Southern Rail STRIKE details

Hastings gull said:

Unfortunately Ernest cannot respond as I am on his ignore or whatever list, bless him, but there is something I do not understand here, and would be grateful if someone genuinely in the know could help. When the CEO of SASTA announced a couple of days ago a raft of concessions, offers, or whatever you want to call it, one of them was that overtime would be guaranteed. He, who must ignore me, has repeatedly said that a central theme is one of low staffing levels, but if the CEO feels it necessary to assure staff that overtime will always be available, that suggests to me that the staff would not want "normal" staffing levels, as then overtime would not be an option, and cut their earnings, which would be understandable. This is not a loaded question, as I genuinely have no axe to grind either way, but am intrigued as to something that does not seem to add up.

Click to expand...

Yoda said:

What are you on about? I posted figures ages ago about their level of service. They had been shite for at least 6 months prior to the dispute started and the 'sniffles' excuse Southern were using when THEY temporarily banned overtime.

Click to expand...

Ernest said:

It was when GTR took over the Southern franchise that the troubles started

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

Having a bad day, hun?

As I say my own personal perception was that the service wasn't anywhere near as bad pre-dispute as it has been during dispute. Maybe I'm wrong. That can happen with perceptions.

Beyond that, as I said, as a layman, it seems as though are many factors outside the direct control of SASTA, particularly on the Brighton <--> London mainline, that can completely ripple things. Again, maybe that's wrong too.

Hugz x

Click to expand...

Ernest said:

You are on THE list not IGNORED , it was spin by a DESPERATE CEO to keep his job, the RMT policy is there should be NO overtime and a REDUCTION in working hours

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

My own view is that this has been coming for a while. When network south Central ran the route (when I started commuting in 1996) they had old trains and minimal customer service. But trains were generally on time. When connex ran it, things got hugely worse in terms of reliability.

When southern first took over I would say things got better in terms of customer care, trains and reliability. Staff seemed genuinely happy to work for them.

The downward trend I think started when southern took on the Gatwick express (extended to Brighton) and then reached rock bottom when they also took on thameslink and formed gtr. The lack of drivers and conductors started to show (including two precious emergency timetables to cover this) long before the industrial dispute started.

Since then the approach to dealing with that dispute (especially for a franchise that relied on overtime and staff flexibility) has been gung Ho ro calamitous.

So in short, my view is that the industrial dispute is a symptom of the bad performance and not the cause

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

Thankfully it is just THE list, and I hope that Jakarta and Chicken Run will be able to survive that without an extended run of counselling. I am going to try and overcome the trauma. Somehow I knew it would not be the ignore list since you invariably have so much to say.
I don't know about a desperate CEO, and assume that this is just your biased view? Again, something does not add up and your post does nothing to answer my question. So, the RMT policy is for their members to have less take-home pay, as they would be working less hours and have no chance to enhance their earnings with overtime rates? Yet a so-called embattled CEO is offering overtime?? If the RMT want them to hire more staff, which I assume is what you mean when you harp on about low staffing levels, then that policy would surely mean more but individually less well-paid staff?
Again, I must stress that I have little experience of how the system works, but, like anyone else, would like to know more about the whole saga, and with respect, what you have come up with so far is difficult to comprehend.

Click to expand...

Ernest said:

Less hours , more pay is the RMT policy and overtime payments such as enforced overtime on a Sunday which is what Horton might be on about with guaranteed overtime , which will be covered by holiday pay thanks to our friends in Brussels.
I believe that will be the next dispute on SASTA if they refuse to implement the Euro policy on holiday pay.

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

I think you will find that that is everyone's policy. . . But life does not always work like that. On the subject of more pay: My sister-in-law in Essex's neighbour is a retired tube driver and he told us that when the dispute with RMT about Boxing Day payments started, for tube drivers to work on that day, they wanted triple time and a day off in lieu....... The late and unlamented Bob Crow cried out that the management was treating the staff like slaves, when the employers understandably refused such blatant greed and blackmail.

By the way,you are starting to become rather vague - is it what Horton wants or not? So, Southern staff are all forced to work on a Sunday? and is "enforced overtime" as you call it, also RMT policy?

Click to expand...

pearl said:

now I understand why you are on the LIST

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

Considering that he has never explained what the list is for, and what it represents, it makes you look rather foolish when you comment that you understand . . .

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

My own view is that this has been coming for a while. When network south Central ran the route (when I started commuting in 1996) they had old trains and minimal customer service. But trains were generally on time. When connex ran it, things got hugely worse in terms of reliability.

When southern first took over I would say things got better in terms of customer care, trains and reliability. Staff seemed genuinely happy to work for them.

