notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,734
Where do they go mate? FCC pay well - excellent t&cs 
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
FCC Drivers - no Sunday working
- Thread starter CockneySparrow
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Where do they go mate? FCC pay well - excellent t&cs
Most retire...some go to east coast, emt, move to other parts of the country or move to other depots.
Dosnt help that some depots have loads of vacancies which they won't fill. But most at the moment retire.
Why should it cost any more ?
If you work any five days out of seven they are all paid at the same rate
It would cost more because you would need more drivers! :roll:
If Sundays were brought into the working week (they already are at SWT
) then when a driver is booked to work on a Sunday they would have a different day off that week, who is going to work that shift which is now uncovered?When Sundays are outside they are overtime, so the drivers are effectively working an extra day that week (5 days instead of 4), if Sundays were inside the working week it would not be done as overtime but as a normal day, so there would be that days shift to cover.
Basically (assuming drivers would work 1 Sunday in 4) then you would need 8% more staff than at present, thats 8% more national insurance, 8% more pension, 8% more sick pay, but about the same amount of tax. If more Sundays were worked then it would cost more.
Do you see why TOCs dont want it?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Indeed. 8% more employee costs means 8% less dividends for the fat cats who run our train service.
Butts
Veteran Member
Are no employees also shareholders then ?
Hardly in the same league as the top shareholders...otherwise those of us in the share scheme wouldn't have to get out of bed at 3 in the morning to spend 10 hours driving trains about...
What is the point you are getting at? You are now just coming across as anti driver with no obvious reason.
Butts
Veteran Member
I'm not anti-driver at all , I just find some of the working practices somewhat dickensian. To rely on overtime to operate a scheduled sevice just seems ludicrous and wasteful.
How would you define a "top shareholder" ?
Due to engineering works it may make sense on the inner suburban services for about half the year either Hertford north or Welwyn routes is closed so number of drivers required varies and is not predictable
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
CockneySparrow
Member
It would cost more because you would need more drivers! :roll:
If Sundays were brought into the working week (they already are at SWT
When Sundays are outside they are overtime, so the drivers are effectively working an extra day that week (5 days instead of 4), if Sundays were inside the working week it would not be done as overtime but as a normal day, so there would be that days shift to cover.
Basically (assuming drivers would work 1 Sunday in 4) then you would need 8% more staff than at present, thats 8% more national insurance, 8% more pension, 8% more sick pay, but about the same amount of tax. If more Sundays were worked then it would cost more.
Do you see why TOCs dont want it?
No, figures will be near enough the same
The guy who doesn't work Sundays anymore on overtime would have less paid into his pension by FCC as his earnings will be lower, that then frees up money for the new guy, so all in all money is taken away from one and given to another
National Insurance payments will be lower for FCC with more staff, staff and companies only pay NI when the employee earns a certain amount a week currently that amount is around £180 a week then its a % on anything after that, which basically means the guy who did the overtime will be earning less so less NI is paid. The new guy has the £180 allowance before NI is paid per week so reality is FCC save NI on £180 per new employee and a couple of quid from the guy that used to do the overtime
Sick pay not a problem, most companies the size of FCC will have an insurance policy, if anything the premium might go up next year
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,734
What about the cost and time taken simply to train up a new driver?
As well as training: I'd have thought it'd mean more holiday pay, higher management cost (more drivers = greater management workload), more effort to keep route knowledge current, more safety briefs etc. If the aim is to ensure that there's always enough drivers to cover every diagram, every day - allowing for the possibly seasonal effects of annual leave, unpredictable nature of sickness and a longer term view of folk leaving the company, then I'd imagine you'd have a lot of drivers sitting around spare at 'quiet' times of the year too!
Another very temporary solution I have not seen mentioned would may be if available a DBS or GA driver who signs that route could conduct a FCC driver who knows the traction but not the route or would DBS drivers lack of familiarity of station stops prevent that idea
Last edited:
Irrespective of our take on this board, be it 8% extra or take off NI contributions for Sundays not worked, the simple facts remain. FTSE100 companies have been involved in the franchise process for long enough to have attempted Sundays as part of the working week across all grades. The fact that they have not done so speaks louder than any debate on a forum can ever achieve.
Let's not forget where FCC were with drivers four years ago this very week on the TL route. Emergency timetable in place for much of December and into the new year. For a company the size of "First" not to have done anything major with drivers T&Cs since then, again, speaks volumes.
Grid
Let's not forget where FCC were with drivers four years ago this very week on the TL route. Emergency timetable in place for much of December and into the new year. For a company the size of "First" not to have done anything major with drivers T&Cs since then, again, speaks volumes.
Grid
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,734
What does it mean ? Financially not viable ?
whoosh
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,884
No. The working week is an average of 35 hours for any four days Monday to Saturday. This pay is 'pensionable' - I.e. The employer and employee both contribute to the employee's pension.
Sundays are overtime and IN ADDITION to the working week. They do not form part of the 35 hour week, but are in addition to it. Overtime is NOT pensionable pay. The company or the employee do not pay any money from overtime into the pension fund.
Sorry but you are wrong- you have misunderstood how Sunday working works on FCC.
