Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[Starmill]

At the risk of sounding dumb but why would the RMT be involved with the buses when they're a rail and maritime union, I always assume the bus drivers were part of Unite or GMB.

RMT do represent some bus drivers. Not very many but some. More are in Unite and others.

 

[Class83]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

It wasn't part-time I was commenting on.

Part time is fine, they would still do the same range of shifts, just fewer of them each week.

The problem becomes when someone wants 'convenient' hours, inherently increasing the percentage of 'inconvenient' hours in other people's schedule.

Though I'm also aware of some people who voluntarily work nights so they can save on childcare through the day while their partner works, I wouldn't want to look after kids coming off a nightshift, but financially a good option if you get an unsocial hours allowance and don't have ridiculous childcare costs.

 

[Thirteen]

RMT do represent some bus drivers. Not very many but some. More are in Unite and others.

Thanks, I have noticed the bus strikes in London are with drivers who are members of Unite but I've never seen the RMT strike on the various London bus companies.

 

[the sniper]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

There are plenty of TOCs with some part time drivers, but these are almost wholly former full time drivers, as logically it doesn't make much sense to pay to recruit/train a driver only for them to do part time. There are even Drivers who only do 9 to 5, though this is usually only given begrudgingly by TOCs to what the RDG seemingly consider 'diverse' cases.

 

[Starmill]

Thanks, I have noticed the bus strikes in London are with drivers who are members of Unite but I've never seen the RMT strike on the various London bus companies.

They may or may not have any in Greater London and surrounding areas, I don't know. They definitely represent some drivers at Stagecoach East Midlands for example.

 

[bramling]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

The big issue with part time is efficiency. Why would you spend X amount training up someone to work 16 hours when you can spend exactly the same amount training up someone to work 40 hours. It isn’t just the training costs (and resource utilisation), you have all the other employment costs as well. The level of training required for the bus industry will presumably be several orders of magnitude less, making it more practicable.

There also remains the issue that part time will create more problems than it solves if the part timers all want to work “nice” shifts, when it’s the “not nice” ones which tend to have problems being covered.

You also introduce the risk of bringing in a load of people who can only work specific hours, perhaps due to childcare. If something changes down the line and there is no longer a need for people working those timings, you suddenly have a headache.

 

[Economist]

Plus they would only be able to sign very limited routes, at the new place where I'm due to start in a couple of weeks' time the main route will be three hours from the south to the Midlands with 10 minutes to change ends about halfway in. I think a return trip is close to an 8 hour diagram all things considered. Not really going to work for anyone who wants to work "nice" shifts since that'll leave everyone else starting at 03:30 or finishing at 02:00.

 

[CE142]

We have a few Drivers who are part time, they do a Job Share were one works the early turns and one works the lates. Others who work two weeks on, then the other Driver works the following two weeks and so on. I understand Management weren't too happy about it at first until the Union got involved and said it's either that, or you will have quite a few vacancies to fill as the Drivers involved with just take early retirement instead!

Suddenly Management thought it was a great idea!

 

[Annetts key]

At the risk of sounding dumb but why would the RMT be involved with the buses when they're a rail and maritime union, I always assume the bus drivers were part of Unite or GMB.

RMT stands for The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. RMT covers the transport sector, from the mainline and underground railways to shipping and offshore, buses and road freight. There are also some taxi members. Within the railway industry, that includes cleaners and shop workers (for shops on railway premises, or former railway premises).

Some RMT branches have a majority of bus members and no railway members.

 

[dk1]

At my TOC too, the RDW agreement is only signed and renewed to facilitate training, if there was no training going on there would be no RDW agreement.

I believe it is in ASLEF's charter to seek an end to the need for "institutionalised overtime".

Then again there would be plenty of 12+2 without it

 

[Val3ntine]

Which has set a precedent for the future as they always received RPI based on a Feb/March figure.....was 8.2% this year so they've accepted less than they normally do.

They already have a lot of DOO, have contracted Sundays (1 in 2 at some depots) and suchlike.

Not just yet.

 

[greyman42]

We have a few Drivers who are part time, they do a Job Share were one works the early turns and one works the lates. Others who work two weeks on, then the other Driver works the following two weeks and so on. I understand Management weren't too happy about it at first until the Union got involved and said it's either that, or you will have quite a few vacancies to fill as the Drivers involved with just take early retirement instead!

Suddenly Management thought it was a great idea!

This happens in many other sectors and makes sense.

