Cross Country RMT industrial action

[Horizon22]

I'm sure they are . Doesn't mean they favour one group of junior staff over another though.

I never said they did - you the one insinuating that senior management might consider "that their day job isnt as essential as previously thought". Which I doubt. Senior management appreciate the need to keep the core service running and for those in the back-office to be "closer to the operation" or whichever speak you wish to use.

That's all predicated on an "if".

Someone further up-thread floated the number of staff having been selected as 90. Frankly I would be shocked if there was that number of staff working in the back office in total (clearly there's some scope for some cost-saving redundancies if this number is even close to being correct), so if that number is anywhere near accurate it would suggest that they've trained everyone to act as a contingent guard. That being the case, I would have to wonder how they've decided that every single one of these otherwise fine folk are suitable for safety critical work. I find it hard to believe that had they applied for real jobs as guards that there would have been such a high rate of employment and feel confident that at least half of them would have fallen by the wayside for various reasons.

Now I appreciate that this is no less speculative than what you've said in support of your premise. However, the fact that there is still an ongoing dispute would suggest that just maybe there is something causing concern to my rear-facing colleagues that we are not privy to, something that is to them a major issue worth going on strike over. That whatever this is has not been communicated publicly is neither here nor there, but clearly there are still concerns.



That's your experience. Mine is slightly different. As mentioned already, I have yet to see any contingent guards being passed out. I would also refer back to the debacle that happened on GA when contingent guards were deployed in lieu of striking guards. It was so bad that it earned the TOC a censure from the regulator and required them to take remedial action to prevent any repeat.

Maybe my experience is colouring my view, but then maybe your experience is colouring yours too. The point remains that, even though your experience appears to have been positive, it does not mean that it will be replicated in every situation. Of course I am aware of what should happen and what the CMS demands, and that is why this whole issue is ringing alarm bells with me.

Most TOCs have more than 1,000 employees. Now discounting all the people already in driver or guards roles of course, but it seems like a number can be mustered up and willing. It would be very bad form for people to be pushed into doing it. I also wonder whether the 90 (where is the source exactly for this number?) includes contingency dispatchers as well which is much more common and less intensive.

Perhaps there is some merit into the concern because many other TOCs have got the same contingency system in place with absoutely zero issues. It would be interesting to know what it is that the RMT at XC feel is so egregious. As you said though, its all rather speculative and we've clearly got differing experiences of the system. I know it can work though, whereas some seem to think it can't work under any circumstances.

In reality, contingency staff are likely to be used once in a blue moon - especially if industrial relations are in a good shape (something of a catch 22 in this situation!).

 

[O L Leigh]

I also wonder whether the 90 (where is the source exactly for this number?) includes contingency dispatchers as well which is much more common and less intensive.

Well XC have no stations and, therefore, no dispatchers. Therefore these can only be guards.

Perhaps there is some merit into the concern because many other TOCs have got the same contingency system in place with absolutely zero issues.

But is it the same contingency system? This is far from clear. Certainly all TOCs have non-operational staff with preserved competencies who can still drive/guard a train should the need arise, but how many go further than this? GA tried it which resulted in quite a few issues, but who else?

 

[Horizon22]

Well XC have no stations and, therefore, no dispatchers. Therefore these can only be guards.



But is it the same contingency system? This is far from clear. Certainly all TOCs have non-operational staff with preserved competencies who can still drive/guard a train should the need arise, but how many go further than this? GA tried it which resulted in quite a few issues, but who else?

I know of several - GWR, SWR (many were trained after their industrial action but many were ex-guards), GTR and Southeastern.

 

[O L Leigh]

I know of several - GWR, SWR (many were trained after their industrial action but many were ex-guards), GTR and Southeastern.

Hmm. Well OK.

I know that there are areas of DOO/DOO+OBS/DCO operation within those TOCs, so I'm not sure how crucial the role of guards is for each of them. XC is a fully-guarded operator with a guard on all services, so perhaps in a slightly different situation.

 

[brick60000]

Well XC have no stations and, therefore, no dispatchers. Therefore these can only be guards.



But is it the same contingency system? This is far from clear. Certainly all TOCs have non-operational staff with preserved competencies who can still drive/guard a train should the need arise, but how many go further than this? GA tried it which resulted in quite a few issues, but who else?

A minor point but may be of interest - whilst XC have no stations, they do employ dispatchers at Edinburgh (only).

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I know of several - GWR, SWR (many were trained after their industrial action but many were ex-guards), GTR and Southeastern.

