Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

Arriva and all the rest are as complicit as the DfT. They choose to participate in the process and fill their boots in the meantime. That's like saying a drug dealer's hired thugs are alright because they're just making a living doing what needs to be done.

Comparing a company proposing to change the role of rail staff in response to advances in technology if like a drug dealer and hired thugs? @142Pilot tried to dismiss the claim that railway staff are detached from reality and then you come up with a post which makes them seem more detached from reality than the Royal Family!

 

[Killingworth]

It's very sad. It's not Killingworth's livelihood on the line.

No, It's not, but I do try to use trains, which is more than most people do in Yorkshire and the north, and I try to encourage others to use them. I'm not in favour of anyone working for Northern losing their job or regular income.

However these strikes are having impacts on non-railway people, coming as they do on top of recent disruption from the timetable fiasco and normal operating issues. It may only be 3% of the north's population who use trains, but many factor in rail travel when taking jobs and deciding where to live. Reliability of the service won't change that down to 2% overnight (or increase it to 4%) but management and unions must be aware of which way it's going at present - and it's against the upward trend that should be being sustained

I've lived long enough to have seen many changes in the workplace. The job I started from school has totally gone, and others along the way. It's hard to accept change, and I resisted a lot, but in the end the changes came and we moved on. Having had to move around the north I know it's hard to readjust to new situations. From manual labour, pen and ink (even sealing wax) and mental arithmetic in £ s d to complex machines and sophisticated computer systems for calculations, designs, procedures and operating practices we'd not have been able to imagine, let alone do. Remembering heavily laden slam door stock arriving at Waterloo and elsewhere, and compartments on ECML steam hauled trains railways have also come a long way. Safety has improved immensely.

In truth in Northern land, with very few manned stations, there are few routes that could totally dispense with on board revenue protection. There must be areas that can be agreed. The difficulty seems to be that the two sides are now locked in an atmosphere of total bloody minded belligerence, the sort that 100 years ago led to many deaths on both sides. Nobody won then. How much longer needs this go on?

 

[LowLevel]

Comparing a company proposing to change the role of rail staff in response to advances in technology if like a drug dealer and hired thugs? @142Pilot tried to dismiss the claim that railway staff are detached from reality and then you come up with a post which makes them seem more detached from reality than the Royal Family!

It is a mere comparison in terms.

If the owning group felt carrying out the DfT's dirty work on it's terms knowing full well it would cause a huge set to with it's own employees was something not to be involved with it could have chosen not to be involved.

Instead it has and my point was that suggestions all ire should be directed at the DfT with the train operator being blameless were daft.

The DfT, train operator and RMT all have their parts to play in this being an undignified nasty mess. However the DfT are most definitely the kingpin with Minister Grayling declaring that staffing on board trains is a matter for train operators while his department inserts clauses in contacts specifying... How trains must be crewed.

I'll never change your opinion of this dispute and you won't change mine. My point was that declaring the train operator to be an innocent bystander is naive in the extreme.

 

[yorksrob]

No, It's not, but I do try to use trains, which is more than most people do in Yorkshire and the north, and I try to encourage others to use them. I'm not in favour of anyone working for Northern losing their job or regular income.

However these strikes are having impacts on non-railway people, coming as they do on top of recent disruption from the timetable fiasco and normal operating issues. It may only be 3% of the north's population who use trains, but many factor in rail travel when taking jobs and deciding where to live. Reliability of the service won't change that down to 2% overnight (or increase it to 4%) but management and unions must be aware of which way it's going at present - and it's against the upward trend that should be being sustained

I've lived long enough to have seen many changes in the workplace. The job I started from school has totally gone, and others along the way. It's hard to accept change, and I resisted a lot, but in the end the changes came and we moved on. Having had to move around the north I know it's hard to readjust to new situations. From manual labour, pen and ink (even sealing wax) and mental arithmetic in £ s d to complex machines and sophisticated computer systems for calculations, designs, procedures and operating practices we'd not have been able to imagine, let alone do. Remembering heavily laden slam door stock arriving at Waterloo and elsewhere, and compartments on ECML steam hauled trains railways have also come a long way. Safety has improved immensely.

