If market forces demand them, yes, why not?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RMT Ballot Avanti West Coast Members For Strike Action
- Thread starter footprints
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Really? If the app/website doesn't belong to the TOC it strikes me that someone, if they are sharing personal data without the approval of the individuals in question, has a world of GDPR grief to come if you are correct.
Consent is only one of six possible bases for processing data under GDPR (plus there are a number of exemptions, though none are likely to apply in this context).
A lack of consent doesn't necessarily mean that data sharing such as this is unlawful.
I know, legitimate interest perhaps being the most likely ground. Where is the right to be informed being met though?
185
On Moderation
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,709
Rubbish. They were out every day through the pandemic, unlike most other tocs. At present trains are busier than before covid due to a reduced timetable.
One thing seemingly missed by this, isn't anything to do with 'losing the coach K messroom' - that's just the usual pro-management distraction... no, there is a newly created pay differential in commission between TMs whose depots only work Voyagers (ie no standard premium) and those who work Pendolinos (ie some standard premium). Staff at Voyager only depots make substantially less commission due to this.
IMO I've always been of the view that all Pendos should be 10-car sets. Signifigant mods I know, but a uniform 10-car pendo fleet, all 8 standard & 2 first.... ie no lazy FirstGroup third class gimmicks.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If a website sells a ticket for travel on a TOC they are effectively doing so as an agent, and the TOC is quite reasonably entitled to details about the purchaser.
It wouldn't be via a SAR, though.
Trainline's Privacy Policy (linked to from the Ts&Cs that you agree to when registering for an account and each time you make a booking IIRC) includes the following:
Trainline said:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Many of us passengers don't consider it a gimmick, but an excellent value service which will attract us to spend more with the TOC.
Personally, I'd rather 1st was abolished in favour of SP if you want to go to two classes - indeed, I would very, very strongly favour that and would travel in SP for most journeys then. But that means no more steward jobs.
TY. Do all third party sites do this? If so then they have done what is necessary, l agree.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Two questions: Firstly could everywhere that nine coach Pendolini go handle a 10 coach variant? Secondly would that not result in a net loss of coaches (about 12 l believe)? Given that some 11 coach trains are over-crowded that really wouldn't go down well.
AvantI West Coast staff already use an App to scan the QR codes of print at home tickets, so I can't see what the RMT is objecting to.
Does the new App somehow add significantly to their workload, or haven't staff been adequately trained on how to use the new App?
If this is the case, then both these issues can be resolved without the need for industrial action.
No doubt when Great British Railways comes into existence there will be an almighty bunfight between the government and the unions anyway.
The unions will want to standardise pay and conditions on the terms of the most generous of the current TOCs, and the government will be wanting to keep costs under control as the railway recovers from the effects of COVID-19.
I wonder how long it will be after GBR starts operations before the first national rail strike for the entire UK.
The railway unions would do well to remember what happened to the newspaper industry in the 1980s after Rupert Murdoch took over.
I am absolutely in favour of rail staff having decent pay and conditions, but making a fuss over the introduction of a new App isn't going to help their cause in the long term.
This does exist on the railway, albeit to a much lesser extent. For example safeguarded staff are entitled to far better travel perks. Then you have some depots like mine where new joiners automatically have Sundays inside, with a separate link for drivers who elected to remain outside when the TOC brought Sundays into the working week. The drivers at the time were offered the choice of a pay rise for opting in, or remaining outside and foregoing the pay increase.
Due to collective bargaining what you don’t get in railway operational roles is people negotiating their own salary/Ts and Cs in a way that happens in other industries.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It would also require a new transformer car for each of the 9s being upgraded, so isn't happening
Based on what has happened in the Civil Service and wider public sector HMG will undoubtedly look to harmonise T&Cs at the lowest common denominator level, introduce new responsibilities without additional pay and probably go after pensions too. Oh, and a favourite trick is accept a new contract or expect no more payrises whatsoever.
My personal view is that the current Govt would be only too happy to take RMT on.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think they may, despite disruption, actually find considerable passenger and taxpayer support in that, too. I'd not want to cut anyone's pay, but there are certainly archaic practices on the railway not in keeping with any other industry*, and I would be happy that those be challenged even at the cost of a little disruption.
