[Closed] Southern Rail strike - who is right?

Neither

Probably the company looking after its shareholders' interests, not the people fighting to save their jobs.

I think it's less about who is right and wrong and more about how the arguments are being framed.

The Union is completely wrong if they argue that this is about safety because more than two thirds of trains operate perfectly safely without conductors operating the doors.

However, they are right to be worried about changes to the system now leading to further reductions in headcount later. It's a lot easier to do away with the on board Customer Service Executive who is focused on CS than it is a Conductor focused on safety.

This dispute is about one side wanting to make a change now that could lead to further cuts in the future, but which is promising that this won't happen and the other side refusing to accept that but framing their argument wrongly because they know they would lose support if they framed it the correct way.

Southern seem to have appalling service.

How much of that is down to incompetence in running a railway and how much is down to a union working to rule for the last couple of years?

Geetee sums it up nicely. The union are doing what unions do.

Unfortunately, privatisation of a national asset never ends well, when profits take priority over service. At the end of the day, when someone pays for a service, the best way of generating profits is to cut back on the wages they pay.....if you were selling a product, there are easier ways to increase profits.
Don't get confused between a service and a product.....despite what you may hear, they can never be the same!

'Union militancy at it's worst' said Chris grayling, transport secretary......because staff are refusing to do compulsory overtime? How about hire more staff?

Another neither.

I don't think many people wholly believe that the strikes are about safety, however no other operator is having these issues with strikes, and Southern also has issues with running the service they should in between strikes.

So I think the issue is mostly Southern Rail's doing, but I don't fully believe the union line.

Oh God! I think someones woken his restless spirit......

[img] [/img]

Listening to the 2 sides interviewed on five live this morning they both sound equally as intransigent, with totally entrenched, immovable views, and clearly relishing some kind of symbolic, idealogical confrontation. This would suggest that there will be no solution any time soon.

Listening to it all.... Militant unions supported by a clueless, unelectable labour leader, then an intransigent private company boss, with an unwavering Tory Transport secretary stood four square behind him made for an early 80's retro-tastic experience.

Glad I don't live daaaaahn saaaaaaaaaaarf 😀

Both sides have valid grievances and valid arguments to make. The trouble seems to be that neither is prepared to negotiate fully, both sides have red lines that don't meet in the middle and hence unless one is eventually prepared to give in a settlement doesn't look like forthcoming.

Which is fine if you're buying something that you don't really need, you can offer a price and if that doesn't meet what the seller's prepared to accept then you can walk away with no harm done. But not here, where the bit in the middle that's getting screwed as a result is the user.

Simple - both and neither - hence ths strike!

Bloody smelly trains though. Glad I don't have to use them regularly

Let's ask another question.

Who thinks Southern Rail deserves to make a bigger profit by cutting the quality of its service?

The union are doing what unions do.

Yeah what have unions ever done for us?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/trade-union-bill-9-things-theyve-done-that-have-change-work-for-us-all_n_8141778.html

Southern rail are.

Brexiters holding up general commerce.

Better get used to this you lot.

Who thinks Southern Rail deserves to make a bigger profit by cutting the quality of its service?

Phil - we had the same thing fairly recently between Scotrail and the unions so you are not alone. Pretty much said the same thing in that case.

Binners - imagine the unions representing their members best interests! The pure cheek! If only they were more like the spineless shits that supposedly represent me at work...

So Chris Grayling has weighed in this morning with the proposal to change the law to make striking by railway staff illegal and is 'ruling nothing out'?

Someone more cynical than me might even suspect that this is all highly convenient for a Tory Government, facing a shambolic Labour party, seeing an opportunity to engineer a Wapping-style confrontation in order to drive through legislation to further weaken workers rights right across the board

The union are doing what unions do

The two are mutually incompatible. Pick a side

Free commerce, that's the side I pick.

Stranglehold of unions should be crushed to death. Thank God someone in Government is doing something constructive about this abhorrent situation affecting many many thousands of people who have to go to work, whilst the unions struck for extremely selfish terms.

Brexiteers doing thier finest work right here.

Bunch of selfish tossers.

The two are mutually incompatible. Pick a side

Jesus wept binners pick a bloody side, you flip flop more than a politician.

Well it's one way to phrase the question, it's a way to elicit the answer you want as it's hard to say yay for bigger profit.
Key points is the service worse by the changes they propose?
At this point we are talking about the changes proposed not the ones that "might" happen.
Another Question, should Southern Rail be given the flexibility to run a safe railway and deliver a good value service to their passengers?

Or another. As a Southern Rail passenger do you support fare increases to enable SR to maintain profitability and ensure all trains are double staffed?

Or another. Do you feel unsafe on driver only trains and would you be prepared to pay extra for your tickets to ensure that safety through the provision on conductors for all services.

The profit thing is a huge red herring, the way the Southern/Thameslink franchise is run the Government pay GTR to operate it, and collect ticket revenues. So, no, it's not about profit, Southern get paid regardless.

They don't care about compensation either, they're not paying it. So the c£700 compensation I've claimed this year has been paid for by you, thanks guys! That'll obviously keep getting worse, it'll be another £80 this week. Same next week.

To that end, the union are to blame for holding the paying customers to ransom. Line the tossers up and run them over with a driver only operated train. Slowly. They've been presented decent terms, and rejected them time and time again. They've been told no redundancies or pay cuts. They've been offered a one off bonus. They have massively unrealistic demands, they're basically just resisting change for the sake of it.

Or another. As a Southern Rail passenger do you support fare increases to enable SR to maintain profitability and ensure all trains are double staffed?

Or another. Do you feel unsafe on driver only trains and would you be prepared to pay extra for your tickets to ensure that safety through the provision on conductors for all services.

Stranglehold of unions should be crushed to death. Thank God someone in Government is doing something constructive about this abhorrent situation affecting many many thousands of people who have to go to work, whilst the unions struck for extremely selfish terms.

Brexiteers doing thier finest work right here.

WTF with the Brexit ref?

Your blinkered line on unions would be shared by more Leavers than Remainers, I'm certain.

Makes you think eh?

Do trains need to be double staffed? Are trains unsafe without conductors?

Of course they're not. Huge numbers of trains run DOO currently. Those that have a guard at the moment will continue to have another member of staff on board, who isn't distracted by opening the ****ing doors.

Although as I said above, "supporting Southern's profitability" is a total irrelevance.

Both and neither. Ultimately it's now no longer a secret that neither side can back down. The Government has instructed their supplier (Southern via GTR) to hold firm. I suspect in the fullness of time that it will be revealed that the DfT has given them a profits guarantee if they hold their position.

Unions can't back down because it's not about Southern Rail or safety, it's a much wider issue.

The companies and people having their lives disrupted (I include road users and propel living near roads) are casualties of a dispute that isn't about them.

It's a total omnif***ing shambles.

The union covers drivers across the whole network, so ask yourself why its only Southern affected by the strike.

No, the strike is a triviality: arguably it's poor tactics by the union as it allows management and the government to divert attention away from the real problem - an utterly incompetent company and an ideologically-blinkered government who won't do what's necessary.

We have started to see some interesting changes in the role of the unions lately. In Port Talbot for instance, the steel unions agreed to allow very significant changes to pension benefits in return for (I think it was Tata) steel not withdrawing from the market (and also I think this was being discussed as a consequence of Brexit?)

In Germany, this collaborative rather than adversarial role that unions play has always been the case. A good example was the VW union agreeing to extend the working week by something like three hours in return for cast iron guarantees from VW that they wouldn’t make redundancies.

I’m not sure why this idea isn’t something that could be used to solve the issue with Southern Rail. The unions agree to making the change from Conductors to On Board Customer Service Execs, in return for guarantees that there will be no redundancies say for the next ten years.

If the Government can't create a private contract to run the railways that doesn't include any penalty for not running trains, it shouldn't be privatised at all (at least until the construction work in London is finished).

I’m not sure why this idea isn’t something that could be used to solve the issue with Southern Rail. The unions agree to making the change from Conductors to On Board Customer Service Execs, in return for guarantees that there will be no redundancies say for the next ten years.

They've been offered that, although I don't know the time period admittedly, 10 years is a very long time with something like this, they've flat rejected it. Repeatedly.

They've been offered that, although I don't know the time period admittedly, 10 years is a very long time with something like this, they've flat rejected it. Repeatedly.

Yes I read/heard that it had been offered, I guess the devil is in the detail, which is what were the specific terms offered (i.e. how long were the guarantees in place for; like you say, ten years is a long time), and how were they structured such that they egender confidence that they won't be renaged upon.

seeing an opportunity to engineer a Wapping-style confrontation in order to drive through legislation to further weaken workers rights right across the board

But....we don't decide to go on strike because of it, because we can't for one. So why should these unions have the power to throw their toys out of the pram and disrupt thousands of peoples lives, because they don't agree with something. Its a nonsense, so the sooner legislation is driven through to stop this happening, the better! Its not a perfect world, ideally there should be a guard on every train (maybe even two), but if the safety board say otherwise, then they should go with it.

Yes I read/heard that it had been offered, I guess the devil is in the detail, which is what were the specific terms offered (i.e. how long were the guarantees in place for; like you say, ten years is a long time), and how were they structured such that they egender confidence that they won't be renaged upon.

