Cross Country RMT industrial action

[74A]

90 Managers were trained up to work trains was the problem.

Probably not a valid reason for going on strike. Hence why when the lawyers got involved the RMT backed down.

 

[class 9]

Probably not a valid reason for going on strike. Hence why when the lawyers got involved the RMT backed down.

The 90 weren't just managers it was staff from HQ in Birmingham, a real case of a stick to the Hornets nest.

 

[greyman42]

The 90 weren't just managers it was staff from HQ in Birmingham, a real case of a stick to the Hornets nest.

I cannot honestly see what that has to do with the RMT?

 

[class 9]

I cannot honestly see what that has to do with the RMT?

Really? Its obviously a strike busting tactic in preparation to force through changes to terms and conditions, no doubt by instruction from the DfT.
There's also accusations that the training they receive is insufficient.

 

[dk1]

I cannot honestly see what that has to do with the RMT?

I would have thought it has everything to do with them if they (PUGs) are being trained up to do their members work.

 

[43096]

Really? Its obviously a strike busting tactic in preparation to force through changes to terms and conditions, no doubt by instruction from the DfT.
There's also accusations that the training they receive is insufficient.

Heaven forbid that a company might want to find ways of running its services for its customers. You know, the people who pay the (striking) staff’s salary.

 

[greyman42]

Really? Its obviously a strike busting tactic in preparation to force through changes to terms and conditions, no doubt by instruction from the DfT.
There's also accusations that the training they receive is insufficient.

Any evidence of this or is it just speculation?

 

[PupCuff]

The 90 weren't just managers it was staff from HQ in Birmingham, a real case of a stick to the Hornets nest.

Thats a bit of a red herring I think; probably 'management staff' rather than 'managers' (it's fairly typical for the railway to have management staff who are called managers but don't have line management responsibilities etc) but it's much of a muchness really, whether you're a line manager or not you'll still need the same training.

There's also accusations that the training they receive is insufficient.

I think unless someone's prepared to share what their training consists of it's unlikely that that accusation will be able to be substantiated.


There clearly does need to be some arrangements for contingency should, say, an entire conductor depot go down with flu or something; I feel RMT would be far better discussing circumstances where contingency conductors would be used (eg line of call for open turns so there's some reassurance they won't be using management to cover trains instead of paying overtime/rdw to conductors) rather than objecting to the principle. Contingency staff by their very nature should only be being used as a last resort if there isn't a substantive conductor able to work the service anyway (and of those 90 I would think only a handful would have much enthusiasm for coming in at the weekend to work trains if its anything like at our place).

 

[O L Leigh]

Thats a bit of a red herring I think

I think you’re not in any position to judge. That something doesn’t seem plausible to you does not mean that it isn’t true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2022 ==

I would say that the question of staff who have never been assessed for their suitability to undertake safety critical work now being trained to carry out safety critical duties would be a cause for legitimate concern, even if only on a contingency basis.

 

[PupCuff]

I think you’re not in any position to judge. That something doesn’t seem plausible to you does not mean that it isn’t true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2022 ==

I would say that the question of staff who have never been assessed for their suitability to undertake safety critical work now being trained to carry out safety critical duties would be a cause for legitimate concern, even if only on a contingency basis.

You're entitled to think what you want really (with specific note that I haven't actually said anything is implausible) but 'managers' would not be 'assessed for their suitability to carry out safety critical work' any more than 'management staff' would be under business as usual. Managers vs management staff is just semantics.

At our place contingency staff working trains still have to have psychometric passes (dont know about XC); obviously they'll need to have a medical in place too but these are typically done for all staff on commencing employment anyway.

If there are specific concerns with the competence management systems at XC then these need to be specifically highlighted and addressed, after all safety critical fitness and competence isn't a nice to have it's a legal requirement. But as it stands the RMT have gone down the road of 'undermining our members role' rather than constructive, 'actually we think that areas x, y and z are weaker than they should be, would you look at giving them extra rideouts/an extra day of practical training' etc.

