ASLEF Overtime Ban at TPE Suspended

[baz962]

I don't recognise that position at all?

I understand the position was accepting "final offers" of payments and terms far worse than the previous rest day agreement was equivalent to a pay cut and couldn't be accepted. A broadly similar agreement to previous rest day agreement was eventually agreed, when an overtime ban was brought in due to 7 arbrogation of terms and conditions. They have since been addressed by the interim MD and the overtime ban suspended.

It's very clear the two are different disputes.

Should also be noted the company have stated they're keen to reset relationships with staff that have soured.

Will they be able to reset relationships with a dispute going on.

 

[Urobach]

Will they be able to reset relationships with a dispute going on.

No reason why not at local level. How much his predecessor's hands were tied I don't know, but the new interim MD seems to have made a far more concerted effort to try and resolve the operational problems and industrial relations issues (and not just the local ASLEF dispute) here in the past few weeks than his predecessor ever seemed to.

Time will tell, but it's nice to feel positive for a change!

 

[Tractor2018]

Nobody where I am would dream of doing an overtime shift during a national ban

Of course not. Undermining your own action. Bizarre what some people will do, and the excuses they come up with to justify it.

 

[Mattydo]

Nobody where I am would dream of doing an overtime shift during a national ban, for sure. Some are/were uneasy about doing rest days during the RMT strikes, too. I’d see that as a different dispute, so no issues doing so personally. As always, it’s down to the individual.

No, mostly the same at my TOC although there have been one or two who have been a bit vocal in their opposition to overtime bans when they thought they were enduring rather than short periods, alongside strikes. Potentially generational, potentially the length of time the dispute has run for (I know I know in the history of disputes it's not that long but again... Recent memory perhaps). Anyway again should probably avoid the wider issues in a thread about TPE. I was mostly curious how the feeling was there but having spoken to some drivers it seems there is genuine feeling of effort from the new leadership. Plus they have always wanted it to be over. Nobody enjoys being in this situation. It's exhausting emotionally and financially for many. (so I try not to judge).

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course not. Undermining your own action. Bizarre what some people will do, and the excuses they come up with to justify it.

Its not bizarre in a long running dispute, in fact its pretty common. Some people's financial situations will not allow for long term loss of income, after all they will have mortgages / rents, household bills to pay for, families to feed, perhaps even holidays they want to take to get some R&R. Many of the folk struggling may not be vocal about it, especially where there is peer pressure from colleagues, but there will be a growing number eyeing up the possibility of overtime to start to claw back some lost income. I would put money on it.

 

[Goldfish62]

If personal financial situations are irrelevant (and "just an excuse") as seems to be suggested from some comments here, presumably by those who are more comfortable financially, then why not have an indefinite national strike? As a user of the railways I'd certainly be in favour because it would bring things to a head very quickly.

 

[43066]

If personal financial situations are irrelevant (and "just an excuse") as seems to be suggested from some comments here, presumably by those who are more comfortable financially, then why not have an indefinite national strike? As a user of the railways I'd certainly be in favour because it would bring things to a head very quickly.

An indefinite overtime ban and “working to rule” would be more popular. And quite possibly more disruptive as it’s more difficult to plan around.

 

[Some guy]

It seems to have worked so far 15 cancellations is a huge difference for TPE standards anyway

 

[Tractor2018]

Its not bizarre in a long running dispute, in fact its pretty common. Some people's financial situations will not allow for long term loss of income, after all they will have mortgages / rents, household bills to pay for, families to feed, perhaps even holidays they want to take to get some R&R. Many of the folk struggling may not be vocal about it, especially where there is peer pressure from colleagues, but there will be a growing number eyeing up the possibility of overtime to start to claw back some lost income. I would put money on it.

Because it's common doesn't make any sense of it. You're just self fulfilling the prophecy by, like I touched on, explaining it away to yourself. It undermines the action, democratically voted on by the peer group, pure and simple.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because it's common doesn't make any sense of it. You're just self fulfilling the prophecy by, like I touched on, explaining it away to yourself. It undermines the action, democratically voted on by the peer group, pure and simple.

