How to fix the Southern Rail dispute?

[Countdown]

legzr1 said:

There's a lengthy reply to this but, put simply, I believe it is about safety with a fair dose of "st, I'm now responsible for all these people acting like lemmings, I can't see him, is that someone trapped or a carrier bag in the wind, if I get this wrong I'm in court for manslaughter, st - £48 a minute for delays, Ive wasted 3 minutes already and have another 73 stops to make. fk, was that a red signal at end of platform?, I'm up at 0155 wonder if I should grab a few hours on the sofa before the kids get in..."

With all that going on would you be surprised if a driver currently operating with a fully qualified guard would relish the thought of DOO + pay rise spread over 5 years?

Fingers crossed, no one dies, no one loses a career or ends up in prison but, if it does happen what's the odds of prosecution for those faceless grey bds pushing for this? 0%? Less?

Thanks for that, it helps to explain a little. However how does a salary increase help? That doesn't make the safety issue go away.

Although I suppose it could be argued that the drivers are effectively being paid for the extra responsibility they've taken on?

[Uncle John]

Little observation, but from where I'm sitting the last few days on my Southern line have been a bitter taste of the dark old days.

London Bridge to Redhill, trains cancelled, delayed 20 mins, shortage of train crew, drivers stuck on other trains, signalling faults, trains missing out stations.....

I think the old skool conductors may be having a bit of a backlash after the so called 'support' from the drivers melted away with a substantial pay rise....

[valiant]

So you can have two drivers following each other on the same line, wearing the same uniform doing exactly the same job but both are on vastly different salaries? And you think that’s fair?

The market does set the rate for the job and its worth noting that since privatisation, wages for drivers have increased quite dramatically compared to the BR days. The new private companies thought they could save a fortune on training by poaching staff from rival TOCs by offering them a few quid extra. It got to the point that all the TOCs were at it and we are where we are today. So you can blame the ‘market’ for driving up wages more so than unions.


Seems this thread is turning into the usual train drivers bashing thread. All been said a thousand times before. I’m going to start playing bullst bingo now - already got a few hits...

Edit - replying to Robert, forgot to quote. Doh!

Edited by valiant on Friday 10th November 14:41

[frankenstein12]

Countdown said:

Legz1

Can I ask why the Unions are protesting about Safety? When they are striking they are giving up £XXX pay per day which can't be easy and yet the argument being put forward is that this is for the safety of passengers (many who clearly feel extremely annoyed by the actions of Unions supposedly for their benefit)?

If and when a fatality happens it won't be the Unions or their members who are held responsible. It will be management. So why are the Unions putting themselves out by striking when the beneficiaries of improved safety (the passengers and the management) aren't bothered?

Actually it wont necessarily be the management held responsible it will fall to the driver of the train first and management second sadly.

[ashleyman]

Uncle John said:

Little observation, but from where I'm sitting the last few days on my Southern line have been a bitter taste of the dark old days.

London Bridge to Redhill, trains cancelled, delayed 20 mins, shortage of train crew, drivers stuck on other trains, signalling faults, trains missing out stations.....

I think the old skool conductors may be having a bit of a backlash after the so called 'support' from the drivers melted away with a substantial pay rise....

Yeah, it's been a few months since I used the train but I had to take the car for service this morning and instead of getting a courtesy car, I'd planned to get a train home and back as it's only 10 minutes (£5) each way.

The train home was delayed by 22 minutes.

The train to go back to collect the car was cancelled. No big deal whens the next train? Oh, it's in 1 hour. Eventually the hour was up and even that train was delayed by 16 minutes. 1 hour and 30 minutes to do what should have been a 10 minute train ride or 8 minute drive.

Still not as bad as Thameslink a few years back though.

[frankenstein12]

tight5 said:

Hello, I'm a little late to this restarted thread.

As a train driver I've got to take issue with this.
From what I've seen, you have no experience of either driving trains or any railway rules ?
So where do you get off telling the qualified rail staff on PH how easy their job is ?
Is it a case of "I've been on a train so I know all about it ?"


Southern ?
I've got nothing to do with them or passenger trains, but my job is hard enough.
You could offer me £100000 to do their job and I would't take it.
I don't really follow the issues with the whole thing, but don't tell me how easy my job is when you have no idea !!!

Are you going to tell me that driving a train is any more difficult than driving a car? Or a taxi?

Regardless of ease of the job my primary issue as I have repeatedly said is that the unions and workers keep striking over conditions and making it about pay at the same time.

