SWR strikers - does the Union pay their wages on strike?
Discussion
What is the point of the Union? To look out for their members terms and conditions Nd employment prospects.
I didn't realise Union scope also included things more akin to activism, protests, campaigning.
Passenger safety etc of course is important but it isn't the Union's job to be setting the safety standards nor enforcing them.
I didn't realise Union scope also included things more akin to activism, protests, campaigning.
Passenger safety etc of course is important but it isn't the Union's job to be setting the safety standards nor enforcing them.
Is this media mischief or are SWR genuinely this stupid?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...
Surely the favourite excuse of ‘trains being in the wrong place’ is the appropriate one to use for extending the strike timetable rather than this?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...
Surely the favourite excuse of ‘trains being in the wrong place’ is the appropriate one to use for extending the strike timetable rather than this?
kingston12 said:
Is this media mischief or are SWR genuinely this stupid?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...
Surely the favourite excuse of ‘trains being in the wrong place’ is the appropriate one to use for extending the strike timetable rather than this?
Not mischief or something swr can control. I doubt they control the refresh training period for staff. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/...
Surely the favourite excuse of ‘trains being in the wrong place’ is the appropriate one to use for extending the strike timetable rather than this?
Common enough in industries with a strong safety emphasis.
borcy said:
Not mischief or something swr can control. I doubt they control the refresh training period for staff.
Common enough in industries with a strong safety emphasis.
Indeed. I suppose it just comes back to the public not understanding what the guard-role actually is. Common enough in industries with a strong safety emphasis.
On every SWR train I get, the guard uses the tannoy at the start of the journey to announce which stations the train will be calling at, and that is any passengers require assistance he can be found in his booth in the middle of the train. He then stays planted in that booth until the next station where he gets up to open the doors and then sits down again.
I'm sure there is more to it, but I'm yet to see it.
kingston12 said:
Indeed. I suppose it just comes back to the public not understanding what the guard-role actually is.
On every SWR train I get, the guard uses the tannoy at the start of the journey to announce which stations the train will be calling at, and that is any passengers require assistance he can be found in his booth in the middle of the train. He then stays planted in that booth until the next station where he gets up to open the doors and then sits down again.
I'm sure there is more to it, but I'm yet to see it.
That's my families experience as well. They do occasionally give out a phone number or social media contact. If the train is busy I am unsure what help they could provide even if they want to.On every SWR train I get, the guard uses the tannoy at the start of the journey to announce which stations the train will be calling at, and that is any passengers require assistance he can be found in his booth in the middle of the train. He then stays planted in that booth until the next station where he gets up to open the doors and then sits down again.
I'm sure there is more to it, but I'm yet to see it.
I suspect there are way more trains than unstaffed stations. I also think rectifying that would be a more efficient use of staff.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 3rd January 09:48
Graveworm said:
That's my families experience as well. They do occasionally give out a phone number or social media contact. If the train is busy I am unsure what help they could provide even if they want to.
I suspect there are way more trains than unstaffed stations. I also think rectifying that would be a more efficient use of staff.
If I travel in rush hour, the trains are crammed full so it would be impossible for them to walk through, but I guess they’d be able to something in an emergency.I suspect there are way more trains than unstaffed stations. I also think rectifying that would be a more efficient use of staff.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 3rd January 09:48
Outside of peak time, they could easily walk through but rarely do.
kingston12 said:
If I travel in rush hour, the trains are crammed full so it would be impossible for them to walk through, but I guess they’d be able to something in an emergency.
Outside of peak time, they could easily walk through but rarely do.
I have seen a non emergency in rush hour that was, understandably, treated as one, it took what seemed like long time for the guard to get there once the "Cord" was pulled. By which time people, better trained to deal with the problem, had already stepped in. In those circumstances, I am not exactly clear why a driver can't do that, just as well, once the train has stopped. Outside of peak time, they could easily walk through but rarely do.
If you knew how many times the 'cord' is pulled or a guard is needed to deal with a situation on board you expected a driver to do that, you would realise the network would be at a standstill!
The emergency cord is used for a variety of reasons by the travelling public and quite often none of them sensible. The time it takes to stop, investigate and resolve these issue can cause a considerable snowball effect as the network is simply overly congested.
