Transpennine Industrial Relations

[dk1]

Was the whole reason commission was offered to guards under BR in the 80s & very lucrative & successful an idea it was even to this day. Can add £100s to a conductors monthly pay.

 

[Meerkat]

As for using discipline procedures on lazy guards who don't walk through as much as they should . It's not necessarily as easy as the commentators on here think . It would he incredibly labour intensive to build up enough evidence for a disciplinary case . You would afterall you have to prove that it is a regular and consistent behaviour which would involve weeks of evidence gathering on that guards trains .

Why?? Spot check, guard hides in cab all trip, "Please explain", spot check, hiding again, disciplinary.
Isn't that effectively what drivers endure with checking the data recorders?
The big question is whether the union would accept it if done properly or escalate on principle?

 

[Fokx]

Why?? Spot check, guard hides in cab all trip, "Please explain", spot check, hiding again, disciplinary.
Isn't that effectively what drivers endure with checking the data recorders?
The big question is whether the union would accept it if done properly or escalate on principle?

You’d run into problems straight away at the moment

Current revenue protocol is “Only go as far down the train as you deem it safe to do so”

 

[Watershed]

The thing is scanning tickets can save TOCs a great deal in fraudulent claims

Indeed it can. But so did stamping paper tickets. Yet the unions didn't demand a payment per stamp.

The only reason this is coming up is because there are now ticketing facilities at virtually every station, and buying tickets online/on an app is more common than ever before. So guards' income from ticket selling commission has dropped substantially and they are looking for something else to replace it.

That they've introduced digital tickets without consulting staff

Are you suggesting staff should be consulted before every new ticket type and promotion that's introduced? Who'd actually be running the company at that point?

means they kinda are now beholden to staff scanning them to close the loop on that

They're beholden to staff doing their jobs diligently, yes. I hardly think that's too much to expect.

I think the reps would be doing their members a disservice if they didn't try and capitalise on that . Particularly at a time when their members haven't seen a payrise for 2 years .

I think the reps would be doing their members a disservice if the dispute caused members to lose even a penny of pay.

Clearly this is really much more about the lack of a payrise, which in the context of (comparatively) high levels of inflation I can absolutely understand. But I'd respect them rather more if they said so straight up, rather than bringing up collateral disputes.

As for using discipline procedures on lazy guards who don't walk through as much as they should . It's not necessarily as easy as the commentators on here think . It would he incredibly labour intensive to build up enough evidence for a disciplinary case . You would afterall you have to prove that it is a regular and consistent behaviour which would involve weeks of evidence gathering on that guards trains .

I imagine it's probably more cost effective to offer a small incentive than spend all this

Yes, funny how in the rail industry it always seems easier to "bribe" people than to actually make them do their job properly.

 

[muz379]

Why?? Spot check, guard hides in cab all trip, "Please explain", spot check, hiding again, disciplinary.
Isn't that effectively what drivers endure with checking the data recorders?
The big question is whether the union would accept it if done properly or escalate on principle?

So I don't know how every toc runs but I know at my toc you have around 25/30 guards to each manager . So they'd have to go out for a full trip with every one of those on a semi regular basis for it to be a regular pattern of hiding in the back cab . Some trips could be 3/4 hours round . Whens that manager going to get round to dealing with all the other things they are currently busy doing ?

Of course you could hire another grade/set off staff to monitor this but you'd need a significant number .And it's not like TOCs are currently already looking at voluntary redundancy for non essential roles . And it probably still works out cheaper giving the guard a few pennies a scan as an incentive.

Yes drivers are subject to random download. As guards are subject to random observations on them doing their door duties .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2021 ==

Indeed it can. But so did stamping paper tickets. Yet the unions didn't demand a payment per stamp.

The only reason this is coming up is because there are now ticketing facilities at virtually every station, and buying tickets online/on an app is more common than ever before. So guards' income from ticket selling commission has dropped substantially and they are looking for something else to replace it.

And would the reps not be doing their members a disservice if they didn't investigate ways that this shortfall in wages could he made up ? . Especially in the case of a TOC that isn't currently being paid for scanning operating in an area with a TOC that is .

