Great Western Coffee Shop

Any truth in this rumour, currently doing the forum rounds?

Well it definately hasnt happened but the rumor is doing the rounds. What is more definate is a 'rest day working' ban being introduced by ASLEF for drivers from 29th December. With drivers unable to work 'rest days' expect more cancellations due to 'lack of traincrew'.

There is a notice up in my depot relating to this. Not sure if it is an official RMT document though. Think it is a proposal from an RMT member, asking the union to ballot its members.

Sorry, not sure if this helps! ???

Yes it is true. Several RMT Branches (Bristol and Plymouth) and others I beleive unaimously voted on motions to put before the RMT Committe asking for a ballot on strike action over the issue. This was agreed on Tuesday by the EC and ballot papers will be sent out shortly to Guard Grades asking if they support (a) strike action and (b) action short of strike action.

Its not a rumour, it is happening

Question is, from a user of the trains....

Why are the managers working the trains?  Is it because the guards won't because they dont get overtime?

Sorry, I have no sympathy.

I work hours for my clients.

If they want me to work hours I choose not to because they are not in my standard contract, then I quote a rate I am happy to work for on the extra hours - usually more than my standard rate.

If the client doesnt want to pay, fine, if they can get somebody else to do it for less - good on them.

If there is another issue.. please enlighten us.

Normally it is because managers are covering shifts the guards WON'T do as a opposed to CAN'T

Remember - railworkers are not public sector anymore - they are subject to commercial realities the same as everyone else

(and i'm on the side of the drivers, the guards, the staff 99% of the time )

Sorry, but you are way off line here. The reason managers are working trains are because of crew shortages, must guards are working loads of overtime at the moment to cover this. If we were not, there would be a lot more cancellations. I have been refused annual leave days 3 times in the last 6 weeks because of crew shortages. If FGW were at full staff capacity this would not happen.
Also i will be working overtime this evening( on my rest day ) for which we do get enhanced pay.

So..........if all the guards that exist are working to full capacity........what difference does it make whether FGW hire more guards or staff with managers (as long as managers trained).

Makes no difference to the existing staff

Thats the whole point, FGW need to employ more staff, which they are in the process of doing. It does make a difference to existing staff when they cant get leave that they are entitled to. If guards didn't work their rest days(i.e. overtime) you would have a lot more cancellations. As for the managers working trains thing, I think that this goes back to a previous agreement between FGW and RMT that managers would not work trains, which they are obviously in breach of. By the way, if the guards withdrew their overtime (as the drivers are doing soon) there wouldn't be enough competent managers to work all the trains anyway ;)

Makes no difference to the existing staff
[/quote]
Thats the whole point, FGW need to employ more staff, which they are in the process of doing. It does make a difference to existing staff when they cant get leave that they are entitled to.
[\quote]

I believe that under employment law if you have an annual entitlement to leave you have to be given it - however it does not have to always be when you want it.  When I used to be an employee I never wanted to work christmas - but I always had to because I have no children and priority at christmas was always to families.  I got my leave at times it was convenient to my employer. 

[\quote]
If guards didn't work their rest days(i.e. overtime) you would have a lot more cancellations. As for the managers working trains thing, I think that this goes back to a previous agreement between FGW and RMT that managers would not work trains, which they are obviously in breach of. By the way, if the guards withdrew their overtime (as the drivers are doing soon) there wouldn't be enough competent managers to work all the trains anyway ;)
[/quote]

And you see thats where you lose any sympathy and why I dislike unions - why should managers not work trains if they are trained to and they choose to and the work is there?

Its a bit like when I worked at ESB (electricity supply board)  - I was told off for changing a lightbulb - I'd asked maintenance to change it two weeks before - still wasnt done.  So I did it myself.

The reason it was not done is because there was not enough maintenance people - but the union still went beserk that I did a job that should have been done by one of their members.

If managers were doing it instead of offering overtime I would have sympathy - but if my trains are cancelled because guards are on strike because of this, I wont have any sympathy.

As for refusing to do overtime - in the rest of the PRIVATE sector, most people who are salaried would love overtime!  So think yourselves lucky

By managers working trains is just a cheap fix, overtime bills are cheaper than paying additional staff and thus FGW are taking the cheap option, in the meantime no one can get any leave. Why should a manager who's on stupid money do the same job as a guard who's on less money??

