Arriva Rail North DOO

[a_c_skinner]

Apologies, I'd overlooked driver-open guard close. If that is the final turnout then the whole thing has been deeply foolish as it could have been easily settled upon a year ago.

 

[yorksrob]

Is this whole dispute not, overall, going to end up costing us more than we're going to save?

Yes, it is.

 

[yorksrob]

Apologies, I'd overlooked driver-open guard close. If that is the final turnout then the whole thing has been deeply foolish as it could have been easily settled upon a year ago.

Which is what we were all saying a year ago.

 

[Robertj21a]

Apologies, I'd overlooked driver-open guard close. If that is the final turnout then the whole thing has been deeply foolish as it could have been easily settled upon a year ago.

I think everyone is jumping the gun somewhat - the RMT has still kept to their blanket requirement for safety critical guards on every service. Why shouldn't Arriva keep to their requirements ?

 

[Gems]

It must be a bit hard for some of the RMT hating little Graylings on here, but the truth of the matter is that perhaps this dispute might, just might, be heading for a conclusion. The issue now is making sure the second person is safety critical. No good just saying a second person on every train, the second person could be the cleaner, or God forbid one of those Carlisle security idiots.
This dispute never made sense, TFTN stipulation made that pretty obvious, couple that with the fact that there was never any tangible savings to be had, and what you were left with was a lower level of safety for no benefit.

I fully expect this Saturday to be the final day of striking, and it is a shame this Saturday couldn't have been wrapped up as well. However I shall enjoy a spot of sea fishing knowing, (and hoping actually) that I'll be back dealing with drunks and social oddballs next Saturday around Leeds.

 

[Confused52]

It must be a bit hard for some of the RMT hating little Graylings on here, but the truth of the matter is that perhaps this dispute might, just might, be heading for a conclusion. The issue now is making sure the second person is safety critical. No good just saying a second person on every train, the second person could be the cleaner, or God forbid one of those Carlisle security idiots.
This dispute never made sense, TFTN stipulation made that pretty obvious, couple that with the fact that there was never any tangible savings to be had, and what you were left with was a lower level of safety for no benefit.

I fully expect this Saturday to be the final day of striking, and it is a shame this Saturday couldn't have been wrapped up as well.

I suggest that the definition of safety critical has been said on here to mean qualified to act as a guard on the particular service, however they are not actually required to be operationally involved in the movement of the train. It would appear that if that extra training costs more money the DfT will not object. Secondly the issue of what happens if a safety critical person becomes indisposed and cannot join the train will come back to be the difference between diagrammed and mandatory presence. Those are the two issues that appear to remain between what is actually in the Franchise Agreement, in black and white, and the recently restated position of the RMT. The TFTN stipulation is not actually different from the Franchise Agreement, rather it just confirms that the wilder interpretations of it were just that. Oh and I accept the evidence of those in the industry that both sides have said the wilder interpretation and that is clearly a problem that will remain.

 

[northernchris]

It must be a bit hard for some of the RMT hating little Graylings on here, but the truth of the matter is that perhaps this dispute might, just might, be heading for a conclusion. The issue now is making sure the second person is safety critical. No good just saying a second person on every train, the second person could be the cleaner, or God forbid one of those Carlisle security idiots.
This dispute never made sense, TFTN stipulation made that pretty obvious, couple that with the fact that there was never any tangible savings to be had, and what you were left with was a lower level of safety for no benefit.

I fully expect this Saturday to be the final day of striking, and it is a shame this Saturday couldn't have been wrapped up as well. However I shall enjoy a spot of sea fishing knowing, (and hoping actually) that I'll be back dealing with drunks and social oddballs next Saturday around Leeds.

As pay and roles have been guaranteed for at least the duration of the franchise, it would be wrong not to retain the safety critical features of the guard role. As previously mentioned though, I'm hopeful the RMT will agree to driver open / guard close on the new stock

 

[Carlisle]

the second person could be the cleaner, or God forbid one of those Carlisle security idiots.

Who’ve in all liklehood got a far superior employment record over the last year than most northern guards

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Who’ve in all liklehood got a far superior employment record over the last year than most northern guards

I don't suppose you'd care to provide some evidence for that generalisation? Remembering that the right to strike is enshrined in law.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't suppose you'd care to provide some evidence for that generalisation? Remembering that the right to strike is enshrined in law.

So as a boss, all else being equal you’d employ the candidate who’d taken over months strike action last year over one who hadn’t?

 

[pt_mad]

Yes it’s not very clear whether the RMT is offering the chance of a similar deal to the Greater Anglia one or nothing more than driver release guard close

What did the Greater Anglia deal broadly consist of?

 

[Eccles1983]

The RMT can agree to what they like.

If the DfT/rail north/transport for the north/Northern think that I am opening doors without extra cash for my increased productivity then they are going to be shocked.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So as a boss, all else being equal you’d employ the candidate who’d taken over months strike action last year over one who hadn’t?

Pointless question since my experience of staff employed by Carlisle (unfortunate coincidence of name!) is that none of them should be allowed anywhere near a customer facing role. I also suspect that employment laws might have something to say about discrimination on the grounds of political views, etc. Still waiting for your evidence...

 

[Carlisle]

What did the Greater Anglia deal broadly consist of?

