Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes

[bramling]

Initial training is determined by rules, traction, min number of driving hours (usually more than the minimum is needed to achieve competence). Qualified training is a lot shorter. I’ve been through both and neither training period was extended by needing a minimum number of trips over a particular route.

This just seems an odd thing to focus on when the savings will be minimal to non existent. Much like the suggestions around using simulators to shorten training. It just smacks of medalling and fiddling around the edges.

Yes the latter was something which stuck out to me. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about will know that simulators are virtually useless in terms of teaching someone how to drive a train. Their main purpose is for stuff like defect or procedural scenarios which are unlikely to arise for real during training, and surprisingly enough the industry already uses them for this purpose.

It’s rather ironic that some of the enthusiast-oriented PC simulators nowadays look to be better than those the real railway pays rather a lot of money for!

Someone somewhere obviously knows enough to have well and truly stuck their nose in to all this, but not enough to actually know what they’re talking about. Almost the dictionary definition of a politician…

 

[choochoochoo]

Someone somewhere obviously knows enough to have well and truly stuck their nose in to all this, but not enough to actually know what they’re talking about. Almost the dictionary definition of a politician…

Stinks of Shapps. Especially after his article on so-called Spanish practices.

 

[bramling]

Stinks of Shapps. Especially after his article on so-called Spanish practices.

The very mention of that name makes my blood boil!

 

[brad465]

Stinks of Shapps. Especially after his article on so-called Spanish practices.

The very mention of that name makes my blood boil!

Well presumably he couldn't decide which of his 4 aliases to send to dispute talks.

 

[TrainSpy]

I’ve had plenty of annual pay rises with no loss of conditions. If they want to buy conditions, it’s usually a more generous offer.

So its reasonable to ask for changes to contracts in terms of pay, but not conditions? I know I come from a different world, but it just seem crackers.

To put it another way, surely TOCs would have negotiated for all of these things already, if they genuinely made a difference?

Why would they? A fully privatised railway, with passenger numbers growing at 10% every year, why would employers rock the boat. We're not in Kansas any more

 

[lammergeier]

So its reasonable to ask for changes to contracts in terms of pay, but not conditions? I know I come from a different world, but it just seem crackers.

It's entirely reasonable for employers to ask for changes to conditions, but it's also reasonable for workers to ask for a share of the gains in their productivity in return.

 

[Dai Corner]

So its reasonable to ask for changes to contracts in terms of pay, but not conditions? I know I come from a different world, but it just seem crackers.

In some jobs you get an annual pay rise (often called an increment) simply for being in post for another year. That's in addition to an inflation-linked increase.

 

[TrainSpy]

It's entirely reasonable for employers to ask for changes to conditions, but it's also reasonable for workers to ask for a share of the gains in their productivity in return.

Sort of my point. I just don't get the righteous indignation that an employer might ask an employee to do something differently, when said employee has taken payrise after payrise without any change to terms at all.

 

[Facing Back]

I’ve had plenty of annual pay rises with no loss of conditions. If they want to buy conditions, it’s usually a more generous offer.

There are plenty of changes to conditions with no increase in salary. If it is detrimental to the employee then of course negotiate, but most changes are just changes.

It's entirely reasonable for employers to ask for changes to conditions, but it's also reasonable for workers to ask for a share of the gains in their productivity in return.

Most times - in commercial environments - that doesn't equate to a pay rise. A good year a bonus or share option perhaps. If a company is upper quartile and want's to retain and attract the best staff then they will pitch their offering accordingly. If a company is losing money, then the option is more often fewer cuts.

 

[43066]

Why would they? A fully privatised railway, with passenger numbers growing at 10% every year, why would employers rock the boat. We're not in Kansas any more

Why would they?! Because they were rational, profit making businesses who, irrespective of revenue growth, would seek to minimise their costs?

In some jobs you get an annual pay rise (often called an increment) simply for being in post for another year. That's in addition to an inflation-linked increase.

Indeed. In a previous industry I was awarded a pay rise on a purely lockstep basis. As an ASLEF member I fully expect to get some kind of pay rise to reflect the fact I’ve not had one since 2019.

I’ll wager I will get one this year. And it will probably reflect last year’s, too.

