GWR ASLEF strike services.

[irish_rail]

What about drivers who aren't in the union? Are there many? In my field of work, maybe union membership is about 15% of staff

Virtually all drivers are unionised. At Plymouth we have one guy who came out of the union for personal reasons, so perhaps he will be doing a day on the Gunnislake! Not aware of any Plymouth driver managers who will be driving next week, but am happy to be proved wrong! Was always under the impression that DSMs were not allowed to drive in a strike on GWR but maybe that's what they wanted us to think haha!

 

[Parallel]

I was quite surprised to see a few morning and evening shuttles running between Swindon and Westbury via Melksham. Passengers will be able to connect at Chippenham for Bath and Bristol, even if it may be a bit of a wait.

 

[800 Driver]

PR - still won’t be any real service - just the odd train driven by a manager that’s be pressured to work

 

[Requeststop]

If it's Penzance-St Ives and return then the St Erth signal-person will be busy.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

It also means that there is a route - albeit extremely circuitous - allowing passengers from stations served by TfW to get to London, via Newport and Bristol. Manchester, Holyhead, Shrewsbury, Liverpool, Warrington etc. passengers otherwise have no way to get to London.

Is not being able to get to London a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Bald Rick]

If it's Penzance-St Ives and return then the St Erth signal-person will be busy.

There’s nothing else moving, so I think they’ll cope with an average of two movements an hour.

PR - still won’t be any real service - just the odd train driven by a manager that’s be pressured to work

I suspect most of them will be delighted to do it.

 

[Mag_seven]

PR - still won’t be any real service - just the odd train driven by a manager that’s be pressured to work

I can assure you that for one person I know who needs to get to Paddington on that day it is very much a real service.

 

[dk1]

I suspect most of them will be delighted to do it.

I wouldn’t say delighted. They do it because they have to as part of their contracts. Most are ex-drivers themselves & get on extremely well with their ex-colleagues. If they could get out of it they would.

 

[O L Leigh]

I wouldn’t say delighted. They do it because they have to as part of their contracts. Most are ex-drivers themselves & get on extremely well with their ex-colleagues. If they could get out of it they would.

Agreed.

Our local DTMs would rather not have to do it at all because they know that it undermines the relationship between them and their staff. It's done because it is unavoidable and for no other reason.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wouldn’t say delighted. They do it because they have to as part of their contracts. Most are ex-drivers themselves & get on extremely well with their ex-colleagues. If they could get out of it they would.

The DMs I know all love getting the chance to drive.

 

[43066]

The DMs I know all love getting the chance to drive.

The ones I know try to avoid it at all costs!

 

[Bald Rick]

The ones I know try to avoid it at all costs!

Ok fair enough - our experiences differ!

 

[irish_rail]

The ones I know try to avoid it at all costs!

Ditto. Id be surprised if any at Plymouth drive. One is still in Aslef! And several haven't got the competency or route knowledge.

 

[dctraindriver]

The DMs I know all love getting the chance to drive.

And the ones I know mostly don’t.

 

[dk1]

The DMs I know all love getting the chance to drive.

Must be very different on your patch mate. Most of ours did it for years so it’s nothing special.

 

[O L Leigh]

The DMs I know all love getting the chance to drive.

Interesting.

I would have imagined there would be a difference between taking a train for a spin in normal circumstances and doing so to cover for striking staff, but I suppose it’s possible that they don’t see it.

 

[RPI]

Ditto. Id be surprised if any at Plymouth drive. One is still in Aslef! And several haven't got the competency or route knowledge.

I think route knowledge is why there are so few routes, I only ever see DSM's doing their drives on the branches

 

[43066]

Interesting.

I would have imagined there would be a difference between taking a train for a spin in normal circumstances and doing so to cover for striking staff, but I suppose it’s possible that they don’t see it.

Most I know would rather not be driving trains because, apart from anything else, they have lots else to be getting on with, which will still be waiting for them when they key off! It’s also true that, despite being managers, many also don’t like the idea of strike breaking. Hardly surprising when they’ve generally been drivers for many years themselves.

Especially in this dispute where the general feeling is very much that it’s industry against government, rather than staff against management.

 

[Facing Back]

Especially in this dispute where the general feeling is very much that it’s industry against government, rather than staff against management.

That is an interesting observation. If management has not bought into the government's agenda, and the government has no trust in management to enact that agenda, then the pattern of escalation we've seen over the last few years is a little more understandable.

Sorry if that has been obvious to insiders from the start....

 

[83G/84D]

If it's Penzance-St Ives and return then the St Erth signal-person will be busy.

Yes they will. The service is 0658 Penzance to St Ives and back to Penzance, repeated all day up until 1927hrs. There are a couple of times when the train remains at Penzance for a longer period presumably for crew rest break reasons.

