XC Industrial Action from 23rd August onwards…

[OscarH]

It's not a ban ln checking electronic tickets, they simply won't be scanned.

A visual check would take place instead.

Might as well not bother at that point

 

[Wyrleybart]

I hear a big one is managers being paid exorbitant amounts to cover vacant Train Manager turns, whilst at the same time the management being accused of lining their own pockets by deliberately impeding workforce planning attempts to get train manager numbers back to normal.

More vacant roster lines - more at risk trains - more cash to those managers qualified to cover TM work in contingency circumstances.

Could be a conspiracy theory, but its fairly credible.

That ended a few months ago after the last RMT "unhappiness". AIUI the only non grade "guards" who can work trains are guards inspectors aka CSMs.
This is why when you see a set locked out of use on a double formation, it really is because there isn't a qualified TM to work it, as Catering staff are no longer able to be "responsible" for the second set.

 

[357]

Forgive me if it’s a silly question, but I’m wondering why any bonus (3p or otherwise) should be justified for scanning an electronic ticket - surely that’s just doing the day job? If I get asked to perform a specific task in the normal course of my work day, I don’t expect a salary enhancement?

Previously before e-tickets, Train Managers earned comission on ticket sales.

When XC agreed to accept e-tickets - this obviously means the Train Managers lost out on comission from selling tickets as it had been made so much easier to buy before boarding.

As a result of this, and also to encourage scanning to detect fraudulent activity, many TOCs introduced this type of incentive for scanning.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

That ended a few months ago after the last RMT "unhappiness". AIUI the only non grade "guards" who can work trains are guards inspectors aka CSMs.
Thiws is why when you see a set locked out of use on a double formation, it really is because there isn't a qualified TM to work it, as Catering staff are no longer able to be "responsible" for the second set.

The RMT want catering grades to work the sets, but the company suddenly decided to not pay them the higher rate of pay for taking on the extra responsibility.

Please don't say the RMT stopped catering grades working sets when it was very much the companies decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

I hear a big one is managers being paid exorbitant amounts to cover vacant Train Manager turns, whilst at the same time the management being accused of lining their own pockets by deliberately impeding workforce planning attempts to get train manager numbers back to normal.

More vacant roster lines - more at risk trains - more cash to those managers qualified to cover TM work in contingency circumstances.

Could be a conspiracy theory, but its fairly credible.

Becomes even more ridiculous if TMs are volunteering for overtime and being turned down because "a manager has already volunteered to cover that shift".....

 

[Wyrleybart]

The RMT want catering grades to work the sets, but the company suddenly decided to not pay them the higher rate of pay for taking on the extra responsibility.

Please don't say the RMT stopped catering grades working sets when it was very much the companies decision.

I didn't

 

[357]

I love the way RMT say "... refusal to engage in meaningful collective bargaining..."

Not won't do collective bargaining, just sounds like throwing toys out of pram, not getting their way, in RMTs version of meaningful (benefitting their side, rather than mutual benefits).

When I did an Industrial relations course at University, (40 years ago at height of miners strike), collective meant both sides getting gains, not one dictating one sided gains. The letter is very unbalanced in this.

Are you aware of what's happened in these meetings.

More and more the management are coming in with a list of demands and when the union ask for something they are laughed at.

Unfortunately outside of open access and freight operators, there is little desire or care in our industry to actually run a train service. Much like BR days, there is no longer an incentive to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

I didn't

Just read your post again, can see where I got my wires crossed

 

[GuyGibsonVC]

Forgive me if it’s a silly question, but I’m wondering why any bonus (3p or otherwise) should be justified for scanning an electronic ticket - surely that’s just doing the day job? If I get asked to perform a specific task in the normal course of my work day, I don’t expect a salary enhancement?

It will also be classed as new technology that requires training.

Same as all the news last year about Northern, their fax machines and emails.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

The RMT want catering grades to work the sets, but the company suddenly decided to not pay them the higher rate of pay for taking on the extra responsibility.

Please don't say the RMT stopped catering grades working sets when it was very much the companies decision.

Actually you’ve got it the wrong way around. The RMT actually agreed with the company to stop caterers being “competent persons” on a double set.

• Undermining of safety-critical roles: Despite previous agreements, the company is actively trying to reverse the requirement for two Train Managers on double sets, threatening both safety and jobs.
• Breach of staffing agreements: Cross Country has failed to recruit the agreed number of Train Managers and intends to reverse an agreement allowing them to have the ability to go back and utilise catering staff to cover essential Guard duties. These actions also highlight the company's intentions for the future of catering on the network. The RMT cannot allow catering staff to be utilised in this manner.

