RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Bletchleyite]

If the general public want a member of staff on board then the RMT should be supported in their desire to guarantee that second member of staff. If the general public want it then why don't the DfT make it a franchise specification to have that second person guaranteed. If the general public want that second member of staff then why doesn't the TOC guarantee one or introduce them on other DOO services.

Oh yeah, the general public's desires mean Jack Shee

The general public also want lower fares and taxes, or at least not increases. They evidenced this by electing a Tory Government, which will tend towards that line (at least when it comes to taxes).

Unfortunately, the two wants are not compatible.

 

[Robertj21a]

If the general public want a member of staff on board then the RMT should be supported in their desire to guarantee that second member of staff. If the general public want it then why don't the DfT make it a franchise specification to have that second person guaranteed. If the general public want that second member of staff then why doesn't the TOC guarantee one or introduce them on other DOO services.

Oh yeah, the general public's desires mean Jack Shee

Surely, we've had all this many times before ?

I thought the RMT didn't really want just a second member of staff on board, they want a *safety critical* second member of staff on board.

Is that not the case ?

 

[Skie]

You regularly see the public get the 'guard' confused with the revenue bods, enforcement (seat gestappo) and even the blinkin cleaners. So I'm not sure the public know what they want!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then, in December 1987, just two weeks after the strike started, management decided to start making programmes themselves, sometimes with disasterous results. But, the on air mistakes got less, and the strikers were sacked.

The key difference is that "disastrous results" on a television show just mean an embarrassingly amateur performance (and I'm really not sure most breakfast television viewers are awake enough to care), while "disastrous results" on the railway means dead people.

 

[footprints]

Returning to Merseyrail, from what I've read today, and in a railway magazine published before the ballot was announced, that management have been preparing for this. Not knowing what is going to happen, as I don't have a crystal ball, but the challenge for the RMT is now to try and make sure no trains run, and there is maximum disruption. If Merseyrail have done what I think they've done, and been prepared for this long before the ballot, then it'll be interesting to see how many trains they do run.

If it's not a lot, with much reduced frequencies, then the RMT will consider it a success. If management have been prepared, and they run a near normal service, and we don't know what service they're proposing to run yet, then it may well be the RMT strike action was unsuccessful, in that they failed to stop trains running.

This was my expectation too. Merseyrail have obviously known this was coming so have had plenty of time to put contingency plans in place. The Strike FAQs on their website says that they'll publish more details in the coming days but confirms that some managers have been trained as guards.

Apparently they intend to operate a service on selected routes only and this will be a half-hourly, six-car service operating from roughly 7am to 7pm. If that’s the case and it covers the majority of the Merseyrail network, although it will mean more than 50% of train services are cancelled, it should ensure that a high percentage of passengers will still be able to travel during daylight hours. I don't think that's too bad a position to start from.

One section of the Strike FAQ talks about drivers not crossing picket lines in solidarity with guards which could cause a further reduction in services. I thought this was no longer allowed?

Just talking to people about the strike and several seem under the impression it’s just for the one day and that will be it! I think they’re in for a shock!

http://www.merseyrail.org/strike.aspx

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apparently they intend to operate a service on selected routes only and this will be a half-hourly, six-car service operating from roughly 7am to 7pm.

I wonder if they'll just use the Boxing Day semifast diagrams to shorten running times - that does sound a bit like that.

 

[Bookd]

It is worrying that the proposed strike is to be co-ordinated with others on Northern and Southern, which seems to be mainly to show how tough RMT can be.
The Union leaders always say that striking is a last resort; in the case of Merseyrail (as last year's disputes on GWR) the trains have not yet been built and there is scope for years of negotiations to come - rather than a last resort this looks like political opportunism.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One section of the Strike FAQ talks about drivers not crossing picket lines in solidarity with guards which could cause a further reduction in services. I thought this was no longer allowed?

