GWR ASLEF strike services.

[Bald Rick]

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.

True.

 

[43066]

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.

Is there really a “desperate need for change”? It’s notable that most private sector employers have dealt with the current situation by offering their employees a moderate pay rise (6% ish) without a bonfire of Ts and Cs. That’s all the railway unions are asking for.

The government aren’t really analogous to a board of directors, or to shareholders, because they have no commercial imperative nor personal “skin in the game; it isn’t their own money or their own jobs at stake. Hence why, unlike any private sector business, they can prolong the dispute for as long as they wish, using public money.

Isn’t it instructive that the government has decided to “get off the pot” in relation to picking a fight with the railway unions, yet nothing has been done about rolling stock leasing costs etc. Equally other areas of public spending cost far more and are hugely more inefficient than the railway, yet nobody seems to be trying to rip up drs’ and nurses’ Ts and Cs to anything like the same extent…

I’d suggest the current dispute (replicated across most of the public sector) is entirely politically motivated. The jury is out on how well this strategy is going for the government, who appear to have misjudged the mood of the public and are lurching from crisis to crisis.

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.

There’s insurance against victimisation by appalling managers? Where can I find that?

 

[ComUtoR]

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 RDG or the Gov have no intention to resolve the issue. Sundays inside will "solve" it but at great cost. It isn't going to happen in my working career. This agreements kinda cements the understanding that Sundays will always be 'outside' and be under some form of 'local agreement'

Give the Staff a decent bump, tell TOCS that inside the working week is the goal/mandatory, hire the relevant staff, job done. Granted not as simplistic as that but strikes over some weird halfway step that resolves nothing is worthless for all involved.

 

[Facing Back]

The RDG or the Gov have no intention to resolve the issue. Sundays inside will "solve" it but at great cost. It isn't going to happen in my working career. This agreements kinda cements the understanding that Sundays will always be 'outside' and be under some form of 'local agreement'

Give the Staff a decent bump, tell TOCS that inside the working week is the goal/mandatory, hire the relevant staff, job done. Granted not as simplistic as that but strikes over some weird halfway step that resolves nothing is worthless for all involved.

I don't remember reading anywhere that "sunday's inside" was one of the RDG's goals. As you say, the settlement offer, if I recall, could be just as easily interpreted as committed sundays across the board, which would resolve the issue as far as the travelling public are concerned and without the additional cost.

I wouldn't expect the unions to be happy with this. I guess we'll see at some point whether it is a red line for either side. Personally I'd be tempted to see whether there was an "over time" deal to be done where more cost effective training and boarding of new staff released enough money to fund additional headcount to move away from committed overtime. We would need to be careful that we don't spend the money released from "efficiency savings" many times.

 

[Starmill]

It's commonplace for staff working while direct colleagues are taking strike action to be given work which breaks a normal agreement with the union, or even breaks the employee's contract. It is as if they're daring people to complain and knowing they they probably won't.

 

[Facing Back]

Is there really a “desperate need for change”? It’s notable that most private sector employers have dealt with the current situation by offering their employees a moderate pay rise (6% ish) without a bonfire of Ts and Cs. That’s all the railway unions are asking for.

The government aren’t really analogous to a board of directors, or to shareholders, because they have no commercial imperative nor personal “skin in the game; it isn’t their own money or their own jobs at stake. Hence why, unlike any private sector business, they can prolong the dispute for as long as they wish, using public money.

Isn’t it instructive that the government has decided to “get off the pot” in relation to picking a fight with the railway unions, yet nothing has been done about rolling stock leasing costs etc. Equally other areas of public spending cost far more and are hugely more inefficient than the railway, yet nobody seems to be trying to rip up drs’ and nurses’ Ts and Cs to anything like the same extent…

I’d suggest the current dispute (replicated across most of the public sector) is entirely politically motivated. The jury is out on how well this strategy is going for the government, who appear to have misjudged the mood of the public and are lurching from crisis to crisis.



There’s insurance against victimisation by appalling managers? Where can I find that?

I have no idea whether there is a "desperate need for change", I was speculating that the government appears to be behaving like they believe that there is.

I would argue however that the government is analogous to a board of directors in this case and have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders - which is loosely the public - to ensure that the business is managed efficiently. Again, not my point - I'm just discussing their behaviour and speculating about the reasons behind it, as, on the face of it, their actions do not appear to make a huge amount of sense, but we can't consider them in context of the overall strategy - because we don't know what that is, or even if it exists.

