Rail Unions Reaction to the COVID-19 Crisis

[Silverlinky]

Moderator Note Posts #1 - #7 originally in this thread:

TOCs: scrap 2m rule, drop 'avoid public transport' message, Govt should fund rail until Sept 2021

TOCs are asking the government to relax the 2m social distancing rule for trains to increase capacity, and are rightly telling the government that the 'avoid public transport' message needs to be dropped as it's doing severe long term damage to public confidence in travelling by public...

www.railforums.co.uk

Same for the rail unions who put up all their scare stories about a surge of passengers that would overwhelm the railway and put their members lives at risk...they were even threatening strike action as the call from the Government for people to return to work was coming a week earlier than they had thought it was.

How did that work out? Any unmanageable surge in passengers yet? Any "chaos on the network" yet? Any spike in staff sickness?..... I thought not!

 

[221129]

they were even threatening strike action

Where was that threat please?

 

[nedchester]

Where was that threat please?

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-warns-of-strike-action-over-transport-austerity010620/

RMT Press Office:


RMT warns of strike action following Government plans to introduce voluntary unpaid workers on the railway network.


RAIL UNION RMT today responded with fury after being made aware of Government plans to introduce a workforce of unpaid and unskilled ‘Transport Guardian Angels’ on our railway network.

The contract between the Department for Transport and volunteering charity ‘Volunteering Matters’ to recruit an unspecified number of volunteers to perform safety critical roles at railway stations had not even been discussed with the union before recruitment adverts were published.

There is no agreement between rail unions and any train operating companies for volunteers to be used in safety critical roles, which will include tasks like supporting passenger flow in and out of stations and guiding passengers through new designated social distancing safe pathways.

In an urgent letter to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport, RMT has called on the Government to immediately withdraw from this scheme or face the possibility of industrial action.

RMT general secretary Mick Cash said:

“RMT is furious that the Department for Transport has done a backroom deal to recruit unpaid and unskilled workers on our railway without even so much as conversation with rail unions.

“These volunteer roles include safety critical functions that only highly skilled and highly trained workers should be undertaking. The safety of passengers and workers must come first and make no mistake RMT will vehemently oppose this action.

“I have today written to the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, demanding that his department immediately withdraws from this ill-advised collaboration.

“RMT regards this as a deliberate provocation and we will fight this with everything at our disposal including balloting our members for strike action.”

 

[221129]

So not over the Government introducing services earlier than planned as the above poster claimed. Thanks.

 

[Silverlinky]

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-warns-of-chaos-on-transport-services-tomorrow/

The article and news story I was referring to......

 

[Weekender]

Where was that threat please?

In most of the National press on the 13th May
“Train and bus drivers told to refuse to work if they feel unsafe as unions warn of passenger surge”.
“RMT says we’re talking about protecting workers and passengers and if that’s what it needs to keep people safe we will stop trains”
Search Mick Cash on google, this was The Telegraph but the same story featured in most of the press and also on television.

 

[221129]

In most of the National press on the 13th May
“Train and bus drivers told to refuse to work if they feel unsafe as unions warn of passenger surge”.
“RMT says we’re talking about protecting workers and passengers and if that’s what it needs to keep people safe we will stop trains”
Search Mick Cash on google, this was The Telegraph but the same story featured in most of the press and also on television.

So telling staff to work to their employers policies is threatening strike action?

 

[PupCuff]

In most of the National press on the 13th May
“Train and bus drivers told to refuse to work if they feel unsafe as unions warn of passenger surge”.
“RMT says we’re talking about protecting workers and passengers and if that’s what it needs to keep people safe we will stop trains”
Search Mick Cash on google, this was The Telegraph but the same story featured in most of the press and also on television.