Personally I think that's a bit of an irrelevance. How many of us have a guarantee that you won't be made redundant? Even in the next week? Can you imagine the backlash if they did agree this and then reneged it on a month later?

But....we don't decide to go on strike because of it, because we can't for one. So why should these unions have the power to throw their toys out of the pram and disrupt thousands of peoples lives, because they don't agree with something. Its a nonsense, so the sooner legislation is driven through to stop this happening, the better!

Here here!

I have 2 family members that were both train drivers, one for Southern and one for South Eastern. They did the same job but the differences in their expected working practices were amazing. For one Sunday was a normal working day whilst the other worked Sundays on a voluntary basis and got paid a premium.
South Eastern have run their trains driver only for years unless the train goes further out of London than Sevenoaks. This was negotiated by the Union and the operating company and has worked well ever since.

Southern is owned by Govia — a joint venture between transport groups Go-Ahead Group and Keolis (a SNCF subsidiary) — [u]which also owns the neighbouring Southeastern.[/u]

The rail franchisee has committed to having a second member of staff on trains "under normal circumstances"

Circumstances change and the union knows it

But....we don't decide to go on strike because of it, because we can't for one. So why should these unions have the power to throw their toys out of the pram and disrupt thousands of peoples lives, because they don't agree with something. Its a nonsense, so the sooner legislation is driven through to stop this happening, the better! Its not a perfect world, ideally there should be a guard on every train (maybe even two), but if the safety board say otherwise, then they should go with it.

South Eastern have run their trains driver only for years unless the train goes further out of London than Sevenoaks. This was negotiated by the Union and the operating company and has worked well ever since.

And the South Eastern drivers are in the same union as Southern drivers...

scaredypants - Member
The rail franchisee has committed to having a second member of staff on trains "under normal circumstances"

Circumstances change and the union knows it

Ah, so because you can't have something, no-one else should.

Is it normal practice to hire not enough drivers to cover the service?

Ok, One 12 coach Southern Rail train - Brighton to London Bridge peak time carries 1600-1700 people, 1 driver, 1 guard. Those figures are quoted by Fat Bloke Union Stalward on TV this morning.

What difference is 1 guard going to make to 1700 passengers ?

Sweet Fanny Adams.

The role includes pressing a button to open doors, speak in gibberish/forked tongues when they can be bothered about imparting such important items as delays and "we are now approaching"

Most train announcements are automated, for the simple fact that you can not rely on guards to speak coherent messages on time, when needed. So they took that away from them.
When guards do actually turn up for work, because let's face it more trains are cancelled because workers can't be bothered to turn up for work, all they do is walk up and down the train checking tickets.. oh hang on, no they took that away from them too and installed "ticket wombles" who stand on stations in long coats and fat bellies. I wonder why they took that task away from guards ? Yup, that'll be because guards are pointless and do nothing and don't turn up for work.

The ratios are stacked against them, face it they're going to loose thier job, just sack em' all now and let's get the service back up and running without them. If drivers strike to bring the Army in, it's a national disgrace that a public transportation system fails to work because of a group of selfish tossers who know full well the end is neigh for thier job.

Get over it, get off the gravy train.

People don't go on strike for the hell of it either, that's their pay they are losing. Have you ever considered that its exactly because it causes such disruption that they are doing it in the hope that people put the government under pressure to effect a positive outcome?

Sorry but your race to the bottom attitude sucks. Just because so many others are prepared to bend over then say thank you doesn't mean those who have the means to resist should.

The right to strike is an important one but it's also the last resort, it also lays your argument up for the public to debate and judge you.
When the practice that is being proposed is used successfully and safely in other places the argument comes down to pure job preservation which in the modern world is how it works. Nobody has a job for life unless your a Lord

As I understand it, one union covers all of the drivers on all of the TOCs. You'll have to explain why the union came to a mutually satisfactory deal with everyone except Southern. Could it just possibly be that Southern is the problem?

People don't go on strike for the hell of it either, that's their pay they are losing.

Sorry but your race to the bottom attitude sucks. Just because so many others are prepared to bend over then say thank you doesn't mean those who have the means to resist should.

Well, quite. The rail unions are a rare breed: operating from a position of strength rather than having to roll over and have their tummy tickled. I'm not at all sure why anyone thinks they should not act in the interests of their members.

Bikebouy you said that before and I'll ask you again; how many squaddies are trained and qualified to operate trains? Or do you propose holding the drivers in the cab at gunpoint? Ffs...

Bikebouy, old boy - I hope you wrote that all to the Daily Telegraph. In green ink. You forgot the phrase 'we're all going to hell in a handbasket though, so only a 9 out of 10 😆

Could it just possibly be that Southern is the problem?

As I opened with neither are probably right, both are probably wrong to some extent too. Drawing lines in the sand won't get anybody long term job security or conditions.