Re: Guards to Drive During Olympics?

[craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick)]

In <381bb81d@pink.one.net.au> "John" <johnst@aics.net.au> writes:

>Hi All,
>According to a report in today's Sunday Telegraph and on radio, Guards are
>to drive during the Olympics owing to a shortage of drivers.
>Is this correct?

No, that is not correct. Guards can apply to become drivers, after which
they cease to be guards and are full-time drivers, but guards can only drive
a train during the normal course of their duties in an emergency situation
where the driver is injured, and in this situation the guard may move the
train in the *forward* direction at not more than 2nd notch (full series) to
the next platform in advance.

>Or is it making mention of the current program of recruiting Guards to
>become Drivers fulltime?

I think that was meant to be the gist of is, but as usual the media did not
research things properly and 'beat it up' so-to-speak to suit their rather
ratings-hungry editorial 'fat controllers'.

>There seems to be a controversy regarding the training period of 14 weeks in
>the report. This is more than the current 12 weeks which for sure is far too
>short. At least it is an improvement!

8-) Without wanting to cast doubt on anyone's individual abilities, there is
a distinct lack of time to gain enough experience in the 12 week training
period. And this is already seeing a lot of operational problems because new
staff just don't have the experience to be able to handle a lot of unusual
situations.

The phrase 'Zero to Hero in 12 weeks' is a term commonly touted, which is
(c)1999 by one of the other drivers here at Waterfall depot! 8-)

>There seems to be a bit of a panic on the SRA's part. Both Drivers and
>Guards have functional agreements on the SRA's table at the moment involving
>working longer hours during the Olympic period. This reduces the need for as
>many new train crew. Is this panic warranted?

Management are panicing because they want us (the rank and file) to agree to
work longer hours, etc. etc. with very little compensation. And the problems
are not just related to rate of pay or conditions (which should *never* be
traded off against each other).

The biggest issue at the moment is the debate about train crew fatigue. If
we're going to run a 24 hour timetable for a lot of next year, the number of
fatigue-related incidents will tend to increase markedly, and this is a very
serious liability problem.

Generally a driver or guard isn't going to be held responsible if he's in an
incident where the prime cause is identified as fatigue due to working
conditions, roster pattern, etc. and this would reflect very badly in legal
terms on State Rail.

A side issue is that there are legal problems with altering the working
conditions for the Olympics, etc. because unless the EBA exemptions which
are granted to allow the 'fatigue rostering' (and other changes) to be
brought in are worded very carefully, after a period of two weeks the
existing EBA becomes null and void, and the new conditions become mandatory
by default. 

There is no way that I want to be working a 9.5 hour shift, with a 20 minute
mealbreak (that's all we get now, plus some walking time which makes the
minimum mealbreak time 32 minutes), and spending up to 4 hours driving one
train without a break (that does not include changing ends at a terminating
station BTW) at the start of the shift, and doing the same thing after my
meal break...

Then combine this with an increase in the km's they want to roster us to do,
as well as the plan to run trains 24/7 during the Easter show and the two
Olympic meets next year, and it all gets very murky on the fatigue issue...

Then there are a lot of other side issues, such as National Rail drivers who
are coming back to to Cityrail. Then *resigned* from their jobs with
CityRail so they do not deserve to re-gain their old seniority levels, etc.
They should start right back at the bottom with all the other new recruits.

Another issue is what will happen will all the surplus staff at the end of
next year? Nobody is being told whether there are plans to get rid of the
older (and generally *much* more experienced and understanding of how
hard-fought the current working conditions are) drivers and guards via
redundancies, etc... By law the SRA can't offer redundancies to just older
workers since that's regarded as discrimination.

>Also, if the above is proposed won't there be a shortage of Guards if their
>numbers are drained for this?

No, because there are just as many guard's schools running as their are
driver's schools...

Regards,

Craig.
-- 
            Craig Ian Dewick            |       Stand clear - jaws closing
 Send email to craigd@lios.apana.org.au |  Visit my Australian rail transport
   Professional Train Driver, Cityrail  |      and rail modelling web site:
       and HO scale rail modeller       |   http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd