Railway franchises in the coming year

[Supaned]

I think the staff issues and percieved attitudes stem from several factors.

 

There's still an element of BR and it's immediate successors "f@8k 'em" attitude amongst some members of staff (although I should point out that does not mean all ex BR staff and by the same token , staff employed in more recent times can be just as bad) - as they can't necessarily be removed from their postions, this issue will only go away over time - if they are assessed as competant in their particular roles they can't really be dismissed unless there are correct legal grounds, having a "bad" attitude not being one of them.

 

Industrial relations are a very contentious issue - ultimately the staff side want the most money for the least work , the management side want the most work for the least money , and in an ideal world compromises could be reached, but sadly this is rarely the case. Some TOCs have "sold" their more restrictive ex BR conditions , giving the employers more flexibility in terms of rostering , commitment to sunday working etc , the key thing being that these things were negotiated and not imposed , and ultimately it costs money to achieve , so if TOCs (and by extension the DfT) won't pay for those things , this is one of the reasons that some TOCs cannot run their timetabled sunday services , because drivers or guards still retain their old BR conditons where sundays are not mandatory to work and the staff member can simply state they are "not available" for duty. I think many staff are aware that we live in a 7 day society now , but as I said , they aren't going to freely give up such a condition , especiaily when you consider the situation on TOCs where sundays are either part of the working week or committed , where drivers will find it diffcult to get a day off on a sunday for an event such as a family gathering  (yes, the railways are indeed a public service , but the people operating them have lives and families outside of work too , which sometimes is overlooked). The DOO situation is equally complex , and as can be seen from above , removing guards will still not fix the issue of no traincrew if there are insufficient drivers or for example none want to work a certain sunday. The adversial approach to industrial relations is achieving nothing. Granted both sides of the debate need to be more realistic on some matters but both seem to be so entrenched it's hard to see a way forwards sometimes.

 

Obviously the Unions and staff are a popular target for the media (and those who clearly believe what they read from the media) , the reality is very different.

 

[rockershovel]

I’d certainly agree about the attitudes of some relatively recent staff, in many sectors. The casualisation and erosion of working conditions, present in many sectors, are pretty much a recipe for “bad attitudes”; I’ve seen this in civil engineering, where large numbers of personnel “voted with their feet” during the oil construction boom which kicked off during the severe construction recession of 1991 onwards; the boom is over now, but those people aren’t coming back, on the evidence. 

 

There is far too much management by people who don’t know the business, who haven’t “done their time”, in this country. This can be justified on the grounds of success, but that success appears to be elusive at best. However trying to present “success” in employer-centred terms, against a background of erosion of conditions, is never going to create a good relationship - the threatened Royal Mail strike, bubbling away in the background, is a typical example. 

 

Ranulph Fiennes observes in one of his books, that “trust cannot be rebuilt; once integrity is compromised, the unit can only be disbanded and reformed, and the disbanded personnel may well form the focus of subsequent problems of this sort”. He derived this from his military experience, but actually the construction industry works in much the same fashion, exhibiting great reluctance to re-employ former staff who have been redundant and spent some time doing agency work. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

On the subject of absence of basic competence in government, I’ve just seen on tv that a couple who have been conducting a legal battle to enter into a mixed-sex Civil Partnership, have won their case. I never understood why this was excluded from the original legislation; most other European countries included it from the outset, and very popular it has proved to be. It seemed such an obvious, unforced error in the original legislation, open to a range of challenges; and so it has proved. 

 

This sort of thing seems to be present on every level, in every field. There seems to be a complete lack of ability to analyse problems, propose solutions and bring them to a workable conclusion in the general interest. 

 

 

[bimble]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

On the subject of absence of basic competence in government, I’ve just seen on tv that a couple who have been conducting a legal battle to enter into a mixed-sex Civil Partnership, have won their case. I never understood why this was excluded from the original legislation; most other European countries included it from the outset, and very popular it has proved to be. It seemed such an obvious, unforced error in the original legislation, open to a range of challenges; and so it has proved. 