SWR used strike busters from GWR and TPE to cover train services, especially as 185s share many similarities with 450s. There has also been observations of GWR staff working TPE services bearing in mind the TPE 802s are a follow on order from GWR so the trains are virtually identical operationally. Indeed the first trance of TPE staff to sign 802s were passed out on the GWML. It is entirely possible therefore Arriva can draft in staff from other in group TOCs where traction similarities or route knowledge are advantageous, and made up the numbers that way. Once trained it only requires a refresh one day every 6 months to maintain competency on a route and so many hours on a given traction. Of course maintaining that competency sounds easy in theory but in practical terms taking the time out is very costly and can easily lapse.

 

[Horizon22]

Hmm. Well OK.

I know that there are areas of DOO/DOO+OBS/DCO operation within those TOCs, so I'm not sure how crucial the role of guards is for each of them. XC is a fully-guarded operator with a guard on all services, so perhaps in a slightly different situation.

SWR is fully guarded as is most of GWR. Southeastern is a mix and theres not many full on guards left at Southern true but still plenty of the 313 stock and lines to Uckfield, Milton Keynes and Ashford.

Obviously if a guard is needed to run a service, it’s crucial! This is why I find it odd XC are so up in arms against it.

 

[Starmill]

Someone further up-thread floated the number of staff having been selected as 90. Frankly I would be shocked if there was that number of staff working in the back office in total (clearly there's some scope for some cost-saving redundancies if this number is even close to being correct),

These days there's generally a small army of lawyers, accountants, administrators or receptionists, IT staff, and HR in addition to all of the usual business critical functions (fares and commercial, electronic systems, planning, customer relations, safety case and compliance, etc etc etc). 90 staff doesn't sound particularly outlandish. Rail Delivery Group has many hundreds.

 

[Zerothebrake!]

The XC Dispatcher sees the train away at Edinburgh Waverley after loading the catering stock onto the service.

90 managerial staff trained up as TMs is more than enough to run the present services when you're running a 50% timetable.

This is why the RMT are up in arms.

 

[brick60000]

The XC Dispatcher sees the train away at Edinburgh Waverley after loading the catering stock onto the service.

90 managerial staff trained up as TMs is more than enough to run the present services when you're running a 50% timetable.

This is why the RMT are up in arms.

Up in arms, yes, but at the total expense of the passenger. Contingent guards don’t prevent the union from standing up for what they believe in. Working a timetable with a high proportion of your office staff not in their usual roles is not a long term solution. It will majorly disrupt business processes. But it will keep things going for the passengers.

Numbers of which are massively down vs pre pandemic levels. In a perverse way, perhaps contingent guards are actually a good thing for job preservation.

An all out strike that resulted in no or vastly reduced train services would just further ram home to the travelling public that the railways cannot be relied on to get them where they need to go….

And we all know what decisions the DfT will start to make if passenger numbers reduce further. If nothing else, it’ll further increase the desire to shed cost through workforce savings. Quite ironic, really!

 

[class 9]

Passenger are down overall, but I wouldn't say massively, weekend numbers are UP massively!

 

[dk1]

Passenger are down overall, but I wouldn't say massively, weekend numbers are UP massively!

XC Twitter & Journey Check seem to be back to the complaints & reports of overcrowding Friday through Sunday once again.

 

[brick60000]

Passenger are down overall, but I wouldn't say massively, weekend numbers are UP massively!

Trouble is - it’s often the weekday peak additionals that drive requirements for traincrew numbers!!

 

[muz379]

Passenger are down overall, but I wouldn't say massively, weekend numbers are UP massively!

DFT statistics indicate a healthy recovery of the leisure market

Trouble is - it’s often the weekday peak additionals that drive requirements for traincrew numbers!!

I think its more prudent to say it was often the weekday peak periods , I dont think that this is going to be the case going forward and the DFT and other industry protagonists should probably start preparing for a change in travelling habits .

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Well XC have no stations and, therefore, no dispatchers. Therefore these can only be guards.



But is it the same contingency system? This is far from clear. Certainly all TOCs have non-operational staff with preserved competencies who can still drive/guard a train should the need arise, but how many go further than this? GA tried it which resulted in quite a few issues, but who else?

WMR certainly tried it post Industrial Action, went as far as using Ops Standards to train up HQ staff to be contingency guards. Plan was to fill in gaps in the roster (vacancy or absence) to prevent cancelled services.

Only stopped when unions became aware of it.
There were a number of issues with contingency guards during said IA to the point where drivers were refusing to work trains with them as they deemed them not trained to a safe standard.

Could ask those drivers why they walked through said picket line but that's another story!

 

[dk1]

Could ask those drivers why they walked through said picket line but that's another story!