With regard to pensions I would have no issue with them becoming contributory rather than final-salary-based for new employees, and would again be happy for that fight to be had. Final salary pensions are basically non-viable and have been abolished across industry.
* e.g., as noted above, people asking for money to simply do their job properly**, or to start using a new piece of tech in their job which is simply part of the way that job evolves, e.g. scanning tickets instead of scribbling on them with a biro.
** I get why they want to pay the "scanning bonus", but to be honest I'd just discipline e.g. the bone-idle guards on the south WCML who mostly hide in the cab and don't do tickets - as I've said before, only about 3 of them bother, and you know it's the same ones as you recognise them. That or if it's not important due to the gatelines offer them the choice, if they prefer, to be downgraded to non-revenue guards at a commensurate pay reduction.
There is a difference between 'new tech for old skills' and 'new tech for new skills'. I would expect the latter to be rewarded and I would also expect the latter to come with training; which would come at both a cost to the employer and potentially as a bonus/incentive to the employee.
Or crapweeds………
Facing Back
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 929
Could you elaborate a little on ”new tech for new skills” please. I’m not sure what you meant.
Something that would be introduced that previously wasn't part of your job requirement or a new job requirement. As an example. I don't use Excel as part of my job and have no reason to. I have zero requirement to be computer literate as all. If my manager started to send me spreadsheets I would need new skills.
My job has evolved and new technology has been introduced. I'm now required to do a lot via email. These are new skills I have been required to learn. I also need new tech to help me. Whilst I am more than capable, many of my colleagues aren't. I know Drivers who still have a 'brick phone' and just struggle with sending a basic email.
Compare that to something like GSMR. I remember when GSMR was first introduced. Its new tech for existing skills. Drivers didn't suddenly go on strike for needing to learn how to use the GSMR. It is an upgrade and made our lives a little easier. It still required significant training. Same with the various PIS units. New tech, old skills.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I would certainly expect training to be provided for new technology at the employer's cost, yes. As to skills it depends. DOO is clearly a big change, for instance, but scanning e-tickets rather than scribbling biro on paper tickets is just doing the same task a different way and thus doesn't to me deserve any extra.
No.
Which is why I highlighted new for old doesn't really need to be compensated for. For the most part we are aligned here and I would point out that it does happen already all across the industry. I am not a Guard so I don't see the difference or the issues any changes would bring in their role. Therefore is isn't my place to determine if they are right to strike over the issue. I will however, support their right to take industrial action.
Mobile phones and tablets have had a significant impact on my job and has had a significant improvement to how my TOC operates. My personal belief is that it was a new skill to be learned and new technology to learn to use. I can absolutely see why someone would want to be trained and remunerated accordingly. From an outside looking in point of view it doesn't seem that way as 'everyone has a mobile' but importantly, those that are doing the role see things very differently.
As a shareholder in a few airlines, brilliant news. Long may the naval gazing self combustion continue. When passengers lose confidence and use other means of transport, they won’t be back no matter the views of the occasional echo chamber this forum becomes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I completely agree with "trained", but not with "remunerated" unless the change to the job role in terms of added responsiblity and/or effort is significant. Another example would be non-revenue guard to revenue guard.
If e-mail needs to be used when it wasn't before, absolutely training (and provision of appropriate equipment if not wishing to use one's own) but not additional pay, because it's just a modernisation of information dissemination. Technology, and job roles, don't stand still, and nor should they.
Another example of where increased pay wouldn't be justified is when Aldi went from keying prices to scanning barcodes. Same job, different method. But training in the use of the new tills should certainly be provided at employer's cost and in employer's time.
Where job titles are descriptive, then they are a good start as for when more money would be justified. An Aldi "checkout operator" would still be operating a checkout even if that checkout changed completely. But if they were to be changed to be a "self-service checkout supervisor", while that's a similar level of job it's a material change from sitting at one till selling stuff to people to dealing with multiple tills etc.
A guard is still a guard even if they have to read their daily notices on an iPad instead of a notice board and scan e-tickets instead of clipping paper tickets. And they're still a guard if the rolling stock changes, too - I'd expect training to sign the new stock, but not additional money as it's just a change of equipment.
People on this forum seem to believe that scanning e-tickets is the same as paper tickets. It is not.