 

 

because civil partnerships were designed to give the same rights as marriage (until such time that marriage between same sex couples was recognised) to same sex couples because mixed sex couples ALREADY had access to those rights, both through religious and civil services.

 

In fact, since the introduction of same sex marriages, civil partnerships have dropped to the point where there have been discussions of getting rid of them. To be honest, when this first went to court I half expected the Government to solve it by getting rid of civil partnerships before the case was over...

[96701]

10 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Sort the rail unions out also.

That takes management effort. Look how well it has turned out for Southern. Negotiation is key here, and that takes a management with knowledge and understanding.

[96701]

3 hours ago, Supaned said:

and in an ideal world compromises could be reached, but sadly this is rarely the case.

Not in my experience. Honesty with the staff and a full explanation of the requirements and business needs results in compromises being made without too much agro.

[The Stationmaster]

On 30/12/2019 at 17:01, rockershovel said:

Suspaned, above, seems to have put his(?) finger on a very important point - the long-term degradation of inherited assets which is inherent in any sort of fixed-term franchise operation. The only time I have seen this effectively countered was with Thames Water in the 1990s. Faced with a major programme of TBM tunnelling in London, to be carried out by contractors appointed under a framework scheme, TW invested in four TBMs with EPBM mode provision, from Lovatt of Canada. 

 

These machines were then allocated to the framework contractors with specific provision for operation, upkeep and maintenance on a cost-plus, open-book system. This achieved several things; it eliminated the well-known contractors' habit of thrashing machines into the ground (so to speak) for a return on one contract, it significantly ameliorated the risk inherent in such operations by removing great deal of the adversarial relations which tend to surround such activities, and assured long-term use of these very expensive assets. 

 

One of these machines will be arriving at Werrington soon, almost thirty years on. 

 

In the context of this discussion, the long-term asset base is the pool of ex-BR drivers which have, in effect, been asset-stripped over time. Any operation which does not provide long-term asset base renewal, is sub-optimally managed; this may be to provide profits for third parties who have no long-term interest in the continued operation of the function, expecting to lose the contract, find it become unprofitable or simply focus on something else over the course of time. 

 

Having spent most of my working life in sectors in which 24/7 operation is the normal course of events, although not necessarily continually stable, it has always been a mystery to me why the railways did not grasp this nettle, long ago. 

 

 

But the Driver age profile is nothing new - it was a major problem in the early-mid part of the 1990s and that wasn't the first time it had occurred.  and some operators, including franchisees have shown themselves to be quite capable of dealing with it over the past 25 years (because it has happened for some of them in that time).  What has changed is the ability of drivers to 'sell' their skill with far greater ease than was ever the case in the past history of Britain's railways (and in other countries) from the latter part of the 19th century onwards.  We are in some ways now much more in the US model for a 'market' for Drivers rather than any other.

 

What has also changed is the fact that no longer is one part of the railway prepared to act as a manpower training reservoir for much of the rest. We no longer have Southern region depots where Secondmen went to get their Driving job, and seniority, at various South London depots with a high turnover and where they spent the best part of their first year training which could very often be followed in less than a year back to their First Preference depot. the industry I.e. the privatised one) saw one answer in Driver's licences and a nationally agreed training format and recruitment scheme but lots of people didn't want to buy into it (not just for financial reasons).  And we're now in a situation where a competitive salary market for Drivers has altered their reaction to moving around between companies.

 

Have 'asset bases' been stripped?  Interesting question and the answer will I suspect vary widely between different operators.  I have a suspicion that you will find in some that the rate of shedding Drivers under redundancy is little different from what it was in BR times although in some case it will have taken place over a much shorter period than would have been the case in BR days.  I some you will find the opposite is true and Driver numbers have been increased although (as happened on BR) there might at teh same time have been some wastage - both natural and artificial through redundancy as depots have been relocated and so on.

 

Overall of course we might be looking at the consequences of short term franchises but in any length of franchise there is a very simple situation.  It takes X months to fully train a Driver from scratch, natural wastage will occur at a largely known pace (although illness mightl inflate that slightly) so management knows when Driver A will retire so therefore (all other things remaining equal) his replacement has to be recruited x months before then.  So there is a known cost for 'steady state' (of train types & b numbers) recruiting.  However if a franchise bid means new traction then teh bidder has to either increase Driver numbers to handle it (and DafT have to accept those numbers) or trains will be cancelled while training takes place).   In the end a lot of it comes back to DafT not properly assessing the cintent of bids and going for those offering the apparently best financial deal.  at the end of teh day it is all relatively straightforward maths and numbers.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Supaned said:

I think the staff issues and percieved attitudes stem from several factors.

 

There's still an element of BR and it's immediate successors "f@8k 'em" attitude amongst some members of staff (although I should point out that does not mean all ex BR staff and by the same token , staff employed in more recent times can be just as bad) - as they can't necessarily be removed from their postions, this issue will only go away over time - if they are assessed as competant in their particular roles they can't really be dismissed unless there are correct legal grounds, having a "bad" attitude not being one of them.

 

Industrial relations are a very contentious issue - ultimately the staff side want the most money for the least work , the management side want the most work for the least money , and in an ideal world compromises could be reached, but sadly this is rarely the case. Some TOCs have "sold" their more restrictive ex BR conditions , giving the employers more flexibility in terms of rostering , commitment to sunday working etc , the key thing being that these things were negotiated and not imposed , and ultimately it costs money to achieve , so if TOCs (and by extension the DfT) won't pay for those things , this is one of the reasons that some TOCs cannot run their timetabled sunday services , because drivers or guards still retain their old BR conditons where sundays are not mandatory to work and the staff member can simply state they are "not available" for duty. I think many staff are aware that we live in a 7 day society now , but as I said , they aren't going to freely give up such a condition , especiaily when you consider the situation on TOCs where sundays are either part of the working week or committed , where drivers will find it diffcult to get a day off on a sunday for an event such as a family gathering  (yes, the railways are indeed a public service , but the people operating them have lives and families outside of work too , which sometimes is overlooked). The DOO situation is equally complex , and as can be seen from above , removing guards will still not fix the issue of no traincrew if there are insufficient drivers or for example none want to work a certain sunday. The adversial approach to industrial relations is achieving nothing. Granted both sides of the debate need to be more realistic on some matters but both seem to be so entrenched it's hard to see a way forwards sometimes.

 

Obviously the Unions and staff are a popular target for the media (and those who clearly believe what they read from the media) , the reality is very different.

 

Yes, perhaps.  But in the past I managed various traincrew depots over the years where 'normal' BR Sunday and Bank Holiday rostering took place - i.e. such days were part of the roster although in the case of Sundays they were not part of the Guaranteed Week (in most cases Bank Holidays were part of the Guaranteed Week - because they occurred on weekdays).   And in over 20 years of that including involvement at higher levels of management the number of Drivers opting out of Sunday turns could be counted on the fingers of one hand and that hand didn't even include a couple of lay preachers who only occasionally asked for a Sunday off.  

 

What has changed of course is the massive (and long overdue) pay increase received by - probably - most Drivers which means they don't need the extra pay a Sunday turn could provide (and might not nowadays in some cases).  So there is no longer a financial incentive to work a Sunday turn.  But when you look at the other side of the coin nobody is going to work every Sunday - they would probably be likely to work no more than 1 in 3 in most cases and they can't work Sundays any more frequently than 1 in 2 otherwise the operator won't  be compliant with Hidden 18.  Equally of course - again in order to comply with Hidden 18 - they can't be asked to work higher than a certain frequency of Rest Days.  There is a suspicion that some operators probably aren't complying with Hidden 18 in which case they are laying themselves open to considerable trouble and possible prosecution and taht would not surprise me.