 

[muz379]

obviously they'll need to have a medical in place too but these are typically done for all staff on commencing employment anyway

Not necessarily to the group standard required for safety critical grades tho . AFAIK people entering my TOC in management roles aren't subject to medical unless they need it to retain a safety critical competence so essentially guards and driver managers and line management folk in engineering.

If there are specific concerns with the competence management systems at XC then these need to be specifically highlighted and addressed, after all safety critical fitness and competence isn't a nice to have it's a legal requirement. But as it stands the RMT have gone down the road of 'undermining our members role' rather than constructive, 'actually we think that areas x, y and z are weaker than they should be, would you look at giving them extra rideouts/an extra day of practical training' etc.

I guess that would be nice if the company would engage with unions on such matters .

 

[Starmill]

Really? Its obviously a strike busting tactic in preparation to force through changes to terms and conditions, no doubt by instruction from the DfT.
There's also accusations that the training they receive is insufficient.

Isn't it normal practice at pretty much all operators?

I'm not saying it should or should not be happening, just that it's happened nearly every time there's been a strike affecting any guards in recent decades.

 

[PupCuff]

Not necessarily to the group standard required for safety critical grades tho . AFAIK people entering my TOC in management roles aren't subject to medical unless they need it to retain a safety critical competence so essentially guards and driver managers and line management folk in engineering.


I guess that would be nice if the company would engage with unions on such matters .

Thats a fair comment - all my pre-employment/promotional medicals have been to the standard required for train working, I acknowledge that won't be the same everywhere else though. In those cases management working trains would indeed need a medical to the required standard before training to work trains.

Ref engagement, historically XC have had a good level of engagement at safety committees with the trade unions (and good union relations in general). It's a shame if that has broken down, but they'd be the place to thrash out any specific issues with the CMS.

 

[muz379]

Ref engagement, historically XC have had a good level of engagement at safety committees with the trade unions (and good union relations in general). It's a shame if that has broken down, but they'd be the place to thrash out any specific issues with the CMS.

I guess without working there or being privy to details about the current relationship it's hard to say if that engagement has indeed taken place prior to a dispute being declared . Without documentary evidence of breaches with regards the CMS it's difficult to get the ORR or RSSB to take concerns up . Ciras could be on way to go about it but even they'd find it difficult to act on hearsay .

One thing I do always bear in mind though with these things is regardless of what union circulars/press releases say the reps would have had to convince the majority of members actually working at the company who know the management themselves to vote for action for the dispute to go anywhere .Unions can't just unilaterally declare disputes and call strike action

 

[Horizon22]

The 90 weren't just managers it was staff from HQ in Birmingham, a real case of a stick to the Hornets nest.

Such a non-issue. Most TOCs train up contingency guards with absoutely no problems. It allows those ex frontline staff to keep their eye in and very useful for other staff to get an experience (and suitable training) of what it is that the core staff do daily.

 

[class 9]

Heaven forbid that a company might want to find ways of running its services for its customers. You know, the people who pay the (striking) staff’s salary.

It's one thing having operational managers covering trains, but training up a substantial amount of non operational staff to cover is obviously in preparation for changes that are going to be forced through.
Heaven forbid staff standing up for their terms & conditions.

 

[Horizon22]

Thats a fair comment - all my pre-employment/promotional medicals have been to the standard required for train working, I acknowledge that won't be the same everywhere else though. In those cases management working trains would indeed need a medical to the required standard before training to work trains.

Everywhere I've been where you are doing safety-critcal contingency has been subject to a saferty-critical medical. To be honest I'm not sure how you'd get out of it otherwise.

Southern didn't for their contingency OBSs but then they weren't safety-critical which was the bulk of the dispute...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2022 ==

It's one thing having operational managers covering trains, but training up a substantial amount of non operational staff to cover is obviously in preparation for changes that are going to be forced through.
Heaven forbid staff standing up for their terms & conditions.