In truth in Northern land, with very few manned stations, there are few routes that could totally dispense with on board revenue protection. There must be areas that can be agreed. The difficulty seems to be that the two sides are now locked in an atmosphere of total bloody minded belligerence, the sort that 100 years ago led to many deaths on both sides. Nobody won then. How much longer needs this go on?

Indeed. I agree almost entirely with this post.

I worry whether this current situation will put local rail in the North into a spiral of decline. It wouldn't be the first time.

I'm afraid I wasn't at my most eloquent last night. My post from this morning illustrates the point I was attempting to make rather better

 

[PR1Berske]

If passenger numbers don't recover, the already meagre amount of funding could be reduced to nowt, with the RMT responsible for turning people away from the railways. Remember the law of unintended consequences, people moving to buses or not bothering to travel at all.

 

[Confused52]

Arriva and all the rest are as complicit as the DfT. They choose to participate in the process and fill their boots in the meantime. That's like saying a drug dealer's hired thugs are alright because they're just making a living doing what needs to be done.

You appear to have arrived at the point where the identity of the TOC is irrelevant and you are suggesting the dispute is because they have taken on the franchise (akin to the DfT's shilling). The flip-side of that is that you seemingly would only accept either (1) there being NO franchise, and hence no franchisee to be in dispute with or (2) that the government, in the form of the DfT, did not have the right to govern if it isn't seen to be in the RMTs interest (I currently need convincing that the interests of the RMT and its members are the same).
I feel sure that the North has experienced a dispute like this in living memory and it didn't go well for the population or the industry.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Arriva and all the rest are as complicit as the DfT. They choose to participate in the process and fill their boots in the meantime. That's like saying a drug dealer's hired thugs are alright because they're just making a living doing what needs to be done.

So they were all supposed to say no and face finacial penalties or not take up the contract. The DOR part was also ignored.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I'm afraid I wasn't at my most eloquent last night. My post from this morning illustrates the point I was attempting to make rather better

We've all made one or two regretable posts or haven't been articulate enough when we were supposed to be asleep.

 

[LowLevel]

You appear to have arrived at the point where the identity of the TOC is irrelevant and you are suggesting the dispute is because they have taken on the franchise (akin to the DfT's shilling). The flip-side of that is that you seemingly would only accept either (1) there being NO franchise, and hence no franchisee to be in dispute with or (2) that the government, in the form of the DfT, did not have the right to govern if it isn't seen to be in the RMTs interest (I currently need convincing that the interests of the RMT and its members are the same).
I feel sure that the North has experienced a dispute like this in living memory and it didn't go well for the population or the industry.

I don't make any comment on whether it's good, bad or how to do it differently. I'm merely offering my view of how the situation is and came about.

So they were all supposed to say no and face finacial penalties or not take up the contract. The DOR part was also ignored.

If they felt what was occurring was wrong or failed to fit within the ethical standards of the business, of course. I'm not saying anything would change. I'm just challenging your point that Arriva are a poor helpless pawn with a gun to their head to do someone else's bidding. We all make choices.

 

[js1000]

Given Northern PPM stats are pretty dreadful, what incentive do Arriva Northern actually have to stop the strikes?

On one side they're not running services on sporadic dates (which may result in passenger grievance but it's not constant & a reduced timetable like Southern Rail) and have to pay leasing costs for the empty trains to do nothing.

On the other hand, practically all Northern services run an on-time service on strike days which artificially boosts PRM performance and greatly reduces the liklihood of the DfT stripping them of the franchise due to poor performance.

 

[northwichcat]

Given Northern PPM stats are pretty dreadful, what incentive do Arriva Northern actually have to stop the strikes?

On one side they're not running services on sporadic dates (which may result in passenger grievance but it's not constant & a reduced timetable like Southern Rail) and have to pay leasing costs for the empty trains to do nothing.

On the other hand, practically all Northern services run an on-time service on strike days which artificially boosts PRM performance and greatly reduces the liklihood of the DfT stripping them of the franchise due to poor performance.

DfT are supposed to compensate the operator for loss of revenue caused by industrial action as a result of industrial action relating to DCO, with it being a DfT enforced requirement. Although, Tony Miles has said it's unclear that will be calculated and he also says Abellio & Serco were still awaiting compensation relating to the cutbacks they were forced to make in response to the Virgin VHF introduction in December 2008.