The majority of routine door operation passes to drivers but a fully competent guards must be on board in all non DOO areas or the service can’t run.

 

[pt_mad]

The majority of routine door operation passes to drivers but a fully competent guards must be on board in all non DOO areas or the service can’t run.

Ah right. So the guards retain dispatch competency should it be needed if equipment is faulty etc?

 

[Carlisle]

Ah right. So the guards retain dispatch competency should it be needed if equipment is faulty etc?

Yes, as far as I know that sums it up perfectly.

 

[Carlisle]

Still waiting for your evidence...

Plenty of posts on this forum over the years mention Carlisle or STM or G4S as they were previously have good and bad staff members, so just like anywhere else really .

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Plenty of posts on this forum over the years mention Carlisle or STM or G4S as they were previously have good and bad staff members, so just like anywhere else really .

So other posters can be balanced while you are blatantly prejudiced:

Who’ve in all liklehood got a far superior employment record over the last year than most northern guards

And still no evidence to support your claim.

 

[pt_mad]

Yes, as far as I know that sums it up perfectly.

Can I also ask, what sort of deal was it on Mersey Rail with regards to who carries out which duties? Will the guards retain competency?

 

[Carlisle]

Can I also ask, what sort of deal was it on Mersey Rail with regards to who carries out which duties? Will the guards retain competency?

I believe all that’s still under negotiation, but happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It must be a bit hard for some of the RMT hating little Graylings on here......

Your eloquence surely must also extend to how then you would use words of a similar nature to which I have emboldened above to describe those RMT supporters who contribute to this thread

 

[Dave1987]

Who’ve in all liklehood got a far superior employment record over the last year than most northern guards

You would be ripe for a discriminatory law suit against you with that attitude. Especially when the person you are discriminating against has acted perfectly within the law. That’s akin to refusing employment to an Uber or Deliveroo person because they took those companies to court and won.

 

[PR1Berske]

However I shall enjoy a spot of sea fishing knowing, (and hoping actually) that I'll be back dealing with drunks and social oddballs next Saturday around Leeds

You speak highly of passengers!

 

[Carlisle]

That’s akin to refusing employment to an Uber or Deliveroo person because they took those companies to court and won.

If the RMTs position was sufficiently strong, alongside industrial action they’d by now also have attempted to present at least some of their evidence in court, reasonably confident of success in some areas. However relying almost entirely on public disruption through strikes suggest there’s almost no comparison whatsoever with the likes of Uber.

 

[northwichcat]

Pointless question since my experience of staff employed by Carlisle (unfortunate coincidence of name!) is that none of them should be allowed anywhere near a customer facing role.

Like I've said before some of the RPIs who are regularly at the same smaller stations can be quite good and can quite often have some local knowledge which guards don't have. However, the ones who are based at large stations or who finish up working at many different stations aren't so good.

I also suspect that employment laws might have something to say about discrimination on the grounds of political views, etc.

A prospective employer is not allowed to ask if you're a member of a trade union. However, if they have reason to believe you won't be a productive employee then you certainly won't be their first choice.

 

[furnessvale]

A prospective employer is not allowed to ask if you're a member of a trade union. However, if they have reason to believe you won't be a productive employee then you certainly won't be their first choice.

But he will know your previous employer and, if I was interviewing, a former guard would have some work to do to convince me he wouldn't be a disruptive influence in the workplace.

I now stand back for incoming flak, and I know it tars ALL guards with the same brush, but a prospective employer does not have to take ANY risks.

ps, A bloke I knew in the pub was on the building sites blacklist years ago, and quite rightly. He was the most workshy, disruptive influence you could ever not wish to meet.

 

[northwichcat]

But he will know your previous employer and, if I was interviewing, a former guard would have some work to do to convince me he wouldn't be a disruptive influence in the workplace.

I now stand back for incoming flak, and I know it tars ALL guards with the same brush, but a prospective employer does not have to take ANY risks.

ps, A bloke I knew in the pub was on the building sites blacklist years ago, and quite rightly. He was the most workshy, disruptive influence you could ever not wish to meet.

One thing worth remembering is prospective employers might use the train and might recognise an ex-guard as the one who did the doors and nothing more, the one who made up ticket restrictions or the one who always did the revenue part of the role at the same time as always getting to the doors on time.

In the case of making up ticket restrictions I'm aware a number of Virgin staff (both train managers and RPIs) have got in to arguments with people who could be in a position to offer them a job if they left the rail industry.

 

[northwichcat]

You would be ripe for a discriminatory law suit against you with that attitude. Especially when the person you are discriminating against has acted perfectly within the law. That’s akin to refusing employment to an Uber or Deliveroo person because they took those companies to court and won.

Uber and Deliveroo disputes are often because companies claim someone is self-employed when they should be an employee, a number of employers will agree that the company was in the wrong not the employee. However, they won't take so kindly to someone who thinks that being offered a contract of employment means they have a right to remain in the same role until retirement, even if they would see the loyalty part as a positive.

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting to see a post from a Londoner who recently used a Northern Pacer on social media. She referred to the guard coming out with a key to release the doors as a 1970s' method of operation.

 

[Meerkat]

In which case the SWR mainline has modern trains using 1970s operation. Not great.