They're beholden to staff doing their jobs diligently, yes. I hardly think that's too much to expect

But the job never involved spotting the various different types of digital fraud going on , some of them quite sophisticated . Changes to job role do sometimes come with changes to pay

I think the reps would be doing their members a disservice if the dispute caused members to lose even a penny of pay.

Clearly this is really much more about the lack of a payrise, which in the context of (comparatively) high levels of inflation I can absolutely understand. But I'd respect them rather more if they said so straight up, rather than bringing up collateral disputes.

I mean it's upto the members themselves if they are going to lose any money that's how a trades dispute works . The reps can only recommend what they think should happen to resolve that dispute.

It tends to be the case that disputes are often about the bigger picture . A generally happy set of staff are going to be more prepared to compromise over one small issue than a set of staff with low morale . Of course even on paper this dispute about more than one thing anyway .

Yes, funny how in the rail industry it always seems easier

Maybe so , but as I've already addressed above its also the more cost effective way to manage the situation . And is that not the thing the government and industry are looking at right now . The most value for money .

Seems funny that people are splitting hairs over 2p a ticket scan in the bigger picture of inefficiencies within the industry .

 

[Meerkat]

You’d run into problems straight away at the moment

Current revenue protocol is “Only go as far down the train as you deem it safe to do so”

So why are the union kicking off now? Instigating a bonus for checking tickets would encourage staff to do covid insecure checking to make a bit more money.

So I don't know how every toc runs but I know at my toc you have around 25/30 guards to each manager . So they'd have to go out for a full trip with every one of those on a semi regular basis for it to be a regular pattern of hiding in the back cab . Some trips could be 3/4 hours round . Whens that manager going to get round to dealing with all the other things they are currently busy doing ?

Of course you could hire another grade/set off staff to monitor this but you'd need a significant number .And it's not like TOCs are currently already looking at voluntary redundancy for non essential roles . And it probably still works out cheaper giving the guard a few pennies a scan as an incentive.

Yes drivers are subject to random download. As guards are subject to random observations on them doing their door duties .

Actually they wouldn't need to go near the train. If the system can theoretically allocate that 2p to the correct guard then the system can download a report showing who has been scanning tickets and who hasn't!

 

[Horizon22]

So I don't know how every toc runs but I know at my toc you have around 25/30 guards to each manager . So they'd have to go out for a full trip with every one of those on a semi regular basis for it to be a regular pattern of hiding in the back cab . Some trips could be 3/4 hours round . Whens that manager going to get round to dealing with all the other things they are currently busy doing ?

Of course you could hire another grade/set off staff to monitor this but you'd need a significant number .And it's not like TOCs are currently already looking at voluntary redundancy for non essential roles . And it probably still works out cheaper giving the guard a few pennies a scan as an incentive.

It is certainly possible if you ensure it is part of a manager's duties to conduct X number of assessments per period. This can be done and doesn't need to be intense, but it does require good organisation and planning. I know people get funny about "unannounced monitoring" but it is a very useful part of performance management. You don't need to spend the whole trip on it (if this isn't a summary assessment). If you time it right you could also go from A-B-A ensuring that the guard / TM is on your depot. Yes a manager would need to check up the diagrams and it does need a bit of time and planning to ensure its the right depot (and to ensure its not the same trains every week!) but you can glean A LOT from this onboard monitoring. It is not impossible.

You can also use objective data such as records from scans and the back office software to see which staff are above and below average without good reason (absence, AL etc.)

 

[Fokx]

So why are the union kicking off now? Instigating a bonus for checking tickets would encourage staff to do covid insecure checking to make a bit more money.

They’re not, the conversation has been going on for a long while.

Staff such as myself are still going down trains where we deem it safe to do so. Covid peaks and spikes are temporary, whereas the scanning payment would be long term.

Once again just to point out, the current issues affecting Transpennine Express are NOT to do with the conditions of the guard which is currently under ballot.

