Sunday Work - A New Honesty?

[Red Rover]

The major block is that in order to run a seven day railway without overtime you need seven days' worth of staff. Currently many TOCs don't even have six days' worth. All that extra recruitment, the higher headcounts etc. will cost money.


But the majority will agree to it for the right price. As is normal in democracies a majority vote tends to be 'winner takes all' and those on the losing side end up having to lump it.

Having to lump it isn't good enough, the railway, management and union have a moral duty not to give staff the tools to work themselves to death, I couldn't care less if people want to work it, they started on the job looking at the basic not the overtime, the overtime that denies others a job and also when added with shifts and unsociable hours kills, the union should be demanding a far better balance of shifts with more time off, if money comes into it then we have to ask for better basic pay over a basic flat week.
No excuses, we're not in the Victorian age and the ones wanting the overtime should in no way dictate to the ones who don't want to work themselves to death and want a fair worklife balance, we need to be fair, open and honest and people aren't on this, the mutual silent agreement has gone on for years to the detriment of staff's health between the grabbers, management and union.
The railway being run on overtime is a stain on the railway.

 

[Moonshot]

The major block is that in order to run a seven day railway without overtime you need seven days' worth of staff. Currently many TOCs don't even have six days' worth. All that extra recruitment, the higher headcounts etc. will cost money.


But the majority will agree to it for the right price. As is normal in democracies a majority vote tends to be 'winner takes all' and those on the losing side end up having to lump it.

We did put that to a vote about 3 years ago....it got rejected 2 to 1. So like I was saying, there is a significant number of both drivers and guards who simply do not want to have Sundays in the working week.

 

[Krokodil]

We did put that to a vote about 3 years ago....it got rejected 2 to 1. So like I was saying, there is a significant number of both drivers and guards who simply do not want to have Sundays in the working week.

How much was offered to bring them inside? I suspect that "for the right price" comes into it here. Restructuring was accepted by both drivers and guards here by a thumping majority, but the substantial increase in pay will have been a large part of that.

 

[Blackpool boy]

I think that if you go back far enough you'll find that all days were outside the working week. By that I mean that crews would have been hourly paid rather than salaried.

No I understand all that, so without being pedantic, when did they fight to keep Sundays outside of the working week?

 

[Red Rover]

Drivers and signallers have the most leverage so it’s no surprise they’ve benefited the most in terms of salary rises since privatisation and right time railway mantra.
That said there more staff and many more grades that don’t have that luxury, not that luxury of ever being offered Sundays within the working week, the railway is now the industry of have and have nots.
Solidarity died across the board in 1994 and many are the worse for it.

 

[43066]

Although the unions expect the public to be on board, helping to fight their corner. When industrial action occurs over the latest pay dispute, or working practice they don't agree with.

They don’t, actually. However many well informed members of the public understand the role unions play, and also understand that the train operator is who they have made a contract with, and that it is they who fail to deliver the service by understaffing (or in many cases because the DfT aren’t allowing them to offer sufficiently generous incentives to generate enough volunteers, despite a longstanding business model that relies heavily on overtime).

Having to lump it isn't good enough, the railway, management and union have a moral duty not to give staff the tools to work themselves to death, I couldn't care less if people want to work it, they started on the job looking at the basic not the overtime, the overtime that denies others a job and also when added with shifts and unsociable hours kills, the union should be demanding a far better balance of shifts with more time off, if money comes into it then we have to ask for better basic pay over a basic flat week.
No excuses, we're not in the Victorian age and the ones wanting the overtime should in no way dictate to the ones who don't want to work themselves to death and want a fair worklife balance, we need to be fair, open and honest and people aren't on this, the mutual silent agreement has gone on for years to the detriment of staff's health between the grabbers, management and union.
The railway being run on overtime is a stain on the railway.

It’s once again difficult to see what point you’re actually making. You clearly don’t approve of people doing overtime, fine. Don’t work any yourself, by all means, but surely it is you who is trying to dictate to others by suggesting that nobody else should have the option?

