BBC reporting that Agency staff could cover strikes under law change

[BrokenSam]

Sounds sarcastic.

Lol. Forgive me. Its early

 

[Surreytraveller]

To do what?

To put out any fires, presumably

 

[Bantamzen]

You know, it is so blindingly obvious what the government's game plan is it would almost be funny if it where not so serious. Of course they are not going to be able to bring in agency staff to cover critical roles during the strikes. But they could quite easily change how recruitment going forward works, so instead of directly hiring staff to work on the railways they could instead ask agencies to do so instead. And it already happens in the public sector.

 

[wobman]

I'd bring in the Armed Forces just like during Fire Brigade strikes

Why not get the Mps & right wing press journalists in to do the jobs, they seem to think it's so easy.

 

[Gems]

You know, it is so blindingly obvious what the government's game plan is it would almost be funny if it where not so serious. Of course they are not going to be able to bring in agency staff to cover critical roles during the strikes. But they could quite easily change how recruitment going forward works, so instead of directly hiring staff to work on the railways they could instead ask agencies to do so instead. And it already happens in the public sector.

To be fair, you have a point. But in truth it isn't particularly cheap to hire agency staff, most companies try to avoid it. You have to remember you are adding on another layer of cost by paying the agency. Agencies have a role in the economy, but they are only good for short term provision.
I mean, not being disrespectful to agency staff, but the majority are just that because they are not particularly employable, or they are agency because it suits their needs. Northernrail for example very seldom take on any of their agency staff full time.

No, in truth it is just another of Grant Shapps last desperate attempt to try and frighten away the boogymen of the RMT. It isn't going to work. They need to get around the table instead of playing games.

 

[wobman]

This shortage of pilots. I think I should be allowed to be a pilot, can you draft me in please. I think I would make a good pilot, I have played 'flight simulator'

I was thinking the same, I don't know what all the fuss is about flying planes I've landed a 747 on flight simulator

 

[brick60000]

A few years back on a GA strike, an infill conductor opened the doors on the wrong side at Cromer

At the last LNWR strike, a contingency manager opened doors on the Rugby flyover as it had stopped at the signal.

Absolutely every tiny failure will be reported by drivers this time, no benefit of the doubt

Of course, both of the above mistakes are similar to those which could (and have) been made by ‘non-contingent’ guards.

Presumably, drivers would be entitled to refuse to drive trains staffed by poorly trained and inexperienced 'guards' on the grounds of safety? And presumably ASLEF would support their members who did so? Therefore escalating the dispute further?

This was discussed at length a while back in another thread I think. However - contingency guards are trained, and no more inexperienced than any other newly passed out guard (assuming that they are newly qualified of course).

 

[MP33]

Good luck in bringing in the armed forces.

The reason the Longmoor Military Railway no longer exists and army officers do not chair accident enquires is that the Royal Engineers found that training is railway operations was now irrelevant militarily.

 

[skyhigh]

However - contingency guards are trained, and no more inexperienced than any other newly passed out guard

I'd disagree with that. As part of training new guards at our TOC have to complete a certain number of duties with a minder (15 from memory). I've never seen a contingency guard do that.

 

[CBlue]

Good luck in bringing in the armed forces.

The reason the Longmoor Military Railway no longer exists and army officers do not chair accident enquires is that the Royal Engineers found that training is railway operations was now irrelevant militarily.

And that's before we get onto anything involving competency...makes me wonder what some posters are smoking this morning!

 

[Bantamzen]

To be fair, you have a point. But in truth it isn't particularly cheap to hire agency staff, most companies try to avoid it. You have to remember you are adding on another layer of cost by paying the agency. Agencies have a role in the economy, but they are only good for short term provision.
I mean, not being disrespectful to agency staff, but the majority are just that because they are not particularly employable, or they are agency because it suits their needs. Northernrail for example very seldom take on any of their agency staff full time.

This is very true, agency work does comes at a cost. However that doesn't stop them being used in increasing numbers in the public sector. And the reason why? A non-unionised workforce. For a government, especially one fundamentally opposed to a unionised workforce that is very, very tempting.

No, in truth it is just another of Grant Shapps last desperate attempt to try and frighten away the boogymen of the RMT. It isn't going to work. They need to get around the table instead of playing games.

