RMT report about Trainline

[Harpo]

Perhaps RMT’s biggest piece of work in support of passengers is the retention of a guard/conductor/other?

 

[43066]

Yes and no. Passengers are workers. They're (mostly) not RMT members so of course they're not the RMT's main focus, but there are common interests and there should be scope to work together.

Are passengers “workers”? And what does the term even mean?

All together now:

“Unions represent their own members, not workers generally”.

As an ASLEF member, who are perhaps more mercenary about these matters, I don’t want my union to represent anything other than my own interests as a driver. I’m sure it’s the same for the RMT, albeit they represent a wider range of grades.

I won’t comment any further, having lobbed that particular bomb into the discussion….

 

[Haywain]

Happier passengers are less likely to abuse staff.

Unhappy customers are a construct of the employer.

Yes and no. Passengers are workers. They're (mostly) not RMT members so of course they're not the RMT's main focus, but there are common interests and there should be scope to work together.

The RMT will happily represent it's members but the railway's customers are not its members.

 

[redreni]

Are passengers “workers”?

Yes, overwhelmingly.

And what does the term even mean?

There are plenty of definitions out there, but the trade union movement has traditionally taken the broadest possible view.

All together now:

“Unions represent their own members, not workers generally”.

Forgive me if I don't join in.

As an ASLEF member, who are perhaps more mercenary about these matters, I don’t want my union to represent anything other than my own interests as a driver. I’m sure it’s the same for the RMT, albeit they represent a wider range of grades.

You speak as if ASLEF members' interests are fundamentally different than the interests of other workers. They're really not.

 

[Krokodil]

Happier passengers are less likely to abuse staff.

The ones who start abusing staff are generally not the ones being falsely accused of having an invalid ticket. The ones abusing staff are usually the ones who know full well that they're defrauding the railway. Latest case I had is someone who was buying a ticket to a station he had no intention of alighting at, with a railcard discount he's never produced a railcard for.

 

[Bishopstone]

An attempt by the RMT, flushed with success following the recent pay settlement, to push the Government into banning third-party ticket retailers as they (Government) consider structures for GBR.

Unlikely to succeed, but worth a press release I suppose, and every Guard in my X feed has popped-up to reinforce the messaging that Trainline make mistakes whereas industry ticket issuers never, ever, do.

 

[Kite159]

Our guards (at least those on the IC side of the operation) don’t earn commission on ticket sales, and many of those who do will be paid for scanning tickets, so not sure how much of an issue this is in practice.

It varies between operators, some get commission on sales, some get nothing. Some get paid per scan, some don't.

Trainline tickets will be more an issue for that group who don't get paid to scan tickets (and in the case of some Avanti staff refuse to scan it) but would have gotten commission on the ticket from AnyHalt to BigTown as 'AnyHalt' lacks ticket buying facilities.

----

I saw an earlier post about Liverpool to Manchester only being available as a 'paper' ticket rather than eTicket. If it's an flexible 'any operator' ticket then it will likely include validity on merseyrail from James Street/Moorfields, and merseyrail are like TfL in being stuck in the dark ages.

 

[sheff1]

That’s a false equivalence there, though. The RMT isn’t there to represent passengers.

That's not the RMT's job, it's there to look after its members.

I would have expected the RMT to insist that members with ticket checking responsibility are given appropriate training to ensure they do not get into unnecessary altercations with people using valid tickets.
Such interactions must surely be stressful for the staff, as well as the customer, with the potential for verbal, or even physical, abuse. Something I assume the RMT would want to prevent as much as possible.

 

[Haywain]

I would have expected the RMT to insist that members with ticket checking responsibility are given appropriate training to ensure they do not get into unnecessary altercations with people using valid tickets.

Which just shows that you don't know what unions are about.

 

[sheff1]

Which just shows that you don't know what unions are about.

You are completely wrong there, but further discussion regarding that is not relevant to this thread

 

[TUC]

If only the RMT highlighted passengers towards the better value that sites such as Trainsplit offer. Instead it seems to have a misplaced obsession with ticketing being under monopoly public sector control. Hard to see how that is in the passengers' best interests.

