RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Robertj21a]

The RMT are still presenting the talks in their press release today entirely as an opportunity to explore having a second person on the train, even though they've signed up to the talks with the agreement that not having a second person on every train is a possible outcome. While it's good that the two sides are now going to resume talking, will the RMT in reality agree to any circumstances where a second person wouldn't be required? I can't see that happening. I guess Merseyrail will be relatively pleased whatever the outcome if they've managed to avert strikes to coincide with the Grand National.

If the RMT continue to pursue unrealistic claims, it would be sensible for the TOC to just ignore them in future.

 

[Carlisle]

will the RMT in reality agree to any circumstances where a second person wouldn't be required? I can't see that happening. .

I think your right, unless RMT have decided they’re genuinely open to the idea of rendering all their other ongoing DOO disputes null and void in their present form .

 

[Dave1987]

If the RMT continue to pursue unrealistic claims, it would be sensible for the TOC to just ignore them in future.

That would be an extremely stupid idea. Seems to me you only ever think in your management bubble world.

 

[Andrew32]

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-strike-talks-grand-national-14497893

Acas Joint Statement on behalf of Merseyrail and RMT

Following twelve hours of constructive talks held under the auspices of the conciliation service, Acas, Merseyrail have acknowledged RMT’s clear position that the only way that this industrial dispute will be resolved is by having a second safety critical person on every train.

Based on this, both parties have agreed to work together to identify, explore and assess a range of options to determine their affordability and value for money.

Merseyrail and RMT have agreed to re-convene talks with Acas within the next seven days and that while these talks continue, they will remain confidential as part the process.

 

[PR1Berske]

Encouraging?

 

[LowLevel]

What would be good would be if these talks lead the TOCs to have the stones to out the bodies they work on behalf of (and I know Merseytravel already have taken responsibility there) for contracting these changes to take place.

I still think Peter Wilkinson should be on a charge for lying in a public office for stating that the crewing of trains was a matter for the train operator while his department simultaneously inserted clauses into contracts that stipulating how trains must be crewed and tying their hands should they have wished to resolve these disputes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting, this is sounding like we could end up with OBS of some kind.

If this does happen, meaning a clear win for the RMT, is this the death knell for any more "true" DOO anywhere on the network?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Acas Joint Statement on behalf of Merseyrail and RMT

Merseyrail have acknowledged RMT’s clear position that the only way that this industrial dispute will be resolved is by having a second safety critical person on every train.

Any thoughts on how precisely (if at all) 'a second safety critical person' equates to 'a guard'?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any thoughts on how precisely (if at all) 'a second safety critical person' equates to 'a guard'?

It doesn't necessarily. If Merseyrail does concede, I would expect some kind of OBS with PTS training would tick the box. People get rather hung up on door operation, which I don't think they need to.

One possibly controversial method of funding for this would be to close some quieter outlying ticket offices (the likes of Aughton Park), replacing with card TVMs and cash tickets sold on board by the OBS. I wonder if we will see this proposed (and therefore more, different strikes).

Without this, and with full level boarding, the OBS is going to be looking more than a bit bored and thus rather pointless.

 

[northwichcat]

I suspect the 'solution' to the RMT dispute will end up with retaining a higher number of staff at the price of all Merseyrail staff having their pay capped for the foreseeable future, which will then create disputes with other unions. Oh and higher fare rises as well and both with immediate effect opposed to coming in to effect when the new trains enter service.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Any thoughts on how precisely (if at all) 'a second safety critical person' equates to 'a guard'?

It doesn't, or not necessarily. But if you keep your second safety critical person on board, and keep them on a guard's salary, then you've won the argument.

One possibly controversial method of funding for this would be to close some quieter outlying ticket offices

But Merseyrail and Merseytravel promised that nobody would be made redundant, so why would funding need to be found for it?

You're not insinuating that the bosses were being deceitful, and were planning redundancies, are you?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Merseyrail and Merseytravel promised that nobody would be made redundant, so why would funding need to be found for it?