 

[Meerkat]

It is certainly possible if you ensure it is part of a manager's duties to conduct X number of assessments per period. This can be done and doesn't need to be intense, but it does require good organisation and planning. I know people get funny about "unannounced monitoring" but it is a very useful part of performance management. You don't need to spend the whole trip on it (if this isn't a summary assessment). If you time it right you could also go from A-B-A ensuring that the guard / TM is on your depot. Yes a manager would need to check up the diagrams and it does need a bit of time and planning to ensure its the right depot (and to ensure its not the same trains every week!) but you can glean A LOT from this onboard monitoring. It is not impossible.

You can also use objective data such as records from scans and the back office software to see which staff are above and below average without good reason (absence, AL etc.)

Surely the manager couldn't do it unless they were in disguise!
Though it would make it a pretty solid case - gets on and off your train, and sat on it for three hours and you didn't notice your own manager!

 

[muz379]

It is certainly possible if you ensure it is part of a manager's duties to conduct X number of assessments per period. This can be done and doesn't need to be intense, but it does require good organisation and planning. I know people get funny about "unannounced monitoring" but it is a very useful part of performance management. You don't need to spend the whole trip on it (if this isn't a summary assessment). If you time it right you could also go from A-B-A ensuring that the guard / TM is on your depot. Yes a manager would need to check up the diagrams and it does need a bit of time and planning to ensure its the right depot (and to ensure its not the same trains every week!) but you can glean A LOT from this onboard monitoring. It is not impossible.

You can also use objective data such as records from scans and the back office software to see which staff are above and below average without good reason (absence, AL etc.)

Much like unannounced monitoring at stations it'd soon become common knowledge which managers like going on which trips .it wouldn't take a genius to figure out which routes and trips would be efficient for managers to do either. I already have a good idea of where unannounced monitoring takes place for example . I don't actually have an issue with unannounced monitoring especially for safety critical roles where it's imperative that staff are doing their job correctly all the time. Even knowing where it happens doesn't tell you when it's going to happen or at which one of the numerous locations .

I like the idea of using revenue data it's almost like that's already part of the process.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2021 ==

Actually they wouldn't need to go near the train. If the system can theoretically allocate that 2p to the correct guard then the system can download a report showing who has been scanning tickets and who hasn't

Unless it's consistently zero and the guard has been in work which even the laziest guard would be foolish to do it's not always concrete evidence that one guard hides in the back .

For example I could work an otherwise usually dead train today that my colleague working yesterday had a school group on a school trip on ergo 30 more scans than me . That makes me look lazy when he just had a chance encounter with an extraordinary large number of passengers .

 

[Watershed]

And would the reps not be doing their members a disservice if they didn't investigate ways that this shortfall in wages could he made up ? . Especially in the case of a TOC that isn't currently being paid for scanning operating in an area with a TOC that is .

The only reason the wages have reduced is because the 'work' that was leading to the commission - selling tickets - has dried up. It's that reduction in work that has caused the drop.

By contrast, checking tickets is an activity that revenue guards have undertaken for decades and it hasn't dried up. But the historic position has always been that it's simply part and parcel of the role and doesn't attract any additional payment.

The only thing about checking tickets that has changed over the decades is the format of the tickets and the way in which they're checked. Guards didn't get paid more for selling tickets when new machines were introduced, so why should they get paid more for checking tickets using a new device?

If I were a rep, rather than trying to argue my members should start to get paid extra for doing something they've done for decades, I'd be looking to see what productivity improvements I could suggest, to help pay for the payrise that members are ultimately after.

But the job never involved spotting the various different types of digital fraud going on , some of them quite sophisticated

No-one is forcing anyone to investigate digital fraud. If you decide to do that, that's honourable, but it's your prerogative. There are people whose entire jobs are to investigate this kind of thing.

But equally, are you saying you would never have ran a magstripe ticket through your machine to see what it came up with? And that you'd never hold up a ticket to a light to see whether it's fake? Surely you can see it's hardly an unprecedented situation. Just, again, with modern day kit rather than paper tickets.

