Volunteer working

[Philip Phlopp]

With that in mind it points to the DFT preferring Sundays as part of the working week as extra staff will be at the TOCs cost and not a concern of the DFT.

Interesting to wonder how they'd bring it in.

It's most definitely a concern to the DfT, if they're suggesting it, it's their idea and they're admitting they will accept a lower franchise premium payment in return for a better Sunday service OR DfT have calculated bringing in a better Sunday service will be cost neutral or cost positive over the franchise term, resulting in higher premium payments.

The elephants in the room, which nobody has mentioned thus far, is that running more Sunday services with the current levels of rolling stock isn't easy, TOCs will need more spare stock to be able to cycle everything through maintenance, and TOCs will need better diversionary route knowledge, so that we continue to have generous access to the network for maintenance and upgrades. There's no point in spending another £125k per annum at every depot if your drivers then spend Sunday sat around the mess room TV watching repeats of Columbo, because p'way or S&T have possession of your routes.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes I'm aware that not everyone works a regular 5 day week. Or even a completely regular pattern every month. But for the purpose of calculating your entitlement to annual leave you would need to base it on a weekly average somehow - even if it means adding up everything you are required to work over the course of a year and dividing by 52. It's a bit more complex granted.

And that is how it has been done, and we only get 16 days!

 

[headshot119]

Yes I'm aware that not everyone works a regular 5 day week. Or even a completely regular pattern every month. But for the purpose of calculating your entitlement to annual leave you would need to base it on a weekly average somehow - even if it means adding up everything you are required to work over the course of a year and dividing by 52. It's a bit more complex granted.

A 12 hour roster will work out about 3 days a week on average.

Gov.uk says that someone working 3 days a week is entitled to 16.8 days annual leave.

So Llanigraham getting 16 days annual leave is about right I'd say. It may be depending on the workplace that Christmas day is counted as a days annual leave which eliminates the problem of the 0.8 left over.

 

[ComUtoR]

There's no point in spending another £125k per annum at every depot if your drivers then spend Sunday sat around the mess room TV watching repeats of Columbo, because p'way or S&T have possession of your routes.

Top Gear usually.

The benefit of the current arrangements for Bank Holidays is that we can cycle the staff according to route knowledge so that there isn't a mass of staff watching Dave.

With weekend work we can still get a glut of staff sitting about due to various blocks because you are restored on regardless. With the existing arrangements on some TOC's with their Sundays you just leave everyone at home.

The big picture is much more complicated than staff.

 

[Sunset route]

I thought everyone (including agency staff) was entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks annual leave in the UK now. If you work 5 days a week then that equates to 28 days (which may or may not include bank holidays) so 5.6 X 5 days = 28 days. (It could be 20 days that you can choose plus 8 bank holidays with dates that are fixed). If you work shifts then it's based on your shift pattern over an average week but you should still get 5.6 weeks. If you work part time, say 4 days per week then it's 5.6 X 4days = 22.4 days.

Some contracts may be more generous of course.

Don't even go into the signallers annual leave matrix (it's a mine field), a 24/7 8hr roster only comes out at a maximum of 27 days, if you've got more than 10 years service and 25 if you have not. There are other varying levels depending on how many hours a day and days a week your location is open for.

Sunday's are outside the working week, but any Sunday that's on the base roster have to be covered unless you can get it covered on overtime. Our place couldn't survive without rest day working and extra Sunday overtime due to staff shortages, even to the point that shift supervisors have had to cover panels.

If your roster falls on a bank holiday then you have to work it. Christmas Day & Boxing Day are no different in that respect, although we work with a reduced volunteer staffing levels. If there are not enough volunteers then the whole shift had to be booked in. Christmas Day we only provide security and staff for engineering work cover but on Boxing Day our TOC provides a train service so you need enough staff to safely operate the panels plus look after whatever engineering work is taking place.

The management are not that keen in paying 5 whole shifts worth of staff over the Christmas break on our enhanced overtime rates of pay for those days, so we work with agreed reduced staffing. Most staff get Christmas off so they are happy and the company does break the bank in wages paying us, so it's a win win.

 

[Robertj21a]

A member of rail staff will pay more attention to the contents of his contract rather than how a business plans to operate a railway, and rightly so!

