Southern Rail strike – who is right?

grumpy – I would tend to agree. Its the them and us mentality that annoys. Unions have to try to defend the workers – that what they are there for an with the law as it is the cards are stacked in the employers favour. A lot of employers ( as it would appear in this case) forget that satisfied workers give good service so keeping the workforce happy is good for your business.

Under the german model there is much more incentive to settle disputes by agreement not by grinding the other side down as both sides have a stake in the business and this is obvious. Strikes usually have no winners but what else could the unions do here? Its obvious that the aim of the employers is to reduce costs by downgrading roles reducing workforce and the employers have also been intransigent.

I think the safety aspect may well have been overplayed by the unions but equally its a perfectly valid argument.

Personally, I think our unions are as much an obstacle to cooperative relations as the businesses themselves.

what’s the old adage…You get the Union you deserve..?

It is the last gasp of old-time unionism.

The word I heard from someone in the industry is that the RMT don’t want to lose at least some of their members having “safety-critical” jobs which can be used as a strike tool.

The TV screens are in the cabs already, lots of operators do Drivers shutting the doors. Southern is a particurly bad franchise, worse than SE or SW – and I use all three regularly, but this time this one is fair and square on the RMT.

Binners is having a field day on this thread…..pictures of Farage, Wolfy and Corbyn in swift succession! 😮

Someone in the industry? a member of management no doubt who want those pesky unions crushed so they can make greater profits?

At least, this is one where we are all in it together – in addition to the cancellations, its the tax payers that bear the burden of lost revenue here. Still cheap in the context of comradeship.

how about we just sell off all SR trains to other countries that need them/can run them effectively.
replace the tracks with large cycleways spanning the entire South.
i hate using the trains.
i hate using buses.
whenever i use my bike, i get to where i am going and enjoy the journey – and i get there on time. regardless of the weather.
this also solves the issue of ‘sharing’ the roads with the c**ty cagers.
why we need to dance around debating who’s right and wrong when really we just need to strip it all down to something a lot more simple and manageable.

plus i want an excuse to get myself a nice tourer bike.

The word I heard from someone in the industry is……..

An anonymous person quotes “someone”

Who can argue with that ?

Welcome back Ernie – there is a very bland thread that needs you. How is your old mate getting on, not too down about the crap ratings I hope?

Good point Binners.
Staying with the Perrin theme,
I think we’ve established that the only people against this glorious step forward are:
Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons – headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, “Play For Today”, Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody’s, Chinese restaurants – why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?

you are Tom Robinson and I claim my £5 !

😉

teamhurtmore – Member
Welcome back Ernie – there is a very bland thread that needs you.

How do you feel you’ve contributed, thm?

TJ and Ernie – Someone with no connection to any train operators in the South – who was watching with wry amusement and no financial or self-interest at all.

Here? – semi-amused/interested observer Rusty. But relieved that I no longer have to use Southern from CJ to V’toria. That was bad enough and only about 10 mins long.

I was looking forward to Ernie’s inside knowledge about Jezza actually. He knows more than the rest of us there.

Stoatsbrother – Member

The TV screens are in the cabs already, lots of operators do Drivers shutting the doors.

This is the bit that confuses me, how do the screens work? For a 12 car train (not unusual on southern) are there 24 screens? Or does the driver have to flick through screens for each door, in which case the drift times at stations will increase by a lot!

Fairy snuff stoatsbrother. A senior manager tho?

Ernie – where you been hiding? Nice to see you back

Wahaaaay. The Croydon Communist is back! Welcome back amongst us comrade 😀

I imagine the screens work about as well as a bloke squinting down the length of the train, it’s not like the guards walk the length of the platform checking each door is clear before closing it.

I would have thought an automated system that won’t let the train move off if any of the doors are obstructed or not closed is safer than relying on a falable human. Seems to work for lifts.

It looks like the people are in … Carry On At Your Convenience … 😛

I would have thought an automated system that won’t let the train move off if any of the doors are obstructed or not closed is safer than relying on a falable human. Seems to work for lifts.

Major issue there is that the trains are regularly overcrowded so would often have someone blocking the door which would make the trains even later, especially if you’ve made the person responsible and able to make sure that doesn’t happen redundant.

I can’t help thinking in these days of “health and safety gone mad”, current H&S at work legislation (you know the legislation that has criminal penalties including prison for directors) and litigation culture that a TOC carrying 300,000 passengers a day might just have done a proper risk assessment of this change.

I come back to my earlier suggestion that what’s needed in this kind of dispute is a court (or other body of appropriate jurisdiction) that can properly assess two correctly pleaded points of view with expert evidence that is cross examined. This is where I think the future role of the unions could be. They will be the bodies who can assemble and coordinate the evidence for the “workers” funded by subs as now. A less destructive, more independent process and it doesn’t involve distress and major inconvenience to the general public.

As for the profit and shareholder bashing just a quick reminder that the majority shareholders in most big businesses are in fact ordinary working people’s pension companies and savings companies (eg share ISAs). The generation of profit also feeds the tax system (perhaps with a few exceptions) and that pays for public services. So whether you’re in a private or public sector scheme or just getting state pension you need those profits to be made (unless we are going for the communism model?).

Shuhhhhhhhhhhsh.

They’re all asleep, tucked up under thier protective wing of the Union. Wake them up now and they’ll not turn up for work in the morning..

😆

Unlike us lot, who have to struggle to get in.

Tosserz

I would have thought an automated system that won’t let the train move off if any of the doors are obstructed or not closed is safer than relying on a falable human. Seems to work for lifts.

quite a few trap and drag accidents still happen on trains.

