[originally posted to uk.railway]
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]

AndyPandy wrote:

Rail workers in strike threat

3 hours ago

Thousands of rail workers at four companies are to be balloted for
strikes in disputes over job cuts and industrial relations.

The move by the Rail Maritime and Transport Union threatens the worst
outbreak of disruption on the railways for years including the
prospect of strikes on busy commuter routes into London.

The union said it will co-ordinate a ballot among more than 3,500
workers at South West Trains, First Capital Connect and National
Express East Anglia over job cuts while around 300 of its members at
London Overground will vote on whether to take industrial action over
claims that industrial relations have broken down at the company.

The source of the above is this PA piece:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...C8lry3YmtrpFRw

There's a bit more in this Independent article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1626187.html

Being very parochial, I'm particularly interested in the apparent
problems at LOROL (the operator of the London Overground) - the
Independent article finished with this line:
"The RMT claimed a complete breakdown of industrial relations at
London Overground."

I'm a bit surprised with this, as I haven't heard of any specific
threats to LOROL jobs, indeed LOROL employed lots of extra people on
assuming control of the ex-Silverlink Metro route in large part
because this was what TfL wanted (TfL has a very prescriptive contract
with LOROL for operating the LO network) and my understanding was that
one of their big intentions was to positively motivate the staff,
bring them all together as a team, improving working conditions, lots
of stuff like that (similar to what Chris Green did when Network
Southeast came into existence).

TfL are making a number of budget cuts - in part because it was always
on the cards (both Crossrail and bringing Metronet back in house are
significant elements), in part because of the new Mayor's intention to
slim things down (his 'value for money' mantra) - so are TfL in fact
considering plans to cut staff on the LO network? That'd be a great
shame if so - the whole 'London Overground' project is still in the
early stages, but comprehensively staffing LO stations is one of the
changes that passenger feedback has indicated as being very popular.

Incidentally, I did overhear some grumbles from some of the LO station
staff at an NLL station recently - the NLL service had fallen apart
because of a 'failed train', so I went up to one of them and said "Is
it one of your's that's broken down or someone else's?", to which he
replied "It's a broken down freight train, nine times out of ten
that's the cause of our problems, our trains aren't generally aren't
the one's that are breaking down" - I couldn't have been less
surprised by that, as it totally fits with my past experience of the
NLL. I then took out my mobile and was waiting for someone to answer
my call when the employee I'd been speaking to turned to his colleage
and said something along the lines of "I don't know why I'm bloody
well defending this useless company [LOROL], they don't deserve it",
which did somewhat surprise me - it certainly wasn't a comment from
someone who was buying into any sense of collective ownership of the
whole endeavour!

So, what's up at LOROL?

On 19 Feb, 13:18, Mizter T wrote:

[big snip]

So, what's up at LOROL?

Just found this BBC News online story about the troubles at LOROL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7898757.stm

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

I think the new trains are DOO equipped so I was always under the
impression that guards were on their way out (perhaps they're simply
not very keen at being made redundant in 'today's economic climate'
which would be understandable).

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

Being very parochial, I'm particularly interested in the apparent
problems at LOROL (the operator of the London Overground) - the
Independent article finished with this line:
"The RMT claimed a complete breakdown of industrial relations at
London Overground."

I'm a bit surprised with this, as I haven't heard of any specific
threats to LOROL jobs

This sounds rather like the recent "complete breakdown of industrial
relations at Northern". Can't remember whether it was a press release of
quote from Bob Crow.

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://timsworkspace.fotopic.net/

Mizter T wrote:
It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

I think the new trains are DOO equipped so I was always under the
impression that guards were on their way out (perhaps they're simply
not very keen at being made redundant in 'today's economic climate'
which would be understandable).

In my opinion I think it's a shame that the whole issue over guards is
still a problem. With modern technology (and I know that there are
certain criterion to get DOO), I don't see the point in having the
"conventional" guard who just sits in the back cab and opens/closes the
doors, for a start, it adds to station dwell times. If they still must
be on board would it perhaps make more sense for them to "get out there"
with the passengers and deal with tickets or even just walk through the
train. If an incident occurs then perhaps they could perform the duties
(whatever it is) that a guard does.

On Feb 19, 5:13*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 19 Feb, 13:18, Mizter T wrote:



[big snip]

So, what's up at LOROL?

Just found this BBC News online story about the troubles at LOROL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7898757.stm

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

I think the new trains are DOO equipped so I was always under the
impression that guards were on their way out (perhaps they're simply
not very keen at being made redundant in 'today's economic climate'
which would be understandable).


I'd be surprised if there were any job losses due to introduction of
DOO, there will be a more frequent service operated, needing more
drivers and there will be plenty of driver positions on the ELLX when
that opens. If the unions want to reserve jobs for more guards, on the
enhanced service, then I don't think think that they really have a leg
to stand on.

As an alternative, maybe Bob Crow is stirring up trouble (!!) and
wants guards on the Euston - Watford DC line as well, as these will be
new trains on a currently DOO route.

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

Maybe new facilities are not arriving as fast as the staff might want.
Reading the article, this is the main point, with the guards mentioned
more as an aside.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:13:47 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:


On 19 Feb, 13:18, Mizter T wrote:

[big snip]

So, what's up at LOROL?

