Surely they can't get away with this

[meriad]

South Western Railway have announced they are planning 27 strike days in December - starting Monday 2nd through to the 31st. It's all about an ongoing argument RMT and SWR are having about the role of guards on the train.

27 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Workingman]

Unfortunately they can if union members have voted for strikes in sufficient numbers.

Maybe the law needs to be changed for public transport so that during such strikes a minimum service has to run, it being a key to a functioning economy.

[saundra]

That happened here for months ria always at a weekend all to do with guards on trains with transpeninne don't think it was really over I read today south Wales trains are on strike over Xmas disgusting

[JanB]

Trying to hold the country to ransom.

[TheOstrich]

This strike will affect us; not just my Saturday football, which is neither here nor there really, but also Mrs O will have to cancel a potential trip to London to see G/S's first meeting with Father Christmas.

They will run some sort of service on the strike days, using non-union staff, but it will be in the 50-75% region.

I do feel sorry for commuters (like Meriad, I believe) but hopefully they will get some sort of reasonable service - SWR will concentrate on running commuter routes. Our Exeter - Waterloo route will go from hourly to 2-hourly and will be totally, totally rammed, hence I've really had to advise Mrs O not to risk it - she couldn't physically fight her way onboard / stand for a long period of the journey (I have had to do this the last time I travelled during a period of major disruption).

All that said - personally, I do think the RMT have a point with their argument over who opens/closes the doors. It's primarily a safety issue, but also there is the long term aim by the company of getting rid of guards and moving to fewer and lower-grade "Customer Service Operatives".

I also would not trust South Western Railway as a company one inch - they have refused to honour pledges made to the union and have prevaricated with negotiations (now nearly 2 years) throughout. Overall, I'm afraid, I support the strike.

[Kaz]

Absolutely a complete pain in the bum for you Ria, and all the other commuters, but I do think they need guards on trains xxxxx

[victor]

So if they get rid of Guards and there is a problem on a train what happens? Does the driver stop the train to sort the problem?
I support the RMT on this issue

[AliasAggers]

The guards on trains have other responsibilities apart from the things that have already been mentioned here,
particularly in the event of an accident, and I fully understand why the idea of removing them is so strongly apposed.
.

[meriad]

From what I gather (and I need to double check this): SWR have already agreed that the trains will have a guard - so the role of the guard is safe, but... SWR want to have the option of a train running without a guard if one fails to turn up, ie driver is there, train full of passengers but no guard (because he's delayed on another incoming service or didn't turn up for work - whatever the reason). So SWR want to still be able to run that train.

I must say - using my daily commute as an example - I'm not sure that a guard ON the train has much value add. It's a short journey and on the way to London three stops in it's so full the guard can't get through. All carriages have options to connect to the driver if there is a need; and the driver would be the one to then reach out to the guard. And generally by the time a guard has managed to fight his way to wherever he needs to be the train would be in a station where better help can be given. In an emergency we all now have mobile phones and I can guarantee that should something happen, lets for arguments sake say someone is having a heart attack, then I know for a fact, one person would be alerting the driver who would contact the guard and radio ahead and at least 10 would be trying to get through to 999 so an ambulance will get to the next station where the train will stop.

The biggest problem with not having guards would be at stations such as mine (West Byfleet) and many of the other smaller ones where there is no platform staff - what happens if there is a wheelchair user needing access to the train. At the moment the guard is informed and brings the ramp at these stations and then makes sure all is OK and we set off. But if there isn't a guard then the driver would need to do that which would mean switching off the train (because he won't be able to leave the cab with the engine running) and that would cause a huge delay; or the man in the ticket office would need to shut shop to do this; if there is a man in the ticket office. My station fairly often is unmanned. On the way home, I use a semi fast service and the train only empties after my stop. The slower stopping services would only empty enough for a guard to get in after the 4th or 5th stop.

For the longer journeys (like Ossie to Exeter etc) or late night journeys that aren't full - I definitely would want a guard on board. But day to day commuting on the shorter journeys? I think there'd be more value add for all stations to be staffed with at least 2 people vs having a guard on the train.

[Workingman]

It's a tricky one, Ria, and there are mixed messages coming out. RMT says the role of the guard is not secured whilst SWT says it has created 80 guard roles since the franchise began - so it's stalemate.

Heads need banging together. I can see both sides of this and you make some valid points regarding different guard needs for different services.

It is a times like these when both sides need to be forced to go to ACAS and for all actions, on both sides, to be suspended until some agreement or none is reached. You'd make a good chair of proceedings.