Aslef strikes and OT ban called…

[Tractor2018]

Friday's press release by ASLEF states that "we haven't heard from the employers, the private sector companies for whom we work, since April". It makes no mention of seeking any talks with RDG since April.

This suggests therefore that either ASLEF's press release was incorrect or it has not yet held (or even sought) any talks with RDG to request an approach similar to that accepted by RMT.

For the RDG's part, they consider an offer made way back god knows when still to be on the table. And refuse to budge until that is accepted/rejected by ASLEF members.

For ASLEF's part, they are prevented by their constitution to offer a ballot by members on an offer they can't recommend.

So that is why we are all, staff and passengers, where we are. Do you think the RDG and government don't know this?

Correctly, IMO, ASLEF have treated subsequent ballots for industrial action as de facto ballots on that offer.

If it was left to the TOC's and ASLEF this would've been resolved long ago.

 

[Ashfordian6]

l went to a pre-Christmas party on Saturday evening

WHAT IS VERY SAD is that l bumped into an old colleague who told me that his firm have arranged for 3-day a week office working from January with 2 days a week working from home
Rail strikes and unreliability was stated to be the cause. lf true, and if this is repeated across the country, it will have an effect on revenues.
l also know of a near neighbour who has bought a new electric car because of regularly missed "connections" (LizLine) getting to his office

This is very, very sad

This is sad that the Government has allowed it to come to this.

In your WFH example above, that will mean less revenue for coffee/sandwich shops, after work drink venues, office service companies, etc, etc

How is the Government being allowed to get away with this economic scorched earth policy when it is us, the taxpayer who will end up footing the bill for this?

 

[CastlebarKeith]

This is sad that the Government has allowed it to come to this.

In your WFH example above, that will mean less revenue for coffee/sandwich shops, after work drink venues, office service companies, etc, etc

How is the Government being allowed to get away with this economic scorched earth policy when it is us, the taxpayer who will end up footing the bill for this?

l wish l could answer that other than by saying people and governments always forget "The law of unintended consequences" which is seldom if ever wrong.

 

[vikingdriver]

This is sad that the Government has allowed it to come to this.

In your WFH example above, that will mean less revenue for coffee/sandwich shops, after work drink venues, office service companies, etc, etc

How is the Government being allowed to get away with this economic scorched earth policy when it is us, the taxpayer who will end up footing the bill for this?

Absolutely, they should be held accountable for deliberately harming our country for whatever self serving motives they have.

 

[theironroad]

l went to a pre-Christmas party on Saturday evening

WHAT IS VERY SAD is that l bumped into an old colleague who told me that his firm have arranged for 3-day a week office working from January with 2 days a week working from home
Rail strikes and unreliability was stated to be the cause. lf true, and if this is repeated across the country, it will have an effect on revenues.
l also know of a near neighbour who has bought a new electric car because of regularly missed "connections" (LizLine) getting to his office

This is very, very sad

I'd be surprised if strikes/reliability were the only cause. Many employees have demanded hybrid working since the pandemic. Suppose their 3 day week is TW&T to give nice long weekends/ zoom calls away from home.

 

[MichaelAMW]

For the RDG's part, they consider an offer made way back god knows when still to be on the table. And refuse to budge until that is accepted/rejected by ASLEF members.

For ASLEF's part, they are prevented by their constitution to offer a ballot by members on an offer they can't recommend.

So that is why we are all, staff and passengers, where we are. Do you think the RDG and government don't know this?

Correctly, IMO, ASLEF have treated subsequent ballots for industrial action as de facto ballots on that offer.

If it was left to the TOC's and ASLEF this would've been resolved long ago.

One of my thoughts, although I realise I don't have all the detail, is to ask why an individual TOC doesn't just get on and negotiate with the ASLEF people at that TOC, given what you say about a resolution "long ago." Is the answer simply that the DfT have told the TOCs, through RDG, that this is not allowed and, if they try it, they simply won't pay the bill?

 

[snookertam]

For the RDG's part, they consider an offer made way back god knows when still to be on the table. And refuse to budge until that is accepted/rejected by ASLEF members.

For ASLEF's part, they are prevented by their constitution to offer a ballot by members on an offer they can't recommend.

So that is why we are all, staff and passengers, where we are. Do you think the RDG and government don't know this?

Correctly, IMO, ASLEF have treated subsequent ballots for industrial action as de facto ballots on that offer.

If it was left to the TOC's and ASLEF this would've been resolved long ago.

I would just emphasise the point about about do you think the UK government don’t know this. They have considered it in their interests to let this rumble on for so long for two reasons IMO:

1) They can make ideological attacks on unions, especially one representing such a well paid (because they’re highly skilled) workforce.

2) It hopes to contribute to a longer term decline in the railway which would ultimately mean less subsidy and more modal shift to car transport.

Been obvious for some time that the UK government have wanted this to drag out. Not least the fact that, in Scotland and Wales, there have been no strikes.

 

[Tractor2018]

One of my thoughts, although I realise I don't have all the detail, is to ask why an individual TOC doesn't just get on and negotiate with the ASLEF people at that TOC, given what you say about a resolution "long ago." Is the answer simply that the DfT have told the TOCs, through RDG, that this is not allowed and, if they try it, they simply won't pay the bill?

Well, ultimately, government and the taxpayer has footed the bill through COVID and then this dispute - so I guess there's always that underlying threat, even if unspoken.

An opinion I've heard from long serving staff is during Virgin days, Branson wouldn't have cared - he'd have resolved it for his company at least. The bottom line is he's a businessman and would have been pragmatic about it - he might've considered government help necessary........on the other hand he might've considered the damage to his overall branding too important and settled himself.

With that in mind currently TOC's are entities of bus groups or foreign investors. So there's no incentive for what Branson might've thought beneficial.

 

[greatkingrat]

This is sad that the Government has allowed it to come to this.

In your WFH example above, that will mean less revenue for coffee/sandwich shops, after work drink venues, office service companies, etc, etc

How is the Government being allowed to get away with this economic scorched earth policy when it is us, the taxpayer who will end up footing the bill for this?

Coffee shops etc don't have some sort of god-given right to exist. Anyway, people who are working from home still have the same amount of money to spend, it is just spent in different places nearer their home instead of in central London.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Coffee shops etc don't have some sort of god-given right to exist. Anyway, people who are working from home still have the same amount of money to spend, it is just spent in different places nearer their home instead of in central London.

Which struggled pre-COVID as only the elderly really went there during the day.

 

[newtownmgr]

One of my thoughts, although I realise I don't have all the detail, is to ask why an individual TOC doesn't just get on and negotiate with the ASLEF people at that TOC, given what you say about a resolution "long ago." Is the answer simply that the DfT have told the TOCs, through RDG, that this is not allowed and, if they try it, they simply won't pay the bill?

The individual companies are not allowed to negotiate at present. The RDG negotiates with the union on behalf of all companies. However this approach is impossible due to 14 different sets of T&C’s.

The only way this will progress is if the dft backdown & allow a no strings deal for 22-23 & allow negotiations to move to a local level as has been done with the RMT. However it needs to be remembered that the RMT dispute is not settled, it’s merely been shifted onto the next phase & probably post election.

 

[dk1]

This seems to come up regularly. What is the source of this detailed proposal?

The only thing in the public domain that I have found is the ACoP in the TSSA agreement:

"
Spare Allocation Within Rosters

Spare requirement and service protection turns should be determined in accordance with
data supplied through availability and utilisation returns to provide for business needs of
robust performance and efficiency and be proportionate to workload.

The placement of spares within rosters and their length to be in line with the parameters
provided by the company.

Lengths of individual spares may vary but the average length of the spares should reflect the
diagram average turn length of the depot.

Rosters should be produced with full weeks of spare to meet business needs."

That CoP does not give the draconian detail which you quote. So where does it come from?

Why would the CoP be different in principle for Drivers? This lack of transparency has been a problem for a long time.

My current movement from spare is 3hrs either way to catch a running turn. I'm not prepared to move to any greater length than that. It constantly mentions suiting the business needs.