 

[Haywain]

If only the RMT highlighted passengers towards the better value that sites such as Trainsplit offer. Instead it seems to have a misplaced obsession with ticketing being under monopoly public sector control. Hard to see how that is in the passengers' best interests.

RMT has an obsession with the railway in its entirety being under public control. Its political view is not driven by the public interest.

 

[43066]

I would have expected the RMT to insist that members with ticket checking responsibility are given appropriate training to ensure they do not get into unnecessary altercations with people using valid tickets.
Such interactions must surely be stressful for the staff, as well as the customer, with the potential for verbal, or even physical, abuse. Something I assume the RMT would want to prevent as much as possible.

They absolutely will insist on conflict avoidance training for their members, for the reasons you highlight, and indeed it has been standard for customer facing staff for a few years now.

If only the RMT highlighted passengers towards the better value that sites such as Trainsplit offer. Instead it seems to have a misplaced obsession with ticketing being under monopoly public sector control. Hard to see how that is in the passengers' best interests.

Disappointing to see yet another contributor wrongly suggesting that the RMT, as a trade union representing employees, is somehow negligent for not acting as a passenger information service.

 

[Adam Williams]

Disappointing to see someone else wrongly suggesting that the RMT, as a trade union representing employees, is somehow negligent for not acting as a passenger information service.

Can I expect they don't act as a passenger misinformation service? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[43066]

Can I expect they don't act as a passenger misinformation service? Or is that too much to ask?

Providing passenger information isn’t part of their remit, in the same way as the BMA or the Royal College of Nursing don’t offer NHS patients advice, and BALPA don’t advise airline passengers on where to buy tickets.

Why does this need to be pointed out again and again?

 

[Adam Williams]

Providing passenger information isn’t part of their remit, in the same way as the BMA or the Royal College of Nursing don’t offer NHS patients advice.

Why does this need to be pointed out again and again?

Because if the BMA or Royal College of Nursing started publishing something demonstrably false to further their own political ideology, they'd be rightly slated for it. "It's not in our remit" isn't a license to go on a disinformation campaign. If you don't have a clue about the thing you are trying to campaign about, the right thing to do is shut up and say nothing and focus on what is in your remit. Does the truth not matter anymore?

If my own union started publishing nonsense to further their own political agenda outside the (frankly, pretty narrow) mandate they have of furthering their member's interests when it comes to govt legislation, I'd be pretty upset that that's what my dues were funding and also upset about the reputational damage they were doing to my profession. Thankfully that's not been the case with any of their campaigns.

 

[43066]

Because if the BMA or Royal College of Nursing started publishing something demonstrably false to further their own political ideology, they'd be rightly slated for it. "It's not in our remit" isn't a license to go on a disinformation campaign. If you don't have a clue about the thing you are trying to campaign about, the right thing to do is shut up and say nothing and focus on what is in your remit.

If my own union started publishing nonsense to further their own political agenda outside the (frankly, pretty narrow) mandate they have of furthering their member's interests when it comes to govt legislation, I'd be pretty upset that that's what my dues were funding.

I don’t disagree with you there, but if the RMT’s membership aren’t happy with the union’s activities that’s for them to raise (as I’ve already noted, it wouldn’t be my preference for my union to spend its time on this stuff).

The report is certainly politically biased, as you would expect, but I’m not sure it’s entirely false? There are many complaints about The Trainline on this forum, for much the same reasons as raised the RMT report.

However the RMT are not purporting to act as a passenger information service, and it’s disingenuous for anyone to suggest otherwise.

 

[TUC]

Disappointing to see yet another contributor wrongly suggesting that the RMT, as a trade union representing employees, is somehow negligent for not acting as a passenger information service.

My point is that the report purports to express concern for passengers being ripped off by Trainline. It may be a union report, but it chose to cast its report in the context of passengers. The corollary of making such a claim is that there is a responsibility to point towards what will offer the best solution for passengers, not the union's personal preferences.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

 

[alistairlees]

I don’t disagree with you there, but if the RMT’s membership aren’t happy with the union’s activities that’s for them to raise (as I’ve already noted, it wouldn’t be my preference for my union to spend its time on this stuff).

The report is certainly politically biased, as you would expect, but I’m not sure it’s entirely false? There are many complaints about The Trainline on this forum, for much the same reasons as raised the RMT report.

However the RMT are not purporting to act as a passenger information service, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The report does not have to be entirely false for it to be mostly false.

The report does demonstrate, very well, the inability of the RMT, and those who work for it, to conduct critical analysis, draw logical conclusions, or conduct research in a rigorous manner. As such it diminishes any future activity that the RMT may do, which can only be to the detriment of its members; this ('reputation') should be a consideration of any responsible organisation when considering what activities to do.

 

[43066]

The corollary of making such a claim is that there is a responsibility to point towards what will offer the best solution for passengers, not the union's personal preferences.

As noted above, the concern will likely be due to the impact on its members, and the inevitable political slant, which is just what trade unions do. Criticising something doesn’t imply a requirement to direct people elsewhere, and indeed the report makes no attempt to do so.

It’s a press release put out by a trade union - there’s no reason anyone should regard it as gospel or as definitive source of information.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

As such it diminishes any future activity that the RMT may do, which can only be to the detriment of its members; this ('reputation') should be a consideration of any responsible organisation when considering what activities to do.

Isn’t that a matter for the members, though (are you one?)? Most of the RMT members I know seem pretty happy with its performance.

 

[TUC]

Criticising something doesn’t imply a requirement to direct people elsewhere, and indeed the report makes no attempt to do so.

Criticising without offering solutions is a marker of a lazy thinker.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

The report does not have to be entirely false for it to be mostly false.

The report does demonstrate, very well, the inability of the RMT, and those who work for it, to conduct critical analysis, draw logical conclusions, or conduct research in a rigorous manner. As such it diminishes any future activity that the RMT may do, which can only be to the detriment of its members; this ('reputation') should be a consideration of any responsible organisation when considering what activities to do.

Exactly so. Even with campaigning organisations such as unions, the ones that are most respected are the ones who bring rigorous analysis to their work.

 

[alistairlees]

Isn’t that a matter for the members, though (are you one?)? Most of the RMT members I know seem pretty happy with its performance.

I didn't say it wasn't; it is a matter for members. As a non-member I can also make observations.

 

[43066]

Criticising without offering solutions is a marker of a lazy thinker.

An interesting statement given many of the uninformed, critical postings that are made on this very forum! I profoundly disagree.

Exactly so. Even with campaigning organisations such as unions, the ones that are most respected are the ones who bring rigorous analysis to their work.

They don’t need “respect” from anyone other than their members, though?

I didn't say it wasn't; it is a matter for members. As a non-member I can also make observations.

You did suggest that the report diminishes the future ability of the RMT to perform. That’s not the view of those who belong to it.

 

[virgintrain1]

Splitsave:

Not always stating only valid in trains stopping at the split stations. People always reply the Trainline says its an any permitted, open return not understanding the restrictions of split tickets.

Splits that are mixed with advances

Splits that mix day returns with open returns

Under the 'my reserved seat tab', half the time it will say something like Coach E 22A when in reality that reservation is only for the of the split tickets.





GroupSave and TOC only restrictions not made crystal clear.



Live info is often seems poor or lagging behind other apps. The live update tab then always shows the departure times of the train they are getting off for their connection. This causes stress as they think the train is running late and their connection is at risk.



The big refund button.

The industry in general has a big problem with communicating the difference between delay repay and refunds. You get it on a daily basis that paxs that have been delayed on way down have incorrectly pressed refund. This of course doesn't get the correct amount back and then cancels their return barcodes.



Are these all exclusive to TL? No but all areas I think the TL and industry can work together to make things clearer to the customer. TL is however quicker than the trainpal/trip app and does seem to assist in revenue protection matters.

 

[alistairlees]

You did suggest that the report diminishes the future ability of the RMT to perform. That’s not the view of those who belong to it.

It is my view. You can tell that from the fact that I posted it, giving a reason for it. I don't know what the view of RMT members is on this report, but I expect there will be a range of views, as there is on many things in life.

 

[43066]

It is my view. You can tell that from the fact that I posted it, giving a reason for it. I don't know what the view of RMT members is on this report, but I expect there will be a range of views, as there is on many things in life.

