In message <t858vi$pv0$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:38 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2022 09:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that staff
>>> are always availale for calls, quite common?
>>>
>>> Do newspapers still have lots of odd-seeming rules about who does what,
>>> or has the internet killed them?
>>
>> I used to be on 24/7 call, like most companies we got a payment for
>> being on standby so you accepted that you got the odd call.
>
>Being unable to drink alcohol or go on holiday for several years must have
>been quite inconvenient.

I was on 24/7 call for about three years once, and drinking/holidays
were not an issue. Mainly because my industry didn't have an alcohol
ban, and being able to go on holiday with my mobile phone was preferable
to being stuck at home glued to my landline. [The exception being the
Millennium, where I was specifically stuck at home with two landlines
and two mobiles, and an alcohol ban, in case things went pear-shaped at
midnight]

Most exciting call was around teatime on *that* September 12th, and I
was in the back of taxi on my way to Vienna airport [the conference I
was attending having been aborted**], wondering if they'd instituted an
EU-wide no-fly zone yet: "Can you meet us at the Home Office, 8am
tomorrow morning, on an urgent matter". To some extent we were luckily
able to simply dust off the Millennium disaster recovery plan from 2yrs
before, and implement that.

While I accept that's an extreme case, a decade later I was in the
position that when the phone rang at 7am I'd know it was a researcher
at one or other morning news programme asking if I knew who would be a
suitable person for them to interview on air half an hour later. But
maybe that was just "work", which happened to be a 24x7 *job* (for a
small NGO), rather than simply "standby".

>> I would think newspaper print workers no longer have the power because
>> they have been bypassed and no longer needed. In the past they only had
>> to call a union meeting and a whole print run could be lost, didn't ITV
>> unions play the same game by calling a meeting at 17:30h so the regional
>> stations lost their local programme at 18:00h?
>
>That kind of thing wouldn't work on the railways, because it's quite
>uncommon for sufficient number of crews to be at their home depot at once
>for that to cause significant disruption (for IC TOCs, at least).

Printing presses are an interesting example, not just because it's a
"single point of failure" for the daily newspaper publishing business,
but it's both highly skilled work with complex machinery (that people
have to specifically learn, just like driving a particular type of
locomotive), and anti-social hours.

I suppose the railway equivalent would be calling a union meeting at
York Signal Box (or whatever it's called) at 5pm, and bringing (these
days) much of the ECML, and a lot of Yorkshire (and one day even London)
commuter services, to a standstill.

** I'd flown out from Stansted early afternoon on the 11th, and watched
the early footage from New York on the TVs in the departure lounge. A
few of us gathered in a room in one of the hotels in Vienna to eat
takeaway pizza and see what the developments were (cancelling a planned
tourist trip around the City Centre). The morning of the 12th, no-one
knew whether the conference would go ahead. It was due to start at
midday, and Al Gore was the keynote speaker, but a confirmed no-show.

We had a 'fringe meeting' planned for later in the week, and brought
that forward to the afternoon of the 12th in one of the side-rooms,
because the main conference was at that stage merely suspended. But
eventually it became clear the best thing to do was to bail out
while airspace was still open. Didn't fancy having to catch several
trains instead.

My colleague in the back of that taxi, who I'm still in regular contact
with via Facebook, later said he was surprised airport security had
allowed him to take his Swiss Army Knife in his carry-on. The clampdown
took a while to be implemented. I'm still not exactly sure what the
infamous "box cutters" looked like, because while popular culture
conflates it with Stanley knife, the name properly refers to something
a lot more like a letter-opener with a shielded blade.

<https://images.tooled-up.com/artwork/prodzoom/90503_1.jpg?404=default&
w=500&h=500&dpr=1.0>
--
Roland Perry

In message <t858vk$pv0$6@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:40 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the staff,
>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>> service.
>
>We have several Spanish people working at my TOC. And Polish, French, and
>plenty of other nationalities.
>
>Perhaps your pilot was already living and working in the UK before Brexit,
>and has Settled Status? And presumably that particular set of crew don't
>only work the flights to Gibraltar, but work to many destinations in turn,
>just like other air crew?

It wasn't uncommon for cabin crew (BA especially) to live as ex-pats in
Spain, and get a "priv" flight back to Heathrow for the start of their
shift. How that intersects with "working hours" - which normally exclude
even extended commutes, is another matter.

It's been reported in the past that some TfL tube drivers live at least
an hour away by National Rail in the provinces, although there are
conflicting reports that they also have a maximum commute time in their
contracts.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t858vh$pv0$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:37 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>> The exact nature of the upcoming stoppage is still in flux, but being
>> weekdays, to stop the trains requires an actual strike; whereas some
>> companies (GTR was mentioned) are going to struggle on running as many
>> trains as they can because there's just rest-day working being
>> withdrawn. The drivers in the latter case can claim "we are not on
>> strike", just like over the years drivers not working Sundays thus
>> bringing EMT/EMR to a standstill can claim the same thing.
>>
>> The law only regulates strikes, not overtime bans.
>
>I'm not sure your last statement is true; official overtime bans have to go
>through proper union/company procedures (though not necessarily a ballot).
>
>Certainly in the past, concerns have been raised that everyone
>'coincidentally' not working rest days, or a certain Sunday, could
>constitute unofficial industrial action, particularly if
>ringleaders/organisers could be identified.

Yes, it's these unofficial "we've all decided not to do rest day working
the next three Sundays" [etc] which give the impression of being outside
the regulatory umbrella.

