Northern rail strike ?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You may have misunderstood. The passengers had started their journeys, but I understand the concern to relate to passengers arriving at a Manchester station with a ticket to Manchester CTLZ (0451) and having their tickets taken under the misconception that they had no further validity, even though they are valid to certain tram stops.

If this happens, who can such passengers see to immediately report this matter at that railway station.

 

[Ferret]

I do like the use of a traditional dispute tactic. Without commenting on the validity or otherwise of any of the claims at issue, I do think that lumping them all together into one "dispute" is a tad rich. Should someone who doesn't give a stuff about agency use but feels passionately about swipe cards (two random choices) feel the union is right or wrong? This is surely a simple tactic to maximise unrest.

It's all part of the game played by both sides. If a Union only has one grievance, the chances are nobody will bat an eyelid. If it turns up with a long list (of course, some will be minor), they stand more chance of getting support from the members and strengthening their negotiating hand.

 

[Deerfold]

Surely no one needs to be reminded about the 2012 Olympic security shambles.

When G4S were using people with no training of any sort and even illegal immigrants!

I must have missed that. I saw they had not allowed adequate time to recruit and train people so were severely understaffed (and so the military being sent in to cover). I know of a couple of people who'd been told they'd been selected and would hear about training shortly and never heard from G4S again.

 

[island]

If this happens, who can such passengers see to immediately report this matter at that railway station.

An informed passenger will hold the ticket in such a way as to prevent it being easily taken from him, and if requested to surrender it, explain the further validity briefly and continue on his way.

 

[Oswyntail]

It's all part of the game played by both sides. If a Union only has one grievance, the chances are nobody will bat an eyelid. If it turns up with a long list (of course, some will be minor), they stand more chance of getting support from the members and strengthening their negotiating hand.

Exactly - and if everyone is passionate about swipe cards, but feels the use of agency staff is far and away the best policy (random examples again!), then the members are likely to get the bits they approve of dropped along with the bits they hate.

 

[A-driver]

Although, something does need to be done about the current state of affairs where the likes of LM continually spend thousands on training a driver, only for him to scarper ASAP to XC/Freight/whoever doesn't have 8 hours of stop-start work per day. Ultimately, it's unfair and unsustainable.

Well companies like LM could address the problem and with a bit more thought in diagramming solve the issues. Problem is more and more TOCs are into lazy computerised diagramming and it really does make the job very tedious and hard work as it eliminates human touches like variety, toilet brakes etc and just causes you to spend every job chasing time.

If you can then find another TOC at the same location paying better money for better work then its a no brainer-exactly the same in any industry. If you can get the same job but for more money and better conditions then you wouldn't think twice about moving would you!

 

[Clip]

I do like the use of a traditional dispute tactic. Without commenting on the validity or otherwise of any of the claims at issue, I do think that lumping them all together into one "dispute" is a tad rich. Should someone who doesn't give a stuff about agency use but feels passionately about swipe cards (two random choices) feel the union is right or wrong? This is surely a simple tactic to maximise unrest.

So you would be happy for each dispute to be taken separately with the threat of more days of strike rather than one or two?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

An informed passenger will hold the ticket in such a way as to prevent it being easily taken from him, and if requested to surrender it, explain the further validity briefly and continue on his way.

What would be the case if this CTLZ ticket had been held by an elderly infrequent traveller who had been assured that the rail ticket was valid with the approved Manchester Metrolink zone at the time of purchase, but would not have the full knowledge of the rules appertaining to the use and did not want to appear to be seen as being in dispute with the G4S staff making the query.

 

[Oswyntail]

So you would be happy for each dispute to be taken separately with the threat of more days of strike rather than one or two?

Yes, of course. Taking each issue (not necessarily a dispute, yet) separately means that it can be discussed properly in isolation, increasing the chance that an amicable solution can be found. If you lump everything together, it increases the possibility of disagreement. Both parties may agree on 90% of the matters in question but still disagree on the last item - and then one side could claim the other was being intransigent on everything. It is a common - and somewhat pathetic - tactic for extending dispute, and I would be ashamed if my representatives or employers treated negotiation like that.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The traditional approach to this problem is to impose a minimum post training service requirement (2 years traditionally) which if not met requires that the employee repays the training costs.

Which is what bus operators do with people they train for PCV

Which is also what the military do with certain career courses where you have to complete a number of years after completing the course before you can sign off .

Up to a point it;s what Junior Doctors have to do if they ever want to practice in the UK with the foundation prog.

 

[Ferret]

Oswyntail, I get the feeling that you think dispute automatically equals strike. It doesn't work like that... Ultimately, that's not how it is - it's all a game of brinkmanship. Look at the recent CrossCountry dispute - a whole load of issues, some major, some minor. Was there a strike?