Just found this BBC News online story about the troubles at LOROL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7898757.stm

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

This is an entirely traditional area for the RMT to go mad about. They
are, of course, contrary in the extreme given the vastly differing
agreements they have with different TOCs for driver / guard or DOO
operation. Naturally he wants to preserve the status quo and to ensure
that all new or transferred services are operated on the same basis.

From his viewpoint there is a lot to play for in terms of extra
membership and therefore greater industrial muscle. There must also be
a bit of a test here to see how LOROL will play things - give them 15
months to settle down, create a good impression with the public and just
as lots of major things are about to happen threaten to go on strike.
Quite well timed from his angle in terms of pressure being placed at
LOROL's door.

I think the new trains are DOO equipped so I was always under the
impression that guards were on their way out (perhaps they're simply
not very keen at being made redundant in 'today's economic climate'
which would be understandable).

Yes but it's not beyond the bounds of reasonableness to expect them to
apply for and train to be drivers for the vastly more frequent services
and bigger network that LOROL will operate. Still I'm sure Bob Crow
would rather have double the membership from retaining guards even if it
wrecks the viability of the concessionaire's bid.

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

There are reasonably recent presentations on the LOROL website that say
quite clearly that better staff accommodation is planned for the Phase 3
works. There might be an issue here over the pace of improvement and
possible issues over scope reduction - I'm sure I've read that the Phase
3 station works have been subject to rigorous review to try to save
money.

I don't think the issue here is with TfL - it's with LOROL. Uncle Bob
will, of course, try to entangle both TfL and the Mayor in any dispute
as Unite tried to do with bus driver wages.

--
Paul C

Am Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:13:47 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

As an old unionist I'm of course always on the side of the union,
but I have some questions on this London Overground issue:

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

Are there guards on London Underground?

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

"All the new staff" -- former guards can be used here, isn't it? If
they are not retrained to become drivers.

Besides that, LOROL should hurry to build the facilities for the
staff. Where's the problem with that?


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

On 20 Feb, 09:32, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

Am Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:13:47 UTC, *schrieb Mizter T
*auf uk.railway :

* As an old unionist I'm of course always on the side of the union,
but I have some questions on this London Overground issue:

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

* Are there guards on London Underground?

No. There used to be, but when the last of the "1959 tube stock" was
withdrawn from the Northern line in 2000, guards became a thing of the
past.

There's a webpage all about the last day if its operation he
http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/1959final/

London Overground (LO) has guards on the North London Line and West
London Line services. On the "DC Lines" between Euston and Watford
Junction the (same) trains are driver only operated (OK there might be
three class 508 trains still used, not sure, but they are very
similar).


However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

* "All the new staff" -- former guards can be used here, isn't it? If
they are not retrained to become drivers. *

Former guards could indeed be retrained to become drivers, as LO will
be increasing the frequency of its services in coming years as well as
starting services on the new extended-East London Line (the old, un-
extended line was a London Underground line) - indeed I understand the
plan is indeed for guards to be offered driving jobs.

However there have been lots of other new staff taken on recently
since TfL took over these routes from Silverlink Metro (and renamed
them London Overground) - in large part these are new station staff,
the idea being that all stations are now visibly staffed whenever
they're in operation. This is one of the things that lots of research
has said is a very popular move amongst passengers and potential
passengers.


* Besides that, LOROL should hurry to build the facilities for the
staff. Where's the problem with that?

I've no problem with that at all. Paul C's post upthread suggests that
more comprehensive improvements to facilities were always scheduled as
part of the "phase 3 works", so perhaps the underlying issue here is
the pace of these improvements, with staff thinking they're coming
along too slowly.

On Feb 20, 9:32*am, "Lüko Willms" wrote:
* As an old unionist I'm of course always on the side of the union,
but I have some questions on this London Overground issue:

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

* Are there guards on London Underground?

No - it's one of the (depressingly few) parts of the UK where the
entirely pointless role was successfully abolished through the 1980s
and 1990s. Given that LUL staff are normally even more militant-crazy
than national rail staff, I have no idea how they managed to push this
through.

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

* "All the new staff" -- former guards can be used here, isn't it? If
they are not retrained to become drivers. *

That's the sort of thing which would have Bob Crow spitting fire - you
can't expect someone who currently sits at the back of a train pushing
buttons to actually have to go out and talk to passengers and
generally do things that are useful...

* Besides that, LOROL should hurry to build the facilities for the
staff. Where's the problem with that?

That's certainly true, assuming they aren't doing so already, which
may be an erroneous assumption. If Bob Crow told me the sun rose in
the east and set in the west, I'd still check an encyclopaedia to be
sure...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:20:57 -0800 (PST), put finger
to keyboard and typed:

On Feb 20, 9:32*am, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

* "All the new staff" -- former guards can be used here, isn't it? If
they are not retrained to become drivers. *

That's the sort of thing which would have Bob Crow spitting fire - you
can't expect someone who currently sits at the back of a train pushing
buttons to actually have to go out and talk to passengers and
generally do things that are useful...

To be fair, I'm not sure that many passengers would want to be talked
to by someone who's primary skills consist of sitting at the back of a
train pushing buttons :-)

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk