How to fix the Southern Rail dispute?

[KTF]

craigjm said:

I would certainly agree with that but how attractive would the job be with no overtime ever so everyone was on a fixed salary

You mean like most office jobs for example?

[craigjm]

tight5 said:

If a passenger company bails out or breaches a contract, they effectively become a nationalised company until someone else takes it over.
The government has a very large say as to what trains a company can buy.
Ticket prices ? Do we not think profit plays a part in that ?

Look, I'm just a train driver. All I want from my managers is to be as good at their job as I am at mine !
Is that unreasonable ?

No it isnt unreasonable BUT show me a civil service department which is well run, cost effective and all that. Look at how hamstrung the military are because of the incompetence of the MOD? How st the roads are because of the incompetence of the DoT and DVLA etc, how badly run most local authorities are to the point where you have to sell your house now to pay for your own senior care, how crap the border force is at securing our borders. I could go on but in reality becoming a public company is not the answer to anyones prayers and if you think there is poor management in the private sector then you need to spend a week in a public authority and you might just change your mind about what poor and inept management is.

[craigjm]

KTF said:

craigjm said:

I would certainly agree with that but how attractive would the job be with no overtime ever so everyone was on a fixed salary

You mean like most office jobs for example?

Exactly, the point I am trying to make is that a train driver gets on average 46-53k per annum based on figures ive seen plus overtime. If they have been doing that job for a number of years and doing say 3 days a month overtime to suddenly be told that there isnt any anymore is a disincentive. How many office jobs are paid at that kind of level? I dont want to get into an argument here about levels of responsibility etc but was simply pointing out that once overtime is gone people will moan about it because it will alter their standard of living if it has become custom and practice over the years.

[ashleyman]

craigjm said:

KTF said:

craigjm said:

I would certainly agree with that but how attractive would the job be with no overtime ever so everyone was on a fixed salary

You mean like most office jobs for example?

Exactly, the point I am trying to make is that a train driver gets on average 46-53k per annum based on figures ive seen plus overtime. If they have been doing that job for a number of years and doing say 3 days a month overtime to suddenly be told that there isnt any anymore is a disincentive. How many office jobs are paid at that kind of level? I dont want to get into an argument here about levels of responsibility etc but was simply pointing out that once overtime is gone people will moan about it because it will alter their standard of living if it has become custom and practice over the years.

But that's the rail companies, unions and drivers fault for offering and taking so much. No lifestyle should be based on overtime as proven by money lending, mortgages etc... it's all based on salary without overtime.

[legzr1]

No dog in this particular fight but I know a little of what's going on and I'm not keen on the miss-truths being posted on here.

[craigjm]

ashleyman said:

But that's the rail companies, unions and drivers fault for offering and taking so much. No lifestyle should be based on overtime as proven by money lending, mortgages etc... it's all based on salary without overtime.

You can use overtime, bonus, commission and other payments towards getting a higher mortgage over with quite a lot of lenders. I agree that you shouldnt treat overtime etc as salary but people do, especially if it has been going on for years.

[legzr1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are you suggesting nothing has changed in 40 years?

Governments change, Unions progress although it's fair to say some Unions think it's 1967 and some Tories relish the idea of UK 1879.

By the way, in the 70s a lot of high speed trains were single manned - only 100+ mph required double-manning (until £ focussed their mind).

[tight5]

craigjm said:

KTF said:

craigjm said:

I would certainly agree with that but how attractive would the job be with no overtime ever so everyone was on a fixed salary

You mean like most office jobs for example?

Exactly, the point I am trying to make is that a train driver gets on average 46-53k per annum based on figures ive seen plus overtime. If they have been doing that job for a number of years and doing say 3 days a month overtime to suddenly be told that there isnt any anymore is a disincentive. How many office jobs are paid at that kind of level? I dont want to get into an argument here about levels of responsibility etc but was simply pointing out that once overtime is gone people will moan about it because it will alter their standard of living if it has become custom and practice over the years.

In my company, it's not a case of wanting to do overtime.
You get threatened, almost blackmailed, into doing it.
"If you don't do this, the job will be cancelled, the customer will go elsewhere and we will cut drivers jobs/close depots.

Responsibility ?
Well, if an office type makes a mistake, delete or an eraser is an option.
In my job ? With dangerous goods ?

craigjm said:

No it isnt unreasonable BUT show me a civil service department which is well run, cost effective and all that. Look at how hamstrung the military are because of the incompetence of the MOD? How st the roads are because of the incompetence of the DoT and DVLA etc, how badly run most local authorities are to the point where you have to sell your house now to pay for your own senior care, how crap the border force is at securing our borders. I could go on but in reality becoming a public company is not the answer to anyones prayers and if you think there is poor management in the private sector then you need to spend a week in a public authority and you might just change your mind about what poor and inept management is.

Well, I started under BR and that was SO much better ran that I don't even have a way of describing the difference. Managers that had been drivers/guards and moved upstairs know what the job is and requires.



This thread has a lot of people making sweeping assumptions, with no actual knowledge, that I'm beginning to suspect some of you are railway management !

[ATG]

The railways seem to exist in a bubble. Ultimately the way a company chooses to execute its activities is not a democratic process. By all means consult with staff and try to build a consensus, but when push comes to shove, if a firm's management team decides they want to pursue a given strategy, and it'll meet their legal and regulatory obligations and internal policies, then it ain't for the workforce to collectively try to frustrate the change. You cannot run an organisation that way. You have to structure decision-making responsibility so that decisions can be made and change can be implemented. Of course the workforce are free to withdraw their labour, but I don't see why their jobs should be protected if they choose to do so unless the change impacts their specific jobs to a great extent. Asking drivers to oversee door closing doesn't come anywhere near that threshold.

