TPE driver shortage

[syorksdeano]

Is this the reason last Wednesday (30th September) pretty much all services from Cleethorpes terminated at Sheffield, and some even at Doncaster before heading back to Cleethorpes?

I noticed a few units parked up on the middle roads last Wednesday, think about 4 all together

 

[34D]

So stop complaining about train drivers pay then and stop making silly snide remarks. Drivers pay is realistic. If it wasn't then we wouldn't earn it. And don't start suggesting that our pay is the reason your fares are so high-it most definately isn't.

And as I say, this is about TPX drivers trying to negotiate a better deal for themselves. Just because they already earn a fairly decent wage it dosnt mean they shouldn't be seeking to make further improvements.

I'm very interested to know what your salary cut off point would be where you believe a workforce should just accept they have it good enough and therefore shouldn't be allowed to better their employment conditions. 20k? 30k? 40k? Although I rather suspect that you believe the cut off is anyone earning a penny more than you do...

I think the point is that £47k is is middle management type salary, where for that level of money people are expected to work whatever hours are required.

For many office staff, a four day week would translate to a 1/5 drop in salary regardless of the length of each day.

Again, there would be a much stronger view of 'ownership of issues' and effort to put things right from someone who is middle management in a different industry.

I think if train drivers pay was closer to bus/truck drivers in the mid 20s there would be support for better pay/conditions from all quarters.

I'm not saying this to provoke debate, but merely to articulate a viewpoint.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think the point is that £47k is is middle management type salary, where for that level of money people are expected to work whatever hours are required.

For many office staff, a four day week would translate to a 1/5 drop in salary regardless of the length of each day.

Again, there would be a much stronger view of 'ownership of issues' and effort to put things right from someone who is middle management in a different industry.

I think if train drivers pay was closer to bus/truck drivers in the mid 20s there would be support for better pay/conditions from all quarters.

I'm not saying this to provoke debate, but merely to articulate a viewpoint.

A very sensible viewpoint too. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the salary levels for train drivers, the ordinary man in the street is likely to consider them highly paid.

 

[WCMLaddict]

Unfortunately, people of the north should prepare themselves for even more disruptions in coming months.
Strike ballot is coming up... just to be clear, it is not about pay deal or money.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately, people of the north should prepare themselves for even more disruptions in coming months.
Strike ballot is coming up... just to be clear, it is not about pay deal or money.

it will be in the media

 

[A-driver]

I think the point is that £47k is is middle management type salary, where for that level of money people are expected to work whatever hours are required.



For many office staff, a four day week would translate to a 1/5 drop in salary regardless of the length of each day.



Again, there would be a much stronger view of 'ownership of issues' and effort to put things right from someone who is middle management in a different industry.



I think if train drivers pay was closer to bus/truck drivers in the mid 20s there would be support for better pay/conditions from all quarters.



I'm not saying this to provoke debate, but merely to articulate a viewpoint.

Why should any salary mean people have to work an unlimited number of hours just because their boss tells them to. Again, at what salary do you consider employees should accept they will be working unlimited overtime whenever their boss clicks their fingers?!

Once again you are just implying it's wrong that train drivers have good pay, God conditions AND are able to stick to the hours they are being paid to work with the ability to say 'no, actually I finish work at 1700 today and want to go home as I have a life outside work. I'm not going to just drop everything and cancel all plans to work and extra 3 hours for you for no pay'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it only be those in the top union jobs who seem to display such support?

Who says any of them do? Do you know any of them well enough to know their political views? Didn't think so, just making Hingis up again based on your blinkered views!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A very sensible viewpoint too. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the salary levels for train drivers, the ordinary man in the street is likely to consider them highly paid.

So? So what if we are highly paid, as I said-it dosnt mean we should loose all rights to try to better ourselves. Regardless of pay, no one should ever HAVE to work overtime. Fine, let staff volunteer to work OT but accept that if you start to really pee them off then they may well stop. That's what's happened here.

 

[notadriver]

I think if train drivers pay was closer to bus/truck drivers in the mid 20s there would be support for better pay/conditions from all quarters.



I'm not saying this to provoke debate, but merely to articulate a viewpoint.

Why is train drivers pay compared downwards to bus/truck drivers ? Why aren't they compared the other way against air traffic controllers and pilots whose median salary is higher than train drivers?

I think people involved in the bus industry simply cannot see why there is a problem as it doesn't exist in that industry since pay rates are such that bus drivers accept any terms and conditions and are forced to do 50-60 hours a week in many cases just to bring home a decent wage. No thanks.

 

[DarloRich]

Why is train drivers pay compared downwards to bus/truck drivers ? Why aren't they compared the other way against air traffic controllers and pilots whose median salary is higher than train drivers?

because pilots are thoroughly decent chaps who can be counted upon to vote Tory not like those awful bloody upstart oiks who are simply jumped up dirty little manual workers who drive trains and should know their bloody place.

Mainly because the drive to compare and equalise salaries is always to compare with the next step down the ladder rather than the next step up

 

[Agent_c]

because pilots are thoroughly decent chaps who can be counted upon to vote Tory not like those awful bloody upstart oiks who are simply jumped up dirty little manual workers who drive trains and should know their bloody place.

Mainly seedcase the drive to compare and level salaries is always to level downwards not upwards.

Pilot median pay is skewed by the old hands on older contracts. I'm sure TPX would be more than happy to pay pilots on a Brookfield style contract £20kpa or so l, self employed so no holidays and work out your own tax) that Ryanair use... I'm sure they'd be happy for you to pay your own training too...

This isn't to defend TPX, but there is a lot of issues behind pilot pay that would mean I wouldn't wish it on you.

 

[A-driver]

because pilots are thoroughly decent chaps who can be counted upon to vote Tory not like those awful bloody upstart oiks who are simply jumped up dirty little manual workers who drive trains and should know their bloody place.

Mainly seedcase the drive to compare and level salaries is always to level downwards not upwards.

Absolutely. And it's far easier for a right wing anti union media to provoke jealousy from lower paid people against well paid rail staff (you can't ford to get the train to work because the greedy drivers who are paid three times your basic salary continue to 'demand' more) than it is to try to convince other well paid workers (like pilots and air traffic controllers etc) that those paid less than them are overpaid.

Jealousy is a very good tool to use if trying to provoke a reaction, sell papers, gain political support or turn people against each other.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the point is that £47k is is middle management type salary, where for that level of money people are expected to work whatever hours are required. For many office staff, a four day week would translate to a 1/5 drop in salary regardless of the length of each day.

When I was in my senior managerial role,prior to retirement, admittedly extremely well paid, an 80 hour week with total project commitment was the norm with Saturday and Sunday viewed as any other days, as my good lady wife will so attest.

 

[DarloRich]

When I was in my senior managerial role,prior to retirement, admittedly extremely well paid, an 80 hour week with total project commitment was the norm with Saturday and Sunday viewed as any other days, as my good lady wife will so attest.

I am not paid enough for that. My phone is off when I leave the office, I don't take work home and I don't work weekends or extra hours without some form of recompense, be it official or unofficial. In a previous job I worked massively long days/at home/weekends and in the end was shafted despite vague promises of jam tomorrow. Never again.

If i am needed in an "on call" role pay me an unsociable hours rate or it will wait till i get to work the next morning.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You can't ford to get the train to work....

Fords are notoriously wet places and somewhere to be avoided if walking (unless you are wearing waders) on your way to the railway station or on your way to work....

 

[A-driver]

When I was in my senior managerial role,prior to retirement, admittedly extremely well paid, an 80 hour week with total project commitment was the norm with Saturday and Sunday viewed as any other days, as my good lady wife will so attest.

And that's unacceptable. If they advertised the job at an 80hour week they would get no applicants. Quite simply that's 2 people's jobs on a 40hour week each being rolled into one to save money.

