East West Rail Timetable

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

They're not - and that's the problem.

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) require Chiltern to employ a second safety-critical trained person on each train in passenger service., effectively doubling the staff costs for each train. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) refuse to pay.

[Oxonhutch]

I consider myself to be a socially progressive professional, but thankfully no longer fear losing my job, being recently retired. I am a strong supporter of unions in jobs that invite exploitation and abuse - the sacked London bus driver is a case in point. I have willing been a union member in my past.

But this is beyond the pale.

Holding me, the general public hostage to their broader squabbles is outrageous, and I - a previous supporter - am incensed that this 1970's 'demarkation' is allowed to persist.

More train services mean more trains; and more trains mean more train staff. For goodness sake, climb out of your 70's militant mind set and embrace a new way forward where modern public transport is the norm, not a legacy item for those that can't afford, or care to use, a private car.

[ray951]

They're not - and that's the problem.

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) require Chiltern to employ a second safety-critical trained person on each train in passenger service., effectively doubling the staff costs for each train. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) refuse to pay.

Thanks, ChrisB — this isn't aimed at you personally, and I appreciate you’re not speaking for RMT, Chiltern, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), etc. So the words you used may not be those used by those organisations.

That said, the phrase “the RMT require” is an interesting one and really ought to be challenged. Require on what authority? Since when do unions set operational requirements, and where are the management in this? Are the RMT funding these “requirements”, or are they simply being accepted? What about the passengers (nee customers) and taxpayers who pay for all this, do they get a say?

I get the desire to avoid industrial action, but management can’t keep deferring this indefinitely.  The unions must know this argument was settled decades ago. They should call the RMT's bluff and schedule some trains, of course that is wasy for me to say.

[Electric train]

They're not - and that's the problem.

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) require Chiltern to employ a second safety-critical trained person on each train in passenger service., effectively doubling the staff costs for each train. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) refuse to pay.

Thanks, ChrisB — this isn't aimed at you personally, and I appreciate you’re not speaking for RMT, Chiltern, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), etc. So the words you used may not be those used by those organisations.

That said, the phrase “the RMT require” is an interesting one and really ought to be challenged. Require on what authority? Since when do unions set operational requirements, and where are the management in this? Are the RMT funding these “requirements”, or are they simply being accepted? What about the passengers (nee customers) and taxpayers who pay for all this, do they get a say?

I thing the term "the RMT require"  is acceptable from online Cambridge Dictionary "to need something or make something necessary" the RMT "need the second safety critical person" based on the mandate they have from their members.

I get the desire to avoid industrial action, but management can’t keep deferring this indefinitely.  The unions must know this argument was settled decades ago. They should call the RMT's bluff and schedule some trains, of course that is wasy for me to say.

Ultimately the management could force this through, but its not in the best interests of the industrial relations; there is generally a good working relationship between the TU's and rail management I suspect there are discussions taking place to resolve this issue 

[grahame]

Tangential - ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) have posted

Defeated! The Conservatives have failed in their attempt to amend the Railways Bill, which will establish Great British Railways, to:
* Remove the right to strike
* Reduce training
* Limit annual leave
* Forcibly introduce driver-only operated trains

ASLEF lobbied strongly against these amendments, which would not have served staff or passengers.
It’s on to the next step for the Bill that will bring together track and train and help establish a railway designed for people, not profit.