RMT Ballot Avanti West Coast Members For Strike Action

[Mally66]

I don't wish to sound rude but if many Avanti WC onboard staff spent more time actually working rather than sat talking to each other l might be rather more sympathetic.

Couldn't of put it better myself

 

[Bletchleyite]

is anybody actually able to provide a sensible reason for why such an app should even need to be agreed by a union? Let alone failed to agree.

there are battles worth fighting that will win public support and will not cause a mass abandonment of rail by the public and government alike. Unless somebody can explain to the contrary - to me, this is not one of them.

The ones I would understand are:-
1. Safety
2. Pay (where the TOC is being genuinely unreasonable in the context of the whole of industry, not just because staff happen to want a high figure or because they are envious that another TOC pays more - if you want that, apply to work for that TOC)
3. Where an immediate colleague has been disciplined without following correct procedure (and only if correct procedure was not followed, not if the decision was simply painful but correctly-reached)

Anything else really is a case of "we are paying you to do this, get on with it". Most notably it is in my eyes never reasonable to strike to ensure the continuity of any given grade, pay level or similar for people who are not yet employed; I would actually make that illegal. A business has to be able to make future decisions on its operations, with the role of Unions being to protect their members' jobs they are in now.

 

[185]

Or even if they come out of the back/middle cabs they don't have a ticket machine with them so are unable to sell any tickets for passengers who are pay when challenged (Stafford to Rugeley).

I've been on some Crewe services where the guard changes at Rugby, from someone who was proactive in checking tickets and making announcements (regarding the short platforms) to a middle cab dweller who wasn't seen or heard from. Also for some London trains for the guard to check tickets after Crewe but not to be seen again when the train calls at the unbarriered stations [Stafford - Nuneaton]

The guard cannot leave the cab at two of the stations where the train doesn't fit, plus given several of the quite major stations don't have ticket checks, isn't it time to also call out the other lazy behaviour... both the train companies for not barriering or (a-la-Northern) placing a low-cost human barrier at Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton and Euston, barriers which pay for themselves in the first few hours of the day? This would mitigate the amount of fare evasion and allow guards time to both operate doors at the two short platform stops and get through all 8 coaches.

 

[43066]

1. Safety
2. Pay (where the TOC is being genuinely unreasonable in the context of the whole of industry, not just because staff happen to want a high figure or because they are envious that another TOC pays more - if you want that, apply to work for that TOC)
3. Where an immediate colleague has been disciplined without following correct procedure (and only if correct procedure was not followed, not if the decision was simply painful but correctly-reached)

1 and 3 are already the case.

As for 2, “genuinely unreasonable” is a matter of opinion. Simply saying: “if you don’t like it go elsewhere” completely ignores the lack of balance of power between individual employees and their employers, which TUs are intended to redress by saying: “If you don’t like it our members will withdraw their Labour”’.

It’s a negotiation, just like any other. GPs threatening not to give COVID jabs over pay rates publication, the nurses union demanding a 10% pay increase are other example of unions adopting similar tactics. But somehow when dirty railwaymen do the same thing it’s a travesty and should be made illegal…

Anything else really is a case of "we are paying you to do this, get on with it". Most notably it is in my eyes never reasonable to strike to ensure the continuity of any given grade, pay level or similar for people who are not yet employed; I would actually make that illegal. A business has to be able to make future decisions on its operations, with the role of Unions being to protect their members' jobs they are in now.

This shows a lack of understanding of collective bargaining, which has been one of the key underpinnings of the TU movement since it’s inception. The focus is on protecting the integrity of the trade as a whole and allowing recruitment of new entrants on diminished (as opposed to different) Ts and Cs undermines this in the long term. Things like Sundays inside can and have be negotiated and agreed for new entrants, so it is possible for mutually acceptable agreements to be reached.

As for your favoured “just get on with it” approach, the alternative is for employers to engage constructively and positively with unions and work with them to avoid this kind of dispute arising in the first place. It’s telling that even when, as here, the unions takes a stand against an unpopular TOCs (if they’re doing a poor job by the passengers, they’ll be doing a poor job by the staff too) posters on here always seem to instinctively side with management.

 

[Wolfie]

Heard talk of XC balloting too, the way it's going it'll probably be quicker soon to list the train companies where the conductors aren't on strike rather than the ones who are...

