RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Bletchleyite]

I do not agree with that at all . They are making out like everybody who is currently in the guards grade will be offered an alternative job as the result of this . You know as well as I do that this is untrue .

No, they are making out that those who are currently in a guard role will be offered either an alternative job or early retirement, and many will leave or retire naturally.

Longer term, I suspect some of these jobs will disappear - but again, as long as they only disappear as people cease to want them, what's the issue?

That is to me totally reasonable.

Surely people who are employed on 3 year contracts are still part of Merseyrail's employment , and I would suspect that when their 3 year contract is up some of them would rather remain on the railway than end up facing what is in effect redundancy and have to look for a new job . I would consider that people being forced out of Merseyrails employment when they would rather stay .

Then we differ on that. A three year contract is just that - a job for three years. Any extension is at the discretion of both the employer and employee - if one is to take place, both must be in agreement. Failing such agreement, which it is totally clear will not come from Merseyrail, the contract will end, with the payment of statutory redundancy pay if this is legally required (and I'm certain Merseyrail will cost this in).

That Merseyrail aren't using two year contracts to avoid this as some have pointed out is further evidence that their intentions are totally honest and up-front.

I do see issues with misuse of zero hours contracts etc, but this is not a misuse, not in the slightest. It is an honest and up-front offer of short-term employment for those who would desire that employment. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing underhand, nothing inappropriate.

Are you against short-term employment where it is required for genuine reasons? Why? Do you think, for example, someone taken on for a period of months to cover for maternity/paternity leave should receive a permanent job at the end? Why? Your view seems a totally unrealistic view of how a business should operate.

I appreciate that Merseyrail has employed people on 3 year contracts because this is what the business case requires . But in this dispute Merseyrail is leading the public to believe that everyone who is currently employed in the guards grade will still be employed once all the new trains have been delivered

No, I simply don't believe they are. They are essentially saying there will be no compulsory redundancies (other than the technicality of the 3 year contract staff - and that is a technicality, nothing more, and I completely support them in not bringing that into it). I believe them. Some will take voluntary/early retirement, some will be redeployed, some will be due for retirement anyway, some will simply move to other jobs because they choose to do so. The fleet phase in is over a long period so there won't be a dead stop, unlike GTR - no 507 or 508 will ever operate with passengers without a guard.

I am not arguing about trying to protect the jobs of people who are on temporary contracts . I am merely arguing about statements Merseyrail are making to this effect .If they come out and said we currently employ 250 guards (made up number) 200 of these are on permanent contracts and will be offered alternative jobs and 50 of these are on temporary contracts and will not be given a contract renewal in 2021 when that contract runs out then I would be fine with that because that reflects the true reality of the situation .

I guess the Press is not interested in a long analysis of the situation like this (which I believe would be correct) and so they are playing soundbites.

 

[kw12]

From May Merseytravel will be under the control of the newly elected Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, who is most likely to be Labour. I wonder if they will take a more populist stance than the Merseytravel Committee.

Possibly. However, I think it is unlikely that Merseytravel (or the Mayor) will:

(1) Pay Merseyrail more (ie. cancel, or reduce, the intended decrease in the concession payments following the introduction of the new trains) to cover some, or all, of the operating cost savings that would be sacrificed if the new trains were to operate with guards.

(2) Pay for the trains it has ordered (for leasing to Merseyrail) to be modified to include controls for guard operation.

 

[muz379]

No, they are making out that those who are currently in a guard role will be offered either an alternative job or early retirement, and many will leave or retire naturally.

Longer term, I suspect some of these jobs will disappear - but again, as long as they only disappear as people cease to want them, what's the issue?

That is to me totally reasonable.

And some currently in the guard role will be on 3 year contracts , so there is a risk that some inevitably will find themselves with no job and no alternative role to replace it . If you are right that they are making out that those in the role will have jobs I would argue that even people on a 3 year contract should come to expect that to be extended .

Then we differ on that. A three year contract is just that - a job for three years. Any extension is at the discretion of both the employer and employee - if one is to take place, both must be in agreement. Failing such agreement, which it is totally clear will not come from Merseyrail, the contract will end, with the payment of statutory redundancy pay if this is legally required (and I'm certain Merseyrail will cost this in).

That Merseyrail aren't using two year contracts to avoid this as some have pointed out is further evidence that their intentions are totally honest and up-front.