Legally they have to give you your contracted leave - just not necessarily when you want it.  Thats life.

As for "Why should a manager who's on stupid money do the same job as a guard who's on less money??" that statement would make sense only if the other way around i.e.

"Why should a guard who's on less money do the same job as a manager who's on stupid money??".

If a manager chooses to do a job below his payscale/post, so long as its not removing work or overtime from the holders of the post that should be doing it, it is their choice.

And yes, if they choose to take the easy/cheap option and do it that way - that is FGW choice.

The rail companies are no longer public employers but private.

When public and ex public employees have to deal with the same crap as the rest of the private sector, then they will realise which side of the bread is buttered

You are missing the point. Wether you like it or not, the railway is in the hands of the unions, and if we are balloted for strike action, and it is voted for, then it will happen.

As for the leave thing, you are right that we are contracted for a certain amount of days per year, but when they get turned down, due to lack of cover because of staff shortages, I suppose i could go sick, but then who would work your trains? A manager? That could lead to strike action........... :-\

Legally they HAVE to give you your contracted leave - just no necessarily when you want it.

Getting rid of the unions was the best thing Thatcher did - shame we've still got some left.

yawn

Yawn if you  like - just yawn in the real world

It aint going to happen though! As for Thatcher then she's to blame for the last 20 years worth of crap that the railway has become, "roads before railways" spring to mind? well her under investment shafted the railways when they needed it most!

indeed but its my union that have secured me a decent payrise of %5.6 this year, its my union the fight for my conditions and terms of service. its my union that have got me a 35 hr week from a 37.5 hr week with no loss of salary. its my union that ensure that everyone in the workplace is treated fairly.

so whats your problem with trade unions?

Theres nothing wrong with the unions, stop bad mouthing them. Just because you don't get a train service once every few years doesnt mean that staff dont have rights as well!

I agree! We got 5.6% this year and inflation+1% next year! Thanks to the union it looks like we may actually get harmonisation for all grades!

Striking

I'm of the opinion - if you dont like the conditions - go find another job

I'm going to back out of this because I don't think we'll ever agree.

I dont like unionisation - stand up for yourself - if you are good enough you'll do fine - if you're not, you need to realise you arent.

If the pay isnt good enough - go find a better paid job - someone will always work for the money you are getting - and if you can't, dont complain about what you have

Unions are only there to support the weak willed and spineless who cant or wont stand up for themselves - great - if thats a society you want I'll leave it to you.

So you sit in your nice office job on probably over 30k a year, and get nice pay rises. And complain about a few extra quid a year to be put on ticket prices so drivers can get better pay!?

You need to get your priorites right. Unions are fine for the railways, (and infact every other industry that uses them) It's just the complaining commuters who cant be bothered to pay a few quid a year (That 75% of them can easily afford) that could be used on extra pay for drivers and guards to improve the quality of living for them. So at the end of the day it could be said that its the commuters fault for train crew having to strike to get a few extra pence an hour...

Brings it all back to the "Them and us" way of thinking...

And life isnt as simple so you can just change jobs when you want to. Maybe you should try it one of these days? I know several highly skilled people who've done this recently, and taken at least 6 months to get into a new job.

There are many people working in many industries, that without the help from their respective trade unions, would either be out of a job, on a lot less pay, or working longer hours. Now wether or not you agree with unions is up to your personal point of view, but please don't call me weak or spineless for being part of something that protects MY interests and thousands if not millions of others. If you are in a job or a financial position not to need this protection then good luck to you, but please realise that there are many, many more who are not. I would also like to add that i am not in any way political, as that is often the misconception about people who are members of a union. I am only a member of my union to protect my interests, as this is the best way available to ME to get greater benefits for myself and my family.