 

[winks]

Having read the RDG offer there is nothing in there that states there will be a reduction in annual leave or even salary. Merely a review.

 

[dk1]

It mentions Spare turn utilisation.

 

[whoosh]

This seems to come up regularly. What is the source of this detailed proposal?

The only thing in the public domain that I have found is the ACoP in the TSSA agreement:

"
Spare Allocation Within Rosters

Spare requirement and service protection turns should be determined in accordance with
data supplied through availability and utilisation returns to provide for business needs of
robust performance and efficiency and be proportionate to workload.

The placement of spares within rosters and their length to be in line with the parameters
provided by the company.

Lengths of individual spares may vary but the average length of the spares should reflect the
diagram average turn length of the depot.

Rosters should be produced with full weeks of spare to meet business needs."

That CoP does not give the draconian detail which you quote. So where does it come from?

Why would the CoP be different in principle for Drivers? This lack of transparency has been a problem for a long time.

In the offer to the RMT earlier in 2023, the attached document 'Approved Code of Practices' (also known as 'Appendix 5') spelled out in detail what terms and conditions the government wanted.

When I say, "This dispute has been engineered [by the Government]," the offer earlier in the year to the RMT was absolutely detailed. However, the offer to ASLEF contained the same, "year two 4% for everyone regardless," and also that the changes would be agreed by TOCs after the offer was accepted wrong way round way of doing things.

However, the offer to ASLEF was much more vague, so whilst those changes aren't explicitly mentioned, they still could be on the table. No-one knows. But it could be denied that they are.
They are enough of a threat to ASLEF and it's members to keep the dispute going.



Appendix 5 says:

"There should be no minimum rest days injected over and above the total requirement to achieve the hours of the working week with the number of allocated rest days in any week being proportionate to the working week with no requirement for fixed or rolling rest day patterns.
To enable effective rostering and to ensure the adequate provision of spares there will be no minimum or maximum rest days on a given day."

This means for example, that rather than the computer creating traincrew diagrams with an 8h45 average for those currently on a four day week, the computer will spit out diagrams and if the average is less than that then extra working days will be added to the base roster. This will mess up couples (who live together) who are on lines with the same rest day pattern, and also those who have a swap partner - are you going to want to swap your four day week for a five day week even it's at a time of day you prefer?

"Through the rostering of spare turns to cover the master rostered turns of duty in accordance with spare allocation. To assist with the coverage of holiday this may include the creation of lines of spares in the master roster. I.e. comprising a full week of spares and being subject to full movement and extension such that they can cover on a one-for-one basis the full week’s work on any uncovered line of work e.g. due to holiday, sickness, vacancy, restriction, etc taking up the associated rest day pattern accordingly."

"Rosters should be produced with full weeks of spare to meet business needs."

"Lines comprising a week of spares will be constructed to assist with efficient rostering, such as for the coverage of annual leave, and where so used to cover full lines of work will take the associated rest day/s of that work. Such spares where allocated on the weekly roster, which will be posted in accordance with company procedures, will be booked out in time order with no restrictions on movement and will be able to be extended up to the maximum length permitted within the diagramming arrangements in accordance with the principle that three days’ work constitutes a week’s work."

This means a blank week with an unknown number of, or location of, rest days. Not knowing what time between 00:01 to 23:59 or on what days until the weekly sheets come out a few days beforehand.

It also means that weeks with three spare turns in will be treated the same in that they'll have unlimited movement from the datum time.

One of my thoughts, although I realise I don't have all the detail, is to ask why an individual TOC doesn't just get on and negotiate with the ASLEF people at that TOC, given what you say about a resolution "long ago." Is the answer simply that the DfT have told the TOCs, through RDG, that this is not allowed and, if they try it, they simply won't pay the bill?

Have a look at the attachments. Just random examples of, "Ooh no sorry, we can't talk about pay." But ALL the TOCs were like that. Pay talks actually started early with South Eastern in 2021 for the 2022 pay award, progress was made over productivity changes but then faltered when the RPI element had to be agreed with the DfT - who wouldn't give permission for any talks.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is there a website link to these so-called “bonfire of terms &conditions” ?