Playing straight into DfT's hands. Cue a programme of massive growth in DOO and lots of unemployed train crew.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2021 ==

is anybody actually able to provide a sensible reason for why such an app should even need to be agreed by a union? Let alone failed to agree.

there are battles worth fighting that will win public support and will not cause a mass abandonment of rail by the public and government alike. Unless somebody can explain to the contrary - to me, this is not one of them.

Absolutely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The guard cannot leave the cab at two of the stations where the train doesn't fit, plus given several of the quite major stations don't have ticket checks, isn't it time to also call out the other lazy behaviour... both the train companies for not barriering or (a-la-Northern) placing a low-cost human barrier at Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton and Euston, barriers which pay for themselves in the first few hours of the day? This would mitigate the amount of fare evasion and allow guards time to both operate doors at the two short platform stops and get through all 8 coaches.

Haven't 350s now got ASDO, so the need to be in a specific cab to do manual unit deselect goes? Or isn't it implemented everywhere yet?

Doesn't however excuse south of Northampton where all platforms are 12-car now except one (Bushey fast line northbound). A small number of guards do consistently check tickets down here, so it is clearly possible.

 

[nedchester]

is anybody actually able to provide a sensible reason for why such an app should even need to be agreed by a union? Let alone failed to agree.

there are battles worth fighting that will win public support and will not cause a mass abandonment of rail by the public and government alike. Unless somebody can explain to the contrary - to me, this is not one of them.

It shouldn't need to be agreed by the union. The unions have chanced their arm(s) over the years and got their way over such things in the past.

I can't help thinking that particular gravy train is about to end.........

 

[Watershed]

Haven't 350s now got ASDO, so the need to be in a specific cab to do manual unit deselect goes? Or isn't it implemented everywhere yet?

They are still reliant on the rather basic UDS, hence why Rugeley is 'front 4' even though it's long enough for 6 coaches, for example. The guard needs to be in the appropriate cab to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are still reliant on the rather basic UDS, hence why Rugeley is 'front 4' even though it's long enough for 6 coaches, for example. The guard needs to be in the appropriate cab to do so.

Replied here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-350s-and-asdo.225242/

 

[PupCuff]

Playing straight into DfT's hands. Cue a programme of massive growth in DOO and lots of unemployed train crew.

I mean to be honest, I'm highly pro keeping conductors on trains, but when there's disputes over petty things like whether they have to use an app, it's unhelpful and doesn't present the industry as forward thinking or pro-customer.

My understanding of the XC ballot (albeit I haven't seen any formal announcement from the RMT, they aren't my trade union any more) is that it's because they're training up management to work trains as contingency conductors. It seems perverse to me that anyone would strike over that, on the grounds that if a strike goes ahead *literally all that will happen is said management who are being trained will work the trains to cover the service getting a nice chunk of overtime whilst the conductors lose pay*.

 

[142blue]

Discussions next week

 

[Dryce]

My understanding of the XC ballot (albeit I haven't seen any formal announcement from the RMT, they aren't my trade union any more) is that it's because they're training up management to work trains as contingency conductors. It seems perverse to me that anyone would strike over that, on the grounds that if a strike goes ahead *literally all that will happen is said management who are being trained will work the trains to cover the service getting a nice chunk of overtime whilst the conductors lose pay*.

It's not perverse from a RMT perspective - their motivation is likely strategic to try and maintain the power/influence of the strike option in the future.

 

[PupCuff]

It's not perverse from a RMT perspective - their motivation is likely strategic to try and maintain the power/influence of the strike option in the future.

But how will their strike have power or influence if they walk out and the management who are being trained up just come in and work the trains instead? There's no suggestion that XC will cease training up management to work trains, pretty much every other train operator does so.

Management get some nice overtime pay round Christmas whilst the conductors end up losing a few hundred quid. I'm not RMT any more but if I was I know which box I'd be putting a cross in and it sure as anything wouldn't be 'Yes'.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Management working trains would only temporarily get the company out of the proverbial. They are bound by the same working time regulations so the company concerned will very quickly run out of managers and not all of the trains will be covered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not perverse from a RMT perspective - their motivation is likely strategic to try and maintain the power/influence of the strike option in the future.

As a passenger I do not support this type of action. It is quite right that companies implement contingencies, indeed it is negligent not to do so.

 

[Horizon22]

I mean to be honest, I'm highly pro keeping conductors on trains, but when there's disputes over petty things like whether they have to use an app, it's unhelpful and doesn't present the industry as forward thinking or pro-customer.

My understanding of the XC ballot (albeit I haven't seen any formal announcement from the RMT, they aren't my trade union any more) is that it's because they're training up management to work trains as contingency conductors. It seems perverse to me that anyone would strike over that, on the grounds that if a strike goes ahead *literally all that will happen is said management who are being trained will work the trains to cover the service getting a nice chunk of overtime whilst the conductors lose pay*.

That is indeed odd if its the case. Plenty of TOCs have formalised contingency dispatcher / guard schemes for management and they work just fine. The contingency might be for a number of sensible reasons although understandably is most likely to be due to industrial action. In fact that's how Southern were (eventually) able to provide a 'reasonable' service (along with ASLEF deal) during their DOO strikes and completely nullified the RMT.

 

[43066]

My understanding of the XC ballot (albeit I haven't seen any formal announcement from the RMT, they aren't my trade union any more) is that it's because they're training up management to work trains as contingency conductors. It seems perverse to me that anyone would strike over that, on the grounds that if a strike goes ahead *literally all that will happen is said management who are being trained will work the trains to cover the service getting a nice chunk of overtime whilst the conductors lose pay*.

I’d be surprised if that’s the case - is that just one of various issues in play? It’s generally accepted by the unions that management will work as guards in the event of industrial action to keep the service running - it’s their job after all.

 

[ComUtoR]

Management get some nice overtime pay round Christmas

That is if they have overtime as part of the packages. Managers at my TOC would be asked to work for no extra, if anything it's just a change in days worked. When you have no fixed RD pattern or RD agreements in place then 'overtime' becomes a thing of the past. Our Managers also work 5 day weeks and may often work 7. Due to the unfixed nature of the job I suspect any Manager will just be expected to work.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It is quite right that companies implement contingencies, indeed it is negligent not to do so.

Absolutely. A big +1 from me.

 

[PupCuff]

That is if they have overtime as part of the packages. Managers at my TOC would be asked to work for no extra, if anything it's just a change in days worked. When you have no fixed RD pattern or RD agreements in place then 'overtime' becomes a thing of the past. Our Managers also work 5 day weeks and may often work 7. Due to the unfixed nature of the job I suspect any Manager will just be expected to work.

My TOC and my previous TOC management get overtime payments for working trains out of hours - can't speak for all, of course. I know the mythical '5 day working week' well

I’d be surprised if that’s the case - is that just one of various issues in play? It’s generally accepted by the unions that management will work as guards in the event of industrial action to keep the service running - it’s their job after all.

Nor from what I gather. As I say not my TOC or my union so I acknowledge I won't have full information on the who's whys and where's but based on the information that's been put out by RMT reps on Facebook it would appear that the reason for the ballot is that management working trains 'undermines the safety critical role and responsibilities of the Guard'.

Quite how me coming in of a Saturday night (well the parallel universe version of me who works for XC) when no conductors want to work overtime because of all the overcrowding and whatnot undermines the safety critical role of the Guard I don't know. I'd argue it's management showing they're willing to muck in, be visible to frontline staff, and make sure that the conductors who aren't in aren't swamped by customers off cancelled trains, but no doubt for some reason I'll be wrong.

 

[riceuten]

it would be interesting to see if the pay freeze applies to to management as well as the peons actually running the service.

I suspect not.

 

[43066]

Nor from what I gather. As I say not my TOC or my union so I acknowledge I won't have full information on the who's whys and where's but based on the information that's been put out by RMT reps on Facebook it would appear that the reason for the ballot is that management working trains 'undermines the safety critical role and responsibilities of the Guard'.

It’s often impossible to get a clear view of the issues in dispute even if you’re working at the TOC concerned. The discussion are shrouded in secrecy and the issues in play often seem to be bundled up as a package, which doesn’t help matters.

Quite how me coming in of a Saturday night (well the parallel universe version of me who works for XC) when no conductors want to work overtime because of all the overcrowding and whatnot undermines the safety critical role of the Guard I don't know. I'd argue it's management showing they're willing to muck in, be visible to frontline staff, and make sure that the conductors who aren't in aren't swamped by customers off cancelled trains, but no doubt for some reason I'll be wrong.

If that is their beef then - taken by itself - I agree it’s utterly ludicrous. They do themselves no favours, on occasion. I say that as one of their staunchest supporters on here, sometimes against my better judgment!

 

[Watershed]

it would be interesting to see if the pay freeze applies to to management as well as the peons actually running the service.

I suspect not.

