Rest Day Work at Northern agreed by ASLEF

[skyhigh]

Anyone know when this will be effective from?

19/11.

 

[Peterthegreat]

19/11.

Thanks.

 

[jayah]

Now to get a sensible overall pay deal agreed across the board which will enable the industry to build back some goodwill with the staff, and in turn the passengers, as the service improves!

On the contrary higher basic pay makes staff less willing to work overtime, so it would throw the gears into reverse here.

They need to decide if they want a 1990s model of low pay and the service run on overtime, or the model that seemed to be in fashion around 2022 where the service is pared to match the minimum contracted hours, assuming no voluntary overtime.

Leaping from one to another will just see the chaos continue without end.

 

[43066]

On the contrary higher basic pay makes staff less willing to work overtime, so it would throw the gears into reverse here.

Yet experience shows that plenty of staff continue to do overtime, whatever the salary level. In any case a pay rise of the size being discussed will only partially offset the loss of real terms pay since 2019.

They need to decide if they want a 1990s model of low pay and the service run on overtime, or the model that seemed to be in fashion around 2022 where the service is pared to match the minimum contracted hours, assuming no voluntary overtime.

The railway as a whole relies heavily on overtime, and has done throughout its existence, simply because it’s cheaper. Other than some isolated examples, the service generally hasn’t been pared to match contracted hours either. Those operators (such as Northern) that have had RDW agreements expire have simply p-coded and cancelled trains and have seen reliability collapse. In any case, the focus should be running trains to match demand, rather than limiting them due to staff availability.

Leaping from one to another will just see the chaos continue without end.

Or they could simply rebuild goodwill with their staff and continue with the current model…

 

[Sly Old Fox]

On the contrary higher basic pay makes staff less willing to work overtime, so it would throw the gears into reverse here.

That isn’t true in my experience. Some staff will always work overtime, but more refuse to do it during disputes, such as now.

 

[geoffk]

Put another way, removing reliance on RDW might reduce costs, but only if you accept a lower level of service from the same complement of staff

Or employ more staff of course. The railway shouldn't be relying on overtime just to run the timetable - what other industry does it?

 

[baz962]

Or employ more staff of course. The railway shouldn't be relying on overtime just to run the timetable - what other industry does it?

Hard to compare though. Some industries can get agency or bank staff or can run short , such as working tills as you very rarely see every till open at a supermarket. Can't replace drivers with agency or you run short and that's obviously noticeable as you have to cancel a train or two.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This is often suggested but, as a rule, reliance on overtime to maintain a given level of service is cheaper than employing a full complement of staff. If it were cheaper to do without, why didn’t the privatised TOCs eliminate it when responsible for their own costs? They could easily have done so. Equally, why do entirely private freight companies similarly tend to rely on overtime?

Put another way, removing reliance on RDW might reduce costs, but only if you accept a lower level of service from the same complement of staff (as Avanti are doing in December, as fewer of their drivers are working overtime) or at the very least a much less robust service, because standby turns will be uncovered giving you less flexibility during disruption, and you’ll be unable to cover vacant running turns with available rest day workers at short notice.

Just an observation and not trying to be controversial but in B.R. days in my experience RDW/overtime did reduce costs, because - if it means the 'headcount' is lower - there are many costs that are the product of number of staff rather than work done. If you have overtime working so that you can cut out the rest day relief person you save the cost of the latter's overheads - sick and holiday pay, refreshing for examples.

It was certainly a deciding factor in B.R. days. Another factor in B.R. days (and I'm only the messenger although I did have some involvement then) is there was a cycle on B.R.like this (generally, not just drivers); Lots of overtime the norm - management reduces it by recruitment - overtime no longer available - flat week pay very poor - people leave - reduces complement - overtime necessary again. There's a name for the way that systems naturally tend towards a particular state, can't remember what it is.

Of course that was in the days when B.R. basic pay was poor - I recollect that in 1995 (just before privatisation) drivers' basic rate was about £11,000 p.a. (might be wrong though, open to correction) but of course bonuses (eg mileage). Drivers would hang around the b.o.p. on their rest days 'scratching' alledgedly.

 

[dk1]

On the contrary higher basic pay makes staff less willing to work overtime, so it would throw the gears into reverse here.

In my experience it makes staff even greedier for the even higher rate overtime payment.

 

[43066]

Or employ more staff of course. The railway shouldn't be relying on overtime just to run the timetable - what other industry does it?

I think it’s pretty common in various industries: airlines and bus companies certainly do. Away from
from the transport sector, the NHS also does. It seems unlikely that that will change on the railway, as the funding to pay for more staff isn’t likely to be forthcoming.

It *generally* works pretty well as a system, albeit this breaks down during disputes.