That would be a different union so there would be no choice. Not pleasant though but both sides understand that fact.

 

[brick60000]

WMR certainly tried it post Industrial Action, went as far as using Ops Standards to train up HQ staff to be contingency guards. Plan was to fill in gaps in the roster (vacancy or absence) to prevent cancelled services.

This is something I cannot wrap my head around.

It’s surely better to cover a train with a contingency guard than to cancel it? The union might not say so, but those passengers that are stranded as a result would definitely disagree.

It doesn’t matter how much ‘non-HQ’ (I.E. full time conductor) contingency you have, you are always going to have cancellation due to train crew displacement, illness, etc.

If the only alternative to cancelling a train is a contingency guard, then why should that not be utilised?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

That would be a different union so there would be no choice. Not pleasant though but both sides understand that fact.

At other depots, drivers refused to cross the line. We are one train crew after all. Drivers don't want contingency guards or DOO/DCO at our company either

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2022 ==

This is something I cannot wrap my head around.

It’s surely better to cover a train with a contingency guard than to cancel it? The union might not say so, but those passengers that are stranded as a result would definitely disagree.

It doesn’t matter how much ‘non-HQ’ (I.E. full time conductor) contingency you have, you are always going to have cancellation due to train crew displacement, illness, etc.

If the only alternative to cancelling a train is a contingency guard, then why should that not be utilised?

A contingency guard is someone who is trained to the bare minimum, works maybe 1 train every 6 months at best to keep traction competency. They do not have routes in competency (at our TOC).
Someone who very rarely does the job, and does not have the required knowledge should not be working in a safety critical role, end of.

It's not just a case of unions saying no, unions are quite rightly sticking up for their members, and that won't change. However, why would they want staff who are not trained to do these roles rather than the TOC hire enough staff to cover the roster?

 

[dk1]

At other depots, drivers refused to cross the line. We are one train crew after all. Drivers don't want contingency guards or DOO/DCO at our company either

We went through this at my TOC in 2018. Not nice passing any of your colleagues outside but there was very little any of us could do about that. There where some issues with the PUGs too & some drivers refused due to lack of confidence in them but that was well documented at the time.

 

[brick60000]

A contingency guard is someone who is trained to the bare minimum, works maybe 1 train every 6 months at best to keep traction competency. They do not have routes in competency (at our TOC).
Someone who very rarely does the job, and does not have the required knowledge should not be working in a safety critical role, end of.

It's not just a case of unions saying no, unions are quite rightly sticking up for their members, and that won't change. However, why would they want staff who are not trained to do these roles rather than the TOC hire enough staff to cover the roster?

I think there’s a bit of a risk of us just going around in circles here, to be honest.

I appreciate that perhaps our experiences differ. However, the TOCs I have experience of have a very well put together & very well managed contingent programme. There is a requirement to work trains once per month as a minimum, bi-monthly assessments, yearly PTS & rules assessments. All have route & traction cards that are limited to mitigate against having to maintain a wealth of route knowledge. If they were not safe to be working trains on their route, they would simply not be passed out.

So am I right I’m saying that in your view, if it’s contingent vs cancellation, the train should be cancelled?

 

[PupCuff]

I think there’s a bit of a risk of us just going around in circles here, to be honest.

I appreciate that perhaps our experiences differ. However, the TOCs I have experience of have a very well put together & very well managed contingent programme. There is a requirement to work trains once per month as a minimum, bi-monthly assessments, yearly PTS & rules assessments. All have route & traction cards that are limited to mitigate against having to maintain a wealth of route knowledge. If they were not safe to be working trains on their route, they would simply not be passed out.

This is (as probably comes as a surprise to nobody) my experience too.

I don't advocate contingent staff being the first point of call for covering vacant turns but if there's no spares and none of the substantive conductors want to do rest day work (Saturday night with the inevitable football disorder etc) then you're not taking overtime off folk and you're preventing a cancellation. You're also doing your bit to dispel the notion that you never see management out on a Saturday night

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I think there’s a bit of a risk of us just going around in circles here, to be honest.

I appreciate that perhaps our experiences differ. However, the TOCs I have experience of have a very well put together & very well managed contingent programme. There is a requirement to work trains once per month as a minimum, bi-monthly assessments, yearly PTS & rules assessments. All have route & traction cards that are limited to mitigate against having to maintain a wealth of route knowledge. If they were not safe to be working trains on their route, they would simply not be passed out.

So am I right I’m saying that in your view, if it’s contingent vs cancellation, the train should be cancelled?

