Nationalisation what it means for staff?

[eldomtom2]

This, I suppose, a long-winded way of saying that train drivers — because of the set of aptitudes needed for periods of concentration, remembering details of rolling stock and routes and a book's worth of operating procedures — are more likely to be able to 'vote with their feet' than those with more generic skills. The costs of training also plays a rôle, it can be economically more advantageous for TOC 'A' to offer higher pay to an already experienced driver from TOC 'B' than train one ab initio. Here the risk that some candidates may drop out before completing the course does not fall on TOC 'A' which can then pass on some of its savings to its new driver.

Yes that's all very good in theory, but do you have any evidence that train drivers "voting with their feet" and moving to other TOCs is actually common and has an impact on contracts?

Unions certainly do have an effect on pay scales but this is limited in time. Over a period of several years changes in general economic activity tend to outweigh the effects of any individual pay deal.

You seem to be claiming that unions have a very limited effect on pay - do you have any studies showing this?

 

[Meerkat]

If it’s one big railway then all new entries should be on one standard contract.
Its what the unions demanded…….
If they did it now would the unions still have to ballot TOC by TOC?

 

[LBMPSB]

Perhaps have GBR T&Cs only for new staff, with staff TUPE'd in retaining their existing T&Cs.

Which is exactly the state of the Railways at the moment with all the shifting of comanpies. Network Rail, which took back in Pway & S&T staff, have many of it's staff on different contracts, terms and conditions. It means staff in same jobs could work with colleagues on better or worse terms and conditions and likewise, better or worse pay. GBR isn't going to be smooth or straight forward.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes that's all very good in theory, but do you have any evidence that train drivers "voting with their feet" and moving to other TOCs is actually common and has an impact on contracts?

I didn't say it was 'common'. As you know pressures on the margins reflect through the whole pricing structure so I wrote that it was 'more likely'. Simply changing employers will have little or no effect on general contract conditions (these being the employers standard terms) but only on the pay rates for the individual.

You seem to be claiming that unions have a very limited effect on pay - do you have any studies showing this?

Yes, I have read studies showing this effect that union pressure can have short-term effects on pay but that in the long term pay rates (or rather the total costs of employment including things like pensions and insurance) tend to remain sensibly stable as a proportion of the employers' total costs.

This is true across a range of industries and countries.

And, no, I can't be bothered to try to find them again. Do your own research...

 

[Sorcerer]

You seem to be claiming that unions have a very limited effect on pay - do you have any studies showing this?

Not the original poster of the one you replied to, but while strong union membership has played a big role in pay on the railway, it's not the only factor. Supply and demand is the primary driver of pay across industries, and in the case of the railway it varies by role. To use train drivers as an example, while the amount of applications far surpass the vacancies, the actual eligible candidates might not always meet the demand, so this limited talent pool combined with the long and rigorous training (thereby not being so easily replaceable) and strong organisation of being in a union are what drives the pay.

In the case of GBR I think an earlier post talked about grandfather rights for all current employee contracts with a standardised one later for new railway recruits. The question of what that standard package will be won't come along quickly and it'll take a lot of work, and no doubt a lot of discussions with the RMT, TSSA and ASLEF unions. I suspect it could even take longer than a five-year Parliament but it would be in everyone's interest to get it done as soon as reasonably possible.

 

[Meerkat]

To use train drivers as an example, while the amount of applications far surpass the vacancies, the actual eligible candidates might not always meet the demand, so this limited talent pool combined with the long and rigorous training

A cynic would suggest that it might be overly lengthy training, maintained by union pressure as it kept supply short and strengthened the union’s power.

 

[Sorcerer]

A cynic would suggest that it might be overly lengthy training, maintained by union pressure as it kept supply short and strengthened the union’s power.

A bit too cynical for me personally, especially when the unions have tended to advocate for more staff to be recruited, including a measure to possibly reduce the train driver legal age from 20 to 18 in which one cynical argument was that more members meant more people paying more membership fees.

 

[Meerkat]

A bit too cynical for me personally, especially when the unions have tended to advocate for more staff to be recruited, including a measure to possibly reduce the train driver legal age from 20 to 18 in which one cynical argument was that more members meant more people paying more membership fees.

Sure they want more members, but they don’t want them too quickly.
More specifically local training and route learning prevents extreme employer reactions to industrial action, and slow recruitment makes paying up more realistic than recruiting your way out of an overtime ban etc.

 

[kw12]

Which is exactly the state of the Railways at the moment with all the shifting of comanpies. Network Rail, which took back in Pway & S&T staff, have many of it's staff on different contracts, terms and conditions. It means staff in same jobs could work with colleagues on better or worse terms and conditions and likewise, better or worse pay. GBR isn't going to be smooth or straight forward.

On a much smaller scale, has The Elizabeth Line (MTR Crossrail) harmonised its T&Cs and if so how? It TUPE transferred drivers from three separate TOCs (Abellio Greater Anglia in 2015 and Great Western Railway plus Southeastern in 2017) and since then has recruited many new drivers. Did it:
- harmonise the three sets of T&Cs for TUPE'd drivers and then use these harmonised T&Cs for all new drivers, or
- select one set of driver T&Cs and adopt these for all new drivers, with staff TUPE'd from the other TOCs remaining on their T&Cs, or
- create a new set of T&Cs specifically for new drivers, with TUPE'd staff remaining on their T&Cs, or
- do something else?