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
The emergency cord is used for a variety of reasons by the travelling public and quite often none of them sensible. The time it takes to stop, investigate and resolve these issue can cause a considerable snowball effect as the network is simply overly congested.
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
Rick101 said:
If you knew how many times the 'cord' is pulled or a guard is needed to deal with a situation on board you expected a driver to do that, you would realise the network would be at a standstill!
The emergency cord is used for a variety of reasons by the travelling public and quite often none of them sensible. The time it takes to stop, investigate and resolve these issue can cause a considerable snowball effect as the network is simply overly congested.
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
But unless I misunderstood the SWR issue is not about guards on trains - it is about whether the doors are opened by the guard or driver. On other franchises where the guards belong to RMT they have agreed to driver operated doors.The emergency cord is used for a variety of reasons by the travelling public and quite often none of them sensible. The time it takes to stop, investigate and resolve these issue can cause a considerable snowball effect as the network is simply overly congested.
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
"SWR said it wanted a guard on every train, with a safety-critical role, but it wanted them to spend more time helping passengers, including those in wheelchairs and with buggies."
"In response, a SWR spokesperson said: "We actually agree with most of the RMT's points, but on a busy metro network like ours every second counts and we cannot have unnecessary and inefficient practices that increase delays for passengers.
"The best and safest way to operate the new trains we will introduce next year is with the driver closing the doors, as the industry's own safety body, the RSSB has said."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50710733?int...
Different situation and also not mainline rail, but I always recall the tram going over a few years back and the fatalities. The media was crazy about it, the public were aghast. The general consensus was we must fix this, the general public must not be put at risk when using public transport. It must NEVER happen again.
Yet when an operator, backed by the Government want to try and save themselves a few quid by reducing the responsibilities of their staff, people quickly forget safety costs.
I admittedly have never done train dispatch but am aware of station delays and I really don't see trains suddenly all running on time for the few seconds it takes for a guard to do his part in making sure people are kept safe.
Yet when an operator, backed by the Government want to try and save themselves a few quid by reducing the responsibilities of their staff, people quickly forget safety costs.
I admittedly have never done train dispatch but am aware of station delays and I really don't see trains suddenly all running on time for the few seconds it takes for a guard to do his part in making sure people are kept safe.
Rick101 said:
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
I would be Hlhappy to let passengers decide, why not take a vote. The only body that thinks it is a bad idea, despite 10s of studies showing objectively they are safe, over the last 15 years are the Unions. And that's before any additional safety extra resources where they are needed would bring. Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
Graveworm said:
Rick101 said:
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
I would be Hlhappy to let passengers decide, why not take a vote. The only body that thinks it is a bad idea, despite 10s of studies showing objectively they are safe, over the last 15 years are the Unions. And that's before any additional safety extra resources where they are needed would bring. Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
Graveworm said:
I would be Hlhappy to let passengers decide, why not take a vote.
I can think of a very good reason the general public should not be allowed to vote on anything important!In addition to the above concern, there are also issues with equipment failures and visibility for a variety of reasons.
If this went ahead, what would it take to reinstate having a guard having responsibility?
Rick101 said:
I can think of a very good reason the general public should not be allowed to vote on anything important!
In addition to the above concern, there are also issues with equipment failures and visibility for a variety of reasons.
If this went ahead, what would it take to reinstate having a guard having responsibility?
Evidence that it was worth it. Same as the current evidence for the change.In addition to the above concern, there are also issues with equipment failures and visibility for a variety of reasons.
If this went ahead, what would it take to reinstate having a guard having responsibility?
Some of us remember the same arguments to retain porters, who hadn't helped with luggage for decades..
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 3rd January 13:37
itcaptainslow said:
Graveworm said:
Rick101 said:
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
I would be Hlhappy to let passengers decide, why not take a vote. The only body that thinks it is a bad idea, despite 10s of studies showing objectively they are safe, over the last 15 years are the Unions. And that's before any additional safety extra resources where they are needed would bring. Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
I do find find the anti guard position quite peculiar but not surprising. It's the way these threads always go.
I suspect a number of those with strong opinions on the matter, don't use trains so has little direct impact on them.
For those that do use trains, I fail to see what the benefit is. It won't get any cheaper. The Government are seeing to that. Any cost savings from getting rid of guards, which is clearly the long term goal, will go to shareholders pockets.
You will be paying more and having less. I doubt very much performance will increase. In fact I see it having an opposite effect.