So a "strike ban" wouldn't prevent it happening.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t858vi$pv0$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:38 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2022 09:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that staff
>>>> are always availale for calls, quite common?
>>>>
>>>> Do newspapers still have lots of odd-seeming rules about who does what,
>>>> or has the internet killed them?
>>>
>>> I used to be on 24/7 call, like most companies we got a payment for
>>> being on standby so you accepted that you got the odd call.
>>
>> Being unable to drink alcohol or go on holiday for several years must have
>> been quite inconvenient.
>
> I was on 24/7 call for about three years once, and drinking/holidays
> were not an issue. Mainly because my industry didn't have an alcohol
> ban, and being able to go on holiday with my mobile phone was preferable
> to being stuck at home glued to my landline. [The exception being the
> Millennium, where I was specifically stuck at home with two landlines
> and two mobiles, and an alcohol ban, in case things went pear-shaped at
> midnight]
>
> Most exciting call was around teatime on *that* September 12th, and I
> was in the back of taxi on my way to Vienna airport [the conference I
> was attending having been aborted**], wondering if they'd instituted an
> EU-wide no-fly zone yet: "Can you meet us at the Home Office, 8am
> tomorrow morning, on an urgent matter". To some extent we were luckily
> able to simply dust off the Millennium disaster recovery plan from 2yrs
> before, and implement that.
>
> While I accept that's an extreme case, a decade later I was in the
> position that when the phone rang at 7am I'd know it was a researcher
> at one or other morning news programme asking if I knew who would be a
> suitable person for them to interview on air half an hour later. But
> maybe that was just "work", which happened to be a 24x7 *job* (for a
> small NGO), rather than simply "standby".
>
>>> I would think newspaper print workers no longer have the power because
>>> they have been bypassed and no longer needed. In the past they only had
>>> to call a union meeting and a whole print run could be lost, didn't ITV
>>> unions play the same game by calling a meeting at 17:30h so the regional
>>> stations lost their local programme at 18:00h?
>>
>> That kind of thing wouldn't work on the railways, because it's quite
>> uncommon for sufficient number of crews to be at their home depot at once
>> for that to cause significant disruption (for IC TOCs, at least).
>
> Printing presses are an interesting example, not just because it's a
> "single point of failure" for the daily newspaper publishing business,
> but it's both highly skilled work with complex machinery (that people
> have to specifically learn, just like driving a particular type of
> locomotive), and anti-social hours.
>
> I suppose the railway equivalent would be calling a union meeting at
> York Signal Box (or whatever it's called) at 5pm, and bringing (these
> days) much of the ECML, and a lot of Yorkshire (and one day even London)
> commuter services, to a standstill.
>
> ** I'd flown out from Stansted early afternoon on the 11th, and watched
> the early footage from New York on the TVs in the departure lounge. A
> few of us gathered in a room in one of the hotels in Vienna to eat
> takeaway pizza and see what the developments were (cancelling a planned
> tourist trip around the City Centre). The morning of the 12th, no-one
> knew whether the conference would go ahead. It was due to start at
> midday, and Al Gore was the keynote speaker, but a confirmed no-show.
>
> We had a 'fringe meeting' planned for later in the week, and brought
> that forward to the afternoon of the 12th in one of the side-rooms,
> because the main conference was at that stage merely suspended. But
> eventually it became clear the best thing to do was to bail out
> while airspace was still open. Didn't fancy having to catch several
> trains instead.
>
> My colleague in the back of that taxi, who I'm still in regular contact
> with via Facebook, later said he was surprised airport security had
> allowed him to take his Swiss Army Knife in his carry-on. The clampdown
> took a while to be implemented. I'm still not exactly sure what the
> infamous "box cutters" looked like, because while popular culture
> conflates it with Stanley knife, the name properly refers to something
> a lot more like a letter-opener with a shielded blade.
>
> <https://images.tooled-up.com/artwork/prodzoom/90503_1.jpg?404=default&
> w=500&h=500&dpr=1.0>

There are also imtermediate devices which are essentially Stanley knives
with sprung blades, normally retracted but which extend when the handle is
gripped. But there are loads of different styles of knife sold as “box
cutters”.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> From
>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>
>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>> Shapps
>>>
>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>
>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of
>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>
>I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.

I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.

Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to do
all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
(or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.

>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>> applicable to not-strikes,
>
>Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and action
>short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>That is official industrial action.
>
>Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their booked rest
>days (within certain parameters, of course).
>
>I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>encouraging others to do the same.
>
>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe) rest-day and Sunday
>>working.
>
>So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>during" clause) to work on my booked days off?

No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
have available to pull.

Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as doing
whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t86n60$k3u$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:58:08 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>I'm still not exactly sure what the infamous "box cutters" looked
>>like, because while popular culture conflates it with Stanley knife,
>>the name properly refers to something a lot more like a letter-opener
>>with a shielded blade.
>>
>> <https://images.tooled-up.com/artwork/prodzoom/90503_1.jpg?404=default&
>> w=500&h=500&dpr=1.0>
>
>There are also imtermediate devices which are essentially Stanley knives
>with sprung blades, normally retracted but which extend when the handle is
>gripped. But there are loads of different styles of knife sold as “box
>cutters”.

Mindful that you are looking at what's for sale 20yrs later. When I
looked up "box cutters" in 2001, it was the letter-opener kind, and
specifically ones that sliced off the right-angle folds to get into a
box, rather than cutting the sticky tape itself. Especially the tape
down the middle of the lid, which can easily damage the contents if done
carelessly.
--
Roland Perry

On 13/06/2022 07:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t858vk$pv0$6@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:40 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the
>>> staff,
>>> including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to Gibraltar
>>> service.
>>
>> We have several Spanish people working at my TOC. And Polish, French, and
>> plenty of other nationalities.
>>
>> Perhaps your pilot was already living and working in the UK before
>> Brexit,
>> and has Settled Status? And presumably that particular set of crew don't
>> only work the flights to Gibraltar, but work to many destinations in
>> turn,
>> just like other air crew?
>
> It wasn't uncommon for cabin crew (BA especially) to live as ex-pats in
> Spain, and get a "priv" flight back to Heathrow for the start of their
> shift. How that intersects with "working hours" - which normally exclude
> even extended commutes, is another matter.