Nobody is “working themselves to death”, the unions are quite rightly representing their existing members’ interests by pushing for Sundays inside the week, and resisting compulsory overtime in the form of committed Sundays. If voluntary overtime is available outside of that, that’s no bad thing at all, and can be beneficial and cost effective for both the staff and employer side.

 

[Red Rover]

The point I’m making and I think I’ve made it quite plainly, this isn’t afforded to all grades, only grades with the most leverage.

Shift work can harm sleep and health: What helps? - Harvard Health

Mounting evidence paints a worrisome picture of the potential health consequences of nontraditional shift work schedules. So how can people who are required to work during the night and slee...

www.health.harvard.edu

 

[RT4038]

No I understand all that, so without being pedantic, when did they fight to keep Sundays outside of the working week?

I don't think it happened quite like that. I believe this comes from a railway strike in 1919?, where part of the settlement was that workers would get a minimum of one day off per week (this not having been the practice previously). The railways companies, faced with the need to recruit and train additional workers to cover this, struck a deal that Sunday work would be voluntary (many lines and activities such as freight were closed, or could be closed on this day, and what lines were open for passengers had sparse services) . General pay was relatively low in those days, and finding volunteers for the reduced manning requirement was easy and never a problem. So the fight was for a day off per week, rather than Sundays outside as such.

 

[Red Rover]

I don't think it happened quite like that. I believe this comes from a railway strike in 1919?, where part of the settlement was that workers would get a minimum of one day off per week (this not having been the practice previously). The railways companies, faced with the need to recruit and train additional workers to cover this, struck a deal that Sunday work would be voluntary (many lines and activities such as freight were closed, or could be closed on this day, and what lines were open for passengers had sparse services) . General pay was relatively low in those days, and finding volunteers for the reduced manning requirement was easy and never a problem. So the fight was for a day off per week, rather than Sundays outside as such.

Yes, thankfully now pay is higher so there’s choice, lifestyle is now more important than money for many who’re fortunate enough to able to choose, many aren’t still though and that is where the unions should be putting their energy.
We’ll have some grades on 33 hour weeks with Sundays in their working week soon and other having to work 6 days a week with Sunday being enforced upon them.
Fair? No way and the RMT should be looking at that.

 

[43066]

We’ll have some grades on 33 hour weeks with Sundays in their working week soon and other having to work 6 days a week with Sunday being enforced upon them.
Fair? No way and the RMT should be looking at that.

I would hope that the RMT are pushing for Sundays inside their weeks too. They will no doubt run up against the same issue as other grades, though.

 

[Red Rover]

I would hope that the RMT are pushing for Sundays inside their weeks too. They will no doubt run up against the same issue as other grades, though.

They’ll get laughed out of town and told its not within business interest, go ahead and strike and we can still run a railway and won’t get penalised for it by the dft, leverage and all that.

 

[WAB]

The ones I speak to broadly want the same as drivers. Some of them also decide to become drivers!

Not really. Many of them are quite happy to have revised duties here and there, without protracted negotiations and payment for every little thing. But then they see traincrew getting far more whilst causing other grades to have to do more work and expecting other staff to go above and beyond when it benefits them, and they get a bit tetchy as a result.

 

[Horizon22]

There are several TOCs where Sunday is inside. How much extra did they get paid?

It varied depending on when it was done. I think TfW was most recent and was in the 20-30% mark?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==

The railway has always been a seven day a week service. Although only properly staffed for six days a week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2025 ==

I would challenge the 'always'. Many routes literally had no service 40 years ago. That being said, I do totally agree and there needs to be 7-day staffing across the board.

One government has to take the one off-hit to make it happen or I look forward to the next thread on Easter Sunday

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==

Drivers and signallers have the most leverage so it’s no surprise they’ve benefited the most in terms of salary rises since privatisation and right time railway mantra.
That said there more staff and many more grades that don’t have that luxury, not that luxury of ever being offered Sundays within the working week, the railway is now the industry of have and have nots.
Solidarity died across the board in 1994 and many are the worse for it.

Again as I asked before, what grades are you talking about?

 

[Blackpool boy]

I don't think it happened quite like that. I believe this comes from a railway strike in 1919?, where part of the settlement was that workers would get a minimum of one day off per week (this not having been the practice previously). The railways companies, faced with the need to recruit and train additional workers to cover this, struck a deal that Sunday work would be voluntary (many lines and activities such as freight were closed, or could be closed on this day, and what lines were open for passengers had sparse services) . General pay was relatively low in those days, and finding volunteers for the reduced manning requirement was easy and never a problem. So the fight was for a day off per week, rather than Sundays outside as such.

Thank you for the explanation - that makes far more sense than the poster who claimed they fought hard for sundays outside when the truth is a little bit different

 

[43066]

Not really. Many of them are quite happy to have revised duties here and there, without protracted negotiations and payment for every little thing. But then they see traincrew getting far more whilst causing other grades to have to do more work and expecting other staff to go above and beyond when it benefits them, and they get a bit tetchy as a result.

Based on my colleagues, most people simply want to be paid reasonably well and have decent predictable rosters. Clearly some roles have more leverage, just as some naturally attract higher pay than others, but that’s just life, and not really worth getting tetchy about! Other grades need to negotiate for themselves as best as they can, and individuals within them are free to apply for traincrew roles if they wish.

Thank you for the explanation - that makes far more sense than the poster who claimed they fought hard for sundays outside when the truth is a little bit different

Not sure what the relevance of this is when it was all decades ago? We are where we are, and the unions quite understandably won’t want to sell themselves short when it comes to agreeing to change conditions. It’s up to the employers if they wish to negotiate for and pay for that. Another option, of course, is keeping Sundays outside, and improving incentives to increase volunteers. That’s also a perfectly reasonable approach, and may well be cheaper.

 

[RT4038]

Based on my colleagues, most people simply want to be paid reasonably well and have decent predictable rosters. Clearly some roles have more leverage, just as some naturally attract higher pay than others, but that’s just life, and not really worth getting tetchy about! Other grades need to negotiate for themselves as best as they can, and individuals within them are free to apply for traincrew roles if they wish.



Not sure what the relevance of this is when it was all decades ago? The point is the unions quite understandably won’t want to sell themselves short when it comes to agreeing to change conditions. Up to the employer side if they wish to pay for that - another option is keeping Sundays outside, and improving incentives to increase volunteers. That’s also a perfectly reasonable approach, and may well be cheaper.

I don't think the 'improving incentives' is a viable long term solution - the 'incentives' demanded will just get larger and larger, and there is still no guarantee that there won't be days where few or no-one wants to work. Negotiate Sundays inside, and then cut the service/ network down to what can be afforded. Bit like where Dr. B. was with the Guillebaud report into railway staff pay - what goes around comes around.....

 

[Red Rover]

It varied depending on when it was done. I think TfW was most recent and was in the 20-30% mark?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==



I would challenge the 'always'. Many routes literally had no service 40 years ago. That being said, I do totally agree and there needs to be 7-day staffing across the board.

One government has to take the one off-hit to make it happen or I look forward to the next thread on Easter Sunday

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==



Again as I asked before, what grades are you talking about?

RPI’s
Platform staff
Clerical
RO’s
Cleaners
All grades that aren’t signallers or drivers in essence, surely you should know they enjoy the best conditions over other grades since privatisation due to their bargaining power?

The privatised companies would love to operate where there’s only drivers under their remit (due to their power that’s been handed to them under privatisation) and get rid of and employ temp zero hour contract staff for the rest, drivers may be in an aslef bubble but that’s the reality for many grades.

 

[43066]

I don't think the 'improving incentives' is a viable long term solution - the 'incentives' demanded will just get larger and larger, and there is still no guarantee that there won't be days where few or no-one wants to work.

But that’s no different to how many businesses work, in many different industries. Incentives tend to be a % of base salary, so will naturally rise in line with those - (1.5* normal rate at my operator generate enough people to run the service in most circumstances). If you have a day when fewer than usual will volunteer, you simply need to predict this and proactively offer more, perhaps three or four times basic and/or days off in lieu, as Network Rail, London Overground etc. offer staff on Xmas day and Boxing Day. It’s really just simple demand and supply.

It’s a method that works perfectly well for many businesses, including many parts of the railway (open access for example).

Negotiate Sundays inside, and then cut the service/ network down to what can be afforded.

This seems somewhat contradictory, when bringing Sundays inside is almost certainly going to be more expensive than improving incentives for volunteers, so if you afford to do the former you can certainly afford the latter. Nobody AFAIK is seriously talking about cutting the network down based on traincrew pay. It’s simply not a viable strategy politically, nor in terms of wider economic costs, so probably not worth discussing unless it’s seriously proposed?

Bit like where Dr. B. was with the Guillebaud report into railway staff pay - what goes around comes around.....

We live in a very different world today, however. I’m reminded of the line: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there”.

 

[Samsanbor]

I don't think it happened quite like that. I believe this comes from a railway strike in 1919?, where part of the settlement was that workers would get a minimum of one day off per week (this not having been the practice previously). The railways companies, faced with the need to recruit and train additional workers to cover this, struck a deal that Sunday work would be voluntary (many lines and activities such as freight were closed, or could be closed on this day, and what lines were open for passengers had sparse services) . General pay was relatively low in those days, and finding volunteers for the reduced manning requirement was easy and never a problem. So the fight was for a day off per week, rather than Sundays outside as such.

Can I ask you where are you taking this information from please?

The 1919 strike was about to prevent the government from reducing rates of pay that had been previously negotiated by ASLEF and the (defunct) NUR and to standardize pay rates for different grades of employment.

The outcome of the negotiations was then a standardisation of wages and the introduction of a maximum eight hour day.

Sunday work nothing had to do with that strike.

 

[RT4038]

Can I ask you where are you taking this information from please?

The 1919 strike was about to prevent the government from reducing rates of pay that had been previously negotiated by ASLEF and the (defunct) NUR and to standardize pay rates for different grades of employment.

The outcome of the negotiations was then a standardisation of wages and the introduction of a maximum eight hour day.

Sunday work nothing had to do with that strike.

I believed it was part of that strike, but I stand corrected! (Which is why I have always said a belief). The Sunday voluntary work system certainly stretches back far. Whenever, it enabled a max rostered six day week.

 

[Harpo]

unions quite understandably won’t want to sell themselves short when it comes to agreeing to change conditions.

Sell is the operative word. Employees sell their labour. Unions agree the deal.

Another option, of course, is keeping Sundays outside, and improving incentives to increase volunteers. That’s also a perfectly reasonable approach, and may well be cheaper.

Another deal to be made. HMG wants high Sunday service reliability but might not be able to afford 100% reliability.

 

[RT4038]

But that’s no different to how many businesses work, in many different industries. Incentives tend to be a % of base salary, so will naturally rise in line with those - (1.5* normal rate at my operator generate enough people to run the service in most circumstances). If you have a day when fewer than usual will volunteer, you simply need to predict this and proactively offer more, perhaps three or four times basic and/or days off in lieu, as Network Rail, London Overground etc. offer staff on Xmas day and Boxing Day. It’s really just simple demand and supply.

It’s a method that works perfectly well for many businesses, including many parts of the railway (open access for example).

I can think of no other 7 day a week industry, got to provide the product at the time of production (such as a Hotel, Hospital, Airline etc) that has one day per week that working is entirely voluntary for the staff, and then tries to run the service on that day by inducing the staff to work by incentivising voluntary overtime. Recipe for unreliability.

This seems somewhat contradictory, when bringing Sundays inside is almost certainly going to be more expensive than improving incentives for volunteers, so if you afford to do the former you can certainly afford the latter. Nobody AFAIK is seriously talking about cutting the network down based on traincrew pay. It’s simply not a viable strategy politically, nor in terms of wider economic costs, so probably not worth discussing unless it’s seriously proposed?

It will come, sooner or later, probably with labour costs being part of a wider costs issue. I don't suppose railway staff viewed industry shrinkage as a viable strategy in the 1950s either, and preferred not to discuss the possibility.

 

[43066]

I can think of no other 7 day a week industry, got to provide the product at the time of production (such as a Hotel, Hospital, Airline etc) that has one day per week that working is entirely voluntary for the staff, and then tries to run the service on that day by inducing the staff to work by incentivising voluntary overtime. Recipe for unreliability.

Perhaps not with one day entirely voluntary (which also only applies to some parts of the railway), but airlines, the NHS, haulage etc. all rely heavily on overtime to deliver their services on all seven days of the week.

It will come, sooner or later, probably with labour costs being part of a wider costs issue. I don't suppose railway staff viewed industry shrinkage as a viable strategy in the 1950s either, and preferred not to discuss the possibility.

Again, it isn’t the 1950s any longer. In 2025 the railway is expanding with rising passenger numbers, just as it has been since the 1990s (Covid aside).

 

[Red Rover]

Perhaps not with one day entirely voluntary (which also only applies to some parts of the railway), but airlines, the NHS, haulage etc. all rely heavily on overtime to deliver their services on all seven days of the week.



Again, it isn’t the 1950s any longer. In 2025 the railway is expanding with rising passenger numbers, just as it has been since the 1990s (Covid aside).

The RMT and TSSA would love collective bargaining with ASLEF but you seriously think that would happen from an ASLEF point of view ie weakening their position? No, not a chance, solidarity died between grades in 1994, with the signallers out of the frame as they're network rail its open season for the ones without leverage.
The railway now is sadly vastly different to what it was in that respect, ask the different grades I've mentioned and they'll tell you.

 

[WAB]

The RMT and TSSA would love collective bargaining with ASLEF but you seriously think that would happen from an ASLEF point of view ie weakening their position? No, not a chance, solidarity died between grades in 1994, with the signallers out of the frame as they're network rail its open season for the ones without leverage.
The railway now is sadly vastly different to what it was in that respect, ask the different grades I've mentioned and they'll tell you.

And it's only going to get more divided. The collectivist culture is increasingly not there on stations, and grade harmonisation/political scandals are increasingly limiting TSSA's influence outside of the management/head office sphere. As traincrew become more and more different from other grades in terms of their salaries and working conditions, it is understandable that solidarity starts to break down.

 

[Red Rover]

And it's only going to get more divided. The collectivist culture is increasingly not there on stations, and grade harmonisation/political scandals are increasingly limiting TSSA's influence outside of the management/head office sphere. As traincrew become more and more different from other grades in terms of their salaries and working conditions, it is understandable that solidarity starts to break down.

The railway now sadly (and I don’t blame ASLEF at all as it’s their job) is now all about keeping the railway running, I don’t need to insult peoples intelligence and further that but since the right time railway and privatisation came in it was to the detriment of the majority of grades and their conditions.
As soon as it became operationally led and not customer focused many including the passengers lost.

 

[Platform27]

“Northern is currently operating a temporary Sunday timetable due to ongoing disruption. We recommend checking your journey closer to your travel time for the most up-to-date information.”

I’m hoping to catch the first Northern service next Sunday morning.

When do they decide if they’re going to cancel a service? Is it usually the night before or on the morning itself?

Long journey with many connections and if the first train gets cancelled then it won’t be worth me even trying.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Perhaps not with one day entirely voluntary (which also only applies to some parts of the railway), but airlines, the NHS, haulage etc. all rely heavily on overtime to deliver their services on all seven days of the week.

Do you have a source to back this up?

As I've said before, those working under EU drivers hours (and UK domestic hours) can work much longer days than drivers do (15 hour duty, anyone?) but rest periods are sacrosanct, and can't be sold for any amount of overtime.

I'd also be interested in some evidence to back up that claim of the NHS relying on overtime - based on those I know there, and what's been asked for, it's much, much less reliant than seems to be suggested - my wife's 3 shift a day unit is looking for maybe 20 shifts covered in the next three months...

 

[Krokodil]

When do they decide if they’re going to cancel a service? Is it usually the night before or on the morning itself?

22:00 the night before.

 

[Platform27]

22:00 the night before.

Thanks! Is that the same for all train operators?