Can I ask a member of the rail staff on this thread who is aware of the stated strike FAQ to answer this point that has been raised from their understanding of this matter.

 

[LowLevel]

But the point is negotiations will not achieve what the staff side want, because the company aren't able to achieve it, because the authorities, be that Mersey travel (who at least are being somewhat transparent) or the DfT (who lie every day stating that these issues are for the TOCs and that they don't specify staffing while contractually specifying staffing standards) are setting the agenda.

I'm open about the fact as a guard that I do not wish to be disenfranchised into being a ticket examiner. It does much for my job satisfaction that I run my train and run it well. I do not wish to be in permanent deference to the train driver who is locked out of the way and lose all authority to make decisions in terms of working my train. Doors or not I do not see why I should lose charge of my train and doing so will lead me to lead me to consider my position.

Consequently when it raises it's ugly head around here as I'm sure it will at some point I will strike as well.

The relevance to the Merseyrail dispute?

You can see the point of the union in attempting to make it a tactical move. Strike early, regularly and try and cause as much financial damage as possible thus damaging the costing projections for the change. They all have a published net present value in the hard to get hold of RSSB report that certainly wasn't taken down intentionally, oh no. Do it enough with enough TOCs and you may even wreck the budget and force the hand of the DfT to come into the open.

Or maybe they aren't that clever. Who knows.

 

[furnessvale]

You can see the point of the union in attempting to make it a tactical move. Strike early, regularly and try and cause as much financial damage as possible thus damaging the costing projections for the change. They all have a published net present value in the hard to get hold of RSSB report that certainly wasn't taken down intentionally, oh no. Do it enough with enough TOCs and you may even wreck the budget and force the hand of the DfT to come into the open.

And you don't believe that damage will be to railways and railwaymen all over the country?

The only place in the UK where railways are essential is in London commuting. Everywhere else, there are millions of people who consider railways an anachronistic irrelevance, and would much rather see the £billions spent on rail spent on new motorways instead.

 

[LowLevel]

Quite possibly! Just theorising here.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Can I ask a member of the rail staff on this thread who is aware of the stated strike FAQ to answer this point that has been raised from their understanding of this matter.

All members of staff rostered to work, and who are not Drivers or Guards in the RMT union, are required to attend at their booked time and place.

Anyone not turning up will be treated as AWOL and subject to the normal disciplinary procedure.

 

[Bellbell]

And you don't believe that damage will be to railways and railwaymen all over the country?

The only place in the UK where railways are essential is in London commuting. Everywhere else, there are millions of people who consider railways an anachronistic irrelevance, and would much rather see the £billions spent on rail spent on new motorways instead.

I just don't think that's true. There are busy commuter routes into other cities and conversely extremely rural routes that provide vital community links. The network is certainly very different outside London though.

The thing is for Merseyrail guards, why not strike? It's crystal clear what's on the cards for them, so what alternative do they have? It'll be pretty damaging for them when they lose their jobs. It's coming, at varied paces, to all of us guards. What'll be interesting, longer term, is how it affects recruitment across TOCs. Once it becomes clear that the general trend is to get rid of guards who is going to want to be one? It's a useful springboard into other railway roles, admittedly, but it's a fairly niche career to go into only to be made redundant in a few years, and a big gamble to think you'll be able to move on within a short time when the likelihood is that everyone else will be trying to get the h*ll out of dodge too.

 

[HH]

Quite possibly! Just theorising here.

You've said the same thing before IIRC. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now. The BCR will have been done ages ago and the decision based on that. It will cause some pain, but almost certainly not to the people that made that decision.

Moreover with Northern being heavily subsidised it's not at all certain that strikes will cause it to lose money. And, if they get nowhere, will members have the appetite for prolonged action later?

However it does convey to their members that RMT are doing something and, as we know, perception is more important than actuality.

 

[Kite159]

Good to see Cashro's gang trying to make use of the incident with the tunnel at Lime Street to drum up support for their latest attempt "to bring down the government" [as said by their president]:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/lime-street-collapse-underlines-crucial-role-of-guards/

----

Isn't is the PTE Merseytravel saying to Merseyrail to go DOO with the new trains rather than the DFT, due to the control being passed over many years ago?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good to see Cashro's gang trying to make use of the incident with the tunnel at Lime Street to drum up support for their latest attempt "to bring down the government" [as said by their president]:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/lime-street-collapse-underlines-crucial-role-of-guards/

That article from the RMT was childish and uncalled-for (and quite insulting to drivers who could have handled things well enough in the typical short DMUs and EMUs that operate there). The rest of the industry has been pulling together to solve the problem admirably, whereas the RMT should be ashamed of themselves for not doing so.

Isn't is the PTE Merseytravel saying to Merseyrail to go DOO with the new trains rather than the DFT, due to the control being passed over many years ago?

Yes, it is. The financial saving from going DOO is basically what is funding the higher leasing costs of new rolling stock.

 

[LowLevel]

I work entirely short DMUs Neil, usually in formations of between 1 and 8 coaches and I'm quite happy to assure you that train length does not necessarily correlate to manageable problems. One of the most challenging situations I've ever had to deal with involved a stranded pair of class 153s.

 

[Camden]

The DCO proposals would do two things, they would reduce the cost of the concession and make it easier on the public purse over time, and it would do so without fare hikes.

I think the first bit is non-negotiable, but given the sums involved in retaining a guaranteed second person on every service likely something that could be accommodated through fare hikes.

The union has had a ballot of its members, so why not Merseytravel put it to a ballot of theirs - the passengers? If the travelling public in Liverpool are happy to put their hand in their pocket and cover the cost through higher fares then concede, and if they're not then stand the ground.

 

[HH]

That article from the RMT was childish and uncalled-for (and quite insulting to drivers who could have handled things well enough in the typical short DMUs and EMUs that operate there). The rest of the industry has been pulling together to solve the problem admirably, whereas the RMT should be ashamed of themselves for not doing so.

I don't think you can blame them for using the incident for their own purposes and there's no mention of bringing down the government or basket case franchises - this press release should only be considered on its own merits.

Nor do I think it's arguable that having a second railway person on board is an advantage in such situations. But that is not the same as guards controlling the doors. Plus it is Northern, not Merseyrail.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think you can blame them for using the incident for their own purposes and there's no mention of bringing down the government or basket case franchises - this press release should only be considered on its own merits.

Nor do I think it's arguable that having a second railway person on board is an advantage in such situations. But that is not the same as guards controlling the doors. Plus it is Northern, not Merseyrail.

Of course you can blame them. It's shameless opportunism, and full of hyperbole. It essentially implies that havoc would have ensued had there been no guard. Passenger egress occurs both on guarded and unguarded trains.

 

[HH]

It's shameless opportunism, and full of hyperbole.

It's a Press Release.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think you can blame them for using the incident for their own purposes and there's no mention of bringing down the government or basket case franchises - this press release should only be considered on its own merits.

Perhaps it's just too early. The railway needs to be pulling together at this point, and apart from the RMT it is, too. They can have a DOO debate later.

Nor do I think it's arguable that having a second railway person on board is an advantage in such situations. But that is not the same as guards controlling the doors. Plus it is Northern, not Merseyrail.

I don't think what they are saying is flawed as such on the "2 better than 1" principle. I just think it's slightly tasteless and bad timing.

I wonder if the timing of the collapse had been less opportune and there had been serious injuries or deaths they would have done the same? I can't recall if there was a DOO comment made re the LM landslip incident? I think there was, though it wasn't quite as pointed as this one as there is no dispute nor plan for DOO on LM at present?

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a Press Release.

A press release doesn't have to be shamelessly opportunistic, promote fallacies, and rely on hyperbole. I know; I write press releases!

 

[XDM]

Of course you can blame them. It's shameless opportunism, and full of hyperbole. It essentially implies that havoc would have ensued had there been no guard. Passenger egress occurs both on guarded and unguarded trains.

It's fake news from RMT

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's fake news from RMT

I wouldn't say it's fake news, but it is highly inappropriate timing.

The time to come out with something like that is when the results of the RAIB investigation are released.

 

[furnessvale]

It's fake news from RMT

It's not fake news, it's alternative facts!

 

[Tetchytyke]

quite insulting to drivers who could have handled things well enough in the typical short DMUs and EMUs that operate there

The fatal accident at Ais Gill, caused by a landslide, in 1995 involved a two-carriage Class 156. The driver was incapacitated in the accident.

I don't see anything wrong with the RMT saying "are you sure you want to lose the guards?"

ETA: I mention Ais Gill because the collision happened partly because the train wasn't secured with detonators properly, even though the driver phoned control and they screwed up. They tried to pin the blame on the late guard, even though his actions in moving passengers prevented more deaths. Fine, but if the guard hadn't been there there would have been nobody to assist, because the driver was trapped, injured, in his cab.

 

[8A Rail]

............ The thing is for Merseyrail guards, why not strike? It's crystal clear what's on the cards for them, so what alternative do they have? It'll be pretty damaging for them when they lose their jobs. It's coming, at varied paces, to all of us guards. What'll be interesting, longer term, is how it affects recruitment across TOCs. Once it becomes clear that the general trend is to get rid of guards who is going to want to be one? It's a useful springboard into other railway roles, admittedly, but it's a fairly niche career to go into only to be made redundant in a few years, and a big gamble to think you'll be able to move on within a short time when the likelihood is that everyone else will be trying to get the h*ll out of dodge too.

From information I have seen, the Merseyrail Guards wont lose their jobs, just their roles will be redefined as such but still means DOO one way or another. However, what concerns me is eventually by "stealth" those redefined roles will disappear and the TOC's will get their way eventually with only ONE employee (Multi Task Driver) being on each local train.

May be the "Unions" need to be abit more savvy especially with the public and explain in plain english why a "guard" / "second person" is required on all trains, as currently they are doing a lousy job!! At the end of the day, the "Unions" need the public on their side otherwise they are fighting a losing battle.

 

[Robertj21a]

From information I have seen, the Merseyrail Guards wont lose their jobs, just their roles will be redefined as such but still means DOO one way or another. However, what concerns me is eventually by "stealth" those redefined roles will disappear and the TOC's will get their way eventually with only ONE employee (Multi Task Driver) being on each local train.

May be the "Unions" need to be abit more savvy especially with the public and explain in plain english why a "guard" / "second person" is required on all trains, as currently they are doing a lousy job!! At the end of the day, the "Unions" need the public on their side otherwise they are fighting a losing battle.

Much of this has been aired already on the thread about the Southern disputes. I think a number of RMT members have stated that the union is not really bothered about getting public support as they feel that most of the general public 'hates unions anyway'. To my mind this is very short-sighted and is far more likely to relate to the fact that the RMT is utterly appalling at clear communication. In general, they seem less interested in the key issues about safety and far more interested in banging their drum about Tories, TOCs, profits etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's a tough one for the RMT to win. When even the BBC report the dispute as being merely about "who closes the doors", the RMT have to respond to that. So the way the media report things influences how the RMT have to communicate. And it's a battle they'd struggle to win, they're right to understand that most people hate them anyway. Even when the guards were properly shafted by Northern Spirit they didn't get any public support.

I don't think public support for a strike makes the blindest bit of difference. Indeed, a bit of public anger sometimes helps negotiations along because, eventually, the public don't care who's to blame for the squabble, they just want it to end. Figuratively banging heads together is sometimes a form of compromise, as any parent of toddlers will tell you.

But that said, the RMT really could do with a better press officer...