 

[Kite159]

Abellio Greater Anglia in 2015 and Great Western Railway plus Southeastern in 2017) and since then has recruited many new drivers.

I can understand Greater Anglia (as TfL took over the Shenfield metro) and GWR (taking over stoppers out of Paddington) but why would drivers have TUPEd from South Eastern?

----

The problem with a national wide set of T&Cs is the unions will likely want to cherry-pick the good parts from each area from where they have changed over the years. Why should staff from former TOC X only have F days of annual leave a year when staff from former TOC Y having F+g days a year due to historic changes, everybody should get F+g etc

 

[kw12]

I can understand Greater Anglia (as TfL took over the Shenfield metro) and GWR (taking over stoppers out of Paddington) but why would drivers have TUPEd from South Eastern?

My mistake. Station staff at Abbey Wood TUPE'd across from Southeastern but no Southeastern drivers. So for drivers there were two sets of TUPE'd T&Cs whereas there were three sets for station staff.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

No GWR drivers were TUPEd to Elizabeth line, and I don’t think GA drivers did either. It’s an entirely new pool of drivers.

 

[cslusarc]

No GWR drivers were TUPEd to Elizabeth line, and I don’t think GA drivers did either. It’s an entirely new pool of drivers.

Did TfL Rail start with no route and traction trained drivers then?

 

[JonathanH]

No GWR drivers were TUPEd to Elizabeth line, and I don’t think GA drivers did either. It’s an entirely new pool of drivers.

Greater Anglia drivers were transferred under TUPE to continue operating the Liverpool Street to Shenfield services which transferred over. No drivers transferred under TUPE from GWR.

 

[Wolfie]

Massively complex but feasible. You'd have to bump up the lower paid employees to the new standard grades, grandfather the higher paid employees with new entrants coming onto the standard rate.

Based on what happened in the Civil Service expect lowest common denominator T&Cs and even more involvement from HMT.

The problem with a national wide set of T&Cs is the unions will likely want to cherry-pick the good parts from each area from where they have changed over the years. Why should staff from former TOC X only have F days of annual leave a year when staff from former TOC Y having F+g days a year due to historic changes, everybody should get F+g etc

You have never dealt with HM Treasury. No chance!

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes, I have read studies showing this effect that union pressure can have short-term effects on pay but that in the long term pay rates (or rather the total costs of employment including things like pensions and insurance) tend to remain sensibly stable as a proportion of the employers' total costs.

The union wage premium is a well-established fact. I can't seem to find anything claiming that it's temporary.

 

[43066]

A cynic would suggest that it might be overly lengthy training, maintained by union pressure as it kept supply short and strengthened the union’s power.

Only a cynic who has no idea about the training regime, which is already largely standardised across TOCs, and is controlled and monitored by the ORR. It has nothing to do with “union pressure”.

Sure they want more members, but they don’t want them too quickly.
More specifically local training and route learning prevents extreme employer reactions to industrial action, and slow recruitment makes paying up more realistic than recruiting your way out of an overtime ban etc.

This is something you’ve just made up and, from the perspective of someone involved with driver training, is laughably divorced from reality. The training is lengthy because it needs to be, and delays tend to be due to - surprise surprise - shortages of instructors, limited training school capacity etc. It certainly isn’t being slowed down by unions.

In fact the union where I am is currently raising concerns about how long it’s taking to train up newly recruited qualified drivers due to various internal cock ups.

 

[TurboMan]

Only a cynic who has no idea about the training regime, which is already largely standardised across TOCs, and is controlled and monitored by the ORR. It has nothing to do with “union pressure”.

This is something you’ve just made up and, from the perspective of someone involved with driver training, is laughably divorced from reality. The training is lengthy because it needs to be, and delays tend to be due to - surprise surprise - shortages of instructors, limited training school capacity etc. It certainly isn’t being slowed down by unions.

In fact the union where I am is currently raising concerns about how long it’s taking to train up newly recruited qualified drivers due to various internal cock ups.

Training isn't controlled and monitored by the ORR on any practical level. And while the shortage of DIs etc. doesn't help, the duration of driver training is often predicated on union requirements for a certain amount of practical handling, for which there is rarely any rationale or analysis, other than 'that's how it's always been'. Hence the ASLEF policy of 20 hours minimum for all new traction conversions, whether this is justified or not.

 

[43066]

Training isn't controlled and monitored by the ORR on any practical level. And while the shortage of DIs etc. doesn't help, the duration of driver training is often predicated on union requirements for a certain amount of practical handling, for which there is rarely any rationale or analysis, other than 'that's how it's always been'. Hence the ASLEF policy of 20 hours minimum for all new traction conversions, whether this is justified or not.

The minimum number of hours for street to seat trainees, and licensing requirements, (ie the bit that takes a year or so) are set nationwide. There is also certainly no ASLEF mandated “20 hours minimum for new traction conversions” wherever I’ve worked, that sounds rather like an old wives’ tale. In any case 20 hours’ driving could be accrued within a week or so.

From direct experience of training qualified drivers (do you have any?) there is no ASLEF mandated minimum requirement in terms of hours in terms of either route or traction training. In fact where I am the TOC itself is pushing for various arguably unnecessary requirements that are delaying training.

It will of course suit some people to talk down the skill level of train drivers, or suggest the training is being slowed down by unions for nefarious purposes, but that isn’t my experience of two TOCs and nearly a decade in the industry.