Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[74A]

No GWR drivers have committed Sundays

 

[Robertj21a]

Rail strikes have so far cost the government between £320,000,000 and £500,000,000. And that’s without counting the cost of these strikes to the economy as a whole. It’s unsustainable and ultimately unjustifiable to the tax payer for the government to deliberately keep this dragging on.

Are you able to provide the data that shows how that figure was arrived at ?

 

[VP185]

GWR drivers do, GWR HSS drivers don’t.

 

[TrainSpy]

If that's true then I'm very surprised that the Government went for that, despite the RMT being of less interest to them out of all the disputes in the country right now.

DOO was never really a considered inclusion in the deal though - very minor impact from a ££ perspective, particularly given the offer makes clear all trains will still include a rostered second person on the train. That's an easy on to row back on enough I'd have thought. I can't see 5+5 though - the offer to Network Rail was 5+4 and they described that as a best and final offer, so I can't see them going above that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

The overall point is that this offer has been awaited for months (my TOC was notified of being in dispute with ASLEF as of mid last year), and then this blanket “offer” is suddenly made late on a Friday afternoon, and sent to the media simultaneously.

Concede both points

Anyone who has ever done any kind of 9-5 office job thinks of 1518 on a Friday as quite late for anything major to happen, when people are disappearing off for the weekend. This was entirely tactical.

Have done 9-5. half 3 might be annoying, but it isn't late!

If Steve Montgomery's evidence to MPs yesterday that there were multiple contacts beforehand, and multiple attempts to contact about a specific offer is to be believed (and ASLEF haven't denied it)

Hardly the same, is it? If strike dates are announced that has little to do with negotiation (it means it has failed), and it’s surely beneficial for the public to know strike dates ASAP. How is that unreasonable?

My point is that I don't think it is unreasonable. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It seems you’ve either missed the bits regarding industrial action (or are trying to obfuscate?).

I’m not going to go into chapter and verse here because it’s too laborious, but the net result is that any dispute is required to be notified to the Secretary of State, with whom the operator must then agree how it is to be dealt with. This is why it’s so laughable that those occupying the office of Secretary of State have repeatedly claimed that negotiations are nothing to do with them.

Again - was responding to a specific point that the NRCs expressly prohibit local negotiation, which is incorrect. I have some sympathy with your description of the secretary of state's claims!

The “fuss” (by which I assume you mean unions noticing that no negotiation is being allowed) has been going on for many months.

I specifically mean that I don't think ASLEF have not disavowed their association with the document and they've had plenty of time to do so.

Not the case - they’re set around an average and often people need more.

Which by definition means some people take less time. Some people also take longer - but they're already given extra time to do the learning anyway, so that wouldn't import additional cost.

The risk of not having a guaranteed minimum number of trips/hours is that people might be rushed through and potentially signed off when not competent.

I agree that is a possibility - but given the current system being defended seems to have a decent track record of recognising if people aren't competent and giving them extra time, that doesn't seem to be a particularly high risk.

The agreed number also benefits the TOC by providing a benchmark by which questions can be asked if someone does need longer (ie is there a question around capability, have they been taking the training seriously etc) .

A fair point... Although given its included in the deal it would suggest TOCs don;t entirely agree with those benefits.

Exactly the same reasons underpin why a trainee driver needs a minimum number of hours before they are eligible for assessment.

It’s pointless, petty meddling with a system that has been proven to work well.

Again, given the TOCs are suggesting some change in the offer document, they may have a slightly more nuanced view of what has 'worked well', and whether it continues to do so.

Finally - I know ad infinitum back and forth's like this can be annoying, so I'll avoid them from now on! Appreciate everyone's patience!!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

The overall point is that this offer has been awaited for months (my TOC was notified of being in dispute with ASLEF as of mid last year), and then this blanket “offer” is suddenly made late on a Friday afternoon, and sent to the media simultaneously.

Concede both points

Anyone who has ever done any kind of 9-5 office job thinks of 1518 on a Friday as quite late for anything major to happen, when people are disappearing off for the weekend. This was entirely tactical.