Changes to job role do sometimes come with changes to pay

Yes, generally where there's an increase in responsibility or productivity.

mean it's upto the members themselves if they are going to lose any money that's how a trades dispute works . The reps can only recommend what they think should happen to resolve that dispute.

It tends to be the case that disputes are often about the bigger picture . A generally happy set of staff are going to be more prepared to compromise over one small issue than a set of staff with low morale . Of course even on paper this dispute about more than one thing anyway .

But as people always say, even if you disagree with a dispute you "should" still vote yes on the ballot - after all, that shows the members are united, right?

The reality is that a lot of people are just 'floaters' and will just go by what the rep and the most vociferous colleagues say. And even most who don't agree with a dispute won't cross the picket line.

So ultimately the reps decide the direction of travel in most cases.

Maybe so , but as I've already addressed above its also the more cost effective way to manage the situation . And is that not the thing the government and industry are looking at right now . The most value for money .

Seems funny that people are splitting hairs over 2p a ticket scan in the bigger picture of inefficiencies within the industry .

What's easiest and cheapest in the short term isn't necessarily the same in the medium and long term.

2p a ticket might not sound like a lot but agreeing to it sets the precedent that with every new bit of kit, members can expect to get 'something for nothing'. Which is simply not a sustainable way to run the railway.

Unfortunately for the company, putting this on the table in previous negotiations has undoubtedly caused expectations to arise...

 

[Starmill]

Hopefully GBR will set up an incentive payments framework. This would ideally prohibit or strictly limit the circumstances in which an incentive package can rely on duties performed during the normal course of work, such as selling or inspecting tickets. It could set out criteria for excellence such as achieving above average customer satisfaction at depot or company level.

This is the only fair way to deal with this if there's real genuine unhappiness - get rid of all of the existing ticket and scan commissions and incenitvise actual excellence in quality. Otherwise there will always be someone somewhere getting more incentive pay than you.

Incentive pay should also be offered either to all front line staff, or to none, not only conductors.

This is a totally ridiculous basis for an industrial dispute. Unfortunately it's also a very predictable consequence of a poor policy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2021 ==

There are people whose entire jobs are to investigate this kind of thing.

Indeed. If conductors deserve an element of pay that's performance related, do the office staff who work in special revenue not also?

 

[LittleAH]

Once again just to point out, the current issues affecting Transpennine Express are NOT to do with the conditions of the guard which is currently under ballot.

Exactly. Problem is nobody's reported on it unlike the balloting.

 

[Horizon22]

Much like unannounced monitoring at stations it'd soon become common knowledge which managers like going on which trips .it wouldn't take a genius to figure out which routes and trips would be efficient for managers to do either. I already have a good idea of where unannounced monitoring takes place for example . I don't actually have an issue with unannounced monitoring especially for safety critical roles where it's imperative that staff are doing their job correctly all the time. Even knowing where it happens doesn't tell you when it's going to happen or at which one of the numerous locations .

That's why you would have to change the trains on a semi-regular basis. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to arrange this, it just needs some foresight and planning.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Incentive pay should also be offered either to all front line staff, or to none, not only conductors.

On that note, how could that be implemented for other staff? For example a Gateline Assistant, a Train Driver, a Cleaner, a member of Platform Staff?
How would you gauge how much incentive pay a Driver receives for example?
Some people might not like me for this but as a Driver I don’t personally feel like I should receive incentive pay. I get paid a good salary and I turn up to work and do the job to the best of my ability in return for that. I understand why Guards might receive it as it’s an incentive for them to work to a higher level to collect as much revenue for the company, from a Drivers perspective there’s not really much I could do in my role to make the company more money, I get paid my salary to drive a train from A to B, that’s the limit to my productivity.

 

[Starmill]

On that note, how could that be implemented for other staff? For example a Gateline Assistant, a Train Driver, a Cleaner, a member of Platform Staff?
How would you gauge how much incentive pay a Driver receives for example?
Some people might not like me for this but as a Driver I don’t personally feel like I should receive incentive pay. I get paid a good salary and I turn up to work and do the job to the best of my ability in return for that. I understand why Guards might receive it as it’s an incentive for them to work to a higher level to collect as much revenue for the company, from a Drivers perspective there’s not really much I could do in my role to make the company more money, I get paid my salary to drive a train from A to B, that’s the limit to my productivity.

