RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Tetchytyke]

From information I have seen, the Merseyrail Guards wont lose their jobs, just their roles will be redefined

It's a difficult one to communicate. The business case clearly only makes sense if you reduce the headcount- you don't save money if you have the same staff on the same wage, even if you do change their job title. But because Merseyrail (and GTR, and Arriva Northern...) are saying that they're not going to sack anyone, it's a hard message to communicate without looking either paranoid or disingenuous.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

The union needs to shut up about safety. The public don't care about that; they don't understand train protection, they don't understand safety critical, they just don't give a toss. I mean, my advice would be to literally not mention it at all.

Much more constructive would be forming alliances with disability pressure groups, local councillors opposed to the move, passenger rights groups, and other second-level stakeholders.

The main problem the RMT face is people just don't like them and don't believe them. It would be far better to get other stakeholders to carry their message. It would be beneficial to their image (which is currently flat-cap skin head wideboys talking about "beanos" and "basket cases").

I said all this six months ago or more in the GTR thread and watched the RMT do nothing of the sort, trash their image further and cost their members 29 days' pay for diddly squat.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's a difficult one to communicate. The business case clearly only makes sense if you reduce the headcount- you don't save money if you have the same staff on the same wage, even if you do change their job title. But because Merseyrail (and GTR, and Arriva Northern...) are saying that they're not going to sack anyone, it's a hard message to communicate without looking either paranoid or disingenuous.

Many passengers haven't a clue as to who is supposed to open/close the doors, or what a guard actually does, or whether there's even a guard on board - why should they need to really ? So, all the TOC has to do is to emphasise that any 2nd person on board is primarily there to help customers with their queries, possibly check a few tickets, but largely just be a 'cuddly, helpful' person who they can go to if necessary. The passengers will inevitably view that as an improved service overall.

 

[Robertj21a]

The union needs to shut up about safety. The public don't care about that; they don't understand train protection, they don't understand safety critical, they just don't give a toss. I mean, my advice would be to literally not mention it at all.

Much more constructive would be forming alliances with disability pressure groups, local councillors opposed to the move, passenger rights groups, and other second-level stakeholders.

The main problem the RMT face is people just don't like them and don't believe them. It would be far better to get other stakeholders to carry their message. It would be beneficial to their image (which is currently flat-cap skin head wideboys talking about "beanos" and "basket cases").

I said all this six months ago or more in the GTR thread and watched the RMT do nothing of the sort, trash their image further and cost their members 29 days' pay for diddly squat.

I think your summary of the RMT is actually fairly close to the mark in the eyes of the passengers and general public. It's a shame that the RMT members just don't see it that way. To me, at least, it always appears that ASLEF is just so much more professional.

 

[Moonshot]

The union needs to shut up about safety. The public don't care about that; they don't understand train protection, they don't understand safety critical, they just don't give a toss. I mean, my advice would be to literally not mention it at all.

Much more constructive would be forming alliances with disability pressure groups, local councillors opposed to the move, passenger rights groups, and other second-level stakeholders.

The main problem the RMT face is people just don't like them and don't believe them. It would be far better to get other stakeholders to carry their message. It would be beneficial to their image (which is currently flat-cap skin head wideboys talking about "beanos" and "basket cases").

I said all this six months ago or more in the GTR thread and watched the RMT do nothing of the sort, trash their image further and cost their members 29 days' pay for diddly squat.

Completely agree with that, and Im an RMT member. Stickers and posters stating "Keep guard on train, keep the train safe" is a poor message......it really should be saying " keep the passenger safe " .....which is something the passenger can easily understand.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So, all the TOC has to do is to emphasise that any 2nd person on board is primarily there to help customers with their queries, possibly check a few tickets, but largely just be a 'cuddly, helpful' person who they can go to if necessary.

It's almost impossible to combat the TOCs when we all know they are outright lying, but stick to the message that it's just a change in job title.

We all know the business case only stacks up if the headcount is reduced. But the TOCs say it is just a change of the job on the name badge, they "categorically promise" no redundancies until x date (meaning redundancies will happen on x+1, but hey...). And because of that the RMT can't fight it on staff cuts because, apparently, there aren't any. So they're painted into the corner of fighting on safety which, as you say, most people neither understand nor care about.

It's been very clever from DafT- who, lets face it, are behind this- and the RMT haven't been able to respond to it. They've been left throwing shoes at the sky. As AlterEgo says, the smarter move would have been to get the stakeholders in disability rights, etc, involved.