Someone once said 'there is no choice to be made between safety and performance'. It's a shame that seems to be forgotten when profits come into the picture.
I suspect a number of those with strong opinions on the matter, don't use trains so has little direct impact on them.
For those that do use trains, I fail to see what the benefit is. It won't get any cheaper. The Government are seeing to that. Any cost savings from getting rid of guards, which is clearly the long term goal, will go to shareholders pockets.
You will be paying more and having less. I doubt very much performance will increase. In fact I see it having an opposite effect.
Someone once said 'there is no choice to be made between safety and performance'. It's a shame that seems to be forgotten when profits come into the picture.
Robertj21a said:
itcaptainslow said:
Graveworm said:
Rick101 said:
Guards are in that position for what they know. When they are needed, passengers are usually very glad there is a guard on board to help.
I would be Hlhappy to let passengers decide, why not take a vote. The only body that thinks it is a bad idea, despite 10s of studies showing objectively they are safe, over the last 15 years are the Unions. And that's before any additional safety extra resources where they are needed would bring. Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 11:59
DOO agreements on TL were signed back in the 80’s if memory serves when passenger numbers were half of what they are now, and 12 carriage trains were rare.
Off peak services, sure, can be conducted reasonably safely using DOO. For busy peak services especially, but for all trains, it’s of course preferable to have a guard as they offer other benefits such as customer service, ticket sales, assisting vulnerable passengers, being able to deal with emergencies and out of course situations on (and this is a key point) and off the train.
Had meant to drop off this thread but just thought i'd add an example as we discussed 'the cord' earlier.
I can't add specifics but passenger realises he is on the wrong train so pulls the emergency cord after the departure process has started. Thankfully with a guard on board and some good comms the passenger is able to depart the train quickly and the service is on it's way only 6 min later.
I'd note that 4 hours after that incident no less than 26 trains have been impacted, some (200 odd miles away) by that late service and become late themselves. Those trains will likely go on to impact other trains and cause delay for several hours if not the rest of the day. That is a lot of passengers affected.
Whilst I don't want to get into good guards bad guards again, I hope that example gives an idea of just how congested the network is and how a relatively small delay, even on a quiet day, can cause considerable issues further down the line.
Having the right people in the right place is of great benefit when you are dealing with such things.
I can't add specifics but passenger realises he is on the wrong train so pulls the emergency cord after the departure process has started. Thankfully with a guard on board and some good comms the passenger is able to depart the train quickly and the service is on it's way only 6 min later.
I'd note that 4 hours after that incident no less than 26 trains have been impacted, some (200 odd miles away) by that late service and become late themselves. Those trains will likely go on to impact other trains and cause delay for several hours if not the rest of the day. That is a lot of passengers affected.
Whilst I don't want to get into good guards bad guards again, I hope that example gives an idea of just how congested the network is and how a relatively small delay, even on a quiet day, can cause considerable issues further down the line.
Having the right people in the right place is of great benefit when you are dealing with such things.
Edited by Rick101 on Friday 3rd January 15:07
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not wishing to enter an argument, as I can totally understand how frustrating disruption is (at the end of the day, people just want to get to work reliably, and more importantly, home on time!)-I've just outlined some of the guard's duties in my post above. Just because their duties aren't immediately obvious, doesn't mean they're "not doing anything".I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
itcaptainslow said:
Not wishing to enter an argument, as I can totally understand how frustrating disruption is (at the end of the day, people just want to get to work reliably, and more importantly, home on time!)-I've just outlined some of the guard's duties in my post above. Just because their duties aren't immediately obvious, doesn't mean they're "not doing anything".
I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
I'm sorry to say that few passengers are likely to believe that !!I do think the RMT need to sharpen up on their PR though-they do seem slightly blind to the potential benefits of having the public on side. However, industrial action unfortunately sometimes is the only way of getting a point across when faced by intransigent management-not that we know the ins and outs of what has/hasn't been negotiated here.
Please be assured that disputes, industrial action and strikes are the very last thing 99% of rail staff want.
The RMT have been strike-happy for years. They act like something from the 1970s and then expect the public to support them - fat chance !
The RMT ballots for strikes without even bothering with lesser actions - and their members vote in favour of strikes. How is that '....the very last thing that rail staff want' ??
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff