RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[wingsoveryorks]

Its hard to imagine part of Network Rail system that is more suited to DOO.

I do agree with you on this point. It is.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest he thinks you quoted his post because you did.

Limbs are a most dangerous thing to go out on, when they occur when making totally incorrect assumptions on matters that have already been clarified for the benefit of the original forum member.

I have taken a different tack now and have made a further posting on 21st February.

 

[313103]

Jobs are not going though are they. Even Southern have not got rid of anyone. Merseyrail have stated they won't, and it is even less likely on Northern. Goodness me, before the railway I was an apprentice trained aerospace engineer. If my employer asked me to programme a different CNC to the one I had worked on for the past few years, it happened.

So what your saying Southern havent got rid of anyone, so that means that the figure for Guards and RPIs employed on the 19/02/2016 is exactly the same as the figure for Guards and OBS's employed on the 19/02/2017? Also didnt you say earlier in one of your posts the idea is to rid the railway of the staff maybe not in 2017 but certainly by 2037 (at your estimates that is).

With such qualifications what are you doing being employed on the railway? Surely your future would be better in the aerospace industry then it is on the railway, the railway industry cannot give anyone a future anymore.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

So what your saying Southern havent got rid of anyone, so that means that the figure for Guards and RPIs employed on the 19/02/2016 is exactly the same as the figure for Guards and OBS's employed on the 19/02/2017?

With such qualifications what are you doing being employed on the railway? Surely your future would be better in the aerospace industry then it is on the railway, the railway industry cannot give anyone a future anymore.

Southernrail have not made anyone who wanted to change roles redundant. What is hard to grasp with that?

If you want to know why I'm on the railway. The threat of redundancy every other year prompted my move. I have not come anywhere near that on the railway, and even with the changes coming, I still don't feel as under threat as I did in engineering. I took a £7,000 pay cut all those years ago, but I'm pretty sure I'll retire with my railway pension and will be better for it in the long term.

 

[47271]

Considering Merseyrail don't even let you use a payment card in their ATMs, meaning that you have to visit a ticket office to make the simplest transaction, and they have ticket offices everywhere, what makes us think that they're going to try to run their trains without two crew?

A purely personal opinion, but a fiver says that this'll end up like the Scotrail deal.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A purely personal opinion, but a fiver says that this'll end up like the Scotrail deal.

Or the Strathclyde deal.
There are considerable similarities between the Glasgow and Merseyrail networks (and the PTE involvement).

 

[sheff1]

Why on earth do you labour under that assumption that I have quoted your posting.

Well, as Bellbell correctly said, I assumed you had quoted my post because there it was in your post proceeded by "quote".

As you now state that this was a totally incorrect assumption, it seems that someone has hacked into your account and is editing your posts. I suggest you report the matter to the forum administrators before other people assume that things appearing in posts under your name have been posted by you when, in fact, they have been posted by someone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considering Merseyrail don't even let you use a payment card in their ATMs, meaning that you have to visit a ticket office to make the simplest transaction, and they have ticket offices everywhere, what makes us think that they're going to try to run their trains without two crew?

Er, the fact that they have explicitly stated their intention to run the new trains DOO?

 

[AlterEgo]

Er, the fact that they have explicitly stated their intention to run the new trains DOO?

DOO doesn't preclude a second member of staff being on the train, such as a ticket examiner.

 

[notlob.divad]

Yes, a pig in a red rosette would win in a Liverpool ward. But at a time when Corbyn is dragging 20% in the UK, it's wouldn't be good for him would it.

That is quite a bold assumption given 1998 to 2010 Liverpool Council was run by the Lib Dems. That was 9 years of continuous Lib Dem control the longest since the 2nd world war.

Whilst I agree that across the Liverpool City Region, Labour is the predominant party just like in most of our major cities. However in Liverpool's Council area it is at from clear cut.

 

[Bletchleyite]

DOO doesn't preclude a second member of staff being on the train, such as a ticket examiner.

