Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    And people need to act with their feet in this case. If that many people were losing their jobs because of this, Southern Rail would have so few passengers that they'd have to act to change things. It's quite apparent that there are still many many passengers using their services, to commute, and so using the argument that a lot of people are losing their jobs over it is a bit ridiculous.
    You have to understand that a lot of the people who use Southern Rail to commute have no other, or certainly easy, way to travel to work. Unfortunately Southern Rail are almost holding these innocent people at ransom. Attempting some kind of boycott would simply be impractical and there would be enough people who need to use the train that it wouldn't be successful anyway. You obviously haven't been listening to BBC Sussex recently and I understand why you wouldn't but for the last few weeks they have been speaking to several people who have been affected by the saga. Many of these people have lost their jobs and others have been threatened with dismissal if they continue being late to work - this is a fact. Therefore, your last point is simply incorrect.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Yes, it's fairly unreasonable to expect the driver to ensure all doors are locked, however, that is quite a different issue to what this motion is about, and I wouldn't have such a problem if there was a motion about that, rather than what this motion is saying.
    Who closes the doors is the reason why the Conductors striked in the first place so it is relevant to this motion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I strongly, strongly support this motion. We have been affected badly by Southern Rail's disruption and I know first hand how disruptive it can be. I was listening to BBC Sussex the other day and the extent of damage which has been caused is even worse than I had originally thought. People have lost their jobs and even split up because of Southern Rail. Serious measures need to be taken to stop the problem.

    Here are some links related to this motion:

    - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/more-misery-for-southern-rail-commuters-as-bosses-reject-strike-amnesty-a3291301.html
    - http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...worst-11584721
    - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...celled-trains/
    - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36707255
    - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...via-thameslink
    Thank you for these links to emphasise the impact.

    *
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Am I remembering correctly that this dispute is because the unions don't want absolutely redundant jobs being gotten rid of despite them being redundant?
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This dispute is about who opens the train doors. At the moment, the Conductors are responsible for that but Southern Rail want the drivers to do that instead. The RMT don't want this to happen because they claim it would not be safe. Everyone knows that they are worried that the Conductors would become less and less important. I really don't see why it matters who opens and closes the train doors so it is beyond me why Southern Rail don't just give in and let the Conductors do it. It wouldn't cost them a penny more, it would safer and our train system down here can get a little bit better than it currently is.
    The dispute is not the sole cause of the failings of the service. Not enough train drivers and conductors have been recruited, and when the services are cancelled, it is in a haphazard way. The planned cancellations are all Monday to Fridays, when having some on weekends instead and rearranging rosters on a temporary basis would inconvenience fewer people (it's easier to provide rail replacement buses at weekends), for example. Cancelling three trains in a row is not a result of a dispute or sickness but bad ways of working. Holiday entitlements have been broadly the same for over 10 years and the right to paid holidays goes back to the 1830s, so these can easily be planned for.

    **
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This isn't about a few delayed trains annoying a select group of people. This is about a train service with severe failings that is costing people their jobs and seriously affecting people's relationships. I feel really sorry for commuters that regularly have to use Southern Rail as they are the victims in this whole case. Everyone who lives in the south and uses the rail service has been affected by this nonsense. I agree that mental health should never be used an excuse when it is not relevant but the Southern Rail saga is seriously affecting the mental health of a lot of people.
    The same operator run trains to/from New Barnet and are suffering staff shortages and cancellations, with no industrial dispute. I always check before leaving the house- today about a third were not running, fortunately I wanted to use the two-thirds that are. Same last weekend, same when a friend went to the darts at Alexandra Palace in December. Not a tenth as bad but an indication of ineffective planning.

    Taking back into public ownership, even on a temporary basis, means failure cannot lead to private profit and is not rewarded.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Thank you for these links

    The same operator run trains to/from New Barnet and are suffering staff shortages and cancellations, with no industrial dispute. I always check before leaving the house- today about a third were not running, fortunately I wanted to use the two-thirds that are. Same last weekend, same when a friend went to the darts at Alexandra Palace in December. Not a tenth as bad but an indication of ineffective planning.

