Saturdays and Sundays should be inside the working week for drivers at all TOCs (not just some as at present)

[Coleridge]

It's time Britain's railways were dragged into the 21st (or even 20th) century, and weekends were made contracted working days. The idea that trains should be cancelled because drivers have the right to choose not to go to work is ludicrous.

 

[dk1]

It's time Britain's railways were dragged into the 21st (or even 20th) century, and weekends were made contracted working days. The idea that trains should be cancelled because drivers have the right to choose not to go to work is ludicrous.

Are you getting confused with committed Sundays rather than a Saturday which is just a normal day?

 

[The Chimaera]

It's time Britain's railways were dragged into the 21st (or even 20th) century, and weekends were made contracted working days. The idea that trains should be cancelled because drivers have the right to choose not to go to work is ludicrous.

Saturdays have always been part of the working week, and Avanti have committed Sunday rostered overtime. That meant not far off every other Sunday rostered.

They able to refuse any overtime above and beyond the roster but that is a long way from what you are wrongly describing.

 

[Stossgebet]

It's time Britain's railways were dragged into the 21st (or even 20th) century, and weekends were made contracted working days. The idea that trains should be cancelled because drivers have the right to choose not to go to work is ludicrous.

How about having the right not to do overtime?
How about having the right to book annual leave?
How about the right to being sick?

Are you blaming the workers, for the employer not employing enough workers??

 

[The Planner]

This will end well.

 

[Harpo]

The idea that trains should be cancelled because drivers have the right to choose not to go to work is ludicrous.

Who opted to run a TOC this way? Who negotiated the bespoke T&Cs that differ according to each companies needs? Who opted to make some days optional for staff in order to keep employee numbers down?

 

[Stossgebet]

Or maybe the OP needs to consider the tax situation. Overtime is such now, that many of the regular overtime workers will regulate how much overtime they do, so as not to get robbed by the marginal 60% tax scam at 100k (not unique to train drivers).
Which means doing less overtime. So when in the year do you think someone would chose to do less overtime? Summer of course. Thank the lib/lab/con establishment for this tax rip off!

 

[ivanhoe]

I wonder what Ray Buckton would make of Stossgebet's post

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I wonder what Ray Buckton would make of Stossgebet's post

He was pretty progressive and got a good deal for drivers over flexible rostering and DOO. Railway management made these concession and increased salaries but then failed to see the consequences of drivers no longer needing to chase the money for Sunday overtime. Then demand and service provision on a Sunday has also increased considerably in the 21st Century. So of course the ability to roster seven days a week represents the ideal position but good luck with getting that agreed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are you getting confused with committed Sundays rather than a Saturday which is just a normal day?

To be fair, there is at least one TOC where Saturday is not just a normal day, and requires rest days to cover the base service.

 

[ivanhoe]

Or maybe the OP needs to consider the tax situation. Overtime is such now, that many of the regular overtime workers will regulate how much overtime they do, so as not to get robbed by the marginal 60% tax scam at 100k (not unique to train drivers).
Which means doing less overtime. So when in the year do you think someone would chose to do less overtime? Summer of course. Thank the lib/lab/con establishment for this tax rip off!

There are many low paid workers out in society who serve your train drivers 7 days a week. i don’t begrudge their salaries but using the tax reason, which you have oversimplified to make a point, does no credit to the issue being debated.

 

[Class 317]

I think the op is suggesting it should be moved into the working week so it's not covered by overtime. If that happens then no one is forced into committed overtime. Surely this is a win for all in this situation.

I understand some operators have no commitment to Sundays and it's not in the working week like GWR long distance but in this day and age with demand for travel on Sundays being very high it's no longer sustainable to continue this situation.

 

[irish_rail]

An offer was made to the DFT exactly one year ago, where GWR drivers (both high speed and former West and LTV) would have Sundays moved into the working week. It was agreed by management and Aslef. Unfortunately (to my knowledge), one year later and DFT are still refusing to authorise it.
So to those on here thinking it's the unions and drivers being obstructive, you are quite wrong, it's the DFT who for some reason don't want to play ball.

 

[Bald Rick]

So to those on here thinking it's the unions and drivers being obstructive, you are quite wrong, it's the DFT who for some reason don't want to play ball.

But evidently it has worked elsewhere, as Sundays are coming ‘inside’ for at least one other train operator in a recent deal.

 

[KevinTurvey]

To be fair, I think the tax issue is actually quite an important one.