Stopping work on safety grounds isn't the same as strike action (or action short of a strike) though, it's invoking a company procedure (eg in the rail industry, Worksafe) which is a requirement under the management regs. Employees are legally protected from retribution by employers in respect of stopping carrying out a task that they believe to put them in serious and imminent danger.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Mick Cash was as usual talking nonsense. Train crew interaction with passengers has been almost non existent on the trains I've been on during the lockdown. Driver safely locked away in the front cab, conductor hiding away in the back cab, emerging only to do the doors. Passengers only allowed to use middle doors, end passenger doors and nearby seats taped off. So, no risk to train crew at all!

 

[PupCuff]

Mick Cash was as usual talking nonsense. Train crew interaction with passengers has been almost non existent on the trains I've been on during the lockdown. Driver safely locked away in the front cab, conductor hiding away in the back cab, emerging only to do the doors. Passengers only allowed to use middle doors, end passenger doors and nearby seats taped off. So, no risk to train crew at all!

That's rather a simplistic way of looking at it. If a passcomm gets pulled someone's got to go and reset it. If someone has a fall in the toilet or the door jams someone has to go and help them. The driver may need access to the MCBs/ICs etc in the saloon if they need to fault find. Many trains don't have the luxury of accommodation just for the conductor to do the doors so they have to do the doors in an environment where customers are present, or at least have been present. Plus walking to and from trains etc.

 

[Silverlinky]

That's rather a simplistic way of looking at it. If a passcomm gets pulled someone's got to go and reset it. If someone has a fall in the toilet or the door jams someone has to go and help them. The driver may need access to the MCBs/ICs etc in the saloon if they need to fault find. Many trains don't have the luxury of accommodation just for the conductor to do the doors so they have to do the doors in an environment where customers are present, or at least have been present. Plus walking to and from trains etc.

And thats rather a dramatic way of looking at it. How many passcomms are getting pulled? How many people are falling over in toilets or how many doors jamming? HOw many times do drivers need to go back and access MCB's?
All these occurances are, im my experience pretty rare.....1 passcomm pulled every 50 trains worked? 1 train failure every 500?
Accomodation for the conductor? Rear cab/intermediate cab? So on some rolling stock they may have to come out and operate the doors...there may or may not have been people present...and the chances of bumping into that 1 in 1200 people currently carrying the virus???

People are still failing to grasp this......
risk of a passcomm pulled x risk of a passenger interaction taking place x risk of that passenger passing you the virus x risk of you developing symptoms x risk of you becoming ill x risk of you needing hospital treatment x risk of you dying.......what do you think we are up to? 1 in a million chance of dying?

 

[Silverlinky]

Stopping work on safety grounds isn't the same as strike action (or action short of a strike) though, it's invoking a company procedure (eg in the rail industry, Worksafe) which is a requirement under the management regs. Employees are legally protected from retribution by employers in respect of stopping carrying out a task that they believe to put them in serious and imminent danger.

As long as Worksafe is used correctly....ie staff try to deal with the problem themselves first, then report it if they can't, and remain on site until a relevant manager turns up to make a risk assessment, and then a decision is made whether its safe of not. Paperwork completed, changes made in the event of unsafe practice etc..... all good.

Smply saying "its too busy and I might catch something so i'm not working" then walking off the job isn't Worksafe in action.

 

[PupCuff]

And thats rather a dramatic way of looking at it. How many passcomms are getting pulled? How many people are falling over in toilets or how many doors jamming? HOw many times do drivers need to go back and access MCB's?
All these occurances are, im my experience pretty rare.....1 passcomm pulled every 50 trains worked? 1 train failure every 500?
Accomodation for the conductor? Rear cab/intermediate cab? So on some rolling stock they may have to come out and operate the doors...there may or may not have been people present...and the chances of bumping into that 1 in 1200 people currently carrying the virus???

People are still failing to grasp this......
risk of a passcomm pulled x risk of a passenger interaction taking place x risk of that passenger passing you the virus x risk of you developing symptoms x risk of you becoming ill x risk of you needing hospital treatment x risk of you dying.......what do you think we are up to? 1 in a million chance of dying?