    Taking back into public ownership, even on a temporary basis, means failure cannot lead to private profit and is not rewarded.
    No problem.

    I see. Even before the dispute, Southern Rail did run one of the worst rail services in the country but I think the nonsense in recent weeks is the last straw so something has to be done and urgently.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I regularly use Souther Rail as I live in the South East (funny that ) and I reguarly have mental distress.

    No but seriously, you have to give Southern a chance to improve before you take the franchise off them. Also I'm pretty sure there are contractual problems with cancelling their franchise.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I regularly use Souther Rail as I live in the South East (funny that ) and I reguarly have mental distress.

    No but seriously, you have to give Southern a chance to improve before you take the franchise off them. Also I'm pretty sure there are contractual problems with cancelling their franchise.
    Southern Rail have been given years to improve their service and they have failed, instead more keen to raise their prices. Surely their bad service, not just with this dispute, has gone on for too long and some action needs to be taken before the service collapses completely?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Southern Rail have been given years to improve their service and they have failed, instead more keen to raise their prices. Surely their bad service, not just with this dispute, has gone on for too long and some action needs to be taken before the service collapses completely?
    I totally agree but surely you can't just terminate their contract? There would be a lot of money lost there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I totally agree but surely you can't just terminate their contract? There would be a lot of money lost there.
    Not if this motion leads to a bill being implemented which would force them to change their contract/terminate their contract. We need to take one step at a time and this is the first stage in that process.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Not if this motion leads to a bill being implemented which would force them to change their contract/terminate their contract. We need to take one step at a time and this is the first stage in that process.
    Change the terms of student loans when the right to do so is in the contract, abominable; change the terms of a contract with a business, even then there is no legal basis to do so, absolutely fine.
    Oh the hypocrisy of the left.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Change the terms of student loans when the right to do so is in the contract, abominable; change the terms of a contract with a business, even then there is no legal basis to do so, absolutely fine.
    Oh the hypocrisy of the left.
    Yes but I've got some news for you - students are innocent with regards to tuition fees, Southern Rail are guilty with regards to the service they are providing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Yes but I've got some news for you - students are innocent with regards to tuition fees, Southern Rail are guilty with regards to the service they are providing.
    So perceived innocence or guilt determines whether a contract can be changed, not the legality?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So perceived innocence or guilt determines whether a contract can be changed, not the legality?
    With the right legislation, theoretically any contract can be changed. I'm saying that the contract that Southern Rail currently hold should be seriously questioned due to the quite shocking service they have been offering to commuters.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    With the right legislation, theoretically any contract can be changed. I'm saying that the contract that Southern Rail currently hold should be seriously questioned due to the quite shocking service they have been offering to commuters.
    And in the process make it difficult to enter into new contracts with the private sector.
    If they have not breached their contract deal with it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And in the process make it difficult to enter into new contracts with the private sector.
    If they have not breached their contract deal with it.
    A consumer watchdog may be sent to monitor Southern Rail and if they are found to be delivering an unsubstantial service, the 'contract' may not be of any use.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    A consumer watchdog may be sent to monitor Southern Rail and if they are found to be delivering an unsubstantial service, the 'contract' may not be of any use.
    The contract will be essential because it will be the contract that revokes the franchise
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The contract will be essential because it will be the contract that revokes the franchise
    Not necessarily.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Not necessarily.
    IF not governments, or I suppose I should say the civil service, are even more incompetent than I thought
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    While i don't think the mental health point should be in there (seriously, are we to believe people are so over-sensitive that they have a nervous breakdown because they can't leave earlier to get the bus) i do agree with the point which is that reducing the number of services when demand clearly exists is intolerable,

    Subject to reading a summary of their actual franchise agreement i can say as the relevant secretary of state that i intend to have the franchise go to tender again if Southern Railways carry on with this course of action.

    Nationalisation will not be occurring though.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, although the reference to mental health is somewhat silly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't currently know enough about the situation at the minute but why mention mental health? It just feels unnecessary
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.