The pay is irrelevant, working an 80hour week is bad for the employee and employer and is likely to lead to long term social and health problems. No amount of money would see me working an 80 hour week long term. What's the point? Earn lots of money and never see kids growing up/wife/friends etc?! Seems a pointless way to live as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ComUtoR]

When I was in my senior managerial role,prior to retirement, admittedly extremely well paid, an 80 hour week with total project commitment was the norm with Saturday and Sunday viewed as any other days, as my good lady wife will so attest.

Whats your point ? Are you posting to say that it is acceptable or not ?

I have also been there in a management role where I was doing 80hr weeks. For sheer giggles I worked out what I was getting paid per hour worked. I was also on less that £20k but still expected to work all hours. Work life balance is very very important. How many Managers burn out with stress ? How many are divorced ?

I've been there and it is not pleasant. I have kids and I'd like to see them grow up and maybe go to the occasional parents evening.

NO EMPLOYEE irrespective of their salary should be expected to work additional time without remuneration and without choice. Are people really espousing that employees are no more than slaves to their employer and should just put up and shut up ? As a Driver I am already contractually obligated to do additional hours it is the worst part of the job and after 10+ years it is only now being paid and even now not in whole.

Another thing that is being overlooked is the fatigue element. You can also add the legal restrictions on hours worked as well as the legal restrictions on being safety critical.

Employee rights must be protected.

 

[Greenback]

NO EMPLOYEE irrespective of their salary should be expected to work additional time without remuneration and without choice. Are people really espousing that employees are no more than slaves to their employer and should just put up and shut up ? As a Driver I am already contractually obligated to do additional hours it is the worst part of the job and after 10+ years it is only now being paid and even now not in whole.

Another thing that is being overlooked is the fatigue element. You can also add the legal restrictions on hours worked as well as the legal restrictions on being safety critical.

Employee rights must be protected.

I agree absolutely. Working 80 hours a week, mostly unpaid, is not good for anyone. It's appalling that companies expect such things, and it's even more appalling that it seems to be seen as acceptable in the first place.

 

[455driver]

it will be in the media

My thoughts exactly!

Remember a comple of years ago when Virgin WC offered their drivers £65k (I think it was) but the drivers had to give up all their conditions, they would effectively be on annualised hours and wouldn't get hours deducted if they were spare or travelling pass etc, in fact they would only get hours deducted if they were actually driving the trains.
Obviously they rejected it but it was all "train drivers to strike because £65k isn't enough" type headlines.
As far as the media is concerned it's always about the money.


Edit-
I see another thread about train drivers has been hijacked by the 'you should bend over and be rogered for that amount of money' jealous bunch of <deleted> as normal! :roll:

 

[notadriver]

On my Facebook page I jokingly asked if anyone would volunteer to do my Saturday night shift as I'd been working the last 6 days and fancied the evening off. One guy replied :

What's with u complaining about working 5pm till 2am???
How many people would love to be a train driver...
I'd do it everyday

 

[gtr driver]

Why should any salary mean people have to work an unlimited number of hours just because their boss tells them to. Again, at what salary do you consider employees should accept they will be working unlimited overtime whenever their boss clicks their fingers?!

Once again you are just implying it's wrong that train drivers have good pay, God conditions AND are able to stick to the hours they are being paid to work with the ability to say 'no, actually I finish work at 1700 today and want to go home as I have a life outside work. I'm not going to just drop everything and cancel all plans to work and extra 3 hours for you for no pay'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Who says any of them do? Do you know any of them well enough to know their political views? Didn't think so, just making Hingis up again based on your blinkered views!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



So? So what if we are highly paid, as I said-it dosnt mean we should loose all rights to try to better ourselves. Regardless of pay, no one should ever HAVE to work overtime. Fine, let staff volunteer to work OT but accept that if you start to really pee them off then they may well stop. That's what's happened here.

To answer both points:

- Paul, I wouldn't even say it's as simple as the top echelons being militant. I would expect that most people working directly for the union in terms of its activities - as in working for the members and wider social aims such as encouraging more women into driving or tackling homophobia in the workplace - would be of a liberal or leftist persuasion. And possibly socially rather than politically liberal. But unions are organisations like any other and some people always carve out particular careers within them that take them high up. I'd be surprised if many of them are sitting round planning coups. Dare I say wanting a fairer society and having to sometimes fight for it has become synonymous with militancy - possibly due to the less than balanced press that inhabits the UK.

- Not just Paul! Regarding long hours for high pay. It isn't right that someone should be expected to do endless unpaid overtime in return for their higher pay. But having worked in environments where this was the norm, I understand that people can sometimes willingly be drawn into a working culture like this - as they perceive a longer term benefit to themselves and the organisation. We could debate the effect this has on a person's health - I'm sure it isn't positive. But I suspect we are talking about a white collar environment - and I accept that we may not be - and train driving isn't like that. It is a safety critical job, requiring pretty much non stop focus and concentration, bearing a heavy responsibility (in my part of the network I could be entirely on my own with hundreds of passengers), with the inherent pressure of walking a reasonably fine line between normal working and a situation developing; all done against the background of very unsocial hours, irregular meals, sleeping, toilet breaks and so on. None of which is helped by the permitted commercially led pressures that exist such as flexible rostering, stock changes, changes of train formation all of which help to muddy the waters somewhat. Hence enforced limits on driving hours which are quite broad (72 hours a week) and efforts by the union to agree a humanly reasonable work load. This is one job - like many others - where you really need to be as alert and refreshed as possible - and it is already very difficult to be so. So choosing to work extra days comes with the burden of knowing you could be making it more likely that you make a mistake which could endanger lives as well as your career. This is the reason why a rest day agreement may not be in place and why if it does an incentive is needed. Also remember that whilst a 4 day week sounds great, it's based on a 35 hour week, which can mean 4 quite intense days; and when you work a Sunday, it's actually a 7 day week, to which adding extra days is not fun. And that's before you consider the higher likelihood of diabetes, high blood pressure etc etc from working shifts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On my Facebook page I jokingly asked if anyone would volunteer to do my Saturday night shift as I'd been working the last 6 days and fancied the evening off. One guy replied :

I presume you answered, "So how many driving jobs have you applied for and when do you start?" then?

 

[HH]

They are hardly going to admit they are short of drivers are they

But are they? In the past they had a robust establishment calculation and a cover ratio of around 1.6, despite working 4.2 turns per week, rather than 4. Vernon Barker didn't believe in relying on RDW.

 

[glbotu]

Whats your point ? Are you posting to say that it is acceptable or not ?

I have also been there in a management role where I was doing 80hr weeks. For sheer giggles I worked out what I was getting paid per hour worked. I was also on less that £20k but still expected to work all hours. Work life balance is very very important. How many Managers burn out with stress ? How many are divorced ?

I've been there and it is not pleasant. I have kids and I'd like to see them grow up and maybe go to the occasional parents evening.

NO EMPLOYEE irrespective of their salary should be expected to work additional time without remuneration and without choice. Are people really espousing that employees are no more than slaves to their employer and should just put up and shut up ? As a Driver I am already contractually obligated to do additional hours it is the worst part of the job and after 10+ years it is only now being paid and even now not in whole.

I completely agree with you. I wish to say this first and foremost.

However it's amazing what peer pressure can do. Looking at how top banking companies and consultants treat their staff, I'm amazed they don't strike on a regular basis. A relative of mine works for a major consultancy firm. In his first few years of working there he was working until 11/12pm most nights (starting at 8/9am) and not able to claim overtime (they have fun little waivers you have to sign). After one or two years (I can't remember which), they boot out the half that they perceive as having not done enough.

And all of them think this is a good thing. That's the thing, people are honestly convinced by their companies to do lots of work for free and love it. This means that when someone who works in that sort of environment sees that Train drivers get paid for their overtime and request to actually rest, they don't see why they aren't just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts/being fired for asking difficult questions.

Another thing that is being overlooked is the fatigue element. You can also add the legal restrictions on hours worked as well as the legal restrictions on being safety critical.

Employee rights must be protected.

I just can't see why people can't see that the safety critical aspect is paramount. This is very similar to the current issue with junior doctors. People can't seem to get that people's safety is important.

