Shortage of train crews on Great Western Railway since September 2017 - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

A contract of employment is what it says it is – a contract.  Neither side can unilaterally amend it without the agreement of the other.  No C of E give you job security for life – the typing pool ladies would have been made redundant or offered alternative employment in accordance with employment legislation.

[Celestial]

A contract of employment is what it says it is – a contract.  Neither side can unilaterally amend it without the agreement of the other.  No C of E give you job security for life – the typing pool ladies would have been made redundant or offered alternative employment in accordance with employment legislation.

True, but in my long experience, I always had two choices - to agree the change or find another employer.  Of course, the changes they were looking for weren't unreasonable, so I agreed, along with everyone else. But it's different in the railway world, as you can't train a driver up in a week, so they have the muscle to resist change. And do so with great success it would seem.

On the point in question, I don't think it is reasonable for someone who joins at 18 the day before a change making Sunday working contractual should expect to go the next 50 years without moving into line.   

[CMRail]

Very curious that train crew shortage is resulting in shorter trains.  Mostly look to be north and south Cotswold services which - at least - are not the seaside services we might expect to besot heavily loaded today.

2 x 5 coach trains presumably need a member of traincrew in each half, so it is not driver who are the problem, but conductors/train managers or whatever they are called these days. 

Generally this weekend 10 car units have been down to just one Customer Host in the set. The agreement is that the Train Manager must operate from the rear 5 coaches and a competent member of staff who can perform evacuations are in the front 5 carriages. This can be a “Customer Host Lead”.

[IndustryInsider]

None of the short forms today, of which there are very few anyway thankfully, are on routes where 10-car trains currently run, so I’m at a loss as to why crew shortage has been attributed as the reason.

[stuving]

None of the short forms today, of which there are very few anyway thankfully, are on routes where 10-car trains currently run, so I’m at a loss as to why crew shortage has been attributed as the reason.

Shortage of staff to go and find out the real reason?

[TM]

None of the short forms today, of which there are very few anyway thankfully, are on routes where 10-car trains currently run, so I’m at a loss as to why crew shortage has been attributed as the reason.

Its one of those reason which on the face of it sound wrong but when explained fully make sense !  Because of the train crew shortages yesterday sets were out of place.  I believe Stoke Gifford had too many sets and North Pole not enough.  So services started from Paddington were short formed by splitting a 10 car.

So yes train crew shortages but from yesterday.

[Robin Summerhill]

So yes train crew shortages but from yesterday.

So its not a train crew shortage today then, is it? It's a rolling stock shortage at North Pole today, so the public should be told that.

The use of the excuse "Train crew shortage" for today is therefore wrong, and giving customers information that theycan see for themselves isn't right is hardly best business practice.

[phile]

So yes train crew shortages but from yesterday.

So its not a train crew shortage today then, is it? It's a rolling stock shortage at North Pole today, so the public should be told that.

The use of the excuse "Train crew shortage" for today is therefore wrong, and giving customers information that theycan see for themselves isn't right is hardly best business practice.

That's because they quote the root cause

[Robin Summerhill]

So yes train crew shortages but from yesterday.

So its not a train crew shortage today then, is it? It's a rolling stock shortage at North Pole today, so the public should be told that.

The use of the excuse "Train crew shortage" for today is therefore wrong, and giving customers information that theycan see for themselves isn't right is hardly best business practice.

That's because they quote the root cause

Then perhaps they should stop it. Try looking at this from the passenger's perspective - the ordinary Joe Public passenger who knows nothing technical about railway operations, unlike many on here whose views may be more rose coloured because they do understand about those technicalities and practicalities.

The passengers are standing on the platform waiting for their train, perhaps with a reservation. The train pulls in and they find that the coach that contains their seat isn't there. They are told that this is due to staff shortages. But where is the evidence for that? There's a driver up the front, there's some geezer making announcements saying he's the train manager, there's another geezer trying to flog tea coffee and sandwiches. Where's the staff shortage? Haven't they got the staff to couple two units together? Haven't they got the staff to build the train?

It will not make sense to the normal passenger, and therefore it shouldn't be done. It makes as much sense as Sainsbury's announcing there's no cans of peas on the shelf due to staff shortages, when the ferry bringing the pallets in from Calais was delayed by a docker's strike.

[Robin Summerhill]

A contract of employment is what it says it is – a contract.  Neither side can unilaterally amend it without the agreement of the other. 