None of which pays any bills. I've been in long running industrial disputes, and it is a simple reality that the longer they run the harder they are to sustain. Members don't have infinite amounts of money to cover shortfalls through loss of earnings by striking or overtime bans. Its why in the past, and I believe to an extent with the RMT in the current dispute, strike pay was offered. But even this is going to be a finite amount, and sooner or later the members will start to get restless, which may well be the case with TPE.

And yes, this is what the government was probably hoping for, the membership of the unions starting to wobble. That's the gamble of industrial action, you hope the employer will move to meet at least half way, but sometimes they won't. Perhaps in this case ASLEF reps sense all of this and this might be why their position has shifted? And in the meantime I wouldn't blame any member from thinking about getting a bit of extra coin in, especially if the cost of living situation is starting to bite.

 

[43066]

None of which pays any bills. I've been in long running industrial disputes, and it is a simple reality that the longer they run the harder they are to sustain. Members don't have infinite amounts of money to cover shortfalls through loss of earnings by striking or overtime bans. Its why in the past, and I believe to an extent with the RMT in the current dispute, strike pay was offered. But even this is going to be a finite amount, and sooner or later the members will start to get restless, which may well be the case with TPE.

A reminder this is about overtime earnings, which you’ve already said you’d be in favour of taking away from drivers completely! So let’s not pretend there’s concern in your posts about people being unable to pay their bills. Many members probably are struggling but feel resisting the proposed changes to their Ts and Cs is worth it, and in the case of TPE clearly felt they had to stand up to the TOC going back on agreements.

And yes, this is what the government was probably hoping for, the membership of the unions starting to wobble.

I’m sure that’s what you’re hoping for, but the suggestion above is that management have changed their approach, which matches the public picture. That certainly vindicates the action taken! They’ve now got overtime back at a rate many on here said would never happen, and services are running again. A pity it had to take so long.

 

[driver9000]

It seems to have worked so far 15 cancellations is a huge difference for TPE standards anyway

That won't be down to Rest day working as it doesn't start until Saturday 24 June.

 

[43066]

That won't be down to Rest day working as it doesn't start until Saturday 24 June.

Are they strictly adhering to that start date or, as @12LDA28C suggested upthread, have they asked people to come in at shorter notice?

No particular reason not to it it’s all agreed in principle and people are willing.

 

[LittleAH]

Are they strictly adhering to that start date or, as @12LDA28C suggested upthread, have they asked people to come in at shorter notice?

No particular reason not to it it’s all agreed in principle and people are willing.

Only two trains between HUD and LDS an hour helps.

 

[Fokx]

Are they strictly adhering to that start date or, as @12LDA28C suggested upthread, have they asked people to come in at shorter notice?

No particular reason not to it it’s all agreed in principle and people are willing.

Staff can work rest days if they want to, but they won’t receive the enhanced payment so they won’t until the finance incentive is there.

The low number of cancellations is due to having the same level of traincrew at all depots, but a greater number of spares available due to a reduced timetable.

Redcar, Scarborough and Hull are all running as short shuttles this week.

Liverpool to North East is one an hour instead of two between Leeds and Liverpool saving three trains every hour.

Airport to Saltburn is terminating at Victoria saving one train every hour.

Huddersfield to Leeds stopping service is running to Batley saving a pair of traincrew every hour. I can’t speak for the driver diagrams but I do know the guards diagram is pretty intensive and basically stays with the train for the entire evening, where usually they would also work an express to/from Leeds.

 

[driver9000]

Are they strictly adhering to that start date or, as @12LDA28C suggested upthread, have they asked people to come in at shorter notice?

No particular reason not to it it’s all agreed in principle and people are willing.

They should be as RDW only commences from 24 June (as agreed between management and ASLEF) and will be allocated with the posting of the 48hr roster for 24 June until 27 June. From 28 June onwards it will be rostered on the 7 day roster using Drivers who opt into volunteering. Any low numbers of cancellations until then aren't due to lifting of the rest day ban.