I am not rail staff, but an employee is not responsible for the allowing the "bigger picture" to succeed, i.e. a 24/7 railway.

Rail staff, like everyone else in employment, go to work to earn as much money as possible, doing as little as they can contractually get away with.

When considering whether you would like to join the railway, I suspect you aren't particularly interested in how your contract affects the customers, that is a management problem!

I wonder if this poster now feels that he might want to clarify his comments ?

In my experience, only a minority set out to do 'as little as they can contractually get away with'. The vast majority of staff take considerable pleasure from knowing that they have done a good job and have, where appropriate, worked with others to help achieve the aims of the company.

Does the poster view his job in total isolation, or recognise that he is employed in a larger organisation which needs him, and the rest of their staff, to work as part of a large team ?

 

[A-driver]

I wonder if this poster now feels that he might want to clarify his comments ?



In my experience, only a minority set out to do 'as little as they can contractually get away with'. The vast majority of staff take considerable pleasure from knowing that they have done a good job and have, where appropriate, worked with others to help achieve the aims of the company.



Does the poster view his job in total isolation, or recognise that he is employed in a larger organisation which needs him, and the rest of their staff, to work as part of a large team ?

I think you are taking this out of proportion. On a basic employee/employer relationship you have an employer who wants staff to work as hard as possible for as little remuneration as possible-they have a business to run and profits to generate. An employee will always want the opposite. No ones claimed they don't want to do a good job either.

I'd also point out that whilst there are many companies out there who treat staff very well and reward loyalty leading to the employees working very hard in return and going way over their contracts to help the company out, none of these are rail operators. Go out of your way to do an excellent job as a train driver and you will hear nothing, zilch, not a word. Perhaps a meaningless computer generated letter saying that you got good feedback on Twitter but that's it. Make a mistake and they will do their hardest to get you out of the door.

Moral is rock bottom at many rail operators. I personally don't look to do anything more than I absolutely have to. I could go out of my way to help out-loads of overtime when my relief dosnt turn up etc but if, weeks later, I need to leave work half an hour early to go to the dentist etc the reply will absolutely 100% be a no.

So it works both ways. And I agree with the poster, I choose which TOC to work for based on conditions, pay and geography (I have a choice of a few where I live) and u till my employer leads the way, I'll do what my contract states and that's all.

 

[dquebec]

I wonder if this poster now feels that he might want to clarify his comments ?

In my experience, only a minority set out to do 'as little as they can contractually get away with'. The vast majority of staff take considerable pleasure from knowing that they have done a good job and have, where appropriate, worked with others to help achieve the aims of the company.

Does the poster view his job in total isolation, or recognise that he is employed in a larger organisation which needs him, and the rest of their staff, to work as part of a large team ?

Why would anybody agree to do more than contractually obliged, particularly in an unionized environment?

If a company wants you to do more than the contractual terms, then they have to pay up or offer some sort of additional compensation arrangement, (lieu day, bonus etc). If I still refuse to do more, then the company needs to either change my contract (at cost), or find someone else to do the additional work (at cost).

Employers take advantage of employees all the time. In this day and age, "goodwill" simply doesn't exist. If you do them a favour, it certainly isn't guaranteed you'll get one back.

More fool the rest of the "team" who agree to do more than specified without additional compensation!

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

i think you are taking this out of proportion. On a basic employee/employer relationship you have an employer who wants staff to work as hard as possible for as little remuneration as possible-they have a business to run and profits to generate. An employee will always want the opposite. No ones claimed they don't want to do a good job either.

I'd also point out that whilst there are many companies out there who treat staff very well and reward loyalty leading to the employees working very hard in return and going way over their contracts to help the company out, none of these are rail operators. Go out of your way to do an excellent job as a train driver and you will hear nothing, zilch, not a word. Perhaps a meaningless computer generated letter saying that you got good feedback on twitter but that's it. Make a mistake and they will do their hardest to get you out of the door.

Oh how true, the reality of train driving that the rose tinted "i'd love to be a train driver" people never see until they get the job

moral is rock bottom at many rail operators. I personally don't look to do anything more than i absolutely have to. I could go out of my way to help out-loads of overtime when my relief dosnt turn up etc but if, weeks later, i need to leave work half an hour early to go to the dentist etc the reply will absolutely 100% be a no.

So it works both ways. And i agree with the poster, i choose which toc to work for based on conditions, pay and geography (i have a choice of a few where i live) and u till my employer leads the way, i'll do what my contract states and that's all.

indeed

 

[Llanigraham]

A 12 hour roster will work out about 3 days a week on average.

Gov.uk says that someone working 3 days a week is entitled to 16.8 days annual leave.

So Llanigraham getting 16 days annual leave is about right I'd say. It may be depending on the workplace that Christmas day is counted as a days annual leave which eliminates the problem of the 0.8 left over.

Poor memory!! We get 17 days.
I had 16 in my mind as that is what I have been awarded in my retirement settlement

 

[Robertj21a]

Why would anybody agree to do more than contractually obliged, particularly in an unionized environment?

If a company wants you to do more than the contractual terms, then they have to pay up or offer some sort of additional compensation arrangement, (lieu day, bonus etc). If I still refuse to do more, then the company needs to either change my contract (at cost), or find someone else to do the additional work (at cost).

Employers take advantage of employees all the time. In this day and age, "goodwill" simply doesn't exist. If you do them a favour, it certainly isn't guaranteed you'll get one back.

More fool the rest of the "team" who agree to do more than specified without additional compensation!

Well I suppose I asked for that. At least we now all have a clear definition of what constitutes a typical rail worker in a heavily unionised organisation - '....doing as little as they can contractually get away with'.

How very depressing, I was rather hoping that these attitudes were only for a minority, it seems not.

 

[455driver]

Well I suppose I asked for that. At least we now all have a clear definition of what constitutes a typical rail worker in a heavily unionised organisation - '....doing as little as they can contractually get away with'.

How very depressing, I was rather hoping that these attitudes were only for a minority, it seems not.

I don't know if he works on the railways or not but that certainly isn't how it works, even though resources seem to go out of their way to **** the staff off most would still help out if needed, it's just the way we are.

 

[A-driver]

Well I suppose I asked for that. At least we now all have a clear definition of what constitutes a typical rail worker in a heavily unionised organisation - '....doing as little as they can contractually get away with'.



How very depressing, I was rather hoping that these attitudes were only for a minority, it seems not.

Lol. I expect nothing less from a poster like you. Ignore all the posts answering your post and making it clear what was meant and just trundle on blindly pretending they were never posted. Carry on making sure you can get your silly little digs in at 'typical rail workers' and their 'heavily unionised attitudes'.

Please answer me this...what benefit would I or my colleagues see by going above and beyond to keep the job moving whilst management saves a packet on recruiting enough drivers to run their advertised service? Sorry if that's too selfish for you but I have this job to pay my mortgage and feed my family. Not to go home with the satisfaction of knowing I've got people from A-B on time. If I wanted a job with satisfaction of have become a nurse or similar.

Where do you draw the line? How flexible should I be whilst my employer carries on exploiting my generosity to further increase their profits by even more cut backs?

This is definitely not a unionised militant attitude. It's a realistic attitude looking at the realities of being a worker in any UK industry at the moment. I'm sure you'd prefer we all submitted to everything our masters asked of us and said 'thank you for giving me a job' at the end of every working day but the only reason anyone does a job is to earn money to live on. Otherwise there is unpaid charity work.

 

[Llanigraham]

In all the years I have worked on the railway I have rarely worked a rest day, and other than my rostered Sundays I just work my booked days. I'm not the only one in my Box that does the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I suppose I asked for that. At least we now all have a clear definition of what constitutes a typical rail worker in a heavily unionised organisation - '....doing as little as they can contractually get away with'.

How very depressing, I was rather hoping that these attitudes were only for a minority, it seems not.

Then I suggest that you have a very simplistic view and have totally ignored what has been written here!

And funnily enough I have friends that work outside the rail industry who have a very similar attitude to me, including many in the Civil Service!

 

[dquebec]

A contract is there for a reason, to define boundaries.

Rail staff are just as entitled to any other person or industry to decide to do more than they are contractually obliged to perform. My simple point is that if a company expects their staff to go "above and beyond", especially on a regular basis, the company is going to have to make appropriate compensation arrangements.

Just because someone only fulfills the minimum required by their contract does not mean they are lazy or a bad worker - after all, they are still correctly performing their duties.

