RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[wingsoveryorks]

So when you create a new position, that doesn't create jobs? I wasn't on about net job creation on a regional or national level.

In any case, Merseyrail are a TOC, and not a job creation or retention scheme, so it hardly matters anyway. The guards will have seen this coming years off, and hopefully - if they don't fancy the new regime - will have invested in themselves over the last few years to ensure that if they do leave the railway, they'll be able to secure another job on similar pay and terms.

I'm a bit sick of moaning about jobs to be honest. Nobody has a right to a job, a job must be necessary. The discussion should centre on whether guards are necessary. On Merseyrail, no, they won't be, when the new trains arrive.

You'll be writing Treesa Mayhems brexit speech next.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'll be writing Treesa Mayhems brexit speech next.

Hardly.

It is a fact that the railway is not a job creation scheme. The railway should employ people if they need them to do a job, not otherwise.

As I said if job creation schemes are felt to be worthwhile at a Government level there are better targets than the railway which would benefit far more people. Park keepers, public lavatory attendants (remember those?), more street cleaners, bus station attendants/assistants are just some of the jobs that could really do with being done but often aren't.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Hardly.

It is a fact that the railway is not a job creation scheme. The railway should employ people if they need them to do a job, not otherwise.

As I said if job creation schemes are felt to be worthwhile at a Government level there are better targets than the railway which would benefit far more people. Park keepers, public lavatory attendants (remember those?), more street cleaners, bus station attendants/assistants are just some of the jobs that could really do with being done but often aren't.

If you keep staff on, even in other roles, you are creating a 'job creation scheme'
Better than creating a longer dole queue mind.

 

[northwichcat]

Do none of these trains have CCTV?

IIRC all Merseyrail trains have CCTV. Northern have CCTV only on the 158s and EMUs currently - the ex-LM 150s have CCTV equipment fitted but it's not in use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Better than creating a longer dole queue mind.

I think it would be better for the Government to create jobs that need doing rather than lengthen dole queues, but I don't think the railway would really be a place for them. There are far more jobs that need doing more that will bring more benefit for public money.

 

[northwichcat]

bus station attendants/assistants are just some of the jobs that could really do with being done but often aren't.

We could really do with neutral people who will tell you all the available options. For example, if football fans arrive in Liverpool a Merseyrail employee will probably tell them to use their service to Sandhills and then the Soccer bus, rather than a direct bus from Lime Street.

 

[AlterEgo]

You'll be writing Treesa Mayhems brexit speech next.

Not really. I don't like Tories.

What I do like is pragmatism over dogmatism, so my only angle is "do the jobs need doing?" If not, then the jobs go. Bye bye guards. As it happens, there are other jobs that do require doing on Merseyrail, like helping stations feel more secure, so I'd support more visible on-station roles.

Nobody, if they really value the railway as a useful public service, should approach the debate from the angle of "but the jobs!".

All the RMT want is to be able to stop the job. Meh.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Not really. I don't like Tories.

What I do like is pragmatism over dogmatism, so my only angle is "do the jobs need doing?" If not, then the jobs go. Bye bye guards. As it happens, there are other jobs that do require doing on Merseyrail, like helping stations feel more secure, so I'd support more visible on-station roles.

Nobody, if they really value the railway as a useful public service, should approach the debate from the angle of "but the jobs!".

All the RMT want is to be able to stop the job. Meh.

I'll wander around a station all day doing nothing. Yes please, I can really see that role being cost effective.
Not a lot of good though when a train is stuck in the middle of nowhere and no staff on board. But hey, they'll feel safe when they finally get to where they need to be.

Also interesting how the government has spent millions promoting 'anytime access rights' to stations for the disabled, then introduces measures that might prevent them from boarding a train. Perhaps they want people in wheelchairs to be the next generation of train spotters. "Turn up at you local station, see the shinny new trains roll in with big lovely disabled toilets and disabled bays on them, you'll be able to write down the set number, but don't expect to get on one"

You couldn't make it up.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'll wander around a station all day doing nothing. Yes please, I can really see that role being cost effective.
Not a lot of good though when a train is stuck in the middle of nowhere and no staff on board. But hey, they'll feel safe when they finally get to where they need to be.

Also interesting how the government has spent millions promoting 'anytime access rights' to stations for the disabled, then introduces measures that might prevent them from boarding a train. Perhaps they want people in wheelchairs to be the next generation of train spotters. "Turn up at you local station, see the shinny new trains roll in with big lovely disabled toilets and disabled bays on them, you'll be able to write down the set number, but don't expect to get on one"

You couldn't make it up.

Sorry, how will the disabled be unable to access the new Merseyrail trains? Did I miss something?

Do you think more, or fewer station staff visible on platforms, is better for disabled access?

No staff on a train? Are we driverless now? As Merseyrail point out, in 36.5 million passenger miles, not once has a driver been incapacitated. The role of the guard on Merseyrail is not cost effective. It is better to make staff more mobile, more visible, and better to place them on stations, which passengers on Merseyrail rate as feeling less safe than the train environment. Passengers should rate the new Merseyrail trains as safer, thanks to their walk-through capability, better lighting, and CCTV. Passengers rate the availability of staff onboard as low on Merseyrail, with over two thirds not being satisfied.

 

[313103]

Hardly.

It is a fact that the railway is not a job creation scheme. The railway should employ people if they need them to do a job, not otherwise.

The same should apply equally across the employment sector.

The following is happening right now, a growing population and a reduction in meaningful employment opportunities where one doesnt have to rely on the state to help bail them out.

On the merseyraill analogy therefore get rid of 220+ Guards and do not introduce the new job role, unless this role is self sufficient so that covers the staff wages and staff uniform, the requirements of having a management team for them, so these staff must bring in a minimum £80,000 per annum per person otherwise its just a job creation scheme. Otherwise what meaningful purpose would they serve?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, how will the disabled be unable to access the new Merseyrail trains? Did I miss something?

There will be level boarding and no platform gap (moving steps), so assistance will not be required for wheelchair users.

 

[313103]

I think it would be better for the Government to create jobs that need doing rather than lengthen dole queues, but I don't think the railway would really be a place for them. There are far more jobs that need doing more that will bring more benefit for public money.

Pray sir what are all these jobs that need doing that will bring benefit for public money without spending that public money?

 

[AlterEgo]

There will be level boarding and no platform gap (moving steps), so assistance will not be required for wheelchair users.

Exactly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll wander around a station all day doing nothing. Yes please, I can really see that role being cost effective.

Security guards "wander round....doing nothing" - their presence dissuades problems, and they can deal with them on the odd occasion of there being any.

Not a lot of good though when a train is stuck in the middle of nowhere and no staff on board.

The driver will be on board. ATO is not proposed.

Also interesting how the government has spent millions promoting 'anytime access rights' to stations for the disabled, then introduces measures that might prevent them from boarding a train. Perhaps they want people in wheelchairs to be the next generation of train spotters. "Turn up at you local station, see the shinny new trains roll in with big lovely disabled toilets and disabled bays on them, you'll be able to write down the set number, but don't expect to get on one"

The FLIRTs have lower floors than typical for the UK and automatic steps (more of a gap filler, no actual step, if you see what I mean). There will be no gap and no step. Which means wheelchair assistance is no longer necessary. Better all round, no?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pray sir what are all these jobs that need doing that will bring benefit for public money without spending that public money?

Where did I say not to spend public money? I said there are jobs that would provide more benefits to society for public money, if you feel public money should be used for a job-creation exercise, than railway guards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the merseyraill analogy therefore get rid of 220+ Guards and do not introduce the new job role, unless this role is self sufficient so that covers the staff wages and staff uniform, the requirements of having a management team for them, so these staff must bring in a minimum £80,000 per annum per person otherwise its just a job creation scheme. Otherwise what meaningful purpose would they serve?

Passenger assistance and security benefits, targetted to situations, days and trains where this is a benefit. Not on every train.

I would agree that the Southern OBSs are a job-creation exercise, but you can blame the unions for that particular piece of silliness. I would expect the next franchise to abolish them and return to roving revenue and security teams.

 

[gavin]

Can't be long till a strike is announced for the 28th or 29th given VTEC and northern are striking that weekend

 

[6Gman]

As Merseyrail point out, in 36.5 million passenger miles, not once has a driver been incapacitated.

Which suggests that the level of risk is low, but does not prove its absence.

How many football matches had taken place without a fatal fire before Valley Parade?
How many ferries had operated without their bowdoors open before Herald of Free Enterprise?

 

[AlterEgo]

Which suggests that the level of risk is low, but does not prove its absence.

How many football matches had taken place without a fatal fire before Valley Parade?
How many ferries had operated without their bowdoors open before Herald of Free Enterprise?

What's that got to do with anything?

We still have football matches without having a fire crew on hand at every match, don't we?

Nobody is suggesting the risk is *absent* - just so incredibly low it is not cost-effective to justify having a person present just in case an event rarer than "once every ten years" happens.

 

[BestWestern]

I would agree that the Southern OBSs are a job-creation exercise, but you can blame the unions for that particular piece of silliness. I would expect the next franchise to abolish them and return to roving revenue and security teams.

"Blame the unions"? For doing what, safeguarding their members' livelihoods, like their members pay them to do?! OBS is not a 'job creation' exercise, it's attempted PR sleight of hand, and a mass redundancy payout avoidance tactic. The unions didn't ask for OBS, it was entirely GTR & the DfT who wanted it. GTR was very keen to wriggle out of having to offer redundancy to anybody, if you recall. You are intelligent and informed enough to know that very well!

 

[6Gman]

What's that got to do with anything?

We still have football matches without having a fire crew on hand at every match, don't we?

But every football ground now has fire stewards as a licensing condition.

 

[danbarnstall]

"Blame the unions"? For doing what, safeguarding their members' livelihoods, like their members pay them to do?! OBS is not a 'job creation' exercise, it's attempted PR sleight of hand, and mass redundancy payout avoidance tactic. You are intelligent and informed enough to know that very well!