You're not insinuating that the bosses were being deceitful, and were planning redundancies, are you?

No. I'm suggesting that one way of obtaining funding for the long term retention of guards (or something approximating to guards) would be ticket office staff redundancies for some of the more pointless ticket offices. (I simply cannot see any point whatsoever in Aughton Park ticket office; a TVM connected to the TOD network would be a *lot* more use - as it is located about 20 metres higher than and not in view of the platforms it doesn't even have a personal safety benefit).

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm suggesting that one way of obtaining funding for the long term retention of guards

But Merseyrail promised no redundancies and no pay cuts. So they should have already funded these people. They promised. So nobody needs to lose their job

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Merseyrail promised no redundancies and no pay cuts. So they should have already funded these people. They promised. So nobody needs to lose their job

Reducing headcount over time by stopping recruitment was the plan. To retain a guard on every train, recruitment will need to continue at the previous level.

I suppose it would be an option to have that reduction in ticket office staff instead, i.e. when a member of ticket office staff resigns or leaves, simply close that ticket office rather than replacing them, on the basis that "OBS" (no reason for them to be allowed in the cab nor do the doors, so always available to passengers) could provide the personal safety benefit and sell cash tickets.

 

[northwichcat]

But Merseyrail promised no redundancies and no pay cuts. So they should have already funded these people. They promised. So nobody needs to lose their job

They envisaged a number of them filling trainee driver roles. How does a train work with a guard an no driver?

 

[northwichcat]

I suppose it would be an option to have that reduction in ticket office staff instead, i.e. when a member of ticket office staff resigns or leaves, simply close that ticket office rather than replacing them.

I think with a few exceptions Merseyrail stations are staffed from first to last train, so that could well be how cost savings are made.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think with a few exceptions Merseyrail stations are staffed from first to last train, so that could well be how cost savings are made.

If they got their act together on contactless and Walrus they could well justify closing the lot like LU did, given that Merseyrail is basically the same thing as the LU sub surface lines. And it could be done without redundancies - just completely cease ticket office staff recruitment, and as they leave or retire just close those ticket offices (with a small amount of reshuffling, so the Mtogo shops stay open until last, at which point you simply offer those as concessions to commercial convenience store retailers to take over).

TBH that would probably improve service at the Mtogo shops, because at the moment they are, in my experience, the worst of both worlds - a not very good, not very well stocked convenience store, and a not very good ticket office, complete with the classic Merseyrail scruffy look due to poor maintenance. (Merseyrail really do need to take a lesson from the former LM management at keeping things looking *nice*, 350/1 seat covers aside).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

A couple of comments:

1.

But Merseyrail and Merseytravel promised that nobody would be made redundant, so why would funding need to be found for it?

- I don't think this is actually true. From the strike FAQs on the Merseyrail website (https://www.merseyrail.org/strike-action/strike-frequently-asked-questions.aspx):

What will happen to guards when their jobs no longer exist?

Subject to successful negotiations with the unions, none of today’s guards or guards’ managers will be forced to leave Merseyrail’s employment. We have pledged that any member of staff who is currently employed as a guard and wants to stay at Merseyrail, will be guaranteed permanent employment in an alternative position once the new trains are introduced.

So the guards are guaranteed an ongoing job. Not anyone else. Should Merseyrail be so minded, they could sack station staff without breaking any commitments that they have made during the guards' dispute. However....

2.

This seems to be both sides understanding that in a negotiation (a proper, grown-up negotiation), you need to recognise what is fundamentally important to you, what is fundamentally important to the other side, and what lies in between as the space for compromise. Merseyrail have recognised that keeping a second member of staff on the trains is fundamentally important to RMT, and RMT (if the consensus here is anything to go by) have recognised that abolishing the guard's role is fundamentally important to Merseyrail.