I understand what a 3 year contract is , and I do not disagree with their use .All I disagree with is merseyrail making statements that suggest everyone doing a particular job currently will be offered another job on the same salary when we know that this is not the reality of the situation . Or are we saying that Merseyrail are offering gurantees for everyone including those on temporary contracts , in which case where is the cost saving to finance the new stock ?


The use of 2 year vs 3 year contracts could of course be just because this is how long they need the guards for nothing to do with their intentions honest or otherwise . I suspect if they need to employ more guards in a years time to cover the existing train plan they will employ them on 2 year contracts because that is as long as they need them .

I do see issues with misuse of zero hours contracts etc, but this is not a misuse, not in the slightest. It is an honest and up-front offer of short-term employment for those who would desire that employment. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing underhand, nothing inappropriate.

I am not suggesting that the use of temporary contracts in this way is dishonest or inappropriate . Indeed from merseyrails point of view it is the most appropriate way to ensure you have guards for as long as you need them but are not financially committed after that .Even though a permanent contract could be legally subject to redundancy given that Merseyrall are eventually getting rid of the guard grade entirely .

To be clear again what I am against is statements such as the following lifted from the last 2 press releases by Merseyrail around this dispute

‘We have put forward firm proposals about how we will look after our guards, who, subject to successful negotiations with the RMT, are being guaranteed work in the business, once the new trains are introduced in three years’ time.’

Jan Chaudhry-van der Velde, Merseyrail’s managing director, said: ‘I don’t know why the RMT agreed to our invitation to come in and talk today, unless it was to maintain appearances. They took an intransigent position and wouldn’t discuss any of the items we put forward, including the guarantee of continued employment for the existing guards on the same salaries as now, salaries which start at £28,000.

They to me suggest that everyone who does the job of Guard will be offered an alternative job on the same salary and conditions . Merseyrail ought be more clear about this . Because not everybody who does the job of Guard is on a permanent contract . And anybody who enters the guards grade from now on will be on a temporary contract .

Are you against short-term employment where it is required for genuine reasons? Why? Do you think, for example, someone taken on for a period of months to cover for maternity/paternity leave should receive a permanent job at the end? Why? Your view seems a totally unrealistic view of how a business should operate.

I believe I have covered this above now however to clear it up again I am not against short term employment . Even in this case I am not against it . But when the grade concerned then goes into dispute I am against the company trying to say that everyone will be guaranteed a job when some people in that grade are and will be on temporary contracts . If I was a Merseyrail guard on a 3 year contract I would feel rather insulted at a press release essentially saying all our guards will be offered alternative jobs in the company .

No, I simply don't believe they are. They are essentially saying there will be no compulsory redundancies (other than the technicality of the 3 year contract staff - and that is a technicality, nothing more, and I completely support them in not bringing that into it). I believe them. Some will take voluntary/early retirement, some will be redeployed, some will be due for retirement anyway, some will simply move to other jobs because they choose to do so. The fleet phase in is over a long period so there won't be a dead stop, unlike GTR - no 507 or 508 will ever operate with passengers without a guard.

Read the above quotes from press releases Merseyrail have put out . If they mean that nobody will face compulsory redundancy why not say that instead of saying what I have quoted above from Merseyrail's own website .

You acknowledge that some people employed on temporary contracts might be made technically redundant and thus forced to find another job when they would rather stay working for Merseyrail . Now I accept that this is the reality of a temporary contract . But that practical reality to me is not consistent with what Merseyrail are saying .

That is all my concern is here , not the rights and wrongs of temporary contracts , not trying to stop the fact that some people will face technical redundancy . My concern here is that Merseyrail are saying that all guards will have other jobs when we know that that might not be the case .

I guess the Press is not interested in a long analysis of the situation like this (which I believe would be correct) and so they are playing soundbites.

Nothing stopping Merseyrail putting it out in a press release , even then if the press then make a decision to omit those parts of their press releases Merseyrail can say they have done their best to get the message in the open .

I however suspect that Merseyrail think that they will win more favour with the public by trying to make it look like no job losses will come as a result of this . When as you said some guards could face the prospect of technical redundancy .

 

[northwichcat]

The National will go ahead as usual because Merseyrail will get enough Drivers and Guard Managers to get people from Liverpool City Centre to Aintree. Coupled with recent experience in bussing lots of Wirral Commuters to Liverpool, nothing will stop the great day. A spectacular own goal by the RMT. I have sympathy for Guards but youve chosen the wrong cause of action.