 

[HH]

LOL. 80 hours? He's lucky. I once worked 110-120 hours a week for 6 weeks on a project, with only half a day off during that time.

But it isn't right. I wouldn't do it again, no matter the reason.

 

[notadriver]

To answer both Also remember that whilst a 4 day week sounds great, it's based on a 35 hour week, which can mean 4 quite intense days; and when you work a Sunday, it's actually a 7 day week, to which adding extra days is not fun.

Great post - apologies for editing. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the intensity. I could drive a coach for 9 hours and it would feel far less tiring than driving a train for the same amount of time.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

In terms of being short of drivers, how far do you go? How much spare coverage do you have?

If you have a small depot at the far end of the route, which has 8 duties per day (4 early and 4 late), how many staff do you roster each day to ensure that no matter what happens all duties are always covered in all circumstances all the time, without the need for any occasional overtime?

Lets say you have 100% spare cover. So each day you have 4 early duties and 4 early spare men, just in case. The same on lates. So that's 16 staff per day on duty to cover 8 jobs. Not only is that extremely expensive, it is still no guarantee that everything can be covered. Lets say that of the 4 late staff who have booked duties, 1 is sick (he phoned up this morning to say he was ill) and two are on restricted duties due to prescribed medication, getting back to work with a minder after a fatality, or a host of other reasons. Never mind, you have 4 spare men to cover those 3 uncovered jobs. But wait, of those 4 spare men 2 are on annual leave and 1 is actually a vacancy because someone left to work on freight 2 weeks ago having worked his 6 months notice, but as it takes 18 months to recruit and train a replacement, his replacement hasn't started yet. So you only have 1 spare man to cover 3 uncovered duties. So you still have 2 uncovered duties. How do you cover them? Yet in the morning you had 4 rostered staff and 4 staff sat spare, but they can't be moved to late shifts as you can only move someone 3 hours either way, and they are on an early start the next day anyway.

So do you have even more spare staff, who would, for most of the time, be sat around twiddling their thumbs getting paid £47k per year for doing so. That sounds extremely wasteful to me.

 

[gtr driver]

In terms of being short of drivers, how far do you go? How much spare coverage do you have?

If you have a small depot at the far end of the route, which has 8 duties per day (4 early and 4 late), how many staff do you roster each day to ensure that no matter what happens all duties are always covered in all circumstances all the time, without the need for any occasional overtime?

Lets say you have 100% spare cover. So each day you have 4 early duties and 4 early spare men, just in case. The same on lates. So that's 16 staff per day on duty to cover 8 jobs. Not only is that extremely expensive, it is still no guarantee that everything can be covered. Lets say that of the 4 late staff who have booked duties, 1 is sick (he phoned up this morning to say he was ill) and two are on restricted duties due to prescribed medication, getting back to work with a minder after a fatality, or a host of other reasons. Never mind, you have 4 spare men to cover those 3 uncovered jobs. But wait, of those 4 spare men 2 are on annual leave and 1 is actually a vacancy because someone left to work on freight 2 weeks ago having worked his 6 months notice, but as it takes 18 months to recruit and train a replacement, his replacement hasn't started yet. So you only have 1 spare man to cover 3 uncovered duties. So you still have 2 uncovered duties. How do you cover them? Yet in the morning you had 4 rostered staff and 4 staff sat spare, but they can't be moved to late shifts as you can only move someone 3 hours either way, and they are on an early start the next day anyway.

So do you have even more spare staff, who would, for most of the time, be sat around twiddling their thumbs getting paid £47k per year for doing so. That sounds extremely wasteful to me.

Which is why SOME rest day working is expected. But if a company deliberately relies on it on a wider scale, it puts itself on thin ice. Relying on the goodwill of volunteers is not a sound practice to meet a service level. Furthermore, if you either withdraw or downgrade the incentives in place to encourage volunteers, you cannot be surprised by a reduction in the number volunteering. Then if you start mucking up payroll or going to the press to suggest that individuals not volunteering to work their days off is tantamount to militancy, you can expect to lose goodwill to say the least.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

​

Unfortunately, people of the north should prepare themselves for even more disruptions in coming months.
Strike ballot is coming up... just to be clear, it is not about pay deal or money.

