employment, remains to be seen. I have my doubts about the latter.
Southern and agencies do seem to tend to work together quite well to weed out those who don't make a positive impression, but for non-safety-related roles it seems harder to gather evidence, though monitoring always seems to me to have been fairly tight. It's certainly worth making comments (good or bad) to any station management you see, or via customer services, as although it may not seem like there is much of a response, it is actually taken seriously. I know some people will have bad experiences and I know that for anyone who's had tales to tell of the legendary behaviour of certain agencies in the North, this might seem far-fetched. What can I say? Some people give the industry a bad name when it's trying to cover work in the ways so prescribed by the franchise, or the bean-counters, or the HR policies, or at specific times of demand, or...!
With regards to the OBS role, I'm afraid I can see a time when, if the DfT so agree, GTR might want agencies to cover certain trains. This may be down to a number of factors; more rather than fewer conductors leaving than expected, and a low take up of vacancies due to people of the right calibre not being attracted by the company's public reputation; requirements of internal/DfT-specified audits for how often a train can be boarded without an OBS being present to assist, or for announcement quality, or for revenue collection, etc.; you get the picture. I have no doubt that some sort of overall competency will be needed to undertake the role, just as agency dispatchers have to have role-specific training and location-based inductions. I have no idea what the entry criteria would be, but I am pretty sure that things like "a good standard of English", probably quietly screened by subtle means of things like telephone conversations and "induction" receptionists, would feature. But there'll always be some issues which slip through the net and if this is not a safety-critical role, can we reasonably expect detailed psychometric analysis to always take place? Sadly, probably not. The real challenge will come when resource managers and other grades hardened by years of dealing with crew come up against agency OBSs who don't respond in line with protocol. If they are sceptical they will say so, if standards are not met they will highlight it, and if the OBSs can be turned away from duty, they will be. So it may be less easier than just borrowing some bloke off STM, or G4S, or anyone else.
Last edited:
And if they don't provide suitable staff for each assignment then they won't get paid, so many sweeping unsubstantiated postings on here it's unreal:roll:
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
Some good points raised there.
I've been 15 years in the job and certainly in the last two years I have seen a big change in the type of staff. It is far more customer driven and much less on the safety critical side these days.
What's more. If other TOC's have the turnover we do. It won't take too long for a whole new bunch of staff to appear, probably on lower earnings and poorer conditions. TOC's don't need to make redundancies, the staff leave for pastures new at a frightening rate at my depot.
In 15 years I have witnessed at my last count 92 conductors leave. Some went driving, others simply couldn't handle the job. That is an astonishing 150% turnover. I'm an old hand after just 15 years.
What I haven't seen though is a slipping of expectation regarding customer service. That if anything has become more prominent. This is why I feel the idea of TOC's dragging in agency staff to do the frontline on train role is a white elephant. Sorry folks, but I'm just not seeing that happening at all.
Sprinter153
Member
Removed. It isn't worth it.
Last edited:
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
One thing I did pick up on. They might be a big boss and get paid a lot. But they still don't half come out with some trash.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Since G4S lost their contract to STM Security on Northern some time ago, which area are you referring to?
Agency staff don't apply for specific roles AFAIK. They apply to the agency and the agency places them wherever they see fit. Most of these people are enthusiastic, keen, and just happy to be in a job. In my experience they do pretty much whatever they're told, and take whatever abuse they're given, just because they don't want to lose the job. They're on zero hours, so they have little protection.
This is terrible for railway roles, because it means that lapses in safety will never get challenged or reported, and the quality of staff can never be guaranteed. If anything goes wrong, the TOC will just blame it on the agency for supplying subpar staff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Southern drivers still have, as they have had for years, an agreement that during service disruption trains can be run DOO (on the BML, calling at manned stations) to the point where the guard is available. It just doesn't apply if the reason the guard is unavailable is because the work went uncovered.
The company wants to expand this to include uncovered work, so they can continue their policy of chronic understaffing but remove the financial penalty for doing so.
It's naive to believe that if given this option with non-safety-critical OBS that they won't take advantage to the fullest extent.
Last edited:
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
If so then the company needs to tighten up the job spec that they've given the agencies, monitor the results and, regardless of anything else, carry out at least a basic 'company assessment' of the agency staff supplied. They are acting in the name of the company, so the company should be ensuring that they meet their standards. If the agency is fairly useless change it !
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,373
STM are just as bad down south, the impression I got us that many of them work for that particular agency because they were refered by a family member who also works for them.
Last edited:
That is generally how it works, certainly in other industries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Whilst agencies differ the ones I've been involved with don't force people to do anything, if you're offered a job that you don't like then you don't take it. Many agency staff do a very good job and are often offered a full time job.
And a TOC can hardly blame an agency for supplying poor quality staff, if they are not good enough then the TOC need to go to another agency.
Last edited:
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
I can name 6 or 7 excellent colleagues who have worked for G4s/STM have you told our colleagues your views. I am sure you would be really popular. :roll:
- Status