As Merseyrail do not check tickets on board at present (other than occasional revenue inspections), whyever would they introduce that?

They have stated that some trains will carry security guards e.g. Byelaw squads at problem times of day, but there absolutely will, and they have said so, be single-manned trains as a matter of course.

Indeed, the business case for funding the new fleet is predicated on it.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes Merseytravel have stated their desire is to have single manning with extra staff at some times of day doing patrols or revenue protection operations. Similar to how Metrolink operates.

Merseyrail has every station manned and their policy for some time has been focus customer service on the station side.

 

[Camden]

Yes Merseytravel have stated their desire is to have single manning with extra staff at some times of day doing patrols or revenue protection operations. Similar to how Metrolink operates.

Merseyrail has every station manned and their policy for some time has been focus customer service on the station side.

I don't believe that is quite right. They have stated they will have 60 positions for on board members of staff that work on trains between parts of routes, targeted variably between key locations and times of day. This could mean travelling a few stops and then boarding another service at one location and time of day through to remaining on board throughout all or most of the journey at another location and time of day.

This is as opposed to revenue protection staff that roam the network doing ticket blitzes (which is Metrolink's model). While ticket checks are likely to be a duty, I think it is very clear that the emphasis is on customer contact and service and retaining a visible staff presence on the network.

 

[HH]

I don't believe that is quite right. They have stated they will have 60 positions for on board members of staff that work on trains between parts of routes, targeted variably between key locations and times of day. This could mean travelling a few stops and then boarding another service at one location and time of day through to remaining on board throughout all or most of the journey at another location and time of day.

This is as opposed to revenue protection staff that roam the network doing ticket blitzes (which is Metrolink's model). While ticket checks are likely to be a duty, I think it is very clear that the emphasis is on customer contact and service and retaining a visible staff presence on the network.

And the 60 positions compare to how many existing staff?

 

[313103]

And the 60 positions compare to how many existing staff?

The standard answer you will be given on here is that Merseyrail (or whatever its called) wont make anyone COMPULSORY redundant, however and their is always a BUT coming but they will over a generous VOLUNTARY redundancy package to those that do not want to be whatever Merseyrail decide they are going to be. As well as those that are near retirement age wont want to be messed around so they will also leave.

I think people are being disingenuous when they say No one is being forced out, because we all know that if no one choose to take the Voluntary offer or decide to retire early that with absolutely no doubt Compulsory redundancies will be issued.

I made a similar point about Southern, but the answer i got given doesn't answer it. I didn't want to know whether southern had FORCED staff to leave i just wanted to know what the difference if any there is.

The companies are very clever at this game and their intentions is make you think you have a choice, yes you have a choice alright stay with the company that doesn't want you in a job you didn't sign up for or leave.

 

[Tetchytyke]

DOO doesn't preclude a second member of staff being on the train, such as a ticket examiner.

Indeed not, but we're back to the same argument as at Southern. It only makes sense as a money saving exercise, and you don't save any money if you keep the same staff on the same wage. You reduce headcount, salary, or both.

Of course two guards being prosecuted for significant negligence doesn't help the RMT's position...

 

[northwichcat]

Changes to contractual terms and conditions are subject to negotiation between an employer and the relevant unions. I would like to know what contractual arrangements exist between vegetarians and people who are employed to kill animals.

There's a difference between saying:
- Guards don't want DOO because they are unlikely to get a similar job with equivalent pay
And
- DOO would be a bad thing for everyone

But the union rep tried to merge the two without giving any reasons why DOO would be a bad thing for passengers or drivers.

Employees/unions don't have to accept any changes to their terms and conditions but know that if their role is being made redundant and they refuse to accept another role they will possibly have to accept redundancy. As mentioned in other threads on DOO some guards who have worked in the role for a long time would get a nice severance package if they were made redundant (even without any union help) e.g. a 45 year old with 24 years experience would be entitled to redundancy pay equivalent to 36 weeks pay. Obviously for the employer it would be better to find them a new role then give them 36 weeks pay just for not requiring their services any longer, which is where consultation and negotiations come in.