In past times there was always an appetite for overtime, (not a rail or TOC related employer) because for most it was still taxed at the basic rate.

Now many similar jobs pay 40-50K so overtime is a definite no no, as absolutely everything in that tax year will be taxed at 40% once the 50K threshold is exceeded. I don't know what train managers, station managers, supervisors and the like earn, but I imagine there are many who are not considered as big earners in this position.

 

[Falcon1200]

Who opted to make some days optional for staff in order to keep employee numbers down?

Well when I joined BR in 1978 Sundays were outside the working week and paid as overtime, so this is not a new thing!

So to those on here thinking it's the unions and drivers being obstructive, you are quite wrong, it's the DFT who for some reason don't want to play ball.

Is the issue not, as always, down to money? If Drivers (and any other staff on similar conditions) had Sundays moved into their basic hours they would get more days off at the cost of losing their overtime pay; Or, if basic pay was increased to compensate for this, the cost of providing the service would be greater, which it would be already as more staff would have to be employed.

It would be interesting to know how these issues were addressed where the change has been made!

 

[NeakPed]

To be fair, there is at least one TOC where Saturday is not just a normal day, and requires rest days to cover the base service.

Would you care to name & shame ?
I do not believe that your statement is correct. Are you saying none of the Saturday work is in the base roster and it requires RDW to cover ALL jobs ?
A reliance on rest day working due to insufficient staff numbers is a different matter, but Saturday is a normal working day for those with rostered turns.

 

[Harpo]

Well when I joined BR in 1978 Sundays were outside the working week and paid as overtime, so this is not a new thing!

When Sunday turns were paid at double time on low basic wages and were fought over. There were ‘ballast train’ demarcation areas too.

TOCs had a quarter of a century between 94 & Covid to carve out their own preferred T&Cs and make Sundays robust.

 

[flitwickbeds]

is the OP's proposal to reduce the number of trains during the week, or increase the TOC staffing level by maybe 25% and run the same timetable 7 days a week?

 

[irish_rail]

But evidently it has worked elsewhere, as Sundays are coming ‘inside’ for at least one other train operator in a recent deal.

Which begs the question, why is DFT happy to give this concession to some TOCs but not GWR? Are the GWR customers less important in the DFTs plans?

 

[Polarbear]

Which begs the question, why is DFT happy to give this concession to some TOCs but not GWR? Are the GWR customers less important in the DFTs plans?

That may well depend on the size of the overall pay bill? Other TOCs may well have smaller workforces, hence the overall increased cost to the treasury could be less.

There could well be other reasons though & I’d suggest that it may be better overall for the treasury to relax their constraints a little.

 

[The Mercian]

I’d agree with polar bear here, I’d imagine a larger TOC like GWR getting an agreement on this puts a fairly hefty uplift on the wage bill which probably raised eyebrows at DfT and sent the Treasury into meltdown.

 

[Harpo]

I’d agree with polar bear here, I’d imagine a larger TOC like GWR getting an agreement on this puts a fairly hefty uplift on the wage bill which probably raised eyebrows at DfT and sent the Treasury into meltdown.

The Treasury’s most recent call has been for all corners of government to make cuts. Chancellor Healey II especially can’t be seen to underfund defence.

 

[Class 317]

is the OP's proposal to reduce the number of trains during the week, or increase the TOC staffing level by maybe 25% and run the same timetable 7 days a week?

I don't think Sunday should require the same timetable as other days of the week. However if Sundays are reliably resourced it means that services can be increased in line with demand raising revenue at minimal extra cost.

In terms of paying for this, I wonder how much revenue is lost due to unreliable and overcrowded sunday services and how much increasing this would cover the costs of bringing it inside the working week.

On some routes there are undoubtedly opportunities to reduce services to help cover some of the costs. For example running less long distance trains on mid week days or reducing commuter route frequencies during peak times on Monday and Fridays thereby better reflecting demand and reducing the overall extra staffing and costs involved.

 

[mrcheek]

is the OP's proposal to reduce the number of trains during the week, or increase the TOC staffing level by maybe 25% and run the same timetable 7 days a week?

I suspect OP probably just wants TOCs to run the advertised Sunday service, and not have multiple cancellations every week!

 

[Bald Rick]

Would you care to name & shame ?
I do not believe that your statement is correct. Are you saying none of the Saturday work is in the base roster and it requires RDW to cover ALL jobs ?