If the RMT were clever they would be finding any excuse to add another grievance to the dispute to prevent that but that would require further ballots which the RMT don't want to do even though they think there would be overwhelming support for continued industrial action if they did that. Maybe they don't want to fall in to the trap Theresa May fell in to?

 

[harz99]

These two posts are the things that I personally think Northern's Guards should be thinking most about.

The problem for the RMT with this isn’t just the job guarantee, it is that station staff can’t command the industrial leverage that guards can. The RMT have every reason to fight the ARN plans from an existential perspective.

If passenger numbers don't recover, the already meagre amount of funding could be reduced to nowt, with the RMT responsible for turning people away from the railways. Remember the law of unintended consequences, people moving to buses or not bothering to travel at all.

RMT not having haven't held a new ballot is very telling...

 

[FlashingYellows]

If passenger numbers don't recover, the already meagre amount of funding could be reduced to nowt, with the RMT responsible for turning people away from the railways. Remember the law of unintended consequences, people moving to buses or not bothering to travel at all.

If things were tickety boo before the dispute with passenger numbers increasing, then as you're so keen to blame the RMT for the current situation then I'm sure you'll happily give them the credit for that? Or is it a case of bad things, unions fault, good things, well done DfT/TOC? As the decision to change from that healthy model and engineer an obvious dispute, despite things going well was made by the DfT and not the RMT then maybe any blame for reduction in passenger numbers can be placed with them?

 

[ooo]

I'm assuming replacement buses due to engineering work aren't affected so some routes are actually benefiting when it's taking place on Saturdays at the moment

 

[Greybeard33]

As a passenger and rail enthusiast, I can see merit in the arguments of both sides in this dispute. I do not think it would be a disaster for the railway or passengers if either side got its way. But I do think the tactics of both sides are questionable.

The long running succession of short strikes limits the financial cost to both sides to a level that they seem willing to tolerate almost indefinitely. So neither side has a strong incentive to retreat from their entrenched positions. It seems possible that the dispute could continue like this for many more months, or even years. Both sides claim to be acting in the long term interests of the railway and its passengers. But an unintended consequence is that passengers, actual and potential, have acquired the perception that the railway is unreliable. And the action has gone on long enough for people to start making long term lifestyle choices that take account of this perception. Such as buying a car, or moving house, or changing jobs, or changing leisure pursuits in ways that reduce their dependence on the railway. These will reduce patronage of Northern services for years after the dispute is settled, and so will undermine the case for future investment in, and on-going subsidy of, the Northern franchise.

Either side has it in its power to escalate the dispute and bring it to a more rapid conclusion. The RMT could call an indefinite, all-out strike. Or Arriva could lock out the striking guards until they agree to work normally. The passengers would suffer greater short term disruption, but, once the dispute was settled, most would probably heave a sigh of relief and return to the trains, confident that they could once again plan their lives around a dependable rail service.

Neither the RMT nor the DfT/Arriva seem willing to raise the stakes in this way. This suggests that neither party really believes that the DCO issue is of such overwhelming importance that it is worth taking the risk of losing an all-out battle over it. If so, it is surely in everyone's interest for both sides to give ground a little and negotiate a compromise agreement sooner rather than later.

 

[Robertj21a]

In my experience many have already deserted the trains in favour of cars, buses or simply not travelling at all. People hate uncertainty, so will continue to avoid trains if at all possible. I don't see either side to this dispute moving far from their entrenched positions and quite expect it to drag on for very many months in 2019.

 

[CN75]

DfT are supposed to compensate the operator for loss of revenue caused by industrial action as a result of industrial action relating to DCO, with it being a DfT enforced requirement. Although, Tony Miles has said it's unclear that will be calculated and he also says Abellio & Serco were still awaiting compensation relating to the cutbacks they were forced to make in response to the Virgin VHF introduction in December 2008.

If the RMT were clever they would be finding any excuse to add another grievance to the dispute to prevent that but that would require further ballots which the RMT don't want to do even though they think there would be overwhelming support for continued industrial action if they did that. Maybe they don't want to fall in to the trap Theresa May fell in to?

The Secretary of State can cover costs for Arriva for any industrial action, it doesn’t have to be related to DOO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I worry whether this current situation will put local rail in the North into a spiral of decline. It wouldn't be the first time.