 

[Camden]

Disability rights is a bit of a stickler too though, as the new trains will have level boarding. Instead of needing assistance to get on and off trains, wheelchair users will be able to move about as they want.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disability rights is a bit of a stickler too though, as the new trains will have level boarding. Instead of needing assistance to get on and off trains, wheelchair users will be able to move about as they want.

That is one of the many reasons I am in support of full DOO on Merseyrail but not on Northern.

There are many, many reasons why Merseyrail is just different. It's comparable to LUL, the Newcastle Metro, Metrolink or whatever, not a TOC. That it even is a TOC is a historical accident based on its conception and construction in a very narrow time window. And where are the guards on those?

 

[AlterEgo]

Disability rights is a bit of a stickler too though, as the new trains will have level boarding. Instead of needing assistance to get on and off trains, wheelchair users will be able to move about as they want.

Ah. I didn't realise this!

That makes the RMT side much trickier and more one-dimensional to defend.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah. I didn't realise this!

That makes the RMT side much trickier and more one-dimensional to defend.

Basically because, in the specific case of Merseyrail, it is barely possible to defend it at all.

Issues:
Redundancies: no (they are already planning for it in the case of new recruits who are on 3 year contracts)
Safety issues: no (short trains, modern equipment, highly staffed system generally and very accessible)
Disabled access: no (level boarding throughout, and if there's the odd station with issues platform staff could do it)
Revenue protection: no (guards don't do tickets)
Passenger assistance: not really (most guards hide in the back cab)

What does that leave? Trying to protect a grade for future employees? Really not something I think they should be concerning themselves with.

They would do better to accept that Merseyrail is different, to negotiate for the best possible outcome given DOO, showing themselves to be reasonable, and concentrate on the rather more complex issue of Northern where I genuinely don't believe DOO is sensible.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That makes the RMT side much trickier and more one-dimensional to defend.

It does make it very difficult to defend. The TOC says they're not getting rid of people (though we know they will) and that guards aren't needed for disability access (although they always help, even with level boarding). That leaves us with safety.

Now some of the PTI incidents on Tyne and Wear Metro- using trains that are shorter than a single 507/508- have been shocking. There have been numerous door trap-and-drags, there have been numerous incidents with motorised wheelchairs being crashed out of closed train doors, and people were trapped for hours in tunnels with no information after a recent major power outage. But it's a difficult sell to say these wouldn't have happened with a guard and it's an even more difficult sell to say that these incidents- mostly caused by the gormlessness of passengers- merits keeping the guards. Especially as we're not actually getting rid of the guards, honest guv, the name change alone will save millions.

I don't agree with Neil Williams on this- I think safety took a huge hit when LUL got rid of their guards- but the TOCs are winning the propaganda war.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't agree with Neil Williams on this- I think safety took a huge hit when LUL got rid of their guards- but the TOCs are winning the propaganda war.

But LUL isn't Merseyrail.

LUL is hugely crowded and runs quite long trains.

Merseyrail isn't hugely crowded and runs, by and large, short trains.

Liverpool Central is a blip, but would be better served by platform staff dispatching using CD/RA - the driver of course could still have a confirmatory glance in his monitors before driving off - not possible on a guarded train...

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for the Newcastle Metro, I would be interested in the cause of those incidents - those trains are barely longer than a bendy bus.

But in any case aren't the Merseyrail FLIRTs getting edge detection? Won't I give you catch everything, but it will be safer than every other current DOO rolling stock in the UK. Again, Merseyrail is different.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But LUL isn't Merseyrail.

LUL is hugely crowded and runs quite long trains.

Merseyrail isn't hugely crowded and runs, by and large, short trains.

It is somewhere between Tyne and Wear Metro and LUL, to be honest. Metro doesn't have guards, it has always been DOO, although it had guards back in the 70s when it was still British Rail. There is no link between the two Metrocars, so the people in the rear Metrocar have no staff available at all, just a help button.

And there are massive problems with anti-social behaviour on parts of the network as a result, as well as massive amounts of fare evasion away from central Newcastle. As well as the other safety issues related to the PTI and to incidents involving failed trains.

I actually think more staff on Metro would be beneficial.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As for the Newcastle Metro, I would be interested in the cause of those incidents - those trains are barely longer than a bendy bus.

But in any case aren't the Merseyrail FLIRTs getting edge detection? Won't I give you catch everything, but it will be safer than every other current DOO rolling stock in the UK. Again, Merseyrail is different.