When I worked at Television Centre we had a floor manager who was
married to an Aer Lingus pilot. They lived in Dublin and she commuted on
priv tickets.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 13/06/2022 07:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> From
>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>>
>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>
>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>> Shapps
>>>>
>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>
>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a
>>>> summer of
>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>
>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>> drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.
>
> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
> those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.
>
> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to do
> all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
> routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
> could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
> (or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.
>
>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>
>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and action
>> short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>> ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>> That is official industrial action.
>>
>> Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>> circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their booked
>> rest
>> days (within certain parameters, of course).
>>
>> I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>> 'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>> would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>> particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>> encouraging others to do the same.
>>
>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe)  rest-day and Sunday working.
>>
>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>
> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
> have available to pull.
>
> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as doing
> whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.

And the treasury is not going to allow them to send the money it is
going to take to sort it out. One of the many benefits of nationalisation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t86n60$k3u$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:58:08 on Mon, 13 Jun
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> I'm still not exactly sure what the infamous "box cutters" looked
>>> like, because while popular culture conflates it with Stanley knife,
>>> the name properly refers to something a lot more like a letter-opener
>>> with a shielded blade.
>>>
>>> <https://images.tooled-up.com/artwork/prodzoom/90503_1.jpg?404=default&
>>> w=500&h=500&dpr=1.0>
>>
>> There are also imtermediate devices which are essentially Stanley knives
>> with sprung blades, normally retracted but which extend when the handle is
>> gripped. But there are loads of different styles of knife sold as “box
>> cutters”.
>
> Mindful that you are looking at what's for sale 20yrs later. When I
> looked up "box cutters" in 2001, it was the letter-opener kind, and
> specifically ones that sliced off the right-angle folds to get into a
> box, rather than cutting the sticky tape itself. Especially the tape
> down the middle of the lid, which can easily damage the contents if done
> carelessly.

I remember looking at the time and the only ones I could find were the
“blade-in-a-hook” type. I remember hearing/reading (I don’t remember
which) speculation that they could be broken apart to extract the blade,
but I think that was only speculation.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t86r6f$emh$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:06:39 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t86n60$k3u$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:58:08 on Mon, 13 Jun
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> I'm still not exactly sure what the infamous "box cutters" looked
>>>> like, because while popular culture conflates it with Stanley knife,
>>>> the name properly refers to something a lot more like a letter-opener
>>>> with a shielded blade.
>>>>
>>>> <https://images.tooled-up.com/artwork/prodzoom/90503_1.jpg?404=default&
>>>> w=500&h=500&dpr=1.0>
>>>
>>> There are also imtermediate devices which are essentially Stanley knives
>>> with sprung blades, normally retracted but which extend when the handle is
>>> gripped. But there are loads of different styles of knife sold as “box
>>> cutters”.
>>
>> Mindful that you are looking at what's for sale 20yrs later. When I
>> looked up "box cutters" in 2001, it was the letter-opener kind, and
>> specifically ones that sliced off the right-angle folds to get into a
>> box, rather than cutting the sticky tape itself. Especially the tape
>> down the middle of the lid, which can easily damage the contents if done
>> carelessly.
>
>I remember looking at the time and the only ones I could find were the
>“blade-in-a-hook” type. I remember hearing/reading (I don’t remember
>which) speculation that they could be broken apart to extract the blade,
>but I think that was only speculation.

Indeed. But I was disappointed that (even when "inside the tent" so to
speak) I could never find out the details.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t858vj$pv0$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:39 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>> what in practice could a manager have a short 'meeting' with a
>> train driver in the staff canteen about, that would significantly
>> prejudice the break from sitting in the driving cab.
>
>Oh hi, I did a download on you last week and there are a few things which
>came up in that which I'd like to talk about...

I wouldn't characterise that as a "short meeting", and would agree with
the driver that it should be scheduled separately.

....

>Until recently, if we were off work (eg leave, or grouped rest days) when
>the daily sheets for a particular day went up, the roster department had to
>call us and tell us our amended turn of duty on that day; now it's our
>responsibility to look it up online.

And presumably, looking it up online once you've turned up at the
original time, isn't very useful. You've probably only got one "place",
which helps a little. It doesn't scale as well if there are several!
--
Roland Perry

In message <t86p2e$v0t$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:30:21 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 13/06/2022 07:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t858vk$pv0$6@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:40 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> Not sure how BA get round the immigration rules, but a chunk of the
>>>>staff, including one of the pilots, were Spanish on the Heathrow to
>>>>Gibraltar service.
>>>
>>> We have several Spanish people working at my TOC. And Polish, French, and
>>> plenty of other nationalities.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your pilot was already living and working in the UK before
>>>Brexit, and has Settled Status? And presumably that particular set
>>>of crew don't only work the flights to Gibraltar, but work to many
>>>destinations in turn, just like other air crew?

>> It wasn't uncommon for cabin crew (BA especially) to live as ex-pats
>>in Spain, and get a "priv" flight back to Heathrow for the start of
>>their shift. How that intersects with "working hours" - which
>>normally exclude even extended commutes, is another matter.
>
>When I worked at Television Centre we had a floor manager who was
>married to an Aer Lingus pilot. They lived in Dublin and she commuted
>on priv tickets.