I think our experiences differ, and probably we won't agree on this but having worked at multiple depots for my current TOC I have to say that is a very different setup to what I have witnessed. Whether XC is like with of our experiences or something different I don't know.

But I can honestly say that the only time I've seen contingency crew out was prior to IA and then maybe once a year since - excluding DM/CM who keep all competencies up to date.

It was well documented how poor the contingency crew were during our IA, something which would not be the case if they had the training that you suggest yours have. Clearly your TOC has an agreement in place to allow/support such things whereas mine/XC clearly don't currently.

The question of whether there should be contingency to cover shortfalls in staffing levels is obviously a contentious one, one I personally don't believe should happen. I would rather there be enough train crew to fill the roster, and rest day/cross cover used than have any form of contingency.

For me, spare turns should be the contingency, not other grades filling in. Note, there is never talk of contingency drivers, so it's just another way to do away with guards is it not?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2022 ==

This is (as probably comes as a surprise to nobody) my experience too.

I don't advocate contingent staff being the first point of call for covering vacant turns but if there's no spares and none of the substantive conductors want to do rest day work (Saturday night with the inevitable football disorder etc) then you're not taking overtime off folk and you're preventing a cancellation. You're also doing your bit to dispel the notion that you never see management out on a Saturday night

And this would be fine, with the right agreement in place. We all know that there will be other bits on the back of this kind of agreement which may not be wanted by the unions/guards

 

[O L Leigh]

Obviously if a guard is needed to run a service, it’s crucial! This is why I find it odd XC are so up in arms against it.

Clearly not all contingent guards are created equal after all.

These days there's generally a small army of lawyers, accountants, administrators or receptionists, IT staff, and HR in addition to all of the usual business critical functions (fares and commercial, electronic systems, planning, customer relations, safety case and compliance, etc etc etc). 90 staff doesn't sound particularly outlandish. Rail Delivery Group has many hundreds.

Perhaps, but I feel that you've included some staff in your estimate that are not likely to be employed by the TOC itself. Lawyers and accountants are likely to be from external firms while some other functions may be centralised.

Either way, I still have to beg the question just how many candidates would you normally expect to need in order to yield 90 trained guards from a normal recruitment process? Is it likely that whatever number comes as the answer to that represents to back room staff complement of a TOC?

This is something I cannot wrap my head around.

It’s surely better to cover a train with a contingency guard than to cancel it? The union might not say so, but those passengers that are stranded as a result would definitely disagree.

It doesn’t matter how much ‘non-HQ’ (I.E. full time conductor) contingency you have, you are always going to have cancellation due to train crew displacement, illness, etc.

If the only alternative to cancelling a train is a contingency guard, then why should that not be utilised?

The question of whether there should be contingency to cover shortfalls in staffing levels is obviously a contentious one, one I personally don't believe should happen. I would rather there be enough train crew to fill the roster, and rest day/cross cover used than have any form of contingency.

For me, spare turns should be the contingency, not other grades filling in. Note, there is never talk of contingency drivers, so it's just another way to do away with guards is it not?

There should be absolutely no need for contingent guards to be covering gaps in the daily roster, as the depot establishment should see that there is adequate spare coverage which, together with a modicum of rest-day working, should ensure that no such gaps remain. In the event that there are still gaps, this would only likely require one or two contingent guards working a train once in a blue moon, something that could be covered by using managers with their existing competency. If this figure of 90 is anywhere near correct, that suggests more which goes above and beyond this requirement.

But I can honestly say that the only time I've seen contingency crew out was prior to IA and then maybe once a year since - excluding DM/CM who keep all competencies up to date.

This seems to be the case over the road too. I have said as much previously but keep getting told that it can't possibly be true, and yet that is the evidence of my own eyes.

 

[Watershed]

Either way, I still have to beg the question just how many candidates would you normally expect to need in order to yield 90 trained guards from a normal recruitment process?

I don't think that's an entirely straightforward comparison.

Firstly, a certain percentage of people who apply for railway jobs will simply be fundamentally unsuited to employment in the railway, or in the role in question (for example they might not have the required experience).

As an existing employee, clearly the contingency guards have already passed a hurdle which a number of others might fail.

Conversely, competition for rail jobs is high and therefore there will be a lot of potentially suitable candidates who are weeded out simply as they are outperformed on paper, e.g. because they don't have a degree. So this form of 'whittling down' doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how well someone would perform in a given role.

So realistically, within the pool of people who managed to make it into the railway, a lot of them are likely to be suitable to train as guards. And so it hardly comes as a surprise that XC have managed to successfully train 90 managers, even if that represents a high percentage of the overall 'management' grade.