Frankly train drivers get paid damn well for what they do and its foolish to kid themselves otherwise.

If safety is an issue then they should strike over safety and not make it about pay "and conditions".

Most people are aware of how much train drivers are paid and a lot of people would love to be paid what train drivers are and therefore rightly get extremely angry when train drivers go on strike causing chaos due to pay "and conditions" and then only go back to work after they get a huge pay rise.

I don't need a job as a train driver and am not jealous as others on here seem to think as I am paid not far off what train drivers are anyway.

I rarely ever use the train for the simple reason of cost and convenience. It is cheaper and often faster for me to drive where I need to go and yes I know it is not the drivers fault for the ticket prices but their constant striking means its simply not reasonable to rely on trains.

[frankenstein12]

rs1952 said:

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

I think there might be a little flaw in your cunning plan.

If what you suggest is true, and there are these people out there who would willingly do the job for £30k, then why aren't the management offering that sort of money and recruiting them by the bucketful, especially when the government is leaning heavily on the TOCs to reduce public subsidy (where appicable, of course)?

Others can list the reasons if they have a mind to because at the moment I just simply can't be arsed.

Perhaps - just perhaps - you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about

Its an interesting one. There are quite a limited number of jobs for train drivers which in itself will stop people becoming train drivers as train companies will hire people qualified over hiring someone and training them which takes time and money.

As to what they are worth?? Who knows but certainly at present they are paid very very well for what they do which is a credit their unions I suppose.

[legzr1]

frankenstein12 said:

Ohh boo hoo qualified train drivers are upset with some random stranger on the internets lack of respect. They want my respect they should earn it by stopping the bullst claims that they are constantly on strike over safety or pay and conditions when it is rarely ever about safety and 99% about a bigger unjustified pay check.

As to my job.. I actually really enjoy my job its why I have done for so long. I work many more hours a week than train drivers for quite a bit less pay in a more personally dangerous job and yet I dont spend all my time whining about how hard done by I am and demanding pay rises while trying to claim its about safety.

What do you do for a living?

Judging by your inability to detect even obvious sarcasm (do you honestly believe your ignorant opinion on the dispute matters to any qualified driver? Really?), your refusal to see the other side and the fact you're unable to accept you can't dismiss the complexities of a given job because it suits your half-arsed jealous little rants I'm guessing you carry out rather simplistic tasks.

I'm correct aren't I?

You want that list of vacancies emailing over?

[valiant]

frankenstein12 said:

Its an interesting one. There are quite a limited number of jobs for train drivers which in itself will stop people becoming train drivers as train companies will hire people qualified over hiring someone and training them which takes time and money.

As to what they are worth?? Who knows but certainly at present they are paid very very well for what they do which is a credit their unions I suppose.

Sorry but that’s a bit wrong. Many TOCs advertise for trainees usually once or twice a year. A qualified driver will only move if it’s financially worth it and if it’s convenient depot wise. TOCs have finally realised that it’s cheaper in the long run to pay to train new recruits rather than the endless poaching of qualified that used to happen.

If you know which forums to use, kind people will post up details of upcoming campaigns.

waits for it’s all a closed shop post

[legzr1]

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

Stinky bait and Siddicks did it so much better on another thread some time ago.
And he was shown the error of his ways (even if the ego wouldn't allow him to accept it).

I'm sure we'd find willing bodies to do your job for half the pay too - welcome to the race to the bottom sponsored by Robert and the dept for transport

[Robertj21a]

rs1952 said:

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

I think there might be a little flaw in your cunning plan.

If what you suggest is true, and there are these people out there who would willingly do the job for £30k, then why aren't the management offering that sort of money and recruiting them by the bucketful, especially when the government is leaning heavily on the TOCs to reduce public subsidy (where appicable, of course)?

Others can list the reasons if they have a mind to because at the moment I just simply can't be arsed.

Perhaps - just perhaps - you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about

Thanks for that helpful response. Sounds like you could be an existing train driver.......

[legzr1]

Countdown said:

Thanks for that, it helps to explain a little. However how does a salary increase help? That doesn't make the safety issue go away.

Although I suppose it could be argued that the drivers are effectively being paid for the extra responsibility they've taken on?

Simply increasing salary does NOT help.
That's why the offer was turned down a couple of times.
The offer of increase in salary (spread over 5 years and, as you hinted at, reflecting an increase in tasks and responsibility) PLUS guarantees over additional on board staff was accepted.

I understand it's easy to miss that point with all the crap being posted on here.

[legzr1]

valiant said:

Sorry but that’s a bit wrong. Many TOCs advertise for trainees usually once or twice a year. A qualified driver will only move if it’s financially worth it and if it’s convenient depot wise. TOCs have finally realised that it’s cheaper in the long run to pay to train new recruits rather than the endless poaching of qualified that used to happen.

If you know which forums to use, kind people will post up details of upcoming campaigns.

waits for it’s all a closed shop post

It's worth pointing out that most have added training cost pay-back to contracts of the employee chooses to leave within a few years (up to 5 years for some companies).

This is done by companies who don't manage to attract qualified drivers and need to tie down newly qualified drivers - when you compare the pay, benefits, T&Cs and work content etc you can see why.

Another example of market forces post BR.

[valiant]

legzr1 said:

valiant said:

Sorry but that’s a bit wrong. Many TOCs advertise for trainees usually once or twice a year. A qualified driver will only move if it’s financially worth it and if it’s convenient depot wise. TOCs have finally realised that it’s cheaper in the long run to pay to train new recruits rather than the endless poaching of qualified that used to happen.

If you know which forums to use, kind people will post up details of upcoming campaigns.

waits for it’s all a closed shop post

It's worth pointing out that most have added training cost pay-back to contracts of the employee chooses to leave within a few years (up to 5 years for some companies).

This is done by companies who don't manage to attract qualified drivers and need to tie down newly qualified drivers - when you compare the pay, benefits, T&Cs and work content etc you can see why.

Another example of market forces post BR.

Did not know that! Ta!

I tend to live in the sheltered, and somewhat deranged world of the underground so can be a bit late to the party with regards to what's happening on the big boy railway.

[tight5]

frankenstein12 said:

Are you going to tell me that driving a train is any more difficult than driving a car? Or a taxi?
Frankly train drivers get paid damn well for what they do

Again, with no knowledge to back it up, you're telling us how easy our job is !

You must be in government.

[rs1952]

Robertj21a said:

rs1952 said:

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

I think there might be a little flaw in your cunning plan.

If what you suggest is true, and there are these people out there who would willingly do the job for £30k, then why aren't the management offering that sort of money and recruiting them by the bucketful, especially when the government is leaning heavily on the TOCs to reduce public subsidy (where appicable, of course)?

Others can list the reasons if they have a mind to because at the moment I just simply can't be arsed.

Perhaps - just perhaps - you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about

Thanks for that helpful response. Sounds like you could be an existing train driver.......

I accept your implied criticism. My brevity was caused by having other things to do this afternoon, but now I have some time to post; or waste, depending on your point of view.

But first a clarification. I am not a railway driver and never have been, although I worked for the railway for some years and alongside drivers for most of that time at Bath Road depot, Bristol. Even though I actually left the railway in 1980 I still keep in touch and regularly meet a number of retired drivers at a monthly retired railway staff get-together. One person who goes along to those meetings actually left the railway in 1962, but railways get into the blood, you see

As others have already pointed out, one matter that did more to increase drivers pay than any other was privatisation. It allowed the national pay scales that existed under BR to be abolished but, rather than reduce wages, the result was competition between TOCs to gain staff. This was the result of market forces – supply and demand – something the more rabid right-wingers on PH would usually applaud, except apparently when its staff and not shareholders who benefit from it.

As an odd twist of fate ASLEF and the other railway unions bitterly opposed privatisation because they thought that it would eliminate their national bargaining power and lead to lower salaries as indeed happened in the deregulated bus industry. The new companies (many of whom like Stagecoach and First Group are involved in both bus and train operations) initially thought they could lower railway salaries too but various considerations, especially the safety aspect of having 1000-ton freight trains hammering around at 60mph, for example, thwarted their ambitions.

So you ought really to ask yourself a fundamental question. If the same companies are involved in both bus and railway undertakings, and they have managed to reduce wages in one sector, why have they not managed to do it in the other (and incidentally the stock answer “cos it’s the unions’ innit, stupid," won’t wash because there are RMT members who drive buses).

The answer is, and in response to another poster who seems be one of the “it’s piss easy – all they have to do is sit there and pull a handle” fraternity, driving a train is not as easy as driving a bus or a car, unless perhaps you think that it is just as easy to drive a motorised car as the pedal car your kids play with. If it was that easy then the employers would be paying the minimum wage, like many bus drivers get.

Moving on to the trades unions, and especially to the tired old union bashers that PH has more than its fair share of, you are fighting yesterdays battles with yesterday’s arguments. The days when strikes were decided upon at mass meetings went out with Margaret Thatcher, as did getting benefits whilst on strike, wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and all the other quaint little practices of old. The Closed Shop was ruled out of order by a judge during the Callaghan administration, and no-one these days is forced to join a union and hasn’t been for many years.

Strikes now come about through secret ballots, with rules that already make sure that the workforce are fully behind it. Some tend to forget that there are two sides in every argument, and those who automatically conclude that it is always the union’s fault when strikes happen has clearly not thought things through. Do they ever stop to question why management allowed the situation to develop in the first place? This is not uncommon when laymen start spouting about things they don’t fully understand. I shall end with a ‘frinstance:

A few months ago I was in a group of ex-pats in a bar in South Africa where the subject of railway accidents in general and Wootton Bassett in particular came up. The know-it-all loudmouth-in-chief pontificated thus.

“Its bloody simple innit, but the unions won’t let them do it. What they need is something fitted to trains so that if they pass a red signal, it puts the brakes on”

All hail the wisdom of the uninformed

[Robertj21a]

rs1952 said:

Robertj21a said:

rs1952 said:

Robertj21a said:

But the reality is that there are many people out there who would be very willing, and probably more than capable, of doing the same job for, say, £30,000. Perhaps it's about time that they were recruited as trainees so that, over the next few years, we can better identify what the going rate should be.

I think there might be a little flaw in your cunning plan.

If what you suggest is true, and there are these people out there who would willingly do the job for £30k, then why aren't the management offering that sort of money and recruiting them by the bucketful, especially when the government is leaning heavily on the TOCs to reduce public subsidy (where appicable, of course)?

Others can list the reasons if they have a mind to because at the moment I just simply can't be arsed.

Perhaps - just perhaps - you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about

Thanks for that helpful response. Sounds like you could be an existing train driver.......

I accept your implied criticism. My brevity was caused by having other things to do this afternoon, but now I have some time to post; or waste, depending on your point of view.

But first a clarification. I am not a railway driver and never have been, although I worked for the railway for some years and alongside drivers for most of that time at Bath Road depot, Bristol. Even though I actually left the railway in 1980 I still keep in touch and regularly meet a number of retired drivers at a monthly retired railway staff get-together. One person who goes along to those meetings actually left the railway in 1962, but railways get into the blood, you see

As others have already pointed out, one matter that did more to increase drivers pay than any other was privatisation. It allowed the national pay scales that existed under BR to be abolished but, rather than reduce wages, the result was competition between TOCs to gain staff. This was the result of market forces – supply and demand – something the more rabid right-wingers on PH would usually applaud, except apparently when its staff and not shareholders who benefit from it.

As an odd twist of fate ASLEF and the other railway unions bitterly opposed privatisation because they thought that it would eliminate their national bargaining power and lead to lower salaries as indeed happened in the deregulated bus industry. The new companies (many of whom like Stagecoach and First Group are involved in both bus and train operations) initially thought they could lower railway salaries too but various considerations, especially the safety aspect of having 1000-ton freight trains hammering around at 60mph, for example, thwarted their ambitions.

So you ought really to ask yourself a fundamental question. If the same companies are involved in both bus and railway undertakings, and they have managed to reduce wages in one sector, why have they not managed to do it in the other (and incidentally the stock answer “cos it’s the unions’ innit, stupid," won’t wash because there are RMT members who drive buses).

The answer is, and in response to another poster who seems be one of the “it’s piss easy – all they have to do is sit there and pull a handle” fraternity, driving a train is not as easy as driving a bus or a car, unless perhaps you think that it is just as easy to drive a motorised car as the pedal car your kids play with. If it was that easy then the employers would be paying the minimum wage, like many bus drivers get.

Moving on to the trades unions, and especially to the tired old union bashers that PH has more than its fair share of, you are fighting yesterdays battles with yesterday’s arguments. The days when strikes were decided upon at mass meetings went out with Margaret Thatcher, as did getting benefits whilst on strike, wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and all the other quaint little practices of old. The Closed Shop was ruled out of order by a judge during the Callaghan administration, and no-one these days is forced to join a union and hasn’t been for many years.

Strikes now come about through secret ballots, with rules that already make sure that the workforce are fully behind it. Some tend to forget that there are two sides in every argument, and those who automatically conclude that it is always the union’s fault when strikes happen has clearly not thought things through. Do they ever stop to question why management allowed the situation to develop in the first place? This is not uncommon when laymen start spouting about things they don’t fully understand. I shall end with a ‘frinstance:

A few months ago I was in a group of ex-pats in a bar in South Africa where the subject of railway accidents in general and Wootton Bassett in particular came up. The know-it-all loudmouth-in-chief pontificated thus.

“Its bloody simple innit, but the unions won’t let them do it. What they need is something fitted to trains so that if they pass a red signal, it puts the brakes on”

All hail the wisdom of the uninformed

Thanks for replying, at considerable length. You are making an almighty leap into a world of assumptions about me and my views on these issues. If you look at my original point I made one simple point about other people who might be happy to do the job for, say, £30,000. I see no reason to change that view as I'm sure it's factually true. It would be for the TOC/trainer to see whether they could attain the necessary standards. From the company perspective [never popular on here, I appreciate!], where profitability is paramount, they could see whether a pool of such new staff could be recruited for the longer term and then go about identifying how they could be used, preferably without causing WW3 amongst the unions........

I do appreciate that ASLEF/RMT are very powerful in the various rail operations but it does come over at times that they attempt to dictate how a company should operate, something that management in most other industries would probably not accept. There is no legal requirement for staff to join either/any trade union and, like the miners, a splinter group could arise at some point [........I'm not suggesting that it should].

Just for the record I have had a number of my family involved in the railways for many decades, but that doesn't stop me trying to look at issues from different angles.

I realise that you, and many others no doubt, will shout and rant back at me. Fair enough, but it would be a very boring forum if we all just accepted that the status quo is the one we all want.

[Nik da Greek]

All of which (as I've pointed out several times before) ignores the salient point that the ALSEF recommended its membership accept the first offer back when the dispute on Southern first started.

Its membership voted against the union "whip" and thus took a stance on SAFETY. The wage offer was broadly similar to the one recently accepted. The drivers could have taken a large payrise over a year ago if all they wanted was money



It's like I think I'm typing English but it comes out in Swahili or something. Hello? Anyone out there hear me?

[rs1952]

Robertj21a said:

Thanks for replying, at considerable length. You are making an almighty leap into a world of assumptions about me and my views on these issues. If you look at my original point I made one simple point about other people who might be happy to do the job for, say, £30,000. I see no reason to change that view as I'm sure it's factually true. It would be for the TOC/trainer to see whether they could attain the necessary standards. From the company perspective [never popular on here, I appreciate!], where profitability is paramount, they could see whether a pool of such new staff could be recruited for the longer term and then go about identifying how they could be used, preferably without causing WW3 amongst the unions........

I do appreciate that ASLEF/RMT are very powerful in the various rail operations but it does come over at times that they attempt to dictate how a company should operate, something that management in most other industries would probably not accept. There is no legal requirement for staff to join either/any trade union and, like the miners, a splinter group could arise at some point [........I'm not suggesting that it should].

Just for the record I have had a number of my family involved in the railways for many decades, but that doesn't stop me trying to look at issues from different angles.

I realise that you, and many others no doubt, will shout and rant back at me. Fair enough, but it would be a very boring forum if we all just accepted that the status quo is the one we all want.

Having reread my original post I see that I did not make myself clear enough.

The use of the word "you" was not aimed specifically ar Robertj21a (has that name got anything to do with Saltley, by the way? ) but was being used to deal generally with the other side of the argument, so to speak.

But I do need to respond further to this:

Robertj21a said:

If you look at my original point I made one simple point about other people who might be happy to do the job for, say, £30,000. I see no reason to change that view as I'm sure it's factually true. It would be for the TOC/trainer to see whether they could attain the necessary standards.

Here was my reply, and I see no reason to change my view either:

rs1952 said:

So you ought really to ask yourself a fundamental question. If the same companies are involved in both bus and railway undertakings, and they have managed to reduce wages in one sector, why have they not managed to do it in the other?

[Chrisgr31]

frankenstein12 said:

Are you going to tell me that driving a train is any more difficult than driving a car? Or a taxi?

As a matter of interest do you drive your car at the same speed in the dark on roads without lights as you do n daytime? Do you drive at the same speed irrespective of weather conditions? When driving do you use our eyes to know when to stop?

I am not a train driver but it is significantly different to driving a car because often you are braking to stop before you can see the point you need to stop at.

frankenstein12 said:

but their constant striking means its simply not reasonable to rely on trains.

errmmm quite how often have the drivers been on strike? Think you will find they only did 4 days and that was around a year ago.