 

[Clip]

Yes, of course. Taking each issue (not necessarily a dispute, yet) separately means that it can be discussed properly in isolation, increasing the chance that an amicable solution can be found. If you lump everything together, it increases the possibility of disagreement. Both parties may agree on 90% of the matters in question but still disagree on the last item - and then one side could claim the other was being intransigent on everything. It is a common - and somewhat pathetic - tactic for extending dispute, and I would be ashamed if my representatives or employers treated negotiation like that.

Discussions always start in isolation though, it when agreements cannot be met individually the the unions stick them altogether to ballot. In fact from my experience with our unions once we have got to this stage with a few issues we have been able to sort them out better when they are ALL on the agenda together.

You seem to be under the impression that all issues are always negotiated together, they are not until there is an impasse from both sides.

 

[Oswyntail]

Oswyntail, I get the feeling that you think dispute automatically equals strike. ...

......You seem to be under the impression that all issues are always negotiated together, they are not until there is an impasse from both sides.

Neither of these, really. I was just commenting on the tactic of lumping so many disparate items together in one notice, thus giving at least the impression that they are all to be treated as one.But, as a trained and experienced mediator, I know it is vital for progress to keep things separate where possible (though both sides will often try to lump them together, especially if spoiling for a fight).

 

[Ferret]

Oswyntail - it's not necessarily spoiling for a fight, more wanting to get your own way

 

[sheff1]

The staff are upset too because we are not being backed up in cases involving drunk passengers, the company line is we have to take them as we have a duty of care,

This is clearly nonsense. Entering / remaining on the railway whilst intoxicated is an offence under Railway Byelaws.

I do like the use of a traditional dispute tactic.

The traditional way is the best way

Although, something does need to be done about the current state of affairs where the likes of LM continually spend thousands on training a driver, only for him to scarper ASAP to XC/Freight/whoever doesn't have 8 hours of stop-start work per day. Ultimately, it's unfair and unsustainable.

Yes, but that is how privatisation works ... very similar practices take place in my field of work.

The less said about G4S the better

Best wishes to the Northern staff I say.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

Which is what bus operators do with people they train for PCV.

there has never been one occasion of this ever having been enforced as it is completely contrary to European employment regs. In fact, the bus companies know this, and it is generally used as a threat.

Ex-Operator, and Pcv driver.

 

[tbtc]

Oswyntail, I get the feeling that you think dispute automatically equals strike. It doesn't work like that... Ultimately, that's not how it is - it's all a game of brinkmanship. Look at the recent CrossCountry dispute - a whole load of issues, some major, some minor. Was there a strike?

That's it - the Union are busy playing "games" with the employer, strikes are often called off at the last minute (ScotRail pre-Christmas?), but many commuters have had to book days as holiday in preparation for a train strike.

Ultimately the well paid rail staff will get improved conditions, it's just the passengers who suffer from this kind of thing.

 

[Ferret]

This is clearly nonsense. Entering / remaining on the railway whilst intoxicated is an offence under Railway Byelaws.

Yup, but the BTP and the TOCs lack the balls and resources to deal with the issue. Welcome to 2013.

Yes, but that is how privatisation works ...

Or *doesn't* work. The problem is that it screws over the customer/passenger in the end. I did hear a rumour that DaFT want to include a clause in future franchises that the successful bidder must agree to *train* as many drivers as necessary to keep the franchise going. I really hope that's true, and if it isn't, then DaFT really should adopt it as policy.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's it - the Union are busy playing "games" with the employer....

And vice versa...! Which is a point lost on many people I feel!

 

[A-driver]

Yup, but the BTP and the TOCs lack the balls and resources to deal with the issue. Welcome to 2013.



Or *doesn't* work. The problem is that it screws over the customer/passenger in the end. I did hear a rumour that DaFT want to include a clause in future franchises that the successful bidder must agree to *train* as many drivers as necessary to keep the franchise going. I really hope that's true, and if it isn't, then DaFT really should adopt it as policy.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And vice versa...! Which is a point lost on many people I feel!

But franchises already have that. They must leave the franchise with a full establishment of drivers and are penalised for not having enough drivers during their franchise just as FCC, southern and London midland have been during their franchises in the past few years.

As for the bus companies clause to keep drivers with the companies that trained them, its the same on the railway. Most companies have a clause in the contracts that you do a certain amount if time with that employer or pay back some training costs but they have no way if enforcing it. They have threatened people with it in the past but they know they have no way of enforcing it. And even if they did and they forced an employee to repay 12k or so the employee could offer what they can afford to pay it back and the company must accept that as a court wouldn't chase it further-so the employee could offer to repay £1 a week.

As I said earlier, the companies know why drivers leave them but choose not to address that. And its certainly not a unique issue with train drivers-ALL industries with different employers for the same role will have this issue.

 

[notadriver]

And its certainly not a unique issue with train drivers-ALL industries with different employers for the same role will have this issue.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there A-Driver. There's a steady supply of PCV qualified drivers out there. There are very low barriers to entry and training is far shorter than for us. For that reason some companies can and do pay the minimum wage to new starter bus drivers.