Fair enough. There are some legitimate points raised, I hope we can at least agree on that.

I haven't canvassed for views - clearly - so I’ll preface my previous point by saying it won’t be *likely* to make any difference. Most members pay little attention to press releases.

At times it just feels like there’s a pile on when the RMT make points that many posters on this forum would also make themselves - that’s my only point - I’ll leave it there.

 

[Hadders]

Providing passenger information isn’t part of their remit, in the same way as the BMA or the Royal College of Nursing don’t offer NHS patients advice, and BALPA don’t advise airline passengers on where to buy tickets.

If providing passenger information isn’t part of RMT’s remit then why are they producing reports on ticketing?

 

[Krokodil]

If providing passenger information isn’t part of RMT’s remit then why are they producing reports on ticketing?

It's a review of the issues their members have had.

Got one today, actually. Trainline's confirmation email even says "Open Return". No madam, you bought a Day Return.

 

[TUC]

They don’t need “respect” from anyone other than their members, though?

Some of the most successful third sector organisations in their influence of government policy have that success because of strong respect by government of their competence and fairness in making their arguments. Inward looking views that only the respect of members matters does the union no favours.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2024 ==

If providing passenger information isn’t part of RMT’s remit then why are they producing reports on ticketing?

Or to put it another way, if passengers aren't part of the union's areas of responsibility why are they seeing to interfere in the ability of passengers to have choice in where they buy tickets?

 

[yorkie]

I’d say a much bigger issue was RMT members using TIRs inappropriately with the aim of generating more revenue for their TOCs…

Absolutely

I've seen Trainline sell someone a Manchester Victoria to Piccadilly single before as part of a split ticket journey, on an itinerary that tells them to walk between the stations!

Can you provide an example of such an itinerary and screenshots please?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2024 ==

It's a review of the issues their members have had.

Got one today, actually. Trainline's confirmation email even says "Open Return". No madam, you bought a Day Return.

That's because the industry cannot make its mind up on the meaning of the term; I have written posts on that subject on many previous occasions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2024 ==

If providing passenger information isn’t part of RMT’s remit then why are they producing reports on ticketing?

Exactly!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2024 ==

Perhaps RMT’s biggest piece of work in support of passengers is the retention of a guard/conductor/other?

That's a whole new topic, but this myth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Feel free to create a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2024 ==

That's not the RMT's job, it's there to look after its members.

Indeed and I hope people te

My opinion, online retailing is pretty poor, not just Trainline. Perhaps if retailers were forced to comply with (eg) DfT requests to make things clearer, this would be less of an issue.

Recently observed retailer A issuing tickets for eleven-o'clock-ish for trains at 6am in the morning peak.
Retailer B sending customers via an itinerary route clearly not allowed by a listed, clear negative easement.
Retailer C does not make clear that you have to pick up tickets, and hasn't updated the text as promised.
Retailer D could not issue a simple e-ticket for a Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly ticket, only a collect at machine one.
Retailer E sells tickets with a wonderful itinerary suggesting you can catch any train, then the e-ticket just says "Advance 1804" in 2mm high letters - just a trap.
Retailer F sells tickets for "use any train" on the booking. Which actually means use any blue train on the e-ticket.

I could give loads of examples of ticket office or train staff mis-selling, overcharging, or refusing to honour tickets.

Unpopular as it is to some, or those with business interests, perhaps it's time for one accountable retailer, UK Plc.

Ok so you want to abolish our ticketing site; interesting! Please create a new thread in the Speculative Discussion section ; I will robustly disagree with your proposals there!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2024 ==

The report does not have to be entirely false for it to be mostly false.

The report does demonstrate, very well, the inability of the RMT, and those who work for it, to conduct critical analysis, draw logical conclusions, or conduct research in a rigorous manner. As such it diminishes any future activity that the RMT may do, which can only be to the detriment of its members; this ('reputation') should be a consideration of any responsible organisation when considering what activities to do.

Absolutely spot on.

However RMT won't want to take on any of this feedback whatsoever and will bury their heads on the sand and continue to insist they are right.

They would never admit errors in their ludicrously inaccurate report. It's not in their nature

I would welcome being proven wrong and for RMT to issue a retraction and apology