 

[DarloRich]

Employees/unions don't have to accept any changes to their terms and conditions but know that if their role is being made redundant and they refuse to accept another role they will possibly have to accept redundancy. As mentioned in other threads on DOO some guards who have worked in the role for a long time would get a nice severance package if they were made redundant (even without any union help) e.g. a 45 year old with 24 years experience would be entitled to redundancy pay equivalent to 36 weeks pay. Obviously for the employer it would be better to find them a new role then give them 36 weeks pay just for not requiring their services any longer, which is where consultation and negotiations come in.

of course - that is all part of the "game" and a way the employer can buy off trouble if he knows he has an aging workforce and a way for the union to help its members who have the service.

it does nothing for those with little service...........

 

[northwichcat]

Considering Merseyrail don't even let you use a payment card in their ATMs, meaning that you have to visit a ticket office to make the simplest transaction, and they have ticket offices everywhere

Almost everywhere. All stations they serve in Merseyside are staffed but there's a couple of unstaffed stations (with TVMs) on the Cheshire branches.

Merseytravel have said there will be staff in addition to the driver on some services, most notably late services. I think there was also a mention of platform staff at all underground stations.

 

[northwichcat]

of course - that is all part of the "game" and a way the employer can buy off trouble if he knows he has an aging workforce and a way for the union to help its members who have the service.

it does nothing for those with little service...........

If I was a Merseytravel guard and didn't want to look at becoming a trainee driver I would be keeping an eye out for any guard vacancies with other TOCs in the area. I imagine TPE will be inundated with applications when they take on additional crews for their additional Liverpool services!

 

[HH]

The standard answer you will be given on here is that Merseyrail (or whatever its called) wont make anyone COMPULSORY redundant, however and their is always a BUT coming but they will over a generous VOLUNTARY redundancy package to those that do not want to be whatever Merseyrail decide they are going to be. As well as those that are near retirement age wont want to be messed around so they will also leave.

I think people are being disingenuous when they say No one is being forced out, because we all know that if no one choose to take the Voluntary offer or decide to retire early that with absolutely no doubt Compulsory redundancies will be issued.

I made a similar point about Southern, but the answer i got given doesn't answer it. I didn't want to know whether southern had FORCED staff to leave i just wanted to know what the difference if any there is.

The companies are very clever at this game and their intentions is make you think you have a choice, yes you have a choice alright stay with the company that doesn't want you in a job you didn't sign up for or leave.

The number of existing staff is clearly of utmost importance. If there are, say, 70, then that's quite a lot different than if there are 100.

Of course the opening statement will say "no compulsory redundancies"; that's a given. But you're quite right; if they can't get enough people to leave or redeploy voluntarily they are not going to just carry an extra 10 or 20 staff. Plan B will be wheeled out...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Employees/unions don't have to accept any changes to their terms and conditions but know that if their role is being made redundant and they refuse to accept another role they will possibly have to accept redundancy.

It's slightly more nuanced than that, because the employer is off the hook for a lot of statutory redundancy protections if they offer the employee a suitable alternative role.

As we've seen at GTR, both employer and employee know it's a dead duck alternative role, but if the employer acknowledges this then it'll cost them money and if the employee refuses it they won't get protection.

 

[455driver]

If we do end up with DOO what are the chances of the guards all staying on and becoming commercial, rather than operating the doors?

How many guards do MerseyRail have?
How many OBS roles are there going to be?

Then work it out.
Oh the answer is no they wont all be kept on because there wouldnt be any 'savings' to be had if they did.

 

[HH]

Normal protection is constructive dismissal, which would work here. The reason that no-one has gone that route is you end up with no job. Of course you can always get another, but difficult to find one that pays as well and has a great defined benefit pension.