 

[43066]

In particular, watering down both training and route knowledge requirements. I’m not sure how this can realistically be done without a hit to safety standards. Managers driving during disruption is also a slippery slope, as the moment you get to a situation where managers are being called to take the handle during disruption they then start becoming just another de-facto spare, which means their management tasks won’t be getting done - over time this will cause problems.

Thinking a bit more about this, it’s difficult to see it as anything other than a collection of suggestions by people who don’t really understand the current system - ie medalling politicians. There is a minimum hours requirement for new trainees (set by the ORR, nothing to do with unions), but almost everyone I trained with was well above this before they were ready to pass out due to the time taken to gain the necessary route knowledge.

Simulators are already used to learn signalling, for fault finding etc. they are not good enough to acquire route knowledge, and what would be the point spending enormous amounts on better quality simulators when the routes can be learned driving trains in service?

The “no compulsory redundancies” thing is also totally meaningless in the context of train drivers. I’m sure we’d all rather not have it in there at all in exchange for a higher %. I suspect it was inserted to make the deal look more attractive to outsiders so that ASLEF can be painted as unreasonable if they reject it.

Then there’s the idea of a more diverse workforce - whoever thought this was a good idea just doesn’t really get the fact that shifts and unsocial hours are an inherent part of the driving role, the moment you cherry pick particular arrangements to suit certain people someone else has to cover the crap stuff, and this simply doesn’t work. Likewise do we really think it’s a good idea to encourage people into a heavily shift-oriented role who have a string of commitments which will limit their flexibility? It’s all very well saying people sign a contract, but reality is if they can’t get what they want off then they simply go sick. There is already a problem with certain people being attracted by the pound sign, and then once they get to the point of having to work shifts suddenly find they either can’t hack it or do everything possible to treat it as a MF 9-5 holidays off job.

It’s really just a buzzword.

They’re always going to find it harder to recruit women simply because far fewer want to do the role. You’re never going to get 50/50. There is no shortage of BAME and LGBT drivers in the London area. Given the low turnover of the driver population (I still have colleagues who joined the railway in the 1970s and early 1980s) it also takes longer for current recruitment trends to filter through.

Having family friendly flexible shifts for drivers effectively means less flexibility (and more cost as they’d need to employ more of them) for the employers, so I doubt that’s actually what is intended…

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

As mentioned by @bramling the difference is the training time leading to inefficient use of resources. A bus driver can be trained up in four weeks or less, a train driver is a year or more and £100k. A part time driver will cost exactly the same, take just as long, and will also take a training school place away from a full time applicant.

It has been done in a limited way, usually job shares to accommodate drivers at the end of their careers who would retire otherwise, but it’s telling that TOCs (when they were taking the financial risk) haven’t found it attractive as a concept. There is no shortage of applicants for full time positions.

Johnson in particular seems to have always had a thing about train drivers, goodness knows for what reason. I remember reading an article he wrote two decades ago slagging off the driver of the Turbo involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident.

And who who can forget all the guff about “driverless tubes” when he was Mayor of London . Over half a decade since he left office, it’s no closer. In fact it’s still decades away.

That said I suspect if Johnson was still PM we would have seen a concerted effort to resolve the current round of industrial disputes, rather than ideological intransigence and the government actively prolonging them for political reasons.

This happens in many other sectors and makes sense.

Except that (other than the limited example of people close to retirement) part time doesn’t generally make sense in the context of train drivers, for the reasons outlined above…

 

[XIX7007177]

Thinking a bit more about this, it’s difficult to see it as anything other than a collection of suggestions by people who don’t really understand the current system - ie medalling politicians. There is a minimum hours requirement for new trainees (set by the ORR, nothing to do with unions), but almost everyone I trained with was well above this before they were ready to pass out due to the time taken to gain the necessary route knowledge.

Simulators are already used to learn signalling, for fault finding etc. they are not good enough to acquire route knowledge, and what would be the point spending enormous amounts on better quality simulators when the routes can be learned driving trains in service?

The “no compulsory redundancies” thing is also totally meaningless in the context of train drivers. I’m sure we’d all rather not have it in there at all in exchange for a higher %. I suspect it was inserted to make the deal look more attractive to outsiders so that ASLEF can be painted as unreasonable if they reject it.



It’s really just a buzzword.

They’re always going to find it harder to recruit women simply because far fewer want to do the role. You’re never going to get 50/50. There is no shortage of BAME and LGBT drivers in the London area. Given the low turnover of the driver population it also takes longer for current recruitment trends to filter through.