What are the proposed changes to T&Cs that are making the drivers so angry?

Are people really still asking this question after well over a year of industrial action? The proposed changes to Ts & Cs have been listed on various threads on this forum, ad infinitum. I'm not really sure why anyone not employed as a driver feels entitled to have an opinion on what drivers should or shouldn't accept in relation to pay increase (or lack of it) or changes to the agreements and frameworks under which they are employed.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm not really sure why anyone not employed as a driver feels entitled to have an opinion on what drivers should or shouldn't accept in relation to pay increase

I have an inkling it's primarily because this is what has continued to decimate the public railway for over a year now.

 

[12LDA28C]

I have an inkling it's primarily because this is what has continued to decimate the public railway for over a year now.

Fair enough the passengers have had to put up with the fallout of the strikes. But they will not have to put up with the permanent changes to Ts & Cs which will negatively affect every single day of a member of rail staff's working life. Put it like this - nurses have been on strike, as have border control officers and barristers. Since I am not employed in any of those industries, I don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion on whether that action is justified or not as it's none of my business, so I refrain from spouting ill-informed nonsense on a nurses' forum, for example.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Fair enough the passengers have had to put up with the fallout of the strikes. But they will not have to put up with the permanent changes to Ts & Cs which will negatively affect every single day of a member of rail staff's working life. Put it like this - nurses have been on strike, as have border control officers and barristers. Since I am not employed in any of those industries, I don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion on whether that action is justified or not as it's none of my business, so I refrain from spouting ill-informed nonsense on a nurses' forum, for example.

Sure, but I specifically quoted "Pay increase" from you, not terms and conditions.

But a closer look at what you're saying here:

I don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion

It's up to you what you choose to do with your opinion. But everyone has the right to an opinion (within reason, and reason is obvious limitations such as hate crime/racism/sexism, etc.) and on a forum especially. That is what a forum/discussion website is for. If you wish to tell people not to give their opinions (especially when those people are a direct target of the subject at hand, and directly affected), then a forum/discussion website isn't really the place to do it.

And this post isn't indicative of any sides I may be taking, as I got into too many unnecessary conflicts last year on this topic, so I no longer give my opinion on the strikes themselves. But what I really must emphasise is how it's wrong to say people cannot engage in a discussion because they do not work in the industry. One has just as much right as a stakeholder of the railway and thus directly impacted by the hoo-ha to state their opinions.

 

[12LDA28C]

Sure, but I specifically quoted "Pay increase" from you, not terms and conditions.

The pay increase is dependent on acceptance of detrimental and in some cases potentially dangerous changes to Ts & Cs. You are fully aware of this so please don't pretend otherwise.

The recent acceptance of the deal offered to the RMT shows that if the changes to Ts & Cs are removed then a pay increase well below inflation is acceptable to the members. If only a similar offer were made to ASLEF...

 

[mandub]

Appendix 5 says:

"There should be no minimum rest days injected over and above the total requirement to achieve the hours of the working week with the number of allocated rest days in any week being proportionate to the working week with no requirement for fixed or rolling rest day patterns.
To enable effective rostering and to ensure the adequate provision of spares there will be no minimum or maximum rest days on a given day."

This means for example, that rather than the computer creating traincrew diagrams with an 8h45 average for those currently on a four day week, the computer will spit out diagrams and if the average is less than that then extra working days will be added to the base roster. This will mess up couples (who live together) who are on lines with the same rest day pattern, and also those who have a swap partner - are you going to want to swap your four day week for a five day week even it's at a time of day you prefer?

"Through the rostering of spare turns to cover the master rostered turns of duty in accordance with spare allocation. To assist with the coverage of holiday this may include the creation of lines of spares in the master roster. I.e. comprising a full week of spares and being subject to full movement and extension such that they can cover on a one-for-one basis the full week’s work on any uncovered line of work e.g. due to holiday, sickness, vacancy, restriction, etc taking up the associated rest day pattern accordingly."

"Rosters should be produced with full weeks of spare to meet business needs."

"Lines comprising a week of spares will be constructed to assist with efficient rostering, such as for the coverage of annual leave, and where so used to cover full lines of work will take the associated rest day/s of that work. Such spares where allocated on the weekly roster, which will be posted in accordance with company procedures, will be booked out in time order with no restrictions on movement and will be able to be extended up to the maximum length permitted within the diagramming arrangements in accordance with the principle that three days’ work constitutes a week’s work."

This means a blank week with an unknown number of, or location of, rest days. Not knowing what time between 00:01 to 23:59 or on what days until the weekly sheets come out a few days beforehand.

It also means that weeks with three spare turns in will be treated the same in that they'll have unlimited movement from the datum time

This should be a forum sticky to be included in any posts about why drivers are striking....

 

[12LDA28C]

It's up to you what you choose to do with your opinion. But everyone has the right to an opinion (within reason, and reason is obvious limitations such as hate crime/racism/sexism, etc.) and on a forum especially. That is what a forum/discussion website is for. If you wish to tell people not to give their opinions (especially when those people are a direct target of the subject at hand, and directly affected), then a forum/discussion website isn't really the place to do it.

Indeed, everyone has the right to an opinion. But is an opinion really valid if it's based on zero experience of a certain profession, around a pay deal/changes to Ts & Cs that will have zero effect on the person offering their opinion? I suggest not.

 

[class 9]

Having read the RDG offer there is nothing in there that states there will be a reduction in annual leave or even salary. Merely a review.

'Annual leave entitlement arrangements' certainly won't be an increase, so can only mean one thing.
'New entrants Driver salary progression' no doubt this will be extended periods on a lower rate before full money, which will be inferrior to now.
The problem with the full list of proposals is the huge amount of grey areas, which never end up benefiting staff.

 

[Confused52]

My current movement from spare is 3hrs either way to catch a running turn. I'm not prepared to move to any greater length than that. It constantly mentions suiting the business needs.

Whoosh kindly sent me a copy of a proposed Annex5 on ACoP which seems to cover this, but you may know better. It is the same text as the other document I have seen. It says

"Other master rostered spares will be subject to movement of up to three hours and will be able to be extended by up to three hours at both the weekly and daily alteration sheet stages with spare markup allocated being posted in accordance with a published production schedule.

When it is not possible to give a spare member of staff a complete week of diagrammed turns, he/she will be rostered as ordered on the unused days at a datum booking on time as his/her previous day’s booking. Under these circumstances spares will be subject to being further rostered in accordance with the daily alteration sheet process after publication of the weekly alteration sheet.

Spares resulting from the cancellation of turns will be subject to movement of up to three hours and will be able to be extended by up to three hours at both the weekly and daily alteration sheet stages; being further subject to an envelope that the resulting booking off time would not be more than four hours later than the booking off time associated with the cancelled turn."

You hadn't mentioned a possiblity of an extension but it seems to suggest that it can only move the start by three hours either side of the original master timings. The more complex issue Whoosh raised seem according to the context to apply to only a full week of spare being used for cover.
The problem of partners having incompatible shift patterns is real and happens without remedy other than sweet talking in other industries as I have experienced.

Thank you and Whoosh for helping me to get a handle on the complexity of the issue as you see it.

 

[dk1]

Whoosh kindly sent me a copy of a proposed Annex5 on ACoP which seems to cover this, but you may know better. It is the same text as the other document I have seen. It says

"Other master rostered spares will be subject to movement of up to three hours and will be able to be extended by up to three hours at both the weekly and daily alteration sheet stages with spare markup allocated being posted in accordance with a published production schedule.

When it is not possible to give a spare member of staff a complete week of diagrammed turns, he/she will be rostered as ordered on the unused days at a datum booking on time as his/her previous day’s booking. Under these circumstances spares will be subject to being further rostered in accordance with the daily alteration sheet process after publication of the weekly alteration sheet.

Spares resulting from the cancellation of turns will be subject to movement of up to three hours and will be able to be extended by up to three hours at both the weekly and daily alteration sheet stages; being further subject to an envelope that the resulting booking off time would not be more than four hours later than the booking off time associated with the cancelled turn."

