-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Transpennine Industrial Relations
- Thread starter geoffk
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
dk1
Veteran Member
I find that quite laughable for some of us with many years under the belt. Just will not happen.
I would also like to see this 6 months notice period for drivers
It's in my terms and conditions.
Notice Arrangements
A minimum of six months written notice is required from employees wishing to terminate their
contract of employment.
And you are a Driver at which TOC please ?
Northern drivers employed after 2012 (I think is date) have to give 6 months notice.
Just a notice period for drivers. There was a lot of poaching in the FNW days so the clause was added (I think) during a productivity agreement.
I don't have to provide evidence.....I'm telling you it's the case. It's in my Ts&Cs for one and I know of at least one other TOC where this is the case.
Cheers again. My TOC has a pretty high turnover so 12 weeks is reasonable protection for the TOC.
I would hope that the 6 months is discretionary.
My TOC has a 12 week notice period but we get £3k a week if paid in lieu and many TOCs also have that clause. (Not gonna provide evidence of this)
If I had to work 6 months notice I would accrue 14days leave. Which is about £2k so that would be a nice leaving bonus.
The 6 months is mandatory for the ones it applies to. They can be released early if it’s agreed by the company. I know some who didn’t bother working it but I suppose it’s wether you want to burn your bridges or not.
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,737
do you mean this greater flexibility in the bus/coach industry ?
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
No, most office work and many ordinary businesses. Some of these will also have high skill requirements but wouldn't attract enough of the best quality staff if the notice period was viewed as excessive.
That’s simply not the case.
Most higher paying professional type roles in particular will be three months minimum, quite possibly with gardening leave clauses attached. High quality, highly valued staff tend to attract longer notice periods rather than shorter.
The 6 months notice was introduced around 2002 as part of a ‘Driver retention package’
I thought it was introduced under northern. FNW notice period was a lot less than 6 months.
Last edited by a moderator:
CAF397
Member
It's a strange strategy the DfT seem to be going for, allowing most TOCs to withdraw RDW, and cutting services to address staffing shortages.
Whilst it's true TOCs shouldn't rely on RDW to cover the train plan, it has always benefited company and staff to do it that way. We have a lot of trainees who are now struggling to either go with a suitable instructor, or get their hours in. In the long term this will help solve the staffing shortage as they'll be productive quicker. But training has now been shelved, or reduced, and long term this isn't beneficial to company or passengers.
Will someone who knows the railway industry please start running Great British Railways.
Whilst it's true TOCs shouldn't rely on RDW to cover the train plan, it has always benefited company and staff to do it that way. We have a lot of trainees who are now struggling to either go with a suitable instructor, or get their hours in. In the long term this will help solve the staffing shortage as they'll be productive quicker. But training has now been shelved, or reduced, and long term this isn't beneficial to company or passengers.
Will someone who knows the railway industry please start running Great British Railways.
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,747
The problem is that unless you have an obscenely high spare ratio, with lots of people sat around all day every day, even after all duties are covered, which even the most profligate business would struggle to afford and justify, you will always need an element of RDW / Overtime to cover the trainplan.
This isn't always a result of bad planning, but down to a lot of factors. It's also a problem that affects smaller depots more.
For example, allocated annual leave is planned a year or so ahead, and when it comes to it on the day you may suddenly find those people on leave are all or mainly on late shifts, but most of your available spares are on earlies and can't move to lates. Somebody may go sick at short notice, after the daily rosters have been posted, and there is no immediate spare available for the whole shift - you may need to use more than one spare, or, if not available, someone working overtime. If people retire / transfer / are still in training / not fully qualified etc etc, and those lines in the link all happen one week to fall on the same pattern of days or shift then you suddenly need a lot more spares all at the same time to cover.
It isn't quite as simple as just saying that you shouldn't use overtime to cover the train plan. In many cases, especially smaller depots, it is simple unavoidable.
This isn't always a result of bad planning, but down to a lot of factors. It's also a problem that affects smaller depots more.