Have done 9-5. half 3 might be annoying, but it isn't late!

If Steve Montgomery's evidence to MPs yesterday that there were multiple contacts beforehand, and multiple attempts to contact about a specific offer is to be believed (and ASLEF haven't denied it)

Hardly the same, is it? If strike dates are announced that has little to do with negotiation (it means it has failed), and it’s surely beneficial for the public to know strike dates ASAP. How is that unreasonable?

My point is that I don't think it is unreasonable. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It seems you’ve either missed the bits regarding industrial action (or are trying to obfuscate?).

I’m not going to go into chapter and verse here because it’s too laborious, but the net result is that any dispute is required to be notified to the Secretary of State, with whom the operator must then agree how it is to be dealt with. This is why it’s so laughable that those occupying the office of Secretary of State have repeatedly claimed that negotiations are nothing to do with them.

Again - was responding to a specific point that the NRCs expressly prohibit local negotiation, which is incorrect. I have some sympathy with your description of the secretary of state's claims!

The “fuss” (by which I assume you mean unions noticing that no negotiation is being allowed) has been going on for many months.

I specifically mean that I don't think ASLEF have not disavowed their association with the document and they've had plenty of time to do so.

Not the case - they’re set around an average and often people need more.

Which by definition means some people take less time. Some people also take longer - but they're already given extra time to do the learning anyway, so that wouldn't import additional cost.

The risk of not having a guaranteed minimum number of trips/hours is that people might be rushed through and potentially signed off when not competent.

I agree that is a possibility - but given the current system being defended seems to have a decent track record of recognising if people aren't competent and giving them extra time, that doesn't seem to be a particularly high risk.

The agreed number also benefits the TOC by providing a benchmark by which questions can be asked if someone does need longer (ie is there a question around capability, have they been taking the training seriously etc) .

A fair point... Although given its included in the deal it would suggest TOCs don;t entirely agree with those benefits.

Exactly the same reasons underpin why a trainee driver needs a minimum number of hours before they are eligible for assessment.

It’s pointless, petty meddling with a system that has been proven to work well.

Again, given the TOCs are suggesting some change in the offer document, they may have a slightly more nuanced view of what has 'worked well', and whether it continues to do so.

Finally - I know ad infinitum back and forth's like this can be annoying, so I'll avoid them from now on! Appreciate everyone's patience!!

 

[43066]

DOO was never really a considered inclusion in the deal though - very minor impact from a ££ perspective, particularly given the offer makes clear all trains will still include a rostered second person on the train. That's an easy on to row back on enough I'd have thought. I can't see 5+5 though - the offer to Network Rail was 5+4 and they described that as a best and final offer, so I can't see them going above that.

Well, yes. It was obvious it wasn’t a serious proposal. It’s frustrating they couldn’t have just allowed the deal to be thrashed out before Christmas, really. That would have been by far the better outcome for the travelling public.

That’s this government for you!

Again - was responding to a specific point that the NRCs expressly prohibit local negotiation, which is incorrect. I have some sympathy with your description of the secretary of state's claims!

I suppose we can perhaps agree that, while they don’t expressly prohibit TOCs and reps sitting in a room together, they certainly act to prevent any meaningful agreements being reached locally to avoid IA

A fair point... Although given its included in the deal it would suggest TOCs don;t entirely agree with those benefits.

It’d be interesting to know how much TOCs genuinely feel they will benefit from the proposals, as opposed to the government deciding for them. Certainly the rostering heavy lifting being done by unions saves some workload.

No doubt the current proposal includes some aspects they will be prepared to row back from as part of the negotiation process.

Finally - I know ad infinitum back and forth's like this can be annoying, so I'll avoid them from now on! Appreciate everyone's patience!!

Indeed. Agree to disagree on the rest.

 

[CAF397]

Have done 9-5. half 3 might be annoying, but it isn't late!