Yes, financially they can prolong the dispute. Do you think that there haven't been many cases of commercial firms outlasting their unions? They typically find work-arounds to mitigate the impact, some of which end up quite disadvantageous to the workforce. It's not good practice but that doesn't make in uncommon.

I'm not going to comment on the NHS here other than agreeing that is very inefficient.

ROSCOs is a reasonable point. I don't know much about it other than the posts I've read on this site. I have no problem with the principle of outsourcing the financing of procurement and maintenance of rolling stock if the terms are advantageous. What I read here is that the original terms were too skewed towards the ROSCOs but that recent deals have been on more sensible commercial terms. The ROSCOs seem to carry an amount of risk so there will be some premium attached to that over the cost of the money. Unwinding old deals where the profit over the term has been priced in already can be very hard to do - often you have to pay out the profit. You know all of this.

Of course the overall approach to the amount of money on offer for settlement across the public sector is politically motivated and yes, they are lurching from crisis to crisis. Surely there can't be many left for them to find.

 

[dctraindriver]

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.

Really? Redundancy & health insurance with a maximum payout of £2000 for a late 40s male is over £80 a month and I expect there’s a few hoops to get through for that price.

My union subs are worth their weight in gold!

 

[Bald Rick]

Really? Redundancy & health insurance with a maximum payout of £2000 for a late 40s male is over £80 a month and I expect there’s a few hoops to get through for that price.

My union subs are worth their weight in gold!

Not that sort of insurance.

What I mean is legal assistance insurance, to cover you if you needed that sort of help in a personal dispute with your employer.

 

[dctraindriver]

Not that sort of insurance.

What I mean is legal assistance insurance, to cover you if you needed that sort of help in a personal dispute with your employer.

Is it easy to access? How much is the policy approximately per month?

 

[the sniper]

What I mean is legal assistance insurance, to cover you if you needed that sort of help in a personal dispute with your employer.

Who can accompany you in a disciplinary meeting?

 

[AntoniC]

Who can accompany you in a disciplinary meeting?

Quite right, I am a PCS (Public & Commercial Services Rep) in the Civil Service who represents members in difficulty.
My role is to ensure management conduct investigations correctly and fairly - sometimes they don`t.
My role is to provide mitigiation for the guilty .

 

[Bald Rick]

Who can accompany you in a disciplinary meeting?

Anyone you like.

Is it easy to access? How much is the policy approximately per month?

Mine comes free with my home insurance.

 

[dk1]

Who can accompany you in a disciplinary meeting?

You really need an experienced union representative. Their advice & help is invaluable at what could be make or break interview for your career. It can be very emotional for the employee concerned and they will do the talking for you to save incriminating yourself.

 

[bengley]

Anyone you like.



Mine comes free with my home insurance.

I can assure you that having anyone other than an ASLEF (or a select few RMT) union representative at a railway disciplinary meeting as a driver is utterly useless. There are too many technical arguments which will inevitably ensue which only railway people will be able to defend against. Also, most companies will not allow you to take anyone other than an employee of the same company or a recognised trade union rep.

 

[dk1]

I have never been a particularly militant person but have never ever considered not being in a union since day one in 1984. On the two occasions that i have found myself in trouble the union reps were invaluable. On the first they undoubtedly saved my career as was on a clause 9 which for anyone who doesn't know was a summary dismissal. That senior ASLEF officials words to me was not to worry if you get sacked as I guarantee I will get you back at the appeal Didn't come to that thankfully. Cannot see an outside person representing me in such a confident fashion.

 

[Horizon22]

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



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

Can't hurt keeping up the mandated minimum hours either.

Who can accompany you in a disciplinary meeting?

Anyone - disciplinary procedures say you can bring a "nominated individual" (or words similar) or a rep. I've known plenty do the former before, especially when they didn't like their rep! To say you could only bring a union representative would be effectively discriminatory to those not in a union.

 

[43066]

I have no idea whether there is a "desperate need for change", I was speculating that the government appears to be behaving like they believe that there is.

Call me cynical but there’s an alternative analysis of the government’s approach as follows: they don’t give a stuff about railway users/staff or stakeholders in general, certainly aren’t interesting in changing it for the better, and simply find prolonging the dispute politically convenient for various reasons. Hence they’re happy to allow the current status quo to drift on.

