Unions promise to fight bid to make rail staff work weekends

[Bletchleyite]

Youve raised this idea of new staff a few times now . Tell me more about how yoou envisage that working ? Employ new staff with sundays inside or committed ? , just employ weekend crews ?

You could do either of those things. No, it's not immediate in its effect, but it's setting off down the right road at least.

 

[philthetube]

You happy to pay an extra 20+% on your tickets then?

Wage is only one factor. There is also NI and pension contributions, uniform costs, training and on-going training costs, annual leave entitlements etc all of which costs the company money when employing extra staff, where as those costs are already in the business when uitilsing existing staff.

Wage is only one factor, however employing 20% more drivers will increase driver costs by 20%, as NI payments etc are exactly the same for new as existing staff, there may be minor start up costs for the extra staff but that is all.

P way management costs etc will not increase at all, apart from extra track wear caused by extra trains.

There is a limit to how hard unions will fight against different conditions for new starters as members will not be prepared to lose money for people the do not know.

 

[O L Leigh]

Is that spare on the roster then so you can be moved to other jobs ?

Yes, these are real spare turns and subject to the same rostering conditions that apply any other day of the week.

 

[muz379]

You could do either of those things. No, it's not immediate in its effect, but it's setting off down the right road at least.

But which one would you favour ?

Dont think just employing soley weekend crews would work . Plus youd need to either employ weekend managers or upset current managers who like their weekends off .If someone is a weekend driver that means they have to be assessed on a weekend as well . Personally I dont agree even taking out the fact that it creates a two tier workforce that just employing new staff on sundays would work nor is the best way to do it . Doing it by just employing people on new terms could also mean its an incredibly long time before you get anyone contracted to sunday working at some depots . Some depots that I know of dont recruit trainees because there is already a long enough internal transfer list for them .

My view personally is that the following would probably be the best way for the industry to approach this at tocs that have completely voluntary sundays .

Make agreements that on a set implrementation date A) get existing staff committed to sundays providing some financal compensation for this . then B) Also commit to recruiting more crews so that by a second implementation date sundays can be brought inside the working week with no increase in hours .

Interim agreements are the correct way to go about this not bringing in staff on new contracts IMO .

 

[Economist]

An easy way to solve the problem would be to bring Sundays fully inside and pay them at time and a half. Those who work huge amounts of overtime will be happy due to the extra income as will those who want Sundays off because they'll be able to get an easier swap.

Personally, I'm in favour of a 24 hour service on any railway where both footfall and engineering works would make it a viable proposition, so long as nights are paid at a more favourable rate so I can have an easier job of selling them if I want. A lot depots seem to have drivers who prefer nights due to the quieter/easier work.

 

[LittleAH]

Source: Reach aka Mirror Group Newspapers

Huge profits hike at TransPennine Express revealed

The company's turnover also increased from £290.2m to £437.7m over the same period

www.business-live.co.uk

their source: DfT

And they've done sod all digging into it. You're gullible to believe anything Reach publish. Turnover isn't profit.

 

[Class800]

Surprised employment tribunals don't require beyond all reasonable doubt given the consequences, but the outcome can be appeal to a court

 

[43096]

And they've done sod all digging into it. You're gullible to believe anything Reach publish. Turnover isn't profit.

And profit isn’t cash. Given the past history of that franchise, I wouldn’t be surprised if a chunk of the profit was from release of contract loss provisions from prior years that are no longer needed after the move to the ERMA contract.

 

[Watershed]

And they've done sod all digging into it. You're gullible to believe anything Reach publish. Turnover isn't profit.

More to the point, it sounds like they are just going off publicly available accounts. Which rarely tell the whole story.

Anyone who thinks that the private operators make huge profits off the current breed of contracts would be well advised to take a look at the price and news surrounding the owning groups' stocks.

The only people still making megabucks are those leasing companies with 'advantageous' leases.

Surprised employment tribunals don't require beyond all reasonable doubt given the consequences, but the outcome can be appeal to a court

That's just the general default principle with civil cases. The level of evidence required wouldn't be any different in a higher court. In any case, in all but the most exceptional circumstances a higher court can only hear appeals on the basis of an alleged error in findings of law, rather than findings of fact.

 

[Starmill]

While the DfT continues to refuse to give the industry a bit of wiggle room we have no way to get enough people productive to make your vision a reality.

To you it might be a bit more wiggle room, but to the Treasury it's the thick end of £1 billion a year for an industry which, if we put it generously, hasn't tried as hard as it could have done to keep costs under control over the past few decades.