Companies these days take advantage of staff who are prepared to go the extra mile, unpaid overtime etc - and it's wrong - if staff are expected to do more than contractually obliged, they should be compensated at whatever the going rate is.

 

[LowLevel]

I don't know if he works on the railways or not but that certainly isn't how it works, even though resources seem to go out of their way to **** the staff off most would still help out if needed, it's just the way we are.

He's a nasty troll who for whatever reason has a thing about unions and it's standard for him.

I'll try his approach one of these days when I'm asked to help out. In practice thus far despite being a committed member of the RMT I regularly stretch the terms of my contract beyond their limits to help my passengers and employer as do the rest of my colleagues. Next time I get a phone call off the TCS with 11 hours notice asking me to cover some rubbish rather than my booked job I'll just tell them to bugger off. Same as when they call to ask if I can come in with an hours notice on my day off to prevent cancellations. Of course I actually won't as we have a fairly cordial give take relationship where they help me too.

I suspect he makes the mistake of equating emotive responses on a web forum to actual real life actions.

 

[Robertj21a]

A contract is there for a reason, to define boundaries.

Rail staff are just as entitled to any other person or industry to decide to do more than they are contractually obliged to perform. My simple point is that if a company expects their staff to go "above and beyond", especially on a regular basis, the company is going to have to make appropriate compensation arrangements.

Just because someone only fulfills the minimum required by their contract does not mean they are lazy or a bad worker - after all, they are still correctly performing their duties.

Companies these days take advantage of staff who are prepared to go the extra mile, unpaid overtime etc - and it's wrong - if staff are expected to do more than contractually obliged, they should be compensated at whatever the going rate is.

Thank you (and A-driver) for confirming your views. However, you've already confirmed that your attitude is to '........do as little as they can contractually get away with', so I don't know why you bother repeating yourself.

I've also said that I find that attitude very depressing. It's a personal view so I'm really not bothered whether you like it, or not.

 

[A-driver]

Thank you (and A-driver) for confirming your views. However, you've already confirmed that your attitude is to '........do as little as they can contractually get away with', so I don't know why you bother repeating yourself.



I've also said that I find that attitude very depressing. It's a personal view so I'm really not bothered whether you like it, or not.

No, you have clearly ignored the numerous posts explaining the post and carried on trolling your anti Union and anti rail staff nonsense-which is all you ever seem to post about on here.

As has been clearly said, a contract is there to prevent employers abusing employees. I pay you this and you do this. If changes are needed to that then it needs to be negotiated fairly with a contract change, not just a case of allowing an employer to ignore the contract.

But I'm wasting my time explaining anything to a troll like you as you will, once again, ignore it and carry on looking for threads to spout your ill informed anti-union/staff rubbish. Happy new year.

Plus, on the topic of this thread, why should anyone ever have to give up their day off work to help out their employer? I can see the odd hour here and there but why should an employee be expected to work on their days off to? Are they not entitled to a life outside work?!

 

[455driver]

I tell you what Robert, the next time I am asked to help out I will refuse, I mean according to you we are all like that anyway!
You are nothing but a nasty, narrow minded, arrogant troll who is unable to actually read a post properly!

 

[matt]

I think both sides have had chance to air their views so there isn't much else to add to the thread.

I'll close the thread, if anyone has anything significant to add PM a member of the forum team.

 

[bb21]

I don't even know how a thread like this could end up in a big argument.

I don't think being unionised has much to do with the current problems involving volunteer working on Sundays. As already pointed out by people earlier, the unions actually prefer to have Sundays inside the working week, but some of the TOCs won't agree to it, as it costs money. It is obviously possible as some TOCs do it, so the ball is in the court of those TOCs who consider it unworthy on cost grounds. Ultimately this cost will have to be passed onto fare-payers and/or tax-payers if brought in.

As for the comment about people doing as little as possible. I only have three things to say. Firstly most rail staff are helpful and will do what they can if there is indeed a rostering issue, but this obviously cannot be guaranteed every time, so problems do occur. Secondly I don't see why the response by a selected number of posters that they would be happy to do the bare minimum required should be extrapolated into a "typical" response from rail staff. Finally why is it depressing that some people do not want to do more than what their contract requires? Employees are not charities to TOCs.