Arriva Rail North DOO

[Eccles1983]

And how would they route learn? I wouldnt let a doo driver in my cab to circumvent a decision made by the union.

And who from a different TOC is going to break a dispute on another TOC? They will be as popular as someone microwaving kippers at 0330hrs in the mess room.

 

[Robertj21a]

And how would they route learn? I wouldnt let a doo driver in my cab to circumvent a decision made by the union.

And who from a different TOC is going to break a dispute on another TOC? They will be as popular as someone microwaving kippers at 0330hrs in the mess room.

Does that mean you would not accept a clear instruction from your manager ?

 

[Chester1]

And how would they route learn? I wouldnt let a doo driver in my cab to circumvent a decision made by the union.

And who from a different TOC is going to break a dispute on another TOC? They will be as popular as someone microwaving kippers at 0330hrs in the mess room.

I don't know the answers to these sorts of questions but I heard these types of arguments before. I don't actually support DOO on Northern but its clear the government has decided to introduce it nationwide is prepared to spend a lot of time and money slowly wearing down the opposition. Arriva must have a strategy or they would not have bid for a franchise with DOO conditions.

There are always people who don't care about unpopularity hence the terms of "scab" and "blackleg".

 

[gorilladan]

Does that mean you would not accept a clear instruction from your manager ?

The driver is the final arbiter of whom is or is not allowed into their cab when they're driving from it, not the manager sat in an office.
There are situations where a cab access refusal would not be the most appropriate response such as; whilst being assessed by their dtm, if requested to assist the police/hmri in performing their duties, etc. What tends to happen (if time, circumstance, spares- availability, traction, route-knowledge et al infinitum) in these out-of-course situations is that the driver would simply be swapped with a more amenable individual for that particular portion of the journey.
Therefore a manager would be ill-advised in any attempt to compel a driver to undertake compulsory route-learning instruction duties.
If the driver says no, it ain't happening.

 

[pemma]

I'm fully aware that 195 and 331 will have the option for the driver to release and close the doors. They also have guard panels. I have spoken to the union rep who went over to consult on the design in Spain.

And 153/155 I class as the same really, the same issue with a lack of space in the big end will not change. The point remains that over 80% of the stock is unsuitable for DOO.

Which then leads back to the original point, without DOO in my contract I will not operate the new units. Nor will anyone else.

So how are you proposing that the new drivers are introduced on different contracts, with zero route knowledge and instructors who will refuse to train on DOO units.

It was another poster who was suggesting 2 contracts.

The franchise agreement mentions passenger mileage for the DCO quota. A unit which spends the day on Manchester Airport to Cumbria services will probably cover at least 3 times the passenger mileage of a unit which spends the day on Marple services. Then if the Cumbria diagram is a 3 car 195 and the Marple is a 4 car 150 the DCO quota will be even easier to reach.

 

[CN75]

Southern and Northern are in different hemispheres when it comes to safety cases for DOO. Even the company are aware of this hence the provision for platform/dispatch staff on the proposed Northern Connect routes.

Now the northern connect routes and traction will require a change in contract. And thats where it all falls down.

The plan if it all goes wrong trying to browbeat the RMT would be something like this: ARN go to ASLEF and say they want to operate some trains DOO. ASLEF can’t say they oppose on safety for obvious reasons, but reject on change of working practices or something similar like you say. A bit of playing on words but stalemate occurs. ARN say they will impose DOO on the new trains, so there is a ballot and then a strike. ARN make a couple more offers to resolve the dispute which all include DOO, possibly with money. The drivers keep striking. So ARN gives all the drivers 12 weeks notice they are being made redundant or can sign up to new contracts that include working DOO when required and other terms and conditions changes. More strikes happen, the government holds its nerve and the drivers sign new contracts with DOO in them rather than lose jobs, homes and mortgages etc by accepting their redundancy. ASLEF look like victims, the evil government looks like the villains except to the usual Daily Mail readers etc who say they are smashing the unions from the 1970s. The drivers walk away like heroes, everyone says the Conservatives will never be forgotten in the North and the guards turn into platform staff on Northern Connect. Some drivers secretly continue voting Tory after that anyway. If you think about it, employees will never win in the long run refusing to accept the employer asking them to do a job differently if the difference is safe and reasonable in the opinion of a judge and the laws allow for employers to push forward. It depends on how badly the government wants it, but rail isn’t as critical to the economy in the North as the South so longer strikes could be politically suffered.

Of course nobody really would want that to happen, least of all ASLEF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was another poster who was suggesting 2 contracts.

I suggest two contracts, and I also suggest that the kind of "secondary action" (quotes deliberate because I'm not fully up on Union terminology) Eccles1983 is proposing is insubordination and could subject him to disciplinary action.

I also suggest the Union should only concern itself with its present members. If a new member of staff is offered a new role of driving a DOO train which they know when they take that role, it is none of the Union's business to attempt to prevent that.

Unions should exist to protect the conditions of their present members, not hypothetical future ones. I'd be quite happy to see legislation on that as at present they are utterly abusing their position in my view.

I don't even support DOO on Northern (though I do, as I've said, support it on Merseyrail, which is a very different situation indeed) - but this approach is nonsensical.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I also suggest the Union should only concern itself with its present members

But it won't. From my (very outside) point of view a lot of trades unions, across the whole of industry, not just rail, not just public service look towards the future of the union just as much or more than they look to any current dispute.

The whole industry needs to digest the implications of how the Southern dispute is playing out (drivers settled, very modest impact on services now on strike days) before employees loose a deal more income.

Andrew

 

[Eccles1983]

How is it secondary action?

No one can make me or anyone sign a contract, nor make me have anyone who isnt orr/dtm in my cab, and only then for official assessments. It's not insubordinate, its following procedure.

And it's very much the unions business to look after its members, imposing a DOO contract on new entrants without union sayso would be insane. It would directly effect the current members and therefore is well within the unions remit.

Also where are Northern going to find nearly 1000 drivers when the threat of redundancy is thrown about? There is absolutely no way they would consider it, as to do so would end rail movement across the North. It takes 2-3 years to have a business link driver. Where are these coming from? Even at best with basic routes you are looking at a shutdown of 90% of the network for over 9 months.

 

[pemma]

I also suggest the Union should only concern itself with its present members. If a new member of staff is offered a new role of driving a DOO train which they know when they take that role, it is none of the Union's business to attempt to prevent that.

Agreed. Also worth remembering for a new trainee driver they will likely sign a contract before they are asked by ASLEF if they want to join the union.

I don't even support DOO on Northern (though I do, as I've said, support it on Merseyrail, which is a very different situation indeed)

Unfortunately, in the case of Northern it seems a target number must be reached for passenger mileage under DCO rather than choosing the most suitable routes for introducing DCO. Using refurbished 158s and 170s with guards on Northern Connect services and brand new DCO trains on commuter routes around the main cities included in the franchise would have made a lot more sense.

 

[pemma]

And it's very much the unions business to look after its members, imposing a DOO contract on new entrants without union sayso would be insane. It would directly effect the current members and therefore is well within the unions remit.

Also where are Northern going to find nearly 1000 drivers when the threat of redundancy is thrown about? There is absolutely no way they would consider it, as to do so would end rail movement across the North. It takes 2-3 years to have a business link driver. Where are these coming from? Even at best with basic routes you are looking at a shutdown of 90% of the network for over 9 months.

I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the best option is for one pool of drivers for DCO services and another for services with guards. However, if every driver at Northern was to have the same view as you then that might be the least worst option in the long term.

You now seem to be suggesting there's 1000 drivers at Northern who would take a redundancy package if it was a choice between that and accepting a new contract with DOO included and likely a number of improvements - maybe a pay rise, maybe extra holiday etc. What will these 1000 drivers do instead of driving trains? Note that if they claim out-of-work benefits at any point they will be required to apply for any train driver vacancy which comes up in a commutable distance whether it includes DOO or not and if they can't find a new train driver role within 3 months they'll be required to apply for any work they can do, even if it's only paying the minimum wage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is it secondary action?

No one can make me or anyone sign a contract, nor make me have anyone who isnt orr/dtm in my cab, and only then for official assessments. It's not insubordinate, its following procedure.

It's effectively a "work to rule" even if it isn't legally one. The rule isn't intended to allow you to keep a prospective DOO driver out of the cab. It's to allow you to ensure safety, in which case it would be right for you not to allow ANY route learning driver in the cab, but if you allow them up to a DOO driver asking, then that's fishy, I'm afraid.

And it's very much the unions business to look after its members, imposing a DOO contract on new entrants without union sayso would be insane. It would directly effect the current members and therefore is well within the unions remit.

Precisely how would it directly affect the current members? Other than perhaps there being routes you may no longer drive, because they are DOO - but how is that a problem exactly? You drive the routes you are told to drive subject to route knowledge.

Also where are Northern going to find nearly 1000 drivers when the threat of redundancy is thrown about? There is absolutely no way they would consider it, as to do so would end rail movement across the North. It takes 2-3 years to have a business link driver. Where are these coming from? Even at best with basic routes you are looking at a shutdown of 90% of the network for over 9 months.

Who's proposing redundancy?

 

[LowLevel]

I suggest two contracts, and I also suggest that the kind of "secondary action" (quotes deliberate because I'm not fully up on Union terminology) Eccles1983 is proposing is insubordination and could subject him to disciplinary action.