The downward trend I think started when southern took on the Gatwick express (extended to Brighton) and then reached rock bottom when they also took on thameslink and formed gtr. The lack of drivers and conductors started to show (including two precious emergency timetables to cover this) long before the industrial dispute started.

Since then the approach to dealing with that dispute (especially for a franchise that relied on overtime and staff flexibility) has been gung Ho ro calamitous.

So in short, my view is that the industrial dispute is a symptom of the bad performance and not the cause

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

My own view is that this has been coming for a while. When network south Central ran the route (when I started commuting in 1996) they had old trains and minimal customer service. But trains were generally on time. When connex ran it, things got hugely worse in terms of reliability.

When southern first took over I would say things got better in terms of customer care, trains and reliability. Staff seemed genuinely happy to work for them.

The downward trend I think started when southern took on the Gatwick express (extended to Brighton) and then reached rock bottom when they also took on thameslink and formed gtr. The lack of drivers and conductors started to show (including two precious emergency timetables to cover this) long before the industrial dispute started.

Since then the approach to dealing with that dispute (especially for a franchise that relied on overtime and staff flexibility) has been gung Ho ro calamitous.

So in short, my view is that the industrial dispute is a symptom of the bad performance and not the cause

Click to expand...

pearl said:

YEP! but as Bob Crowe was only 51 (I think) when he died I feel his passing was lamentable

Click to expand...

Alex said:

I'm not familiar with the facilities available at these stations for the disabled cohort you mention; my underlying point is about the treatment by Southern of all disabled passengers/customers ("all" being as defined in the current legislation) both at the station(s) and on board their DOO service which, as proposed, will seemingly have no passenger accessible staff on board who are trained for the situations that could arise.
My nearest SASTA station, Billingshurst, is unmanned after the ticket office closes around mid-day and has ramped wheelchair to the road from both platforms; I have not witnessed anyone trying to disembark at Billingshurst with a wheelchair.
Next nearest is Farncombe (SWT); as Billingshurst, the station is unmanned from early afternoon and both platforms have ramped access to the road. SWT train guards will see you off/on the train via a portable ramp if needed and ensure you're ok before departing. I've also witnessed one guard on the route dealing with a cancer patient on chemo who had developed a fever - paramedic ambulance crew were at the coach stopping point when the train pulled into Guildford station, approx 5 mins from the cancer unit at the Royal Surrey County Hospital.

"Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010"

You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.


What ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ mean

‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed

‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection


There are special rules about recurring or fluctuating conditions, eg arthritis.


Progressive conditions

A progressive condition is one that gets worse over time. People with progressive conditions can be classed as disabled.

However, you automatically meet the disability definition under the Equality Act 2010 from the day you’re diagnosed with HIV infection, cancer or multiple sclerosis.

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

Yes, you are quite right in that respect -you would not wish death on anyone at that relatively young age. I was actually intending to qualify that "unlamentable" bit by saying that it was professionally unlamentable, but then forgot. Does that seem reasonable? However, he did epitomise the bombastic, dogmatic union activist, whose tunnel vision caused many problems. True, his responsibility was to his members, who paid his rather generous salary, but there is such a thing as the wider world, which he and his ilk did and still do not seem to appreciate.

Click to expand...

St Leonards Seagull said:

I know very little about this dispute anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I have read in the media that if you require disabled access to a train you will need to give 24hrs notice.
If this is true then surely this is discrimination towards people with disabilities and against the law.
This would not be acceptable in any other circumstance. For example you wouldn't have to inform a shop that you plan to visit 24hrs in advance that you wish to visit and therefore could they arrange disabled access for a particular time.
Also what would happen if Southern cancel the train that you had pre arranged 24 hrs earlier? Would you automatically have disabled access to the next train?

I'm surprised that more has not been made of this issue as it's clearly unacceptable.

Click to expand...

pearl said:

i wish he was still around and i don't think treble pay for working a bank holiday is greedy. If it wasn't for the trade union movement (and suffregettes) we wouldn't have bank holidays, but i guess i am a stupid old fool

Click to expand...

pearl said:

i wish he was still around and i don't think treble pay for working a bank holiday is greedy. If it wasn't for the trade union movement (and suffregettes) we wouldn't have bank holidays, but i guess i am a stupid old fool

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

If my relatives in the Old Bill are required to work on their days off or on Bank Holidays, then the amount they are paid is considerably less than that, and I am sure that that goes for every other walk of life. Significantly, you do not mention the day off in lieu -presumably you think this is also reasonable in addition? If that is your view, then you are entitled to it, but I doubt that many employers would think that triple pay and a day off in lieu is reasonable.
Your second sentence is of course a throw-away line to lend a bit of credence to your first assertion - I am sure that very few people would deny that trade unions in the past and present have been responsible for much social progress, and improvement of working conditions and pay. Whether all their actions can be justified because of this, is another matter.

Click to expand...