Or some sort of other dispute? Or a major shortage due to an unforeseen factor? Or perhaps everything isn't nefarious at your "big, evil TOC" and "contingency" is exactly what it means - a backup or a fall back for "just in case". It would be rather remiss of a major public transport operator to not have some sort of system in place to keep the job running for a whole host of reasons (one of which might be an industrial dispute outside its control).

You're making a huge leap to staff "standing up for their terms & conditions" by training up other rail staff who have full-time jobs and probably have no interest becoming full-time guards because otherwise that's what they'd be doing!

 

[O L Leigh]

You're entitled to think what you want really (with specific note that I haven't actually said anything is implausible)

That's awfully decent of you.

No you never actually said that anything was "implausible". The phrase you actually used was "red herring", which I believe conveys the same concept of disbelief.

but 'managers' would not be 'assessed for their suitability to carry out safety critical work' any more than 'management staff' would be under business as usual. Managers vs management staff is just semantics.

I'm not trying to draw any distinction between "managers" and "management staff". That is a topic of your own devising, so any playing with semantics has not come from me. I have no idea on which side of your line these staff might be drawn, but it would appear to be from both sides.

If there are specific concerns with the competence management systems at XC then these need to be specifically highlighted and addressed, after all safety critical fitness and competence isn't a nice to have it's a legal requirement. But as it stands the RMT have gone down the road of 'undermining our members role' rather than constructive, 'actually we think that areas x, y and z are weaker than they should be, would you look at giving them extra rideouts/an extra day of practical training' etc.

Ref engagement, historically XC have had a good level of engagement at safety committees with the trade unions (and good union relations in general). It's a shame if that has broken down, but they'd be the place to thrash out any specific issues with the CMS.

And you think that this hasn't happened? You think that this is a new discussion which the RMT has moved directly to being in dispute? You don't see how this could be the ultimate outcome from following the "failure to agree" (FTA) protocols?

As for it being undermining, I'm not sure how else you might expect the staff to react. These people have been exhaustively selected, trained and assessed in order to prepare them for carrying out a safety critical role, and now it would appear that their employer is saying that pretty much anyone could do it instead. And not just former frontliners, but the guy who runs the payroll or writes the rosters.

And what happens to them if there is an incident? Do they just go back to their former positions or do they carry the same potential consequences as regular guards might face? Then there is the thorny question of exactly what sort of contingency it is that they are expected to cover. Is it only for industrial action or can they be called in at short notice on a normal day to cover non-availability? All of these are the sorts of questions and concerns I would expect to hear.

Such a non-issue. Most TOCs train up contingency guards with absoutely no problems. It allows those ex frontline staff to keep their eye in and very useful for other staff to get an experience (and suitable training) of what it is that the core staff do daily.

A non-issue you say...?

If we were only talking about former frontliners then I'm sure there would be no issue, but it appears that this is not the case. As for other staff getting a taste of the frontline, I'm sure they could come out and see whenever they like. But there's a world of difference between the back office staff having an day out to experience what traincrew do and them taking trains out on their own with the full weight of responsibility on their shoulders.

As a driver I should be extremely nervous about working with one of these guys. No disrespect to them on a personal level, but I would want to be sure that they know exactly what it is that they are responsible for doing, especially in the event that the train is involved in an incident. I know that I can trust a regular guard, but I think I'd be asking some pertinent questions before we set sail and then keeping an eye on what they are doing as we went along.

I would hope that there has been a bit more than just a medical carried out on any potential candidates. These people really need to be subjected to the same level of selection, training and assessment as a regular guard in order to show their compliance with the CMS. Any shortfall in this should preclude them from becoming a contingent guard. I am not privy to what has been happening behind closed doors with regard to this, but I am watching with great interest. Certainly I am not aware of any candidates being passed-out on the road as yet, so I have to wonder what state of readiness they are in.

