Is the railway in general top heavy with managers?

[tbtc]

I don't know how many "Managers" would be the optimal amount - I think that some people like the idea of just having a "Fat Controller" in charge and everyone else in the industry being a "Proper Railway Man"!

Really thought there are managers for many reason. Partly, to enable frontline staff to focus on doing their actual jobs (e.g. I want Nurses and Teachers to focus on Nursing and Teaching rather than bureaucracy)...

...plus it's cheaper than giving people a proper pay rise...

...and it's a good way of convincing members of the public that they are getting better customer service (e.g. if you get someone ranting on the phone, they'll often be placated if they get to speak to a "manager", they feel that their enquiry is being taken more seriously, they feel special because they assume there must be some gravitas to the person dealing with them)

The alternative is the kind of Richard Littlejohn approach where you belittle anyone having a job title that suggest that they are better than you feel they ought to be, the kind of rant that complains about "Bin Men" becoming "Refuse Collectors" (because these plebs should know their place and just accept a fairly basic job title, with no pretensions).

I'm all for calling people "manager" - in a railway that employs thousands of people, of course a lot of people will do some "management" as part of their role - if it improves staff satisfaction (by making them feel more valued/important) and improves passenger satisfaction (by giving the impression that they are dealing with someone significant) then it's a small price to pay. We should have more managers!

The railway in general is top heavy with managers. Email yesterday about Northern vacancies, everyone bar one was a management grade

This could be because "Managers" often have transferrable skills, so those kind of jobs will see people joining from outside the rail industry (e.g. you could have worked in HR or Accounting in a whole different business but still be doing a similar role to jobs in the rail industry), so staff turnover in those kind of roles will be fairly fluid...

...whereas a lot of "frontline" rail staff will stick to the same kind of job (Driver, Guard, Signalmen/women), so there aren't going to be so many vacancies cropping up on a regular basis, rather than evidence that there are significantly more "Chiefs" than "Indians"

 

[London 10101]

The people must be goverened!

 

[E502]

Are there?
Are you including the MOMs in that list?
(See point above)

That's not including MOM's (!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2020 ==

Not sure what you are implying there, you have 4 managers or there are 4 management posts for every signaller post? That ratio will likely only increase as resignalling occurs.

4 management posts for every signaller post...

 

[The Planner]

4 management posts for every signaller post...

Not sure what the issue is with that, with a workforce of over 35000 you would expect it.

 

[carriageline]

That's not including MOM's (!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2020 ==


4 management posts for every signaller post...

Again, that’s just a really pointless statistic.

I would understand if NR was purely about signallers, but frankly it isn’t! Projects, engineering, the DUs, HQ, HR, finance, train planning, access planning are all massive beasts on their own.

Whilst I do agree with your point, when looking at the PPF documents, it’s crazy how many managers there are, especially the seniorbands.

Im a strong believer that we need more “operational” managers. Find a half decent LOM, and ask them if it’s a Mon-Fri, 35 hour week job! I know a few decent LOMs that do double that, and still can’t get their work done.

 

[43066]

Again, that’s just a really pointless statistic.

I would understand if NR was purely about signallers, but frankly it isn’t! Projects, engineering, the DUs, HQ, HR, finance, train planning, access planning are all massive beasts on their own.

Whilst I do agree with your point, when looking at the PPF documents, it’s crazy how many managers there are, especially the seniorbands.

Im a strong believer that we need more “operational” managers. Find a half decent LOM, and ask them if it’s a Mon-Fri, 35 hour week job! I know a few decent LOMs that do double that, and still can’t get their work done.

As someone commented up thread “manager” for most people probably means someone who has people reporting into them, rather than doing a purely operational job, so I don’t think MOMs would count. The person the MOMs report into would.

 

[Mag_seven]

The perception that the industry is "top heavy" with managers has a lot to do with job grading. Many specialist and engineering posts for example are classified as "management grade" (for remuneration and employee benefits purposes) despite the fact that many posts in those areas won't have people reporting to them.

