I don't think this argument really stands up to scrutiny. There are huge differences within TOCs in terms of the number of routes and traction types signed, as well as the type of work undertaken. Yet all their drivers are paid the same salary, except where there are historic differences in T&Cs (e.g. Greater Anglia's former FGE/WAGN/one divisions).
Which isn't strictly true. At my TOC (relatively recent) There was an introduction of new stock and new routes and those Drivers are paid higher. I also work DOO and my TOC has had the split between Metro/Mainline. We do not get the same salary. In the almost 20yrs I've worked here, its been different.
Effectively you are making the argument for the reintroduction of mileage/shift etc. allowances
I make no argument for anything. I'm not sure where you have go that from. What my point was, and still is, is that you cannot have a standard salary based purely on someone's role. The role of a Driver is significantly different across the network. If anyone wanted to unify terms, conditions, pay, etc. then how do you begin to determine what the role of Driver should be, what it entails, and what is meant by 'doing the same/similar job'. Because quite clearly, we ain't.
, but the direction of travel in the industry over the last few decades has very much been away from such complexities - in part due to the administration required to keep track of things.
Again, I don't believe this to be true and introduction of 'New starter' contracts would complicate matters further.
The biggest issue is simply that the unions would insist on everyone moving to the most favourable terms. And that would destroy any saving from having uniform T&Cs.
Again, this doesn't reflect the reality. One of the reasons why harmonisation never works is because you often have to give up something. A TOC with higher wages generally takes the hit as those below are slowly moved up. The TOC with favourable conditions need a lot of convincing to what those conditions are worth. Interestingly a few years ago. GTR were specifically told what their Sundays were worth. Incorporating those into the working week now has a fixed value. You could, if you were evil enough, create a situation where the harmonisation process would tip in a specific way because one TOC had more significant voting power.
Any kind of uniform T&Cs are doomed from the outset. Don't forget that ASLEF do have a uniform set of goal and conditions they are aiming for. They would absolutely support more universal terms and pay. The biggest barriers are the TOCs and the Government. The Unions are just an easy target to blame.
A much more feasible way of improving efficiency would be for TOCs to be able to cross-cover each other's services, and indeed do so on a planned basis - i.e. to remove the "Chinese walls" that currently exist. It's not a new concept, and still happens in some areas.
I've cross covered another TOC. It's poisonous and creates a toxic culture. It is also far more complicated than you imagine. You literally go from one station to the next and find yourself on different driving policies, different rules, and an entirely different safety case. If you were cross covering a TOC and you had an incident, which safety case should you be treated under ? Which Driver Manager gets the on-call responsibility ? Whose disciplinary procedure do you fall under ? On a basic level; who picks up the delay attribution ?
www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk
