Arriva Rail North DOO

[scrapy]

No-one's had time to do proper analysis on the results yet but it's a 4 figure number done by volunteer passengers fed up with the current situation, carried out at stations on lines in to Manchester and also at Manchester Piccadilly, with the intention of building on what Transport Focus did in their recent passenger survey on the strikes. It also included asking people in Northern uniforms and included asking people boarding at stations with varying staffing levels from no staff to staffing 24/7. Both RMT and ASLEF members responded - one or two of the latter made clear they had 100% confidence that their union won't agree to any unsafe methods of working trains.

To quote a survey that hasn't been properly analysed, isn't publicly available, only has a small sample size and has been carried out by people with a specific agenda as proof of a lack of support for the RMT is hardly very credible. In the same way if the RMT did a survey of passengers on a stranded DOO train after an incident I'm sure over 95% would say it should have had a second person, but this wouldn't be credible either.

I'm also sure if a similar survey was done at an airport where a flight had been delayed due to waiting for cabin crew, many people would say I can do without food or drink just fly anyway.

 

[pt_mad]

The difficulty is that all the highfallutin rhetoric about a high skills workforce is undermined by the appalling quality of education and vocational training, and the continued drive to reduce as mich of the workforce as possible to low paid casual status

Although we are hearing about future high numbers of jobs in research and development, tech firms, etc etc. That sounds scary for some lower skilled folks, who may feel they will be de-valued or forgotten about, with a wider population of more skilled workers.

Who wouldn't want to keep their full skills? And which workforce would want to agree to give their skills (the ones which mean it takes 3 months to train Vs weeks rather than months) up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although we are hearing about future high numbers of jobs in research and development, tech firms, etc etc. That sounds scary for some lower skilled folks, who may feel they will be delivered valued or forgotten about, with a wider population of more skilled workers.

Who wouldn't want to keep their full skills? And which workforce would want to agree to give their skills (the ones which mean it takes 3 months to train Vs weeks rather than months) up?

Nobody. But employment doesn't work that way. Employment only happens when there is an agreement between an employer who wants a piece of work doing and will pay £X for it and an employee who will do that piece of work for £X. If both sides do not agree, there is no employment.

 

[Confused52]

'He got carried away'. Something that politically neutral, scrupulously fair civil servants are well-known for doing. Also what the hell was a civil servant doing at a political meeting ?

Can't you just admit that, just maybe, there might be ulterior motives behind the DfT / government's actions, at least some of the time, and perhaps they don't always have passsngers' best interests uppermost in their minds ? Your defence of DOO and everyone associated with it is starting to remind me of how uppity Brexsbytarians get when anyone criticises Farage, Banks or any of their other heroes.

It was not necessarily a political meeting all I have seen is that there was a meeting about the Southern strikes organised by Gavin Barwell who was the local MP at the time. Now it may be unbelievable to those of a left wing persuasion but MPs sometimes do hold meeting to express their constituent's concerns to authority without it being a political event. It absolutely is the DfT's role to get the best value for money for the public from the railway, and they are accountable to the HOC select committees in that, now can you accept that as well as the conspiracy theories?

 

[Dave1987]

Although we are hearing about future high numbers of jobs in research and development, tech firms, etc etc. That sounds scary for some lower skilled folks, who may feel they will be delivered valued or forgotten about, with a wider population of more skilled workers.

Who wouldn't want to keep their full skills? And which workforce would want to agree to give their skills (the ones which mean it takes 3 months to train Vs weeks rather than months) up?

I was reading some blogs recently that said as more and more well paid jobs are hollowed out and become poorly paid the more people will reach out to more radical ideas of Government. That’s undoubtedly why Labour did vastly better than was predicted at the last election. Tory supporters on here will no doubt point to the jobs that have created in recent years. But what they won’t admit to is the fact it’s all poorly paid insecure work which is why the UK economic growth is so pitiful. The whole situation with the guards is systemic to the hollowing out of decent paid work that will become poorly paid or got rid of completely. The Government and the DFT don’t really care though. As long as people aren’t on benefits so they can parade their unemployment figures around they don’t care if people are in rubbish, insecure, poorly paid work. That is until enough people are in that situation that they are voted out because they feel abandoned. And before people start complaining about off topic posts it’s all intrinsically linked.

