ASLEF non-contractual overtime bans -various dates and TOCs

[Mattydo]

Truly being devil's advocate...

The dispute will end,

There will be give and take on both sides.

Is some modernisation required? Sure, there are expensive practices that many drivers are willing to accept changes to, but for me those that greatly affect lifestyle are hard lines... I left an industry, taking a large pay cut predominantly because the balance of work and life no longer met my expectations and I'm happy to be a part of a union that isn't so easily rolled over because it's an attractive job. Working conditions make long term careers possible. I couldn't see myself working to the same conditions in my last role until retirement and saw them given up with little effort.

That said, I'm also aware of some manual processes and restrictions that could be updated with a reasonable amount of cooperation and little pain. Win win changes as it were.

The trouble at the moment is that the government's starting point is very far away from what is acceptable, and their insistence that workers should accept real terms pay cuts and facilitate huge changes in working practices to limit the depth of those cuts belongs in a time forgotten. Much like some of the inflexibility in working terms that if managed correctly shouldn't cause much pain.

That the private sector and devolved governments have been able to negotiate effectively is evidence to that.

Most drivers are reasonable but the DfT's position hasn't been.

The withdrawal of good will in the form of overtime bans has been quite effective in terms of impact to the company at my TOC without causing too much inconvenience to customers. Our relationship with management is actually fairly good still but they are clearly constrained by government policy and realising that has kept relationships positive.

There is clearly space for a negotiated settlement that leaves both sides happy. But that requires a change in attitude, or government.

 

[Thebaz]

Has this action had much impact?

Half-length Caterham-LBG services are absolutely rammed in the peaks, even worse obviously when half an 8-car. Difficult to get on from Purley. Full and standing from LBG when there's still 10 minutes until departure. I don't really understand why the service can't be run as normal length when the Tattenham portion is still being run as far as Purley anyway.

 

[43066]

Torys on a scorched earth policy now to leave a complete mess for Labour should they be elected of course who will not be able to appease all the public sector workers although I would hope they would delink T&C's issue here to restore stability to the industry and then see how well the industry can do when it can operate normally.

Yep that’s about the size of it. Really there’s no other plausible explanation for the approach taken.

It would be relatively straight forward to unshackle the industry on the basis of “commercial freedom”, as has been suggested around ticketing, so perhaps that’s a future way forward to allow local negotiations to resume. The key thing is to roll back the DfT’s influence.

One would hope that the current government would address the relevant issues in the Health Service and teaching.... Of course, they have no interest in settling the rail disputes so may well leave those to the next government

Why would they? They seem to be taking the same approach across the board to public services. As the polls have continued to worsen they’ve evidently given up any hope of re-election, and are more interested in pursuing scorched earth than in even pretending to run the country responsibly.

Truly being devil's advocate...

The dispute will end,

There will be give and take on both sides.

Is some modernisation required? Sure, there are expensive practices that many drivers are willing to accept changes to, but for me those that greatly affect lifestyle are hard lines... I left an industry, taking a large pay cut predominantly because the balance of work and life no longer met my expectations and I'm happy to be a part of a union that isn't so easily rolled over because it's an attractive job. Working conditions make long term careers possible. I couldn't see myself working to the same conditions in my last role until retirement and saw them given up with little effort.

That said, I'm also aware of some manual processes and restrictions that could be updated with a reasonable amount of cooperation and little pain. Win win changes as it were.

The trouble at the moment is that the government's starting point is very far away from what is acceptable, and their insistence that workers should accept real terms pay cuts and facilitate huge changes in working practices to limit the depth of those cuts belongs in a time forgotten. Much like some of the inflexibility in working terms that if managed correctly shouldn't cause much pain.

That the private sector and devolved governments have been able to negotiate effectively is evidence to that.

Most drivers are reasonable but the DfT's position hasn't been.

The withdrawal of good will in the form of overtime bans has been quite effective in terms of impact to the company at my TOC without causing too much inconvenience to customers. Our relationship with management is actually fairly good still but they are clearly constrained by government policy and realising that has kept relationships positive.