 

[muz379]

You're making a huge leap to staff "standing up for their terms & conditions" by training up other rail staff who have full-time jobs and probably have no interest becoming full-time guards because otherwise that's what they'd be doing!

I do often wonder if the volunteers who often pop up during these disputes realise that they are essentially pointing out to senior management that their day job isnt as essential as prerviously thought .

Or some sort of other dispute? Or a major shortage due to an unforeseen factor? Or perhaps everything isn't nefarious at your "big, evil TOC" and "contingency" is exactly what it means - a backup or a fall back for "just in case". It would be rather remiss of a major public transport operator to not have some sort of system in place to keep the job running for a whole host of reasons (one of which might be an industrial dispute outside its control).

If this was the case the TOC could say so surely ? We all know and understand that there are contingency plans , although with something like XC with the amount of diversionary route knowledge it wouldnt be easy or even plausible to keep a fully trained contingency ready to keep the job going anyway .

 

[brick60000]

I do often wonder if the volunteers who often pop up during these disputes realise that they are essentially pointing out to senior management that their day job isnt as essential as prerviously thought .



If this was the case the TOC could say so surely ? We all know and understand that there are contingency plans , although with something like XC with the amount of diversionary route knowledge it wouldnt be easy or even plausible to keep a fully trained contingency ready to keep the job going anyway .

I think there’s a big difference between a job not being essential, and it not being business critical.

For instance - your LTP planners might be able to have a week working as a contingent. But they are still business critical as you won’t be able to have a business without them in the long run!!

 

[PupCuff]

I think there’s a big difference between a job not being essential, and it not being business critical.

For instance - your LTP planners might be able to have a week working as a contingent. But they are still business critical as you won’t be able to have a business without them in the long run!!

Aye. Nature of many railway management roles is there's lots of shuffling around of diaries based on what the business priorities are this week (or, one might cynically say, this hour). How much day job can be allowed to 'give' to keep the train service running is one for the very high ups to be honest. If you're told to park work for a week because you're needed elsewhere (whether that be working trains, a training course, etc etc) then you're just going to have a week's worth of work to come back to and everything - or certainly the low priority stuff - will be delayed by a week until you catch up.

 

[Horizon22]

A non-issue you say...?

If we were only talking about former frontliners then I'm sure there would be no issue, but it appears that this is not the case. As for other staff getting a taste of the frontline, I'm sure they could come out and see whenever they like. But there's a world of difference between the back office staff having an day out to experience what traincrew do and them taking trains out on their own with the full weight of responsibility on their shoulders.

As a driver I should be extremely nervous about working with one of these guys. No disrespect to them on a personal level, but I would want to be sure that they know exactly what it is that they are responsible for doing, especially in the event that the train is involved in an incident. I know that I can trust a regular guard, but I think I'd be asking some pertinent questions before we set sail and then keeping an eye on what they are doing as we went along.

I would hope that there has been a bit more than just a medical carried out on any potential candidates. These people really need to be subjected to the same level of selection, training and assessment as a regular guard in order to show their compliance with the CMS. Any shortfall in this should preclude them from becoming a contingent guard. I am not privy to what has been happening behind closed doors with regard to this, but I am watching with great interest. Certainly I am not aware of any candidates being passed-out on the road as yet, so I have to wonder what state of readiness they are in.

Yes absoutely not a major issue. If someone is given the core and required training and is signed off with the TOC's safety case. I evidently don't mean them having a jolly out and about on trains. Where I've seen contingencies (this include dispatch as well as guards) they are subject to regular monitoring and assessment periods and it is drummed in very often the risks of not doing the role day-in-day-out and how to mitigate that approriately.

People seem to think this isn't done stringently but in my experience it is anything but done with upmost professionalism for safety-critical standards. Now Southern's contingency OBS's were definitely more hit and miss, but they weren't safety-critical after all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2022 ==

I do often wonder if the volunteers who often pop up during these disputes realise that they are essentially pointing out to senior management that their day job isnt as essential as prerviously thought .