I know it’s true about Government stance on pay as how many times have right wing Tory supporting papers complained about ‘grossly overpaid drivers’ etc. If they didn’t want us all on minimum wage then surely they would be celebrating well paid work in the economy!

 

[pt_mad]

Nobody. But employment doesn't work that way. Employment only happens when there is an agreement between an employer who wants a piece of work doing and will pay £X for it and an employee who will do that piece of work for £X. If both sides do not agree, there is no employment.

There must have been that agreement when the employee was taken on, and presumably the job would have been advertised as a permanent role?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There must have been that agreement when the employee was taken on, and presumably the job would have been advertised as a permanent role?

And no doubt it also included redundancy terms and similar, with the view that no job is guaranteed to be forever. Permanent in job terms really just means "for the foreseeable future".

 

[Killingworth]

Last year I boarded a packed Pacer at Grindleford along with a party of about 20 and other passengers. I had to stand. I was at the front of the train and confidentally predicted that the young conductor wouldn't get to us before we left at Dore & Totley, 7 minutes away.

Wrong! He cheerfully dealt with everyone and even had time to carefully explain to someone travelling to a distant station in Essex all the changes necessary, and printed out those connections. I was impressed, not having realised that would be possible.

Far too often conductors seem to consider revenue collection as beneath them. The younger ones don't seem to stay very long. On my last journey from Piccadilly to Dore I never saw a conductor at any time during the journey of an hour! Maybe it had quietly gone DOO.

 

[pt_mad]

And no doubt it also included redundancy terms and similar, with the view that no job is guaranteed to be forever. Permanent in job terms really just means "for the foreseeable future".

Today you're probably right. But what kind of basis is a job for the foreseeable future to base a mortgage and or kids on?

As I understand it, in any permanent job, you work to your terms and your employer pays you. If they don't want your role anymore, they can offer new terms which the employee can accept, or they can refuse and the employer would have the choice either to keep them on as they are, or to make them redundant. If the employee felt strong enough, and was part of a trade union, they would have the right to strike should the vote pass the specified measures and enough workers want one. If they only wanted the job they were hired for, on those terms (the only terms they were hired to do) then they'd really have no choice other than to vote for action when their union asked them, if that's how much they valued their current skills, job role and terms.

Pretty much what's happening?

 

[Killingworth]

Speaking as someone who used to be a union rep, looking in from a distance the RMT look like some hangover from the 1970s. There are ways and means to negotiating good deals for your members whilst letting management save face. "Everybody out" doesn't always cut it, especially when a third party (the government) could be cynically using the dispute for their own agenda.

Likewise, also as a former union rep, I can't imagine a worse position for the parties to have got themselves into. Positions are now so firmly entrenched. All 3 sides need to find ways to help the other two to save face without smirking, crowing, or any degree of triumphalism - unless it's to celebrate that they haven't knocked each others brains out, but used them to move rail transport in the north forwards for all 7 days of the week.

 

[CN75]

What worries me about the whole scenario, is the potential perceived threat of de-skilling across a wide number of staff.

The government was mentioned as wanting the best railway for the best price, i.e. value, and that's understandable in many ways. But at the same time it's this government who talk about skilling up our population for skilled jobs. If Brexit goes through there is talk of more of a high skills based migration system. So people are going to need to be able to compete with their skills.

If we put ourselves in the mindset of a guard at one of these franchises where their grade or skillset may be threatened, would you in today's climate really want to consent voluntarily to being (what many perceive as) downgraded to an OBS?

Watching news and politics there's a lot of politicians and business people saying skilled jobs, skilled work, people having the skills they need to prosper etc etc etc. Who'd want to give up their safety critical skills and accreditation in this climate? At least without a huge resistance?