There is clearly space for a negotiated settlement that leaves both sides happy. But that requires a change in attitude, or government.

Fully agreed.

 

[Bantamzen]

That the private sector and devolved governments have been able to negotiate effectively is evidence to that.

I'm just going to focus on this line if I may? You say that the private sector has been able to resolve disputes, and you are correct. They have. But what have the private sector not been able to do with parts of the rail industry? Make the franchises work.

And this is a very important point. The rail industry has not been working as well as it should, some might even suggest it is failing. And as a result the government have had to input increasing amounts of resources and finances to keep things barely afloat. Now normally governments, regardless of tie colour, expect services funded by public money to work properly. Well OK that's the expectation, and I will be the first to admit it rarely does. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, any part of the publicly funded sectors that are failing badly will come up against severe resistance when they fall into dispute over pay or T&Cs. The public expect that. In fact you'll find they demand it.

This, in my humble opinion, is the problem at the heart of this dispute. The rail unions are still wanting private sector terms, but on public funds. And trust me when I say this, speaking as a former TU rep and still a TU member, there is no prospect of private sector terms on public funds. None. Nada. Nil. In the past in the lack of market facing equality of pay and terms was offset by good packages, especially around pensions. But they have all gone now, demonstrating the fact that public funds will always be limited and that terms can and are often changed for the worse. Only when the nation is doing well economically can we hope for better. And we are not, this should speak volumes.

That's the bottom line. If the the railway unions want to get back to the better days under the private sector, they need to start thinking about how they can enable this. But I suspect they won't like the answer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When the final day of this particular tranche of industrial action has drawn to its close, will there be any Damascene moments in the employers side that will suddenly show a notable change in the way that the union hopes for?

 

[footprints]

When the final day of this particular tranche of industrial action has drawn to its close, will there be any Damascene moments in the employers side that will suddenly show a notable change in the way that the union hopes for?

The chances of that are somewhere between zero and none.

 

[baz962]

I'm just going to focus on this line if I may? You say that the private sector has been able to resolve disputes, and you are correct. They have. But what have the private sector not been able to do with parts of the rail industry? Make the franchises work.

And this is a very important point. The rail industry has not been working as well as it should, some might even suggest it is failing. And as a result the government have had to input increasing amounts of resources and finances to keep things barely afloat. Now normally governments, regardless of tie colour, expect services funded by public money to work properly. Well OK that's the expectation, and I will be the first to admit it rarely does. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, any part of the publicly funded sectors that are failing badly will come up against severe resistance when they fall into dispute over pay or T&Cs. The public expect that. In fact you'll find they demand it.

This, in my humble opinion, is the problem at the heart of this dispute. The rail unions are still wanting private sector terms, but on public funds. And trust me when I say this, speaking as a former TU rep and still a TU member, there is no prospect of private sector terms on public funds. None. Nada. Nil. In the past in the lack of market facing equality of pay and terms was offset by good packages, especially around pensions. But they have all gone now, demonstrating the fact that public funds will always be limited and that terms can and are often changed for the worse. Only when the nation is doing well economically can we hope for better. And we are not, this should speak volumes.

That's the bottom line. If the the railway unions want to get back to the better days under the private sector, they need to start thinking about how they can enable this. But I suspect they won't like the answer.

But as has been said time and again. No one is asking for huge raises. It's the trampling of the conditions we won't stand for. We might accept some tweaking, but to want floating rest days and not know my day off to three days before and be able to move my start time upto 12 hours in either direction with three days notice. No chance, nada , nil , none.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm just going to focus on this line if I may? You say that the private sector has been able to resolve disputes, and you are correct. They have. But what have the private sector not been able to do with parts of the rail industry? Make the franchises work.

And this is a very important point. The rail industry has not been working as well as it should, some might even suggest it is failing. And as a result the government have had to input increasing amounts of resources and finances to keep things barely afloat.

Most franchises were doing pretty well before Covid, or should I say before the draconian measures employed by the Government in response to the pandemic.

The reason 'the Government have had to input increasing amounts of resources and finances to keep things barely afloat' (in your words) is because they literally told people not to travel which decimated revenue and the financial viability of the railway and they are now reaping the 'rewards' of that policy. Hardly surprising. Government policy caused this whole mess and if it costs the Govt a fortune to subsidise the railway these days whilst severely restricting TOC investment which might grow revenue, then they know who to blame.

 

[Robertj21a]

Truly being devil's advocate...

The dispute will end,

There will be give and take on both sides.

Is some modernisation required? Sure, there are expensive practices that many drivers are willing to accept changes to, but for me those that greatly affect lifestyle are hard lines... I left an industry, taking a large pay cut predominantly because the balance of work and life no longer met my expectations and I'm happy to be a part of a union that isn't so easily rolled over because it's an attractive job. Working conditions make long term careers possible. I couldn't see myself working to the same conditions in my last role until retirement and saw them given up with little effort.

That said, I'm also aware of some manual processes and restrictions that could be updated with a reasonable amount of cooperation and little pain. Win win changes as it were.

The trouble at the moment is that the government's starting point is very far away from what is acceptable, and their insistence that workers should accept real terms pay cuts and facilitate huge changes in working practices to limit the depth of those cuts belongs in a time forgotten. Much like some of the inflexibility in working terms that if managed correctly shouldn't cause much pain.

That the private sector and devolved governments have been able to negotiate effectively is evidence to that.

Most drivers are reasonable but the DfT's position hasn't been.

The withdrawal of good will in the form of overtime bans has been quite effective in terms of impact to the company at my TOC without causing too much inconvenience to customers. Our relationship with management is actually fairly good still but they are clearly constrained by government policy and realising that has kept relationships positive.

There is clearly space for a negotiated settlement that leaves both sides happy. But that requires a change in attitude, or government.

Fully understood except the final paragraph.

'.....there's space for a negotiated settlement that leaves both sides happy. But that requires a change in attitude, or government'.

In practice, does that mean a negotiated settlement as long as just one side (government) changes their position ...?? -

 

[Mattydo]

I'm just going to focus on this line if I may? You say that the private sector has been able to resolve disputes, and you are correct. They have. But what have the private sector not been able to do with parts of the rail industry? Make the franchises work.

And this is a very important point. The rail industry has not been working as well as it should, some might even suggest it is failing. And as a result the government have had to input increasing amounts of resources and finances to keep things barely afloat. Now normally governments, regardless of tie colour, expect services funded by public money to work properly. Well OK that's the expectation, and I will be the first to admit it rarely does. But one thing you can be absolutely certain of, any part of the publicly funded sectors that are failing badly will come up against severe resistance when they fall into dispute over pay or T&Cs. The public expect that. In fact you'll find they demand it.

This, in my humble opinion, is the problem at the heart of this dispute. The rail unions are still wanting private sector terms, but on public funds. And trust me when I say this, speaking as a former TU rep and still a TU member, there is no prospect of private sector terms on public funds. None. Nada. Nil. In the past in the lack of market facing equality of pay and terms was offset by good packages, especially around pensions. But they have all gone now, demonstrating the fact that public funds will always be limited and that terms can and are often changed for the worse. Only when the nation is doing well economically can we hope for better. And we are not, this should speak volumes.

That's the bottom line. If the the railway unions want to get back to the better days under the private sector, they need to start thinking about how they can enable this. But I suspect they won't like the answer.

I certainly see your point but I'd perhaps look at industries like Aviation where in fact the opposite has been the case. Under public ownership the contracts at British Airways (BOAC/BEA) and the Pension schemes make today's contracts under private ownership look, frankly, horrendous. And to avoid getting back into a pilot/train driver debate this was true of cabin crew, ground staff and engineers too.

But beyond that perhaps the argument is somewhat philosophical, (and structural). Is the railway a public service or does it need to be a profit driven industry? And then is it the wages and terms of front line employees that are the issue or is it how the private railway was set up? ROSCO's, separated infrastructure and operators, lack of any meaningful competition due to how the franchises were set up. None of it leads to particularly dynamic thinking or streamlining non-people costs.