I personally never had an issue lone working a front set.

 

[Snow1964]

Are you aware of what's happened in these meetings.

More and more the management are coming in with a list of demands and when the union ask for something they are laughed at.

No I haven't been there, but I have been to enough meetings over the years to know there are always 2 sides.

In my experience if a suggestion is laughed at it is completely unreasonable or daft, rather than an unexpected idea which they fail to see what might be behind it, and auto reject it instead of asking if they have x from our side whilst trying to make it work for both parties.

Of course there are unfortunately some that see offers and requests as demands and take the attitude of no way, rather than a stepping stone to we need to make changes and if we can improve productivity or revenue capture, can we share the gains as more money or better conditions. There are others that realise there is no magic tree and if they want better pay and conditions, need to help company become richer so they can afford to pay more. German works unions tend to be in latter category, and would be helping to fix the problems at source (including assisting recruitment and training) rather than getting upset that management are having to cover.

What irritates me is the attitude that only XC management can fix it, rather than union helping fix the problem. They are supposed to represent members, and should mean interested in seeing a way forward that benefits members and improves the company so they get more income. No point in taking action that might shrink the revenue and lead to cuts in few months/years down the line.

 

[Mainliner]

Could a cumulative series of issues that overall result in ‘poor performance’ (for whatever reason) trigger early ‘nationalisation’, and would that be a good or bad thing for the staff?

 

[styles]

Could a cumulative series of issues that overall result in ‘poor performance’ (for whatever reason) trigger early ‘nationalisation’, and would that be a good or bad thing for the staff?

It would need to be a pretty severe degradation in service for this to happen really. Only need to look at what Avanti have gotten away with to realise the government don't make OLR decisions lightly.

 

[jamiearmley]

What irritates me is the attitude that only XC management can fix it, rather than union helping fix the problem. They are supposed to represent members, and should mean interested in seeing a way forward that benefits members and improves the company so they get more income. No point in taking action that might shrink the revenue and lead to cuts in few months/years down the line.

Completely agree with this. I rarely see the union at my TOC considering any kind of bigger picture, focusing solely on today's win with no thought for long term sustainability.
It's only one man's opinion, I know - and that's all it is, an opinion - but branch is sparsely attended, mainly because the moderate are shot down in short order by the militant.

 

[357]

Actually you’ve got it the wrong way around. The RMT actually agreed with the company to stop caterers being “competent persons” on a double set.


I personally never had an issue lone working a front set.

It was the RMT who got you the HGD payments for lone working a front set in the first place.

It was the company who stopped that arrangement and then offered the new overtime deal to some grades but not catering, who historically have lower union membership numbers, expecting there to be little resistance from other grades in support.

 

[185143]

Forgive me if it’s a silly question, but I’m wondering why any bonus (3p or otherwise) should be justified for scanning an electronic ticket - surely that’s just doing the day job? If I get asked to perform a specific task in the normal course of my work day, I don’t expect a salary enhancement?

I'm not defending it or criticising it, but when you think that (in theory) ticket sales onboard should be very low or even non existent, that's lot of commission conductors won't be getting that they used to.

So it's only really replacing that. And when they can uncover a hell of a lot of data from scans in the back office that previously even an RPI would have had to be lucky to work out, and then claw back thousands from passengers breaking the law, you could definitely argue that 2p is a very worthwhile price to pay for that data.

 

[357]

Completely agree with this. I rarely see the union at my TOC considering any kind of bigger picture, focusing solely on today's win with no thought for long term sustainability.
It's only one man's opinion, I know - and that's all it is, an opinion - but branch is sparsely attended, mainly because the moderate are shot down in short order by the militant.

The RMT is a democratic union and if you feel the current reps are doing a bad job then there is a process where you can stand in a vote to replace them.

 

[styles]

They might prefer that they do, but it ultimately makes no difference either way.

I’d imagine most members of the public would expect their own employers to act in good faith and uphold agreements in the workplace.

Yes the public would, but unless the employee's contract is so insanely specific that it says duties involve ticket checks not using electronic devices, that's not failing to uphold an agreement.

 

[357]

Yes the public would, but unless the employee's contract is so insanely specific that it says duties involve ticket checks not using electronic devices, that's not failing to uphold an agreement.

But agreeing a payment and then not paying it is failing to uphold an agreement.

 

[styles]

But agreeing a payment and then not paying it is failing to uphold an agreement.

Sure but my comments were querying the specific reason given about electronic scanning of tickets.

The chain started here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rom-23rd-august-onwards….290513/#post-7413334

 

[357]

Sure but my comments were querying the specific reason given about electronic scanning of tickets.

Guards used to get comission for onboard sales

The company wanted to introduce e-tickets

The union agreed to this, but in return for lower levels of comission for TMs, 3p a scan was agreed

The company felt this saved them money compared to paying commission as it gave them extra revenue protection, fraud prevention and data analysis benefits

 

[styles]

Guards used to get comission for onboard sales

The company wanted to introduce e-tickets

The union agreed to this, but in return for lower levels of comission for TMs, 3p a scan was agreed

The company felt this saved them money compared to paying commission as it gave them extra revenue protection, fraud prevention and data analysis benefits

If the union agreed to this, what's the issue?

 

[sheff1]

If the union agreed to this, what's the issue?

Clearly stated in the RMT communication above:

Failure to implement agreed ticket scanning payments: An agreed 3p-per-scan payment has not been implemented, and the company are refusing to pay the agreed amount ….,

 

[htwestern]

If the union agreed to this, what's the issue?

Both the union and XC management agreed to do this. However XC have not actually started paying the TMs

 

[styles]

Both the union and XC management agreed to do this. However XC have not actually started paying the TMs

Sounds like a justifiable strike then

 

[Broucek]

I believe the payment for scanning tickets is not unusual in the industry. The change to e-ticketing brought about an extra duty, i.e. use of additional electronic equipment - and extra duties mean extra money, however simple they may be.
It may seem bonkers to some but the reality is that if they don't pay a premium for the extra duties, staff will generally just not undertake said duties.

Thanks for the clear and non-emotive explanation. Looking from the private sector, it seems really odd that the natural evolution of duties in a role need extra pay.....

 

[357]

If the union agreed to this, what's the issue?

Read the rest of the post.

 

[Kite159]

How much commission was the XC staff generally getting considering the majority of the stations they call at have ticket buying facilities. At least paying the staff to do their actual job could mean the back cab dwellers on the 170 operated routes will occasionally enter the passenger area

It's not like with Northern when they started rolling out TVMs at the unstaffed stations which previously didn't have anything where the main way to buy a ticket was from the guard who did see a drop in commission.

 

[styles]

Read the rest of the post.

I did.

I was responding to a claim that this dispute was about scanning e-tickets being an extra duty: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rom-23rd-august-onwards….290513/#post-7413331

Read the read of the post.

 

[Starmill]

While it's not the big news here for passengers, urgh...

Given the already abysmal scanning rates across the country, this is the last thing we need

It may actually not make much difference, a lot of their train managers (as opposed to their dedicated revenue staff) have never scanned tickets, with the consequence you suggest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

Thanks for the clear and non-emotive explanation. Looking from the private sector, it seems really odd that the natural evolution of duties in a role need extra pay.....

It's more correct to say that Northern initially offered it, and then when others didn't follow suit, as most don't, industrial action followed.

CrossCountry train managers don't issue a lot of tickets onboard, although they would issue upgrades to first class etc. The 170 routes may have slightly more onboard sales, but only slightly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

Might as well not bother at that point

Definitely the more likely approach that their train managers would take to this to be honest. Or only check tickets in first class.

 

[Snow1964]

But agreeing a payment and then not paying it is failing to uphold an agreement.

As is getting an agreement to do checks, then some members it applied to don't bother to actually do it. Agreement is then effectively killed by members not performing what Union agreed . Not surprising other side drop their side of agreement too.

Shouldn't complain about upholding, unless union strictly ensures its members do their part, rather than letting members not uphold. It is 2 sided

 

[Stan_Butler]

Thanks for the clear and non-emotive explanation. Looking from the private sector, it seems really odd that the natural evolution of duties in a role need extra pay.....


Looking from the private sector and looking at the private sector. Cross Country is a private sector company.

 

[43066]

As is getting an agreement to do checks, then some members it applied to don't bother to actually do it. Agreement is then effectively killed by members not performing what Union agreed . Not surprising other side drop their side of agreement too.

Shouldn't complain about upholding, unless union strictly ensures its members do their part, rather than letting members not uphold. It is 2 sided

Not really. If the union has agreed payments for scans, then self evidently members will only receive these if they actually do the scans. In this case it appears the company has offered to make payment but then reneged on that.