As others have said, there is a difference between short-term assistance or covering gaps as they arise (after offering the opportunity to all those in the grade first) and medium term withdrawal from their substantive roles.

 

[Watershed]

I do often wonder if the volunteers who often pop up during these disputes realise that they are essentially pointing out to senior management that their day job isnt as essential as prerviously thought .

There is a difference between essential and urgent. It's essential that you MOT your car before it expires, but it's not urgent until the day before! Equally, just because someone mostly does essential but non-urgent work, that doesn't mean their role can be eliminated.

Contingency guards etc. will often be working overtime to undertake the roles in question. Meaning that there is no deterioration in their ability to do their day to day work.

Whilst I appreciate the uncertainty that lots of TMs and Senior Conductors may be feeling at the moment, if the public knew what was really behind this I doubt they would support the industrial action. Not that that particularly matters to the RMT!

 

[Horizon22]

There is a difference between essential and urgent. It's essential that you MOT your car before it expires, but it's not urgent until the day before! Equally, just because someone mostly does essential but non-urgent work, that doesn't mean their role can be eliminated.

Contingency guards etc. will often be working overtime to undertake the roles in question. Meaning that there is no deterioration in their ability to do their day to day work.

Whilst I appreciate the uncertainty that lots of TMs and Senior Conductors may be feeling at the moment, if the public knew what was really behind this I doubt they would support the industrial action. Not that that particularly matters to the RMT!

Not to mention senior management are generally fairly supportive of those that wish to volunteer as contingency staff and go through the training.

 

[muz379]

I think there’s a big difference between a job not being essential, and it not being business critical.

For instance - your LTP planners might be able to have a week working as a contingent. But they are still business critical as you won’t be able to have a business without them in the long run!!

Fair point , on reflection whilst I appreciate the word essential was probably not the best I wonder what impact there could he on other grades that are advertising that they can spend the week doing something else . Suddenly you might find rather than a team of 4 or 5 ltp planners you have 2 or 3 and an increased workload.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2022 ==

Not to mention senior management are generally fairly supportive of those that wish to volunteer as contingency staff and go through the training.

I'm sure they are . Doesn't mean they favour one group of junior staff over another though.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes absolutely not a major issue. If someone is given the core and required training and is signed off with the TOC's safety case.

That's all predicated on an "if".

Someone further up-thread floated the number of staff having been selected as 90. Frankly I would be shocked if there was that number of staff working in the back office in total (clearly there's some scope for some cost-saving redundancies if this number is even close to being correct), so if that number is anywhere near accurate it would suggest that they've trained everyone to act as a contingent guard. That being the case, I would have to wonder how they've decided that every single one of these otherwise fine folk are suitable for safety critical work. I find it hard to believe that had they applied for real jobs as guards that there would have been such a high rate of employment and feel confident that at least half of them would have fallen by the wayside for various reasons.

Now I appreciate that this is no less speculative than what you've said in support of your premise. However, the fact that there is still an ongoing dispute would suggest that just maybe there is something causing concern to my rear-facing colleagues that we are not privy to, something that is to them a major issue worth going on strike over. That whatever this is has not been communicated publicly is neither here nor there, but clearly there are still concerns.

Where I've seen contingencies (this include dispatch as well as guards) they are subject to regular monitoring and assessment periods and it is drummed in very often the risks of not doing the role day-in-day-out and how to mitigate that approriately.

People seem to think this isn't done stringently but in my experience it is anything but done with upmost professionalism for safety-critical standards.

That's your experience. Mine is slightly different. As mentioned already, I have yet to see any contingent guards being passed out. I would also refer back to the debacle that happened on GA when contingent guards were deployed in lieu of striking guards. It was so bad that it earned the TOC a censure from the regulator and required them to take remedial action to prevent any repeat.