Ever remember the last "Winter of Discontent"?

 

[tony6499]

In terms of being short of drivers, how far do you go? How much spare coverage do you have?

If you have a small depot at the far end of the route, which has 8 duties per day (4 early and 4 late), how many staff do you roster each day to ensure that no matter what happens all duties are always covered in all circumstances all the time, without the need for any occasional overtime?

Lets say you have 100% spare cover. So each day you have 4 early duties and 4 early spare men, just in case. The same on lates. So that's 16 staff per day on duty to cover 8 jobs. Not only is that extremely expensive, it is still no guarantee that everything can be covered. Lets say that of the 4 late staff who have booked duties, 1 is sick (he phoned up this morning to say he was ill) and two are on restricted duties due to prescribed medication, getting back to work with a minder after a fatality, or a host of other reasons. Never mind, you have 4 spare men to cover those 3 uncovered jobs. But wait, of those 4 spare men 2 are on annual leave and 1 is actually a vacancy because someone left to work on freight 2 weeks ago having worked his 6 months notice, but as it takes 18 months to recruit and train a replacement, his replacement hasn't started yet. So you only have 1 spare man to cover 3 uncovered duties. So you still have 2 uncovered duties. How do you cover them? Yet in the morning you had 4 rostered staff and 4 staff sat spare, but they can't be moved to late shifts as you can only move someone 3 hours either way, and they are on an early start the next day anyway.

So do you have even more spare staff, who would, for most of the time, be sat around twiddling their thumbs getting paid £47k per year for doing so. That sounds extremely wasteful to me.

No it's not wasteful if that is what it takes to cover the work. There should be no rest day working, back in 1996 when we worked on train crew restructuring it was envisaged then that the salary paid would ensure that there would be no need to work rest days.

Rest days are exactly that, a day of rest away from the stresses of working trains and I wonder if there have ever been figures collated of the number of incidents by drivers working overtime against those who don't ?

 

[Robertj21a]

Why is train drivers pay compared downwards to bus/truck drivers ? Why aren't they compared the other way against air traffic controllers and pilots whose median salary is higher than train drivers?

I think people involved in the bus industry simply cannot see why there is a problem as it doesn't exist in that industry since pay rates are such that bus drivers accept any terms and conditions and are forced to do 50-60 hours a week in many cases just to bring home a decent wage. No thanks.

I daresay that train driver pay is compared to bus drivers as there are far more similarities than with, say, air traffic controllers or pilots - both of which, imho, need far greater skills and, I believe, qualifications.

In my personal opinion, bus drivers are badly underpaid for the very demanding job they undertake - which just serves to emphasise the enormous difference that now exists between bus and train driver salaries.

 

[A-driver]

I daresay that train driver pay is compared to bus drivers as there are far more similarities than with, say, air traffic controllers or pilots - both of which, imho, need far greater skills and, I believe, qualifications.



In my personal opinion, bus drivers are badly underpaid for the very demanding job they undertake - which just serves to emphasise the enormous difference that now exists between bus and train driver salaries.

I disagree. Air traffic control and pilot jobs are also something you can go into a receive full training, just like a train driver. All have similar implications if you make a mistake and all are classed as professional jobs with very strict selection processes. Bus driving, however, is based around the Highway Code and car driving, something which the vast majority of the population have taken and passed a test in.

 

[455driver]

No it's not wasteful if that is what it takes to cover the work. There should be no rest day working, back in 1996 when we worked on train crew restructuring it was envisaged then that the salary paid would ensure that there would be no need to work rest days.

Rest days are exactly that, a day of rest away from the stresses of working trains and I wonder if there have ever been figures collated of the number of incidents by drivers working overtime against those who don't ?

You can never eradicate rest day working but there should only be occasionally rest day working to cover for unexpected events, rest day working being available should not be the norm!