Passenger protest against Southern Trains

[Guy Fawkes]

Whether you agree with the strikers or not, it's obvious that the disruption from this strike is the union's fault. Which is not to say that striking is wrong, but they felt backed into a corner and took the only action they saw available to them. The overall disruption to the service for the last two months or so though? That's Southern's fault, and Southern's alone. People have been angry about this for a while now, and the strike seems to be a tipping point.

It's Sorthern's fault for not backing down and giving into the Union's demands for things to stay unchanged?

How would anything ever change or improve if the Union's power was such that they could dictate how companies work and prevent them running things in the way that they see fit. Who should be running our companies, the business owners or the unions who dictate this?

 

[Bozza]

It seems like the union's causing a lot of the commuter problems to me too, a bit like the doctors strikes which they claimed were about patient safety but really about money. This seems similar to me, they want to stop changes / modernisation by the rail operator because they are worried about potential job losses or reductions in wages for their members in the distant future.

The union have been the ones leading the militancy towards the train operator, and they have no interest in the paying passenger and the effect of their lives, but are only concerned with their members job roles remaining unchanged (and not public safety over who closes the doors but that is the spin that's being put on it to get the public to support them).

Public anger should be against them rather than the operator if they want this disruption brought to an end, imo.

I wouldn't say that's entirely where I am. There are clearly issues with the franchise and the rather bizarre setup between Southern and the government department responsible.

However, I have asked time and time again as to why there were no similar protests, and indeed are no similar protests, for the franchises, lines and services where DOO is already in place. No one seems able to give a response of any merit. I watched the session when both the RMT and SASTA were pulled into the Commons, and I'm sure I recall the RMT reps being asked the same question and, again, they could not respond.

As such I can only deduce that, although there may be safety concerns here (although again - why no protests where DOO is already in operation?), there are more typical union job loss concerns at play. Indeed, from time to time, [MENTION=1332]Deadly Danson[/MENTION] has intimated this in his postings on here.

Concern about losing jobs is fair enough, of course, although many industries have seen shifts in how many people need to be deployed, but just 'fess up about it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It seems like the union's causing a lot of the commuter problems to me too, a bit like the doctors strikes which they claimed were about patient safety but really about money. This seems similar to me, they want to stop changes / modernisation by the rail operator because they are worried about potential job losses or reductions in wages for their members in the distant future.

The union have been the ones leading the militancy towards the train operator, and they have no interest in the paying passenger and the effect of their lives, but are only concerned with their members job roles remaining unchanged (and not public safety over who closes the doors but that is the spin that's being put on it to get the public to support them).

Public anger should be against them rather than the operator if they want this disruption brought to an end, imo.

Southern have withdrawn and cancelled services before this strike, blaming sickness, when witnesses have said the 'so-called sick person' was standing right next to them. Southern have lied about their service or lack of it.
Ignoring the strike, where I live there are just 15 trains a day at the moment, instead of 79. That is not an acceptable service by any means.

There is an element of health & safety with taking the guards off the trains. The RMT have put a plan to Southern which is the same as Scotrail run, but it has been ignored.

 

[Deadly Danson]

It seems like the union's causing a lot of the commuter problems to me too, a bit like the doctors strikes which they claimed were about patient safety but really about money. This seems similar to me, they want to stop changes / modernisation by the rail operator because they are worried about potential job losses or reductions in wages for their members in the distant future.

The union have been the ones leading the militancy towards the train operator, and they have no interest in the paying passenger and the effect of their lives, but are only concerned with their members job roles remaining unchanged (and not public safety over who closes the doors but that is the spin that's being put on it to get the public to support them).

Public anger should be against them rather than the operator if they want this disruption brought to an end, imo.

Explain how removing a second safety critical member of crew from trains is modernisation?

 

[halbpro]

It's Sorthern's fault for not backing down and giving into the Union's demands for things to stay unchanged?

How would anything ever change or improve if the Union's power was such that they could dictate how companies work and prevent them running things in the way that they see fit. Who should be running our companies, the business owners or the unions who dictate this?

But the disruption hasn't been from strikes has it? Southern have built a system that relies entirely on overtime from workers to run, and then (depending on what you believe) either they stopped workers working overtime if they'd been on strike or workers stopped working overtime. Either way, it's Southern's fault that their network was so easily hit by the lack of overtime workers.

