When I explain to passengers what my role and responsibilities actually are they are usually very surprised and then when I tell them what DOO actually means for them they are pretty much horrified. Sadly the Majority of passengers just see the guard doing tickets or opening the doors they don't know what our role really is. If the majority of the public did personally I think they would see things very differently.
That's interesting, not least because it backs up my feeling that when passengers do understand the difference between what the on board staff are trained, it does seem to have a bearing on what they say they prefer.
Saying that, the way the differences are explained will also have an effect!
Exactly! Something I think the RMT is failing at miserably is to communicate what a Guard does and why they should be retained.
Agreed. It's also what they can do should it be necessary, and I personally feel that FGW needs to do more to explain what plans it has for what is now classed as the TM role on board long distance services. Will the role be watered down, even if existing staff have their pay and conditions protected? Will training be diluted to reflect that?
In none of their press releases have they explained why FGW adopting DOO will compromise safety and what the safety critical roles of the guard are. Just that what is good for VTEC should be good enough for FGW and join our fight against the big, bad, corporate, money grabbing managers at FGW who are 'crashing ahead' with their plans to 'rip out the buffet cars' etc.........:roll:
Communication is often a weak point for the RMT and other unions. They should be focusing on the guard's training and role in emergencies and other situations that can arise on train during a journey. As has been said, explaining to passengers what might be the difference between now and five years time, is of vital importance as far as I'm concerned.
I do think that it's fair to make the point that the same trains will be running on other routes with a TM.
I think that if passengers from, say, Penzance were asked if they wanted a guard/ other uniformed presence on their train to London even if it cost an extra £1 on their ticket (which it shouldn't, anyway) I think apart from the tightwads who always want everything at the lowest possible price there would be a significant majority in favour of the second bod. The faredodgers would vote against of course.
My view is that there is a fully trained TM/guard on the services now. That's the status quo, so it shouldn't really be a question of paying more to ensure that is retained. It's not as if the FGW/DfT proposals will lead to £1 being cut off fares!
As well as the training and capability of the on board members of staff, I'm also concerned that FGW haven't provided a great deal of assurances or explanations as to how far they will go to ensure that TM's are diagrammed for every service. I feel that there will be an inevitable drift towards not diagramming every service, or at the very least rostering TM's who are known to be sick or absent and unable to work the service. I very much doubt they will continue to have the same amount of spare turns as they do now.