I think FOC's and OAO's are the closest we can see to how a truly privatised railway might work and frankly, in the case of OAO's if it weren't for TOC's their pax could be stuck in London more frequently. Where's as freight seemed to be on the up until recently.

My experience is that private sector terms and conditions are often worse with a greater disparity in wages top to bottom.

I don't want a pilots wage, (well, I wouldn't turn it down), but I happen to have experience of what that wage cost to terms and conditions.

I'm quite amenable to modernisation, if it comes with a better look at fatigue risk management which, honestly the hidden regulations only pay lip service too. I have no objection to a fair few of the reasonable requests, but the lack of roster stability I'm less keen on as it's hard to plan a life around shift work anyway.

I'm not a particularly militant unionist but I guess I'd like to see balance in the whole debate. And I'm sure some must come from our side too.

 

[43066]

You say that the private sector has been able to resolve disputes, and you are correct. They have. But what have the private sector not been able to do with parts of the rail industry? Make the franchises work.

The second point has absolutely nothing to do with the first.

any part of the publicly funded sectors that are failing badly will come up against severe resistance when they fall into dispute over pay or T&Cs. The public expect that. In fact you'll find they demand it.

The railway isn’t purely publicly funded, and it isn’t like the civil service. The last sentence is immediately disprovable when you look at public support for nurses/doctors in the NHS which is definitely failing and (unlike the railway) entirely publicly funded.

This, in my humble opinion, is the problem at the heart of this dispute.

It isn’t. You still clearly fail to grasp what this dispute is actually about.

The chances of that are somewhere between zero and none.

Which union, and which employer? Yours?

I'm not a particularly militant unionist but I guess I'd like to see balance in the whole debate. And I'm sure some must come from our side too.

The solution really is as per the OA and freight operators.

I notice @Bantamzen still hasn’t answered my question as to whether he thinks the government should allow the dispute to be settled, along the lines of the other railway settlements we have seen, or continue to drag it out at great expense to the taxpayer, the railway industry and the wider economy.

 

[Mattydo]

The solution really is as per the OA and freight operators

I'd agree. Obviously we're not in the room with the RDG but you do get the impression that they tend towards some level of reasonable negotiation, until the DfT gets involved. Evidence being the language used by the Union negotiators when the last strikes to be called off seemed to indicate a break through followed by a final hour change of heart from the other side.

 

[Teddyward]

Still a farce this is a national dispute. My TOC is making money and we already have half the things RDG want already in our T&Cs.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't really understand why the service can't be run as normal length when the Tattenham portion is still being run as far as Purley anyway.

Having trains split and divide at Purley when there is an overtime ban is awkward if there isn't a driver available for one of the portions and could cause congestion. Makes the service more reliable to not have splitting.

Also, Tattenham Corner is only hourly during the off-peak hours this week.

 

[PGAT]

Either way 4 or 5 coaches in the peak is not acceptable.

 

[traintraining]

Okay so in this dispute every single time the RDG / DFT press statement is we have made a fair offer and ASLEF should put this offer to its members. Well a recent ballot to continue strike action came back a resounding yes to strike action, but the folks at RDG still saying the pay offer needs to go to the members

So Why are ASLEF not putting the pay offer to members? knowing full well its not going to be accepted by at least 95% of drivers, and that by getting a ‘No’ it will open the doors to get back to the negotiating table.

ASLEF need to grow a pair and try a different tact, throw the ball back in the court of the RDG/DFT

 

[Stretch1987]

Okay so in this dispute every single time the RDG / DFT press statement is we have made a fair offer and ASLEF should put this offer to its members. Well a recent ballot to continue strike action came back a resounding yes to strike action, but the folks at RDG still saying the pay offer needs to go to the members

So Why are ASLEF not putting the pay offer to members? knowing full well its not going to be accepted by at least 95% of drivers, and that by getting a ‘No’ it will open the doors to get back to the negotiating table.