I would think the sensible approach would be to prioritise a service between Liverpool South Parkway to Aintree using 6 car sets. I'm not sure if it's possible to turn back services at or near Aintree or whether all trains have to go to Ormskirk but running them to South Parkway would make it easier for passengers coming in to Liverpool on LM, TPE and EMT services. Then look at Southport and Chester and if needed replace services on other routes with buses.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm going to enjoy watching the RMT make the same mistakes all over again, though I note it's only a hardcore of fools now supporting them on here. It's like the RMT have an incapacity to learn.

On GTR they played hardball but the company always had the upper hand, because their drivers already had DOO in their contracts. Once GTR got the injunction against GatEx drivers going on strike the writing was on the wall.

I'm not convinced it's the same here, because Merseyrail drivers don't, AFAIK, have DOO in their contracts. Given the recent prosecutions of both Martin Zee and Stephen Murdoch (the driver at Hayes and Harlington) for incidents involving passengers boarding against the hustle alarm it'll be interesting to see whether Merseyrail drivers have the appetite to take on the responsibility of DOO. I'm not so convinced that they do.

But I'd agree that the RMT are jumping the gun and I'm not sure that's going to help them. Merseyrail are blatantly lying if they say nobody will lose their job, but calling them out on their lies is difficult. But if the lack of guards is going to cause "chaos" in Liverpool then you've just argued that they're essential...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would think the sensible approach would be to prioritise a service between Liverpool South Parkway to Aintree using 6 car sets. I'm not sure if it's possible to turn back services at or near Aintree or whether all trains have to go to Ormskirk but running them to South Parkway would make it easier for passengers coming in to Liverpool on LM, TPE and EMT services. Then look at Southport and Chester and if needed replace services on other routes with buses.

You can certainly turn at Maghull, I expect there is probably another opportunity further south as well.

 

[Onedirection]

You can certainly turn at Maghull, I expect there is probably another opportunity further south as well.

Yes, there is a turnback between Aintree and Old Roan which is used for the additional services usually on National day.

 

[danbarnstall]

No, they are making out that those who are currently in a guard role will be offered either an alternative job or early retirement, and many will leave or retire naturally.

Longer term, I suspect some of these jobs will disappear - but again, as long as they only disappear as people cease to want them, what's the issue?

That is to me totally reasonable.



Then we differ on that. A three year contract is just that - a job for three years. Any extension is at the discretion of both the employer and employee - if one is to take place, both must be in agreement. Failing such agreement, which it is totally clear will not come from Merseyrail, the contract will end, with the payment of statutory redundancy pay if this is legally required (and I'm certain Merseyrail will cost this in).

That Merseyrail aren't using two year contracts to avoid this as some have pointed out is further evidence that their intentions are totally honest and up-front.

I do see issues with misuse of zero hours contracts etc, but this is not a misuse, not in the slightest. It is an honest and up-front offer of short-term employment for those who would desire that employment. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing underhand, nothing inappropriate.

Are you against short-term employment where it is required for genuine reasons? Why? Do you think, for example, someone taken on for a period of months to cover for maternity/paternity leave should receive a permanent job at the end? Why? Your view seems a totally unrealistic view of how a business should operate.



No, I simply don't believe they are. They are essentially saying there will be no compulsory redundancies (other than the technicality of the 3 year contract staff - and that is a technicality, nothing more, and I completely support them in not bringing that into it). I believe them. Some will take voluntary/early retirement, some will be redeployed, some will be due for retirement anyway, some will simply move to other jobs because they choose to do so. The fleet phase in is over a long period so there won't be a dead stop, unlike GTR - no 507 or 508 will ever operate with passengers without a guard.



I guess the Press is not interested in a long analysis of the situation like this (which I believe would be correct) and so they are playing soundbites.

How long is that employment for? Once this dispute is won plans are already underway to target the stations next. Contactless travel and banks of ticket machines will replace ticket offices. RPI, Driving and OBS will swallow up some of the 220 but not all. Some will go to stations and have a similar cloud hanging over them.

 

[Moonshot]

How long is that employment for? Once this dispute is won plans are already underway to target the stations next. Contactless travel and banks of ticket machines will replace ticket offices. RPI, Driving and OBS will swallow up some of the 220 but not all. Some will go to stations and have a similar cloud hanging over them.