 

As for sitting down and talking ooperators and franchisees obviously vary.  My experience over several years in the private sector was that the franchise holders were scared witless of anything that would upset the staff but particularly traincrews (but that is now a good time back)

[rockershovel]

Interesting answer to a subject which undoubtedly, isn’t simple or amenable to a single answer. 

 

I’ve seen three versions of this, over time. Mining, in which the destruction of the industry has taken the whole training system, and over time the skills base, with it; oil and gas, a genuinely international industry in which there is what you describe as an American model, underpinned with a fairly robust (if frequently erratic) approach to providing essential training which isn’t available elsewhere; and U.K. civil engineering, in which skills have been lost faster than jobs can be de-skilled, and a general crisis seems to be in full swing. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Started with the Gas Board in 1969, 5 year apprenticeship, along with 12 others in South Lancashire (Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Widnes). ONC Mech Engineering, HNC Gas Engineering both utilisation & distribution (2 certificates), City & Guilds intermediate gas fitting, numerous other courses, many months on the job training starting with digging holes and fitting gas cookers, ending with running the gas conditioning programme (oil injection to reduce leakage etc) then out of apprenticeship and into the deep end with North Sea gas conversion. 

 

Fantastic apprenticeship - trained to do almost anything, job for life followed. Now retired.

 

All gone now. (in every industry, not just gas)

 

No wonder the UK is deeply in the sh1t. A degree now required to flip burgers.

 

Brit15

[corneliuslundie]

"the people operating them have lives and families outside of work too , which sometimes is overlooked"

I am glad to see someone saying this. Too often people who work a five day work in the office get irate because others do not want to work on Sundays so that they (the office workers) can use the trains. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We would be far better off going back to a situation where Sunday working was only required of those providing vital services - and providing trains to enable people to visit relations or go to a leisure centre is not a vital service.

But then I remember a time when Sundays were relatively quiet.

Jonathan

[159220]

On 28/12/2019 at 09:18, rockershovel said:

local elected mayors advocating that local authorities take over running of commuter services. I can’t see this as a credible proposal (that particular boat has sailed, I think) but there’s no doubt that the existing system of quasi-franchises can’t survive.

 

 

There is a genuine consideration for splitting the Northern Franchise into two. East and West, under the OLR. Keep an eye on Company House registrations in the New Year for Directly Operated Holdings Limited - Northern West and same for the East. This would be short term, to identify, post William's Review publication on how best to involve local input on local services radiating out of Manchester/Liverpool and along the East Coast. There is of course, acknowledgement  (and passengers won't want to hear this), there would be problems with who ever runs 'Northern' as simply the infrastructure/rolling stock has not been delivered on time. CAF shall never receive further orders for UK rolling stock, it's been effetely black listed. There is a saying, you get what you pay for! It is widely known, CAF has not made a penny from their UK contracts. (some stock, shall very unlikely see use much beyond the next franchise period as it is built so poorly). Additionally, DB has effectively binned the sale of Arriva due to the liabilities of its franchises. I wouldn't rule out, Arriva looking to return the Northern franchise to the DfT. 

 

On 28/12/2019 at 10:42, rockershovel said:

I’ve travelled in Europe and elsewhere over the years, and I’ve long ago come to the conclusion that the least worst solution to this particular conundrum is the European-style quasi-privatisation with the government retaining a controlling share and exerting overall strategic control. 

 

Lets me very clear, apologies if someone else has said. The DfT micro-manage every franchise down to the last level of detail, from staffing levels, service frequencies, trolleys, seat fabric, train colour. The DfT is the strategic control of the UK rail franchise system and as they have become too involved in micro-managing they are chaining the private parties into survival mode and the industry has utterly lose innovating and pragmatic solutions to resolving this troth feeding by the DfT. The Williams Review shall address this. But be under no illusions, our railway system is government controlled down to the last detail. When privation first began and through to the early/mid 2000s it is widely acknowledged as being a huge success as the private parties had the scope to do what private companies do best. Run something. But under successive governments/minsisters and sadly, egos at the DfT. We have got ourselves into a broken mess. There is not one private franchise party who shall not say privately the system is broken, but they are now just surviving. The end result of all this, passengers are suffering at a time when the industry has never seen an injection of modern rolling stock as we are now witnessing. But because decision are down to dealing with the day and there is no short/medium/long term strategy coming from the DfT who take micro-decision there and then. Private TOCs have to fight for every weekly decision. 

