Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[warwickshire]

I hadn’t actually spotted that! I suppose it might be referring to things like the C2C arrangement. It was a slightly strange arrangement which was “part time” but still working four (shorter) days per week, so half the money but almost as disruptive as working full time.

Albeit that hasn’t happened anywhere else and C2C haven’t (AFAIK) recruited again on the same basis. Arrangements like that focussed around traditional AM or PM peaks seem less likely now, post Covid.

@357 might know more about it.

C2C/LTS around 1998 to 2002, did have quite a few part time guards. Drivers interesting to know. Believe First Great Eastern had a few at Colchester and most certainly guards who mainly did peak Clacton to London Liverpool Street.
However West Anglia Great Northern ran a massive campaign for part time drivers around 1998. Whether any happened or not? However 25 years or so later it appears a interest for part time staff to rise again.

 

[380101]

What's so funny, ASLEF have been signing RDW agreements for years, if they'd put their foot down 20 years ago the TOCS would've had no choice but to agree to a proper recruitment campaign and these historic vacancies would have been filled

ASLEF only sign RDW agreements if the TOC is actively recruiting and/or training new drivers. It's been like that for as long as I can remember - No recruitment/trainees, no rdw agreements.

If TOCs are abusing the agreement then company councils should be raising the issue with the EC to rescind the agreements.

 

[tony6499]

All the outdated agreements are ones the management have wanted to keep for years , such as Sunday out of the working week. The reason was the cost of incorporating them into the working week with the additional number of drivers needed to then work the roster.
The travelling time to different depots is another red herring as that's been around for years, if you're spare you can cover another depot's work if you know the route and traction so not sure what they want from that unless it is the old chestnut of travelling passenger in your own time.

 

[mandub]

All the outdated agreements are ones the management have wanted to keep for years , such as Sunday out of the working week. The reason was the cost of incorporating them into the working week with the additional number of drivers needed to then work the roster.
The travelling time to different depots is another red herring as that's been around for years, if you're spare you can cover another depot's work if you know the route and traction so not sure what they want from that unless it is the old chestnut of travelling passenger in your own time.

Yeah but at my TOC your day still starts and finishes at your home depot even if they want to send you to another depot to cover some of their work you sign.
This sounds like you could be moved depots for a period of time and have to commute there and start and finish your shift there.
Huge difference to working day if so. I live 3 miles from my home depot but I sign routes meaning that I could cover work at depots 50 miles from home !!
And presumably with the fast track route learning proposed they could have you travelling 50 miles to depots where you don't know any routes at all and train you up quickly on some core work......may as well be zero hours contract.
Obviously I doubt they'd find it economic to do this kind of thing but I don't want a contract that makes it possible......

 

[43066]

This sounds like you could be moved depots for a period of time and have to commute there and start and finish your shift there.

Sounds more like cross covering jobs between depots, which I gather isn’t done everywhere? (we do it).

 

[mandub]

Sounds more like cross covering jobs between depots, which I gather isn’t done everywhere? (we do it).

Yep we do too. No problem if so.
As long as it's within my booked hours for the day and I start at my own depot.

But the text in the press release yesterday is ambiguous at the very least, especially 'the ability to move drivers between depots'



"Gives train companies back the ability to move drivers between depots where there are gaps due to sickness or absence, which cause cancellations or delays for passengers, particularly during disruption;"

 

[LowLevel]

I don't really get a lot of the wish list.

Where I am -

Sundays are inside or committed except for a minority of legacy staff.

Cross depot cover and management cover has been in place for years

No one wants the management to do the rosters including the management, they have enough fun with planning the diagrams.

Driver only operation isn't in place but it would seem is very far from a priority and indeed being viable - most recent franchise award omitted it entirely despite owning group's ventures elsewhere.

I wouldn't say we are run inefficiently.

 

[skyhigh]

Yep we do too. No problem if so.
As long as it's within my booked hours for the day and I start at my own depot.