I know it's popular to whinge endlessly here about Treasury thinking and I quite agree with most of the criticisms of them. But equally can you perhaps try seeing this from their perspective? The overall cost of the provision of staff industry wide is enormous. Sundays need to come inside a fixed work pattern industry-wide without that cost going up by more than inflation. Should be easy enough to agree a deal with such a massive staff budget. Even within the railway industry, Lumo are able to staff their trains perfectly economically and they had absolutely no difficulty hiring.

 

[E16 Cyclist]

An easy way to solve the problem would be to bring Sundays fully inside and pay them at time and a half. Those who work huge amounts of overtime will be happy due to the extra income as will those who want Sundays off because they'll be able to get an easier swap.

Personally, I'm in favour of a 24 hour service on any railway where both footfall and engineering works would make it a viable proposition, so long as nights are paid at a more favourable rate so I can have an easier job of selling them if I want. A lot depots seem to have drivers who prefer nights due to the quieter/easier work.

That’s fine in theory but it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul in some respects as more Traincrew would be needed to cover in the week when there’s an additional rest day caused by Sunday now being in the working week

The solution like it’s always been is cold hard cash and nobody is willing to pay. And it’s not just Traincrew that would be required you’d also need additional cleaners not to mention additional managers to cover the weekends.

So unless the dft fund it nothing much will happen and it’ll be kicked into the long grass again with occasional politican sound bites to keep the public on side and make out it’s solely the unions standing in the way of progress

 

[O L Leigh]

To you it might be a bit more wiggle room, but to the Treasury it's the thick end of £1 billion a year for an industry which, if we put it generously, hasn't tried as hard as it could have done to keep costs under control over the past few decades.

I know it's popular to whinge endlessly here about Treasury thinking and I quite agree with most of the criticisms of them. But equally can you perhaps try seeing this from their perspective? The overall cost of the provision of staff industry wide is enormous. Sundays need to come inside a fixed work pattern industry-wide without that cost going up by more than inflation. Should be easy enough to agree a deal with such a massive staff budget. Even within the railway industry, Lumo are able to staff their trains perfectly economically and they had absolutely no difficulty hiring.

I'm sorry, but that's just not the reality of the situation.

Without flexibility we cannot get staff fully productive and without fully productive staff we cannot cover all the work resulting in increased cancellations and further disruption. It is a highly inefficient way of working. Bringing Sundays into the week will do nothing to alleviate this situation and will, if anything, exacerbate the problems we're already facing.

The problem is that the various departments of the Government are so fixated on saving money today that they fail to understand that all they achieve by perpetuating this situation is to kick the can further and further down the road creating a bigger and bigger backlog that will still need to be addressed. Many drivers currently in post have outstanding training (myself included), not to mention new entrants to TOCs and brand new trainees joining the industry for the first time. These training needs are not going to go away and will still need paying for.

 

[Starmill]

I'm sorry, but that's just not the reality of the situation.

Without flexibility we cannot get staff fully productive and without fully productive staff we cannot cover all the work resulting in increased cancellations and further disruption. It is a highly inefficient way of working. Bringing Sundays into the week will do nothing to alleviate this situation and will, if anything, exacerbate the problems we're already facing.

The problem is that the various departments of the Government are so fixated on saving money today that they fail to understand that all they achieve by perpetuating this situation is to kick the can further and further down the road creating a bigger and bigger backlog that will still need to be addressed. Many drivers currently in post have outstanding training (myself included), not to mention new entrants to TOCs and brand new trainees joining the industry for the first time. These training needs are not going to go away and will still need paying for.

I don't think anyone disagrees that training is a non-negotiable cost or that training will continue to be necessary both as a result of the numbers of staff who are retiring and as a consequence of some recent expansion. However, that also does not change what I said and I'm afraid that ot absolutely is the reality of the situation - doing what the industry has just done for a couple of decades is no longer an option. A cheaper or more efficient way to meet these needs must be found.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

An easy way to solve the problem would be to bring Sundays fully inside and pay them at time and a half. Those who work huge amounts of overtime will be happy due to the extra income as will those who want Sundays off because they'll be able to get an easier swap.

Personally, I'm in favour of a 24 hour service on any railway where both footfall and engineering works would make it a viable proposition, so long as nights are paid at a more favourable rate so I can have an easier job of selling them if I want. A lot depots seem to have drivers who prefer nights due to the quieter/easier work.