I would argue however that the government is analogous to a board of directors in this case and have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders - which is loosely the public - to ensure that the business is managed efficiently. Again, not my point - I'm just discussing their behaviour and speculating about the reasons behind it, as, on the face of it, their actions do not appear to make a huge amount of sense, but we can't consider them in context of the overall strategy - because we don't know what that is, or even if it exists.

It’s interesting to observe how FOCs, open access operators, Eurostar, which are proper commercial businesses with actual directors and actual shareholders also dealing largely with the same unions, (even OA operators have quite high ASLEF and RMT membership), have dealt with these disputes - ie mutually acceptable settlements, no attempt to worsen Ts and Cs - have meant they largely haven’t arisen in the first place.

Looking at the TOCs, I agree the government certainly should be seen as analogous to a board of directors given how restrictive the NRCs are. However it’s notable that, rather than acknowledging their control over the industry, the government has spent months disclaiming responsibility and pretending they are nothing to do with the negotiations, while the NRCs prevent the TOCs from negotiating without government sign off.

If government believes it owes a duty to the public to ensure these businesses are managed efficiently, how does that stack up against the way TPE and XC have been run over the last year or so, and the failure to allow any negotiations towards a solution to take place? Any sensible board would have long since addressed the issues hobbling the service - yet the government has chosen to specifically prevent these matters from being addressed.

Yes, financially they can prolong the dispute. Do you think that there haven't been many cases of commercial firms outlasting their unions? They typically find work-arounds to mitigate the impact, some of which end up quite disadvantageous to the workforce. It's not good practice but that doesn't make in uncommon.

I’m not sure there are many “workarounds” if you’re in the business of running trains and your driver workforce is on strike. But in any case this approach hasn’t been adopted in the case of the businesses mentioned above. The TOCs have been hamstrung by the government and have continued to run an appalling service with no ability to change anything.

ROSCOs is a reasonable point. I don't know much about it other than the posts I've read on this site. I have no problem with the principle of outsourcing the financing of procurement and maintenance of rolling stock if the terms are advantageous. What I read here is that the original terms were too skewed towards the ROSCOs but that recent deals have been on more sensible commercial terms. The ROSCOs seem to carry an amount of risk so there will be some premium attached to that over the cost of the money. Unwinding old deals where the profit over the term has been priced in already can be very hard to do - often you have to pay out the profit. You know all of this.

It is difficult to unpick existing arrangement, but it’s striking that there has been precious little said about ROSCOs who have enjoyed higher profit margins than are justified by the relatively low commercial risk taken, in a market with high barriers to entry and little effective competition. If cost savings are being sought (costs in this area eclipse railway staffing costs), this should be a key area of focus going forward, yet the government prefers posturing against the railway unions while ignoring this area.

We are forever reminded that the industry has been handed billions throughout Covid to keep it afloat, well that “largesse” also benefited the ROSCOs, yet the Daily Mail (encouraged by the government) only ever focusses on staffing costs and strike action!

 

[Facing Back]

Call me cynical but there’s an alternative analysis of the government’s approach as follows: they don’t give a stuff about railway users/staff or stakeholders in general, certainly aren’t interesting in changing it for the better, and simply find prolonging the dispute politically convenient for various reasons. Hence they’re happy to allow the current status quo to drift on.

I am a little less cynical than you - but I don't have to live and breathe this circus every day like you lot. I do believe that the government want to change it for the better - for a certain definition of "better" but I am not getting a strong sense that they know how to. I do agree that there is a wider political context. I don't think they find it convenient to prolong it arbitrarily, but I do think they would find it very inconvenient to be seen to "give in" so it seems likely that it will drift on.

It’s interesting to observe how FOCs, open access operators, Eurostar, which are proper commercial businesses with actual directors and actual shareholders also dealing largely with the same unions, (even OA operators have quite high ASLEF and RMT membership), have dealt with these disputes - ie mutually acceptable settlements, no attempt to worsen Ts and Cs - have meant they largely haven’t arisen in the first place.

Open access operators run simple operations without track access charges and are unencumbered by legacy issues. Their competition is the TOCs who have none of these benefits . They are competitive without the need to address the employment issues and do not have enough critical mass to deal with them alone. I don't know much about FOCs other than they must be able to charge enough to make a profit - those charges being passed on to their commercial customers rather than the government. Do you know much about how Eurostar's French ownership and European aspirations affects their commercial position here? I have no idea what kind of contract they operate under either.

Looking at the TOCs, I agree the government certainly should be seen as analogous to a board of directors given how restrictive the NRCs are. However it’s notable that, rather than acknowledging their control over the industry, the government has spent months disclaiming responsibility and pretending they are nothing to do with the negotiations, while the NRCs prevent the TOCs from negotiating without government sign off.

If government believes it owes a duty to the public to ensure these businesses are managed efficiently, how does that stack up against the way TPE and XC have been run over the last year or so, and the failure to allow any negotiations towards a solution to take place? Any sensible board would have long since addressed the issues hobbling the service - yet the government has chosen to specifically prevent these matters from being addressed.

The NRCs remove all executive authority from the TOCs, turning their leadership teams into middle management. They were designed (I assume) as a simple approach to an emergency situation which can be quickly implemented to stop many companies going bust and just as quickly removed. The latter hasn't happened and we are in a bastardised no-mans land until they are. I'm hoping the chancellor's speech in February will make some form of strategy clear.

TPE, XC (and Avanti) have all been horrible in terms of service delivery. Commentators here have explained much of the background but its hard to argue against there being too little resilience in their operation. Whilst I think the government is the de facto board, I am not suggesting that there are acting like it.

I’m not sure there are many “workarounds” if you’re in the business of running trains and your driver workforce is on strike. But in any case this approach hasn’t been adopted in the case of the businesses mentioned above. The TOCs have been hamstrung by the government and have continued to run an appalling service with no ability to change anything.

Your point was that a commercial organisation would not let the dispute run on and try to outlast the union - my response was that there are many cases where they do exactly that - hence the comment on workarounds. The government has access to workarounds that companies don't - a change of law for example

It is difficult to unpick existing arrangement, but it’s striking that there has been precious little said about ROSCOs who have enjoyed higher profit margins than are justified by the relatively low commercial risk taken, in a market with high barriers to entry and little effective competition. If cost savings are being sought (costs in this area eclipse railway staffing costs), this should be a key area of focus going forward, yet the government prefers posturing against the railway unions while ignoring this area.

We are forever reminded that the industry has been handed billions throughout Covid to keep it afloat, well that “largesse” also benefited the ROSCOs, yet the Daily Mail (encouraged by the government) only ever focusses on staffing costs and strike action!

Moving forwards I understood that the ROSCO profits had been a focus - I am happy to be corrected. If not then it should be, but I understand that the bulk of rolling stock procurement is now complete. Attempting to claw back "excess" profits made on existing contracts will likely simply add the lawyers to the bankers in those making a lot of money from this.

Yes, there is little in the press about this, it isn't as interesting a perfidious union barons vs the right-wing government. I don't read the Daily Mail (my partner does, she likes the gossip as a break from her high pressure career but even she doesn't believe anything she reads in it).

 

[Watershed]

It’s interesting to observe how FOCs, open access operators, Eurostar, which are proper commercial businesses with actual directors and actual shareholders also dealing largely with the same unions, (even OA operators have quite high ASLEF and RMT membership), have dealt with these disputes - ie mutually acceptable settlements, no attempt to worsen Ts and Cs - have meant they largely haven’t arisen in the first place.

These businesses are all fundamentally different to the franchised TOCs in that everyone knows they will not be rescued by the government if they fail; they operate on a purely commercial basis. This means that unions know they must temper their demands and avoid striking if at all possible, as otherwise they risk putting themselves out of a job. Management also know that every train that doesn't run represents lost profit and reputational damage. This overall produces a completely different negotiating environment, whereby both sides have a much stronger incentive to make realistic demands and offers.

The only fair comparison that can really be drawn is with the Welsh, Scottish and other devolved operators - where in principle the same considerations as the DfT TOCs apply. The reason why these have (almost) all settled does then come down to politics; those funding authorities have generally not tried to improve efficiency in their deals and have, in some cases, stretched if not overstretched their budgets to do so. Whilst those negotiations might now sound successful, I wonder whether that might not change if in a year or two, cutbacks have to be made in other areas (if not directly on the railway) to balance the books.

Looking at the TOCs, I agree the government certainly should be seen as analogous to a board of directors given how restrictive the NRCs are. However it’s notable that, rather than acknowledging their control over the industry, the government has spent months disclaiming responsibility and pretending they are nothing to do with the negotiations, while the NRCs prevent the TOCs from negotiating without government sign off.

I completely agree, and this shows that the government has not entirely approached the negotiations in good faith.

However, much the same accusation could be levelled against some of the unions in the way they have conducted themselves - for example, recommending the rejection of offers they've put out to ballot, and changing their mind between what's been said at the negotiating tables and what they later decide.

