Guards on trains

Trisher if I see any serious research/emreview that calls into question what the Regulator says I would happily change my mind. But their report looks pretty comprehensive to me. In any event as I keep on saying I am all for guards where it can be seen that one is needed.

Imagine a society where ninety per cent of the population lose their jobs and are unemployed. Would the ten per cent support them Fitz? Not in this political climate. There would be food banks in place of Marks and Spencer and people living and dying on every street pavement. One member of this government has even suggested that pensioners should work to earn their retirement pension. ( I wouldn't be surprised if he were to demand smaller pensioners climb up chimneys).

blueskies, your post made me gasp. I didn't know an MP had suggested we work for our retirement pension, I thought I'd done that from age 17 onwards. You are of course right in suggesting that it's unlikely the minority would support the majority if given a choice. That's why we need a welfare state isn't it.

Fitzy. Strange to trust a regulator when you dont know them[you have no vested interest so you cant].

I also dont understand you when you say that we all have to get very obsessive about the job market, but yet you want to redeploy guards.
Do you rally think that they will just move around jobs, and no jobs will be lost?

Oh, I asked about whether you had a vested interest because
a. that might explain some of your posts
b. I have learnt on here, that it can be that a regular poster doesnt post in the way that you think they are going to , and it can turn out to be that they have a vested interest in some way[a family member doing or having done that job for instance].
There is a c. I think, but I have forgotten it!

Ankers - i have absolutely no vested interest. I generally trust reports by Regulators when they appear thorough. It's the Regulators job to look into safety and that's what they have done. Unlike the companies, the Govt. and the unions they don't have a vested interest, except in ensuring safe railways. All the others have clear conflicts.
What I want is for nobody to lose their job. And I do believe that it's possible to do a deal in which that happens. If the unions try, but don't get the guarantees they need, whether they be around proven safety issues (e.g. I think they have said that the company proposals don't include adequate training), then they can truly justify industrial action.
Blueskies - I agree. Sounds terrible. Exactly why we (including the rail companies and unions) need to properly think through and discuss how to avoid it. The answer certainly isn't the old style employment demarcation.

Thank you for that.
I looked up the Office for Rail Regulators or whatever it is called, and it comes up under Gov UK. So presumably the government pays their wages?

I personally dont trust that the guards will all get different jobs. Or what might happen is, yes they do for a bit, and then 6 months later?

I am getting annoyed with technology.

They are civil servants - the unions say this means they are not independent. However they don't report in to a ministry so are pretty much independent in my book. In terms of guarantees, I don't see why redeployed guards should be any more vulnerable to being dismissed than they are now. They will still have their union behind them, the same legal protection etc.

I suspect the rail regulator's view of "safe" trains relates to how they operate, driving, opening doors etc rather than what we think of as safety ie someone you can call on if there are a rowdy or abusive passengers. I think having only the driver is a recipe for disaster and will certainly support any action that maintains more staff. That's aside from the issue of providing jobs for people.

Ooh, you could be right joan.
I wonder what the passengers on the actual three routes are thinking.
It doesnt seem that Southern route passengers are happy about it on the whole, but maybe the passengers on the other routes are.

Luckily I rarely travel by train but I feel more secure with a guard on board who knows where the defibulator is & how to use it. Also is there to ensure passenger safety. However on these rare occasions I have yet to see a guard walking through train so how are we to know how to call a guard if necessary? Maybe if we knew how many trains are already being run by driver only we could make informed decisions.

No dont think guards are necessary or add to rail safety They were interviewing a H and S person the other day who says there is plenty of evidence to support this view