 

[Facing Back]

A reminder this is about overtime earnings, which you’ve already said you’d be in favour of taking away from drivers completely! So let’s not pretend there’s concern in your posts about people being unable to pay their bills. Many members probably are struggling but feel resisting the proposed changes to their Ts and Cs is worth it, and in the case of TPE clearly felt they had to stand up to the TOC going back on agreements.



I’m sure that’s what you’re hoping for, but the suggestion above is that management have changed their approach, which matches the public picture. That certainly vindicates the action taken! They’ve now got overtime back at a rate many on here said would never happen, and services are running again. A pity it had to take so long.

It is indeed about overtime earnings. As ASLEF are pushing for no scheduled overtime (AIUI), it is hard to feel to sorry about affected members, but in reality it became commonplace for many financial institutions to use overtime which was sustained over a period in affordability calculations and many people over-extended. Interest rates have gone up too I understand, so I can believe that many people are quite seriously affected by losing their overtime - which I think was the ops position.

On "going back on agreements", with regards to the overtime agreement, I think I recall that it had expired - therefore it was finished and there was no agreement to go back on. TPE offered a new agreement - at a different rate and ASLEF told them to get stuffed (apologies if I'm conflating agreements). Whilst I can quite understand why the union would do this, I don't think it is reneging. The world is full of examples of new deals which differ from old deals being negotiated - by both sides - in light of the current circumstances.

I'm always happy to have any facts I've mangled corrected.

 

[fabs]

The agreement was pulled by ASLEF about 2 weeks ish before it was due to expire.

Looking at some comms coming out it looks like this ‘reset’ is only going one way.
Standby for the same personalities (on both sides) to revert back to normal sometime soon.

 

[CAF397]

It is indeed about overtime earnings. As ASLEF are pushing for no scheduled overtime (AIUI), it is hard to feel to sorry about affected members, but in reality it became commonplace for many financial institutions to use overtime which was sustained over a period in affordability calculations and many people over-extended. Interest rates have gone up too I understand, so I can believe that many people are quite seriously affected by losing their overtime - which I think was the ops position.

On "going back on agreements", with regards to the overtime agreement, I think I recall that it had expired - therefore it was finished and there was no agreement to go back on. TPE offered a new agreement - at a different rate and ASLEF told them to get stuffed (apologies if I'm conflating agreements). Whilst I can quite understand why the union would do this, I don't think it is reneging. The world is full of examples of new deals which differ from old deals being negotiated - by both sides - in light of the current circumstances.

I'm always happy to have any facts I've mangled corrected.

The RDW deal "pulled" in December was an attempt to change the then current one. Same T&Cs but management inserted a clause to say RDW can be used to cover the timetable. The ASLEF reps told them to withdraw the clause otherwise it won't be accepted. RDW is primarily for Training and Development, with a secondary benefit that it is often used to cover normal service trains. It should not be used primarily to run the public timetable, but was used heavily during the Covid timetables.

Management refused, so RDW was not extended. Then we had the Omicron "work from home if you can" update, but Spare at Home was not granted, by the same management who tried to insert a clause into the RDW agreement they know would not be accepted.

 

[43066]

It is indeed about overtime earnings. As ASLEF are pushing for no scheduled overtime (AIUI), it is hard to feel to sorry about affected members, but in reality it became commonplace for many financial institutions to use overtime which was sustained over a period in affordability calculations and many people over-extended. Interest rates have gone up too I understand, so I can believe that many people are quite seriously affected by losing their overtime - which I think was the ops position.

The OP has also said he thinks establishments should be increased and that drivers shouldn’t be doing overtime, thereby denying them of the ability to earn extra permanently (and also seems to be against them taking action to protect pay and Ts and Cs). If you hold that view it’s a little odd to then be critical of ASLEF for calling an overtime ban, specifically on the basis it will cost their members money! Especially when the members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of action short of a strike.

There is a tendency for certain members to criticise ASLEF whatever they do, even where this is inconsistent with the views they have expressed on other matters.