I come back to my earlier suggestion that what’s needed in this kind of dispute is a court (or other body of appropriate jurisdiction) that can properly assess two correctly pleaded points of view with expert evidence that is cross examined. This is where I think the future role of the unions could be. They will be the bodies who can assemble and coordinate the evidence for the “workers” funded by subs as now. A less destructive, more independent process and it doesn’t involve distress and major inconvenience to the general public.

i refer you back to the death of a young lady who fell betwen a train and platform at james street station liverpool raib report and ORR reports

Do RMT affiliated drivers currently operate any driver only trains?

tut, tut 😉

A simple question… If you’re in a train crash, would you rather there was a guard on the train?

CaptainFlashheart – Member

Do RMT affiliated drivers currently operate any driver only trains?

Almost certainly, but so what?

Extensive travel around the world, and I can say that conductors are a thing of the past. OK they still have them on some trains in India (Hyderabad to Bhadrachalam overnight anyone?), but then this train also has a hole in the floor to poo through, so I think they are still holding onto Victorian ways of doing things.

Northwind – Member
A simple question… If you’re in a train crash, would you rather there was a guard on the train?

I’d rather there were several, but given the likelihood that the only other railway company operative might be incapacitated in the event of a crash, one additional should be the minimum.

In the train collision in the severn tunnel in 1991,the driver of the second train was trapped in his cab, the driver of the first train didnt know he had been crashed into,as he phoned to report a posible derailment and the guard of the second train was also injured it took many hours to get injured passengers out of the 4 mile tunnel with no internal lighting, just the train emergency lighting, who wouldnt want more railway trained safety staff then.

Bring back the old slam door trains and we’ll close the doors ourselves. Nothing more to argue about then.

Unlike us lot, who have to struggle to get in.
Tosserz

Poor baby.

The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that’s an argument *for* automated trains.

outofbreath – Member
The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that’s an argument *for* automated trains.

Only if you have data showing how many crashes have been averted by drivers.

I come back to my earlier suggestion that what’s needed in this kind of dispute is a court

I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.

DrJ – Member

I come back to my earlier suggestion that what’s needed in this kind of dispute is a court

I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.[/quote]
But in this case it’s very clear the union are using safety as a red herring, there are also no job cuts/staff reductions they are striking over what they think might happen. If they want to play the safety card then their views should be inspected and claims tested along with the rail company.
remember

Bear in mind, if these changes go through the RMT will have less power to stop trains if it calls strikes in future. Because services will be able to run without one of their conductors on board.

I’d like my trains to be run in a safe and practical manner

I’d rather there were several, but given the likelihood that the only other railway company operative might be incapacitated in the event of a crash, one additional should be the minimum.

If that is what is required then great, still doesn’t answer the massive question as to who opens the door.

The RMT have already accepted a compromise that has drivers opening doors (Scotrail)

Of course the rail companies can re-purpose the guards elsewhere, but these jobs are finite: One guard I spoke to said they were offered the option to apply for certain alternative positions within Southern, but the position to applicant ratio was something like 1:100.

People still need a place to work and restricting their earning opportunities just breeds resentment if a viable alternative isn’t put in place.

Look at the coal mines: The biggest mistake there wasn’t closing the mines, that had to happen, sooner or later; the biggest mistake was not making suitable provision for those kicked out of their jobs.

outofbreath – Member

The 1991 Severn crash was caused by Driver error IIRC. So I that’s an argument *for* automated trains.

TBH if the tech were there I’d be happy with driverless trains, as long as there were still guards.

Look at the coal mines: The biggest mistake there wasn’t closing the mines, that had to happen, sooner or later; the biggest mistake was not making suitable provision for those kicked out of their jobs.

That and communities who felt that like father like son was a rule, heard of a local politician who had to deal with a lot of it, they wished they could have answered honestly to the what will my son do when you close my industry – the answer was whatever they want.
Redeployment, retraining etc. is important, so is progress employing people should add value to the job and to the person. I remember some very French roadworks where they turned the traffic lights on when the guy with the stop/go board went off for his fag break.

In this case the union needs to be honest about what they are fighting for and see if the public support them. Strikes will not solve this one without public support.

In reality this one goes all the way back to education and equipping people for a vastly different world that exists now. 30 years ago my family farm employed up to 8 men to manage about 300 acres, now my Dad, uncle and 1 other do the majority of work on nearly 1,400 acres. time change and people need to be prepared to change too.

I come back to my earlier suggestion that what’s needed in this kind of dispute is a court

I am constantly surprised by how readily people are to give up their rights.

Going to court is not giving up your rights. It is actually a really important right in itself.

It’s asking someone impartial and experienced in managing disputes and conflicting viewpoints in the context of the law to resolve the position of two parties who can’t agree.

This is exactly what the court system is for (see divorce, debt collection, patent disputes, land disputes, all sorts of employment disputes, health and safety prosecutions, …ad nauseum). If you live in the UK you are already subject to the rule of its court system because it is part of the system of civil and criminal law in the country in which you live.

One of the great privileges of civilised society is the ability to access an impartial court system that allows disputes to be resolved without violence or bloodshed.

i refer you back to the death of a young lady who fell betwen a train and platform at james street station liverpool raib report and ORR reports

But this is not relevant to HOW you resolve the stand off. If anything it underlines the importance of not turning this into a “who folds first” competition and getting someone who doesn’t have a vested interest in the outcome to make that decision.

It is of course relevant in terms of the arguments that could be presented (i.e. it may form part of the pro guard argument) but the whole point is neither side is giving an inch so someone who doesn’t have any other motive than the correct outcome should examine the evidence and draw the conclusion.

CFH – yes. Modern trains with integrated safety systems. Nowhere do they use the same type of trains driver only that this dispute is about.