A friend worked at BA in I think the "VIP" terminal at Heathrow and she
didn't so much commute, as spend a lot of her rest-days flying round the
world on priv tickets. Came unstuck once when needing to get back from
Delhi and the plane was so full they didn't have any priv seats left
(and presumably the jump-seats all spoken for too).
--
Roland Perry

On 11/06/2022 12:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> Yes and no. In many industries the reverse is true, with significant
> numbers of staff on virtually compulsory telephone standby. What would
> happen if there was a big train wreck, and a hospital needed to invoke
> its major incident procedure. "Sorry, we aren't allowed to phone any
> extra nurses up, to see if they are free to come in".

If you are on compulsory telephone standby then you will be receiving
payment for it, our standby payment was quite a useful sum. We had all
theoretically agree to it but I think many would opt out if it did not
mean colleagues would have to do more standby which would be quite an
imposition at smaller bases though it not stop my two colleagues taking
three (or more?) weeks holiday leaving me on my own doing 24/7 standby
for the whole period.

I found the big problem was not being called out in the middle of the
night but my mobile number being listed as in the internal directory
(there was no listed landline number for the team base). So you could
get someone elsewhere in the company looking up your number and ringing
you with some trivial query when you were off that day. So if I was not
on standby the mobile phone was switched off - I carried a pager but
most people do not know how to send a message to a paper so any message
would be a genuine operational one.

On 11/06/2022 14:42, Graeme Wall wrote:
> See the recent brou-haha about the chairman of Wizz apparently demanding
> that his pilots fly fatigued.
>

I suspect it is being exaggerate by the unions, even the most stupid
manager knows that forcing some to pilot an aircraft when tired could be
very expensive for the company.

We often had to drive somewhere late in the day or drive back late.
Sometimes a bit tired but if you felt too tired then all you to do was
say you felt too tired and clipped the kerb or something. One of our
managers once went out to a fault late in the evening and said he nearly
fell asleep at the wheel. He had tried to get a hotel but did not go
away overnight as often we did so could not find a room.

Again no manager is going force someone to drive if they say they are
unfit to do so,

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> From
>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>
>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>> Shapps
>>>>
>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>
>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of
>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>
>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe) rest-day and Sunday
>>> working.
>>
>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>
> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
> have available to pull.
>

If you want to force "minimum numbers of [train crew] to work" (to cover
the booked weekday service) during "also applicable to non-strikes such as
[not working] rest days", then someone's going to have to be forced to work
rest days, because there are no agency staff who can cover that.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-06-13 06:54:50 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> From
>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>
>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>> Shapps
>>>>
>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>
>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of
>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>
>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>> drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.
>
> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
> those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.

Getting a bunch of maintenance work done is not going to help keep the
trains running on strike days.

> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to
> do all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
> routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
> could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
> (or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.

Whether the wires are up or not has little bearing if the signallers,
guards etc are all on strike.

>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>
>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and action
>> short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>> ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>> That is official industrial action.
>>
>> Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>> circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their booked rest
>> days (within certain parameters, of course).
>>
>> I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>> 'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>> would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>> particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>> encouraging others to do the same.
>>
>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe) rest-day and Sunday working.
>>
>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>
> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
> have available to pull.

Does that include aquiescing to the union demands?

> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as
> doing whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.

So we're left with ask people nicely (which is what they do with every
strike anyway), new recruitment (not only will that not have any effect
on a strike next week, there is also no reason to suppose the new
recruits will be any less likely to join the union than the existing
staff), or new contracts (that will need to be negotiated with the
unions). I'm not seeing any of these as good solutions for making the
trains run next week.

Robin

In message <t870p9$a4a$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:42:01 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 11/06/2022 12:31, Roland Perry wrote:

>> Yes and no. In many industries the reverse is true, with significant
>> numbers of staff on virtually compulsory telephone standby. What would
>> happen if there was a big train wreck, and a hospital needed to invoke
>> its major incident procedure. "Sorry, we aren't allowed to phone any
>> extra nurses up, to see if they are free to come in".
>
>If you are on compulsory telephone standby then you will be receiving
>payment for it, our standby payment was quite a useful sum.

I'm not sure how much weight you are placing on the word "compulsory"
there.

I have a friend who works in the NHS and they are on voluntary telephone
standby for specific shifts, and iirc they get £1/hr for that. The
incentive clearly isn't the money for being on standby, but the
opportunity to earn some overtime if actually called. Which I think
includes commute time, because they've had some issues in the past with
people rushing to the hospital only to be told "panic over, you can go
back home now".

Meanwhile I know lots of people who are on telephone standby as a
routine part of their role, and don't get paid anything (either for
being on standby, or for responding).

>We had all theoretically agree to it but I think many would opt out if
>it did not mean colleagues would have to do more standby which would be
>quite an imposition at smaller bases though it not stop my two
>colleagues taking three (or more?) weeks holiday leaving me on my own
>doing 24/7 standby for the whole period.
>
>I found the big problem was not being called out in the middle of the
>night but my mobile number being listed as in the internal directory
>(there was no listed landline number for the team base). So you could
>get someone elsewhere in the company looking up your number and ringing
>you with some trivial query when you were off that day.

Maybe some attention required to the directory software, so that such
entries were annotated in some way. Alternatively, two directory
entries, one for you, and a separate one for you with standby-hat on.

Neither of which are difficult, or pertain to whatever your day-job was.
They just require the HR/IT departments (for whom it *is* their day-job)
to get their act together.