Which is exactly why there is no one size fits all solution - all of those variables will change depending on the route, any service issues on the day in question, the time of day, the day of the week, and the individual conductor (or driver etc) who is working that train. There has to therefore be some scope for an individual member of staff to say that they believe the threshold of risk they are prepared to accept has been crossed. The fact that there is a foreseeable risk - and not insignificant chance - of dying as a result of contracting coronavirus (and a fair number of transport workers already have) is enough to bump the 'possible outcome' right up there and I don't blame the traincrews at all for being concerned. I'm afraid to say there is no risk to traincrew is simply incorrect; if that was the case many hundreds (possibly thousands) of management hours wouldn't be going into dealing with it - as an industry a lot of hard work is going into control measures to minimise that risk. No manager is ever going to want to send their conductors out to work, for them then to catch Covid and end up severely ill, or worse.

Traincrews know how to use the worksafe procedure and from what I've seen in place at a number of TOCs the use is supported by both staff side and management in cases where the staff member feels they are exposed to too high a level of risk whether that be due to overcrowding or some other reason.

 

[Silverlinky]

Which is exactly why there is no one size fits all solution - all of those variables will change depending on the route, any service issues on the day in question, the time of day, the day of the week, and the individual conductor (or driver etc) who is working that train. There has to therefore be some scope for an individual member of staff to say that they believe the threshold of risk they are prepared to accept has been crossed. The fact that there is a foreseeable risk - and not insignificant chance - of dying as a result of contracting coronavirus (and a fair number of transport workers already have) is enough to bump the 'possible outcome' right up there and I don't blame the traincrews at all for being concerned. I'm afraid to say there is no risk to traincrew is simply incorrect; if that was the case many hundreds (possibly thousands) of management hours wouldn't be going into dealing with it - as an industry a lot of hard work is going into control measures to minimise that risk. No manager is ever going to want to send their conductors out to work, for them then to catch Covid and end up severely ill, or worse.

Traincrews know how to use the worksafe procedure and from what I've seen in place at a number of TOCs the use is supported by both staff side and management in cases where the staff member feels they are exposed to too high a level of risk whether that be due to overcrowding or some other reason.

Fair points well made.

 

[Fisherman80]

What is it with the RMT? During this pandemic,the people I see most at risk,apart from hospital staff of course,are the supermarket workers.
I've always backed the railway unions,even when they were striking every Saturday on Northern Rail,but we must as a country start to get back to some kind of normality.

 

[Carlisle]

I've always backed the railway unions,even when they were striking every Saturday on Northern Rail,but we must as a country start to get back to some kind of normality.

So your willing to support causes primarily connected with Job security & bargaining power but expect the unions to order their members into crowded environments almost identical to where a few dozen uk transport workers have already died from the virus, bizarre.

 

[Silverlinky]

So your willing to support causes primarily connected with Job security & bargaining power but expect the unions to order their members into crowded environments almost identical to where a few dozen uk transport workers have already died from the virus, bizarre.

The problem with that argument might be that the vast majority of Covid related transport worker deaths (and there haven't been many of them in reality) have been in London, and the vast majority of those were bus drivers. Not sure that's really going to affect and resonate with a Northern Rail traveler.

 

[43066]

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-warns-of-strike-action-over-transport-austerity010620/

RMT Press Office:


RMT warns of strike action following Government plans to introduce voluntary unpaid workers on the railway network.


RAIL UNION RMT today responded with fury after being made aware of Government plans to introduce a workforce of unpaid and unskilled ‘Transport Guardian Angels’ on our railway network.

The contract between the Department for Transport and volunteering charity ‘Volunteering Matters’ to recruit an unspecified number of volunteers to perform safety critical roles at railway stations had not even been discussed with the union before recruitment adverts were published.