No I’m not syaing that. I’m saying that the Saturday service cannot be accommodated by uis g only drivers that are able to be rostered on a Saturday, ie the company is not entitlted to roster Saturday like a ‘normal’ day.

A reliance on rest day working due to insufficient staff numbers is a different matter, but Saturday is a normal working day for those with rostered turns.

This is the difference. At this operator, Saturday is a notmal day for those with rostered turns. However the company cannot roster all the turns required on Saturday (but can Monday - Friday).

Which begs the question, why is DFT happy to give this concession to some TOCs but not GWR? Are the GWR customers less important in the DFTs plans?

I’m sure there’s a good reason.

 

[Stossgebet]

There are many low paid workers out in society who serve your train drivers 7 days a week. i don’t begrudge their salaries but using the tax reason, which you have oversimplified to make a point, does no credit to the issue being debated.

But you haven't denied that the tax situation is real.

It is a contibutory factor to the amount of overtime that is now undertaken by a cohort of workers (in a other jobs, and at other tax cliff edges too). No amount of pointing fingers elsewhere, changes or invalidates the point i have made.
But 2 things can be true at the same time, and of course, putting Sundays into the working week, will make the service far more reliable. However, putting Sundays into the working week without recruiting the additional staff required for it, just spreads the problem around, and week days will get fractionally worse. Perhaps significantly so, if a salary bump for Sundays takes more workers towards the tax cliff.

My point is that a tax threshold, that see ls the governement taking more of your income that you recieve for the portion of work within that threshold, undoubtedly serves to disencourage (is that a word? Disencentivise) work. The consequences of which, are felt more when you don't have enough staff to cover the work without people doing overtime.

 

[SynthD]

To be fair, I think the tax issue is actually quite an important one.

In past times there was always an appetite for overtime, (not a rail or TOC related employer) because for most it was still taxed at the basic rate.

Now many similar jobs pay 40-50K so overtime is a definite no no, as absolutely everything in that tax year will be taxed at 40% once the 50K threshold is exceeded. I don't know what train managers, station managers, supervisors and the like earn, but I imagine there are many who are not considered as big earners in this position.

It sounds like the workers wanted a pay rise, the union won them a pay rise, this was repeated many times to their satisfaction, and now they're among the higher paid in society. To hop over this will require taking away the rewarding factor of overtime, now that it's no longer the carrot it once was. Would drivers feel more motivated if they were assigned fewer hours a week to keep them below higher tax bands? The taxpayer/ticketpayer would suffer as the employee count goes up, even before trying to include Sunday as a regular day.

 

[Stossgebet]

It sounds like the workers wanted a pay rise, the union won them a pay rise, this was repeated many times to their satisfaction, and now they're among the higher paid in society. To hop over this will require taking away the rewarding factor of overtime, now that it's no longer the carrot it once was. Would drivers feel more motivated if they were assigned fewer hours a week to keep them below higher tax bands? The taxpayer/ticketpayer would suffer as the employee count goes up, even before trying to include Sunday as a regular day.

Yes but your explaination comes across (and i know you don't mean it this way) as being the fault of the workers.
The fault clearly sits with the tax situation, the thresholds and the fact that successive governments have kept them significantly low for so long, that 15 years worth of inflation, without the thresholds moving in any meaningful way, have created this situation. The 100k tax cliff was created in 2011, didn't affect so many people back then. Not moving that cliff edge up at all, not a penny, in 15 years has lead to consequences.

 

[Harpo]

It sounds like the workers wanted a pay rise, the union won them a pay rise, this was repeated many times to their satisfaction, and now they're among the higher paid in society.

Or alternatively….

1) Train operators didn’t want the expense of recruiting and training drivers so escalated pay rates early on, to poach qualified drivers.

2) Most train operators wanted to pay clean salaries, so consolidated all of the productivity inducements and overtime enhancements that encouraged people to do extra hours etc. into increased basic pay.

3) Train operators wanted much more from their employees and, as the only thing a worker has to sell is their labour, everything that operators wanted in order to reduce their driver establishments was priced in to salaries.

4) Such is the flexibility of the workforce and their union, each operator got the bespoke deal and T&Cs that most benefitted their operation.

5) Those with Sundays outside, chose to continue exploiting overtime working instead of employing more staff.

But don’t bother trying to explain the facts to the Mail, Telegraph etc.. Too inconvenient.