It is expected widely in the industry, Network Rail shall be given the responsibilities of franchising and strategic investment as the DfT shall shy (removed) away from forming a SRA 2.0. 

The industry needs medium and long term strategy, not government micro-managing. The private partners do best, when they are given the freedom to innovate and deliver a service, along a long term vision. ie. What infrastructure, what timetables, what passenger loads, what interaction with freight etc. 

 

The whole industry agrees there needs to be change, and it does not matter who runs it. Just not the DfT in its current form. There is consideration given for concession/management style franchises, with local input, across many commuter areas. 

 

One thing for sure, we are in for a rollercoaster and fascinating year for change in the railway industry. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by 159220

[rockershovel]

Micro-management CAN be very successful, the Japanese demonstrated this in the 1960s with the introduction of Continuous Improvement and the exponential improvements in quality control, which are the foundation of Just In Time manufacturing. MacDonald’s is ALL ABOUT micromanagement. So is NASA. 

 

However successful micromanagement requires in-depth product knowledge, clear communication and clear vision to identify when goals are being met. 

 

Most of the problems I see with micro-management, which is really only another name for rigorous management of details, revolve around insufficient training and briefing of those tiers of the structure, which are concerned with direct execution. This tends to degenerate into counter-productive interference by management which, lacking that knowledge themselves, cannot sufficiently focus their interventions and/or cannot sufficiently define the required actions. 

 

One thing which has become abundantly clear over the past past two decades, is that the “modernisation” of politics and its concomitant politicisation of functional structures, has had the long-term effect of eroding those structures to the point that our national leadership can no longer take meaningful decisions, nor implement effectively, those decisions which it does take; in large part, because those decisions are not capable of implementation, and the executive cannot trust its contractors, who in any case do not share the same goals (insofar as those goals are defined at all).

Edited January 1, 2020 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

One salient point in respect of Northern - idiots politicians and Civil Servants can carve it into as many pieces as they like along with banner headlines about their 'skill' in doing so.  But however you carve it up that will not create more Drivers - you can only do that through recruitment and training.   And you can only create a lot more Drivers on Sundays by changing conditions of employment which in turn might again mean actually having to recruit more Drivers.  In the end it is all down to relatively simple maths (although probably not simple enough for most politicians to understand).

[phil-b259]

21 hours ago, 96701 said:

Not in my experience. Honesty with the staff and a full explanation of the requirements and business needs results in compromises being made without too much agro.

 

And how does having a senior member of the DfT (who is still there I hasten to add) go round and boast to his conservative chums about how he was going to 'Break the Unions'*8 help?

 

Several times during the protracted dispute the TOC and the Union were close to making a deal to settle the issue only for said person in the DfT to personally veto** the attempt and prolong the industrial action.

 

(Given the Southern operation was actually a management contract the TOC management had even less control over things than usual - not that the DfT would admit it of course)

 

*https://insidecroydon.com/2016/06/15/southern-failways-civil-servant-wants-to-break-rail-unions/

*https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-punch-up-dft-official/

 

**https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/southern-rail-five-day-strike-11711923

Edited January 1, 2020 by phil-b259

[96701]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And how does having a senior member of the DfT (who is still there I hasten to add) go round and boast to his conservative chums about how he was going to 'Break the Unions'? *

 

Several times during the protracted dispute the TOC and the Union were close to making a deal to settle the issue only for said person in the DfT to personally veto** the attempt and prolong the industrial action.

 

(Given the Southern operation was actually a management contract the TOC management had even less control over things than usual - not that the DfT would admit it of course)

 

*https://insidecroydon.com/2016/06/15/southern-failways-civil-servant-wants-to-break-rail-unions/

*https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-punch-up-dft-official/

 

**https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/southern-rail-five-day-strike-11711923

Indeed. That goes to prove my point. Crap British management in action.

[phil-b259]

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

One salient point in respect of Northern - idiots politicians and Civil Servants can carve it into as many pieces as they like along with banner headlines about their 'skill' in doing so.  But however you carve it up that will not create more Drivers - you can only do that through recruitment and training.   And you can only create a lot more Drivers on Sundays by changing conditions of employment which in turn might again mean actually having to recruit more Drivers.  In the end it is all down to relatively simple maths (although probably not simple enough for most politicians to understand).

 

Maths doesn't come into it - its the need to be able to promise voters that the politicians can instantly make things better while simultaneous not admitting any liability for the current situation.

 

While I accept in todays age of instant gratification passengers are even less likely to be tolerant of 'sorry we got it wrong and its going to take a long time to get better' such conversations need to happen - if only to try and get it into the thick skulls of the UK population that not everything can be solved by a social media post!

 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

It’s more than that, though. There comes a point in any political cycle, in which the accumulated weight of unkept promises and ineffectual policies results in a collective loss of electoral patience, a general perception that no results can be expected, that problems can only continue under the present dispensation. That seems to be the case now. 

 

Patience to no purpose, is pointless. 

 

In 1979, Labour had clearly lost control of the situation, could not be expected to recover control, and the landscape changed. In 1997, the Conservatives had tested the public patience beyond its limits, and the landscape changed. We now seem to be in the position that the Conservatives have exceeded the public’s tolerance, but the only real alternative are in complete disarray, so the change has been less abrupt. 

 

I await developments with considerable interest. Boris Johnson clearly understands that he needs to produce SOME sort of identifiable results, on a number of fronts. There seem to be a considerable selection of areas in such disarray, that significant change will meet with little resistance, and the rail sector seems to be one of them; rail also has the considerable advantage that the necessary skills and resources can be found, fairly quickly. Johnson May affect a foolish persona, but he doesn’t strike me as someone who would be slow to visit his disapproval on those who don’t serve his purpose, and axing failed politicians or laying down the law to quangos won’t lose him any electoral brownie points. 

 

I would not be in the least surprised, if Johnson punted the ball right back into the hands of anyone with credible suggestions of improving the system. 

 

 

 

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, 159220 said:

Lets me very clear, apologies if someone else has said. The DfT micro-manage every franchise down to the last level of detail, from staffing levels, service frequencies, trolleys, seat fabric, train colour. The DfT is the strategic control of the UK rail franchise system and as they have become too involved in micro-managing they are chaining the private parties into survival mode and the industry has utterly lose innovating and pragmatic solutions to resolving this troth feeding by the DfT. The Williams Review shall address this. But be under no illusions, our railway system is government controlled down to the last detail.

 

Very true, and I wonder if maybe this is in part the result of one of the previous governments deciding that the subsidies to franchises / subsidy to NR were getting out of control and that costs had to be contained (primarily with the aim if I recall correctly to try and get passengers to pay a greater share, though with outrage at commuting costs going up this may have been difficult to to in reality).

 

And not that it will happen, but maybe the easiest solution to the current mess is to simply hire some competent people to run the appropriate part of DfT rather than to attempt to radically overhaul the entire system yet again?  To a certain extent the problem isn't that DfT is micro-managing things, but rather that they are so bad at it.

[royaloak]

On 31/12/2019 at 13:07, APOLLO said:

 

What ever answers I give will be torn to shreds. 

 

I'm not (and never have been) employed in the Rail industry therefore I admit I am not qualified to give answers, you are royaloak, so what are YOUR answers ?

 

The problems are widely known.

 

Brit15

 

 

I have written where the problems lie but you simply ignore it and trot out your usual anti staff, kick them into line rhetoric so there isnt any point putting it again.

[royaloak]

On 31/12/2019 at 13:15, Adamski94 said:

There are no easy answers, thats the problem. All solutions involve all parties singing from the same hymn sheet and being integrated and co-operative, the opposite to the idea of privatisation!

But there are SOME answers, the problem is with the way the franchises are let, they are too short to tackle any of the big issues (Sundays) because the TOC cannot try to sort it out if it isnt written into the franchise Agreement so the problem remains and is likely to remain until Franchises are long enough and it is written into the Franchise agreement (with suitable flexibility) so it can be agreed, implemented AND the Franchise Holder can get a return on it, until then nothing will be sorted.

[royaloak]

On 31/12/2019 at 17:55, Supaned said:

I think the staff issues and percieved attitudes stem from several factors.

 

There's still an element of BR and it's immediate successors "f@8k 'em" attitude amongst some members of staff (although I should point out that does not mean all ex BR staff and by the same token , staff employed in more recent times can be just as bad) - as they can't necessarily be removed from their postions, this issue will only go away over time - if they are assessed as competant in their particular roles they can't really be dismissed unless there are correct legal grounds, having a "bad" attitude not being one of them.

 

Industrial relations are a very contentious issue - ultimately the staff side want the most money for the least work , the management side want the most work for the least money , and in an ideal world compromises could be reached, but sadly this is rarely the case. Some TOCs have "sold" their more restrictive ex BR conditions , giving the employers more flexibility in terms of rostering , commitment to sunday working etc , the key thing being that these things were negotiated and not imposed , and ultimately it costs money to achieve , so if TOCs (and by extension the DfT) won't pay for those things , this is one of the reasons that some TOCs cannot run their timetabled sunday services , because drivers or guards still retain their old BR conditons where sundays are not mandatory to work and the staff member can simply state they are "not available" for duty. I think many staff are aware that we live in a 7 day society now , but as I said , they aren't going to freely give up such a condition , especiaily when you consider the situation on TOCs where sundays are either part of the working week or committed , where drivers will find it diffcult to get a day off on a sunday for an event such as a family gathering  (yes, the railways are indeed a public service , but the people operating them have lives and families outside of work too , which sometimes is overlooked). The DOO situation is equally complex , and as can be seen from above , removing guards will still not fix the issue of no traincrew if there are insufficient drivers or for example none want to work a certain sunday. The adversial approach to industrial relations is achieving nothing. Granted both sides of the debate need to be more realistic on some matters but both seem to be so entrenched it's hard to see a way forwards sometimes.

 

Obviously the Unions and staff are a popular target for the media (and those who clearly believe what they read from the media) , the reality is very different.

 

You are aware that ASLEF have Sundays in the working week in their charter dont you, so its hardly the Union preventing it happening!

[rockershovel]

Northern in the pillory on this mornings’ tv, I notice. Fare rises, unacceptable service levels, all the usual suspects. 

[62613]

On 31/12/2019 at 23:31, APOLLO said:

Started with the Gas Board in 1969, 5 year apprenticeship, along with 12 others in South Lancashire (Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Widnes). ONC Mech Engineering, HNC Gas Engineering both utilisation & distribution (2 certificates), City & Guilds intermediate gas fitting, numerous other courses, many months on the job training starting with digging holes and fitting gas cookers, ending with running the gas conditioning programme (oil injection to reduce leakage etc) then out of apprenticeship and into the deep end with North Sea gas conversion. 

 

Fantastic apprenticeship - trained to do almost anything, job for life followed. Now retired.

 

All gone now. (in every industry, not just gas)

 

No wonder the UK is deeply in the sh1t. A degree now required to flip burgers.

 

Brit15

Wouldn't say required; more like the position for which the degree is needed is oversubscribed. Or it's the only employment available at the moment. Or the person flipping the burger is at university, and needs the work for day-to-day living, Life isn't as simple as all that!

 

[62613]

Just seen Grant Schapps, or whatever his name is, on the TV. he says he's going to strip Northern of their franchise. What will he replace it with?