Southern Rail Unions

[MK Shrimper]

only if they've been there long enough.

Very true.

 

[Firestorm]

You don't know anything about me, I'm not the Tory "poster boy" you think I am. I just align more with their policies than any other major party.

Whether it's right or wrong, it shouldn't be allowed as it stinks of inequality across the board. All in or All out. In fact, more so the travel industry shouldn't be allowed since they are threatening the livelihoods of people who are not responsible for the reasons for the strike.

By the way, the guy I mentioned.... Was fired yesterday largely in part of Southern. I hope they feel better about that.

I would imagine that being fired because of the train service you use is a bit harsh.

Could he have been fired because he was consistently late ? much the same as several people who I knew on the Fenchurch street line back in the day, oddly though I knew several others who chose to leave home earlier in the morning to take the regular delays into consideration, funnily enough they didn't lose their jobs.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Just to state, I have never been on strike, though if my Union called for it then I'd be there. Some Unions are far more militant than others - mine (TSSA) was rumoured to be merging with the RMT and I'd have been off like a shot.

In this day and age of Wifi, Skype and laptops how many people could work from home? An accountant surely could, a train guard most definitely not. How many people make a point of battling to get into the office just to sit at a desk all day?

And sacking someone due to a cause that is not their own is illegal, and a case of unfair dismissal could be launched.

If businesses always treated staff fairly there would be no need for unions, but many don't so they are necessary.
If Southern Rail treat their staff as badly as they treat their customers then a union is very necessary.

The dispute is about who is responsible for closing the doors safely. The staff know that this is a tool for job losses in the future - if it wasn't why would Southern be prepared to lose so many days of operations just to shift responsibility from one member of staff to another?

As a Southern customer I know for a fact they lie, know for a fact they cheat the system, know for a fact they give out misleading information. It is no surprise to me that their staff don't trust them either.

In terms of unfair dismissal - the current government made changes to the rules so that you now need to be in a job for two years before you can claim unfair dismissal and you have to pay £2,000 to take a case at an employment tribunal. So if the legal system is made to be inaccessible for individuals then unions become even more important to protect employment rights.

 

[Firestorm]

Govia , who run the southern rail franchise, are 35% French owned, maybe they are endeavouring to get as much money out of the Franchise as quickly as possible ? At the expense of rail safety and Jobs

 

[superblue24]

How many people make a point of battling to get into the office just to sit at a desk all day?

More than you would think. If you take a stroll out in the City of London at lunchtime or after 5PM, you'll see just how many make this point. Me being one of them.

In this day and age of Wifi, Skype and laptops how many people could work from home? An accountant surely could, a train guard most definitely not.

Well, I do a job that often requires data validation and having two monitors greatly enhances my productivity. I don't have two monitors at home so I suspect I would be running at a much lower level of work output. That's before I even factor in my children who make it impossible to get anything done from home. Of course my use of the word "impossible" is less valid than a train guard, but the same goes for anyone with a "customer facing" line of work....For example, supermarket cashiers.

And sacking someone due to a cause that is not their own is illegal, and a case of unfair dismissal could be launched.

Correct. But this situation would never have arisen had the train strikes not happened. His actions were unexpected and unbecoming of how our employees need to respond to adverse conditions.

He has been employed with us for less than 6 months, so he also comes under the category of "not being here long enough"

 

[superblue24]

If businesses always treated staff fairly there would be no need for unions, but many don't so they are necessary.

But there are many companies who treat their employees unfairly and do not have unions.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

But there are many companies who treat their employees unfairly and do not have unions.

yes, and employees at Sports Direct or Mr Roux's restaurants who would be well advised to act collectively probably don't do so for rear of being victimized by their employer.

I have been in that situation before and made use of the employment tribunal service, but if it happened now I would be priced out of standing up for my employment rights in that way.

Reduced union membership and reduced access to employment tribunals being followed by an increase in low paid / unsecure work and zero hours contracts is no coincidence.

 

[superblue24]

yes, and employees at Sports Direct or Mr Roux's restaurants who would be well advised to act collectively probably don't do so for rear of being victimized by their employer.

I have been in that situation before and made use of the employment tribunal service, but if it happened now I would be priced out of standing up for my employment rights in that way.

Reduced union membership and reduced access to employment tribunals being followed by an increase in low paid / unsecure work and zero hours contracts is no coincidence.

Agree with most of that, but how do you solve the inequality caused by those that strike and those that cannot?

It needs to across the board, or not at all.

 

[superblue24]

As a Southern customer I know for a fact they lie, know for a fact they cheat the system, know for a fact they give out misleading information. It is no surprise to me that their staff don't trust them either.

You could say that the union members themselves are lying by citing "Safety Concerns" as the reason for the strikes, which we all know is not the real reason

 

[MK Shrimper]

You could say that the union members themselves are lying by citing "Safety Concerns" as the reason for the strikes, which we all know is not the real reason

Nobody goes on strike because they fancy a day off. People lose money and entitlements to bonus payments. If they want a day off, people chuck a sickie or use an annual leave day.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You could say that the union members themselves are lying by citing "Safety Concerns" as the reason for the strikes, which we all know is not the real reason

I don't think they are lying about safety concerns, most days on Southern Rail there are issues with closing the doors due to overcrowding. If there is an accident the person who is responsible for closing the doors is potentially liable, and at the moments the guards are paid to take on that responsibility.