A more self-help approach would be to use a dual-SIM phone, publish the
number of a PAYG SIM, and only answer it/take off divert-to-voicemail
when "on duty". Trusted colleagues could be given the #1 SIM, without it
being published in the directory.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/06/2022 20:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 06:58:37 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2022 05:45, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 10:48:46 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/06/2022 09:14, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61767847>
>>>>> Though there seem doubts about how effective taxes are for controlling
>>>>> behaviour. I was listening earlier in the week to a report that the
>>>>> SNP's minimum pricing of alcohol has had no effect on the amount of
>>>>> drinking in Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>> That wasn't what was reported which was that the more diehard drinkers
>>>> were drinking just as much and spending less on food. The study was
>>>> focused on problem drinkers not on the full range of consumers.
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/07/minimum-alcohol-pricing-causes-poorest-cut-back-food-scotland
>>>
>>> But it was problem drinkers the measures were supposed to target.
>
> The "problem drinkers" in the report are not the full range. It
> doesn't seem to deal with e.g. youngsters getting ratted on cheap
> supermarket drinks. Minimum pricing has only been in force for 4 years
> so it could still be too soon to fully assess the effects.
>
> The survey on teenage drinking was based on a sample of only 50 13-17
> year olds who are possibly not the most reliable survey base.
> https://www.scotsman.com/health/nhs-scotland-study-reveals-no-impact-teen-drinking-minimum-pricing-1396337

Outlets which provide alcohol to 13-year-olds might not be too diligent
about obeying minimum price legislation.

On 13/06/2022 06:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ebSdnQm7p73Rjzj_nZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 23:08:02 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 11/06/2022 12:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <O_adnRgSOdVjyjn_nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 09:53:18 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> Aren't restrictions on phoning staff at home, or insisting that
>>>> staff  are always availale for calls, quite common?
>
>>>  Yes and no. In many industries the reverse is true, with significant
>>> numbers of staff on virtually compulsory telephone standby. What
>>> would happen if there was a big train wreck, and a hospital needed to
>>> invoke its major incident procedure. "Sorry, we aren't allowed to
>>> phone any extra nurses up, to see if they are free to come in".
>>
>> Are there not agreed procedures, rather than a reliance on bugging
>> people who are on holiday or whatever to cover run of the mill issues?
>
> What appears to be missing is an "agreed procedure" for Scotrail to be
> able to call their drivers on a non-work day [nobody mentioned "when on
> holiday in the South of France"] to convey short and helpful messages
> like "we've changed your shift on Tuesday to start an hour later, and
> thought you'd like to know about that, before you come into work on
> Monday and find a note about it in your pigeon hole".

That sounds like a job for a medium which can store the message for the
driver to check whenever they're free and read at their leisure, such as
e-mail or SMS.

On 13/06/2022 12:00, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-06-13 06:54:50 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> From
>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>>>
>>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>>> Shapps
>>>>>
>>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>>
>>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very
>>>>> fast"
>>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a
>>>>> summer of
>>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>>> drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.
>>
>> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
>> those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.
>
> Getting a bunch of maintenance work done is not going to help keep the
> trains running on strike days.
>
>> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to
>> do all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
>> routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
>> could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
>> (or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.
>
> Whether the wires are up or not has little bearing if the signallers,
> guards etc are all on strike.
>
>>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>>
>>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and
>>> action
>>> short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>>> ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>>> That is official industrial action.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>>> circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their
>>> booked rest
>>> days (within certain parameters, of course).
>>>
>>> I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>>> 'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>>> would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>>> particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>>> encouraging others to do the same.
>>>
>>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe)  rest-day and Sunday working.
>>>
>>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>>
>> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
>> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
>> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
>> have available to pull.
>
> Does that include aquiescing to the union demands?
>
>> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as
>> doing whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.
>
> So we're left with ask people nicely (which is what they do with every
> strike anyway), new recruitment (not only will that not have any effect
> on a strike next week, there is also no reason to suppose the new
> recruits will be any less likely to join the union than the existing
> staff), or new contracts (that will need to be negotiated with the
> unions).  I'm not seeing any of these as good solutions for making the
> trains run next week.
>

I have a suspicion that the government actually want a strike in the
immediate future to take the pressure off the by-elections that are
currently being predicted as calamitous for Boris.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:57:47 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/06/2022 12:00, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-06-13 06:54:50 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> From
>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>>>> Shapps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very
>>>>>> fast"
>>>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a
>>>>>> summer of
>>>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>>>> drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.
>>>
>>> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
>>> those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.
>>
>> Getting a bunch of maintenance work done is not going to help keep the
>> trains running on strike days.
>>
>>> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to
>>> do all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
>>> routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
>>> could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
>>> (or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.
>>
>> Whether the wires are up or not has little bearing if the signallers,
>> guards etc are all on strike.
>>
>>>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>>>
>>>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and
>>>> action
>>>> short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>>>> ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>>>> That is official industrial action.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>>>> circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their
>>>> booked rest
>>>> days (within certain parameters, of course).
>>>>
>>>> I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>>>> 'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>>>> would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>>>> particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>>>> encouraging others to do the same.
>>>>
>>>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe)  rest-day and Sunday working.
>>>>
>>>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>>>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>>>
>>> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
>>> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
>>> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
>>> have available to pull.
>>
>> Does that include aquiescing to the union demands?
>>
>>> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as
>>> doing whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.
>>
>> So we're left with ask people nicely (which is what they do with every
>> strike anyway), new recruitment (not only will that not have any effect
>> on a strike next week, there is also no reason to suppose the new
>> recruits will be any less likely to join the union than the existing
>> staff), or new contracts (that will need to be negotiated with the
>> unions).  I'm not seeing any of these as good solutions for making the
>> trains run next week.
>>
>
>I have a suspicion that the government actually want a strike in the
>immediate future to take the pressure off the by-elections that are
>currently being predicted as calamitous for Boris.