You hadn't mentioned a possiblity of an extension but it seems to suggest that it can only move the start by three hours either side of the original master timings. The more complex issue Whoosh raised seem according to the context to apply to only a full week of spare being used for cover.
The problem of partners having incompatible shift patterns is real and happens without remedy other than sweet talking in other industries as I have experienced.

Thank you and Whoosh for helping me to get a handle on the complexity of the issue as you see it.

Thank you. It’s all rather a minefield. We will still be giving up a huge part of our current agreements on spare cover for absolutely nothing. Who anywhere ever imagines that this is acceptable to the membership? Added to other attacks on T&Cs it’s farcical and only worthy of a belly laugh in my opinion.

 

[Tractor2018]

I have an inkling it's primarily because this is what has continued to decimate the public railway for over a year now.

I do wish those more obtuse or on any kind of spectrum could make up their minds if the railway is being decimated by this action - or if nobody will notice as everyone works from home, now uses the car/bus instead, and barely registers on national news....... apparently.

 

[Killingworth]

The majority of contributors on this forum are active or retired railway industry people together with many who are interested in the history and future of the railway, not a few wishing to see increased use of public transport for climate change reasons.

The majority of passengers aren't really too interested in the details of why their train doesn't run at all or is late. Reliabilty is important.

To inject a sense oi humour how many recall Reggie Perrin's daily excuses for being late; https://www.leonardrossiter.com/reginaldperrin/Train.html

Users encounter landslips, points failure, engineering blockades, overrunning engineering work, flood, problem with brakes, problem with doors, late arrival of incoming train, awaiting delayed driver/guard, signal failure (cable theft?), fire, fatality, passenger disturbance and a few others. Strikes, overtime bans and working to rule are only part of the reason why many don't use the railway.

My interest in trains is well known locally and I try to encourage their use. A neighbour decided to take her teenage duaghter to the Trafford Centre on Sunday. She arrived at the station in good time for the 9.14 from Sheffield to Piccadilly. The incoming train passed Totley Tunnel East on time but was 79 minutes late into Sheffield and finally left there as the 10.17 at 10.31 over 80 minutes late into Piccadilly. It was a very cold wait. Apparently a points failure.

Their planned return ftom Piccadilly at 17.45 was cancelled due to an issue with the train crew - overtime ban?

Her feedback to me is that she has a nice car and will continue to use it for journeys like that. I had difficulty even starting to explain why she should give rail another try.

My car sits outside my door. It is well maintained and I assume it will start the minute I want to. I couldn't help admitting that without my interest in railways I'd probably avoid trains too.

It's high time this dispute was resolved. Waiting for a new government seems to guarantee disruption for months to come.

The travelling public, like customers of any business, don't want to inspect the details and reasons for the dirty washing. They want it cleaned, and soon. RDG, ASLEF, DfT, HMT etc and their respective officers please note.

Every disruption of any kind deters occasional users like my neighbour and her daughter who will now retell their experience whenever rail travel is mentioned.

 

[Seehof]

Here here. As a former driver I am horrified to see the damage that is being done to railways.

 

[172007]

Absolute carnage on the Snow Hill lines today. Have just walked into the station to find a massive queue and word that there are hardly any trains after 19:00 tonight. It's inpy action short of strike too. looked on national rail and nearly everything is cancelled. It's only Monday.

 

[ComUtoR]

I am, on occasion, known to drive trains. My preferred method of travel is still the car. The train is there for practical reasons and used when required.

My car journeys aggravate far more than the train. I get stuck in traffic on a daily basis and the road conditions are miserable. Parking anywhere is it's usual nightmare and I tend to chose my destination based on parking. There are places I will absolutely avoid because taking the car is frankly, too much hassle.

I am unsure why anecdotes of car use are some kind of threat to the railway. It really ain't and people are more than welcome to choose their chosen travel method based on their personal preference.

If people magically decide to live closer to where they work, decide a night out in town is too stressful, and decide against a visit to the seaside, I will welcome it with open arms. Not sure that will happen in mine or my children's lifetimes.