I know that it costs more to employ more staff but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
I can also take the line of paying staff 12, 15, 18 hours flat rate pay whether they do 1 hour or 12 hours is equally ridiculous. In many ways I think the TOC should never have agreed to such a deal.
I’m still unclear what you think is “ridiculous” about a mutually beneficial, agreed arrangement that provides better value for money than having lots sitting around spare. You do seem to have a particular beef with arrangements involving train crew, so perhaps aren’t looking at it objectively.
As someone who actually does the job, I’m also not remotely convinced it’s true. I’ve worked for two TOCs and I’ve never heard of anyone getting paid 18 hours for one shunt. It sounds like a myth someone has made up to bash traincrew, quite honestly.
We have a 6 hour minimum for a rest day, because otherwise it’s simply not worth doing and nobody would volunteer. That will usually be covering an entire short job, or part of a longer job, usually several hours in the chair. It certainly won’t be one shunt move (which standby or spare would generally be used for).
If they’re really desperate they might offer 12 hours but that’s usually where they’re asking for a favour (for example asking someone already doing a nine hour shift to move their start by more than the agreed amount with less than the agreed notice), so only two or three extra hours paid.
I still maintain there will be a showdown with the rail unions not so much over basic pay but over such things as Sunday working, overtime and other 'allowances'. I don't expect a P&O situation (which for the record is abhorrent) but there could be some take it or leave it deals offered to some in the industry as the Government tries to get more VFM out of the railways.
The current arrangements, including overtime, provide better value for money than employing more people, so I suspect that reliance on overtime will continue.
Yes. But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to consult to shift terms to the working week. I appreciate all the differences between what TOCs/unions/DfT have traditionally wanted but post-Covid weekends are manic and I think it is only right as a public service provider, Sunday is no longer treated as it once was and the general, travelling public do expect it to be more reliable (with the obvious caveats for engineering works). And as stated I don’t disagree it will cost more (more rostered shifts, more bodies simple as)
With Sunday rostered as part of the week, rosters will obviously need to be withdrawn and that would be consulted with. I think I’ve mentioned it before though this would generally put an end to the “Saturday” late finish (0100/0200 on Sunday) to have a Sunday “rest day” before starting early on Monday at 0300/0400 which so many crew (understandably) hate. Also let’s not forget there are generally less Sunday diagrams compared to the week anyway so it may be a decent high ratio of 1:x for those that already don’t do it
In the absence of a perfect solution I think two links is the way to go with this, having seen it work pretty well first hand. Equally, if cost is the main motivating factor, it also seems quite likely that we will carry on with some approximation of the current arrangements, if that is cheaper than increasing headcount.
Anywhere that does shift work does alternating weeks - it’s only fair to ensure all the coverage is balanced evenly across a team. Obviously if two people wanted to work something out they could swap or you could have a “mafia” type arrangement like they do on the London Underground to allocate shifts per preference.
You could have longer periods of each. Or links favouring each, as the TMs have where I am have. The problem there being balancing numbers, given that people tend to favour earlies.
Evening Standard made a thing about a member of control staff earning more than the prime minister. What they didn’t mention was that this would have presumably involved a hefty amount of overtime.
And presumably being rather better at the job
.