I also suggest the Union should only concern itself with its present members. If a new member of staff is offered a new role of driving a DOO train which they know when they take that role, it is none of the Union's business to attempt to prevent that.

Unions should exist to protect the conditions of their present members, not hypothetical future ones. I'd be quite happy to see legislation on that as at present they are utterly abusing their position in my view.

I don't even support DOO on Northern (though I do, as I've said, support it on Merseyrail, which is a very different situation indeed) - but this approach is nonsensical.

I can put a cautionary tale across about that. Back in the 2000s, the Civil Service pension scheme in a number of if not all departments was moved to a new less favourable scheme for new entrants. "Don't worry, it won't affect you" said the Government to the staff.

Fast forward a few years and all of a sudden "savings must be made - we're coming after your pension scheme as well going forward".

Guess what happened - the new entrants who'd been hire subsequently not entirely but largely refused to stand by the more senior staff and the changes went through.

I personally have an old fashioned opinion that we should be treated equally and look out for one another. Consequently agreeing rubbish terms for new staff you've got to work with just because they're not there yet is very dangerous ground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I personally have an old fashioned opinion that we should be treated equally and look out for one another. Consequently agreeing rubbish terms for new staff you've got to work with just because they're not there yet is very dangerous ground.

That rather depends on whether you consider DOO to be "rubbish terms" or not.

FWIW, it's for another thread, but final salary pension schemes are basically Ponzi schemes and all of them are doomed to fail because the working population is no longer growing. So that is a rather different issue.

 

[CN75]

Also where are Northern going to find nearly 1000 drivers when the threat of redundancy is thrown about? There is absolutely no way they would consider it, as to do so would end rail movement across the North. It takes 2-3 years to have a business link driver. Where are these coming from? Even at best with basic routes you are looking at a shutdown of 90% of the network for over 9 months.

It would be the same existing drivers. They will reckon next to nobody would put themselves out of a job for good over DOO, so they would sign a new contract and stay employed. Drivers who go down on their principles come to the end of the 12 weeks and are redundant, the others stay on with new contracts. Any small shortfall is made up from the government’s new train driver academy students which should be ready by then?

 

[Eccles1983]

It's effectively a "work to rule" even if it isn't legally one. The rule isn't intended to allow you to keep a prospective DOO driver out of the cab. It's to allow you to ensure safety, in which case it would be right for you not to allow ANY route learning driver in the cab, but if you allow them up to a DOO driver asking, then that's fishy, I'm afraid.



Precisely how would it directly affect the current members? Other than perhaps there being routes you may no longer drive, because they are DOO - but how is that a problem exactly? You drive the routes you are told to drive subject to route knowledge.



Who's proposing redundancy?

It was proposed above.

And DOO contracts would effect me. As it would be a carbon copy of what happened at Southern. It would be backslid into the rest of the contracts.

And work to rule is never secondary action.

Now for clarity as it may appear that I am completely close minded on the matter - I would consider the issue of DOO differently if proper safeguards were put in place (proper proven cameras, dispatch staff, legal protection against members of the public being stupid etc.) I simply have zero trust after PTI incidents resulting in lengthy investigations in the CPS or RSSB to ensure that these safeguards will be put in place.

But as it stands I have not seen anything that will ease these fears.


And drivers academy? Ha. Doing your rules doesnt mean you can just turn up and drive a train. There is route assessment that require a certain number of trips over the route. This all takes time and knowledge.

Drivers are lucky in a way that they can move across tocs. Redundancy would cost an obscene amount of money, and TOC's poach from ARN a lot.

 

[313103]

Well what a turnaround for we are now talking about drivers losing jobs rather then guards. I knew it would come to this, they got rid of my job and now they are coming for yours. So being a driver isnt the be all and end all.

 

[Eccles1983]

They arent coming for drivers jobs. Not in the next ten years anyway.

We are merely discussing a scorched earth policy. Hopefully calmer heads than the RMT's negotiation team will come to a sensible outcome before this plays out to the extremes spoken of here.

 

[CN75]

Drivers are lucky in a way that they can move across tocs. Redundancy would cost an obscene amount of money, and TOC's poach from ARN a lot.

So, ARN offer all drivers a new contract with a pay increase including DOO to stop the poaching, put all drivers on 12 weeks notice and wait for the drivers to sign up to the new contract. It costs ARN zero in redundancy payments (besides the 12 weeks) because they have offered a replacement job which is virtually the same, so the redundancy is legally just technical. Decline the new job, employment ends. Take the new contract, service continues unchanged.

 

[Eccles1983]

Not really.

Not everyone will roll over and accept a belly rub. Loads of drivers (especially those with lots of years behind them) will not sign it under duress.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really.

Not everyone will roll over and accept a belly rub. Loads of drivers (especially those with lots of years behind them) will not sign it under duress.