Sort of my point. I just don't get the righteous indignation that an employer might ask an employee to do something differently, when said employee has taken payrise after payrise without any change to terms at all.

Which TOC employees have done this, please?

You’ve mentioned you’re a TOC employee yourself. Are you always expected to trade your own Ts and Cs for a pay rise?

 

[ComUtoR]

@TrainSpy Just catching up with the thread. IF there was an acceptance of the principles laid down by the RDG and then subject to a new code of practice. How would the RDG and ASLEF go about changing the already laid down guidance and RSSB standards for route learning; considering the last change was in 2020 and the next review isn't until 2026 ?

 

[class 9]

Sort of my point. I just don't get the righteous indignation that an employer might ask an employee to do something differently, when said employee has taken payrise after payrise without any change to terms at all.

I've been on the job over 30 years, both freight and passenger, plenty of changes to T&Cs, no righteous indignation to the changes!

 

[eldomtom2]

@TrainSpy Just catching up with the thread. IF there was an acceptance of the principles laid down by the RDG and then subject to a new code of practice. How would the RDG and ASLEF go about changing the already laid down guidance and RSSB standards for route learning; considering the last change was in 2020 and the next review isn't until 2026 ?

The RSSB is a purely advisory organisation, isn't it?

 

[ComUtoR]

The RSSB is a purely advisory organisation, isn't it?

Who We Are

RSSB is a not-for-profit company owned by major industry stakeholders. The company is limited by guarantee and is governed by its members and a Board.

www.rssb.co.uk

The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) was established in 2003, based on key recommendations from Lord Cullen's public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident. Our core purpose is to actively help the industry work together to drive improvements in the GB rail system.

The RSSB is core to our everyday working across the industry. It sets agreed standards and principles across pretty much everything. IF you need to know the exact distance the lettering is on a signal plate... Visit the group standards. What to know about the latest research into PTI incidents and reduction and mitigation thereof, visit the RSSB. What the RDG are proposing with this new code of practice is already exactly what the RSSB do. Those changes and proposals for route learning are already agreed and in place and has recently been updated. Use of technology etc is already there. No Government rhetoric is needed.

 

[CAF397]

The RSSB is a purely advisory organisation, isn't it?

The RSSB manages the Rule Book and Railway Group standards.

They also chair the Traffic Operation and Management Standards Committee (TOMSC) which basically amends the standards and rule books, or agrees deviations to practices.

 

[TrainSpy]

I've been on the job over 30 years, both freight and passenger, plenty of changes to T&Cs, no righteous indignation to the changes!

Apologies - I was responding to a specific set of comments - didn't mean to cast aspersions!

 

[whoosh]

As does another thing specifically mentioned: drivers working the balance of their shift if they’re sent for a medical. That only happens once every few years for many drivers at the younger end of the spectrum (and in my case involves travelling 150 miles from where I live so takes up an entire shift). What meaningful savings or efficiency gains will this give, in the grand scheme of things? It’s just petty more than anything.

To put it another way, surely TOCs would have negotiated for all of these things already, if they genuinely made a difference?

I'm pretty sure (have a check!) that you already have this condition about medicals from a paydeal from around 2009 - 2012.
Shows just how useful it is that you don't even know about it!

Someone somewhere obviously knows enough to have well and truly stuck their nose in to all this, but not enough to actually know what they’re talking about. Almost the dictionary definition of a politician…

Totally!

 

[TrainSpy]

@TrainSpy Just catching up with the thread. IF there was an acceptance of the principles laid down by the RDG and then subject to a new code of practice. How would the RDG and ASLEF go about changing the already laid down guidance and RSSB standards for route learning; considering the last change was in 2020 and the next review isn't until 2026

I'm not sure that anything that's been discussed in this thread would require a change at all. All that is being suggested is changing the amount of time it takes to learn a route - tailoring it to an individual's needs/skillset/ability to learn, rather than setting a set length of time for everyone.

Having refreshed my knowledge of the standard, it at least supports an individual needs-based approach to learning and some could argue that it actively advocates it.

For example: "Learners will acquire route knowledge at different paces due to individual differences. Therefore, it is best to base route learning durations on individuals’ needs..." [not exactly wholly endorsing the one size fits all approach!]

and

"Learning durations can be considered on a case-by case basis or by monitoring a number of learners to establish the duration spread which can be fed into future planning processes in the form of a suggested range of time/trips..."

or

"Route knowledge competence is assessed when the route learner is ready rather than at a defined time point. This enables route learners who have achieved competence sooner than a designated assessment point to 'pass out' earlier..."

 

[JonathanH]

In some jobs you get an annual pay rise (often called an increment) simply for being in post for another year. That's in addition to an inflation-linked increase.

In some jobs you don't get an inflation-linked increase at all, the only increases are linked to merit.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not sure that anything that's been discussed in this thread would require a change at all. All that is being suggested is changing the amount of time it takes to learn a route - tailoring it to an individual's needs/skillset/ability to learn, rather than setting a set length of time for everyone.

Having refreshed my knowledge of the standard, it at least supports an individual needs-based approach to learning and some could argue that it actively advocates it.

For example: "Learners will acquire route knowledge at different paces due to individual differences. Therefore, it is best to base route learning durations on individuals’ needs..." [not exactly wholly endorsing the one size fits all approach!]

and

"Learning durations can be considered on a case-by case basis or by monitoring a number of learners to establish the duration spread which can be fed into future planning processes in the form of a suggested range of time/trips..."

or

"Route knowledge competence is assessed when the route learner is ready rather than at a defined time point. This enables route learners who have achieved competence sooner than a designated assessment point to 'pass out' earlier..."

… but this approach is open-ended and uncontrolled, making it harder to monitor or roster. If the idea is to reduce costs it will fail at a fundamental level.

 

[TrainSpy]

Why would they?! Because they were rational, profit making businesses who, irrespective of revenue growth, would seek to minimise their costs?

Because ultimately it cost them more not to.

Indeed. In a previous industry I was awarded a pay rise on a purely lockstep basis. As an ASLEF member I fully expect to get some kind of pay rise to reflect the fact I’ve not had one since 2019.

I was making the distinction between an expectation, and a contractual obligation. And that I found it odd that a poster took umbrage at the idea an employer might want to change terms and conditions to favour the individual, and yet didn't have the same qualms when they were asking (given?) a change to terms and conditions in their favour with a salary uplift.

I’ll wager I will get one this year. And it will probably reflect last year’s, too.

Agree, and you'll deserve it

Which TOC employees have done this, please?

Was specifically referring to:

I’ve had plenty of annual pay rises with no loss of conditions.

You’ve mentioned you’re a TOC employee yourself. Are you always expected to trade your own Ts and Cs for a pay rise?

I do not. But equally, I wouldn't expect to be paid more if a mandatory training programme or certification course was changed.

… but this approach is open-ended and uncontrolled, making it harder to monitor or roster. If the idea is to reduce costs it will fail at a fundamental level.

IT can probably feel like that but is it actually more open-ended? From what people have told me here if you don't pass in the agreed amount of time under the current process, you get more time so its open ended anyway?

Surely though the one thing we can agree on is that its management's responsibility to make sure the business's finances add up. As long as its safe, whats the harm in leaving the numbers up to them?


To summarise, I am absolutely not arguing against a pay rise, or particularly for any of the changes in the offer. My point is just that its not unreasonable for an employer to look at/ask for changes too, that change in itself is not automatically an erosion of conditions, and that sometimes change is just change.

I suspect that in delving into the rabbit warren of challenges back has obscured that much more general point!

 

[CE142]

With regards to route learning as a component, I recently signed 2 routes as a Guard. I haven't had to route learn for 17 years. I am a very quick learner. Could I have signed it sooner? Absolutely. Can I see why the system is designed how it is currently? Completely. Even though I am fast at getting this stuff in, that time where you're just "going up and down" is surprisingly important. It helps drill it in for those who've learned quickly and provides surety on knowledge. For those less quick it at least provides them with the comfort they have the time to still get it. I feel tinkering with these things to accommodate people such as myself to be a nonsense and not something that should be tinkered with. It's not broke in my opinion.

