While some people argue DOO and DCO are the same thing, the Northern franchise agreement states there must be a non-driving member of franchise staff on all services and that passenger safety will be part of their job role, alongside revenue duties even though the latter is the main reason for the inclusion of DCO in the agreement.
The issue comes when that second non-driving role can no longer reasonably be defined as one which carries out the actions of a "guard" in Rule Book parlance. There isn't much real middle ground* between an OBS-type figure and someone performing the technical role of a guard (including with a different title like "conductor", as always the case on Southern for a good number of years). And once the company operates either some or all of its trains in driver-only format, although they may specify that a second member of staff either should be or must be present for the train to run, that second role is watered down because it is no longer part of the reaction to a worst-case scenario which, in my eyes, is a true fundamental of the existence of a conductor/guard.
In fact I would say that the actions of a guard in an emergency are equally important to the day-to-day task of keeping the peace and providing a visible presence onboard; my opinion is that it is not prudent to
halve the number of onboard staff performing Rule Book roles (in other words, properly documented and quantifiable roles) per number of passengers, especially when they can - and are obliged to - react to a train accident which, though incredibly rare nowadays, is the sort of thing that happens at unpredictable times, on a network where that half of the prior onboard staff complement will now be in the crumple zone/at the sharp end, yet still responsible for up to ~1200 people.
*Yes, I know there are mentions of "competent" people in the Rule Book. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. That description is not some middle ground between conductor and OBS.
Govia may have done Arriva a favour now that the RMT knows what could happen if they refuse to compromise, like they have done with Southern. Having a job and a guard's salary guaranteed for at least the next 5 years in exchange for accepting the drivers can do the door duties must sound like a good deal now!
But this wasn't exactly the point. The door duties issue has been drifting around with the whole "removal of a guard" issue but the real point with the latter is that there is a loss of a competent safety-critical member of staff onboard, required for each service to run, who could have been there whether or not operating the doors. Indeed there are networks where traditional conductors/guards are rostered to be onboard the train but do not control the doors for part of the journey; trains running on Southeastern's mainline (not HS1) routes in the London area are available as an example for comparison.
Relinquishing control of the doors would not really have assisted in negotiations. What would have assisted is relinquishing the requirement for a second person to be on board who is trained to perform the role of the guard. This is what GTR have forced through now. Conductors (guards) will no longer perform that role, though they will keep their salaries. I can well imagine this is justified - for the time being - by now being able to be more flexibly rostered, and by the savings from the train not having to wait for them, in order to run.
I wonder how the older guards, who would have retired before there were any compulsory redundancies, feel now.
I'm not 100% sure whether this is a comment focusing on those who carried on despite being able to retire. But what I would say is that all Southern conductors, irrespective of age, seniority in service, etc., have been offered the chance to discuss voluntary severance and various combinations of what could be provided at the end of service with GTR, as per eligibility.
If I was in their position I don't think I'd be renewing any union membership.
It's quite interesting to see the different stances conductors have taken with this. Some are still sticking with the RMT in the hope that they will at least continue to provide some form of representation in other ways (eg. collective bargaining) or because, for the time being, they already do. They see this as the best way to put forward opinion even if the OBS role has been pushed through. Others have given up on the RMT for a number of reasons - the strategies for the length and timing of both negotiations and the strikes, or not wishing to be involved in what has become an increasingly bitter political battle, which has spilt over and become some extremely confrontational behaviour (I won't elaborate, but I suggest it is likely that some "interesting" revelations about the relationships between striking and non-striking members of the workforce may emerge in the long run).
It seems strange in a way the battle was between the RMT (over the role of guards) and Southern.
The guards were effectively striking over one of their duties being transferred to other staff.
That was never the reason given to me by those who took strike action. The much bigger issues in the dispute have been job security and relevance of the traditional presence of a guard in emergencies.
Unofficially, I think the RMT called industrial action because they thought there was a risk the next franchise wouldn't keep the guards in employment but if they used that reason as their official reason for a strike it would be illegal (as you can only take industrial action against your current employer) and Govia would be allowed to sack striking guards for breach of contract.
The next franchise holder may as well, at this stage, be imaginary. Indeed it could speculatively be more than one future franchise holder, dependent on areas served. Industrial action against any imaginary future employer would not just be potentially in breach of regulations but also patently absurd. The strike action has been against the current employer, and, by extension, the relevant government bodies specifying what they've had to do, because of the fact that it is no longer deemed necessary to specify the conductor workforce to be present on 377s. This is happening right now, not in the next franchise. And, right now, because of this, trains are starting to run in a mode where it is not mandatory to have someone onboard who is trained as a guard. This means that in the event of money mysteriously not being found, recruitment for new onboard roles does not have to take place as part of an
operational need to cover vacancies, because the same train service can run anyway.
On the other hand they'll be more work to do for Southern drivers and ASLEF have been fairly quiet since saying drivers should refuse to take out 12 car Turbostar workings if they are DOO for safety reasons, which backfired in court.
Point of order: you're thinking of 12 coach Electrostars. Turbostars on Southern run at a maximum of 10 coach formations and a conductor is mandatory.