[Nik da Greek]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Where do you think that a considerable percentage of trainee drivers come from?

As to the old hat argument of unionist knee-jerk obstructiveness in such matters as the second man seat in HSTs and such, this has previously been explained. It was in no way "nonsense". You cannot train a driver to drive a set of traction unless there is provision for his instructor to sit in the cab with him, oversee his actions and have access to the controls.

[craigjm]

ATG said:

The railways seem to exist in a bubble. Ultimately the way a company chooses to execute its activities is not a democratic process. By all means consult with staff and try to build a consensus, but when push comes to shove, if a firm's management team decides they want to pursue a given strategy, and it'll meet their legal and regulatory obligations and internal policies, then it ain't for the workforce to collectively try to frustrate the change. You cannot run an organisation that way. You have to structure decision-making responsibility so that decisions can be made and change can be implemented. Of course the workforce are free to withdraw their labour, but I don't see why their jobs should be protected if they choose to do so unless the change impacts their specific jobs to a great extent. Asking drivers to oversee door closing doesn't come anywhere near that threshold.

This is the nub of the issue. Unionised environments are always going to fight change because it is in a unions interest to Keep things the same and it's in the interest of staff not to support change because that could mean they are not required. Unfortunately history has shown that fighting against change usually means you lose and you speed up the process of automation of roles that are resisting if that's possible.

How many years will it be before this discussion is not about driver only trains but driverless trains as drivers move into extinction?

[craigjm]

Tight5 I am not railway management by any stretch of the imagination I am just trying to see all angles of the argument and potential solutions. I have, however, worked in the public sector for a stint and it's far from well managed and effective. If the only solution that those people affected by the requirement to change can come up with is to go back to nationalisation it is, unfortunately, the quickest way to discredit yourself in the eyes of the customer the commuter. If nationalisation is the answer then what government run organisations can we say, hand on heart, are well run, efficient and effective?

[Nik da Greek]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I really don't want to be rude but please, try to listen because you're just plain wrong. A driver must complete a certain amount of practical handling under instruction to "sign" a new form of traction, even if they're an already-qualified driver and already sign similar traction. The only way in which this can be done is to physically drive the train, and this requires driving under instruction and therefore cab accommmodation for two persons. Yes, there are simulators and they are very good nowadays but they are in no way a substitute for drivng the actual train. If you extend this argument to new drivers then they must complete hours of practical handling in the hundreds rather than tens in order to sign out.

[valiant]

Simulators are only good for three things. Cab familiarisation, practising defects and rehearsing procedures. They are no good at route knowledge or actual train handling and that's a modern one let alone what existed in the seventies.

I can stop a train on the proverbial sixpence but in a simulator it's spad city and that's with over a decades experience.

Plus they make me seasick for some reason...

[Nik da Greek]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You edited to add this while I was replying to your first paragraph. I have no personal experience of class 455s but I believe they have a vestibule system that closes off the cab sides when running in multiple. In operation, the cab has a drivers' side and a "second man" side like any other similar traction. Route knowledge is a separate issue and would often be gained independently of actual practical handling hours. There is an increasing move in the industry towards simulator and briefing time replacing actual track time for route changes but I don't believe any driver would accept full assessment-level criteria purely gained via these methods.

Or to put it in layman's terms; I show you a photogrpah of a hovercraft and tell you how it works. Would you then feel suitably expert to drive one in a safety-critical environment whilst responsible for other peoples' lives?

[tight5]

craigjm said:

Tight5 I am not railway management by any stretch of the imagination I am just trying to see all angles of the argument and potential solutions. I have, however, worked in the public sector for a stint and it's far from well managed and effective. If the only solution that those people affected by the requirement to change can come up with is to go back to nationalisation it is, unfortunately, the quickest way to discredit yourself in the eyes of the customer the commuter. If nationalisation is the answer then what government run organisations can we say, hand on heart, are well run, efficient and effective?

No, you've already made your mind up, ASLEF - bad, unions - bad, private companies chasing the pound at the expense of everything else - good.
I'm no expert on passenger companies and live at the other end of the country to be affected by SR.
And in all honesty I've got more important things to be concerned about than trying to fix SR/UK Gov.
I've got till Friday to decide if I'm going to take voluntary redundancy or not.
(and to those corporate types out there, I'm doing this because I don't like the change in conditions being offered to me)

[tight5]

Nik da Greek said:

Or to put it in layman's terms; I show you a photogrpah of a hovercraft and tell you how it works. Would you then feel suitably expert to drive one in a safety-critical environment whilst responsible for other peoples' lives?

And if you get it wrong you go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £200 (if you are still alive).

[craigjm]

tight5 said:

No, you've already made your mind up, ASLEF - bad, unions - bad, private companies chasing the pound at the expense of everything else - good.

I never said that. Unions can be very useful if they are sensible and private companies can be awful if they are poorly run.

tight5 said:

I've got till Friday to decide if I'm going to take voluntary redundancy or not.
(and to those corporate types out there, I'm doing this because I don't like the change in conditions being offered to me)

Tough decision to make and the worst time of year for it. If you don't like the change in conditions it is probably best for you to take it but sometimes putting food on the table comes ahead of your own views on things. Always take into account how long it might take to get another job of equal pay and whether the package on offer will cover that. It is also, more often than not, easier to get a new job when you have a job already in many cases which is wrong in my opinion but the statistics bear it out. Whatever you decide, good luck.

Edited by craigjm on Wednesday 14th December 21:02

[jakesmith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sorry can you explain that I am puzzled by what it means?

[craigjm]

jakesmith said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sorry can you explain that I am puzzled by what it means?

trains arrive going in opposite directions at the same time so you would need a dispatcher on both platforms rather than just one jumping between the two?