Scotrail

[peasy23]

The fact is that over many years we have ended up in a position where Scotrail need the drivers to work the OT more than the drivers either need or want to do it. It's a disgraceful position to have ended up in. They should have been recruiting and training more drivers for years to cut down on the reliance on OT being worked on rest days.

[Left Back]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The ASLEF boss has said they can sort out the staff shortages overnight if they get offered an acceptable pay deal. Sounds like more than individual workers suddenly wanting to spend more time with their families.

Your first sentence contradicts your second.  Sorting it out overnight would mean drivers going back to the previous levels of overtime, unless of course someone is going to magic up a load of train drivers out of thin air.  What happens to all these drivers that are suddenly of a mind to spend more time with their families then?

[Bairnardo]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The ASLEF boss has said they can sort out the staff shortages overnight if they get offered an acceptable pay deal. Sounds like more than individual workers suddenly wanting to spend more time with their families.

Maybe he means that the union would then encourage their members to do all they can to help out. Your chosen, personal interpretation of his words doesn't make your assertion that they working to rule any less wrong. 

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Your first sentence contradicts your second.  Sorting it out overnight would mean drivers going back to the previous levels of overtime, unless of course someone is going to magic up a load of train drivers out of thin air.  What happens to all these drivers that are suddenly of a mind to spend more time with their families then?

I think you misread my post, that's pretty much my point. Refusing overtime is a strategy designed to secure a better pay deal, whether it's explicitly written down or not. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by welshbairn

[Left Back]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I think you misread my post, that's pretty much my point.

You're correct.  I did misread your post.

[Leith Green]

48 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Yes they should.  How much is this episode going to cost the economy?  How much is it going to cost the taxpayer to sort out?  The train drivers union shouldn't be able to hold the government to ransom like this and some basic foresight could have prevented it.

The government are supposed to have an agenda to increase the use of public transport for environmental reasons.  How is any of the above helping that?  It's a f**k-up in so many ways.

OK, now we are getting to the crux of your argument.

You think a statutory responsibility should exist to tell a private company how to operate.

Fine, but they didnt have that - its possible that the staffing issue was one of the reasons it was taken into public ownership last month. The words used were around failure of Abelios management.

But the fact is that, while it was a private company, the government couldnt influence that staffing issue, no matter how much people may stamp their feet about it.

Hopefully they can start to recruit more people to train as drivers......I dont think they would be short of applicants........

[flyingscot]

36 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

The fact is that over many years we have ended up in a position where Scotrail need the drivers to work the OT more than the drivers either need or want to do it. It's a disgraceful position to have ended up in. They should have been recruiting and training more drivers for years to cut down on the reliance on OT being worked on rest days.

Even back in BR days 'rest day working' was a thing and it suited both parties. It will continue on as I doubt anyone wants to change things substantially. 

Part of the issue I understand is higher than normal amount of drivers leaving in the last few years combined with covid delaying new recruits coming though (as trainees couldn't be in same cab as instructors due close contact rules). 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 hour ago, Empty It said:

Some people coming across very bitter here because train drivers get a decent wage, as others have said should everyone on any sort of wage just shut up and take whatever salary is given to them due to the fact that someone somewhere makes less money?

Also people talking about giving large rises to unskilled jobs whilst skilled workers should stop complaining about their shit rise, why would anyone want to spend years training and studying to do a skilled job if they could walk into any job for a minor difference in salary?

exactly mate, someone else having less than you is never a reason why you shouldn't get. and f**k any c**t who says otherwise.  i lost out on a good pension and had enough allowances and benefits cut to amount to a 3 grand pay cut 9 year ago, to every p***k who gave it " ach yous boys had it coming, yous had it too good for too long" i would ask them what they were going to spend the money on? since they were so happy to see us lose out i'm just assuming that you were getting that money instead?  they usually gave a puzzled look in response.  it's just simple scottish  jealousy of " i don't get what you get, so neither should you"

the same guy who cut our terms recently tried to spunk 4 billion to buy chelsea, f**k off, we are the ones who pay tax, buy houses, motors, spend money locally etc

if you'v got a problem with what you have or don't have , take it up with the mike ashleys of the world. i wish the train drivers all the best

[Gordon EF]

Surely it's possible to take each situation on it's merit, no?

Just because you might think the train drivers are at it doesn't make you Maggie Thatcher.

[Left Back]

37 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

OK, now we are getting to the crux of your argument.

You think a statutory responsibility should exist to tell a private company how to operate.

Fine, but they didnt have that - its possible that the staffing issue was one of the reasons it was taken into public ownership last month. The words used were around failure of Abelios management.

But the fact is that, while it was a private company, the government couldnt influence that staffing issue, no matter how much people may stamp their feet about it.

Hopefully they can start to recruit more people to train as drivers......I dont think they would be short of applicants........

No. I think the government have a responsibility to oversee the provision of an essential public service which rail travel is.  If that means they have to dictate in the franchise contract some minimum requirements to prevent interruption to this service in the way it has today then they should have done that.

Within reason you can write any terms into a contract that you want and if that says you must have 2000 trained drivers (whatever the number is, I have no idea) then the contract will be costed accordingly.

If that means drivers no longer get overtime as there are enough drivers to cover all shifts without requiring overtime then so be it.  Drivers can't have it both ways.  The benefits of overtime but the ability to withdraw their labour from providing that overtime, i.e. holding the country to ransom.

You can see the next thing happening if the service was adequately staffed would be drivers moaning their overtime has been taken away.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Left Back

[Empty It]

exactly mate, someone else having less than you is never a reason why you shouldn't get. and f**k any c**t who says otherwise.  i lost out on a good pension and had enough allowances and benefits cut to amount to a 3 grand pay cut 9 year ago, to every p***k who gave it " ach yous boys had it coming, yous had it too good for too long" i would ask them what they were going to spend the money on? since they were so happy to see us lose out i'm just assuming that you were getting that money instead?  they usually gave a puzzled look in response.  it's just simple scottish  jealousy of " i don't get what you get, so neither should you"
the same guy who cut our terms recently tried to spunk 4 billion to buy chelsea, f**k off, we are the ones who pay tax, buy houses, motors, spend money locally etc
if you'v got a problem with what you have or don't have , take it up with the mike ashleys of the world. i wish the train drivers all the best

Have you not read from previous posters? You're not meant to spend to your means, live to the minimum and save the rest just incase and don't dare moan about being shafted with a shite yearly rise.

[craigkillie]

30 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

Even back in BR days 'rest day working' was a thing and it suited both parties. It will continue on as I doubt anyone wants to change things substantially. 

Part of the issue I understand is higher than normal amount of drivers leaving in the last few years combined with covid delaying new recruits coming though (as trainees couldn't be in same cab as instructors due close contact rules). 

It doesn't seem to be suiting both parties any more though, it seems to be creating an overreliance on staff working uncontracted hours, which means that the "employer" (ie the government) is up shit creek when the drivers exercise their right not to work these extra shifts. The goal for the government should now be to find a solution which moves them away from this so that we don't have this ridiculous situation on an annual basis.

[Bairnardo]

5 minutes ago, Left Back said:

No. I think the government have a responsibility to oversee the provision of an essential public service which rail travel is.  If that means they have to dictate in the franchise contract some minimum requirements to prevent interruption to this service in the way it has today then they should have done that.

Within reason you can write any terms into a contract that you want and if that says you must have 2000 trained drivers (whatever the number is, I have no idea) then the contract will be costed accordingly.

If that means drivers no longer get overtime as there are enough drivers to cover all shifts without requiring overtime then so be it.  Drivers can't have it both ways.  The benefits of overtime but the ability to withdraw their labour from providing that overtime, i.e. holding the country to ransom.

You can see the next thing happening if the service was adequately staffed would be drivers moaning their overtime has been taken away.

I mean..... Thats what overtime is? The "benefits" of overtime is that you get paid for work done. Its not a freeby. 