For every person that can learn at route in two minutes, there will be another person that can't. If you are given a specific number of trips or days in which to learn a route then take that amount of time! There may be something on your last trip that makes you think, oh, what's going on here? Where's the Signalman putting me here? I haven't done this move before....
For me personally I get normally get about 3/4s of the route in my head pretty quickly, it's that last 1/4 that takes the time. That last 1/4 the most important bit!

 

[jayah]

Rail strikes have so far cost the government between £320,000,000 and £500,000,000. And that’s without counting the cost of these strikes to the economy as a whole. It’s unsustainable and ultimately unjustifiable to the tax payer for the government to deliberately keep this dragging on.

They haven't cost the government anything except political capital. No member of the cabinet is worse off by a single penny as a result of all this.

 

[O L Leigh]

IT can probably feel like that but is it actually more open-ended? From what people have told me here if you don't pass in the agreed amount of time under the current process, you get more time so its open ended anyway?

Not in the vast majority of cases, no.

 

[bramling]

Well presumably he couldn't decide which of his 4 aliases to send to dispute talks.

Sums it up really. Unfortunately I can’t post my true thoughts on the individual concerned. I wouldn’t buy a used car off him, let alone trust him with anything important.

 

[SJN]

Because ultimately it cost them more not to.

I was making the distinction between an expectation, and a contractual obligation. And that I found it odd that a poster took umbrage at the idea an employer might want to change terms and conditions to favour the individual, and yet didn't have the same qualms when they were asking (given?) a change to terms and conditions in their favour with a salary uplift.


Agree, and you'll deserve it

Was specifically referring to:



I do not. But equally, I wouldn't expect to be paid more if a mandatory training programme or certification course was changed.




IT can probably feel like that but is it actually more open-ended? From what people have told me here if you don't pass in the agreed amount of time under the current process, you get more time so its open ended anyway?

Surely though the one thing we can agree on is that its management's responsibility to make sure the business's finances add up. As long as its safe, whats the harm in leaving the numbers up to them?


To summarise, I am absolutely not arguing against a pay rise, or particularly for any of the changes in the offer. My point is just that its not unreasonable for an employer to look at/ask for changes too, that change in itself is not automatically an erosion of conditions, and that sometimes change is just change.

I suspect that in delving into the rabbit warren of challenges back has obscured that much more general point!

What part of my post is ‘righteous indignation’? I just stated a fact that I’ve had several pay rises over the years, both from the railway and jobs before that, where I haven’t had to trade any terms and conditions. A few years ago we turned down a large pay rise that had lots of strings attached and accepted a smaller one with fewer strings. No indignation.

 

[43066]

Rail strikes have so far cost the government between £320,000,000 and £500,000,000. And that’s without counting the cost of these strikes to the economy as a whole. It’s unsustainable and ultimately unjustifiable to the tax payer for the government to deliberately keep this dragging on.

They haven't cost the government anything except political capital. No member of the cabinet is worse off by a single penny as a result of all this.

You’ve fundamentally misunderstood what was meant by “cost the government”.

Nobody is suggesting the government members are financially on the hook personally .

 

[jayah]

You’ve fundamentally misunderstood what was meant by “cost the government”.

Nobody is suggesting the government members are on the hook personally .

You’ve fundamentally misunderstood what was meant by “cost the government”.

Nobody is suggesting the government members are on the hook personally .

I think someone has misunderstood where 'the government' gets all this money from.

 

[Annetts key]

I think someone has misunderstood where 'the government' gets all this money from.

Err, that’s simple. It either prints more (or rather, gets the Bank of England to have a quantitative easing programme) or it borrows from lenders via government bonds. Occasionally it will actually have a reasonable tax policy. But normally all governments spend more than they get in taxes. That’s why we are always in a mess, the overall tax income is not high enough.

Oh, one other point. Which parts of our society spends the most money in shops and for services (I mean as a group, not individuality)?

How healthy do you think our economy would be if the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise (by this, I mean a pay rise that does not depend on trading T&Cs or on so called productivity improvements)?

If the vast majority of ordinary working people never got a straightforward pay rise, then overall spending would fall year on year, and we normally call that recession…

 

[43066]

I think someone has misunderstood where 'the government' gets all this money from.

I think you might have misunderstood how tax and public spending work.