If Steve Montgomery's evidence to MPs yesterday that there were multiple contacts beforehand, and multiple attempts to contact about a specific offer is to be believed (and ASLEF haven't denied it)

I'm sure if ASLEF had emailed the TOCs at 1518 on a Friday and given 2 weeks notice of strike action, there would have been a legal challenge by the TOCs to say it wasn't sufficient notice as no one had picked it up.

 

[Efini92]

I agree that is a possibility - but given the current system being defended seems to have a decent track record of recognising if people aren't competent and giving them extra time, that doesn't seem to be a particularly high risk.

The number of days/trips takes into account how much learning is required and complexities of areas.
What’s the point in dropping it being assessed then given more time?
Driving a route running on greens without stopping anywhere is pretty straightforward. When you start doing unusual moves, that’s where the route knowledge comes in.
Ladbrook grove highlighted the importance of following standards for route learning. Do we really want to go back to that?

 

[Captain Chaos]

With regards to route learning as a component, I recently signed 2 routes as a Guard. I haven't had to route learn for 17 years. I am a very quick learner. Could I have signed it sooner? Absolutely. Can I see why the system is designed how it is currently? Completely. Even though I am fast at getting this stuff in, that time where you're just "going up and down" is surprisingly important. It helps drill it in for those who've learned quickly and provides surety on knowledge. For those less quick it at least provides them with the comfort they have the time to still get it. I feel tinkering with these things to accommodate people such as myself to be a nonsense and not something that should be tinkered with. It's not broke in my opinion.

 

[12LDA28C]

Also helpful - thank you! So I know this is a silly question - if it is assessed already, how is what is being proposed different? Is it just the removal of those tariff days - and if so why is that an issue if you still have to show competence through the same assessment? Thanks in advance!!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2023 ==



I assume the company's think the opposite is true - that lots of people would be competent faster? Which seems to make sense, as for the tariff days to work they would have to be set at the pace of the slowest learners, rather than the fastest. It makes little difference for the slowest as they'd get the extra time if they failed the assessment under the current arrangements anyway

I assume you mean the DfT here - As they are the ones making the pay offer and imposing the conditions.

 

[TrainSpy]

I'm sure if ASLEF had emailed the TOCs at 1518 on a Friday and given 2 weeks notice of strike action, there would have been a legal challenge by the TOCs to say it wasn't sufficient notice as no one had picked it up.

A legal challenge would have no basis at all. Letter has to be sent, when someone can get round to read it has no bearing on its legality whatsoever.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

I assume you mean the DfT here - As they are the ones making the pay offer and imposing the conditions.

I mean we can have a fair discussion about who is making the ultimate decision here, but do we seriously think the DfT knows enough to work it out for themselves?

Who's imposing conditions? There'd be no point in making an offer if they were being imposed.

 

[12LDA28C]

I mean we can have a fair discussion about who is making the ultimate decision here, but do we seriously think the DfT knows enough to work it out for themselves?

Who's imposing conditions? There'd be no point in making an offer if they were being imposed.

Of course they don't, but clearly that is no barrier to them meddling in the operation of the railway as we have seen since the start of the current disputes.

Those conditions are the strings attached to the deal, which will have to be thrashed out on a TOC by TOC basis as processes, procedures and Ts & Cs vary wildly across the industry. Even if a deal is put to ASLEF members and accepted, if the deal is dependent on the conditions being agreed and implemented, this could take many months to sort out across the various TOCs.

 

[TrainSpy]

The number of days/trips takes into account how much learning is required and complexities of areas.
What’s the point in dropping it being assessed then given more time?

I suppose the point would be that train operators would like to agree a safe, but quicker, way to ensure people are competent so they can spend more time actually carrying passengers.

As others have recognised, some people take more time to learn something than others. For the agreed number of days/trips to actually mean anything, it has to be set higher than is needed for most people. A sizeable proportion don't need to undertake all those trips to actually learn the route to a competent level.