ASLEF need to grow a pair and try a different tact, throw the ball back in the court of the RDG/DFT

I have said this for a while, we all know the outcome of a referendum on the present offer and in theory it would break the deadlock, also by putting the ball back in the RDG/DFT court they'd lose their line of defense in the media.

I hope that the powers that be within aslef go down this line.

 

[Train_manager]

Okay so in this dispute every single time the RDG / DFT press statement is we have made a fair offer and ASLEF should put this offer to its members. Well a recent ballot to continue strike action came back a resounding yes to strike action, but the folks at RDG still saying the pay offer needs to go to the members

So Why are ASLEF not putting the pay offer to members? knowing full well its not going to be accepted by at least 95% of drivers, and that by getting a ‘No’ it will open the doors to get back to the negotiating table.

ASLEF need to grow a pair and try a different tact, throw the ball back in the court of the RDG/DFT

Cost. The RDG/DFT or government don't pay for the ballot. It's the union. Very simple.

So why bother?

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Having looked at cancellation stats through the week, I would say the more successful TOCs have had less cancellations and therefore I would suggest less reliance on overtime - also they are the usual suspects for reliable services too, sweeping unscientific statement I know but the impression I'm getting.

 

[theageofthetra]

But as has been said time and again. No one is asking for huge raises. It's the trampling of the conditions we won't stand for. We might accept some tweaking, but to want floating rest days and not know my day off to three days before and be able to move my start time upto 12 hours in either direction with three days notice. No chance, nada , nil , none.

Spot on. No one will accept this. Will the civil servants (who have just had a very nice backdated pay rise) work with such conditions too?

 

[infobleep]

Half-length Caterham-LBG services are absolutely rammed in the peaks, even worse obviously when half an 8-car. Difficult to get on from Purley. Full and standing from LBG when there's still 10 minutes until departure. I don't really understand why the service can't be run as normal length when the Tattenham portion is still being run as far as Purley anyway.

That would require a timetable change and they don't have time I believe.

On Wednesday 5 July, I got a Southern branded Brighton to Eastbourne service that was formed of Gatwick Express branded rolling stock. No idea if that was due to industrial action or regular. It was the 16:56.

 

[Robertj21a]

What are these overtime bans, or the strikes, actually achieving nowadays ?
Those who use the railways are only too aware of the ongoing unhappiness of rail staff - and most rail staff themselves seem to now accept that the current government have no intention of improving the situation.
With apx 15-18 (?) months to go before any change in government, what will these various industrial actions really achieve in the meantime ?

 

[baz962]

Having looked at cancellation stats through the week, I would say the more successful TOCs have had less cancellations and therefore I would suggest less reliance on overtime - also they are the usual suspects for reliable services too, sweeping unscientific statement I know but the impression I'm getting.

I think it could be dependent on particular days too . At my toc/ depot they had loads of jobs uncovered at the start of the week and most jobs covered by the end of the week with a couple spare drivers to boot.

 

[Silverlinky]

There are hidden aspects to the overtime ban. At my TOC they have managed to cover most of the services through the week and seen relatively few cancellations. However they have managed to do this in part by cancelling training and having all drivers out there driving. One specific example would be the Driver training for class 730 units which was cancelled this week and I believe it is cancelled again in two weeks time as they can't release the drivers and instructors, nor can they do the course as planned and agreed by the Union because it contains an element of overtime working (it runs for 6 days in a week and means two rest days are required to be worked by candidates for which they are paid an agreed enhancement)
So the upshot of not training means that any prospective entry into service for those units is delayed by two weeks due to the disruption to the training plan.

 

[43066]

There are hidden aspects to the overtime ban. At my TOC they have managed to cover most of the services through the week and seen relatively few cancellations. However they have managed to do this in part by cancelling training and having all drivers out there driving. One specific example would be the Driver training for class 730 units which was cancelled this week and I believe it is cancelled again in two weeks time as they can't release the drivers and instructors, nor can they do the course as planned and agreed by the Union because it contains an element of overtime working (it runs for 6 days in a week and means two rest days are required to be worked by candidates for which they are paid an agreed enhancement)
So the upshot of not training means that any prospective entry into service for those units is delayed by two weeks due to the disruption to the training plan.