 

[LowLevel]

Most of the DMs I know have little to no interest in driving trains which may perhaps be a reason they're DMs in the first place in some cases

Given that at our place they are allowed to cover shortfalls in normal circumstances driving is not really a novelty.

All a much of a muchness though as we aren't operating anyway.

 

[dk1]

DMs I know are rooting for the drivers all the way in this dispute as they get the equivalent pay deal too. Driving trains on strike days is a chore for them out of necessity.

 

[Carlisle]

Doesn’t it largely depend on how pivotal staff view their union in upholding/improving pay & conditions? Pretty highly for most train crew grades but rightly or wrongly less so amongst depot & other supporting roles in my experience.

 

[philthetube]

What about drivers who aren't in the union? Are there many? In my field of work, maybe union membership is about 15% of staff

Being a union member is essential on the railways, not for the wage rises but for the protection drivers need, both from the law on occasions, and from managers who sometimes feel the need to make a name for themselves

 

[ComUtoR]

That is an interesting observation. If management has not bought into the government's agenda...

Just like the staff. The Managers know what is and isn't workable and what is right for their TOC and not for others. Forced conditions by people above who clearly have no [expletive deleted] idea about what happens on the ground and the best ways to achieve it; is not a good way to run a railway. It's also worth noting that this isn't just front line staff who are affected. Our Managers haven't had a rise in recent years either. The entire TOC is fed up with outside interference and haven't had pay rises.

Sorry if that has been obvious to insiders from the start....

This forum, and the general public, tend to forget about the back office staff that are also keeping the railway running. Many of which are sub £30kpa, on temp contracts, job sharing, and are hellishly overworked.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Its about fiddling the figures. Running a short shuttle means they can claim they so many trains. Look at Southern running the Hove shuttle on RMT strike days

 

[Facing Back]

Just like the staff. The Managers know what is and isn't workable and what is right for their TOC and not for others. Forced conditions by people above who clearly have no [expletive deleted] idea about what happens on the ground and the best ways to achieve it; is not a good way to run a railway. It's also worth noting that this isn't just front line staff who are affected. Our Managers haven't had a rise in recent years either. The entire TOC is fed up with outside interference and haven't had pay rises.

I hear what you are saying - but devil's advocate for a moment.

If stakeholders have determined that a company cannot carry on with it's current level of performance - normally the amount of money it is losing or the lower than market return on investment - and the management and/or workforce are unable to or refuse to make the necessary changes - then something has to happen. Forcing change - sometimes any change to shake things up - from outside is not an uncommon approach when the other alternatives include shutting the business.

I accept that the railways are not required to be profitable but the government is showing many signs of requiring change and it seems to feel that it is not getting what it needs. If that is the case I can see these behaviours escalating to the detriment of all. I'm not surprised that the TOC is fed up.

This forum, and the general public, tend to forget about the back office staff that are also keeping the railway running. Many of which are sub £30kpa, on temp contracts, job sharing, and are hellishly overworked.

Fair enough.

 

[ComUtoR]

If stakeholders have determined that a company cannot carry on with it's current level of performance - normally the amount of money it is losing or the lower than market return on investment - and the management and/or workforce are unable to or refuse to make the necessary changes - then something has to happen.

That's one of the misunderstandings. We all know the Railway needs to change, we fully accept that. It's the specific changes that are on offer that are just plain stupid or unworkable that those "stakeholders" do not seem to understand just do not work. There is also generic political statements that are just meaningless rhetoric. There isn't a 'refusal' it's just a complete disconnect between Government/TOC/Coal face.

Let's play nice. I'm only 1 glass of wine and 1 slice of pizza in. Sunday working. This is 100% something that the railway MUST change. The Gov wants it, TOCs do not. Staff generally don't care because we work them (under whatever local agreements there are). Under this new RDG agreement there is NOT an agreement to work towards or do pretty much anything to bring Sunday within the working week. There is some weird, bastardised goal, to bring Sundays in under Rest day working or obligated agreements; but absolutely NOT, in the working week. You realise, of course, that most TOCs already have some kind of Sunday agreement in place; or like at my TOC; Sunday is part of the working week. This is purely political but changes nothing on the ground. Managers know this, Staff know this, Unions know this, but its a huge political goal. True change is to bring Sunday in as part of the working week.

Why would anyone in their right mind, sign up to this clause, that already exists and changes nothing. Why is it even there ? It's the perfect example of a Stakeholder interfeering without actually understanding what really happens on the front line.

Forcing change - sometimes any change to shake things up - from outside is not an uncommon approach when the other alternatives include shutting the business.