A clipped e-ticket can only be used once. It effectively tracks the journey and trains taken and the staff who have clipped it. A marked ‘date’ ticket can be used more than once particularly at non-barriered stations, all this tells you is that someone somewhere has seen the ticket.
Scanning an e-ticket records exactly where, when and how that ticket was used by the passenger, and ADDITIONALLY records the staff member details as well.
What your effectively doing as a TOC is benefitting from the productivity of the guard rather than the installation of ticket gates and the creation of revenue and barrier staff roles. There is a greater ideology of claiming back revenue than there is safety and customer service. Revenue is the least important role of the guard/TM, and they aren’t there to be used as marketers for finding out passenger statistics and information gained from journey details.
A clipped e-ticket can only be used once. It effectively tracks the journey and trains taken and the staff who have clipped it. A marked ‘date’ ticket can be used more than once particularly at non-barriered stations, all this tells you is that someone somewhere has seen the ticket.
Scanning an e-ticket records exactly where, when and how that ticket was used by the passenger, and ADDITIONALLY records the staff member details as well.
What your effectively doing as a TOC is benefitting from the productivity of the guard rather than the installation of ticket gates and the creation of revenue and barrier staff roles. There is a greater ideology of claiming back revenue than there is safety and customer service. Revenue is the least important role of the guard/TM, and they aren’t there to be used as marketers for finding out passenger statistics and information gained from journey details.
Refusing to help you out when you might be looking for it isn’t blackmail, it would be a consequence of crossing picket line and giving two fingers to your colleagues.
That’s not how a union functions. Surely you’re not so naive as to think that your colleagues will ever support you if you require it when you’d happily leave them in the lurch when they required your support.
I don't see that it's a problem if my employer makes more or less money from my work, providing that the work is approximately what I signed up for when I joined. If I was a member of train staff, I wouldn't expect a pay reduction if number of passengers went down, or more of them were travelling on illegal tickets, so I wouldn't ask for a payrise if my work meant that fewer people were travelling on illegal tickets.
I’m going to print this post out and keep it in my wallet for all the times people ask me what’s wrong with the railway’s attitudes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I would agree it is not, but it doesn't matter that it is not. As a revenue guard, your job is to operate the train safely following whatever policies and procedures are in place at any given time to do so. In addition to this, your job is to protect revenue, again following whatever policies and procedures are in place at any given time to do so.
Those policies and procedures will inevitably change substantially through your career, and that is just how employment works. Only if your job could not be described as being a revenue guard any more, or if there were fundamental changes to the T&C such as different shifts, Sunday working etc, would it be reasonable to reassess what you were paid for the job.
To use an example of something that has happened, a guard on a Class 101 set doesn't have to press the buttons to control the doors, but when they moved to guarding 150s instead they do. However, I would not see it as reasonable to demand extra pay for that. What should be provided, and indeed was, is training on how to do the modified role.
Which is the problem with outsiders looking inwards. It has significantly changed my job role in both terms and conditions, as well as having increased responsibility.
Again, its how you see it. Not those who are dong the job day in and day out. In a technology job then year for sure. In a manual job where my primary role is to sit and drive a train from A to B; then no.
Agreed here. I used to work in retail. Tapping in a department number then the price was an absolute nightmare. Barcodes were a gamechanger.
Again, its perspective. Till Operator isn't that different to Self-service checkout Supervisor. The skills translate over quite easily. You see a material change. I see a material change introducing emails to a driving role.
Reading a notice board and reading an iPad isn't a simple change of equipment. It's completely new equipment that may require significant training and additional responsibilities.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It doesn't require "significant training" to change from reading a sheet of paper to reading an iPad. Apple have put considerable effort into making using one super-intuitive, so they are great for older people etc to learn very quickly. It's IT people who find them hard, generally, as they don't, unlike Android, do things in an IT way. Perhaps an hour's actual training plus having a "tech champion" to hand at each depot to help people who were getting stuck. (Yes, this sort of thing is my job, so I know full well how other industries introduce technical changes).
What significant additional responsibilities does reading your email instead of a display cabinet cause you? If you were to do this at home instead of after booking on, then I'd expect your shift to be adjusted accordingly so you are paid for the time you are doing work, but not a pay rise per-se.
- Status