London underground strike

[notadriver]

It's unfortunate tube driving is seen as easy because some lines have Automatic Train Operation.

Whilst on the underground it seems a good number of grades pay more than a train operator ( it seems this is quite similar on the trams systems too), is if true these can sometimes drive trains ? I know in the case of trams, revenue staff, office staff can all drive trams making any strikes ineffective.

Certainly at most main line train companies drivers are paid more than all except senior managers. That includes signallers, engineers and station managers.

 

[Daniel]

Whilst on the underground it seems a good number of grades pay more than a train operator ( it seems this is quite similar on the trams systems too), is if true these can sometimes drive trains ? I know in the case of trams, revenue staff, office staff can all drive trams making any strikes ineffective.

Very few can, and with those who are licensed it is generally as an emergency operator only, so wouldn't cover strike action.

 

[chris11256]

Just seen on BBC news. Several tube drivers have been sent home without pay after refusing to take out trains, claiming safety checks have not been carried out. TFL dispute this saying that in some cases managers are carrying out the appropriate checks.

Further details here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33691379

 

[455driver]

Are the Managers actually trained and competent to carry out these checks?

I know of several instances where Managers have had 5 minutes 'training' and are then classed as competent whereas in actual fact they don't know anything about what it is they are supposed to be competent in but the paperwork says they do!

This trick does seem to be happening more and more during strikes/disputes and needs sorting out because it is wrong and potentially dangerous.

 

[A-driver]

Just seen on BBC news. Several tube drivers have been sent home without pay after refusing to take out trains, claiming safety checks have not been carried out. TFL dispute this saying that in some cases managers are carrying out the appropriate checks.



Further details here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33691379

I know all the anti unionists on here will jump on me for this but how can TfL hope to resolve anything with this attitude? They are gunning for war with the unions and at a time when they should be concentrating on meaningful discussion and negotiation with the workforce they are instead refusing to budge on their position and refusing to talk to the unions whilst then throwing petrol onto the fire by sending drivers home. Absolutely pathetic and no way to run a business or maintain industrial relations. LUL are quite clearly boris' puppets putting his political agender above trying to provide a mass transport system.

 

[chris11256]

From a passenger point of view I just want this whole spat to be over.
Personally I don't care for the night tube. Living outside of London means that my NR service ends by 01:00 anyway.

Of course the main factor being that I'd rather not have to walk 4 1/2 miles to work next week.

 

[infobleep]

Just seen on BBC news. Several tube drivers have been sent home without pay after refusing to take out trains, claiming safety checks have not been carried out. TFL dispute this saying that in some cases managers are carrying out the appropriate checks.

Further details here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33691379

Does anyone know if this has lead to the cancellation of tube services this afternoon?

Steve Griffiths, LU's chief operating officer, said: "Safety is never compromised and the safety of our customers and staff is our top priority at all times.

Is Steve Griffiths lying when he says safety is never compromised?

 

[455driver]

Does anyone know if this has lead to the cancellation of tube services this afternoon?



Is Steve Griffiths lying when he says safety is never compromised?

To coin a well known phrase-

You can always tell when he is lying, his lips move!

Disclaimer for the terminally serious-
This is meant as humour so please treat it as such!

 

[chris11256]

Does anyone know if this has lead to the cancellation of tube services this afternoon?

There were delays on the District line(Edgware Road-Wimbledon) this morning because of 'a lack of available trains'. But not sure about this afternoon.

 

[Mojo]

There were delays on the District line(Edgware Road-Wimbledon) this morning because of 'a lack of available trains'. But not sure about this afternoon.

It is mainly only affecting the Subsurface lines (but in theory could affect any line) and is as a result of the overtime ban, meaning that there are insufficient staff in the depots to "prep" a train.

The biggest impact will be in the mornings because of the number of trains coming into service. Taking the District line for example, 75 trains enter service in the morning, whereas only 14 start in the afternoon, and 2 at night.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Do we know if this week's strike is going ahead or not?

 

[A-driver]

Do we know if this week's strike is going ahead or not?

At the moment it is certainly on but talks are still ongoing.

 

[Mojo]

Another offer was made today.

 

[Robertj21a]

I know all the anti unionists on here will jump on me for this but how can TfL hope to resolve anything with this attitude? They are gunning for war with the unions and at a time when they should be concentrating on meaningful discussion and negotiation with the workforce they are instead refusing to budge on their position and refusing to talk to the unions whilst then throwing petrol onto the fire by sending drivers home. Absolutely pathetic and no way to run a business or maintain industrial relations. LUL are quite clearly boris' puppets putting his political agender above trying to provide a mass transport system.

Not intending to 'jump on you' but I need an explanation for why you take the view that it's 'TfL....... with this attitude'. Why is TfL at fault - why can't it be that some of the drivers are just being plain awkward ? Why do all the staff automatically assume that TfL/managers etc are always in the wrong ?