In time the OBS role will be run down and axed, the goal is DOO but to move towards that it isn't possible in one step. Staff won't lose their jobs, instead they'll not replace outgoing OBS staff (Who may get promoted or retire). A gradual erosion of the second persons role onboard until it becomes one that is easily disposable.

 

[AlterEgo]

But every football ground now has fire stewards as a licensing condition.

In that case, I look forward to the reintroduction of guards on London Underground.

It's all about risk appetite.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Blame the unions"? For doing what, safeguarding their members' livelihoods, like their members pay them to do?! OBS is not a 'job creation' exercise, it's attempted PR sleight of hand, and a mass redundancy payout avoidance tactic. The unions didn't ask for OBS, it was entirely GTR & the DfT who wanted it. GTR was very keen to wriggle out of having to offer redundancy to anybody, if you recall. You are intelligent and informed enough to know that very well!

Was there any attempt to retain the staff *but* make their use more directed, e.g. revenue teams, station staff, security guards, tourist assistants etc?

All we've got now is guards who don't do the doors. Which wasn't worth doing - as Southern already had driver-release they may as well have continued to dispatch.

OBS would similarly be a waste on Merseyrail - the gain is potentially the use of much more targetted on-board staff, which will also mean driver-only when not necessary.

 

[BestWestern]

Was there any attempt to retain the staff *but* make their use more directed, e.g. revenue teams, station staff, security guards, tourist assistants etc?

All we've got now is guards who don't do the doors. Which wasn't worth doing - as Southern already had driver-release they may as well have continued to dispatch.

OBS would similarly be a waste on Merseyrail - the gain is potentially the use of much more targetted on-board staff, which will also mean driver-only when not necessary.

Revenue teams (RPIs) were shifted to OBS at the same time the Guards were. Station staff are equally unpopular and GTR have begun using (poorly trained) agency staff to undertake even essential safety critical station roles (i.e. train dispatch). Ticket offices are under fire across the whole railway network. Security is invariably outsourced, TOCs don't want the hassle of training and liability. As for 'tourist guides', GTR struggle to provide the basic elements of a train and a crew (oops sorry, Driver!), let alone trying to 'guide' tourists! Quite an amusing idea though!

The point is they don't want to retain the staff! The aim is to remove them from the wage bill, what they do in the meantime is of little interest to GTR. Indeed the intention currently seems to be to make them as demoralised as possible to promote them leaving the wage bill of their own accord. GTR and their greasy paymasters at the DfT want the idealogical solution of scrapping as many staff as possible, but without the irritating inconvenience of having to pay redundancy money. Once Brexit is complete, it may well be legalised to simply throw these irksome 'little people' on a fire somewhere and use them to heat the House of Commons, but in the meantime what we will see is more of the same political non-job nonsense.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems Mick Cash doesn't know the difference between 'most' and 'one of the least'

Merseyrail is Britain’s most profitable train-operating company

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/which-side-are-you-on/

 

[urbophile]

It's true. Nobody has a right to a job in a capitalist society, that much is a fact. And if you think that should change, there are better ways of achieving it than the railway - there are many things that aren't done that would be of greater benefit to society than railway guards if it is felt that a job-creation exercise would be beneficial.

Of course. But if living in a capitalist society means that some will starve, and many are deprived of jobs at the same time as government withholds benefits from those without work, everybody should have a right to live in a non-capitalist society. But I agree it's a diversion from the subject of this thread because we can't expect the railways to be the sole providers of employment.

My dad as a political campaigner in the first half of the last century used to sing a song which went 'Food, warmth and shelter Is all we have to ask'. A civilised society should ensure that nobody goes without these things. And if it doesn't want to provide benefits for nothing, it must ensure full employment.

 

[Robertj21a]

Of course. But if living in a capitalist society means that some will starve, and many are deprived of jobs at the same time as government withholds benefits from those without work, everybody should have a right to live in a non-capitalist society. But I agree it's a diversion from the subject of this thread because we can't expect the railways to be the sole providers of employment.

My dad as a political campaigner in the first half of the last century used to sing a song which went 'Food, warmth and shelter Is all we have to ask'. A civilised society should ensure that nobody goes without these things. And if it doesn't want to provide benefits for nothing, it must ensure full employment.

Unless we've become a communist state, I don't want my government to 'ensure full employment' - it would increase inflation dramatically, to the detriment of most. We have a good level of employment, it needs to stay there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless we've become a communist state, I don't want my government to 'ensure full employment' - it would increase inflation dramatically, to the detriment of most. We have a good level of employment, it needs to stay there.

And there has to be a level of effort from the individual, too.

 

[northwichcat]

Unless we've become a communist state, I don't want my government to 'ensure full employment' - it would increase inflation dramatically, to the detriment of most. .

What about social democratic which isn't full capitalism but isn't communism either?

We have a good level of employment, it needs to stay there

Unfortunately the government has been manipulating those figures in recent years to make it look like we're doing better than we are e.g. people who did a freelance piece of work 2 years ago and haven't been able to get any work since should not still be classed as self-employed simply because they are ineligible for out of work benefits, even with that manipulation we are behind countries like Germany and Norway.