The point is though that they don't necessarily have a choice provided the law has been complied with. They can of course take strike action, but they will only do that for so long because it will hit them in the pocket (and indeed there is a legal limitation on how long it *can* be done for before they can be dismissed).

 

[pemma]

Interestingly (until the recent ASLEF agreement) Southern/Gatwick Express DOO drivers only got paid around £1,300 an annum more than some of the Northern drivers

http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=3455
http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=3451

That's very surprising given London salaries are normally much higher than North of England salaries.

 

[CN75]

Not really.

Not everyone will roll over and accept a belly rub. Loads of drivers (especially those with lots of years behind them) will not sign it under duress.

Then they will make themselves redundant. See what happened down at a GTR.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37600476

The point is nobody should want to go anywhere near these extreme situations, none of the unions want this and it will be hell for all drivers and guards at Northern. However just because something isn’t in terms or conditions currently does not mean that DOO can be stopped because there are legal ways to deal with that problem. The government are bankrolling the strikes at all the companies including ARN and have them over a barrel to implement what was in the franchise about 50% DOO.

 

[313103]

They arent coming for drivers jobs. Not in the next ten years anyway.

We are merely discussing a scorched earth policy. Hopefully calmer heads than the RMT's negotiation team will come to a sensible outcome before this plays out to the extremes spoken of here.

Tell me then with a calmer head, how you would deal with all the companies (along with the backing of so called independent bodies and government quangos) proposing to replace or get rid of the grade of guard?

I keep hearing people saying the RMT should concentrate on looking after their current staff rather then future (if any), pray tell me how can this end any other way? The whole idea is to reduce the headcount and supposedly the wage bill. The RMT cannot look after someone who is now no longer employed, the RMT cant even look after them in the future because all of these plans is designed to see them go. To protect the current members surely the only way to do this is to look as to what the future holds, we dont live on a minute by minute, hour by hour or even day by day existent. If i was coming into a industry as a young person i would want to know what future do i have here or will i have to look for work again in 3 months time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think any TOC with DOO plans is hiding the future. Merseyrail, for example, have been employing new guards on short term contracts for some time. How much more up front do you want them to be?

A job (in one specific role) for life is dead. Nowhere offers that any more. Society is changing too quickly.

You can probably get *employment* for life in some sectors including the railway if you want it, but it will be in different roles. Guards may progress to drivers, or move sideways to RPI, OBS or something else.

 

[theking]

Some poster's need to get in the real world here.

Employing new di's to train doo.
Employing qualified drivers to run the doo service.
Forcing drivers to take route learners in cabs.
Sacking all the drivers if they refuse to work doo
Union's not concerned with two tier workforce.

So by your saying ARN can employ people to drive trains on minium wage and it's not the unions business until they're signed up to ASLEF.

Get real.

 

[pemma]

I don't think any TOC with DOO plans is hiding the future.

Well some guards claim Arriva are hiding their plans for Northern but I think the reality is Arriva have consulted the RMT on routes suitable for not having a guard and the RMT have said "That's not up for discussion" meaning the RMT members have no idea what Arriva are consulting on.

 

[pemma]

ARN can employ people to drive trains on minium wage and it's not the unions business until they're signed up to ASLEF.

Any company has to offer something to attract people to accept the job. If they offered the same for driving trains as you'd get for working 7.5 hours per day in an office doing admin work during normal office hours, I doubt many would be attracted to apply for the train driver role. However, if they offered double what the admin role offered but still less than existing drivers I think they'd get a fair few contracts signed. At that point an ASLEF rep can come along and tell them the benefits of joining the union - one might be existing ASLEF members get £5,000 a year more than you're currently getting.

 

[LowLevel]

That rather depends on whether you consider DOO to be "rubbish terms" or not.

FWIW, it's for another thread, but final salary pension schemes are basically Ponzi schemes and all of them are doomed to fail because the working population is no longer growing. So that is a rather different issue.

I know - I was referring to the circumstances with the staff rather than the specifics of the pension situation

As for DOO being rubbish terms - it tends to depend what you see of the job. We've been somewhat unlucky in the last couple of years at our place whereby we've had incidents that have really shown how bad things can get when they go wrong in the wrong place with some truly ridiculous response times for external assistance.

 

[HH]

Any company has to offer something to attract people to accept the job. If they offered the same for driving trains as you'd get for working 7.5 hours per day in an office doing admin work during normal office hours, I doubt many would be attracted to apply for the train driver role. However, if they offered double what the admin role offered but still less than existing drivers I think they'd get a fair few contracts signed. At that point an ASLEF rep can come along and tell them the benefits of joining the union - one might be existing ASLEF members get £5,000 a year more than you're currently getting.

If a TOC tried this then they would get a full blown driver dispute. I'd be very, very, very surprised if anyone had the appetite for that.