Having family friendly flexible shifts for drivers effectively means less flexibility (and more cost as they’d need to employ more of them) for the employers, so I doubt that’s actually what is intended…



As mentioned by @bramling the difference is the training time leading to inefficient use of resources. A bus driver can be trained up in four weeks or less, a train driver is a year or more and £100k. A part time driver will cost exactly the same, take as long, and will also take a training school place away from a full time applicant.

It has been done in a limited way, usually job shares to accommodate drivers at the end of their careers who would retire otherwise, but it’s telling that TOCs (when they were taking the financial risk) haven’t found it attractive as a concept. There is no shortage of applicants for full time positions.



And who who can forget all the guff about “driverless tubes” when he was Mayor of London . Over half a decade since he left office, it’s no closer. In fact it’s still decades away.

That said I suspect if Johnson was still PM we would have seen a concerted effort to resolve the current round of industrial disputes, rather than ideological intransigence and the government actively prolonging them for political reasons.



Except that it doesn’t make sense in the context of train drivers, for the reasons outlined above…

It does read a bit like they don’t already know what goes on.

Hopefully it sets a framework so individual TOCs and reps can negotiate. RDG can then pat themselves on the back saying they resolved the dispute.

 

[142blue]

If you get a settlement for the drivers and the signallers you can keep most lines open and with a service on strike days

Add in RMT members struggling financially and having to work I feel this government will wait and starve them out.

Changes are coming and not for the better

 

[Snow1964]

We have a few Drivers who are part time, they do a Job Share were one works the early turns and one works the lates. Others who work two weeks on, then the other Driver works the following two weeks and so on. I understand Management weren't too happy about it at first until the Union got involved and said it's either that, or you will have quite a few vacancies to fill as the Drivers involved with just take early retirement instead!

That is another complication, phased retirement. Not everyone wants to suddenly change from full time work to no work, many want a reduced hours transition.

Very sensible to allow this, but needs to be clearly defined, otherwise will get some seeing part time and cherry picking shifts as a right of everyone.

It really ought not be too hard to apply a rule that if you have done say 25 years (regardless of role) then you are entitled to request a job share, or reduced hours.

 

[dk1]

Very sensible to allow this, but needs to be clearly defined, otherwise will get some seeing part time and cherry picking shifts as a right of everyone.

Hence why we only allow it for ill health or those family friendly female drivers. For everyone else it would be a strict job share.

 

[Goldfish62]

Thanks, I have noticed the bus strikes in London are with drivers who are members of Unite but I've never seen the RMT strike on the various London bus companies.

First South West drivers were recently on strike. That's the RMT. Same with Stagecoach Devon and various companies on the South Coast.

Bus drivers have been represented by the RMT (and previously the NUR) for as long as railway staff have, going back to early last century due to the historic railway connections that many erstwhile bus operators had.

The RMT does have some members in the London bus companies, but the operators generally tend to refuse to recognise them.

 

[greyman42]

Except that (other than the limited example of people close to retirement) part time doesn’t generally make sense in the context of train drivers, for the reasons outlined above…

Yes i was thinking about over 50s.

 

[irish_rail]

In my view part time should be offered to all or none at all. On GWR its amazing how many drivers have cushy arrangements where they only work a couple of days a week and yet are taking home nearly as much pay as everyone else. Thats fine, but it should be open to all. I can see why the government want an increase in part time working as It will encourage more women into the role, but it won't go down well when these new recruits only have to work 9 til 3 Monday to Thursday, whilst the rest of us pick up increasingly unsociable hours.
The job is very much open to women, indeed we have several excellent female drivers at Plymouth. This meddling by the Dft is only going to upset the apple cart and for no good reason.

 

[greyman42]

In my view part time should be offered to all or none at all. On GWR its amazing how many drivers have cushy arrangements where they only work a couple of days a week and yet are taking home nearly as much pay as everyone else. Thats fine, but it should be open to all. I can see why the government want an increase in part time working as It will encourage more women into the role, but it won't go down well when these new recruits only have to work 9 til 3 Monday to Thursday, whilst the rest of us pick up increasingly unsociable hours.

I was thinking more of job sharing than part time, where a shift or shifts are basically split down the middle so you still end up doing unsocial hours.
9 till 3 Mon-Thurs seems absurd for a train driver in this day and age. If you want hours like that look for a job in another sector.
How are drivers working a couple of days a week taking home nearly as much pay as a driver working a standard shift pattern?

 

[whoosh]

How are drivers working a couple of days a week taking home nearly as much pay as a driver working a standard shift pattern?

Probably because they have taken their Railway Pension as well.


This 'part time' thing.... obviously has been (ill) thought out by people who haven't a clue.
"Ooh I know, let's have part time drivers like the buses."
Right. Where there's a little country route somewhere that runs during daylight hours only, and everyone else on the main rota gets 'shift allowance' that placates them for being stuck with rest of the work.
Doesn't really translate to trains does it?

"We need to attract a more diverse workforce."
Let's start recruiting!
Oh... they've only gone and had children and are now struggling to find childcare at 04:30 in the morning.
"And we need drivers to be more flexible." So later notice of shift changes and more movement of shift changes then?
That'll help with childcare right? In fact, that's not helpful even with a partner at home full time.

"It's the Unions resisting change and diversity."

Oh of course it is!

 

[theking]

Part time is no friend of current drivers.



You only have to look at c2c's part time to see what they have instore.



3 or 4 days a week driving peak hour trains.

Where that would have normally been driven by a full timer with a bit of spare on the end or shunting.

Current drivers would be best off getting their branch to negotiate reduced hours or job shares.

 

[greyman42]

This 'part time' thing.... obviously has been (ill) thought out by people who haven't a clue.

Part time and job share are two different things.

 

[Goldfish62]

On GWR its amazing how many drivers have cushy arrangements where they only work a couple of days a week and yet are taking home nearly as much pay as everyone else. Thats fine, but it should be open to all.

A friend of mine is a driver on GWR and works two days a week and shares his shift pattern with another driver who does the same. He had no special favours - it took him two years to go part time, but the company was very helpful in helping to match the two drivers together. So I would suggest that it is open to all - you just have to make a bit of effort to get there.

I don't know where you get the idea that part timers earn nearly as much as full timers. My friend is on 50% pay 50% leave entitlement and 50% pension entitlement.

 

[notadriver]

Perhaps rail is different, as it seems to be with a lot of things, but part time rotas have been used variously in the bus industry successfully for years as a means of attracting and retaining staff. I'm surprised to now learn that it is not done on the railways. Or perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It's by no means as simplistic as you're making it out. No company is going to have a 9-5 rota if it means everyone else has to do a rubbish shift for example. In practice part-time rotas are usually either a reduced number of days per week, subject to operational requirements or permanent earlys covering the AM Peak or permanent lates covering the PM peak, both again subject to operational needs.

I have never been aware of union resistance to this practice in the bus industry (where the RMT has significant presence) so I'm not sure why it would be different on rail. There may of course be genuine reasons why there should be concerns, but I also don't see why it should be simply dismissed out of hand.

PCV licence holders are plentiful - so part time positions etc are necessary to attract those people.

 

[Goldfish62]

I can see why the government want an increase in part time working as It will encourage more women into the role, but it won't go down well when these new recruits only have to work 9 til 3 Monday to Thursday, whilst the rest of us pick up increasingly unsociable hours.

Is there any suggestion that it would be 9-3 Mon-Thurs? I don't know how you possibly come to that conclusion? And in case isn't that assumption a little bit sexist?

 

[LowLevel]

Time off to have a family is a difficult one to manage really. On the one hand, I support the idea that one shouldn't be forced to choose between the basic biological functions of life and having a fulfilling job.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how rail companies and others in similar positions can mitigate the absence this necessarily entails - I have colleagues who haven't been near a train in literally years having had 2 or 3 children in short succession. In jobs with long training lead times it is nigh on impossible to forecast cover provision and these staff are still occupying positions in the depot establishment. It is further complicated if on their return they do wish to have things like set hours or shifts to work to ease childcare.

Has anywhere actually come up with a decent way of managing and reacting to these kind of issues, short of having a significant surplus in establishment just in case?

 

[whoosh]

Part time and job share are two different things.

Yes they are. Job share does work on the railway and I think is an excellent option to have available.
It has been thoroughly worked out though, particularly with who and what overtime is allowed (only one of the pair of job sharers allowed to work a rest day at once for example) so there is no unfair advantage.
They also work through the roster with all the shifts.

 

[greyman42]

A friend of mine is a driver on GWR and works two days a week and shares his shift pattern with another driver who does the same. He had no special favours - it took him two years to go part time, but the company was very helpful in helping to match the two drivers together. So I would suggest that it is open to all - you just have to make a bit of effort to get there.

I don't know where you get the idea that part timers earn nearly as much as fully timers. My friend is on 50% pay 50% leave entitlement and 50% pension entitlement.

That is exactly what a job share is.