 

ETA, the goal for any trade union, and I bet if you ask ASLEF they would agree, is to have the job adequately staffed. No union pursues a poilcy of understaffing in order to get overtime for members. If they do, id be complaining to them as a member. 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Bairnardo

[Leith Green]

5 minutes ago, Left Back said:

No. I think the government have a responsibility to oversee the provision of an essential public service which rail travel is.  If that means they have to dictate in the franchise contract some minimum requirements to prevent interruption to this service in the way it has today then they should have done that.

Within reason you can write any terms into a contract that you want and if that says you must have 2000 trained drivers (whatever the number is, I have no idea) then the contract will be costed accordingly.

If that means drivers no longer get overtime as there are enough drivers to cover all shifts without requiring overtime then so be it.  Drivers can't have it both ways.  The benefits of overtime but the ability to withdraw their labour from providing that overtime, i.e. holding the country to ransom.

You can see the next thing happening if the service was adequately staffed would be drivers moaning their overtime has been taken away.

I dont think we are necessarily disagreeing here.

Privatising was a tory experiment that has gone badly wrong. 

Regarding adequate staffing (your last sentence) it is almost inevitable that once staffing is brought up to the right levels that people will be pissed off that their overall salary with overtime has been reduced.

However, more people will have a decent, well paying job and the service should be running correctly - so that should be the aim.

[sophia]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I mean..... Thats what overtime is? The "benefits" of overtime is that you get paid for work done. Its not a freeby. 

 

ETA, the goal for any trade union, and I bet if you ask ASLEF they would agree, is to have the job adequately staffed. No union pursues a poilcy of understaffing in order to get overtime for members. If they do, id be complaining to them as a member. 

This is exactly what has been culturally acceptable in this country for as long as I remember and to argue it isn't is ok, it's not coherent but it's ok.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, sophia said:

This is exactly what has been culturally acceptable in this country for as long as I remember and to argue it isn't is ok, it's not coherent but it's ok.

Plenty folk love their overtime, of that there is no doubt. Sometimes a Union has to protect members from themselves though, and thats one of those instances. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Nope. We are still in the realms of staff members choosing to do/not do overtime as they see fit. 

The RMT don't see things the same way:

Quote

 

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) has called 4,000 members out on strike in protest at Transport for London’s plans to cut 600 posts to reduce costs.

The union has also announced an overtime ban from 3 June, which could affect the underground during the jubilee celebrations.

 

Your head must button up the back if you think that ASLEF's employees have all of a sudden had a change of heart in the middle of an ongoing pay dispute, yet this is not a similar, union-led tactic. 

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

The RMT don't see things the same way:

Your head must button up the back if you think that ASLEF's employees have all of a sudden had a change of heart in the middle of an ongoing pay dispute, yet this is not a similar, union-led tactic. 

Wheres the quote from? 

ASLEFs members are not duty bound to give anyone a reason why they dont want to work overtime. They would be foolish to offer one that could be seen as industrial action. Same goes for RMT if they are saying that without a ballot taking place. 

 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

At this stage in the game for Trade Unionism, I think the possibility of/importance of, public support has been eroded to the point where it's not really taken into consideration. Honestly not even sure it carries much clout.

Much in the same way as this site routinely ridicules gammons for getting upset at protests because they cause them some minor inconvenience, most trade unionists will surely just shrug their shoulders at Daily Mail readers telling then to "GeT bAcK tO wOrK!!!!!!!"

You're not getting a fair shake in the media if you have the temerity to take industrial action in the UK nowadays. Even the revered nurses would get slaughtered now. 

Union leaders have certainly been acting from a position of weakness since the 1980s, and I understand them adopting that mindset. But it is massively undercutting any wider support for their cause and I cannot see them being able to sustain it in the long run. 

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Wheres the quote from? 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/23/london-underground-station-staff-to-stage-24-hour-strike-on-6-june

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Wheres the quote from? 

ASLEFs members are not duty bound to give anyone a reason why they dont want to work overtime. They would be foolish to offer one that could be seen as industrial action. Same goes for RMT if they are saying that without a ballot taking place. 

They don't need to give a reason in quotes or in writing for an outside observer to recognise exactly what's going on though.

ASLEF officials have repeatedly linked the current disruption to 'Scotrail getting back to the negotiating table' - but those negotiations are about pay and not overtime work. Which rather gives the game away.