TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I still don't understand what GNW's (inherited) sick pay arrangements are, and what they're seeking to introduce in place of the current arrangements. If that means drivers who are ill, driving vehicles because they don't want to lose pay then I can imagine the union having a valid issue and their standing their ground.
What GNW wants to achieve could be achieved by a different approach - simply draw the line on a fixed date, and everyone employed after that date is on the revised terms, whilst protecting the existing drivers. Over time, there would be less and less of those people (they are dismissed, leave, or retire). Stagecoach were very adept at reducing the numbers of people on such conditions - the opco I worked at continually sent inspectors down to the depot en masse and, surprise surprise, they kept on finding things wrong....
I suspect that this is a bit of a hidden issue. I don't know what the sick pay arrangements are but wonder if levels of sickness absence are considerably higher than the norm? And if so, why?
The concept of red-circling staff so you have a cut off has its draw backs. I managed at a site where we had guys who had transferred in on TUPE (from a number of firms) and then people on our own "new" terms. Of course, you had to have a couple of the ones on historic terms who would lord it over the newer staff which was pretty corrosive for industrial relations.
Purely to put my view to rest, I did slate the strike and all that until it came out that the drivers had voted in favour of industrial action. If drivers go for a strike or whatever they choose to do, sobeit, that is their choice as a union member. As long as it's done legally, that's fine, no issue.
What I do have a problem with however is people who have nothing to do with the situation (in this case Stockport Trade Council) sticking their beak in to cause disruption to thousands of people. By and large, they are reading what a union tells them and (like the majority of us), only know that side of the story. Further to that, the action that is being taken isn't lawful, it is blocking a public road without any prior notice. If you as an employee are not happy with what is proposed, you do what you have to do within the law. 3rd parties who, lets be honest, exist just there to annoy private companies, need to keep out of the situation as it will make it worse for the drivers. Lost revenue from these 'protests' will mean there is less chance of negotiation and slowly, it will create more issues.
I am not ranting at drivers who are well within their right to protest however the 3rd party unionists doing illegal protests are the issue.
Absolutely agree. If staff wish to protest, then they should have the ability to. What isn't on are the activists who turn up to "show solidarity" and "sticking it to the man" whilst not actually having any liability for what happens!
Nigel Featham has put comment to the Manchester Evening News, the last paragraph is quite something though.
The bus driver dispute which has led to two days of disruption in Manchester
Protesters have gathered outside the Go North West depot in Cheetham Hill for two dayswww.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Thanks for those. Certainly, for all of Unite's posturing, it's clear that First were losing money and so are GNW. It simply can't go on, and for Unite to use the ploy of "they make money elsewhere" means that somewhere, people are getting paid perhaps less than they deserve.
There are all sorts of implications for the franchising proposal in all this.