Some will argue that they will keep their wage, until at least middle of next decade. Fine. But will they keep their skillset? And it's not just about job credit within the railway. If these people decide to compete for jobs elsewhere in other industries, I'm sure safety critical skills where they are in charge of the train will stand them in better stead than non safety customer service skills alone.

Guards probably consider themselves skilled workers as things stand, given the time it takes to train up as one. And other industries would probably view them as skilled workers should they apply for jobs. Strathclyde style ticket checkers, customer hosts etc I'm not sure would be seen in the same way in the wider competition for jobs as someone in charge of the train and it's safety would be seen.

To be blunt, the guard’s ‘safety critical skills’ are redundant. Arguments about it over the last few years in the face of the history of the DOO system have been unsatisfactory, and the reality that this is all about the RMT protecting guard bargaining power at all costs is gaining wider recognition. No criticism of the RMT intended for the intent - but a dynamic strategy would be to spot the chances to consolidate their power and evolve, and in that they have proven hopeless.

The guard’s ‘customer service skills’ are far more valuable to the future railway. These are also the only skills that could justify a future long-term job role, plus some general emergency training. Observers shouldn’t underestimate how lowly customer service/revenue is respected by numbers of existing guards. One look at the average customer service by guards provided on LNWR services (as mentioned above) shows how far the industry has to go. Step into all number of high street stores, transport providers etc. and staff on considerably less average earnings than guards please their customers far better as an overall comparison. They wouldn’t shut the shop down when it was busy where a guard decides to not bother with ticket checks or announcements at their discretion.

Driving these skills and knowledge levels is a leap that is out of the grasp of the RMT (and much of the TOC thinking). The RMT is too proud to even mention that guards are vital to revenue protection on their strike propaganda, yet they claim - for instance - they are involved with managing electrical isolations.

There’s a future for customer service roles on the railway - far more so, long term, than drivers or signallers in high numbers. For instance, there is no reason Southern’s On Board Supervisor job couldn’t be an industry blueprint, backed up by a reasonable ASLEF staffing agreement. It should be expected that the TOCs following on from that dispute such as GA, SWR etc would learn the pitfalls and do better with their revised guard jobs.

 

[CN75]

Last year I boarded a packed Pacer at Grindleford along with a party of about 20 and other passengers. I had to stand. I was at the front of the train and confidentally predicted that the young conductor wouldn't get to us before we left at Dore & Totley, 7 minutes away.

Wrong! He cheerfully dealt with everyone and even had time to carefully explain to someone travelling to a distant station in Essex all the changes necessary, and printed out those connections. I was impressed, not having realised that would be possible.

Far too often conductors seem to consider revenue collection as beneath them. The younger ones don't seem to stay very long. On my last journey from Piccadilly to Dore I never saw a conductor at any time during the journey of an hour! Maybe it had quietly gone DOO.

A good post that sets the scene. How do you get a majority of undermotivated staff, scared of technology and loyal foremost to their union’s instructions rather than their employers to move forward? The industry has no answers. The other problem with the positive experience of the conductor mentioned is that it should be the standard, rather than a notable surprise.

 

[Muttley]

Evolving technologies throughout the railways existence have always delivered products and systems eg traction, signalling, p way equipment, information and communication methods etc that are less labour intensive than the previous generations were, as in many other walks of life

Except that the job is still there (PTI inspection), but you want to move it to the driver.
There is no labour saving.

 

[MCSHF007]

One thing I've never understood about the RMT's position is that they claim (on the face on very good grounds) that guards are essential for passenger security. Yet on the vast majority of late night trains on which I've travelled these 'oh so vital for passenger security' guards are nowhere to be seen - cowering away in the back cab whilst paying customers are subjected to all sorts of abuse from p*ssed up obnoxious fellow passengers (most of whom I suspect haven't got a ticket anyway).

I've been informed by those in the know that local management have accepted that it's unsafe for guards to police/carryout revenue protection on these late night services. I would respectfully suggest that if this is the case then it's equally unsafe for passengers - and any trains not considered safe for revenue protection duties to be undertaken should be withdrawn from the timetable forthwith.