Yes, you could well be right. One of the strike days coincides with the by-elections, which will probably depress the
Labour vote and help the Tories.

Plus, there could be a number of other public sector strikes this summer, and the government probably feels that it's
better to start the fight by taking on unpopular unions with relatively highly paid workers, whose services are used by
only a small minority of the population.

In message <t8727c$7e4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:06:36 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> From
>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>>> Shapps
>>>>>
>>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>>
>>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast"
>>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of
>>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>>
>>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe) rest-day and Sunday
>>>> working.
>>>
>>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>>
>> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
>> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
>> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
>> have available to pull.
>
>If you want to force "minimum numbers of [train crew] to work" (to cover
>the booked weekday service) during "also applicable to non-strikes such as
>[not working] rest days", then someone's going to have to be forced to work
>rest days, because there are no agency staff who can cover that.

The agency train drivers are a red herring. And if the minimum number
was perhaps 50%, there should be plenty of scope to move shifts around.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t858vk$pv0$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:49:40 on Sun, 12 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7vjuc$irm$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:19:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7v3ie$78s$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:30 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7upaq$h7$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:45:46 on Fri, 10 Jun 2022,
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 09/06/2022 23:31, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/06/2022 20:51, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which mainline drivers are striking right now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ScotRail drivers are not on strike but are refusing to work rest days.
>>>>>
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think most main and branch lines in Scotland are affected.
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61698822>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The railway shouldn't be run in a way such that it relies on
>>>>>>>> overtime days being worked to run the basic service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem is in some companies the drivers like the guaranteed overtime
>>>>>>> that the old arrangement brings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While creating the opportunity to cause disruption, without all the
>>>>>> bother of actually going on strike.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking about working rest days here, not Sundays. Normal weekdays
>>>>> where the TOC doesn't employ enough drivers to cover the entire
>>>>>roster plus
>>>>> cover for holiday, sickness, training etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drivers have no control over that.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the disputes over the years have involved Sunday overtime bans
>>>
>>> But that's not what's being discussed in this particular sub-thread. As I
>>> highlighted above.
>>
>> But if all Sunday working on Scotrail is rest-days (aka overtime,
>> because no-one is rostered for basic hours on a Sunday), it's all the
>> same phenomenon.
>
>Sundays and RDW are two very different, though related, things. I'm trying
>to keep discussion of them separate, though you and others keep trying to
>conflate them.

I'm trying very hard to keep them as separate use-cases, even though
a great deal of train driving [why are all the other railway jobs always
airbrushed out?] Sunday working is likely to be "overtime" aka "almost
always worked by someone on a rest-day" - because their employer decrees
that all Sundays are by default rest-days. Much of the public are used,
in their jobs, to all Saturdays and Sundays, and BH to be default
rest-days. Apart from those in hospitality, retail and parts of the
NHS/police.

I've known many policemen (mainly detectives) who have essentially 9-5
desk jobs, but obviously have uniformed colleagues covering 24x7 shifts.
Similarly a lot of NHS Outpatients and administration works 9-5, even
though they have colleagues in A&E and on the wards covering 24x7.

As I've said before, local hospitality here is increasingly doing
Wed-Sunday as the working week, although the local Facebook Group lit up
yesterday regarding coffee shops open on a Sunday [turns out probably
only the one at the Garden Centre] and the most obvious High Street
candidate chipped in [on a rest day] "We are a family business and only
open Tue-Sat".

I was somewhat taken aback when I moved to Nottingham to discover the GP
Surgery had a "half day holiday" every Wednesday afternoon, despite not
having the quid-pro-quo of Saturday opening.

>> In the long term, weaponising Sundays has been more widespread than
>> weekday overtime bans.
>>
>>>>> Neither individual drivers, nor the drivers as a whole via the unions,
>>>>> can force the TOCs to employ more or less staff.
>>>>
>>>> Agreeing for all seven days to be part of the regular rosta, no overtime
>>>> unless exceptional, would go a long way to TOCs being able to use the
>>>> money saved to employ more drivers.
>>>
>>> Putting Sundays in the working week won't save money, I think; to get it
>>> agreed you'll need either a pay rise or employ more staff.
>>
>> On the first point, new-driver jobs are vastly oversubscribed,
>
>How many of those applicants subsequently pass the aptitude tests, medical
>requirements and interviews?

That's not disclosed, although even if only 1%, that's four people for
each job.

>> so there's no need to pay more.
>
>There is if you want existing drivers on Sunday-outside contracts to change
>over to Sundays-inside contracts.

The phrase "jobs for life" has a familiar ring, but "restrictive
contracts for life" not so much. People in many industries have to
cope with an evolving landscape, I'm not sure why train drivers feel
so entitled to be excluded from that.

>New recruits is a different matter.
>
>> Plenty of industries (and topically
>> especially hospitality, let alone chain-retail) Sunday is a normal
>> working day. Who do you think makes the beds and cleans the toilets in
>> hotels on a Sunday?
>>
>> Yes, you've have to employ more staff, but I promised in an earlier
>> posting/sub-thread to look at overtime rates for train drivers. It
>> appears everyone is very cagey about this, but my estimate from numerous
>> sketchy sources is that (while perhaps a combination of 15% uplift on
>> basic pay, plus flat rate £50 bonus for a rest day) we are looking at
>> approximately 35% in total. To be fair, that's less than the 1.5x I
>> quoted earlier which is commonplace elsewhere for Weekend/Bank Holiday
>> working, although I've seen some comments regarding 3x pay for train
>> drivers on Bank Holidays.
>
>Bank Holidays are normal working days for us, compensated by extra leave
>days.