If the second member of staff isn't a guard, then presumably there's no obligation for new recruits into that role to be paid as a guard (let's leave the wages position of existing guards aside for the moment). That goes some way to reducing the extra money that is needed. And presumably the 'new' on-board customer service positions promised in the Strike FAQs:

What is the dispute about?
(...)
The new trains will no longer need guards, although around sixty on-board customer service positions will be created. With passenger safety and security our number one priority, the on-board teams will work on the new trains at key locations and times to assist and reassure our customers.
(...)

will no longer be required (their work will be absorbed into that of the safety-critical second members of staff).

Both sides have managed to compromise sufficiently for a resolution to look possible. That says to me that both sides want a resolution. So it seems to me that neither side will want to start up another dispute by resolving this one only by throwing station staff under the bus.

 

[AntoniC]

I know of an assistant station manager who was "offered" and took a job as a guard on a fixed term contract until the new trains are delivered, as his position of assistant station manager was being deleted -

 

[Kite159]

I suspect the 'solution' to the RMT dispute will end up with retaining a higher number of staff at the price of all Merseyrail staff having their pay capped for the foreseeable future, which will then create disputes with other unions. Oh and higher fare rises as well and both with immediate effect opposed to coming in to effect when the new trains enter service.

Agreed about the fares. Merseytravel's funding for the new trains was based on DOO so that would have been thrown out of the window. An easy way to raise the predicted shortfall will be to hike the current subsidised fares. That assuming whatever deal is made between Merseyrail & the RMT gets accepted by Merseytravel, assuming it won't need to be put to a council vote.

Which no doubt the RMT will be jumping onto their little soap box to moan about.

Hopefully if the guards stay, they will become commercial so they can check fares to reduce the high level of fare dodging outside the central area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully if the guards stay, they will become commercial so they can check fares to reduce the high level of fare dodging outside the central area.

I can see no argument whatsoever for retaining non-commercial guards on Merseyrail, and any non commercial OBSs will just wander round looking lost most of the time like Southern's do. I *can* see an argument for commercial guards as they can make some of their money back on preventing fare dodging and petty vandalism. Certainly doors should be driver released (as I've mentioned I believe we should switch to that as a national policy, and a number of TOCs already do it, particularly those who went from slamdoor to power door after privatisation like VTWC), though I'm fairly neutral on whether the guard closes if they are going to be there anyway.

I can definitely see an argument for banning them from the cabs other than to store belongings (on Southern they have lockers in the saloons, but most seem to carry them round) or where an incident makes them fear for their personal safety; in the latter case such incidents should require reporting for gathering of CCTV evidence etc.

 

[Chester1]

There is no chance of the new trains being funded by fare rises, its too politically toxic, it would be better for Merseyside Labour to keep the dispute going. I think the planned saving from DOO was £7m a year and an eventual reduction in head count of 160 people. If station staff are reduced instead then it would mean about a 2/3 reduction through voluntary redundancy and natural wastage. I guess its harder to defend having every station staffed when OBS don't have to opperate the doors and can fully concentrate on tickets. It will be ironic if guards sell out station staff after accusing ASLEF of selling them out. I guess everyone has their price.

 

[mmh]

If they got their act together on contactless and Walrus they could well justify closing the lot like LU did, given that Merseyrail is basically the same thing as the LU sub surface lines. And it could be done without redundancies - just completely cease ticket office staff recruitment, and as they leave or retire just close those ticket offices (with a small amount of reshuffling, so the Mtogo shops stay open until last, at which point you simply offer those as concessions to commercial convenience store retailers to take over).

TBH that would probably improve service at the Mtogo shops, because at the moment they are, in my experience, the worst of both worlds - a not very good, not very well stocked convenience store, and a not very good ticket office, complete with the classic Merseyrail scruffy look due to poor maintenance. (Merseyrail really do need to take a lesson from the former LM management at keeping things looking *nice*, 350/1 seat covers aside).

I don't think that's very fair. Many stations on the Wirral and Southport lines are clearly well looked after - Little Sutton, Hall Road and Southport itself spring to mind as being very pleasant. I can't think of any that I've thought were bad. They're less likely to stay well looked after if you close all the ticket offices though, plus the stations with toilets would likely lose them, which isn't great on a network with no on-board toilets.

 

[Carlisle]

Encouraging?

Very encouraging, it would appear on first reflection anyway to be as positive an endorsement of the RMTs chosen strategy of industrial action as they could possibly have hoped for.

 

[WatcherZero]

If I remember the business plan right the savings from removing guards (and having them take up other positions such as drivers or in stations along with a small patrol team with subsequent freeze on hiring) were supposed to be substantially achieved over two years as the rolling stock entered service, the natural staff turnover was expected to kick in pretty quickly. They could achieve some savings by encouraging guards to move on to other internal vacancies and only hiring OBS but with a higher head count over the long term (even at a lower wage) there will need to be give somewhere else (particularly as redeployed guards may be getting significantly higher than the normal salary for that role). They could barely afford the rolling stock as is relying on the government to give a 30 year guarantee to maintain todays extremely high revenue subsidy at the same rate and that still relied on reducing head count.

Fares and the manned station policy would be the only real areas they could give to reduce operating costs along with possibly not taking up options for further rolling stock orders. Another short term fix that would inject capital but cost more in the long term would be to find a ROSCO to take on the fleet rather than retaining direct ownership.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think that's very fair. Many stations on the Wirral and Southport lines are clearly well looked after - Little Sutton, Hall Road and Southport itself spring to mind as being very pleasant. I can't think of any that I've thought were bad. They're less likely to stay well looked after if you close all the ticket offices though, plus the stations with toilets would likely lose them, which isn't great on a network with no on-board toilets.

Having pro-active station staff helps ensure stations are well looked after.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think that's very fair. Many stations on the Wirral and Southport lines are clearly well looked after - Little Sutton, Hall Road and Southport itself spring to mind as being very pleasant. I can't think of any that I've thought were bad.

If you want an example, the toilets at Ormskirk are extremely grubby and poorly maintained, with unrepaired damage of various kinds. And I don't mean people weeing on the seat, I mean ground in muck that is a result of not being cleaned properly, and broken tiles etc not being replaced.

 

[Chester1]

If I remember the business plan right the savings from removing guards (and having them take up other positions such as drivers or in stations along with a small patrol team with subsequent freeze on hiring) were supposed to be substantially achieved over two years as the rolling stock entered service, the natural staff turnover was expected to kick in pretty quickly. They could achieve some savings by encouraging guards to move on to other internal vacancies and only hiring OBS but with a higher head count over the long term (even at a lower wage) there will need to be give somewhere else (particularly as redeployed guards may be getting significantly higher than the normal salary for that role). They could barely afford the rolling stock as is relying on the government to give a 30 year guarantee to maintain todays extremely high revenue subsidy at the same rate and that still relied on reducing head count.

Fares and the manned station policy would be the only real areas they could give to reduce operating costs along with possibly not taking up options for further rolling stock orders. Another short term fix that would inject capital but cost more in the long term would be to find a ROSCO to take on the fleet rather than retaining direct ownership.

They won't use a ROSCO, Merseytravel will only compromise on DOO for a deal that allows them to pay for their own fleet even if it takes longer. Merseytravel aren't under enough pressure yet to give up their big policy goal. If a deal is done then it will be one that means both sides achieve their main goal. A OBS on every single train and a huge reduction in station staff over a long period of time would be a way of achieving that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They won't use a ROSCO, Merseytravel will only compromise on DOO for a deal that allows them to pay for their own fleet even if it takes longer. Merseytravel aren't under enough pressure yet to give up their big policy goal. If a deal is done then it will be one that means both sides achieve their main goal. A OBS on every single train and a huge reduction in station staff over a long period of time would be a way of achieving that.

It would. And the need for station staff will reduce with more online sales and the likely introduction of contactless etc.

TBH, I would trade ticket office staff for a TVM that did TOD. I'm sure many others would too.

 

[B&I]

They could save on staff by having fewer standing round chatting at the underground stations on the pretext of being needed for evacuation. Train admin staff for safety purposes and move their offices to the stations