'easy'? Are you sure that this would present value for money?

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think anyone disagrees that training is a non-negotiable cost or that training will continue to be necessary both as a result of the numbers of staff who are retiring and as a consequence of some recent expansion. However, that also does not change what I said and I'm afraid that ot absolutely is the reality of the situation - doing what the industry has just done for a couple of decades is no longer an option. A cheaper or more efficient way to meet these needs must be found.

Such as...?

The problem is that people keep on thumping the drum and telling us that we have to change. Well, OK. But please do enlighten us as to how, because just repeating the line doesn't really move things very far forward.

We do things the same way for the last couple of decades because, by and large, it works. It's not perfect nor even particularly consistent but, all other things being equal, trains run and the timetable is kept. Could we be more efficient? Perhaps. Do we need a "root and branch" reappraisal of our working practices to achieve this? Probably not.

The issue is that the folk holding the purse-strings do not really understand what we do and why we do it. What we need are proper, deliverable solutions that actually deliver improvements rather than "pie in the sky" ideas that only make good headlines.

 

[ComUtoR]

Such as...?

What if 'cheaper' was replaced with 'Modern' or 'Productive'. Change does need to happen but cheaper will not.

 

[Starmill]

Such as...?

The problem is that people keep on thumping the drum and telling us that we have to change. Well, OK. But please do enlighten us as to how, because just repeating the line doesn't really move things very far forward.

We do things the same way for the last couple of decades because, by and large, it works. It's not perfect nor even particularly consistent but, all other things being equal, trains run and the timetable is kept. Could we be more efficient? Perhaps. Do we need a "root and branch" reappraisal of our working practices to achieve this? Probably not.

The issue is that the folk holding the purse-strings do not really understand what we do and why we do it. What we need are proper, deliverable solutions that actually deliver improvements rather than "pie in the sky" ideas that only make good headlines.

If you think that you should be entitled to more public funding, as you've suggested several times, it's for you to come up with the proposals for efficiency improvements. Why would I do it? I'm afraid that's just the way it works in this country most of the time. Unless there's some kind of overwhelming evidence of additional life-and-death need, and even then you're still usually forced to agree to efficiencies to get the extra funding, which is why we have people's deaths directly attributable to austerity. I disagree with that policy in the strongest possible terms, but fortunately in this area it's not life and death.

As it happens however I have already come up with one suggestion for crewing of long distance services which would help, which is to adopt some the practices used by Lumo. As I've pointed out already they had no shortage of applications, and they are absolutely not compromising on safety.

 

[O L Leigh]

What if 'cheaper' was replaced with 'Modern' or 'Productive'. Change does need to happen but cheaper will not.

I don't particularly mind what we call it as long as it works. The point being is that all these folk looking in from outside all seem to want change (as do quite a few of us on the inside) but all we get is told that change needs to happen without understanding what does/doesn't work and what is required to get us there.

If you think that you should be entitled to more public funding, as you've suggested several times, it's for you to come up with the proposals for efficiency improvements. Why would I do it?

Already outlined. Go back and have another read.

As for why you should do it, well because you keep saying that cash needs to be saved. I'm just interested to know how you would intend to achieve this.

 

[Starmill]

Already outlined. Go back and have another read.

Your suggestion at the top of the thread was an increase in the total number of staff, but you haven't made any suggestions anywhere in this thread that would answer why you think that the extra money for this should be approved or what you would change to get it.

As for why you should do it, well because you keep saying that cash needs to be saved. I'm just interested to know how you would intend to achieve this.

This is circular reasoning. Your view is that the DfT fails to understand what the railway industry requires and how it is run, and that their spendthrift is damaging. That's a perfectly legitimate view. But what I'm explaining is that you can't just say we need more money and that will solve the problem. If you want more resources, you generally need to show how you're going to use the resources you already have to get better results. That's a principle that applies across public services, not just in transport.

I know it's fashionable to blame everything on the Department and the Treasury. They're easily made into the boogeyman because they don't really know how railways operate. I share loads of the cricisisms of their doctrine myself. The thing is though they have their own jobs to do and just constantly blaming them for not giving the industry enough resources to function isn't ever going to get anyone any improvements.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

The point being is that all these folk looking in from outside all seem to want change (as do quite a few of us on the inside) but all we get is told that change needs to happen without understanding what does/doesn't work and what is required to get us there.