 

[A-driver]

Not intending to 'jump on you' but I need an explanation for why you take the view that it's 'TfL....... with this attitude'. Why is TfL at fault - why can't it be that some of the drivers are just being plain awkward ? Why do all the staff automatically assume that TfL/managers etc are always in the wrong ?

Because TfLs own rules state that unless a train has been preped by an authorised member of staff then it can not enter service. If a driver knowingly enters service with an unprepped train and an incident results from it then the driver will be held fully accountable for this. But now that they don't have enough staff to prep on time due to the industrial action TfL have decided that Infact any driver who obeys their rules about not entering service with an unprepped train will be sent home without pay. I can't see how that is staff being awkward unless I've missed something?

Either decision the driver makes has potential for disciplinary action.

 

[Wolfie]

Because TfLs own rules state that unless a train has been preped by an authorised member of staff then it can not enter service. If a driver knowingly enters service with an unprepped train and an incident results from it then the driver will be held fully accountable for this. But now that they don't have enough staff to prep on time due to the industrial action TfL have decided that Infact any driver who obeys their rules about not entering service with an unprepped train will be sent home without pay. I can't see how that is staff being awkward unless I've missed something?

Either decision the driver makes has potential for disciplinary action.

If what you say is fully correct (as opposed to missing out detail for simplicity - l don't doubt you) a grievance for unlawful deduction of pay followed if necessary by an Employment Tribunal would be MOST interesting... ASLEF may have missed a trick...

 

[Dent]

Because TfLs own rules state that unless a train has been preped by an authorised member of staff then it can not enter service. If a driver knowingly enters service with an unprepped train and an incident results from it then the driver will be held fully accountable for this. But now that they don't have enough staff to prep on time due to the industrial action TfL have decided that Infact any driver who obeys their rules about not entering service with an unprepped train will be sent home without pay. I can't see how that is staff being awkward unless I've missed something?

Either decision the driver makes has potential for disciplinary action.

According to the second paragraph of the article, "London Underground (LU) has countered that and said the trains are being prepared safely", so TfL's own rules had been satisfied.

 

[455driver]

According to the second paragraph of the article, "London Underground (LU) has countered that and said the trains are being prepared safely", so TfL's own rules had been satisfied.

Yeah they have the bit of paper with the signature on to say they are competent (just like the FGW Managers had during the recent strike) but that doesn't mean they are competent!

Off topic-

A few FGW drivers said that they would question any managers (working as guards) about the traction and route they were about to work over, but were told in no uncertain terms that there would be repercussions if they did!

I wonder if similar 'discussions' have taken place here?

 

[A-driver]

If what you say is fully correct (as opposed to missing out detail for simplicity - l don't doubt you) a grievance for unlawful deduction of pay followed if necessary by an Employment Tribunal would be MOST interesting... ASLEF may have missed a trick...

The issues are with who has done the prep and if they are actually qualified and doing the job properly.

 

[455driver]

If what you say is fully correct (as opposed to missing out detail for simplicity - l don't doubt you) a grievance for unlawful deduction of pay followed if necessary by an Employment Tribunal would be MOST interesting... ASLEF may have missed a trick...

If you took your car to the main dealer for a service and MOT would you be happy if they looked round and said that due to staff sickness your car had been done by the receptionist but it's okay because they have got a signed certificate to say they can do the work?

That is similar to the situation on the Underground with these Managers doing the preps, do we know who these Managers normally manage?

 

[Dent]

Yeah they have the bit of paper with the signature on to say they are competent (just like the FGW Managers had during the recent strike) but that doesn't mean they are competent!

It means that they have satisfied whoever issued the certificate that they are competent. If TfL are satisfied that they are competent then TfL's rules have been met, and the situation described in Post 105 does not apply.

 

[chris11256]

For those on this forum that are directly impacted by the night tube rostering. What would it actually take to resolve the dispute? We keep being told it's not about the money. So I'm assuming it's a matter of clearing up the rostering and the number of weekends people actually work?

 

[455driver]

It means that they have satisfied whoever issued the certificate that they are competent. If TfL are satisfied that they are competent then TfL's rules have been met, and the situation described in Post 105 does not apply.

So Steve issues Bills certificate and Bill issues Steves certificate, job done!
You can't see any problem with that?
These are people that have nothing to do with trains in their normal working day but have taken 10 minutes to complete the whole course on prepping trains and fill all the paperwork in.

You are far more trusting than I or a lot of other people are.

All names are fictitious and any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For those on this forum that are directly impacted by the night tube rostering. What would it actually take to resolve the dispute? We keep being told it's not about the money. So I'm assuming it's a matter of clearing up the rostering and the number of weekends people actually work?

A counter question,
You work in a job where you will finish work by midnight and have every 3rd weekend off, but Management decide they are going to start running services through the night without consultation with any of the people who will actually be working the train, and then try to impose new rosters that include these night turns.

What would it take for you to start working these night shifts bearing in mind it means you will be working more weekend as well?

