The dispute involves between 70 and 80 signallers in the South Wales area, all of whom have one thing in common. They will be the first of many that will, within the next few years, be housed in the new "Welsh Assembly" led state of the art control centre in Cardiff. This will include all of those from North/Mid and West Wales as well, since it is the Welsh Assembly's stated aim to create Welsh Rail, where all parts of the rail network in Wales are controlled from Cardiff. The first part has already been achieved, when management of the North Wales coast route was transferred to Cardiff six months ago to join the existing South Wales control. Now they start on bringing all the signallers under the same roof, starting January 4th.
The Newport signallers are the first to be affected, with 6 being forced to transfer in January and the remaining 12 next October. I say forced, because although NR» will say that four volunteered to transfer, it was made quite clear that if no "volunteers" came forward, six would be chosen, and if they refused to go, they would be making themselves redundant. As it is, two have been forced to transfer against their wishes to the new location.
Not the companies problem. They have decided to relocate the office - they can choose to do so. They could relocate to outer siberia or the outer hebrides if that was appropriate - not their problem. I know of people who have had to move to the other end of the country - literally - to keep a job because the office relocated. If you don't want to work in the new office, you don't have a job. Not the companies problem - its yours. You clearly have much better prospects or opportunities elsewhere.
The staff in all of the larger South Wales signal boxes, together with the Vale of Glamorgan, have worked 12 hour shifts without difficulty for a number of years. In the case of Newport, they were introduced at the company's request 12 years ago. The majority of the staff working in Newport have joined the team since that time, on the understanding of the shift pattern. Many, like myself, have actively chosen the shift pattern after many years of working 8 hour shifts in various jobs. The average age of the staff in Newport is about 40. The majority of us have done jobs in the outside world, and know what it is like. Many have children, and the shift pattern lends itself to allowing a better family life, easier child care arrangements, less travelling, all things that this Government has been actively promoting over the past years.
All that the staff who are immediately affected by this impending move have ever asked, is that the upheaval of moving working locations is kept to a minimum. NR promised in fact, to ensure that this was the case when the move was first discussed. It is bad enough for the staff in Newport that they have to travel to probably the most difficult part of Cardiff to access from that direction. On match days and special events, access will be doubly difficult, and travelling time will often be extended. What NR is now demanding is that we also work on an additional 80 days a year, with all the costs and problems that it brings. This will have a devastating affect for many on ourselves and our families. More importantly, if NR are allowed to do it this time, they will have a precedent for all future openings and for removing the 12 hour facility from all other areas. This is why many of my colleagues nationally are watching events with equal interest and concern. The decision was made not to involve them in the ballot at this stage because it does not directly involve them. We chose to limit the effect to the immediate area so as to interupt the lives of as few as possible while proving our point. We apologise in advance to those who are affected.
If you google my user id - mainly the former one - you will see this is a common statement I make anywhere so is not related to this discussion. Having children is a lifestyle choice. If you want them, its your choice, you're problem. Not your employers, not anyone elses. There are too many people on the planet already. I won't expand on having children and expecting others to deal with the associated fallout ......
It is not only the extra costs for travel amd loss of free time that this is about, it's about extra childcare costs, other family members having to change their working arrangements to fit in. At present, several wives of signallers work part time so that they can work when their husbands are off work. What effect does that have when the main bread winner is in work for two or three days a week extra, often at antisocial hours. From the outset of negotiations, which started seven months ago, NR have catagorically refused to budge on the issue of 8 hour shifts. They claim it is to save costs. At first it was ^1600 a man less per year, (although this disregards the additional costs paid under redundancy arrangements for travel because they are being paid by somebody else). Safety issues were never even mentioned. They even accepted that in terms of fatigue, the choice of 8 hours versus 12 hours was fatigue neutral. The latest figure quoted is ^136000 total additional cost, although where that comes from who knows. We've also been told that if we have 12 hour shifts, six others will have to lose their jobs, which is tantamount to blackmail.
We have tried to come to a compromise. We have even offered to allow spare capacity in Newport (which is built into the 12 hour roster that NR agreed with the remaining staff only two weeks ago) to travel to Cardiff to cover the one shift every 12 weeks that, under their table of organisation, makes any attempt to create a roster which is complaint with agreed principals impossible. At every turn, we have been rebuffed, deceived, and told outright lies. The strike action is the result of 7 months of outright frustration on the part of the staff . It could end tomorrow with one simple acknowledgement that we are entitled to retain what we already have. We're not asking for extra money, or less hours, or better conditions. Just to be able to keep what we already have.