I seem to have detected a slight "chip" that some front line staff have about managers. I would like those front line staff to consider this: when you reach the end of your shift, that is it - its "down tools" and off home to your families. You do not need to worry about your job until you sign on next. People in management posts don't have that luxury. Many are expected to have their mobile phones switched on at all times and are expected to respond to urgent emails even when they have supposedly "left the office". Their contracts also typically have clauses that state they must work "whatever hours are required to get the job done effectively", even if a "37 hour week" or whatever is also specified.

 

[LowLevel]

The perception that the industry is "top heavy" with managers has a lot to do with job grading. Many specialist and engineering posts for example are classified as "management grade" (for remuneration and employee benefits purposes) despite the fact that many posts in those areas won't have people reporting to them.

I seem to have detected a slight "chip" that some front line staff have about managers. I would like those front line staff to consider this: when you reach the end of your shift, that is it - its "down tools" and off home to your families. You do not need to worry about your job until you sign on next. People in management posts don't have that luxury. Many are expected to have their mobile phones switched on at all times and are expected to respond to urgent emails even when they have supposedly "left the office". Their contracts also typically have clauses that state they must work "whatever hours are required to get the hob done effectively", even if a "37 hour week" or whatever is also specified.

I think the latter is well understood by operational staff in the industry even if little regard is paid to it. The perception is that if you become a (starting level) manager you take home less money, have worse conditions, and lose your personal freedom being required to toe the company line to a greater or lesser degree, whereas say traincrew or signallers provided they follow the rules are relatively autonomous and not directly supervised.

Apart from the pay cut required to become a manager, all of the above is further reason that I have no interest in it despite having had enquiries as to whether I'd be interested in applying for vacancies a few times over the years.

Of course trade offs are trade offs - if I was to become a manager I would never have been stranded with a train load of angry passengers for 3 hours, 2 hours away from home, on the last bit of my job. At least I got paid the overtime

 

[lordbusiness]

In my experience there are some management jobs in my company where you really do wonder what they actually do all day, These tend to be in the HQ functions far away from delivering the service (Innovations Manager? Leadership Development Manager?)
Closer to the frontline it's the opposite, I work on average 50 hours a week- sometimes more but am paid to work for 37.5. No overtime and about a third of what I do doesn't appear on my JD. If I didn't do it no one would. This is the same for most of my colleagues.

Did I mention zero job security as well?

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm still trying to work out where this "4 managers for every signaller" comes from.
Our line had 7 Boxes, so say 36 signallers, so that would mean 138 managers. I don't think so!! We actually had 1 LOM to deal with all of us.

I'm beginning to think someone has a chip on their shoulder for some reason.

 

[185]

OP: "manager of no consequence"

Shouldn't have put that ...no doubt one train company will introduce a job role with that actual title.

 

[43066]

I think the latter is well understood by operational staff in the industry even if little regard is paid to it. The perception is that if you become a (starting level) manager you take home less money, have worse conditions, and lose your personal freedom being required to toe the company line to a greater or lesser degree, whereas say traincrew or signallers provided they follow the rules are relatively autonomous and not directly supervised.

Apart from the pay cut required to become a manager, all of the above is further reason that I have no interest in it despite having had enquiries as to whether I'd be interested in applying for vacancies a few times over the years.

Of course trade offs are trade offs - if I was to become a manager I would never have been stranded with a train load of angry passengers for 3 hours, 2 hours away from home, on the last bit of my job. At least I got paid the overtime

Yep I’d agree with all of the above. Going into management isn’t really seen as a “promotion” in this industry in the way it is elsewhere. Sadly that can lead to some becoming managers for the wrong reasons - ie because they want to get away from shift work, or enjoy throwing their weight around, rather than wanting to develop people etc.

I also have no interest in it. Actually it has all the appeal of a cup of cold sick! The autonomy (and decent pay and job security) are what attracts many to jobs in this industry, myself included, and if I wanted the aggro of managing people, and being expected to do unpaid overtime (I’ve done both!), I’d never had joined up.

If earnings was a factor, I suppose the basic is a little higher, but it’s a five day week, and there’s no overtime available. You’d also have to be a very senior manager to earn as much as a driver could take home for doing a five day week. I imagine it’s the same for guards.