But the text in the press release yesterday is ambiguous at the very least, especially 'the ability to move drivers between depots'



"Gives train companies back the ability to move drivers between depots where there are gaps due to sickness or absence, which cause cancellations or delays for passengers, particularly during disruption;"

The devil is in the detail. We do cross-cover, but it works by us booking on at our home depot, then getting a train/taxi to where we pick up the work (or we pick it up at the first point the work goes to our home depot). We only cover other jobs where the job + travelling time fits in our rostering agreement, otherwise we cover part of the job or bits of several jobs depending on what's required. No issue at all with that.

On the other hand, if 'moving drivers between depots' involves me driving to the other depot to start my shift that is a significant downgrade. It takes me around 20 mins to get to my home depot. There are 2 other depots who's work I sign, and they are an hour and 45 minute drives away. That would mean essentially unpaid overtime of between 50 and 80 mins a shift compared to the current conditions.

 

[Dai Corner]

On the other hand, if 'moving drivers between depots' involves me driving to the other depot to start my shift that is a significant downgrade. It takes me around 20 mins to get to my home depot. There are 2 other depots who's work I sign, and they are an hour and 45 minute drives away. That would mean essentially unpaid overtime of between 50 and 80 mins a shift compared to the current conditions.

What if you were paid for the travelling time and expense? It's not uncommon in other industries to be required to work at a different location.

 

[43066]

The devil is in the detail. We do cross-cover, but it works by us booking on at our home depot, then getting a train/taxi to where we pick up the work (or we pick it up at the first point the work goes to our home depot). We only cover other jobs where the job + travelling time fits in our rostering agreement, otherwise we cover part of the job or bits of several jobs depending on what's required. No issue at all with that.

On the other hand, if 'moving drivers between depots' involves me driving to the other depot to start my shift that is a significant downgrade. It takes me around 20 mins to get to my home depot. There are 2 other depots who's work I sign, and they are an hour and 45 minute drives away. That would mean essentially unpaid overtime of between 50 and 80 mins a shift compared to the current conditions.

Yep the devil is in the detail.

What if you were paid for the travelling time and expense? It's not uncommon in other industries to be required to work at a different location.

Keeping in mind it’s safety critical railway shift work, you need min 12 hours between shifts etc. You’ll run into major issues with fatigue, and covering other depots’ work is inherently quite an inefficient use of resources. Time spent travelling as a passenger in a taxi or on a train is time not spent driving. If someone effectively finishes their hours later than usual, you’ll then have to cover the start of their shift the next day…

I strongly suspect what this is referring to is the (current) cross covering of jobs between depots within shift times which, as noted above, isn’t agreed everywhere.

 

[tony6499]

Yeah but at my TOC your day still starts and finishes at your home depot even if they want to send you to another depot to cover some of their work you sign.
This sounds like you could be moved depots for a period of time and have to commute there and start and finish your shift there.
Huge difference to working day if so. I live 3 miles from my home depot but I sign routes meaning that I could cover work at depots 50 miles from home !!
And presumably with the fast track route learning proposed they could have you travelling 50 miles to depots where you don't know any routes at all and train you up quickly on some core work......may as well be zero hours contract.
Obviously I doubt they'd find it economic to do this kind of thing but I don't want a contract that makes it possible......

That's what I meant , you're spare at your own depot and they're short at another so you're sent there in your own time to do a turn there

 

[Horizon22]

The devil is in the detail. We do cross-cover, but it works by us booking on at our home depot, then getting a train/taxi to where we pick up the work (or we pick it up at the first point the work goes to our home depot). We only cover other jobs where the job + travelling time fits in our rostering agreement, otherwise we cover part of the job or bits of several jobs depending on what's required. No issue at all with that.

On the other hand, if 'moving drivers between depots' involves me driving to the other depot to start my shift that is a significant downgrade. It takes me around 20 mins to get to my home depot. There are 2 other depots who's work I sign, and they are an hour and 45 minute drives away. That would mean essentially unpaid overtime of between 50 and 80 mins a shift compared to the current conditions.

Considering fatigue, the fact thatt many trainees / new applications have to be within 45-60 minutes of their home depot whilst existing staff are "grandfathered in" and the extended journey times, I'm not sure it will be at all practical.

 

[whoosh]

Where I am there is an agreement for no more than a 10% increase or decrease in depot's booked work (without further talks taking place) at the twice yearly timetable changes.

This isn't really a problem, unless you are massively short staffed of course, and want to even out the shortage amongst all the depots, rather than have one which is chronically short staffed.
So really, it's only a tool that would be nice to use if you can't get your act together in the first place. [So, obviously won't apply to any TOC anywhere ever!]

 

[dk1]

If cross covering between depots we would never be expected to drive. A taxi would always be provided if no train available to travel pass on. Also it could be refused if not completed within that drivers rostered hours unless agreeing to overtime.

 

[tony6499]

If cross covering between depots we would never be expected to drive. A taxi would always be provided if no train available to travel pass on. Also it could be refused if not completed within that drivers rostered hours unless agreeing to overtime.

I'd imagine all of that is what they call an out dated working practice

 

[brick60000]

if you're spare you can cover another depot's work if you know the route and traction so not sure what they want from that unless it is the old chestnut of travelling passenger in your own time

As others have said, some operators do not have cross cover agreements (and among those that do, may only apply between certain depots).

To me, it is madness that a driver can be sat spare at one depot with a train downstairs cancelled due to an open turn - the spare driver signs the route and traction but can’t work the train because it “belongs to a different depot”.

Sounds crazy, but it happens. That is an example of an outdated working practice that should go, in my opinion.

However, I’m absolutely not advocating for enforced OT. Should only be required to cover it (unless agreeing to OT) if you can work that train & get back within your booked hours.

There’s being reasonable and there’s being unreasonable - and there’s a balance to be struck from both sides. The government seem to pick fights with the wrong things, a lot of the time!

Cross depot cover and management cover has been in place for years

In some places, but not all - as others have said.

I strongly suspect what this is referring to is the (current) cross covering of jobs between depots within shift times which, as noted above, isn’t agreed everywhere.

Hopefully, and if so, a good idea provided it’s within the above constraints. Which many may be concerned it isn’t….!

 

[43066]

To me, it is madness that a driver can be sat spare at one depot with a train downstairs cancelled due to an open turn - the spare driver signs the route and traction but can’t work the train because it “belongs to a different depot”.

Sounds crazy, but it happens. That is an example of an outdated working practice that should go, in my opinion.

However, I’m absolutely not advocating for enforced OT. Should only be required to cover it (unless agreeing to OT) if you can work that train & get back within your booked hours.

Agreed!

 

[baz962]

I'd imagine all of that is what they call an out dated working practice

Why is it outdated. In almost all other industries, if you work away from your home depot you would get a hire car or a hotel or taxi or at the very least you would get petrol money. Travel time would be paid overtime or taken as part of the working day

 

[FR510]

I'd imagine all of that is what they call an out dated working practice

How is it outdated? Your car insurance would not cover you because you are driving on company business. And why should anyone be forced to work overtime.

 

[Bill57p9]

Why is it outdated. In almost all other industries, if you work away from your home depot you would get a hire car or a hotel or taxi or at the very least you would get petrol money. Travel time would be paid overtime or taken as part of the working day

I was about to post something similar.
My contract is "mobile" and therefore I can be sent to work anywhere in the UK, either on a temporary or permanent basis. However "temporary" comes with funded travel and time whilst "permanent" comes with the employee's choice of either funded and managed relocation or a "self help payment", I.e. compensation to accept the longer commute rather than relocate.
I don't take that working practice as outdated at all. An outdated working practice may be to drive your own car to your old depot and then refuse to drive to your new depot every day. An unreasonable working practice would be for an employer to expect their staff to travel in their own time or at their own expense.
(MPs might not be paid travelling time but they are certainly reimbursed for the cost...)

 

[al78]

Simon Calder writes for the Independent:

"Could brothers in Brexit bring down the railway?"

Unlike Mick Whelan, leader of the train drivers’ union, I don’t believe the government is bent on destroying the railway. But if ministers really did want to consign the industry they could not hope for better allies. The brotherhood of right-wing Conservatives and left-wing trade unions that fought successfully to leave the European Union have spent the last 200 days diminishing the appeal and reliability of the railways with the most damaging national rail strikes since the 1980s.

Let me say at the outset that the main rail unions – Aslef, representing train drivers, and the RMT whose members have many other roles – have negotiated brilliantly over the past quarter century, extracting above-average pay rises while the rail industry blossomed. They are now understandably dismayed to be offered increases that are well short of inflation and contingent on radical changes to working practices.

“Corrupt, immoral, disgusting” – that is how Mr Whelan describes the train operators with whom he is negotiating. He used the term when I talked to him ahead of the pay offer made late on Friday from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), representing the employers. That deal, which is sure to have been prescribed by ministers, comprises a 4 per cent rise for last year, 4 per cent for this year, conditional on a raft of changes to working practices.

The general secretary of Aslef and his members are more likely to be incensed than tempted by the offer. If current form continues, rather than calling for a vote on the deal they will call another strike in retaliation: stamping their feet and demanding that magic money tree of taxpayers’ cash gets another shake.

Across at the RMT, general secretary Mick Lynch, believes: “The money [to fund a double-digit pay rise] was always there but it’s being salted away by a gang of profiteers and their mates in the government.” The struggle continues, he insists.

 

[dk1]

I'd imagine all of that is what they call an out dated working practice

Bit like parliament still being on their extended Christmas break (rolls eyes). Don’t they just craze ya?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2023 ==

Why is it outdated. In almost all other industries, if you work away from your home depot you would get a hire car or a hotel or taxi or at the very least you would get petrol money. Travel time would be paid overtime or taken as part of the working day

I presumed it was just a bit of humour. Couldn’t be serious surely?

 

[Starmill]

How is it outdated? Your car insurance would not cover you because you are driving on company business. And why should anyone be forced to work overtime.

I'm pretty sure that it's intended to be a sarcastic comment!

In all of the office-based employment roles I'm familiar with the company pays for business insurance for employees own cars plus mileage expenses, but in reality people are entitled to take a taxi and expense it if that's what they want to do.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why is it outdated. In almost all other industries....

Because people are 'sector blind' and too busy listening to the rhetoric to actually think for themselves.

The whole 'real world' debate is laughable. Comparing sectors just isn't logical. I've worked in retail, transport, NHS, and Distribution/logistics. Whilst they all have similarities, they are very different. Often, people see "The Railway" as being antiquated and Victorian and in some ways it is but in others it's the same as everyone else but the rhetoric is all about the railway and it's "outdated working practices"

 

[Thirteen]

Simon Calder writes for the Independent:

"Could brothers in Brexit bring down the railway?"

Unlike Mick Whelan, leader of the train drivers’ union, I don’t believe the government is bent on destroying the railway. But if ministers really did want to consign the industry they could not hope for better allies. The brotherhood of right-wing Conservatives and left-wing trade unions that fought successfully to leave the European Union have spent the last 200 days diminishing the appeal and reliability of the railways with the most damaging national rail strikes since the 1980s.

Let me say at the outset that the main rail unions – Aslef, representing train drivers, and the RMT whose members have many other roles – have negotiated brilliantly over the past quarter century, extracting above-average pay rises while the rail industry blossomed. They are now understandably dismayed to be offered increases that are well short of inflation and contingent on radical changes to working practices.

“Corrupt, immoral, disgusting” – that is how Mr Whelan describes the train operators with whom he is negotiating. He used the term when I talked to him ahead of the pay offer made late on Friday from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), representing the employers. That deal, which is sure to have been prescribed by ministers, comprises a 4 per cent rise for last year, 4 per cent for this year, conditional on a raft of changes to working practices.

The general secretary of Aslef and his members are more likely to be incensed than tempted by the offer. If current form continues, rather than calling for a vote on the deal they will call another strike in retaliation: stamping their feet and demanding that magic money tree of taxpayers’ cash gets another shake.

Across at the RMT, general secretary Mick Lynch, believes: “The money [to fund a double-digit pay rise] was always there but it’s being salted away by a gang of profiteers and their mates in the government.” The struggle continues, he insists.

Calder really does love his hyperbole.

 

[Facing Back]

I'm pretty sure that it's intended to be a sarcastic comment!

In all of the office-based employment roles I'm familiar with the company pays for business insurance for employees own cars plus mileage expenses, but in reality people are entitled to take a taxi and expense it if that's what they want to do.

I'm told that there are some odd benefit in kind tax rules with paying for insurance on employee's cars so we maintain a company policy to cover some staff if they travel to somewhere which is not their permanent place of work. The expenses policy is to pay the difference in the costs between travelling to where they are going and travelling to their permanent base - the guiding principle is that they are not out of pocket. If they leave home early then they can expense coffee or breakfast etc. Staff who take a car allowance instead of a company car do not get the insurance, they have to upgrade their own.

Generally if it a small difference in timings, we expect people to be at their site on time and don't pay overtime. If its egregious then we do for staff who are eligible for it - generally more junior staff. This is entirely consistent with the rest of our industry

 

[Bletchleyite]

In all of the office-based employment roles I'm familiar with the company pays for business insurance for employees own cars plus mileage expenses, but in reality people are entitled to take a taxi and expense it if that's what they want to do.

I have never, ever come across a company funding business insurance for employees' cars. You pay it yourself (the uplift is usually quite small) and the 45p/mile HMRC rate takes it into account.

More usually anyone not wanting to use their own car for a long trip and not wanting to use public transport would get a small hire car. For short trips (e.g. to the airport), yes, a taxi. (Most business travel in my experience tends to involve going out on the early morning flights to which public transport is generally not applicable, so as to maximise use of the day).

 

[JonathanH]

Simon Calder writes for the Independent:

He doesn't appear to be taking an independent line on the matter, given he is virtually taking the government's side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm told that there are some odd benefit in kind tax rules with paying for insurance on employee's cars so we maintain a company policy to cover some staff if they travel to somewhere which is not their permanent place of work. The expenses policy is to pay the difference in the costs between travelling to where they are going and travelling to their permanent base - the guiding principle is that they are not out of pocket. If they leave home early then they can expense coffee or breakfast etc. Staff who take a car allowance instead of a company car do not get the insurance, they have to upgrade their own.

Some employers ask employees to minus off their daily car commute (if they have one) from an expenses claim. However there's no actual requirement to do this - business expenses can be paid from home unless you're actually going to the office first, in which case they start at the office.

Where it can be an issue is where a temporary workplace is substantially the same as a regular commute. For instance if you go into London three times a week to the office, say, but were required to go a fourth time to a different location in London, then that wouldn't be a valid business expense.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2023 ==

He doesn't appear to be taking an independent line on the matter, given he is virtually taking the government's side.

That's a bit disingenuous. The Indy is so called because it doesn't have default politics, like e.g. the Mirror is left-wing and trade-unionist or the Torygraph is right wing. The individual correspondents can take the line they see as appropriate.

 

[Starmill]

I have never, ever come across a company funding business insurance for employees' cars. You pay it yourself (the uplift is usually quite small) and the 45p/mile HMRC rate takes it into account.

Well you just did!

The reason for the arrangement is that a lot of employees complained about the reliability and customer service of Enterprise, to the point that they'd prefer to use their own car.