Of course there are the accusations of staff sickness levels that Southern are blaming things on, but given they seem to be refusing to produce any actual figures (that I can see anyway) that makes the claim spurious at best. Plus, the only information I can find about that is from May, before they introduced the emergency timetable, which is disgraceful in that it's cut off entire towns.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Southern have withdrawn and cancelled services before this strike, blaming sickness, when witnesses have said the 'so-called sick person' was standing right next to them. Southern have lied about their service or lack of it.
Ignoring the strike, where I live there are just 15 trains a day at the moment, instead of 79. That is not an acceptable service by any means.

There is an element of health & safety with taking the guards off the trains. The RMT have put a plan to Southern which is the same as Scotrail run, but it has been ignored.

Thank you - well put.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I wouldn't say that's entirely where I am. There are clearly issues with the franchise and the rather bizarre setup between Southern and the government department responsible.

However, I have asked time and time again as to why there were no similar protests, and indeed are no similar protests, for the franchises, lines and services where DOO is already in place. No one seems able to give a response of any merit. I watched the session when both the RMT and SASTA were pulled into the Commons, and I'm sure I recall the RMT reps being asked the same question and, again, they could not respond.

As such I can only deduce that, although there may be safety concerns here (although again - why no protests where DOO is already in operation?), there are more typical union job loss concerns at play. Indeed, from time to time, [MENTION=1332]Deadly Danson[/MENTION] has intimated this in his postings on here.

Concern about losing jobs is fair enough, of course, although many industries have seen shifts in how many people need to be deployed, but just 'fess up about it.

If the unions were to say that, would they have the same levels of support from the passengers that use Southern who are the one's being directly affected by this union action? or would the passengers be more likely to be siding with the train operator instead? - Saying it's about safety is just propaganda from the unions to try to get the public on their side and therefore something they know they have do to get any support.

The Doctor's strike used the myth of patient safety as the reason for the strike to get the public onside and turn against the Government who were looking to bring in changes to how their staff was used, only later admitting it was a mainly about pay. The rail union's claim about passenger safety seems like the same tactic in use again

 

[Deadly Danson]

If the unions were to say that, would they have the same levels of support from the passengers that use Southern who are the one's being directly affected by this union action? or would the passengers be more likely to be siding with the train operator instead? - Saying it's about safety is just propaganda from the unions to try to get the public on their side and therefore something they know they have do to get any support.

I'm sorry but that is total and utter rubbish.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Explain how removing a second safety critical member of crew from trains is modernisation?

Other operators have the system that Southern are looking to adopt as a new way of working, which they see as a system that is more up to date than the current system that is in place and has been seen to be one that works and is safe to use.

Prove to me that it is unsafe and this isn't just about potential job losses (as they are concerned that if these roles are changed, it may reach a stage where the employer may think that they may not need to employ anyone to do the smaller role that the conductors may be left with?)

Should we still have conductors on buses if it is that dangerous to be on single crewed public transport?

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

During the strike

True, but at least the right people are being targeted.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm sorry but that is total and utter rubbish.

Care to elaborate why?

If the union said it's not about passenger safety but concerns our members may lose their jobs, do you think that the passengers of that franchise will blame the operators for the disruption because they want to implement a dangerous working system (as the unions claim) or the staff for wanting to safeguard their jobs and have no interest in how damaging it has been to the passengers? (including forcing some out of their jobs because they are unable to get to work due to the disruption)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Southern have withdrawn and cancelled services before this strike, blaming sickness, when witnesses have said the 'so-called sick person' was standing right next to them. Southern have lied about their service or lack of it.
Ignoring the strike, where I live there are just 15 trains a day at the moment, instead of 79. That is not an acceptable service by any means.

There is an element of health & safety with taking the guards off the trains. The RMT have put a plan to Southern which is the same as Scotrail run, but it has been ignored.

Union led work to rule (refuse all overtime) and also members trying to be disruptive as possible by taking sick leave, etc.

How does an employer plan for something if they have no idea who will be available and how many trains they can run tomorrow?

- Who claimed that someone who was off sick was standing next to that person? someone with a motive to try to discredit the employers (does it make it true or could it be spin?)

If what Southern are proposing to use has been implemented elsewhere and works, why should they have to implement the Scotrail system instead just because the unions are demanding it instead if they have to change things?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Union led work to rule (refuse all overtime) and also members trying to be disruptive as possible by taking sick leave, etc.

How does an employer plan for something if they have no idea who will be available and how many trains they can run tomorrow?

- Who claimed that someone who was off sick was standing next to that person? someone with a motive to try to discredit the employers (does it make it true or could it be spin?)

If what Southern are proposing to use has been implemented elsewhere and works, why should they have to implement the Scotrail system instead just because the unions are demanding it instead if they have to change things?

You can challenge [MENTION=4251]ROSM[/MENTION] himself, on here, if you want. I don't think he has an axe to grind or trying to discredit anyone. He posted his experience on Nsc.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

But the disruption hasn't been from strikes has it? Southern have built a system that relies entirely on overtime from workers to run, and then (depending on what you believe) either they stopped workers working overtime if they'd been on strike or workers stopped working overtime. Either way, it's Southern's fault that their network was so easily hit by the lack of overtime workers.

Of course there are the accusations of staff sickness levels that Southern are blaming things on, but given they seem to be refusing to produce any actual figures (that I can see anyway) that makes the claim spurious at best. Plus, the only information I can find about that is from May, before they introduced the emergency timetable, which is disgraceful in that it's cut off entire towns.

So they should employ more staff, mainly cheap labour recruited from abroad (or at least before Brexit) and hit their current employees pay packets as they lose any chance to make extra money through overtime?

As staff go sick to cause disruption, someone has to do more hours to cover this absence meaning more overtime is needed to provide the same service as before. If no one is doing overtime, then services have to be cancelled to meet the existing staffing levels available

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I thought it was harder for SASTA staff to now go sick and their new rules mean you need a doctor's certificate everyday or face the sack.

Hardly going to increase sick levels is it ?

 

[halbpro]

So they should employ more staff, mainly cheap labour recruited from abroad (or at least before Brexit) and hit their current employees pay packets as they lose any chance to make extra money through overtime?

As staff go sick to cause disruption, someone has to do more hours to cover this absence meaning more overtime is needed to provide the same service as before. If no one is doing overtime, then services have to be cancelled to meet the existing staffing levels available

Yes, because that's not putting words in my mouth is it? What I'm in fact saying is that overtime should, in any well run business, be the exception rather than the rule surely? I'm not saying they should cut all overtime, that would be ludicrous. I'm in fact saying that they should have staff levels that allow them run the service adequately without consistently resorting to overtime.

If more people are genuinely going sick, it would surely be in Southern's best interests to consistently publish those figures. It would be a massive blow against the union is Southern could, consistently, prove that the conductors are behaving in that manner. Are you not curious as to why they haven't?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I thought it was harder for SASTA staff to now go sick and their new rules mean you need a doctor's certificate everyday or face the sack.

Hardly going to increase sick levels is it ?

How hard is it to go to the Doctors and get signed off for a significant amount of time with something like stress or depression?

 

[Deadly Danson]

Union led work to rule (refuse all overtime) (LIE) and also members trying to be disruptive as possible by taking sick leave, etc. (LIE)

How does an employer plan for something if they have no idea who will be available and how many trains they can run tomorrow? By employing enough staff. Do you honestly think there is so much sickness that vast swathes of the timetable have had to have been cancelled?

- Who claimed that someone who was off sick was standing next to that person? someone with a motive to try to discredit the employers (does it make it true or could it be spin?) I have seen it every single day time and time again, it has been reported over and over by members of the public. As I wrote earlier in the thread just last week I sat upstairs with my guard whilst Southern cancelled 3 of our West Worthing and Lewes shuttles due to lack of train crew.

If what Southern are proposing to use has been implemented elsewhere and works, why should they have to implement the Scotrail system instead just because the unions are demanding it instead if they have to change things?

Trust me, I'm no great supporter of the Unions and I'm not militant but, whilst this is naturally about protecting jobs (more so in the future really) this is predominantly a safety issue - no one will ever convince me it is as safe to have just me at the front of a 12 coach train carrying 1500 people compared to having a second safety critically trained member of crew.

 

[Deadly Danson]

How hard is it to go to the Doctors and get signed off for a significant amount of time with something like stress or depression?

And how many do Southern have sick?

 

[The Wookiee]

So they should employ more staff, mainly cheap labour recruited from abroad (or at least before Brexit) and hit their current employees pay packets as they lose any chance to make extra money through overtime?

As staff go sick to cause disruption, someone has to do more hours to cover this absence meaning more overtime is needed to provide the same service as before. If no one is doing overtime, then services have to be cancelled to meet the existing staffing levels available

But isn't that why the reduced timetable was introduced ? If so why are trains still being cancelled ?