Again, I think it comes back to the original point. If there are legitimate safety concerns, about the level of training or competence not being up to scratch, then I would fully support the union in bringing that to the attention of the relevant regulatory bodies. But it does not, in my view, justify a strike - it is for those regulators to investigate and take any action needed.

The RMT's actions in this respect (or, rather, lack thereof) reveal that as with many of their disputes, this has little to do with safety. It is really about the fact that having a decent number of contingency guards reduces their power in any future negotiations. Naturally they are not prepared to let that happen, as they feel they must always have the upper hand. And so they encourage members to vote for strike action.

If I were a XC guard I would certainly not be happy at losing income over a matter such as this. But ultimately it is for the members to decide, and they have given a mandate. One can only hope that it doesn't backfire on them.

 

[brick60000]

For me, spare turns should be the contingency, not other grades filling in. Note, there is never talk of contingency drivers, so it's just another way to do away with guards is it not?

This is an interesting point. I would imagine that driver managers can act as contingents? But I’m not 100% sure as it’s not my area of speciality.

This is a difficult one to phrase without sounding like I’m down playing the role of SCNR vs Driver. But, there is a reason that the conductor training course is significantly shorter than the driver course - and that is reflected in the ease with which competence can be maintained.

I am not suggesting for one minute being a conductor is easy - it is not! I think the nature of the role is very different, a lot more skills/NTS based in managing situations and events. Driving is a continuous process, and requires a very different skill set that requires very different types of learning and maintenance of competence.

So in short - I don’t think it’s about being one to specifically get rid of conductors, just accepting what level of contingency is feasible.

 

[PupCuff]

This is an interesting point. I would imagine that driver managers can act as contingents? But I’m not 100% sure as it’s not my area of speciality.

With training aye, in terms of contingency conductor there's nothing stopping them signing a route and traction as both Driver and contingency conductor.

In terms of Driving duties, it would depend on various agreements I would imagine.

 

[Bald Rick]

has the dispute been settled, and if so how?

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think that's an entirely straightforward comparison.

Firstly, a certain percentage of people who apply for railway jobs will simply be fundamentally unsuited to employment in the railway, or in the role in question (for example they might not have the required experience).

As an existing employee, clearly the contingency guards have already passed a hurdle which a number of others might fail.

Conversely, competition for rail jobs is high and therefore there will be a lot of potentially suitable candidates who are weeded out simply as they are outperformed on paper, e.g. because they don't have a degree. So this form of 'whittling down' doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how well someone would perform in a given role.

So realistically, within the pool of people who managed to make it into the railway, I think a lot of them are likely to be suitable to become guards. And so it should hardly come as a surprise that XC have managed to successfully 90 people, even if that represents a high percentage of the overall 'management' grades.

I'll admit that I didn't anticipate being questioned closely on this, but by "candidates" I did mean applicants who had passed the sift and were now onto the assessment stage of recruitment. In this respect they parallel existing TOC staff applying for contingent guards positions, as these fine folk won't have had to go through any sift.

I appreciate that I have raised a somewhat hypothetical question and that this is merely a sideshow to the topic at hand, but I'm not sure that I entirely agree.

The guy who runs the payroll, for example, is not going to have passed the same hurdle as the guy working as a guard simply because he works for a TOC. I would hope that he's been employed on the basis of being good at payroll. In this regard he would be no different from another guy running the payroll at A N Other Co Ltd down the road. If this second payroll guy needs to be assessed to discover his suitability for safety critical work, why not the guy who runs the payroll for the TOC?

Surely, as a group of people not previously assessed for safety critical duties, the back room staff at a TOC are no different from any other group of potential candidates. As such, I don't see why there would be any huge difference in the failure rates during the recruitment and training phase, as presumably each has been employed into their substantive roles based on their qualities in fulfilling those roles.

If the failure rate was dramatically different it would suggest a number of different possibilities. One is, as you suggest, that they are more suited to the role, although I am unsure how already being in the railway's employ would affect this. There are other possible explanations that such a difference could also be hinting at which I'm sure can be guessed.

 

[Carlisle]

Surely, as a group of people not previously assessed for safety critical duties, the back room staff at a TOC are no different from any other group of potential candidates. As such, I don't see why there would be any huge difference in the failure rates during the recruitment and training phase, as presumably each has been employed into their substantive roles based on their qualities in fulfilling those roles.

So if any firm’s internal recruitment process differs in the slightest way from its external one it should be illegal ?

 

[O L Leigh]

So if any firm’s internal recruitment process differs in the slightest way from its external one it should be illegal ?

I'm not a legal expert so I cannot answer that. However, if there is a difference it might help to explain the reason for the dispute.