The arrangements put forward do not seem to be a problem at Lumo. So it's difficult to see how they'd be unacceptable at TransPennine Express, for example. Yes, the operations are different. But only a bit. Lots of the crew are even based at the same location.

 

[O L Leigh]

Your suggestion at the top of the thread was an increase in the total number of staff, but you haven't made any suggestions anywhere in this thread that would answer why you think that the extra money for this should be approved or what you would change to get it.

Then you have misunderstood. Increasing staff numbers is required if you want to bring Sundays into the working week, which I raised as a criticism of the idea. My preference is committed Sundays, which utilises existing staff working overtime while guaranteeing a level of service.

The wiggle room I mentioned is rest-day working (RDW). As I have said on previous occasions, this would permit adequate flexibility and cover to allow for training to be carried out. This would allow for the staff to become fully productive more quickly than is currently the case thereby improving depot efficiency.

It's the people who want to impose Sundays within the working week who are proposing spending billions, not me. RDW would be a comparatively modest outlay that would yield efficiencies far faster.

I hope that this is now adequately clear.

 

[Starmill]

Then you have misunderstood. Increasing staff numbers is required if you want to bring Sundays into the working week, which I raised as a criticism of the idea. My preference is committed Sundays, which utilises existing staff working overtime while guaranteeing a level of service.

The wiggle room I mentioned is rest-day working (RDW). As I have said on previous occasions, this would permit adequate flexibility and cover to allow for training to be carried out. This would allow for the staff to become fully productive more quickly than is currently the case thereby improving depot efficiency.

It's the people who want to impose Sundays within the working week who are proposing spending billions, not me. RDW would be a comparatively modest outlay that would yield efficiencies far faster.

I hope that this is now adequately clear.

It's all a lovely idea but the reality coming out of negotiations at the moment is that rest day working agreements without any premium rates of pay in general won't be acceptable. And the department simply is not going to authorise premium rates of pay (unless they are already part of a historical agreement, in which case they are being honoured). So it's not really a solution is it.

 

[muz379]

It's all a lovely idea but the reality coming out of negotiations at the moment is that rest day working agreements without any premium rates of pay in general won't be acceptable. And the department simply is not going to authorise premium rates of pay (unless they are already part of a historical agreement, in which case they are being honoured). So it's not really a solution is it.

Well then there will remain no RDW . Thats all good and well atm with current service levels . Might make it difficult if we want an uplift .

 

[Starmill]

Well then there will remain no RDW

Indeed not. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the idea is going anywhere, except for where it is in place by historical agreement.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's all a lovely idea but the reality coming out of negotiations at the moment is that rest day working agreements without any premium rates of pay in general won't be acceptable. And the department simply is not going to authorise premium rates of pay (unless they are already part of a historical agreement, in which case they are being honoured). So it's not really a solution is it.

Then, as I said back on page 1, @Bletchleyite's wonderful utopian vision will remain just that.

 

[Starmill]

Then, as I said back on page 1, @Bletchleyite's wonderful utopian vision will remain just that.

You can think that if you like, but I am inclined to thinking strongly that because of the obvious success of Lumo, for long-distance services at least, it's completely achievable to have much more efficient operations.

 

[O L Leigh]

You can think that if you like, but I am inclined to thinking strongly that because of the obvious success of Lumo, for long-distance services at least, it's completely achievable to have much more efficient operations.

Lumo is not a representative example.

 

[Trainbike46]

You can think that if you like, but I am inclined to thinking strongly that because of the obvious success of Lumo, for long-distance services at least, it's completely achievable to have much more efficient operations.

What does LUMO do differently that makes them so much more efficient?

 

[Starmill]

Lumo is not a representative example.

What does that mean? The fact that you don't like Lumo does not mean that it's model is unsuitable for scaling up. There's no evidence that Lumo have compromised on safety or customer service. Apart from scale, their operation is really not very different to that of long-distance work at other operators.

 

[Trainbike46]

What does that mean? The fact that you don't like Lumo does not mean that it's model is unsuitable for scaling up. There's no evidence that Lumo have compromised on safety or customer service. Apart from scale, their operation is really not very different to that of long-distance work at other operators.

if their operation is not very different, then why is it superior in your view?

 

[Starmill]

if their operation is not very different, then why is it superior in your view?

Because it costs less to provide the staff for the service and they are able to do so consistently and reliably every single day, for 363 days per year. Isn't it obvious?

 

[GB]

Maybe for the benefit of others you can explain the LUMO operation and how it differs?