I suspect they will have a eye on how Southern would potentially use that to promote driver only trains in the future. But from the official Southern stance of no changes to manning levels it makes no sense to move safety responsibility from someone who does want it and put it on someone who doesn't.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Agree with most of that, but how do you solve the inequality caused by those that strike and those that cannot?

It needs to across the board, or not at all.

pretty much everyone has the right to join a union and the right to withdraw their labour. There are lots of industries or companies where Union membership is discouraged. How do you bridge that inequality? Strengthen the rights to Union membership specifically and employment rights generally. So, the opposite of what is currently happening.

 

[superblue24]

I don't think they are lying about safety concerns, most days on Southern Rail there are issues with closing the doors due to overcrowding. If there is an accident the person who is responsible for closing the doors is potentially liable, and at the moments the guards are paid to take on that responsibility.

I suspect they will have a eye on how Southern would potentially use that to promote driver only trains in the future. But from the official Southern stance of no changes to manning levels it makes no sense to move safety responsibility from someone who does want it and put it on someone who doesn't.

It may be a truth, but it's not the reason they're striking.... Come on now...

 

[superblue24]

pretty much everyone has the right to join a union and the right to withdraw their labour. There are lots of industries or companies where Union membership is discouraged. How do you bridge that inequality? Strengthen the rights to Union membership specifically and employment rights generally. So, the opposite of what is currently happening.

But how do you deal with it in the short term? This is something unlikely to get sorted in parliament, or even voted in. So how do we resolve the inequality and lack of inclusiveness of one industry/firm that offers a union and one that doesn't?

Also, how does one go about creating a union without being viewed as "disruptive"?

 

[superblue24]

Nobody goes on strike because they fancy a day off. People lose money and entitlements to bonus payments. If they want a day off, people chuck a sickie or use an annual leave day.

I'm not suggesting that people in unions see it as a "doss day". But the opportunity to register discontent by striking is not something that can replicated across industries/firms and is therefore a privilege others do not share.

The real options are to enable unions in EVERY company (like pensions are now mandatory), or abolish them

 

[MK Shrimper]

I'm not suggesting that people in unions see it as a "doss day". But the opportunity to register discontent by striking is not something that can replicated across industries/firms and is therefore a privilege others do not share.

The real options are to enable unions in EVERY company (like pensions are now mandatory), or abolish them

Again, Union membership is voluntary. You seem to want more industrial action, not less.

 

[Bielzibubz]

***, your £2000.00 industrial claim fee is somewhat wide of the mark.

Industrial tribunal cases come under two categories, type A and type B. For type A claims the maximum you will have to pay is £390.00 For tybe B claims the maximum you'll have to pay is £1200.00. The claim being debated here would be a type B claim and would therefore cost no more than £1200.00 total to bring it to hearing. There are other 'top up' fees which may be applicable depending on the specific case being heard but for your typical unfair dismissal claim it's £1200.00.

Also, if your on a low income such as minimum wage you may not have to pay the fees at all. This is called 'Fee Remission' and will depend solely on your monthly or annual income and expenditure and any benefits you may be claiming. All fees, should you win, are usually ordered to be paid by the other participant should you win your case.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

***, your £2000.00 industrial claim fee is somewhat wide of the mark.

Industrial tribunal cases come under two categories, type A and type B. For type A claims the maximum you will have to pay is £390.00 For tybe B claims the maximum you'll have to pay is £1200.00. The claim being debated here would be a type B claim and would therefore cost no more than £1200.00 total to bring it to hearing. There are other 'top up' fees which may be applicable depending on the specific case being heard but for your typical unfair dismissal claim it's £1200.00.

Also, if your on a low income such as minimum wage you may not have to pay the fees at all. This is called 'Fee Remission' and will depend solely on your monthly or annual income and expenditure and any benefits you may be claiming. All fees, should you win, are usually ordered to be paid by the other participant should you win your case.

I was made redundant from a position a few years ago that I had been in for exactly a year. I filed a tribunal case and after a bit of negotiation the company paid me £4,000 for unfair dismissal before the case went to a hearing.
Now the rules are harsher towards the worker - from your stats above I would have had to pay £1,200 to lodge my case, except as you now have no rights until 2 years of employment I would not have been able to lodge a tribunal even if I could have found £1,200 to risk on the case outcome.
So under the old rules I was unfairly dismissed and was compensated.
Under the current government rules I was unfairly dismissed and could do nothing about that.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Having put up with the crush on alternate routes to work the last two days due to strikes on Southern Rail I rewarded myself with a mild lie in by getting the 8.32 to Victoria. Except no Victoria trains were showing on the board so I asked if there were signalling problems or something and was told the last train to Victoria (they are timetabled to run throughout the day) is 8.16am and then they run no more trains due to......overtime ban.

This is is Southern Rail - unless their drivers work overtime they don't employ enough staff to run trains other than an couple of hours in the morning and evening rush hour.

This is is why commuters on that line want TFL to take over.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Having put up with the crush on alternate routes to work the last two days due to strikes on Southern Rail I rewarded myself with a mild lie in by getting the 8.32 to Victoria. Except no Victoria trains were showing on the board so I asked if there were signalling problems or something and was told the last train to Victoria (they are timetabled to run throughout the day) is 8.16am and then they run no more trains due to......overtime ban.

This is is Southern Rail - unless their drivers work overtime they don't employ enough staff to run trains other than an couple of hours in the morning and evening rush hour.

This is is why commuters on that line want TFL to take over.

Think that's pretty standard practice for all TOCs, certainly on London Midland. It's not so easy to just hire somebody off the street, there's a 6 month route learning phase that all drivers have to go through.