So then surely its down to each individual guard to decide whats in their own best interest in the longer term if they accept the fact that the role they are doing now doesnt have a long term future. Despite all the posturing of the RMT, that is the reality. I m sure some current guards will look at this as an opportunity to do something different. I can certainly point to a couple of my colleagues who have business interests outside of the industry now, and are doing very well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On the BBC North-West mid-day news, an RMT spokesman mentioned that muggers on trains were something to worry about if there were no guards on Merseyrail services.

Can I ask any guard on this thread what is the advice they have to follow if they come across a case of mugging on their train?

 

[Moonshot]

On the BBC North-West mid-day news, an RMT spokesman mentioned that muggers on trains were something to worry about if there were no guards on Merseyrail services.

Can I ask any guard on this thread what is the advice they have to follow if they come across a case of mugging on their train?

Anything along those lines will require BTP assistance.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anything along those lines will require BTP assistance.

If that be the case, why did the RMT spokesman give the impression that if a guard was on a train, they could deal with the matter if they were on the train, See my posting immediately above yours.

 

[razor89]

If that be the case, why did the RMT spokesman give the impression that if a guard was on a train, they could deal with the matter if they were on the train, See my posting immediately above yours.

I would have thought the point he was actually trying to make was that such a matter would be less likely to occur on a train with a guard, or to put it another way, a network which ran with a guard on every train.

 

[furnessvale]

I would have thought the point he was actually trying to make was that such a matter would be less likely to occur on a train with a guard, or to put it another way, a network which ran with a guard on every train.

In which case, put a BTP officer on every train and get even more safety.

Use fairly new recruits and given the lack of enhanced pay for police for night and weekend working and it will work out cheaper as well!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How long is that employment for? Once this dispute is won plans are already underway to target the stations next. Contactless travel and banks of ticket machines will replace ticket offices

Given Merseyrail's historic staffing policy that would seem surprising, but like with the Tube I wouldn't have a massive issue with it done over a period of time as people leave the TOC and are not replaced (so basically a complete stop on ticket office staff recruitment with a slow reduction in offices and opening hours resulting from it). Can anyone genuinely say that, for example, Aughton Park[1] ticket office is actually economically viable?

Putting ToD on the TVMs would probably be more useful than a load of ticket offices that do barely anything other than selling returns to Liverpool. Platform staff would be more useful (for both platform and PTI safety) than ticket office staff.

[1] When the old wooden shed was condemned, I was amazed a new one was provided rather than a TVM.

 

[razor89]

In which case, put a BTP officer on every train and get even more safety.

Use fairly new recruits and given the lack of enhanced pay for police for night and weekend working and it will work out cheaper as well!

The idea that BTP will EVER have enough officers to provide this kind of presence is, quite frankly, laughable.

The point about muggings is relevant here though as what Merseyrail propose is a reduction from around 220 guards positions to around 60 on board positions, which clearly means that the majority of trains will run without any kind of in train presence.

You could argue that with (almost) all stations staffed first train to last train, the network should still be 'safe'. However there have already been early murmurs about booking offices being closed and even now Merseyrail are not meeting their concession requirements on this as a number of booking offices regularly close early on weekends due to staffing issues, and Merseytravel don't seem to care.

 

[furnessvale]

The idea that BTP will EVER have enough officers to provide this kind of presence is, quite frankly, laughable.

My point is you could RECRUIT officers and they would be cheaper than guards.

 

[kw12]

The idea that BTP will EVER have enough officers to provide this kind of presence is, quite frankly, laughable.

The point about muggings is relevant here though as what Merseyrail propose is a reduction from around 220 guards positions to around 60 on board positions, which clearly means that the majority of trains will run without any kind of in train presence.

You could argue that with (almost) all stations staffed first train to last train, the network should still be 'safe'. However there have already been early murmurs about booking offices being closed and even now Merseyrail are not meeting their concession requirements on this as a number of booking offices regularly close early on weekends due to staffing issues, and Merseytravel don't seem to care.

Did any lines that are DOO elsewhere see an increase in muggings and/or anti-social behaviour when they converted to DOO? Over the last year for which stats are available, how do the levels of muggings on Merseyrail compare with those on DOO services on, for example, Great Northern or GWR?

 

[6Gman]

Is that due to no evac routes?

I hope, for the sake of those visiting Liverpool from afar, that at least 4tph can run to Aintree, even if nothing else runs. Not that I particularly care about the races, but because it is the city's reputation at stake.

Four trains per hour would be worse than nothing. With eight trains per hour the trains are packed with long queues.