 

[chris11256]

For me personally as long as it wasn't an extra turn. So for example if I was doing a Friday & Saturday night, but got time off in the week, i wouldn't mind.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[455driver]

For me personally as long as it wasn't an extra turn. So for example if I was doing a Friday & Saturday night, but got time off in the week, i wouldn't mind.

I hope this makes sense.

These are extra trains so extra shifts are needed to cover them, still interested.
What I have heard (so it might be a pile of poop) is that it is proposed that the drivers would only get a weekend off every 4 weeks instead of every 3. I have looked into the number of extra drivers required to work these night trains and that doesn't add up.

 

[chris11256]

These are extra trains so extra shifts are needed to cover them, still interested.
What I have heard (so it might be a pile of poop) is that it is proposed that the drivers would only get a weekend off every 4 weeks instead of every 3. I have looked into the number of extra drivers required to work these night trains and that doesn't add up.

I'm probably the wrong person to talk about this. In my current IT position I work the vast majority of Saturdays 8-4. So if I suddenly jumped ship to LU and was told to work weekends, I probably wouldn't mind. But that's only because I'm so used to working nearly every weekend anyway.

I know I've completely contradicted myself, but this is what I'd do personally.

 

[A-driver]

For me personally as long as it wasn't an extra turn. So for example if I was doing a Friday & Saturday night, but got time off in the week, i wouldn't mind.

I hope this makes sense.

Well you, personally, most probably don't have family who work 9-5 etc like many tube staff who will see far less of them and are facing a big lifestyle change forced upon them without the basic courtesy of consultation.

I'm probably the wrong person to talk about this. In my current IT position I work the vast majority of Saturdays 8-4. So if I suddenly jumped ship to LU and was told to work weekends, I probably wouldn't mind. But that's only because I'm so used to working nearly every weekend anyway.

This isn't about jumping ship though. This is about people already employed by a company being forced to start working far more weekends and nights disrupting family life, child care, work life balance etc.

Of course things move on and 24hour running an only be a good thing. But you need to engage in dialogue with your staff to sort out how staffing is going to work so that managment get the service they want and staff don't have a huge lifestyle change. You don't just go in like a dictator and demand staff now follow this new roster with zero consultation.

 

[chris11256]

Well you, personally, most probably don't have family who work 9-5 etc like many tube staff who will see far less of them and are facing a big lifestyle change forced upon them without the basic courtesy of consultation.




This isn't about jumping ship though. This is about people already employed by a company being forced to start working far more weekends and nights disrupting family life, child care, work life balance etc.

Of course things move on and 24hour running an only be a good thing. But you need to engage in dialogue with your staff to sort out how staffing is going to work so that managment get the service they want and staff don't have a huge lifestyle change. You don't just go in like a dictator and demand staff now follow this new roster with zero consultation.

That's the challenge isn't it. How do you persuade people, who rightly enjoy weekends for family/other reasons, to suddenly work weekends that they really don't want to work? There's only so many ways you can dress up the fact that someone will be working Friday/Saturday all night.

But you're right. I don't have kids and my partner is starting her final year of University, so I only get to visit on a rare weekend off.

 

[455driver]

I'm probably the wrong person to talk about this. In my current IT position I work the vast majority of Saturdays 8-4. So if I suddenly jumped ship to LU and was told to work weekends, I probably wouldn't mind. But that's only because I'm so used to working nearly every weekend anyway.

I know I've completely contradicted myself, but this is what I'd do personally.

What if your current employer said they were changing your Friday and Saturday shifts from 08:00-16:00 to 21:00-05:00 how would you feel?

Taking a job on knowing there are nights involved is one thing, but taking a job on which doesn't have nights and then several years later being told you will soon be working nights is rather different.

 

[A-driver]

That's the challenge isn't it. How do you persuade people, who rightly enjoy weekends for family/other reasons, to suddenly work weekends that they really don't want to work? There's only so many ways you can dress up the fact that someone will be working Friday/Saturday all night.

But you're right. I don't have kids and my partner is starting her final year of University, so I only get to visit on a rare weekend off.

It is a challenge. And it's the kind of challenge that managers and HR departments are paid to take. Thing is that they havnt in this case. Largely, I suspect, as they are very keen to wind the unions up as much as possible for political gain but that's a slightly separate discussion.

No one who works for LUL or the unions is against the idea of 24hour running or any kind of progress. The needs of a business will change in any industry and that requires new working arrangements from employees. The issue here is that rather than speaking to the unions months or even years ago when the proposals were first announced to the public, TfL have refused to enter into any meaningful discussion regarding the night running and at the last minute forced the staff to work to a new roster with no consultation. As far as I can see this is either a case of very, very stupid managers who are completely clueless in all things industrial relations or it's a case of management deliberately trying to provoke its workforce into a major industrial dispute partly for political gain from an openly anti union mayor trying to impress an anti Union PM and because management are concerned that the 24hour service is not possible and are keen to deflect the blame.