Just an observation and not trying to be controversial but in B.R. days in my experience RDW/overtime did reduce costs, because - if it means the 'headcount' is lower - there are many costs that are the product of number of staff rather than work done. If you have overtime working so that you can cut out the rest day relief person you save the cost of the latter's overheads - sick and holiday pay, refreshing for examples.

It was certainly a deciding factor in B.R. days. Another factor in B.R. days (and I'm only the messenger although I did have some involvement then) is there was a cycle on B.R.like this (generally, not just drivers); Lots of overtime the norm - management reduces it by recruitment - overtime no longer available - flat week pay very poor - people leave - reduces complement - overtime necessary again. There's a name for the way that systems naturally tend towards a particular state, can't remember what it is.

Of course that was in the days when B.R. basic pay was poor - I recollect that in 1995 (just before privatisation) drivers' basic rate was about £11,000 p.a. (might be wrong though, open to correction) but of course bonuses (eg mileage). Drivers would hang around the b.o.p. on their rest days 'scratching' alledgedly.

Absolutely - I don’t think any of that is controversial. The suggestion appeared to be that RDW be removed as a way to reduce costs. The only way that would be achieved is by lowering the service. RDW makes any given level of service cheaper to provide.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Absolutely - I don’t think any of that is controversial. The suggestion appeared to be that RDW be removed as a way to reduce costs. The only way that would be achieved is by lowering the service. RDW makes any given level of service cheaper to provide.

Right, thanks, understood.

Not unusual on the railways - an ambition to make what is seen as an advantageous change is reduced to an (over) simplified objective that, when the latter is achieved, results in the opposite to the intention implicit in the former. I could list a few from experience, but to be fair then it usually wasn't conspiracy just cockup. Not so sure that there's not an underlying hostile agenda swirling underneath nowadays.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Edit: The post I quoted was a fair bit older than I realised, so not much point responding to it now!

 

[dunc695]

I agree its been a real mess, I can only speak for Victoria depot. All the jobs on the Furness and Windermere lines want looking at.

Hopefully RDW will help ease some of the horrendous amount of cancellations

Victoria does have one train per week to Windermere on Sundays (and Blackpool) probably the only trains that keeps it relevant in the timetable. At least FNW retained a daily peak hour through service between Vic & Blackpool but now there's literally nothing after the remaining Preston services were withdrawn.

 

[6Gman]

Or employ more staff of course. The railway shouldn't be relying on overtime just to run the timetable - what other industry does it?

I suspect there are health and care facilities that rely on overtime (and RDW) to reach a full staffing level.

My good lady used to get frequent requests to come in on a day off!

 

[Class 170101]

Or they could simply rebuild goodwill with their staff and continue with the current model…

I'm not sure at the moment its entirely in the gift of the TOCs to re-build that goodwill right now. DfT, Treasury and PM's office I think are more in the frame here.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

It doesn’t matter how much I earn, I’ll always do overtime. Feel guilty at the idea of trains being cancelled and me not being at work.

 

[InkyScrolls]

It doesn’t matter how much I earn, I’ll always do overtime. Feel guilty at the idea of trains being cancelled and me not being at work.

But that's not your responsibility. It's not your fault if your employers don't employee enough crew.

 

[dk1]

But that's not your responsibility. It's not your fault if your employers don't employee enough crew.

It sounds like feeling guilty because we are not allowed to do overtime because of industrial action. Nothing to do with keeping up the agreed establishment of that particular TOC.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

But that's not your responsibility. It's not your fault if your employers don't employee enough crew.

It doesn’t stop me feeling guilty though. I am here to drive trains, and if I am not driving a train and one gets cancelled I feel guilty. Even when I’m on annual leave.

It’s a shame we have to have days off at all really.

 

[InkyScrolls]

It doesn’t stop me feeling guilty though. I am here to drive trains, and if I am not driving a train and one gets cancelled I feel guilty. Even when I’m on annual leave.

It’s a shame we have to have days off at all really.

I see now I missed your sarcasm!

 

[Killingworth]

It doesn’t matter how much I earn, I’ll always do overtime. Feel guilty at the idea of trains being cancelled and me not being at work.

Many years ago I managed a customer serving unit where my team were usually happy to do short notice overtime to cover sickness or longer notice overtime to cover anticipated peaks in demand. They enjoyed working together and had a good rapport with customers. They knew it made their own working days easier if they did. The money obviously helped. Sly Old Fox would have recognised the spirit of camaraderie.

Unfortunately it's much harder to achieve such good results when dealing with the complex railway industry. Understanding how each individual is impacted by each overtime request makes management a challenge. When industrial relations become fractured nobody wins.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I see now I missed your sarcasm!

No sarcasm here. My life is pretty empty apart from work so I’d rather be there.