Ultimately the negotiations have been dragged out to an unnecessary degree by both sides.

It is difficult to unpick existing arrangement, but it’s striking that there has been precious little said about ROSCOs who have enjoyed higher profit margins than are justified by the relatively low commercial risk taken, in a market with high barriers to entry and little effective competition. If cost savings are being sought (costs in this area eclipse railway staffing costs), this should be a key area of focus going forward, yet the government prefers posturing against the railway unions while ignoring this area.

Five or ten years ago, I'd have absolutely agreed with you there. However, things have changed now - there is much more competition for leasing, so effective interest rates are lower. The DfT has also instructed TOCs to unexpectedly not renew quite a number of leases (180s, 379s, 455s, 769s etc.), and all indications are that more fleets will disappear this year. Whilst I think the latter is arguably short-sighted even if viewed from a purely financial perspective (the ROSCOs will be readjusting their estimation of asset life accordingly for future deals), it has at least proven that there are some advantages to the concept of leasing.

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that there is any merit in leasing rolling stock when the government can generally borrow the money much more cheaply.

We are forever reminded that the industry has been handed billions throughout Covid to keep it afloat, well that “largesse” also benefited the ROSCOs, yet the Daily Mail (encouraged by the government) only ever focusses on staffing costs and strike action!

Except it's not that simple, because staff could quite lawfully have been made redundant. More realistically speaking, those very same OAOs that you praise above put many of their staff on 80% pay during furlough - and with the benefit of hindsight, I expect that the DfT would have tried to have done that.

However, rolling stock leases don't tend to allow for early termination - they typically have 'hell or high water' clauses. The ROSCOs would have had no incentive to agree to any early termination, knowing how impractical it is to replace fleets, and that they could sue the government if they refused to pay.

Obviously this all goes to highlight the problems with outsourcing leasing, but I don't think you can claim that the arrangements were unduly lenient to the ROSCOs. They simply received the money they were contractually due.

 

[Facing Back]

I completely agree, and this shows that the government has entirely approached the negotiations in good faith.

However, much the same accusation could be levelled against some of the unions in the way they have conducted themselves - for example, recommending the rejection of offers they've put out to ballot, and changing their mind between what's been said at the negotiating tables and what they later decide.

Ultimately the negotiations have been dragged out to an unnecessary degree by both sides.

You believe that the government has approached the negotiations entirely in good faith? Or is there a "not" missing from that sentence?

 

[Watershed]

You believe that the government has approached the negotiations entirely in good faith? Or is there a "not" missing from that sentence?

Definitely a "not" missing there!

 

[Facing Back]

Definitely a "not" missing there!

Hardly makes any difference

 

[Bald Rick]

The only fair comparison that can really be drawn is with the Welsh, Scottish and other devolved operators - where in principle the same considerations as the DfT TOCs apply. The reason why these have (almost) all settled does then come down to politics; those funding authorities have generally not tried to improve efficiency in their deals and have, in some cases, stretched if not overstretched their budgets to do so. Whilst those negotiations might now sound successful, I wonder whether that might not change if in a year or two, cutbacks have to be made in other areas (if not directly on the railway) to balance the books.

This is good analysis. Readers may wish to consider why the Scotland HLOS / SOFA has been delayed, twice. One assumes that if the books balanced, they would be keen to publish it to show UK Government how to run a railway.

 

[the sniper]

Anyone you like.

Anyone - disciplinary procedures say you can bring a "nominated individual" (or words similar) or a rep. I've known plenty do the former before, especially when they didn't like their rep! To say you could only bring a union representative would be effectively discriminatory to those not in a union.

Someone should let Citizens Advice know...

Who can accompany you​

If you’re asked to go to a disciplinary meeting, you have the right to be accompanied by:

• a colleague
• a trade union representative
• an official employed by a trade union

You don't usually have a right to bring anyone else. You can ask your employer if someone else can accompany you, but they don't have to agree to this. They might have a policy of allowing a wider range of people to come with you.

The person who comes with you is called your ‘companion’.

You should also check your contract and your employer's procedure on disciplinary meetings, as these say who you're allowed to bring with you.

Who can accompany you to a disciplinary meeting

What to do if you want someone to come with you to a disciplinary meeting, what they can do and what to do if your employer refuses to let you bring anyone with you.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

Presumably the insurance only really helps once the disciplinary procedure has come to it's reasonably likely conclusion and you're off down the road to the employment tribunal, if you don't believe in union representation.