I would like nothing more than the two sides to get around the table and sort out an agreement that is realistic & affordable, I really would. But don't be fooled into thinking the RMT aren't also playing games. Many years as a union rep has taught me that sometimes reps around the top table are more interested in scoring political points than they are looking after member's rights. Given the current economic circumstances, and how the general public is being squeezed right now unions need to be realistic. And I'm sorry to say that I don't think they are being so right now.

 

[wobman]

Of course, both of the above mistakes are similar to those which could (and have) been made by ‘non-contingent’ guards.



This was discussed at length a while back in another thread I think. However - contingency guards are trained, and no more inexperienced than any other newly passed out guard (assuming that they are newly qualified of course).

Contingency guards incident ratio is far higher than a qualified guard, they should have refreshers over a route before they work it but they don't.
They are not a safe option compared to an experienced member of traincrew & the railways always says safety is the most important element of the railways.

 

[Fokx]

Presumably, drivers would be entitled to refuse to drive trains staffed by poorly trained and inexperienced 'guards' on the grounds of safety? And presumably ASLEF would support their members who did so? Therefore escalating the dispute further?

The most educated post on this entire thread.

Yes drivers can refuse on the ground of safety. It’s happened on my TOC when a contingency conductor turned up not wearing correct uniform of safety shoes.

Four trains were cancelled.

 

[Gems]

I would like nothing more than the two sides to get around the table and sort out an agreement that is realistic & affordable, I really would. But don't be fooled into thinking the RMT aren't also playing games. Many years as a union rep has taught me that sometimes reps around the top table are more interested in scoring political points than they are looking after member's rights. Given the current economic circumstances, and how the general public is being squeezed right now unions need to be realistic. And I'm sorry to say that I don't think they are being so right now.

How can the RMT be unrealistic when no offer whatsoever has been tabled. Listen, let's put away our prejudices whatever they may be. I'm no RMT fan as I have pointed out on here time and time again. But in truth we have been offered no pay rise now in three years. We were all very tolerant during the pandemic and accepted they were difficult times. We turned up for work whilst 90% of the population were paid 80% of their wage for sitting on their backsides and polluting Bournemouth beach. I certainly won't be lectured by those who benefitted from furlough.
But you have to also remember that pay inflation over the whole economy in the past three years has been near 15%, we have seen nothing of that. We now have inflation at 9% and rising. We are taking a serious pay hit no matter how you look at it. If we were offered 5% it would only be the equivalent of 1.66% per each of the three years, but it would be better than nothing.

You need to stop thinking asking for a pay rise is greedy. It is not greedy if you are willing to accept half the inflation rate. That is tolerant of the economic position of the country. But this lot in power seem to think Oliver Twist was the devil.

 

[800001]

Me personally, I blame Unions and rail staff. By all means it is important to have all good round conditions but they are paid more than enough and have good conditions. It is just sheer greed all this. They are driving trains… they aren’t brain surgeons, air traffic controllers or fighter pilots. They need to get a grip. If they aren’t happy in their job then get another, don’t affect the livelihood and social life of many thousands who rely on the service.

It’s not drivers who are striking!!!

 

[class ep-09]

Me personally, I blame Unions and rail staff. By all means it is important to have all good round conditions but they are paid more than enough and have good conditions. It is just sheer greed all this. They are driving trains… they aren’t brain surgeons, air traffic controllers or fighter pilots. They need to get a grip. If they aren’t happy in their job then get another, don’t affect the livelihood and social life of many thousands who rely on the service.

I am happy with my job , just not happy with my pay ( this year ).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==

Obviously can't replace drivers with agency staff. However managers are often trained as guard / despatch cover which doesnt take very long. As RMT are the ones striking at the moment it's looks like something like this is more aimed at them.

What about signallers ??
Will you replace them with agency staff ??

 

[Fokx]

This was discussed at length a while back in another thread I think. However - contingency guards are trained, and no more inexperienced than any other newly passed out guard (assuming that they are newly qualified of course).

I disagree with this strongly. A contingency guard is LESS competent than a newly qualified guard. A newly qualified guard has gone through months of training, the information is strongly in their heads and they have the most up to date rules, revenue and company specific instructions.