 

[Holly]

There's a difference between saying:
- Guards don't want DOO because they are unlikely to get a similar job with equivalent pay
And
- DOO would be a bad thing for everyone

But the union rep tried to merge the two without giving any reasons why DOO would be a bad thing for passengers or drivers. ...

Does the obvious need to be spelled out?

If only the driver is responsible for safety then the train will be less safe than if both driver and guard are responsible for safety.

People may argue that DOO trains are adequately safe and they may be correct in asserting that. But it doesn't change the fact that the train would be more safe with a guard. Safety should be progressively improved, not held back to old standards.

Driver operated doors is a separate issue. There is no reason why driver operated door should be seen as any different from the train despatcher's point of view as compared with passenger operated (slam) doors.

As to saving money, Merseyrail should be looking elsewhere. The costs of needlessly picking a fight with RMT far exceed any savings to be made as compared with adopting a cooperative union/management arrangement.

 

[danbarnstall]

As part of the new rolling stock agreement with Merseytravel one of the conditions was no redundancies as a result of displacement. Rates of pay protected from what local media say.

200 odd Guards down to 60 onboard staff? Tricky to find 140 extra posts if rumours are true about quieter stations closing once contactless travel is rolled out properly (The next step on from Walrus in a few years).

 

[HH]

As part of the new rolling stock agreement with Merseytravel one of the conditions was no redundancies as a result of displacement. Rates of pay protected from what local media say.

200 odd Guards down to 60 onboard staff? Tricky to find 140 extra posts if rumours are true about quieter stations closing once contactless travel is rolled out properly (The next step on from Walrus in a few years).

Tricky is a classic British understatement!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As part of the new rolling stock agreement with Merseytravel one of the conditions was no redundancies as a result of displacement. Rates of pay protected from what local media say.

200 odd Guards down to 60 onboard staff? Tricky to find 140 extra posts if rumours are true about quieter stations closing once contactless travel is rolled out properly (The next step on from Walrus in a few years).

You won't need 140 posts or anywhere near that - there will be "natural wastage" - retirement, moving away etc. over the several years of phase-in of the new stock.

FWIW I have no particular issue with ticket office closures at quieter stations. Aughton Park (my old local) ticket office is spectacularly pointless, for example. It does nothing a TVM can't, in an area of very high income (so anyone booking a train ticket is almost certain to do so online). Indeed, I think most locals would happily exchange the ticket office for a TVM that did TOD (Merseyrail still stubbornly refuse to do it).

 

[northwichcat]

Does the obvious need to be spelled out?

If only the driver is responsible for safety then the train will be less safe than if both driver and guard are responsible for safety.

People may argue that DOO trains are adequately safe and they may be correct in asserting that. But it doesn't change the fact that the train would be more safe with a guard. Safety should be progressively improved, not held back to old standards.

Driver operated doors is a separate issue. There is no reason why driver operated door should be seen as any different from the train despatcher's point of view as compared with passenger operated (slam) doors.

As to saving money, Merseyrail should be looking elsewhere. The costs of needlessly picking a fight with RMT far exceed any savings to be made as compared with adopting a cooperative union/management arrangement.

The RMT keep arguing guards are needed for safety, yet there have been many incidents leaving stations which guards have been unable to prevent which a dispatcher on the platform could have prevented, but the RMT have never started a campaign to put dispatchers on all busy platforms. Safety is not the RMT's aim, it's keep their members in well paid jobs. It also doesn't help their case that they've accepted much longer DOO formations in the South than would ever be used in the North.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also doesn't help their case that they've accepted much longer DOO formations in the South than would ever be used in the North.

Indeed.

It might be difficult to show a view of 24 sets of doors in good quality on a cab display - indeed it probably is. It certainly is not difficult to show a quality colour view of 6 sets of doors, as will be the case on most trains. (If 12 sets were an issue you could provide guards on double sets only)

I really cannot think of any valid argument against the proposals whatsoever, provided the staff loss is by natural wastage or voluntary early retirement/redundancy.