 

[A-driver]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there A-Driver. There's a steady supply of PCV qualified drivers out there. There are very low barriers to entry and training is far shorter than for us. For that reason some companies can and do pay the minimum wage to new starter bus drivers.

But bus drivers still get to choose their employer like anyone else does. And if another bus company paid more then they would get drivers from less well paid companies applying. Same in any line of work.

 

[notadriver]

But bus drivers still get to choose their employer like anyone else does. And if another bus company paid more then they would get drivers from less well paid companies applying. Same in any line of work.

I would normally agree with you but when the buses were privatised the effect was to drive down wages, terms and conditions. Some new starters are kept on the lower rates of pay sometimes for up to 5 years. So there is little benefit from changing companies. The way the bus industry works in terms of employment of drivers is very different to train drivers.

 

[A-driver]

I would normally agree with you but when the buses were privatised the effect was to drive down wages, terms and conditions. Some new starters are kept on the lower rates of pay sometimes for up to 5 years. So there is little benefit from changing companies. The way the bus industry works in terms of employment of drivers is very different to train drivers.

There are other jobs out there in big wide world apart from bus drivers and train drivers though...

 

[dk1]

There are other jobs out there in big wide world apart from bus drivers and train drivers though...

Ive got no qualifications whatsoever. Have kept my nose clean (almost) throughout my 28yr railway career. I would now in any other life struggle to earn £25 minimum per hour anywhere. I am also blessed in this type of job to be home hours sometimes before i 'officially' finish duty & work with some amazing people. Blessed

 

[tbtc]

But bus drivers still get to choose their employer like anyone else does. And if another bus company paid more then they would get drivers from less well paid companies applying. Same in any line of work.

I suppose the question is (regardless of what happens at commercial companies like bus operators), should we have a heavily subsidised railway industry that encourages this spiralling fight for a limited number of staff?

Otherwise we're just going to see subsidies paying more and more without getting anything more for it.

You wouldn't be able to make it easier for staff to join the industry (reduce the time taken to train someone sufficiently and incur the wrath of the Unions, who have an interest in protecting their staff - in fact, they have no other interest), so what do you do?

 

[notadriver]

Long training times are nothing to do with the unions. However on the tube the course length is now 12 weeks - very similar to a conductor/guard.

 

[MacRae13]

the Unions, who have an interest in protecting their staff - in fact, they have no other interest

Well, that's not the whole story, is it?

Many, in fact most, TOC decisions on staff numbers or conditions have a direct effect on safety - not just staff safety, but passenger safety too.

Take the blinkers off, for everyone's sake.

 

[O L Leigh]

Although, something does need to be done about the current state of affairs where the likes of LM continually spend thousands on training a driver, only for him to scarper ASAP to XC/Freight/whoever doesn't have 8 hours of stop-start work per day. Ultimately, it's unfair and unsustainable.

This is rubbish!! We've been over this before.

There is no "poaching" of drivers and nor is it very common for a driver to "scarper" the moment he's got his key. These are all fully-qualified drivers who have already put in a number of years of service with another operator before moving across to some place better. The majority of ex-LM entrants at XC are former instructors, assessors or managers. None of them are newbies just passed out and still wet behind the ears, so please can we all get past this issue.

If LM, Northern and the like have a problem retaining drivers then it is an internal issue. No amount of restrictive measures placed on the drivers themselves will alter it, and neither is it reasonable to expect a recruiting company to reimburse a driver's former employer.

As with any job in any industry there will always be a movement of talent from the lower-paying lower-status companies towards the higher-paying higher-status companies, and it is the individual's right to pursue this career path. This is no different for train drivers than it is for pilots, bankers, architects or any other job you may care to consider.

It is up to the likes of LM and Northern to look to their own affairs and address the issues that will improve rates of driver retention and the recruitment and training of replacements. Issuing statements such as LM and Northern have done blaming other TOCs for their own shortcomings is unedifying and bloody childish. "It's not fair!! The big boys keep nicking our ball and now we can't play any more, boo hoo!!" It's weak and ineffectual and anyone with half a brain can see straight through it.

Rather than wringing their hands and making weak excuses about cancelling trains they should be getting off their arses and doing something about it. You can't restrict the movement of staff between companies and you will always lose staff and require more. Other companies have rolling programmes of recruitment and training and manage to engage with their employees a bit better. So what's stopping these two?

Bloody pathetic!!

O L Leigh

 

[Legzr1]

Well said that man.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That's it - the Union are busy playing "games" with the employer, strikes are often called off at the last minute (ScotRail pre-Christmas?), but many commuters have had to book days as holiday in preparation for a train strike.

Ultimately the well paid rail staff will get improved conditions, it's just the passengers who suffer from this kind of thing.

This whole dispute is nothing to do about pay & conditions, This is about Northern trying (again) to shaft its Staff in the Short & long terms, Nothing to do with Pay and not much to do with conditions, please stop always trying to tuen it into the same old discussion, because this isn't