You could see a proposal that may - say - we do away with set tariffs completely, and devise a new set of assessments to make sure a driver's knowledge is up to date. Or move from a set tariff to a range that recognises that the average person will take XX hours, but others can be eligible for assessment after slightly less.

Driving a route running on greens without stopping anywhere is pretty straightforward. When you start doing unusual moves, that’s where the route knowledge comes in.

I can see the usefulness of the complexity, but the 'tarrif days' don't seem to tackle that issue? Its a measure of a length of time, not the experience of what happens in that length of time?

Ladbrook grove highlighted the importance of following standards for route learning. Do we really want to go back to that?

Wholeheartedly agree. That doesn't mean it isn't legitimate to relook at those standards from time to time to see if there isn't a better way of achieving the same goal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

Of course they don't, but clearly that is no barrier to them meddling in the operation of the railway as we have seen since the start of the current disputes.

Those conditions are the strings attached to the deal, which will have to be thrashed out on a TOC by TOC basis as processes, procedures and Ts & Cs vary wildly across the industry. Even if a deal is put to ASLEF members and accepted, if the deal is dependent on the conditions being agreed and implemented, this could take many months to sort out across the various TOCs.

I'm not so sure. Even looking through the leaked version of the doc, there are a big chunk of 'changes' that a fair few TOCs already have. You can see

A national agreement - even in principle - gives everyone a reasonable ballpark to work within, which could actually speed up a local negotiation process, avoids disparities across different operators, stops tocs playing off staff at other tocs against each other.

A deal is always going to be about the conditions being agreed - why on earth would an employer (or the DfT!!) hand over pay rises without wanting something in return?

 

[RPI]

No GWR drivers have committed Sundays

I'm led to believe that the new grade ("GWR driver) after the harmonisation and all new starters do either have committed Sundays or Sundays as part of the working week. There are just a few "HSS" (High Speed) drivers who didn't wish to opt in to the new grade that still have Sundays outside, I believe this grade is "ring-fenced" so to speak, but @irish_rail I believe can categorically answer this?

 

[12LDA28C]

I suppose the point would be that train operators would like to agree a safe, but quicker, way to ensure people are competent so they can spend more time actually carrying passengers.

Again, it's not the TOCs asking for this change, but the Government. The current system works perfectly well. Why are you automatically assuming drivers will become competent more quickly? If there is no set number of days in place even as a guideline, drivers could string out route learning for as long as they wanted, and probably would, that's human nature, thus having the exact opposite effect to what was proposed/envisaged and costing far more than the current system.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

A national agreement - even in principle - gives everyone a reasonable ballpark to work within, which could actually speed up a local negotiation process, avoids disparities across different operators, stops tocs playing off staff at other tocs against each other.

There will always be disparities across different operators, not least in rates of pay. This is not British Rail (yet).

 

[Buffer stop]

A Driver can be assessed prior to reaching the route norm number of days if he indicates to the DTM he is ready to sign the route. So long as he is then assessed competent during the ride assessment then there is no issue with that.

 

[DoubleO]

A Driver can be assessed prior to reaching the route norm number of days if he indicates to the DTM he is ready to sign the route. So long as he is then assessed competent during the ride assessment then there is no issue with that.

Not with some TOCs. With some you must complete the required number of trips.

 

[12LDA28C]

Not with some TOCs. With some you must complete the required number of trips.

Dare I say it would be quite unusual for a driver not to take the full allotted time allowed to learn a particular route.

 

[jettofab]

A deal is always going to be about the conditions being agreed - why on earth would an employer (or the DfT!!) hand over pay rises without wanting something in return?

Broadly speaking, because cost of living rises affect their employees as well, but also because they have to remain competitive. Now, you may say the latter doesn't apply here but if staff were not ever awarded any further rises without giving away more and more conditions, there would come a point where the job would be unattractive. And of course, there will come a time where there is nothing left to give even if the staff were willing to do so.

 

[KM1991]

Are you able to provide the data that shows how that figure was arrived at ?

I can’t, but it’s directly from Steve Montgomery - head of the RDG, and he’s obviously privy to that sort of information.