This video- published by Tyne and Wear Metro themselves- gives a good idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exqBIx-V-_Y

The DOO equipment is old. On most of the network it's a platform mirror. On the underground sections it is two CCTV monitors- both about 14"- with one monitor covering the front half of the platform and the second covering the rear half. The cabs are half-width too, meaning the driver cannot see out of his cab to the offside- which affects most of the underground stations, the busiest ones on the whole network.

As for door edge protection, it's a good start but there have been trap-and-drags with Desiros.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually think more staff on Metro would be beneficial.

Targetted staff. Ticket inspectors, rent-a-thug security guards for really rough services, tourist assistance staff e.g. during the Grand National, platform staff to dispatch at stations that have a known problem or are heavily overcrowded - perhaps only at busy times of day. Liverpool Central clearly needs platform staff at 5pm, but clearly does not at 6am.

That would be cheaper and more beneficial than a single guard on each train, many of whom quite reasonably fear leaving the cab if there is antisocial behaviour going on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for door edge protection, it's a good start but there have been trap-and-drags with Desiros.

Desiros don't have full door edge protection, you have to resist with some force to make them reopen.

And the famous trap and drag incident on a Desiro? The train had a guard, who maybe was not paying attention enough, or couldn't see because of crowding.

 

[CentralTrainer]

It's fake news from RMT

Much like 98% of your "contributions" on this subject in numerous threads here

 

[Carlisle]

I think your summary of the RMT is actually fairly close to the mark in the eyes of the passengers and general public. It's a shame that the RMT members just don't see it that way. To me, at least, it always appears that ASLEF is just so much more professional.

It.appears everyones still at the stage of testing the water to see who's likely to back down first, I seriously question the RMTs wisdom in launching a virtually identical campaign on northern and Merseyrail to the one that's failed their members so miserably on Southern, but they can always come back and say it worked on Scotrail

 

[Tetchytyke]

I seriously question the RMTs wisdom in launching a virtually identical campaign on northern and Merseyrail to the one that's failed their members so miserably on Southern

Truthfully, the RMT are really beholden to ASLEF on this. If the drivers at Merseyrail and Northern accept DOO, then RMT guards will have few weapons to defend themselves. If ASLEF don't accept DOO then all bets are off.

As I've said, I don't see what other options they have. Deferring the inevitable redundancies to x date takes the job security out of the question.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

With robotisation and artificial intelligence set to destroy millions of jobs World-wide perhaps the T.O.C 's ( who are paid, afterall by the Public-purse) should privilege a human presence rather than D.O.O.

Once the jobs are gone, it will be too late !

 

[Robertj21a]

With robotisation and artificial intelligence set to destroy millions of jobs World-wide perhaps the T.O.C 's ( who are paid, afterall by the Public-purse) should privilege a human presence rather than D.O.O.

Once the jobs are gone, it will be too late !

Whatever it is you've drunk this afternoon is it available for the general public or only on prescription ?

 

[Camden]

With robotisation and artificial intelligence set to destroy millions of jobs World-wide perhaps the T.O.C 's ( who are paid, afterall by the Public-purse) should privilege a human presence rather than D.O.O.

Once the jobs are gone, it will be too late !

It is a sign of things to come, and something which we probably will have to start asking eventually.

Can we only do jobs because they are essential to a task? If so, then many people are going to have nothing to do. Especially when you consider the nature of what many people do do. I would wager that the vast majority of government is engaged in the business of the unnecessary.

There is a choice, whether you try and roll with change and adapt or resist and make a conscious choice to not deploy technology, or keep people occupied through other means. It is speculated that the Williamson Tunnels in Liverpool were built as an act of charity, providing paid work to people for doing something unnecessary.

It's way too early to make the case for retaining humans on this basis and be taken seriously (as the previous response shows), I think it will take some serious problems to arise before we start thinking about money supply and work in a different way. The inevitable logical pointlessness of retaining humans on most tasks (and the elimination of a lot of tasks) is just too difficult for most people to comprehend right now, it will only hit home when they have no work.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

It is a sign of things to come, and something which we probably will have to start asking eventually.

Can we only do jobs because they are essential to a task? If so, then many people are going to have nothing to do. Especially when you consider the nature of what many people do do. I would wager that the vast majority of government is engaged in the business of the unnecessary.

There is a choice, whether you try and roll with change and adapt or resist and make a conscious choice to not deploy technology, or keep people occupied through other means. It is speculated that the Williamson Tunnels in Liverpool were built as an act of charity, providing paid work to people for doing something unnecessary.

It's way too early to make the case for retaining humans on this basis and be taken seriously (as the previous response shows), I think it will take some serious problems to arise before we start thinking about money supply and work in a different way. The inevitable logical pointlessness of retaining humans on most tasks (and the elimination of a lot of tasks) is just too difficult for most people to comprehend right now, it will only hit home when they have no work.

An excellent reply.

It is impossible for the majority of people to grasp just what effects advances in technology are going to have on jobs. Until now, it is mostly unskilled work that has suffered, but this will almost certainly change and many managers will find that A.I will be able to do their job, faster, more efficiently and perhaps most importantly, 24 hours a day.

The day we find ourselves with 8- 10 million unemployed, it will be too late, there will be no turning back.

 

[Robertj21a]

An excellent reply.

It is impossible for the majority of people to grasp just what effects advances in technology are going to have on jobs. Until now, it is mostly unskilled work that has suffered, but this will almost certainly change and many managers will find that A.I will be able to do their job, faster, more efficiently and perhaps most importantly, 24 hours a day.

The day we find ourselves with 8- 10 million unemployed, it will be too late, there will be no turning back.

Weren't we also told something similar many decades ago, when computers were going to take over all the work and there would be totally paper-free offices etc ?

 

[JamesTT]

An excellent reply.

It is impossible for the majority of people to grasp just what effects advances in technology are going to have on jobs. Until now, it is mostly unskilled work that has suffered, but this will almost certainly change and many managers will find that A.I will be able to do their job, faster, more efficiently and perhaps most importantly, 24 hours a day.

The day we find ourselves with 8- 10 million unemployed, it will be too late, there will be no turning back.

A situation like that would make a universal basic income a very sensible idea. Unfortunately us proles have been convinced by Murdoch and Barclay et al. It is better that the 0.01% have so much money they can swim through it Scrooge McDuck style and those 8-10 million live in abject poverty. Because we must punish people if they are struggling

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Weren't we also told something similar many decades ago, when computers were going to take over all the work and there would be totally paper-free offices etc ?

No one knows exactly knows what the pace of change will be, but I admit I tend to be pessimistic. My first P.C bought 20 years ago, an I.B.M had a 500 MB
hard drive, today, a mini S.D storage card, not even the size of a postage stamp offers over 200 times the same storage ( 128 GB)...............and tommorrow ?

 

[Pyreneenguy]

A situation like that would make a universal basic income a very sensible idea. Unfortunately us proles have been convinced by Murdoch and Barclay et al. It is better that the 0.01% have so much money they can swim through it Scrooge McDuck style and those 8-10 million live in abject poverty. Because we must punish people if they are struggling

The French Socialist Presidential candidate Benoit Hamon has a Universal Minimum Revenue as part of his election manifesto. As you would expect, the majority of people cannot see anything else other than the very high cost of such a measure. People still believe that economic growth will bring a return to full employment. In the mean time, hard fought for social protection is being destroyed with the promise that more flexibilty will create jobs, but what kind of jobs ? Zero hour or very short-term contracts on or even below the minimum wage, jobs you could reasonably argue that aren't even worth having.

 

[Camden]

Weren't we also told something similar many decades ago, when computers were going to take over all the work and there would be totally paper-free offices etc ?

Yes, but the difference is the range of physical things which can now be affected, and the speed of change that can happen.

Cars, trains, lorries and even planes can all be operated fully automatically. Amazon's new store won't have any check out staff, you walk in take what you want and you walk out. Everything paid for automatically.

Those two alone are radical innovations which have come about very quickly.

What has been happening for the past number of decades in our factories is breaking out of the factory and onto the high street, into the home, and on the road and rails. To top it off, the raw computing power behind it and the ubiquity of electronic connected devices means that the sorts of computations and reach necessary to mass co-ordinate automated services are already here - just not put to use yet.

The nature of our mobile devices can summon an automatic taxi, which can be controlled by a central program smart enough to allocate vehicles entirely without human input. Give that just a few more years, I expect.

Shops could realistically have their shelves replenished by robots, and the floors cleaned by robots. Probably even start to see that happen before auto-Uber.

The pace of change may need to be slowed by governments, because there is so much which is now practically just a few lines of code or a few engineering tweaks away, rather than science fiction.

We've had industries put out of business before, but what we haven't had is a situation where humans are largely superfluous to all manner of production and service.

 

[furnessvale]

We've had industries put out of business before, but what we haven't had is a situation where humans are largely superfluous to all manner of production and service.

Isn't that what the Luddites thought?