Perhaps the Robber Baron Fat Cat RMT bosses who continue to line their pockets at the expense of their members would care to address this point.

 

[B&I]

Not at all sure how you could read that into it !. My point was to try to consider how things might have been if the RMT had been less of a dinosaur. I'm not sure that the DfT, or politics at all really, are much to do with the way in which the RMT decides to run their union.

So your view remains that the DfT and government have played no role in this. There's bot much poijt in debating this further from such a position of unreality.

 

[B&I]

Oh, behave. They are both railed city public transport systems. The difference is relatively small.

'City transport system' doea not apply to most Northern services. When and if Manchester (or anywhere else outside Liverpool in the north) has a local heavy rail system which fits this description, currently planned somewhere around the 12th of Never 2368, we can disucss matters furtner

 

[B&I]

It was not necessarily a political meeting all I have seen is that there was a meeting about the Southern strikes organised by Gavin Barwell who was the local MP at the time. Now it may be unbelievable to those of a left wing persuasion but MPs sometimes do hold meeting to express their constituent's concerns to authority without it being a political event. It absolutely is the DfT's role to get the best value for money for the public from the railway, and they are accountable to the HOC select committees in that, now can you accept that as well as the conspiracy theories?

What's the conspiracy ? By your own description, civil servants are taking time out (while.collecting taxpayer-funded salaries for doing so ?) to appear at an event organised by a government MP to promote government policy. It's difficult to imagine clearer evidence of the civil service being politicised. They're meant to be there to implement government policy, not cheerlead on behalf of it. Your cheerful description of this behaviour shows to what extent the politicisation of the civil service has been normalised (in fairness, not just by Tory governments)

 

[B&I]

I was reading some blogs recently that said as more and more well paid jobs are hollowed out and become poorly paid the more people will reach out to more radical ideas of Government. That’s undoubtedly why Labour did vastly better than was predicted at the last election. Tory supporters on here will no doubt point to the jobs that have created in recent years. But what they won’t admit to is the fact it’s all poorly paid insecure work which is why the UK economic growth is so pitiful. The whole situation with the guards is systemic to the hollowing out of decent paid work that will become poorly paid or got rid of completely. The Government and the DFT don’t really care though. As long as people aren’t on benefits so they can parade their unemployment figures around they don’t care if people are in rubbish, insecure, poorly paid work. That is until enough people are in that situation that they are voted out because they feel abandoned. And before people start complaining about off topic posts it’s all intrinsically linked.

I know it’s true about Government stance on pay as how many times have right wing Tory supporting papers complained about ‘grossly overpaid drivers’ etc. If they didn’t want us all on minimum wage then surely they would be celebrating well paid work in the economy!

Exactly.

Some people on this thread are motivated by a genuine belief that a DOO railway would be better-run and more efficient. I can understand this argument (as i think the RMT have overstated the safety case), though some of those arguing it have I think discredited themselves by bordering on fanatical in their defence of every aspect of DOO and its proponents.

There is however another element here which believes the government's economic fairy stories (despite the evidence to the contrary), or is devoted to 'free market' econonic theory (regardless of how inapplicable it proves to be to the operation of the railways), or actively supports the longer term neoliberal project to undermine the rights and economic power of most of the British workforce (presumably because they think they're the sort of superior beings who'll come out on top in this process, or because their oen employment history has been marked by instability and they resent anyone whose employment history hasn't). This last group is the one keenest to 'stay on topic' because they don't wqnt anyone to consider what is proposed for the guards within the wider economic context, as they realise that many people will still be uncomfortable with supporting this wider process.

When I first commented on this thread, I asked why certain posters seemed to be unable to comprehend why the guards would opppose a process which threatened their future job security. The answer is of course that certain people on here don't like job security, when it applies to other people, and would prefer a total dog-eat-dog society.

 

[B&I]

To be blunt, the guard’s ‘safety critical skills’ are redundant. Arguments about it over the last few years in the face of the history of the DOO system have been unsatisfactory, and the reality that this is all about the RMT protecting guard bargaining power at all costs is gaining wider recognition. No criticism of the RMT intended for the intent - but a dynamic strategy would be to spot the chances to consolidate their power and evolve, and in that they have proven hopeless.

The guard’s ‘customer service skills’ are far more valuable to the future railway. These are also the only skills that could justify a future long-term job role, plus some general emergency training. Observers shouldn’t underestimate how lowly customer service/revenue is respected by numbers of existing guards. One look at the average customer service by guards provided on LNWR services (as mentioned above) shows how far the industry has to go. Step into all number of high street stores, transport providers etc. and staff on considerably less average earnings than guards please their customers far better as an overall comparison. They wouldn’t shut the shop down when it was busy where a guard decides to not bother with ticket checks or announcements at their discretion.

Driving these skills and knowledge levels is a leap that is out of the grasp of the RMT (and much of the TOC thinking). The RMT is too proud to even mention that guards are vital to revenue protection on their strike propaganda, yet they claim - for instance - they are involved with managing electrical isolations.

There’s a future for customer service roles on the railway - far more so, long term, than drivers or signallers in high numbers. For instance, there is no reason Southern’s On Board Supervisor job couldn’t be an industry blueprint, backed up by a reasonable ASLEF staffing agreement. It should be expected that the TOCs following on from that dispute such as GA, SWR etc would learn the pitfalls and do better with their revised guard jobs.

'Customer service' roles are disappearing across the country at frightening speed. Any job which is not technically vital to enable some physical process to happen is at risk in this country

 

[Robertj21a]

So your view remains that the DfT and government have played no role in this. There's bot much poijt in debating this further from such a position of unreality.

Are you sure that you're not also Dave1987 - he also doesn't read what is written.....

I've never said that the Dft/government have played no role in this dispute - where did you read that ?

My point, though you ignored it, was simply to consider how the situation might be at present if the RMT had been a 'better' union.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Positions are now so firmly entrenched. All 3 sides need to find ways to help the other two to save face without smirking, crowing, or any degree of triumphalism

Oh, you should have asked me earlier. The answer is ACAS. My late father was involved in an iron industry dispute, which was small but intractable. They decided on ACAS. ACAS was so hopeless that both sides discovered new common ground - namely agreeing that ACAS had been hopeless. Armed with this new mutual understanding they solved their remaining differences.

Daft anecdote aside yes, the problem is at least in part saving face.

 

[B&I]

Are you sure that you're not also Dave1987 - he also doesn't read what is written.....

I've never said that the Dft/government have played no role in this dispute - where did you read that ?

My point, though you ignored it, was simply to consider how the situation might be at present if the RMT had been a 'better' union.

Presumably then it was only reasons of space which prevented you mentioning the part the government / DfT had played im creating the situation, as every one of your posts was full already of bile about the RMT.

This has become a depressingly common debating tactic, also seen for example re Brexit. 'But just because every comment I make about the EU is negative doesn't mean that there aren't good things about the EU'

 

[Bletchleyite]

'City transport system' doea not apply to most Northern services.

But it does apply to some of them, and they (e.g. the Hadfields) were what I was discussing.

 

[northwichcat]

To quote a survey that hasn't been properly analysed, isn't publicly available, only has a small sample size and has been carried out by people with a specific agenda as proof of a lack of support for the RMT is hardly very credible. In the same way if the RMT did a survey of passengers on a stranded DOO train after an incident I'm sure over 95% would say it should have had a second person, but this wouldn't be credible either.

When I say proper analysis I mean things need to be looked at like how results vary between staffed and unstaffed stations, how results vary between lines with a frequent service and lines with an infrequent service, how results vary between places where rail is the only public transport to those which have a bus/Metrolink alternative. The figures are changing quite rapidly against the RMT's favour. The first survey was in September had 173 responses and had 43 favouring no train to an understaffed train (24.8%), the most recent had 312 responses was done in the last week and had only 15 favouring no train to an understaffed train (4.8%.) This raises the question are the original results now invalid as passengers are more pro-DOO now the strikes have been going on for a while, or was it just the passengers surveyed most recently are more pro-DOO?

I'm also sure if a similar survey was done at an airport where a flight had been delayed due to waiting for cabin crew, many people would say I can do without food or drink just fly anyway.

It was pointless surveying passengers as unless there is one cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats the plane is not legally allowed to take off. Referring to aircraft cabin crew as people who serve food and drink, is as bad as calling a guard on a train not equipped for DOO a ticket inspector, their primary job is safety and they can and do suspend serving food and drink if they have safety duties to undertake. A guard is only 'safety critical' if the train is not equipped for DOO so once the 195s and 331s are introduced the guard becomes optional whether you like it or not.

 

[furnessvale]

Guards probably consider themselves skilled workers as things stand, given the time it takes to train up as one. And other industries would probably view them as skilled workers should they apply for jobs. Strathclyde style ticket checkers, customer hosts etc I'm not sure would be seen in the same way in the wider competition for jobs as someone in charge of the train and it's safety would be seen.

Sad to say, if I were an employer, I would think long and hard before taking on an ex guard having seen how long and bitter this dispute has become.

 

[Confused52]

What's the conspiracy ? By your own description, civil servants are taking time out (while.collecting taxpayer-funded salaries for doing so ?) to appear at an event organised by a government MP to promote government policy. It's difficult to imagine clearer evidence of the civil service being politicised. They're meant to be there to implement government policy, not cheerlead on behalf of it. Your cheerful description of this behaviour shows to what extent the politicisation of the civil service has been normalised (in fairness, not just by Tory governments)

No, not by my description - such meetings are usually in the evening not in Government time and others have confirmed that it was not government policy. As you almost certainly were not in the meeting in Croydon (and I certainly wasn't) you invented a scenario, that I didn't suggest, asserted it to be true and then used it as proof of your own anti-DfT crusade! Classy.

 

[Dave1987]

Are you sure that you're not also Dave1987 - he also doesn't read what is written.....

I've never said that the Dft/government have played no role in this dispute - where did you read that ?

My point, though you ignored it, was simply to consider how the situation might be at present if the RMT had been a 'better' union.

The more people your Government ignores for valid reasons about their job security and livelihoods the more likely it is that Corbyn’s Labour will win the next election. I honestly believe if good old ‘Failing Grayling’ actually engaged with the conductors directly rather than cowering in the corner blaming everyone else for his own ineptitude then things might actually begin to get better. But no he is more interested in taking unions to court and going to war with staff.

 

[northwichcat]

Your defence of DOO and everyone associated with it is starting to remind me of how uppity Brexsbytarians get when anyone criticises Farage, Banks or any of their other heroes.

Many people, like yourself, are posting speculation about what happens if Northern start to move to DCO/DOO and pretending they are facts - at present there is no Northern guard who's job or role is under threat for the foreseeable future but you like to believe the misinformation being circulated by the RMT, which isn't even specific to Northern. I also notice both you and scrapy are of the opinion that as a passenger survey is having the opposite effect of what you want there must be something wrong with the survey, it's not I'm that pro-DOO, it's that people like you are so anti-DOO that you post so much misinformation that anyone posting more balanced posts is seen as pro-DOO.

I notice you completely missed the point of the analogy I did using support for Esther McVey as Tatton MP, say you don't want to discuss it further and then bring up your own political analogy. :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Sad to say, if I were an employer, I would think long and hard before taking on an ex guard having seen how long and bitter this dispute has become.

So anyone who fights for their jobs and livelihoods are blacklisted by the corporate elite? How fantastic this modern capitalism is eh.

 

[northwichcat]

Sad to say, if I were an employer, I would think long and hard before taking on an ex guard having seen how long and bitter this dispute has become.

Probably employers will share that view. A prospective employer can't ask someone is they are a member of a trade union or how they voted in a ballot, so all Northern guards will be seen as people who refuse to accept any change to their job role in the eyes of a prospective employer.