The DfT's pay freeze has affected everyone in the railway. The only people who have had an increase are those who were on starter/training rates and those where specific DfT permission has been obtained (as in the case of some of the multi-year drivers' deals).

 

[Starmill]

The DfT's pay freeze has affected everyone in the railway. The only people who have had an increase are those who were on starter/training rates and those where specific DfT permission has been obtained (as in the case of some of the multi-year drivers' deals).

Indeed. It affected all public sector workers except for NHS and a small handful of other exceptions such as the one you mention. Anyone who earnt £24,000 annual equivalent or less received an annualised rise of £250.

 

[AntoniC]

Indeed. It affected all public sector workers except for NHS and a small handful of other exceptions such as the one you mention. Anyone who earnt £24,000 annual equivalent or less received an annualised rise of £250.

This year (as a Civil Servant) I and the majority of my Union (PCS) voted to accept a multi year deal which gave me 7% consolidated and 6% non consolidated pay rise in 2021/2022.(My employer had to get Treasury permission to make the offer).
This involved changes to my T&C`s which where both positive and negative - for me the positives (pay rise/working from home at least 3 days a week) outweighed the negatives (overtime abolished / change of start time/ possibly having to work late 1 night a week and 6 Saturdays a year) which is why I voted for it.
If the offer had been rejected then I would have got which is what Starmill quoted.

 

[43066]

Unfortunately post #234 by @Starmill is factually incorrect. Non Network Rail railway staff, including train drivers, are employed by train operating companies and as such aren’t public sector workers by any definition. Neither will they become so under the new GBR regime.

This year (as a Civil Servant) I and the majority of my Union (PCS) voted to accept a multi year deal which gave me 7% consolidated and 6% non consolidated pay rise in 2021/2022.(My employer had to get Treasury permission to make the offer).
This involved changes to my T&C`s which where both positive and negative - for me the positives (pay rise/working from home at least 3 days a week) outweighed the negatives (overtime/ abolished change of start time/ possibly having to work late 1 night a week and 6 Saturdays a year) which is why I voted for it.
If the offer had been rejected then I would have got which is what Starmill quoted.

Makes sense, most railway pay rises are agreed on the same basis. As the saying goes: there’s no such thing as a free lunch. That cuts both ways on the railway or course hence enhanced overtime rates for staff who are in demand.

 

[Watershed]

Unfortunately post #234 by @Starmill is factually incorrect. Non Network Rail railway staff, including train drivers, are employed by train operating companies and as such aren’t public sector workers by any definition.

They may be employed by private sector companies, but those companies operate under such a high degree of government control that they are functionally equivalent to being public sector.

Neither will they become so under the new GBR regime.

Under GBR, that status will be formalised and made permanent.

 

[ComUtoR]

Under GBR, that status will be formalised and made permanent.

Can you please provide evidence of this.

 

[43066]

They may be employed by private sector companies, but those companies operate under such a high degree of government control that they are functionally equivalent to being public sector.

So do GPs practices (mostly partnerships), and myriad private sector entities who are engaged to perform various functions by various governmental departments. Their staff aren’t true public sector employees in the way staff employed by (for example) NHS trusts are, or NR, which is a not for profit corporate entity wholly owned by HMG.

Under GBR, that status will be formalised and made permanent.

You’ll have to point me where that formalisation (as what?) is, please? The closest example we have to the new model so far is ARL which operates as a concession. I wouldn’t exactly describe their staff as “public sector” employees.

Does anyone serious think the current government is up for massively increasing the scope of the public sector?

 

[Starmill]

They may be employed by private sector companies, but those companies operate under such a high degree of government control that they are functionally equivalent to being public sector.

Indeed. Train drivers at GBR companies are now public sector workers by the only definition which counts: HMT's. The position with regards to Transport for Wales and ScotRail / Cal Sleeper may be slightly different. The position at TfL Rail and London Overground slightly different again, for different reasons. Freight operators are rather different of course.

But it is also worth noting that the general freeze on public sector pay no longer applies. A rise is permitted, if it can be funded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

Can you please provide evidence of this.

Some rather large hints were dropped in paragraph 60 of Williams-Shapps:

Constant rounds of industrial relations disputes on the railways
have diverted the sector from developing a co-ordinated, strategic
approach to planning its workforce. A reset is needed to allow the
sector to dedicate time and attention to fostering the skills and
talent needed to be fit for the future.

They were hardly going to give more than that away at this vantage.