 

[razor89]

Did any lines that are DOO elsewhere see an increase in muggings and/or anti-social behaviour when they converted to DOO? Over the last year for which stats are available, how do the levels of muggings on Merseyrail compare with those on DOO services on, for example, Great Northern or GWR?

Sorry, are there stats available? If so, why are you asking me? Go ahead and find out for yourself!

 

[6Gman]

Given Merseyrail's historic staffing policy that would seem surprising, but like with the Tube I wouldn't have a massive issue with it done over a period of time as people leave the TOC and are not replaced (so basically a complete stop on ticket office staff recruitment with a slow reduction in offices and opening hours resulting from it). Can anyone genuinely say that, for example, Aughton Park[1] ticket office is actually economically viable?

Putting ToD on the TVMs would probably be more useful than a load of ticket offices that do barely anything other than selling returns to Liverpool. Platform staff would be more useful (for both platform and PTI safety) than ticket office staff.

[1] When the old wooden shed was condemned, I was amazed a new one was provided rather than a TVM.

What does "ToD on the TVMs" mean? Genuine question.

 

[Dave1987]

Did any lines that are DOO elsewhere see an increase in muggings and/or anti-social behaviour when they converted to DOO? Over the last year for which stats are available, how do the levels of muggings on Merseyrail compare with those on DOO services on, for example, Great Northern or GWR?

There was a piece in the London Evening Standard a while back that said anti social behaviour and attacks were at record levels on London Overground.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was a piece in the London Evening Standard a while back that said anti social behaviour and attacks were at record levels on London Overground.

Human nature being what it is, unfortunately, will see such happenings not just on trains, but on buses, on the streets of towns and cities, in shopping malls, etc.

 

[Moonshot]

Human nature being what it is, unfortunately, will see such happenings not just on trains, but on buses, on the streets of towns and cities, in shopping malls, etc.

This is correct.......but of course anti social behaviour can be dealt with on a train by a guard provided he or she is both in a position to do so and has the personal skills and attitude to deal with that. Guards are not policeman however, which is why I mentioned the fact that guards can call in BTP - and also in rare cases ask for authority to run services express to nearest main station.

Its worth pointing out that BTP sometimes travel in plain clothes , and I can testify that they have surprised miscreants on a number of occassions.

 

[trainophile]

What does "ToD on the TVMs" mean? Genuine question.

Merseyrail TVMs do not have the facility to collect pre-bought (online) tickets, i.e. ToD, except for South Parkway which has one such machine. It is about time at least the main stations like Liverpool Central and Southport had ToD machines.

 

[Dave1987]

Human nature being what it is, unfortunately, will see such happenings not just on trains, but on buses, on the streets of towns and cities, in shopping malls, etc.

As long as it doesn't occur in your road eh Paul :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Given Merseyrail's historic staffing policy that would seem surprising, but like with the Tube I wouldn't have a massive issue with it done over a period of time as people leave the TOC and are not replaced (so basically a complete stop on ticket office staff recruitment with a slow reduction in offices and opening hours resulting from it). Can anyone genuinely say that, for example, Aughton Park[1] ticket office is actually economically viable?

Putting ToD on the TVMs would probably be more useful than a load of ticket offices that do barely anything other than selling returns to Liverpool. Platform staff would be more useful (for both platform and PTI safety) than ticket office staff.

[1] When the old wooden shed was condemned, I was amazed a new one was provided rather than a TVM.

Good job lots people aren't like you otherwise or economy would be utterly screwed. Some of us still like to be served by people and not a machine.

 

[6Gman]

Good job lots people aren't like you otherwise or economy would be utterly screwed. Some of us still like to be served by people and not a machine.

And when I'm waiting for a train at Waterloo, or Bank Hall, or Green Lane I quite like the idea that there's a member of staff about.

Somehow - and I may be a bit old-fashioned - a TVM doesn't give me the same reassurance.

 

[Robertj21a]

Good job lots people aren't like you otherwise or economy would be utterly screwed. Some of us still like to be served by people and not a machine.

Not necessary for just basic, routine, transactions - ATMs, supermarket tills, train tickets........

 

[Dave1987]

Not necessary for just basic, routine, transactions - ATMs, supermarket tills, train tickets........

And I'm sure it will be people like you moaning those that you have replaced with a machine have now become a burden on the state through being unemployed. I hate self service tills, they are utterly terrible and take twice as long as a human cashier. I will stick with the human rather than the machine thanks.