 

[class ep-09]

I'm led to believe that the new grade ("GWR driver) after the harmonisation and all new starters do either have committed Sundays or Sundays as part of the working week. There are just a few "HSS" (High Speed) drivers who didn't wish to opt in to the new grade that still have Sundays outside, I believe this grade is "ring-fenced" so to speak, but @irish_rail I believe can categorically answer this?

GWR drivers have committed Sundays as “compulsory” overtime , HSS does not have .
There are still quite lots of HSS drivers that wotk for GWR ( I guess roughly 40% of all drivers but may be mistaken) . Quite often they chuck Sundays in especially during the summer.

 

[TrainSpy]

I see the RMT/RDG meeting has just broken up. Super short statement from Lynch, which suggests no one is rocking the boat. Sounds like endgame edging closer

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

Dare I say it would be quite unusual for a driver not to take the full allotted time allowed to learn a particular route.

You can say it, but by definition if you've got allotted time set for a whole workforce some should do it quicker than that!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

A Driver can be assessed prior to reaching the route norm number of days if he indicates to the DTM he is ready to sign the route. So long as he is then assessed competent during the ride assessment then there is no issue

So if it can be done now, why is including it in the offer causing such a push back?

 

[43066]

So if it can be done now, why is including it in the offer causing such a push back?

It’s taking away a potential safeguard for a tiny (if any) potential saving, as has been clearly explained. Drivers spend a very small proportion of time route learning; if someone needs to take a few extra trips to learn a route what does that matter when they may well stay with that TOC for many years. Where is the saving?

For these reasons it comes across as a strange “request” which smacks of the government putting it in, rather than anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==

I see the RMT/RDG meeting has just broken up. Super short statement from Lynch, which suggests no one is rocking the boat. Sounds like endgame edging closer

Where has that been reported?

 

[Buffer stop]

I see the RMT/RDG meeting has just broken up. Super short statement from Lynch, which suggests no one is rocking the boat. Sounds like endgame edging closer

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==


You can say it, but by definition if you've got allotted time set for a whole workforce some should do it quicker than that!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==


So if it can be done now, why is including it in the offer causing such a push back?

You would probably need to ask them.

 

[TrainSpy]

It’s taking away a potential safeguard for a tiny (if any) potential saving, as has been clearly explained. Drivers spend a very small proportion of time route learning; if someone needs to take a few extra trips to learn a route what does that matter when they may well stay with that TOC for many years. Where is the saving?

The obvious saving might be in speeding up driver training processes that are still trying to catch up after Covid.

For these reasons it comes across as a strange “request” which smacks of the government putting it in, rather than anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==




Where has that been reported?

The tweet I saw linked to this https://media.raildeliverygroup.com/news/latest-update-on-the-rmt-negotiations

 

[TAS]

The RMT and TSSA are quoted in this Guardian article. Both very cautious and guarded statements, but some sense of movement.

Speaking after the meeting at the offices of FirstGroup, in London, the RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, said rail employers had not made a new pay deal but the union had agreed to work with them to come up with one.
He said: “We have been in detailed discussions with the Rail Delivery Group for the train operating companies. We are working jointly towards a revised offer for their section of the dispute.
“We’ve agreed that over the next couple of days we’ll continue to work on that through discussions, and we’ll see what comes of it. And that’s all we can say at this time I’m afraid.”
Asked if the proposal was different from the previous offer on the table, he said: “We haven’t got an offer so we’ll leave it for another day.”
Luke Chester, the organising director at the TSSA union, said there had been “interesting and detailed discussions” at the meeting, adding: “We’re working towards hopefully something which will resolve the dispute. We’re not there yet but we’ll be having more discussions over the next few days and see where we get to.”
Asked about the atmosphere in the meeting, Chester said: “Well we weren’t climbing over tables punching each other, that’s not the way it works at all. Discussions are always cordial, sometimes heated but they’re always cordial. We’re professionals in that way.” On hopes for making a deal, he said: “We’ll have to see how the talks progress. I can’t predict the future.”