It's the same over all rail companies and done as it's the cheapest way for the TOCs, they have less staff and rely in overtime. It's not going to change anytime soon as it would cost too much with no benefit to the toc.
By top shareholder I am separating out staff who have purchased shares. I don't see what they have to do with anything.
You are rather living in fantasy land. If FCC have a driver shortage then how are they going to find extras who don't sign the route to be conducted? They would have to cancel other trains to free up staff. Plus other TOCs don't have spare drivers who can step in to conduct, not without cancelling their own services. On a route like kings Lynn- Cambridge the toc are more than happy with a bus as it's cheap to operate (cheaper infact than running the scheduled train service...)
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,734
Did someone say bus ? Let me have a go I could drive that
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
No, it is cheaper, much cheaper. Even paying time+50% is cheaper than training up new staff and having them on the payroll. Why do you think TOCs do it? Staff costs is one of the few overheads they have any control over.
Most companies rely on overtime to cover core business, they always have done. It means they are protected financially if their core business demand drops, because they don't have to pay out on redundancies; they just don't offer overtime.
Butts
Veteran Member
Come off it , is that not a bit of a "cop out" ?
Do employees receive shares on preferential terms - ie SAYE scheme or the like ?
If you don't believe in privatisation is it not a bit hypocritical to effectively be a part of it by utilising the share scheme.
A-Driver you are turning into a "fat kitten"
Come off it , is that not a bit of a "cop out" ?
Do employees receive shares on preferential terms - ie SAYE scheme or the like ?
If you don't believe in privatisation is it not a bit hypocritical to effectively be a part of it by utilising the share scheme.
A-Driver you are turning into a "fat kitten"
I have no idea what the FCC share system is, I don't buy shares and don't hold any in FCC, nor do many colleagues. There are some who do but I no little about it all.
But can you explain what shares and employee shares has got to do with Sunday working and rest day work as I can't see how it is at all relevant to the discussion?
And any employee who has shares makes far less money out of them than they do from their salary or overtime...
Butts
Veteran Member
Well you did mention "top shareholders" attempting to differentiate between them and ordinary shareholders. Most of the biggest are probably corporate entities and not individuals.
From what has transpired during the discussion I now understand a little more why the companies operate the way they do with regard to Sunday working.
Were you about in BR Days ?
Did they do the same with regard to Sundays ?
I wasn't there in BR days but they also had Sundays outside, I believe Saturdays were aswell, or at least extra was paid for weekend work.
I still don't understand what your point on shares is though, what have shareholders and employee shares got to do with rest days and Sundays?
Two issues here, first TOCs are desperate to reduce head count and the higher paid the heads the keener they are to keep numbers down. Its no just salaries, but the related on-costs including national insurance and final salary pensions. Therefore its cheaper for FCC and other TOCs to ask drivers to do overtime and/or work rest days that to employ more of them.
The problem comes when the TOC bases a scheduled service on the assumption that drivers will work over time or rest days. They cant force the drivers to do this and the travelling public suffer if those drivers decide only to work their standard hours.
Secondly, one of the ironies of rail privatisation (along with giving more powers to civil servants) is to increase ASLEFs bargaining power because when TOC A improves drivers pay and conditions, drivers in TOCs B, C, D, E, F etc demand (and get) the same
Perhaps not the outcome that nice Mr. Major hoped for?
The problem comes when the TOC bases a scheduled service on the assumption that drivers will work over time or rest days. They cant force the drivers to do this and the travelling public suffer if those drivers decide only to work their standard hours.
Secondly, one of the ironies of rail privatisation (along with giving more powers to civil servants) is to increase ASLEFs bargaining power because when TOC A improves drivers pay and conditions, drivers in TOCs B, C, D, E, F etc demand (and get) the same
Perhaps not the outcome that nice Mr. Major hoped for?
Overtime is not pensionable!
Shhhh...stop spoiling a good rant by getting in the way with facts...
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,734
I've always found the effects of privatization interesting as it's meant to lessen the power of unions as it did to bus drivers whose pay, terms and conditions dropped. Why did one group go one way and the other the opposite ?
Mainly because bus drivers are cheaper to train than train drivers, and outside agencies can easily train up bus drivers as anyone can buy a bus and drive it on the road. Only TOCs can train up train drivers as you need access to mainline trains and railways to do so.
BigBird47537
Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 8
With reference to some of the comments saying that other TOC's/FOC's could step in & help out. Most companies have a policy where you can only route conduct if you actually sign the traction. Also, it is not as easy as it sounds just to hire in other drivers to cover when short, agreements have to be negotiated with the unions & it is frowned upon if another company was to help out thus eliminating overtime for the existing employees.
Going back to an ealier comment I made regarding Rest Day Working, how come companies that don't have a problem retaining staff eg. Virgin, are still working their Rest Days? I feel it should be up to the individual to work or not & ASLEF should keep their noses out.
Going back to an ealier comment I made regarding Rest Day Working, how come companies that don't have a problem retaining staff eg. Virgin, are still working their Rest Days? I feel it should be up to the individual to work or not & ASLEF should keep their noses out.
ASLEF are against overtime at the cost if jobs as any trade union would be. That is their position. It's up to individuals if they work overtime though, the union can't stop that happening. But where drivers stick with the union a deal can be reached which benefits the drivers.
- Status