There is no agreement between rail unions and any train operating companies for volunteers to be used in safety critical roles, which will include tasks like supporting passenger flow in and out of stations and guiding passengers through new designated social distancing safe pathways.

In an urgent letter to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport, RMT has called on the Government to immediately withdraw from this scheme or face the possibility of industrial action.

RMT general secretary Mick Cash said:

“RMT is furious that the Department for Transport has done a backroom deal to recruit unpaid and unskilled workers on our railway without even so much as conversation with rail unions.

“These volunteer roles include safety critical functions that only highly skilled and highly trained workers should be undertaking. The safety of passengers and workers must come first and make no mistake RMT will vehemently oppose this action.

“I have today written to the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, demanding that his department immediately withdraws from this ill-advised collaboration.

“RMT regards this as a deliberate provocation and we will fight this with everything at our disposal including balloting our members for strike action.”

I’m a bit confused by the above statement. I understand the complaint that volunteers shouldn’t be undertaking safety critical roles, but the tasks mentioned don’t sound safety critical in the truest sense of the phrase (ie functions critical to train movement, such as dispatching).

“Guiding passengers through new designated social distancing safe pathways.” sounds more like the type of thing non safety critical staff do, more akin to working on a gateline.

 

[Silverlinky]

Reminds me of the time that LM Conductors raised legitimate concerns about passenger behaviour on late night trains out of Euston, Friday and Saturday mainly, the fact that one conductor could not deal with the problems that were arising such as drunken behaviour, vandalism and ticketless travel, pass comms pulled, fire extinguishers discharged and so forth.
Those concerns were raised by the Union to the Company...quite rightly.
The Company proposed Security Guards to ride on the late trains, and one of their duties would be to check that travellers were in possession of tickets to travel.....cue protests from RMT along similar lines to the above, unskilled and cheaper people taking our jobs etc, and the security guards were promptly withdrawn. The feeling was at the time that the vast majority of SC's were pleased to see them, felt safer, and i'm sure the bulk of the passengers would have felt the same way.

 

[PupCuff]

I’m a bit confused by the above statement. I understand the complaint that volunteers shouldn’t be undertaking safety critical roles, but the tasks mentioned don’t sound safety critical in the truest sense of the phrase (ie functions critical to train movement, such as dispatching).

“Guiding passengers through new designated social distancing safe pathways.” sounds more like the type of thing non safety critical staff do, more akin to working on a gateline.

As a personal opinion, I think the RMT are talking nonsense here, I don't believe for a second volunteers will be conducting safety critical work and I don't know where the RMT have got this information from.

On a more professional level, I've in the past managed volunteers conducting safety critical work myself, (and judging by your expansion of the term 'safety critical roles' I've no doubt you're familiar with this too, 43066) for the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with the relevant regulations legally there is no distinction between a paid member of staff and a volunteer conducting safety critical work. The law holds them both to the same requirements for training, fitness and competence, regardless of whether they're paid or not, so there should be no concerns about the individuals carrying out the work being "highly skilled or highly trained", they would be legally required to meet the same standard regardless of employment arrangements. If they aren't fit to do the job they get taken off safety critical work for coaching and development and if they mess up then they'll still go through any necessary D&A screening and have an action plan put in place to address any issues identified. I would think any concern raised by Trade Unions relates to taking work away from paid union members vice any actual safety concerns, which to be fair I probably can't blame them for, but they shouldn't be blaming it on safety reasons.
On an aside, it can be however (and I don't want it coming across that it's the fault of the individual volunteer), an absolute nightmare to manage safety critical volunteers because the nature of voluntary work means that they primarily work around their availability and the requirements of the business are secondary to that - ie you wouldn't expect a volunteer to take leave from their day job to come and cover a shift because we have no cover - so if for instance they are only available to work Sundays, I'd either have to make myself available on a Sunday or find one of my training team who was also free that day to ensure the volunteer got assessed and remained within the requirements of the competence management system. You might have a volunteer who does no duties for seven weeks but then one each day one week in eight, if I miss getting an assessment done on them when they're in, I'm waiting seven weeks and by that time they're out of competence so I have to make arrangements for someone to assess them on their first day back.

