Should TUPE not apply to management roles?

[Bletchleyite]

From another thread:

MR also reported that in true consultant culture fashion LNER had appointed someone to look at the problem rather than go back to the dampers that have worked so well for so long.

No culture change by way of the "franchise change" then? Just like Northern.

Must admit I do wonder if TUPE should only apply to those below middle management (i.e. those who have no significant input on business strategy and culture). It's hard to have a clean sweep, which is often what is needed.

 

[IanXC]

I can see where you're coming from, but ask yourself this, of you were in such a role you're now advocating for not being TUPE eligible, would you be inclined to put yourself through assesment centres and interviews, with the very real risk of not having a job at the end of it, every time the franchise changed hands? Not to mention any other restructuring that may go on in the mean time!

What you'd find, imo, is that a whole swaith of managers and specialists would find themselves roles in other industries and your overall quality of employee would decline.

What is probably needed in my opinion, is a stronger process at the top, (how many times do you see the same board continue, even with a new owning group?), and a more effective performance management regime in ranks you've highlighted.

 

[43096]

From another thread:



No culture change by way of the "franchise change" then? Just like Northern.

Must admit I do wonder if TUPE should only apply to those below middle management (i.e. those who have no significant input on business strategy and culture). It's hard to have a clean sweep, which is often what is needed.

Oh, I get it. Management are expendable and add no value, and are therefore less important.

In simple terms, what you are proposing is discriminatory.

Imagine the furore if this was said about those below management level.

 

[Helvellyn]

No culture change by way of the "franchise change" then? Just like Northern.

Must admit I do wonder if TUPE should only apply to those below middle management (i.e. those who have no significant input on business strategy and culture). It's hard to have a clean sweep, which is often what is needed.

Two months in and you expect a massive culture change? One of the reasons I have heard that DfT asked the VTEC Exec Board to stay on was that they wanted continuity with so much going on (i.e. the Azuma new train fleet project). Only two Directors haven't stayed and that is because both were "retained" by Stagecoach - HR Director and the Finance Director.

Compare that to South Western Railway where First did have a clean sweep. There is a definite view that the lack of continuity hasn't helped with some of the current issues where the Board have had to build relationships not only between themselves but with their reports and functions.

In fact what you propose could be even worse because it sounds like you'd get rid of of all the Directors and Heads of Function. That would be a recipe for disaster in removing the top two layers of management/leadership. Plus as others have said, why would anyone ever put themselves forward for Head of or Director roles if they knew it was a fixed term position? Quite a number still work their ways up in a business. Given rail still has final salary pension (in TOCs), etc, why take risks and go for a position with such limited job security? Directors level is where that happens but to do it with Heads of Function as well seems rash.

 

[Mojo]

I think already at many companies they already struggle to employ good quality managers because going for promotion above certain levels is seen as a pay cut (usually because of less overtime, more hours expected, or fewer shift allowances).

Such roles typically have much less job security anyway, so I am not sure why you would want to reduce that any further. Many of these roles are highly specialised with many skills that would probably not be valued outside the industry; similarly, forcing such a change in the management teams would cause knowledge to dissepear half way through projects.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

You'll find that a lot of the time the Directors leave the organisation at transfer anyway, I am not sure on the specific and whether they are seconded so to speak by the parent but many of them find themselves on another of the franchisees contracts. If you look at Go Ahead Charles Horton and Patrick Verwer come to mind as well as a few others on who simply rotate around the companies of their parent owners. It maybe a personal decision if they stay on after the transfer along with the aspirations of the new contract holder.

 

[kevconnor]

You'll find that a lot of the time the Directors leave the organisation at transfer

This maybe partly to do with the reasons you have given but also, directors in the true legal sense of the word are not employees and so are not covered by TUPE.

 

[herb21]

This maybe partly to do with the reasons you have given but also, directors in the true legal sense of the word are not employees and so are not covered by TUPE.

In the case of executive directors they may be employees as well as directors.