Indeed. There’s scope to cause *a lot* of disruption via training. We don’t even have a training agreement in place as yet for a forthcoming new fleet. There will be rooms for ASLEF to make things on that front very difficult indeed if the dispute isn’t resolved (fingers crossed it will be, as this will be from next year onwards).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There are hidden aspects to the overtime ban. At my TOC they have managed to cover most of the services through the week and seen relatively few cancellations. However they have managed to do this in part by cancelling training and having all drivers out there driving. One specific example would be the Driver training for class 730 units which was cancelled this week and I believe it is cancelled again in two weeks time as they can't release the drivers and instructors, nor can they do the course as planned and agreed by the Union because it contains an element of overtime working (it runs for 6 days in a week and means two rest days are required to be worked by candidates for which they are paid an agreed enhancement)
So the upshot of not training means that any prospective entry into service for those units is delayed by two weeks due to the disruption to the training plan.

All credit to LNR/WMT who've done their best to keep as much of the service running as possible. In the case of GTR who have no new unit training to worry about but have massacred the service and even then it falls apart because they keep the complicated split driver diagrams rather than concentrating on services with single drivers to cover the service.

 

[12LDA28C]

Having looked at cancellation stats through the week, I would say the more successful TOCs have had less cancellations and therefore I would suggest less reliance on overtime - also they are the usual suspects for reliable services too, sweeping unscientific statement I know but the impression I'm getting.

Not necessarily. The reduction in service provision at certain TOCs is often much more than would be required to take into account overtime and RDW, which results in a much poorer service for passengers but dozens of drivers sitting around spare at various locations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2023 ==

There are hidden aspects to the overtime ban. At my TOC they have managed to cover most of the services through the week and seen relatively few cancellations. However they have managed to do this in part by cancelling training and having all drivers out there driving. One specific example would be the Driver training for class 730 units which was cancelled this week and I believe it is cancelled again in two weeks time as they can't release the drivers and instructors, nor can they do the course as planned and agreed by the Union because it contains an element of overtime working (it runs for 6 days in a week and means two rest days are required to be worked by candidates for which they are paid an agreed enhancement)
So the upshot of not training means that any prospective entry into service for those units is delayed by two weeks due to the disruption to the training plan.

It's pretty standard for TOCs to not allow release of any drivers or instructors from the driving roster during periods of ASOS, for training, briefings and so on. They'll want to maximise the numbers of drivers available to actually drive trains, unsurprisingly.

 

[baz962]

Spot on. No one will accept this. Will the civil servants (who have just had a very nice backdated pay rise) work with such conditions too?

Very telling that no one that is critical has answered any questions. Would they accept the changes that the government wants. Bet none of them would and no suggestions as to what we should do then.

 

[newtownmgr]

No the ASLEF press release clearly states dispute is about pay (full stop), nothing about T&Cs in dispute. Therefore perfectly reasonable for media to treat it as 100% about pay.

If I was a train driver I would be giving my local Rep a real ear bashing as they are clearly not successfully conveying upwards any unhappiness about T&Cs, as it appears T&Cs are no longer in the dispute.

It was rejected as the offer did contain drastic & unrealistic changes to t&c’s. The official offer was a lot worse than the one released to the press initially & deliberately provocative to encourage refusal. Make no mistakes this dispute is being engineered & continued by this government

 

[theageofthetra]

Not necessarily. The reduction in service provision at certain TOCs is often much more than would be required to take into account overtime and RDW, which results in a much poorer service for passengers but dozens of drivers sitting around spare at various locations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2023 ==



It's pretty standard for TOCs to not allow release of any drivers or instructors from the driving roster during periods of ASOS, for training, briefings and so on. They'll want to maximise the numbers of drivers available to actually drive trains, unsurprisingly.

Do DCC (Drivers Company Council) drive too?