This is the only bit I really have sympathy for. I am used to working 10am to 6pm with no lunch - and even 10m to 8pm but only four days a week. Currently having to do 0830am to 5pm is killing me. However I am gradually bringing them around to my way of thinking - by Feb I'll have it cracked.
The staff who do the job have all accepted, when they joined the grades, that there are certain limitations on their social lives, which the job requires. This job does not just affect our lives for the 8 or 12 hours that we are in work like so many. We have to modify our social lives well before we actually start work. For example, few realise that to be safe, we are advised not to drink alcohol within 12 hours of starting work. Reporting for duty with any amount greater than the natually occuring level of alcohol in the bloodstream is a dismissable offence and we are subject to random screening. You can quite happily drive to work, get stopped and pass a breathaliser test with flying colours, and still be found under the influence at work and sacked, three hours after you've started work. This is not so bad if you have three days off between shifts, but imagine if this is your one day off in thirteen days. How many others would accept the imposition of that sort of limitation?
If it were a condition of keeping a job I wanted to keep, yes I would.
That is why more and more signallers have chosen the 12 hour shift pattern, and the majority of those who cannot swap view us with a degree of envy. Almost all signallers who are on 8 hour shifts will tell you that in order to obtain any sort of quality time off (we are talking four consecutive days including a Sunday), they have to work strings of seven or eight consecutive shifts, often followed by one day off and another string of five or six days. I would ask what is safer, to work a maximum of four 12 hour night shifts, followed by three days off (as we currently do), or a run of seven late shifts, with a days off and seven nights with no guarantee that you won't be asked to work on your day off as well. The maximum number of shifts that a signaller can work in 13 x 8 hour shifts in a row before a day off and many have been asked to do that in the past, because of a policy of always maintaining vacancies for budgetary purposes.
So to get meaningful time off you need four days in a row? I like my drink, but its not essential to having "meaningful" time off. Unless drinking were my only hobby.
The matter of the RAIB▸ report into the Westbury derailment was also raised. This has been jumped on by NR as a nice little deflection towards the safety aspect, even though the report actually said that fatigue COULD have played a part. (No absollute certainty there). If you read the report in full, it raises a few key issues. The member of staff concerned had a roster which saw him working six consecutive shifts. This was his sixth. In the past five, he had finished at midnight, 6am, midnight, 6am and midnight. It is no wonder that his body clock was all to hell with a pattern like that. The background of it was that it was decided that one man was all that was needed to operated the 80, or so miles of route that Westbury covered, after midnight, and so one of the night shifts was withdrawn in order to cut a post and save money. All well and good, and given the traffic which tends to be reasonably light early morning, they are correct. That is until something goes wrong and the workload rockets, mainly due to the number of phonecalls that you will recieve, often totally unnecessary. If you also look at the comparison between his base roster and his actual hours, you will find that in the previous month he had worked six addtional shifts, all because Westbury carried two vacancies. As already said, it is an NR policy to keep vacancies, because it is cheaper to pay overtime than incur pension and national insurance payments of another on the headcount. This has been going on for years.
I cant comment as I do not know.
Look - I do have some sympathy - even despite my hardline approach which is how many out there will view it.
I just don't think that what is essentially a public service (I know its privatised but tell that to the travelling public) should hold the public to ransom. Its different than if Ford go on strike - if the cars aren't produced you go buy a vauxhall. If the signals are on strike - I cant get to work - there is no reasonable alternative. If I don't get to work, at best I lose money at worst (as happened in 2007/08 but that was not strikes but
FGW▸ unreliability) I lose a contract entirely. However, I cannot force notwork rail to change - if I use the rail I use the rail. A non service the customer can force a change by using a competitor. In what is in effect a monopoly you cant.
I WOULD support unions and strike action if there were different suppliers of signals and trains so that if, say signal company A went on strike, the
TOC▸ 's could use signal company B. I know it would not work in terms of rail signalling buy I'm trying to explain as best I can.
The point is - this affects me but I can't do anything to affect the outcome so why should I suffer.