 

[Class 466]

I can’t, but it’s directly from Steve Montgomery - head of the RDG, and he’s obviously privy to that sort of information.

I'm sure it's a figure that probably doesn't account for any of the savings made by not running trains

 

[SJN]

I suppose the point would be that train operators would like to agree a safe, but quicker, way to ensure people are competent so they can spend more time actually carrying passengers.

As others have recognised, some people take more time to learn something than others. For the agreed number of days/trips to actually mean anything, it has to be set higher than is needed for most people. A sizeable proportion don't need to undertake all those trips to actually learn the route to a competent level.

You could see a proposal that may - say - we do away with set tariffs completely, and devise a new set of assessments to make sure a driver's knowledge is up to date. Or move from a set tariff to a range that recognises that the average person will take XX hours, but others can be eligible for assessment after slightly less.


I can see the usefulness of the complexity, but the 'tarrif days' don't seem to tackle that issue? Its a measure of a length of time, not the experience of what happens in that length of time?

Wholeheartedly agree. That doesn't mean it isn't legitimate to relook at those standards from time to time to see if there isn't a better way of achieving the same goal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2023 ==


I'm not so sure. Even looking through the leaked version of the doc, there are a big chunk of 'changes' that a fair few TOCs already have. You can see

A national agreement - even in principle - gives everyone a reasonable ballpark to work within, which could actually speed up a local negotiation process, avoids disparities across different operators, stops tocs playing off staff at other tocs against each other.

A deal is always going to be about the conditions being agreed - why on earth would an employer (or the DfT!!) hand over pay rises without wanting something in return?

I’ve had plenty of annual pay rises with no loss of conditions. If they want to buy conditions, it’s usually a more generous offer.

 

[43066]

The obvious saving might be in speeding up driver training processes that are still trying to catch up after Covid.

Initial training is determined by rules, traction, min number of driving hours (usually more than the minimum is needed to achieve competence). Qualified training is a lot shorter. I’ve been through both and neither training period was extended by needing a minimum number of trips over a particular route.

This just seems an odd thing to focus on when the savings will be minimal to non existent. Much like the suggestions around using simulators to shorten training. It just smacks of medalling and fiddling around the edges.

As does another thing specifically mentioned: drivers working the balance of their shift if they’re sent for a medical. That only happens once every few years for many drivers at the younger end of the spectrum (and in my case involves travelling 150 miles from where I live so takes up an entire shift). What meaningful savings or efficiency gains will this give, in the grand scheme of things? It’s just petty more than anything.

To put it another way, surely TOCs would have negotiated for all of these things already, if they genuinely made a difference?

The tweet I saw linked to this

Thanks. This does sound potentially game changing.

 

[baz962]

Initial training is determined by rules, traction, min number of driving hours (usually more than the minimum is needed to achieve competence). Qualified training is a lot shorter. I’ve been through both and neither training period was extended by needing a minimum number of trips over a particular route.

This just seems an odd thing to focus on when the savings will be minimal to non existent. Much like the suggestions around using simulators to shorten training. It just smacks of medalling and fiddling around the edges.

As does another thing specifically mentioned: drivers working the balance of their shift if they’re sent for a medical. That only happens once every few years for many drivers at the younger end of the spectrum (and in my case involves travelling 150 miles from where I live so takes up an entire shift). What meaningful savings or efficiency gains will this give, in the grand scheme of things? It’s just petty more than anything.

To put it another way, surely TOCs would have negotiated for all of these things already, if they genuinely made a difference?



Thanks. This does sound potentially game changing.

Yes the medical and other such days are nonsense. At best you could do half a day at some tocs. But you would already have a spare or rest day driver on it, saves nothing.

 

[CAF397]

Dare I say it would be quite unusual for a driver not to take the full allotted time allowed to learn a particular route.

The only scenario I can think of is where a driver transfers TOCs. My TOC don't honour existing routes, all new-to-the-company drivers have to route learn regardless of their former route card.