For example, allocated annual leave is planned a year or so ahead, and when it comes to it on the day you may suddenly find those people on leave are all or mainly on late shifts, but most of your available spares are on earlies and can't move to lates. Somebody may go sick at short notice, after the daily rosters have been posted, and there is no immediate spare available for the whole shift - you may need to use more than one spare, or, if not available, someone working overtime. If people retire / transfer / are still in training / not fully qualified etc etc, and those lines in the link all happen one week to fall on the same pattern of days or shift then you suddenly need a lot more spares all at the same time to cover.
It isn't quite as simple as just saying that you shouldn't use overtime to cover the train plan. In many cases, especially smaller depots, it is simple unavoidable.
It's all about saving money, the DfT now control TOCs, they make the decisions, but hide behind the TOCs who cop all the flack.
Although I would be careful how deeply you look into that. Some depots have absolutely horrendous cost utilisation which probably cannot be solved without wholesale changes to the model.
Of course GBR may well put some wholesale changes on the table but they certainly won't be ones that are viewed by the unions as beneficial.
Just a reminder that this thread is to discuss the specific topic of industrial relations on Trans Pennine Express.
If anyone is aware of any action on other TOCS then they are welcome to start a new thread complete with link about the action.
thanks
If anyone is aware of any action on other TOCS then they are welcome to start a new thread complete with link about the action.
thanks
I'm interested what are these changes going to be ?
Also what specific depots have such poor costs utilisation?
Thanks
Absolutely. However, for once, the reason for so many RDW deals disappearing recently is not entirely attributable to them or the TOCs.
There are plenty of places where there are small and/or "duplicate" depots. Many being the result of the way the industry was split up for privatisation, and subsequent reshuffles until around 2007, although there are some more recent "innovations" too (for example Avanti's Holyhead driver depot).
It is utterly illogical for the taxpayer to stump up to employ drivers at the same location on different conditions, with no ability to cross-cover for disruption, sickness, holiday etc., and with TOCs poaching from each other.
If GBR takes a sensible, strategic view, many of these "anomalies" are liable to be resolved. Of course, given the direction of travel the White Paper indicated, that appears unlikely, and so the current inefficiency will continue.
I get a strong sense that the DfT want the ability to control much more the operation of the railway but without the increased accountability to the public. Just as with the GTR dispute back in 2015-2016, I get the impression the government will try and use the TOCs, TPE being one of the first, as shields to absorb the negative publicity. Thiey're already blaming "sickness" for the reduction in services largely caused by an inability to agree a renewal of RDW agreements. TPE operates in areas where I believe there's quite a bit of leisure travel (Lake District, Scottish Borders), especially during the summer. If Covid restrictions have been removed by then, how will the government justify the reduced service?
The way to overcome this would be to employ all drivers under one organisation on the same basic rate with a location allowance and possibly a "difficulty" allowance with the work deemed most challenging/undesirable getting an additional allowance. The problem this brings is that it would be much easier to organise industrial action on a national level. Poaching is a function of the free market, if we drivers can't take action at a national level due to working for different employers, surely we shouldn't face undue barriers to competition between those employers to retain their drivers.
I would gladly have a massive route and traction card because I like variety though the DfT approach these days seems to be to assign the smallest route and traction card they can to each depot (particularly the case with new depots) which often results in cross-cover being impossible.
The way to overcome this would be to employ all drivers under one organisation on the same basic rate with a location allowance and possibly a "difficulty" allowance with the work deemed most challenging/undesirable getting an additional allowance. The problem this brings is that it would be much easier to organise industrial action on a national level. Poaching is a function of the free market, if we drivers can't take action at a national level due to working for different employers, surely we shouldn't face undue barriers to competition between those employers to retain their drivers.
I would gladly have a massive route and traction card because I like variety though the DfT approach these days seems to be to assign the smallest route and traction card they can to each depot (particularly the case with new depots) which often results in cross-cover being impossible.
dk1
Veteran Member
The perfect answer would be to put all us drivers on the terms, conditions & salary of the highest paid TOC (AWC I think) and then I’m sure everything will fall into place
dk1
Veteran Member
Fair enough. Think I just read 12hr spare movements (gulps!!). Think I’ll stick with our 3.
Last edited:
I’d keep the no double tripping but everything else I think is get from west mids/northern
I think that the the thing they really want is cost control. And as much as the current 'transition' model is rubbish and produces rubbish results... can they really be blamed for refusing to sign off some of this expenditure?
- Status