So in that sense "not normal". Sounds like overtime being "time off in
lieu" rather than "cash in hand".

>The only time we get enhanced pay for BH is the occasional extra BH
>(eg the recent Jubilee one, for which we got paid extra time, ie double
>time if a booked shift, 2.25 time for rest day, or an extra leave day if
>you weren't working) or when Christmas falls inconveniently.

I didn't think many trains ran on Xmas Day. (Nor more recently Boxing
Day).

FWIW, in my part-time job Xmas Day is one of the two that we aren't
allowed [we have to include it from our annual leave] to work. [The
other is 1st Jan, which due to what I regard as a drafting error, meant
I had to take that ordinary day off, but work the actual New Year BH].

I worked through the whole Jubilee period, and got routine BH
enhancement on the extra day. The other BH was simply Whit Monday (which
would have been a BH too) shifted to the previous week.

>> FWIW increasing numbers of other hospitality and associated jobs in the
>> area are now five-day week with Monday and Tuesday off, which is a bit
>> like back in the day when some shops or service industries open Saturday
>> (but not Sunday) took Monday off (and perhaps Wednesday afternoon) in
>> lieu.
>>
>>> For example, my roster has 26 booked Sundays per year (paid at time and a
>>> quarter for hours worked);
>>
>> OK, so that's not far off my estimate above.
>>
>>> make those be 26 extra
>>
>> I'm not sure what "extra" means here. So I'll take it those Sundays are
>> *not* rest-days being worked, but as go on to say "normal" ones.
>>
>
>What I mean is, my roster currently has 208 working days (4 day week
>equivalent, x52 weeks), plus 26 booked Sundays. If you want to make that
>234 working days, you need to increase my pay by the appropriate amount.
>
>If on the other hand you want to remove 26 working weekdays from my roster
>instead, you need to employ sufficient extra staff to cover the service.
>
>>> normal salaried working days, and I'm gonna want extra pay equivalent
>>> to what I'm currently paid if I work those days.
>>
>> The theme of the thread is whether or not colleagues in
>> Sunday-never-rostered TOCs
>
>There are always Sundays rostered. All that differs is the arrangements for
>being paid for them, and the arrangements for not working any particular
>day.
>
>> would be prepared to forego those 26 days at
>> 1.25x *in addition* to being paid their average 4day week Mon-Sat.
>>
>> Taking 6wks annual leave as an estimate, and 4-day standard working
>> (35hrs a week is I believe the industry norm, so typically a mixture of
>> 8-11hr days, where all short-days isn't enough, and all long-days is far
>> too much) gives 184 days. Which in your case is 158 weekdays and 26
>> Sundays, total basic pay therefore 158 + (26*1.25)/184 = annually 3.5%
>> extra for that shift pattern.
>>
>> Maybe the industry could afford that kind of one-off basic pay rise to
>> fix this problem, given the regular 10% pay claims being put in anyway.
>>
>
>Let's try that again, without the confusion of trying to account for leave,
>which is irrelevant because I still get paid.
>
>26 Sundays x1.25 pay = 32.5 days normal pay. 208 normal working days per
>year makes that around 15% if you simply want to give me 26 extra working
>days per year (plus 15% increase in leave allowance, of course!).
>
>>> If you remove 26 of my current working weekdays instead, you're gonna
>>> need extra drivers to cover that (on a ratio of around 1:14 of existing
>>> drivers, I guess).
>>
>> No, because a 7-day week isn't the norm. You'd actually need rather more
>> because in those TOCs where Sundays is Rest Days, it means they are
>> averaging 5 days not 4 days, so you'd need 25% more drivers. Or actually
>> a few less, because most TOCs have a reduced service on Sundays.
>>
>>> There is an interesting alternative, though: one example is Night Tube,
>>> where drivers were recruited who only worked Friday and Saturday nights;
>>> another is gWr currently recruiting weekend-only Customer Hosts (ie
>>> on-train catering staff) at some depots.
>>
>> I suppose the latter beats what happens on many other InterCity[tm]
>> TOCs, which is a vastly diluted weekend on-train service. They brag
>> about "At seat service in First Class" for example, and forget to
>> mention that at weekends it'll be a stale sandwich and a bag of crisps.
>>
>>> Either way, I don't see where your saving is going to come from.
>>
>> The saving comes from drivers only working 4 day weeks, and therefore
>> not being paid any overtime (at typically 1.35 remember). So you have
>> all that "fifth day" overtime money, plus 35% for extra per-driver
>> overheads, to pay the additional 4-day-but-Sunday-is-1.0x drivers with.
>>
>
>We've established that it's actually 4.5 day week equivalent, which has
>just halved your savings.
>
>
>Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

In message <t875d5$83g$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:51 on Mon, 13 Jun
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-06-13 06:54:50 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> From
>>>>><https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-us
>>>>>ed-b reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/> Agency staff may be
>>>>>used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant Shapps The
>>>>>Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>>>numbers of rail staff to work during strikes Agency workers could
>>>>>be brought in to break strikes under a "very fast" legal change
>>>>>being prepared by the Government in the face of a summer of chaos
>>>>>fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.

>>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained
>>>agency drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room
>>>staff etc.

>> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
>>those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.
>
>Getting a bunch of maintenance work done is not going to help keep the
>trains running on strike days.

It will if the reason they aren't running is wires down or "signal
failures" (which most of the time means "track circuit failures").

>> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to
>>do all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
>>routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
>>could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
>>(or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.
>
>Whether the wires are up or not has little bearing if the signallers,
>guards etc

The original trigger for this strike was laying off Network Rail *track
workers*.