It'd save on rolling stock by solving overcrowding issues

But yes, I do fear that.

 

[woodmally]

As a passenger and rail enthusiast, I can see merit in the arguments of both sides in this dispute. I do not think it would be a disaster for the railway or passengers if either side got its way. But I do think the tactics of both sides are questionable.

The long running succession of short strikes limits the financial cost to both sides to a level that they seem willing to tolerate almost indefinitely. So neither side has a strong incentive to retreat from their entrenched positions. It seems possible that the dispute could continue like this for many more months, or even years. Both sides claim to be acting in the long term interests of the railway and its passengers. But an unintended consequence is that passengers, actual and potential, have acquired the perception that the railway is unreliable. And the action has gone on long enough for people to start making long term lifestyle choices that take account of this perception. Such as buying a car, or moving house, or changing jobs, or changing leisure pursuits in ways that reduce their dependence on the railway. These will reduce patronage of Northern services for years after the dispute is settled, and so will undermine the case for future investment in, and on-going subsidy of, the Northern franchise.

Either side has it in its power to escalate the dispute and bring it to a more rapid conclusion. The RMT could call an indefinite, all-out strike. Or Arriva could lock out the striking guards until they agree to work normally. The passengers would suffer greater short term disruption, but, once the dispute was settled, most would probably heave a sigh of relief and return to the trains, confident that they could once again plan their lives around a dependable rail service.

Neither the RMT nor the DfT/Arriva seem willing to raise the stakes in this way. This suggests that neither party really believes that the DCO issue is of such overwhelming importance that it is worth taking the risk of losing an all-out battle over it. If so, it is surely in everyone's interest for both sides to give ground a little and negotiate a compromise agreement sooner rather than later.

I dont see locking out the guards like Southern did would change anything to be honest. Isnt that what they have been doing for months up until now anyhow. I would love the RMT to do a full indefinate strike but I suspect its down to the income of its members. This current model is great as they can strike on a Saturday and work the money lost on a Sunday.

 

[Carlisle]

I dont see locking out the guards like Southern did would change anything to be honest. .

Southern didn’t lockout their guards. They did, for a short period withdraw travel and parking passes plus voluntary overtime and RDW but as their routes were being progressively cleared for DOO as the strikes continued ,it very much lessenedits effects as time went on.

 

[muz379]

Arriva could be replaced by anyone and still have the same issues. If it was Stagecoach, the union would find something to moan about. If it was Abellio, they would pull the foreign government excuse. I could go on all day. The dispute would happen whoever had the franchise and yet you want to blame Arriva. If nobody bid, it would go straight to DOR and still happen.

If the franchise agreement was the same then yes the dispute is entirely inevitable . But how the dispute is managed by the company could be entirely different under different parent groups .

If the RMT were clever they would be finding any excuse to add another grievance to the dispute to prevent that but that would require further ballots which the RMT don't want to do even though they think there would be overwhelming support for continued industrial action if they did that. Maybe they don't want to fall in to the trap Theresa May fell in to?

A further ballot would introduce the requirement to ballot every 6 months , which obviously comes at a financial cost to the union . Cynically you could also argue members could return a result in one of these ballots which means strike action cannot continue . But I personally dont see it like that , if the strike action really did not have the support of the majority of members then people would be communicating this to the union through already existing mechanisms . And the number of people coming in to work on strike days would increase .

I dont think there is any major indication that a renewed ballot at Northern would end the strike action anyway . Evidence from other disputes at different TOC's which have the requirement for a ballot every 6 months has been that the members position has hardened with increased turnout and vote for action .

I dont know if it would be the best idea for the RMT to start to complicate things with multiple disputes or reasons to be in dispute . Currently this has been a long running dispute over one issue . Starting to add things would in my view confuse the message about the dispute .

 

[scrapy]

If the franchise agreement was the same then yes the dispute is entirely inevitable . But how the dispute is managed by the company could be entirely different under different parent groups .



A further ballot would introduce the requirement to ballot every 6 months , which obviously comes at a financial cost to the union . Cynically you could also argue members could return a result in one of these ballots which means strike action cannot continue . But I personally dont see it like that , if the strike action really did not have the support of the majority of members then people would be communicating this to the union through already existing mechanisms . And the number of people coming in to work on strike days would increase .

I dont think there is any major indication that a renewed ballot at Northern would end the strike action anyway . Evidence from other disputes at different TOC's which have the requirement for a ballot every 6 months has been that the members position has hardened with increased turnout and vote for action .

I dont know if it would be the best idea for the RMT to start to complicate things with multiple disputes or reasons to be in dispute . Currently this has been a long running dispute over one issue . Starting to add things would in my view confuse the message about the dispute .

If there was an overwhelming feeling amongst members that a new ballot was required then they could pass a resolution at their union branch meeting. It doesn't seem that there is much demand for one though.

 

[woodmally]

Southern didn’t lockout their guards. They did, for a short period withdraw travel and parking passes plus voluntary overtime and RDW but as their routes were being progressively cleared for DOO as the strikes continued ,it very much lessenedits effects as time went on.

Sorry I might have misunderstood lock out. What I meant was they refused to negotiate with the RMT till the RMT stopped strike action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry I might have misunderstood lock out. What I meant was they refused to negotiate with the RMT till the RMT stopped strike action.

Yeah, lock out is where they are quite literally locked out - you lock the factory gates and close the factory until the dispute is resolved.

 

[woodmally]

If there was an overwhelming feeling amongst members that a new ballot was required then they could pass a resolution at their union branch meeting. It doesn't seem that there is much demand for one though.

We are forgetting culture here. Firstly conductors are as near as possible a closed shop. Yes closed shops are technically illegal BUT I think there is a lot of pressure internally for people to join and when they do there is a lot of resistance to demanding a change of negotiation tactic. What I am trying to say is there may be many that oppose the current process but dont want to be seen as arguing with the branch leadership but in a secret ballot would probably vote not to strike.

 

[Carlisle]

We are forgetting culture here. Firstly conductors are as near as possible a closed shop. Yes closed shops are technically illegal BUT I think there is a lot of pressure internally for people to join and when they do there is a lot of resistance to demanding a change of negotiation tactic. What I am trying to say is there may be many that oppose the current process but dont want to be seen as arguing with the branch leadership but in a secret ballot would probably vote not to strike.

True, unless you’re blessed with the type of character of Mr Rees Mogg for example your probably far more likley just to resign from the union altogether if in serious disagreement with their strategies, rather than face a hostile branch meeting, unsure of how much support you may or may not receive. In my experience the number of people willing to transfer their messroom speeches to actual meetings is very small.

 

[Chrisyd]

I'm assuming replacement buses due to engineering work aren't affected so some routes are actually benefiting when it's taking place on Saturdays at the moment

No if you look at Bolton which thanks to electrification work is Replacement Rail Services all weekend, the Saturday service decreases significantly between a strike Saturday and a non-strike Saturday, with buses running to the standard strike core times, as opposed to mirroring the whole service. I assume the bus drivers are needed to support other parts of the network over peak times so can not be spread over the longer hours to provide the standard service to Bolton.

 

[lord rathmore]

If passenger numbers don't recover, the already meagre amount of funding could be reduced to nowt, with the RMT responsible for turning people away from the railways. Remember the law of unintended consequences, people moving to buses or not bothering to travel at all.

Agree entirely. It's buggered up my travel plans several times now and I'm weary of it all. The national strikes in the 1950s caused many people to discover better ways of getting around, and was one of the factors that fed into the Beeching Report.

 

[Robertj21a]

Agree entirely. It's buggered up my travel plans several times now and I'm weary of it all. The national strikes in the 1950s caused many people to discover better ways of getting around, and was one of the factors that fed into the Beeching Report.

Presumably there are a number of rather vulnerable routes where a drop in income (and any possible looming costs?) may suggest that it won't survive ?

 

[Dave1987]

True, unless you’re blessed with the type of character of Mr Rees Mogg for example your probably far more likley just to resign from the union altogether if in serious disagreement with their strategies, rather than face a hostile branch meeting, unsure of how much support you may or may not receive. In my experience the number of people willing to transfer their messroom speeches to actual meetings is very small.

Exactly what "experience" do you have of union meetings? You don't strike me as the kind of person who spends much time in mess room and I would be extremely surprised if you had ever attended a union meeting.