 

[Fisherman80]

So your willing to support causes primarily connected with Job security & bargaining power but expect the unions to order their members into crowded environments almost identical to where a few dozen uk transport workers have already died from the virus, bizarre.

I noticed you cut out the first statement of my post. Anyway,my main point was we need to get the country moving again,with a full pre lockdown timetable,or else the railway industry may find itself in a spot of bother,where there may be mass job losses.
With people working from home,and the general public told to only travel if absolutely necessary,plus the RMT not being very helpful,it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Those car dealerships will be rubbing their hands with glee at the moment.

 

[43066]

As a personal opinion, I think the RMT are talking nonsense here, I don't believe for a second volunteers will be conducting safety critical work and I don't know where the RMT have got this information from.

On a more professional level, I've in the past managed volunteers conducting safety critical work myself, (and judging by your expansion of the term 'safety critical roles' I've no doubt you're familiar with this too, 43066) for the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with the relevant regulations legally there is no distinction between a paid member of staff and a volunteer conducting safety critical work. The law holds them both to the same requirements for training, fitness and competence, regardless of whether they're paid or not, so there should be no concerns about the individuals carrying out the work being "highly skilled or highly trained", they would be legally required to meet the same standard regardless of employment arrangements. If they aren't fit to do the job they get taken off safety critical work for coaching and development and if they mess up then they'll still go through any necessary D&A screening and have an action plan put in place to address any issues identified. I would think any concern raised by Trade Unions relates to taking work away from paid union members vice any actual safety concerns, which to be fair I probably can't blame them for, but they shouldn't be blaming it on safety reasons.
On an aside, it can be however (and I don't want it coming across that it's the fault of the individual volunteer), an absolute nightmare to manage safety critical volunteers because the nature of voluntary work means that they primarily work around their availability and the requirements of the business are secondary to that - ie you wouldn't expect a volunteer to take leave from their day job to come and cover a shift because we have no cover - so if for instance they are only available to work Sundays, I'd either have to make myself available on a Sunday or find one of my training team who was also free that day to ensure the volunteer got assessed and remained within the requirements of the competence management system. You might have a volunteer who does no duties for seven weeks but then one each day one week in eight, if I miss getting an assessment done on them when they're in, I'm waiting seven weeks and by that time they're out of competence so I have to make arrangements for someone to assess them on their first day back.

This is a very sensible post, and I agree with every word.

The point about safety critical volunteers being held to the same standards as paid workers is a very important one. I understand there have been issues on heritage lines in the past, where volunteers perhaps haven’t take their responsibilities as seriously as they should have done.

As I understand it that has changed over the last few years as the ORR have tightened things up. That is a good thing, in my view.

 

[weastebusdepot]

As a personal opinion, I think the RMT are talking nonsense here, I don't believe for a second volunteers will be conducting safety critical work and I don't know where the RMT have got this information.

The way these roles were described in the government briefings, they are general customer service roles at stations and in no way operational and certainly not in any recognised definition of safety critical.

Hence the only safety related training required would be the standard briefing given to any contractor or visitor. i.e. the HOT procedure, safe working distance from the platform edge/OLHE and what to do if the fire alarm goes off.

 

[Carlisle]

I noticed you cut out the first statement of my post.

Ok, you mention Supermarket & Hospital staff, where social distancing is managed (admittedly far from perfectly) by limiting maximum numbers in buildings relative to floor space & correctly using medical grade PPE.in the case of Healthcare workers .
Whether it’s safe to ask staff to patrol crowded trains & stations providing everyone wears face coverings &/or if it was actually a different strain of virus that killed the London transport workers compared to other parts of the UK are currently unknowns as far as I’m aware, maybe we we will soon learn a lot more.