>are all on strike.

But are they (either all of them, or on strike)? How does GTR expect to
run a service - which last time I looked they said they were, because
their drivers had *not* voted for one.

>>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>>> applicable to not-strikes,

>>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and
>>>action short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no
>>>'favours', ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day
>>>working agreement. That is official industrial action. Meanwhile,
>>>individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>>>circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their
>>>booked rest days (within certain parameters, of course). I
>>>remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>>>'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain
>>>Sunday, would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial
>>>action, particularly is a person or persons could be identified who
>>>had been encouraging others to do the same.
>>>
>>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe) rest-day and Sunday
>>>>working.

>>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to
>>>work during" clause) to work on my booked days off?

>> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
>>employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
>>complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
>> have available to pull.
>
>Does that include aquiescing to the union demands?

The only "demand" I'm aware of at the moment is that Network Rail cancel
their plans to save £2bn by laying off some track workers. That's not
something TOCs can get involved in.

>> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as
>>doing whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.
>
>So we're left with ask people nicely (which is what they do with every
>strike anyway), new recruitment (not only will that not have any effect
>on a strike next week, there is also no reason to suppose the new
>recruits will be any less likely to join the union than the existing
>staff), or new contracts (that will need to be negotiated with the
>unions).

Do the existing contracts have *guaranteed* overtime written into them?
If not, nothing here should be a problem. And in any event, we know
there *are* some "new contracts" where Sunday is a normal part of the
working week (rather than something which requires overtime).

>I'm not seeing any of these as good solutions for making the trains run
>next week.

I'm looking long term at the moment. How can we create a regime that
doesn't weaponise things like voluntary Sunday working (and weekday
voluntary overtime) being the only way to keep trains running.
--
Roland Perry

On 13/06/2022 13:22, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:57:47 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/06/2022 12:00, Bob wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-13 06:54:50 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <t84k32$7ur$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:53:06 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t83p9g$cdk$2@dont-email.me>, at 04:15:44 on Sun, 12 Jun
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/11/agency-staff-may-used-b
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reak-marxist-union-strikes-says-grant/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agency staff may be used to break 'Marxist' union strikes, says Grant
>>>>>>> Shapps
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Government also plans to introduce separate laws requiring minimum
>>>>>>> numbers of rail staff to work during strikes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agency workers could be brought in to break strikes under a "very
>>>>>>> fast"
>>>>>>> legal change being prepared by the Government in the face of a
>>>>>>> summer of
>>>>>>> chaos fuelled by "Marxist" barons, the Transport Secretary said.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure where he thinks he's going to find suitably-trained agency
>>>>> drivers, guards, dispatch staff, signallers, control room staff etc.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect he's referring to replacing Network Rail track staff with
>>>> those from companies which do rail infrastructure building.
>>>
>>> Getting a bunch of maintenance work done is not going to help keep the
>>> trains running on strike days.
>>>
>>>> Not sure if they ever fully followed through, but there was a plan to
>>>> do all *maintenance* in house, but there's a fine line between major
>>>> routine maintenance and build. But a contractor who installs new OHL
>>>> could just as easily send people to deal with a "wires down" incident
>>>> (or be on standby to deal with it), if there was the political will.
>>>
>>> Whether the wires are up or not has little bearing if the signallers,
>>> guards etc are all on strike.
>>>
>>>>>> Without wishing to become a bore, I hope that this might also be
>>>>>> applicable to not-strikes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Most strike ballots now have two 'in favour' options - strike, and
>>>>> action
>>>>> short of a strike. The latter can include work to rule (eg no 'favours',
>>>>> ad-hoc overtime etc.) and withdrawal of the rest day working agreement.
>>>>> That is official industrial action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, individuals are free to choose, depending on their personal
>>>>> circumstances, whether or not to work days of overtime on their
>>>>> booked rest
>>>>> days (within certain parameters, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember a number of occasions in the past where everyone,
>>>>> 'coincidentally', deciding not to work rest days, or a certain Sunday,
>>>>> would potentially be deemed to be unofficial industrial action,
>>>>> particularly is a person or persons could be identified who had been
>>>>> encouraging others to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> such as withdrawing from (perfectly safe)  rest-day and Sunday working.
>>>>>
>>>>> So... you want to force me (via the "minimum number of staff to work
>>>>> during" clause) to work on my booked days off?
>>>>
>>>> No-one would be forcing *you*; this measure would be forcing your
>>>> employers to find a way to achieve minimum staffing levels (while
>>>> complying with Hidden and similar rules) using whatever levers they
>>>> have available to pull.
>>>
>>> Does that include aquiescing to the union demands?
>>>
>>>> Which could include new recruitment, and new contracts, as well as
>>>> doing whatever they can through existing staff and contracts.
>>>
>>> So we're left with ask people nicely (which is what they do with every
>>> strike anyway), new recruitment (not only will that not have any effect
>>> on a strike next week, there is also no reason to suppose the new
>>> recruits will be any less likely to join the union than the existing
>>> staff), or new contracts (that will need to be negotiated with the
>>> unions).  I'm not seeing any of these as good solutions for making the
>>> trains run next week.
>>>
>>
>> I have a suspicion that the government actually want a strike in the
>> immediate future to take the pressure off the by-elections that are
>> currently being predicted as calamitous for Boris.
>
> Yes, you could well be right. One of the strike days coincides with the by-elections, which will probably depress the
> Labour vote and help the Tories.
>

Probably the daftest idea by a union leader since Scargill did
Thatcher's bidding. But then Lynch is desperate to try and prove he can
succeed where Scargill failed.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.