I have no issue with 'change' and I don't believe anyone actually does. If I look where I was 20yrs ago and compare where I am today. I can honestly say there has been a lot of change. Forcing it through I am on the fence about but it does need to happen. It already does. Which is something that those external stakeholders and the general public don't see because they are caught up in the rhetoric. Shutting the business is NOT going to happen. Have a look at the SE timetable thread. As an old hand, think about Beeching. Shut down services, cut back the timetable, close non profitable routes, clear out the ghost trains, and you end up with a service that is detrimental to the passenger. Congrats, the Gov wins; the passenger will lose.

I accept that the railways are not required to be profitable but the government is showing many signs of requiring change and it seems to feel that it is not getting what it needs.

Change IS required and would be supported. All that RDG stuff, I do actually agree with quite a bit of it. 4% ? F*** N* Stick 12% on the table and I'll agree tomorrow. Remove the 'red lines'; I'll sign tomorrow. Take that short term hit for a long term gain.

I remember a GTR pay deal that specifically highlighted how much their 'Sundays outside' was worth. Drivers work them and its nice to know what the ££ benefit is. However; now you know how much those Sundays are work, why sell out for anything less.

Stop trying to crack this nut with a machete.

 

[Bald Rick]

Being a union member is essential on the railways, not for the wage rises but for the protection drivers need, both from the law on occasions, and from managers who sometimes feel the need to make a name for themselves

You don’t need to be a union member to get that sort of protection. Plenty of insurance policies out there can do that, and more cheaply as well. Granted they won’t negotiate pay for you.

 

[Facing Back]

That's one of the misunderstandings. We all know the Railway needs to change, we fully accept that. It's the specific changes that are on offer that are just plain stupid or unworkable that those "stakeholders" do not seem to understand just do not work. There is also generic political statements that are just meaningless rhetoric. There isn't a 'refusal' it's just a complete disconnect between Government/TOC/Coal face.

Let's play nice. I'm only 1 glass of wine and 1 slice of pizza in. Sunday working. This is 100% something that the railway MUST change. The Gov wants it, TOCs do not. Staff generally don't care because we work them (under whatever local agreements there are). Under this new RDG agreement there is NOT an agreement to work towards or do pretty much anything to bring Sunday within the working week. There is some weird, bastardised goal, to bring Sundays in under Rest day working or obligated agreements; but absolutely NOT, in the working week. You realise, of course, that most TOCs already have some kind of Sunday agreement in place; or like at my TOC; Sunday is part of the working week. This is purely political but changes nothing on the ground. Managers know this, Staff know this, Unions know this, but its a huge political goal. True change is to bring Sunday in as part of the working week.

Why would anyone in their right mind, sign up to this clause, that already exists and changes nothing. Why is it even there ? It's the perfect example of a Stakeholder interfeering without actually understanding what really happens on the front line.



I have no issue with 'change' and I don't believe anyone actually does. If I look where I was 20yrs ago and compare where I am today. I can honestly say there has been a lot of change. Forcing it through I am on the fence about but it does need to happen. It already does. Which is something that those external stakeholders and the general public don't see because they are caught up in the rhetoric. Shutting the business is NOT going to happen. Have a look at the SE timetable thread. As an old hand, think about Beeching. Shut down services, cut back the timetable, close non profitable routes, clear out the ghost trains, and you end up with a service that is detrimental to the passenger. Congrats, the Gov wins; the passenger will lose.




Change IS required and would be supported. All that RDG stuff, I do actually agree with quite a bit of it. 4% ? F*** N* Stick 12% on the table and I'll agree tomorrow. Remove the 'red lines'; I'll sign tomorrow. Take that short term hit for a long term gain.

I remember a GTR pay deal that specifically highlighted how much their 'Sundays outside' was worth. Drivers work them and its nice to know what the ££ benefit is. However; now you know how much those Sundays are work, why sell out for anything less.

Stop trying to crack this nut with a machete.

Sure, I agree with a lot of that and its interesting reading.

I'm just speculating on why the government is behaving the way it is

I don't believe the railways will close for one second. I'm just commenting on behaviours in other businesses I've seen where the board/shareholders have a desperate need for change and wondering why the government has decided to get off the pot now. I know the analogy is flawed and the rail is not a purely commercial organisation. I am curious why there appears to be the start of an intent for convergence across the TOCs when the strategy for the last couple of decades has been anything but - is there a medium or long term strategy behind that?

I do believe that there a risk that services will be reduced to take cost out and to "improve reliability". I hope this does not happen.

I have no opinion on the right way to resolve the Sunday issue - I recognise that lots of people who are affected do and that the RDG proposal doesn't appear on the face of it to address it. I just want it sorted out once and for all so that all parties, railway staff and passengers both, are able to plan ahead with a reasonable level of certainty. The same would apply to RDW and overtime.

You don’t need to be a union member to get that sort of protection. Plenty of insurance policies out there can do that, and more cheaply as well. Granted they won’t negotiate pay for you.

Surely for most staff the unions negotiate your pay for you whether you are a member or not. You just don't get a vote on the offer if you are not a member.