A contingency guard may have qualified ten years ago (as an example), and not worked a single train in that time except for the occasional assessment to keep them competent. They don’t keep up to date with rule changes, policies, or bother with revenue as they’re largely focusing on their own daily job and not someone else’s.

In the same regards that a newly qualified driver is usually more up to date with the Highway Code than someone who has been driving for many years. The TPE action has seen a higher than normal number of operational incidents.

 

[muz379]

What about signallers ??
Will you replace them with agency staff ??

They couldn't even do that during the pandemic . Remember them begging recently retired signalers to come back ?

 

[Estrella709]

During the Northern strikes a few years ago there was a culture of bullying of office staff by certain managers to sign up for 'contingency guard' positions to work trains when the RMT guards were on strike.
There were a fair few of these staff so
' persuaded' who were very unhappy in doing this, but had been put under extremely unfair pressure to do so. I believe a handful (commendedly) refused to do it.
There were also a few safety of the line incidents involving these contingency guards which were in effect brushed under the carpet.
Also, the TSSA need to grow some and instruct all their driver manager members to refuse to work trains as guards, and It would be good to see ASLEF drivers refuse to cross the RMT picket lines at their respective places of work (as happened at Mersey rail)

 

[weastebusdepot]

Presumably, drivers would be entitled to refuse to drive trains staffed by poorly trained and inexperienced 'guards' on the grounds of safety? And presumably ASLEF would support their members who did so? Therefore escalating the dispute further?

Of course they can. But they will have to have observed the contingency guard doing something or saying something that gives them reason to believe they are a safety risk. They can't just base it on mess room gossip. Hence on strike days you'll find the union members who aren't on strike watching the activities of the contingency workers closely and reporting any slip ups.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

It wasn't my suggestion - I just remember it being suggested during a previous strike. I'm pretty sure it was Greater Anglia but like I say, I may have completely made it up.


So what happens to the person concerned? I assume if a real guard made a mistake, it would be treated seriously and at worse could be career ending. In fact at worse it could lead to prosecution.

Do the "contingency conductors" face consequences?

If they do it's kept very quiet.

 

[Bantamzen]

How can the RMT be unrealistic when no offer whatsoever has been tabled. Listen, let's put away our prejudices whatever they may be. I'm no RMT fan as I have pointed out on here time and time again. But in truth we have been offered no pay rise now in three years. We were all very tolerant during the pandemic and accepted they were difficult times. But you have to also remember that pay inflation over the whole economy in the past three years has been near 15%, we have seen nothing of that. We now have inflation at 9% and rising. We are taking a serious pay hit no matter how you look at it. If we were offered 5% it would only be the equivalent of 1.66% per each of the three years, but it would be better than nothing.

But you also have to accept that the pandemic will cost us a lot, and will do for a long time. And guess what, some of us in the public sector have been dealing with lower than inflation pay rises for a lot longer than those in the railway industry. And I'm pretty sure a lot of us would like to address that issue. However there is the small matter of something in the region of £500 billion extra added to the budget deficit. When your industry relies on public funding, this becomes an issue. For example, the government wants 93,000 less civil servants in employment within the next few years. That's not to say that the workloads have gone down, but that is what is being demanded as a direct result of the economic situation.

As I said, the unions need to be realistic.

You need to stop thinking asking for a pay rise is greedy. It is not greedy if you are willing to accept half the inflation rate. That is tolerant of the economic position of the country. But this lot in power seem to think Oliver Twist was the devil.

When did I ever say asking for a pay rise was greedy? Please stop putting words into my mouth.

What I am saying is that the country is in an dire economic situation asking for an inflation related pay rise, especially when other publicly funded workers will get nothing of the sort might be pushing the boundaries. Its also important to remember that this round of industrial action will rely more than ever on public support. Lose that, and they are literally handing votes to the government. They want this fight, and the RMT are are running right into a turkey shoot.

 

[trebor79]

Are there many highly skilled agency staff sitting around who can Drive trains? If there were I'm sure they would be, well driving trains now. Good luck with this pipe dream.

More likely to be existing staff in other roles covering, and the agency staff back-filling them.

 

[Tangent]

Good luck in bringing in the armed forces.

The reason the Longmoor Military Railway no longer exists and army officers do not chair accident enquires is that the Royal Engineers found that training is railway operations was now irrelevant militarily.