On "going back on agreements", with regards to the overtime agreement, I think I recall that it had expired - therefore it was finished and there was no agreement to go back on. TPE offered a new agreement - at a different rate and ASLEF told them to get stuffed (apologies if I'm conflating agreements). Whilst I can quite understand why the union would do this, I don't think it is reneging. The world is full of examples of new deals which differ from old deals being negotiated - by both sides - in light of the current circumstances.

Re. The bolded statement, yes I think so.

The agreements being breached weren’t the overtime agreement, which was indeed pulled by ASLEF months ago, and there has then been a deadlock about the rate offered. There was an agreement in principle to reinstate RDW a few weeks ago at the original rate but AIUI this wasn’t accepted by ASLEF due to annual leave arrangements etc. being reneged on by the company.

Now the approach has changed and an agreement at the original rate has been reinstated. I don’t work there as you know, and of course you have to accept some level of posturing/Chinese whispers, but I’m confident the above is basically right!

 

[Urobach]

To clear this up, a rest day agreement broadly similar to the old deal was agreed a few weeks ago, however an overtime ban was then brought in due to seven terms, including the annual leave quota, being reneged.

These have been addressed, the overtime ban suspended and the agreed rest day working agreement can be used from 24th June.

 

[Confused52]

To clear this up, a rest day agreement broadly similar to the old deal was agreed a few weeks ago, however an overtime ban was then brought in due to seven terms, including the annual leave quota, being reneged.

These have been addressed, the overtime ban suspended and the agreed rest day working agreement can be used from 24th June.

In addressing the issues (was it 7 of them) were they addressed by one or both sides making accommodations and which side(s) agreed to act differently in each case please?

 

[Clarence Yard]

In all seven cases it was management. A new mandate to settle must have been issued by the DfT as they were not allowing the previous management to concede those points.

 

[fabs]

The RDW deal "pulled" in December was an attempt to change the then current one. Same T&Cs but management inserted a clause to say RDW can be used to cover the timetable.

That is just not true.
The RD deal was pulled early by ASLEF, citing working covid issues.
That clause you mention wasn’t inserted until management had to go to DfT to seek permission to start Rest Day deal negotiations.
Ironically the original terms were offered in an extension; that could no longer happen as a little while before expiry ASLEF ripped it up.

That’s not bashing anyone, that’s just the truth.
Any rep telling you otherwise are at best mistaken.

 

[Facing Back]

The OP has also said he thinks establishments should be increased and that drivers shouldn’t be doing overtime, thereby denying them of the ability to earn extra permanently (and also seems to be against them taking action to protect pay and Ts and Cs). If you hold that view it’s a little odd to then be critical of ASLEF for calling an overtime ban, specifically on the basis it will cost their members money! Especially when the members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of action short of a strike.

There is a tendency for certain members to criticise ASLEF whatever they do, even where this is inconsistent with the views they have expressed on other matters.

lol I'm not going to comment on the interesting and amusing debate that you two are having. FWIW I think that a level of overtime to cover peaks in leave or training, unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly sensible way to run a business, it in the case of drivers, there is very little ability to use temporary or contract staff. Using overtime as a permanent part of the establishment cannot be good practice, although I can see that after a period of unusually high attrition it could be a temporary measure due to the long recruitment and training times. I do not support the maintenance of a high number of under-utilised crew and the associated overhead/wastage.

Controversially I suspect) I'd also support some kind of mechanism which ensures that the trains run when there is one of these events. I'd hope that this mechanism would be goodwill with sufficient people ready to jump in where needed, but of course that seems to be some distance from where we are now.

I'm not criticising ASLEF - at least not specifically for this issue, but I do tend to take the public announcements of the unions as well as the government and TOCs/RDG with a pinch of salt - so it's good to get a range of views on here.

 

[158801]

Don't expect much improvement next week with the implementation of Rest Day working for drivers.

Very few, if any, have volunteered to work

 

[EZJ]

Don't expect much improvement next week with the implementation of Rest Day working for drivers.

Very few, if any, have volunteered to work

Funny that you think that about half my depot have volunteered and I expect it is much the same elsewhere, our daily duty sheets look much healthier next week.