Maybe my experience is colouring my view, but then maybe your experience is colouring yours too. The point remains that, even though your experience appears to have been positive, it does not mean that it will be replicated in every situation. Of course I am aware of what should happen and what the CMS demands, and that is why this whole issue is ringing alarm bells with me.

 

[brick60000]

That's all predicated on an "if".

Someone further up-thread floated the number of staff having been selected as 90. Frankly I would be shocked if there was that number of staff working in the back office in total (clearly there's some scope for some cost-saving redundancies if this number is even close to being correct), so if that number is anywhere near accurate it would suggest that they've trained everyone to act as a contingent guard. That being the case, I would have to wonder how they've decided that every single one of these otherwise fine folk are suitable for safety critical work. I find it hard to believe that had they applied for real jobs as guards that there would have been such a high rate of employment and feel confident that at least half of them would have fallen by the wayside for various reasons.

Now I appreciate that this is no less speculative than what you've said in support of your premise. However, the fact that there is still an ongoing dispute would suggest that just maybe there is something causing concern to my rear-facing colleagues that we are not privy to, something that is to them a major issue worth going on strike over. That whatever this is has not been communicated publicly is neither here nor there, but clearly there are still concerns.



That's your experience. Mine is slightly different. As mentioned already, I have yet to see any contingent guards being passed out. I would also refer back to the debacle that happened on GA when contingent guards were deployed in lieu of striking guards. It was so bad that it earned the TOC a censure from the regulator and required them to take remedial action to prevent any repeat.

Maybe my experience is colouring my view, but then maybe your experience is colouring yours too. The point remains that, even though your experience appears to have been positive, it does not mean that it will be replicated in every situation. Of course I am aware of what should happen and what the CMS demands, and that is why this whole issue is ringing alarm bells with me.

I’m sorry but the first part of your reply is completely ridiculous.

Do you have any idea on the scale of a back office staff that is required to keep a TOC in operation?

Planning teams are going to take you up in the 20s, and that’s just for an average sized TOC. Add in your resourcing teams. HR, customer relations, driver managers, conductor managers (though these will likely already have competency), exec teams, heads of, ICT support, commercial, marketing. You are easily going to reach 90, and more for a TOC the size of XC.

 

[O L Leigh]

I’m sorry but the first part of your reply is completely ridiculous.

Do you have any idea on the scale of a back office staff that is required to keep a TOC in operation?

Planning teams are going to take you up in the 20s, and that’s just for an average sized TOC. Add in your resourcing teams. HR, customer relations, driver managers, conductor managers (though these will likely already have competency), exec teams, heads of, ICT support, commercial, marketing. You are easily going to reach 90, and more for a TOC the size of XC.

Better than that. I've been inside XC HQ, and there isn't even space for 90 folk in there (and they also act as Control for GC as well as XC).

OK, so lets say that there's twice that number. What's the expected pass rate for a guards recruitment program? How many candidates would you expect to need in order to yield 90 trained guards?

 

[brick60000]

Better than that. I've been inside XC HQ, and there isn't even space for 90 folk in there (and they also act as Control for GC as well as XC).

OK, so lets say that there's twice that number. What's the expected pass rate for a guards recruitment program? How many candidates would you expect to need in order to yield 90 trained guards?

Back office staff does not just include HQ staff. XC will (and does) have other office locations - including those at New Street and other train crew locations where non-train crew staff work.

I can’t give specifics on the numbers, simply because I don’t know. I also can’t comment on the specifics of the contingent program at XC, because I don’t know.

 

[O L Leigh]

Back office staff does not just include HQ staff. XC will (and does) have other office locations - including those at New Street and other train crew locations where non-train crew staff work.

Yes I am aware of that. But the majority of those are traincrew managers who will have existing competencies and therefore outwardly non-contentious.

It's really only New Street that's of any appreciable size, as a lot of depots may only have one or two managers or will share management functions between them. Therefore, the majority of the heavy lifting with regard to whatever the true numbers are is coming from HQ and from staff with no pre-existing competencies.