I will now back quietly away from this subject as it is making me angry. :(

No -I'm self employed

I dont work I dont get paid - no holiday, no pension, no sick pay

OK - I get paid a good day rate - but the indians under cut it whenever they can

I constantly have to re-skill just to stay in work

p.s. well said Shazz

P.S. if my industry tried to unionise - we'd be out of work replaced by indians/chinese over night

and P.P.S how many of you in your cushy guaranteed union protected jobs would commute 2.5 hour each way every day on Gods Worst Railway before even putting in a days work

I dont want to be unionised - I want to stand for what *I* can do and be paid for it - and if someone else cant - tough shit

Sorry Mookiemoo, but if i am not a member of my union i have no protection at work. That is just the way it is. I would love to stand here and say 'If you don't do it my way, it ain't happening' but im just a very, very small cog in a big machine, who needs all the help he can get

Well mookiemoo you may think you live in the "real world", but i can assure you, the real world involves things outside your closeted view of Thatcherism.
In the real world Trade Unions, especially on the railways, but elsewhere too, still operate as the voice of the workers.
They still protect through collective bargaining, a concept obviously annoying to yourself, those workers rights.
I fully expect an anti union rant from yourself, but you must accept that many ordinary people dont share your view, and as many many times i have been told, by anti union people, if you dont like your job get another, if you dont like your job, in your "real world", get a job where you can join a union, where colleagues stand together, and fight for rights that benifit the workforce, i.e you.
You obviously dont know the ins and outs of this particular dispute, and probably couldnt care less? So if you want to debate in an adult fashion, please do, if not go and talk rubbish elsewhere, or is that too much to ask?
Good luck to the RMT members, whatever they decide democratically!

At the end of the day, Unions are a good thing. As without them low paid workers/ public sector employees (eg teachers) wouldnt have a say in there pay rises etc.

Plus its against the law not to publicise at least one union in every large workplace. (last it was last time i checked, which was a while back)

And i'd stop digging yourself further into the hole you seem to be making for yourself Mookiemoo :)

You need to take a step back and look at jobs on the whole. Jobs such as transport/retail/teaching/public sector/etc (which cant be replaced overnight, as you seem to think is possible...) all tend to be incredibly low paid jobs (there are some exceptions) for the work people actually do in them. Without the unions, these employees wouldnt even get a say in payrises and other areas of there jobs that are important to them. Such as overtime rates, hours worked per week, days off per year etc.

Because you're your own "boss". You get it easy compared to these people (in relation to pay, working conditions, etc) as you set them yourself. Just because you commute 2 1/2 hours on a FGW train to get to work, it doesnt mean you should get treated any different compared to low paid, over worked FGW staff who run your train. ITS YOUR CHOICE TO COMMUTE, AND NO ONE ELSES. And if you dont like it, why not go along with your policy, and change jobs? ;)

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=101216

Both the ASLEF and RMT ballot results will be declared on Wednesday, January 10 (link below.)
http://oxfordmail.net/display.var.1922289.0.new_year_rail_strike_fears.php

ASLEF are saying that FGW are "at least 100 drivers short."

I apologise if I have offended anyone....

I work in an industry where my right to work as self employed is being undermined by union pressure to give all "temps" employment rights

I do not want employment rights - I'll trade off ^500-^800 per day for having no rights - I am not an employee.

However, the unions are trying to get all workers "rights" (where the definition of a worker is not just a temp).

But if that happens, the rates will fall as the clients have to cover the additional cost.

I am sure the ^15 per hour secretarial temp wants needs/protection

But unless it can be done without causing the likes of me to accept lower rates to pay for it (I pay an accountant and a solicitor to give me protection), no way.

It is the "protection" of UK workers that is one of the causes for bringing in overseas labour - they are employed by a non-UK company therefore not subject to UK labour laws but do work here by intercompany transfer.

P.S. I dont agree with the minimum wage either - people have free will to choose to work or not - if they are not willing to work for slave wages, employers will have to pay more. 

and P.P.S I will feel aggrieved as in current contract - if I cant get into the office on any day I have to be there - I lose ^650 + VAT.  Dont expect me to have any sympathy when the employees going on strike arent exactly losing out in the current arrangement (as it has been explained to me) but getting overtime etc etc - the only thing they are losing is freedom to choose when to take leave (if FGW refuse to give you your contracted leave, sue them - thats what contracts are for).

Mookiemoo - I don't think you're going to get too much sympathy from other posters given your comment about how much you lose when not able to work. I don't think it's realistic to expect employed staff to sue their employer everytime they are leant on to accommodate their employer's needs. I have never belonged to a union (and never will), and for the majority of my working life have worked in non-unionised office environments. But even I can see that they serve a purpose in some industries in providing a collective voice and bargaining power against what would otherwise be very powerful employers.   

All i have to say to that is:

Oh no, you're loosing what some people get paid per month for a days work, boo hoo...

As john said, he doubts you're going to get any sympthy for it on this forum, and he was very very right.

"The Grass is always greener on the other side"  ... have you heard that one?

Firstly, this thread has wandered far from the topic of managers stepping in for operational staff, the safety issues thereof and union ballots to say "enough is enough".  It has moved much more onto people's personal things away from their rail use, which isn't something that's encouraged - indeed it is discouraged save for the fact that if it's someone talking about their own situation then who are we, (the moderators) to discourage it.  So we have been letting this thread run .... but keeping a watching eye.   Now is, I think, a time to say "enough is enough" and ask posters to to move back on topic, or let the thread quietly fade.

John and Shazz predict that Mookiemoo will get no sympathy on this forum.  Ho, Hum, J and S - perhaps I'm going to surprise you.  I can identify with much of what I have read on that "side" and in some aspects I have been there too.   

But I've also been in roles where strong union support could potentially have helped to ensure that wrongs had not been committed, and from a purely practical viewpoint I think it is very important at larger employers for the employees to have a practical co-operation.   In a one / two / three person company there may be little need for the coordination, but I can't imagine how each and every conductor could negotiate his own terms and conditions with First who (by virtue of being a profit generated company) are more or less bound to look to maximise income and minimise [staff] expenditure.   It's much more efficient for them, too, to set things up with a single body such as a Union and I suspect they would confirm this if asked.  And that single body really does need to be independent of the employer; otherwise conflicts of interest occur.

OK - so how can I identify with the trials and travails of our first class traveller who's stated daily fees make some of the other contributors react jealously?  Been there / am there!  But I'm sure that may parts of my situation are different - so I'll open the door a little and give you some ideas with no direct comparison to a case I don't know and with a person I've never emailed or met.

For my work, I present training courses.  The cost for a course that I present is very clear from the web site about them (http://www.wellho.net) and is far in excess of the pay rate of the majority of salaried 40 hour per week (or so) employees of companies. But that's only a tiny part of the story. I finished training last Thursday, and I don't have any more course bookings until 7th January, and there's no cushion of income for that time.   When I need training in the specialist subjects that I'm concerned with, it's not simply a question of no income - it's negative income as I have to pay to travel to wherever it is, and pay what's probably an even higher rate to gain that knowledge that I need in turn.

But I've only just started to scratch the surface there.  If I start a course on a Monday morning, having finished one the previous Friday evening, how on earth is everything ready and in place?  It's because there's a whole team of staff behind the scenes.  Our delegates typically arrive on Sunday evening (which is why I celebrate the return of an evening train from Swindon to Melksham on Sundays even though it hasn't actually run from Swindon once yet due to engineering!) and need to be checked in to the hotel (http://www.wellhousemanor.co.uk) that forms part of our package. Breakfast needs to be prepared on Monday and subsequent mornings. You've got sales, marketing, invoicing, preparing manuals, booking systems, chambermaids, supplies specialists, food hygiene, adminstration, government rules and tax ... all on top of this. There's a huge difference - and order of magnitude - between what's charged for my time of being in front of someone, and what I get out of it when all the extra costs which are "wholely, necessarily and exclusively" taken out of it are taken into account.

In my own line I have - on a few rare occasions - travelled over and above standard class in order to ensure that I'm fresher and able to work at destination. And having paid what is usually a significant premium to ensure I can do a good job then, yes, I too am pretty unhappy if that extra investment is voided out. Take the other week - when a first class train ticket that should ensure me arriving fresh as a daisy in 15 minutes turned (last minute) into a ride in a replacement bus with people crammed in and standing, tiny seats, and a 50 minute journey with an uncomfortable knee full of luggage.

I agree that we should move back on to topic, so to let you know, I have recieved notification in the post this morning that we will be ballotted for 'strike action' and 'industrial action short of a strike'. Ballot papers will be posted on 27/12/07 and the RMT strongly urges its members to vote yes to both questions.

Merry Xmas.

Poor FGW and its longsuffering passengers. Tis only going to get worse in the new year now Bob Crow has found something to beat a part of the privatised rail network over the head with.