It doesn't matter how it's implemented, providing it's implemented in an even and consistent way.

For example, you migh create a bonus pool and disburse money from it route by route if NRPS targets are all met.

Equally as you suggest you might take a look in the round at pay and conditions and decide that performance related pay isn't a useful way forward, and not provide any.

It needs to be kept as consistent as possible however, because otherwise the industry is making a rod for its own back.

 

[Dieseldriver]

It doesn't matter how it's implemented, providing it's implemented in an even and consistent way.

For example, you migh create a bonus pool and disburse money from it route by route if NRPS targets are all met.

Equally as you suggest you might take a look in the round at pay and conditions and decide that performance related pay isn't a useful way forward, and not provide any.

It needs to be kept as consistent as possible however, because otherwise the industry is making a rod for its own back.

I think I see what you mean so you’re saying the incentive based pay should consist of a pot of money to be evenly distributed between all grades of staff depending on how well/poorly the business is performing at that point in time?

 

[Starmill]

I think I see what you mean so you’re saying the incentive based pay should consist of a pot of money to be evenly distributed between all grades of staff depending on how well/poorly the business is performing at that point in time?

That's one way in which it could be done, or if there's a compelling reason to break it down either by location or by grade that could also be done e.g. all front line staff, or one pot for everyone responsible for onboard customer experience and another pot for everyone responsible for stations customer experience. Ultimately, providing the conditions are clear, there is a consistent approach across different operators, and there is an adequate link between exceedingly good performance and the extra pay then it doesn't really matter what metrics are used. You could also make the reward extra holiday time or vouchers instead of cash which maximises tax benefit.

 

[muz379]

If I were a rep, rather than trying to argue my members should start to get paid extra for doing something they've done for decades, I'd be looking to see what productivity improvements I could suggest, to help pay for the payrise that members are ultimately after.

That's just it , it is a productivity thing , digital validation rather than visual checking is a much quicker process , scan the ticket and the machine tells you if its valid or not . So it should be possible to check more tickets in the same period of time . And as previously alluded to this gives the company huge savings on digital fraud. I don't think the reps are unreasonable for asking that the staff get a slice of that pie . We clearly won't agree but ultimately it's been agreed at some TOCs it's upto the staff at those that haven't agreed it if they think it's a fight they want to have .

But as people always say, even if you disagree with a dispute you "should" still vote yes on the ballot - after all, that shows the members are united, right?

The reality is that a lot of people are just 'floaters' and will just go by what the rep and the most vociferous colleagues say. And even most who don't agree with a dispute won't cross the picket line.

So ultimately the reps decide the direction of travel in most cases.

To a degree but ballots have and do fall at the same time .

The only thing about checking tickets that has changed over the decades is the format of the tickets and the way in which they're checked. Guards didn't get paid more for selling tickets when new machines were introduced, so why should they get paid more for checking tickets using a new device?

It's not uncommon for one off payments above pay for a training day to attend training for new equipment Including revenue equipment . Again if that new equipment makes the job quicker and easier then it is a productivity thing.

That's why you would have to change the trains on a semi-regular basis. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to arrange this, it just needs some foresight and planning.

Unless the work at a depot drastically changes though there's only going to be a finite number of trains that the managers would be on . As I said it wouldn't be difficult to work out what routes are the most efficient , frame that with the hours the managers typically work and in the context of other work and meetings the managers have to attend . As I already said it's not my experience that managers are typically sat around twiddling their thumbs all day either . Yes they could get some work done on the train but probably at a slower rate .

 

[Towers]

As for using discipline procedures on lazy guards who don't walk through as much as they should . It's not necessarily as easy as the commentators on here think . It would he incredibly labour intensive to build up enough evidence for a disciplinary case . You would afterall you have to prove that it is a regular and consistent behaviour which would involve weeks of evidence gathering on that guards trains .

I can think of another TOC, operated by the same parent company as TPE, where the scanning of QR code tickets and smartcards was introduced some time ago without issue, and where said introduction involved neither a "technology payment" nor a pay-per-clip incentive.

Said TOC uses data reported each period which gives full details of an individual's productivity, both overall and on a per-shift basis, and undertakes processes to directly challenge those who do not perform to an acceptable degree; an appropriate disciplinary procedure is available should it be required. These measures are overall pretty effective.

 

[muz379]

Said TOC uses data reported each period which gives full details of an individual's productivity, both overall and on a per-shift basis, and undertakes processes to directly challenge those who do not perform to an acceptable degree; an appropriate disciplinary procedure is available should it be required. These measures are overall pretty effective.

That's fairly standard using an average between performance reviews or practical assessments to monitor .I laugh sometimes how the rhetoric is about "challenge" surely it should be to investigate why someone's performance is below average . There can be many legitimate reasons , it's not always laziness.

But without an incentive payment I wonder if that average Is lower than it could be with one.

 

[TUC]

It’s a productivity despute.

Basically, Imagine you are a proactive guard, and on top of your normal duties you are checking and scanning tickets at every single station, for every single passenger, reducing the number of refunded e-tickets through apps like Trainline, correcting incorrect tickets, assisting passengers with advice regarding their tickets, helping passengers with issues such as train to long for platform etc.

You currently earn the same as a guard who doesn’t take a ticket machine and hides in the cab, never to be seen. There is no motivation (or financial benefit) for the conductor to be productive in terms of revenue, a conductor who scans no tickets all day is paid the same as one who scans 500.

I will add the current issues are not in regards to the above, and are mainly currently down to an increase in services with drivers pulling RDW. Conductor are currently balloting for both pulling RDW and full strike which won’t make the situation any easier.

I can see that, but the real issue is TPE ( and many other TOCs) failing to effectively manage lazy members of staff and get them to do their jobs,

 

[Fokx]

the real issue is TPE ( and many other TOCs) failing to effectively manage lazy members of staff and get them to do their jobs,

It’s not. The real issue is that the current dispute is regarding driver RDW.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==

That's just it , it is a productivity thing , digital validation rather than visual checking is a much quicker process , scan the ticket and the machine tells you if its valid or not . So it should be possible to check more tickets in the same period of time . And as previously alluded to this gives the company huge savings on digital fraud. I don't think the reps are unreasonable for asking that the staff get a slice of that pie .

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. There is no documentation anywhere that says the guard cannot visually check a QR/Aztec coded ticket. The company wants conductors to scan them to reduce refund fraud and ticket irregularities such as invalid splits etc.

To incentivise this, TPE offered a (rejected) productivity deal which would have seen each conductor receive 3p per ticket scan. This was rejected due to issue surrounding the conductors working week, which would have seen an increase in hours. The company offered this themselves as they know how important the role of the conductor clipping tickets is compared to visually checking them, and the revenue protection this offers, particularly on un-barriered stations of which there are many on the TPE network.

 

[Moonshot]

A few weeks ago I got taken to task on here for suggesting that industrial relations issues were going to get worse.....and here we are. 2022 is going to see a lot more disputes.

 

[VauxhallNova]

I'm quite sure TPE would have started that rumour. Over reliance on rest day working has been an issue for years, see here for a story from 2013.

"He said many train operating companies rely heavily on their drivers to cover the shifts of others who may be on leave or sick, especially at weekends."

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/rail-drivers-strike-threat-over-shifts-2678916

 

[muz379]

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. There is no documentation anywhere that says the guard cannot visually check a QR/Aztec coded ticket. The company wants conductors to scan them to reduce refund fraud and ticket irregularities such as invalid splits etc.

Indeed for a period of time before mobile equipment for checking digital tickets was provided this was all that on train revenue staff could do at some TOCs .

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's not uncommon for one off payments above pay for a training day to attend training for new equipment Including revenue equipment . Again if that new equipment makes the job quicker and easier then it is a productivity thing.

The idea to me that I would get extra pay to be trained on new equipment that is part of my job is an absolute joke. I have new software constantly I need to use and you just get trained, it's just part of the job....

 

[dk1]

The idea to me that I would get extra pay to be trained on new equipment that is part of my job is an absolute joke. I have new software constantly I need to use and you just get trained, it's just part of the job....

If that’s what is agreed between management & staff side then that is what has to happen. If you don’t have that in your work contract it is of no relevance here.

 

[Meerkat]

Unless it's consistently zero and the guard has been in work which even the laziest guard would be foolish to do it's not always concrete evidence that one guard hides in the back .

For example I could work an otherwise usually dead train today that my colleague working yesterday had a school group on a school trip on ergo 30 more scans than me . That makes me look lazy when he just had a chance encounter with an extraordinary large number of passengers .

I wouldn't suggest picking on individual trips - if the data is downloaded it can be much more cleverly interrogated to see who is checking the most and least on particular routes and times.

That's just it , it is a productivity thing , digital validation rather than visual checking is a much quicker process , scan the ticket and the machine tells you if its valid or not . So it should be possible to check more tickets in the same period of time . And as previously alluded to this gives the company huge savings on digital fraud. I don't think the reps are unreasonable for asking that the staff get a slice of that pie . We clearly won't agree but ultimately it's been agreed at some TOCs it's upto the staff at those that haven't agreed it if they think it's a fight they want to have .

Why on earth should the staff get a slice of the pie for something due to company investment? Its this sort of madness that makes the railway so expensive and so inflexible.

PS hasn't this made the guard's job easier - they don't need to read the ticket and use their knowledge to decide whether its valid, the computer does it. The skill level is dropping, maybe for new entrants pay should be going down not up!

 

[muz379]

The idea to me that I would get extra pay to be trained on new equipment that is part of my job is an absolute joke. I have new software constantly I need to use and you just get trained, it's just part of the job....

Perhaps one of the benefits of being in a unionised industry . The railway certainly isn't unique in that sense .

I wouldn't suggest picking on individual trips - if the data is downloaded it can be much more cleverly interrogated to see who is checking the most and least on particular routes and times.

Oh indeed there's a lot of data to interrogate though . But all of this checking who is selling the most on particular routes or at particular times would only give average figures to compare everyone against . And as I question above is a sensible way to raise that average to provide an incentive ?

Why on earth should the staff get a slice of the pie for something due to company investment? Its this sort of madness that makes the railway so expensive and so inflexible.

PS hasn't this made the guard's job easier - they don't need to read the ticket and use their knowledge to decide whether its valid, the computer does it. The skill level is dropping, maybe for new entrants pay should be going down not up!

It's the policy of almost every union that some of any productivity savings a company can make should be passed on to staff . It's just in the rail industry density and engagement is higher than others . I'm not really sure why you think a few pennies for every ticket scan is making the industry so expensive though , I mean don't just take my word for it TOCs are reporting saving millions on fraudulent digital ticket refunds from increased levels of digital validation . They aren't passing these millions onto the staff scanning . In theory it should even be possible for guards and other staff digitally validating tickets to just quickly flag tickets being used incorrectly upto teams investigating fraud making their job even easier and increasing income .

Yes it's probably made ticket checking slightly easier although I know at some TOCs guards are still selling tickets albeit a reduced number so some degree of knowledge is still required . Also worth bearing in mind there's always going to be passengers who want to know more about ticket validity than others . I guess any pay reduction would have to be calculated by disentangling the small part of the role that involved in depth knowledge about ticket validity and working out to what degree that has been diminished . Sounds like quite a complicated one to quantify. Then again do we get extra pay everytime we sign a new route or piece of traction ?maybe that should be put on the agenda for future meetings

But look it's not a new concept that if you want the folk that work for you to be engaged and interested in your projects they need to be suitably motivated including in remuneration. Tying that remuneration directly to performance is a good way for staff to see tangible results from their increased efforts . Bonuses for meeting targets which could be argued as part of the job are par for the course in many higher level management jobs in all industries but when the people at the bottom of the ladder want in on similar they're the ones being greedy