A terrible bit of short-sightedness on the MoD's part. Major military operations on the Continent will rely on the railway to move supplies and equipment, and possibly bodies too. They will need to rely on civilian logistic specialists; but that adds time to the process, and also means that normal railway logistics will suffer in the process.

 

[ComUtoR]

If an agency worker has an incident. How are they dealt with ? Do they get investigated and would the incident go on their safety of the line record or would they simply not be in work the next day and replaced with a different agency worker ?

Can a TOC decide which worker they will get or do they just ask the agency and then someone turns up ? If that was the case, an agency worker could have multiple incidents on their record.

How are agency worker competencies managed ?

Cheers if anyone knows.

 

[skyhigh]

Do the "contingency conductors" face consequences?

If something goes very wrong (I.e. trap and drag) they will face the same legal consequences as any fully trained guard.

However for internal consequences, for a 'normal' guard any safety of the line incident might be career ending. For a contingency guard, the most that would happen would be them not being able to work a train again. They'd just go back to their day job with no further consequences.

 

[Gems]

But you also have to accept that the pandemic will cost us a lot, and will do for a long time. And guess what, some of us in the public sector have been dealing with lower than inflation pay rises for a lot longer than those in the railway industry. And I'm pretty sure a lot of us would like to address that issue. However there is the small matter of something in the region of £500 billion extra added to the budget deficit. When your industry relies on public funding, this becomes an issue. For example, the government wants 93,000 less civil servants in employment within the next few years. That's not to say that the workloads have gone down, but that is what is being demanded as a direct result of the economic situation.

As I said, the unions need to be realistic.


When did I ever say asking for a pay rise was greedy? Please stop putting words into my mouth.

What I am saying is that the country is in an dire economic situation asking for an inflation related pay rise, especially when other publicly funded workers will get nothing of the sort might be pushing the boundaries. Its also important to remember that this round of industrial action will rely more than ever on public support. Lose that, and they are literally handing votes to the government. They want this fight, and the RMT are are running right into a turkey shoot.

I have just pointed out no offer has been made. So lets see what is before we start calling the RMT unrealistic. We are not to blame for Johnsons pandemic spending and Sunaks covid fraud playgrounds, they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==

If an agency worker has an incident. How are they dealt with ? Do they get investigated and would the incident go on their safety of the line record or would they simply not be in work the next day and replaced with a different agency worker ?

Can a TOC decide which worker they will get or do they just ask the agency and then someone turns up ? If that was the case, an agency worker could have multiple incidents on their record.

How are agency worker competencies managed ?

Cheers if anyone knows.

Nobody knows, It's called Shapps making up crap and writing it on the back of a fag packet before they hit the Sunday politics shows.

 

[skyhigh]

More likely to be existing staff in other roles covering, and the agency staff back-filling them.

(Assuming you're referring to drivers as that's what the post you quoted mentioned)

Firstly - drivers are not currently involved in this dispute.

Secondly - for obvious reasons, only people who currently have driver competence can drive trains. People who used to have driver competence are no use, they would essentially need full training to bring them back up to standard. So effectively that means the only people who could replace drivers are driver managers and some standards managers. They only retain driver competence because they need it - so backfilling the role with agency staff who don't have it is pointless.

 

[CBlue]

A terrible bit of short-sightedness on the MoD's part. Major military operations on the Continent will rely on the railway to move supplies and equipment, and possibly bodies too. They will need to rely on civilian logistic specialists; but that adds time to the process, and also means that normal railway logistics will suffer in the process.

What "major military operations on the continent" are likely to be taking place then?


This sounds like that nonsense about how the UK railway network including branch lines was of vital importance infrastructure wise during ww2. (Spoilers, it was found to be so inefficient that logistics simply didn't use most of the small branches)

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Presumably, drivers would be entitled to refuse to drive trains staffed by poorly trained and inexperienced 'guards' on the grounds of safety? And presumably ASLEF would support their members who did so? Therefore escalating the dispute further?

Absolutely, happened last time with us. If you don't feel the contingency is competent then you should be able to say I don't feel safe working with this person. As long as it's justified, and something has happened (2 on a red, fail to operate SDO/UDS) then managers and union would have to back you really. Why risk your own job?