I agree, but since I left school and joined the railway in 1969 there have been many changes to conditions of employment for train crews. For example:

Abolition of freight guards
Abolition of Secondmen
Flexible rostering - once upon a time the 8 hour day was sacrosanct
DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))

What is so different in principle about Sundays? It seems to be being lost that if Sunday was part of the working week then that would not mean that staff would have to work any longer. It would simply means making the working week 7 days rather than 6, with no basic change in a 5-day working week pattern, so staff would then have two rest days per week rather than one rest day plus Sunday off duty.

At present we appear to have the situation where any work on Sunday is overtime and therefore paid at enhanced rates, and if the staff member has already reached the 40% tax bracket then 40% of that extra income would be going to the Treasury. Perhaps some would be happier with two rest days per week?

[IndustryInsider]

Sunday negotiations are ongoing.  I believe the emphasis has shifted from more money towards having more time off instead.  More drivers are needed either way, so the long planned introduction date of December 2020 is still achievable if collective fingers are pulled out.

[a-driver]

Train crew aren’t going to have their contracts amended and give up their Sundays, their guaranteed day with their families, for nothing.  In fact, for some, no amount of money will get them to accept Sundays as part of the working week. 

I agree it's unreasonable to amend existing C of E's for existing staff. 

I do. If businesses had not been able to change C of E's then we would still have typing pools full of elderly ladies awaiting their retirement with nothing to do. And lots of other examples where the world has moved on and businesses need to adapt.  It's unrealistic to enter a job at 18 and think that your terms and conditions are protected for the next 50 years until you reach state retirement age. The only reason it is resisted on the railway is that it has a monopoly position and the unions are very effective in using that position.  Others will argue that they are only doing the best for their members, but that doesn't make it right for society as a whole.

If you can change C or E's at will then the C or E isn't worth the paper its written on.

Sunday's will become part of the working week, I have no doubt.  The C or E's will only be changed when both parties accept the agreement and for that to happen, both have to receive some benefit to the new C or E either from increased salary to take into account the additional or other improvements to conditions such as time off. 
I'm guessing as well, but bringing Sunday's into the working week will also effect pensions so its not just a straight forward pay rise. 

[TaplowGreen]

Train crew aren’t going to have their contracts amended and give up their Sundays, their guaranteed day with their families, for nothing.  In fact, for some, no amount of money will get them to accept Sundays as part of the working week. 

I agree it's unreasonable to amend existing C of E's for existing staff. 

I do. If businesses had not been able to change C of E's then we would still have typing pools full of elderly ladies awaiting their retirement with nothing to do. And lots of other examples where the world has moved on and businesses need to adapt.  It's unrealistic to enter a job at 18 and think that your terms and conditions are protected for the next 50 years until you reach state retirement age. The only reason it is resisted on the railway is that it has a monopoly position and the unions are very effective in using that position.  Others will argue that they are only doing the best for their members, but that doesn't make it right for society as a whole.

If you can change C or E's at will then the C or E isn't worth the paper its written on.

Sunday's will become part of the working week, I have no doubt.  The C or E's will only be changed when both parties accept the agreement and for that to happen, both have to receive some benefit to the new C or E either from increased salary to take into account the additional or other improvements to conditions such as time off. 
I'm guessing as well, but bringing Sunday's into the working week will also effect pensions so its not just a straight forward pay rise. 

Have the Unions come up with a figure/% for the salary increase that they consider reasonable to bring Sundays into the working week?

[Robin Summerhill]

I'm guessing as well, but bringing Sunday's into the working week will also effect pensions so its not just a straight forward pay rise. 

How would such a change affect pensions?

Pension contributions are normally a percentage of gross salary, so to simplify if its 10% then if you earn £500pw its £50 or if you earn £1000pw its £100. It would make no difference at all what day of the week you earned it on.
 

[a-driver]

Have the Unions come up with a figure/% for the salary increase that they consider reasonable to bring Sundays into the working week?

I would imagine so but I don't know an exact figure, I'd guess you'd be looking at a minimum of £5k based on a straight payrise but then you have to take into account tax.  You wouldn't see much of your £5k payrise after tax which is why they are so reluctant to give up Sunday's (the tax situation is probably one of the reasons as well that there's a lack of volunteers to work them)
You'd get a greater benefit from £5k worth of improvements to conditions such as a shorter working week and a lot of drivers are aware of this.  You can't fix everything by simply throwing money at the problem.