This is London Underground's response to RMT's presentation to the Company Council outlining our objections and our alternatives to the company's job-cutting plan (view it here). Despite the company refusing to publish our presentation on its Intranet, we are happy to publish its response on our website, as we trust readers to draw their own conclusions ...

RMT highlighted their concerns with the implications they believed would follow the proposed reduction in Station Staff

1. RMT stated its view that fewer station staff will result in less safe stations, providing less information and worse customer service. It is further suggested that the capacity of the system to deal with incidents, in particular, potentially catastrophic incidents, will be poorer.

• The integral role of staff in the provision of customer service will not change, and the proposals do not reduce or threaten this commitment. Our drive towards world class must always encompass demonstrating value for money and responding to the undeniable changes in customer behaviour, particularly since the launch of Oyster. We believe that our proposals support this.

• The introduction of the contactless ticketing system and wide aisled gates have improved customer flow through gatelines and require significantly less manual intervention than paper tickets. These changes plus other changes such as Electronic Service Update Boards and other information channels have impacted the role of CSAs significantly, but our current staffing model has not reflected these changes or their impacts.

• Currently, ticket hall staffing levels are set by customer volumes alone. The proposed staffing profile better reflect the needs of the three main customer groups [commuter, leisure and tourist] through the day and is a sensible approach that will maintain service levels and demonstrate value.

• All changes that are being proposed are currently being subject to safety validation, via a Change Assurance Plan. There will also be a review of the implications of the proposals in terms of any changes to risk profiles of activities carried out by staff and customers. This provides the assurance that safety will not be compromised.

• We remain committed to ensuring that all stations remain staffed through the traffic day, as today.

• Station Congestion Control and Emergency Plans will remain in place and where appropriate will be reviewed to ensure that they remain sufficiently robust to ensure safe congestion control and evacuation.

Conclusion As a result, we do not agree that this proposal will lead to a worse service and lowered standards of customer care, as RMT believe. Furthermore, we believe that, by setting our staffing model to reflect our customers’ needs, we should be able to deliver a more effective customer service by targeting those places and times where the demand is greatest.

2. RMT have put to LUL that fewer station staff will result in less assistance for disabled passengers.

• We are committed to ensuring that there will continue to be staff available to provide assistance to customers. The change in focus of ‘gateline’ staff to provide assistance throughout the ticket hall area will be a benefit to all customers.

• It should be noted that since the date of the report quoted, 2003, we have made significant improvements to Step Free Access at stations, commenced the introduction of PTI solutions for mobility impaired customers to access the train service, improved the accessibility of our Passenger Operated Machines and worked with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to review the performance of our Induction Loop systems. Our commitment to improving the accessibility of our system to all customers is clear.

• The impact of the proposals on customers will be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) and where appropriate mitigations will be put in place.

Conclusion RMT have motivated their point by quoting from a report by the London Assembly’s Future Tube Priorities Investigative Committee, which is now over 7 years old. Since that time, as explained above, much has changed and improved. Given these improvements, as well as the EQIA above, we do not believe that our proposals would lead to any adverse impact upon disabled customers.

3. RMT suggested that there was a link between the proposals around ticket offices and ticket halls and the Operational Effectiveness Programme, as it was “intrinsically linked with stations job cuts”.

There is no link between the OSP stations proposals and the Operational Effectiveness Programme (OEP). The OEP is a programme designed to improve safety by reducing delay in our operational responses. The OEP is being dealt with within the existing Health & Safety Machinery at relevant councils.

Conclusion It appears from the presentation that RMT has assumed that there is a link between the OEP and the OSP exercises. This is simply not the case. OEP would still be necessary, as it is driven by operational circumstances, even were there to be no OSP proposals. Much of OEP is about improving customer safety and customer service. To suggest that it is about reducing staff safety and putting passengers at risk is to completely misunderstand the purpose behind it.

4. RMT stated in the presentation that we have been preparing for job cuts by not filling vacancie, duties not being covered, stations not supervised and staff and passengers put at risk.

• Sensible vacancy management is a good way to manage change in order to minimise the disruption to staff as much as we possibly can. It is only sensible that we do not fill a vacant position that could then potentially no longer exist when the proposals are introduced. Alternatively, filling a position which could instead have been used to accommodate a displaced employee would be equally short sighted. • At times where there has been no Supervisor coverage available, at short notice we have utilised existing arrangements, covered in Rule Book 8, to provide a member of staff to ‘babysit’ a non-sub surface station. • Minimum staffing arrangements have continued to apply at sub-surface stations. The safe level of staffing has been maintained to allow the safe operation of the station and would allow for the safe evacuation of the station, in line with the station Congestion Control and Emergency Plan.

Conclusion These steps have not had any appreciable impact upon levels of customer or staff safety. Furthermore, we have also acted this way out of concern for the job security of our staff. Managing vacancies in the way described above was, and still is, in LU’s view a very pragmatic and sensible way to confront a major reorganisation.

5. RMT suggested that customers need ticket offices for a number of reasons (e.g. Oyster issues, particular ticket types, the desire for a ‘personal touch’)

From the data we have been gathering and assessing about customer requirements we now know that it is only about 5% of customers who use the ticket offices in the way the RMT believes. This 5% do so because they:

• Need to obtain information or make enquiries • Lack the confidence or knowledge to purchase their tickets from POMs or off-system or require assistance to get the right ticket • Have a preference for face-to-face contact

We are of course sensitive to this group of customers and these proposals are designed to ensure that these needs continue to be met through:

• Maintaining a ticket office service at all stations to ensure residual demand is catered for • Refocusing ticket hall staffing to all areas rather than the gateline to improve the assistance customers receive purchasing tickets from POMs • Our determination to continue to improve ticketing processes to improve accessibility and simplification of Oyster Conclusion We are confident therefore that LU’s proposals will meet the needs of our passengers that RMT has highlighted.

6. RMT has claimed that LU has sought to “drive business away from the (ticket office) window”.

• For a number of years we have seen two very clear trends: increasing ridership and a continuing decline in sales at ticket offices.

• There were nearly 7 million ticket office sales per period in 2004 and we have fewer than 4 million per period today. The trend was clear prior to the most recent reductions in ticket office opening times (in February 2006) and has continued after the 2006 changes, as shown on graphs in the presentations given to the Unions.

• There has been a determination to improve the choice of sales channels to customers. Investment in 381 new Advanced Fare Machines; continued improvements to the performance of POMs; expansion of the Oyster Ticket Stop network from 2500 outlets in 2006 to 3800 today; and improved availability of on-line sales and features such as auto top-up are examples of this. Rather than being driven away, customers are exercising their choice, resulting in the reduction of ticket office sales. Conclusion This decline in ticket office sales is a clear indication of how our business is changing and how over-the-counter ticket sales is an increasingly peripheral and cost inefficient aspect of business models in the 21st century. It is quite appropriate for London Underground to recognise and act upon this trend in its own business, by changing the relevant aspects of its business model, following consultation with its stakeholders. It is not so much a deliberate “driving of business away” (as RMT has described it) but recognising the irreversibility of technology driven trends and acting sensibly to take advantage of them, both now and in the future.

7. RMT questioned the rationale for reductions in window service of 35% when transactions have fallen by 28% and suggested that the measures used ignored non-sales transactions, (e.g. answering questions). They further questioned the change of the threshold for window opening from 15 minutes of ticket selling activity an hour to 30 minutes.

• When the numbers of transactions are considered, this does not simply mean ticket sales. We work on the basis of an average transaction time that includes non-sales transactions such as information requests. In recent years while we have seen a continuing decline in total transactions at ticket windows. and ticket windows as a proportion of total network transactions, there has been an increase in the time taken for each transaction at ticket windows, from around 50 seconds to 60 seconds.

• At the time when the 15 minute demand threshold was introduced, it was considered an acceptable service criteria due mainly to the higher TOM share of sales and the reduced lack of choice for customers to purchase tickets

• Since that time, as has been outlined above, there have been significant changes both in terms of the number of tickets customers are buying and how and where they are buying them. As a result, the demand thresholds to open ticket windows has been re-examined and a 50% threshold is a good balance that reflects the increased purchasing choices available to customers as well as demonstrating good value delivery of our service to the public.

• The calculation makes an allowance for information dissemination from the window. The assertion that a ticket seller could theoretically be occupied for 45 minutes in an hour would not in fact be the case.

Conclusion The revised measures do take into account non ticket sale transactions. Furthermore, as each location has been subject to its own review, we have proposed a model tailored to the local circumstances.

8. RMT suggested that there is a case for more station groups not fewer.

• The service changes proposed to ticket offices and ticket halls will result in a reduction in stations staff. These reductions require a rebalancing of station groups, to ensure better consistency in group size.

• While we acknowledge that there will be some increases in travelling time for some reserve staff, this will not be significantly beyond that currently required.

• We remain committed to ensuring staff are only deployed at locations for which they are competent and familiarised.

• Reorganisation can often have an impact upon grades and workloads. One of the purposes of our discussions during times like this is to address these issues. Once again, just because there may be changes in these areas, does not mean that it is not appropriate to propose changes to the status quo. What is key throughout this process though, is that the Unions should engage with the Company at every opportunity.

Conclusion RMT has proposed an increase in Station group sizes [LU now accepts that this was a typographical error on its part, and that RMT actually proposed an increase in station group *numbers*, with a consequent *reduction* in their sizes.] For the reasons given above, we disagree with such a suggestion. Furthermore, it would only serve to add further complexity to our present business model. Often, by adding complexity this can then detract from operating efficiency and adding further bureaucracy and unnecessary cost. It is unlikely to improve the customer service or health and safety. Alternatively, fewer station groups means fewer management teams, which should then translate into increased consistency. This is something that I am sure the Unions will also welcome. For all the above reasons we are not able to support the RMT’s counter proposal.

9. RMT has agreed that there are significant financial pressures on the company. RMT has then proposed alternative options to save the money without reducing posts, including asking for extra government grant.

Below I have reviewed each proposal and offer our response. From the outset though, I would like to reiterate a very important point. The service changes proposed to ticket offices and ticket halls are not solely about saving money, we are proposing change to take account of changes to customer behaviour, particularly in the area of ticketing. As we have already explained, in detail, our current ticket office model is no longer reflective of an increasing majority of our customers’ requirements. This will not change, even if an alternative source of funding is identified. This is why we are proposing the changes.

There is no doubt, however, that we face a particularly tough financial climate – more than ever before we need to demonstrate value for money for fare and tax-payers. The proposals are around delivering the world class station service to our customers, both in terms of customer service and value.

The four years from February 2006 have seen continuing significant moves away from ticket office transactions at the majority of locations. The economic situation of the company, and pressing need to deliver best value in our customer service delivery, requires us to respond and ensure that our future service proposition is reflective of this. These proposals achieve this.

• RMT has proposed we seek a Government grant to meet our financial needs.

As a part publicly funded company, we have a duty to provide maximum value for money for our customers. This would not be achieved by requesting a government grant to meet our financial short falls when we know our business model can be adapted to operate more efficiently. I would also point out that, at this particular time, the probability of obtaining a government grant to cover our financial deficit would be almost zero.

• RMT has proposed that we acquire Tubelines without purchasing the shares held by Bechtel and Amey, its owners.

In reality of course, such a move is not possible and would have no legal or commercial basis upon which it could proceed or succeed.

• RMT has made other cost saving proposals, such as the scrapping of the replacement for the Routemaster bus [LU accepts that this is not what RMT argued; we drew attention to the cost of this project, but did not advocate it be scrapped]and has alluded to £1.5 billion written off from the collapse of Metronet.

In respect of the former, this is not a matter to do with LUL and I suggest that, if RMT has proposals for cost saving in relation to this, then these should be put in writing to TfL’s Commissioner.

The collapse of Metronet has served only to increase the financial pressure placed upon LU. It would be unfair and a serious mistake to assume that, because the reapsorbtion of Metronet became a critical necessity, there is therefore money elsewhere to address the funding shortfalls we face.

• RMT has proposed that we stop managers acting unlawfully against employees as a means of saving money.

Naturally LU does not condone this. Furthermore it happens very infrequently in a company that is now nearly 20 000 strong. However, to suggest that this is an alternative to restructuring those areas of our business where the operating model no longer reflects customer behaviours, is not realistic.

• RMT has proposed that we stop advertising and paying commission to external ticket selling outlets.

As explained above, the decline in ticket office sales is also a clear indication of how our business is changing and how over-the-counter ticket sales is an increasingly peripheral and cost inefficient aspect of business models in the 21st century. It is quite appropriate for London Underground to act to recognise this trend by changing the relevant aspects of its business model, and to support and facilitate this trend by making it as easy as possible for customers. The advertising and paying of a small commission to external Oyster selling outlets is consistent with our business model and useful for our customers too. The finances saved would be a fraction of the overall costs that would be incurred were we only to allow customers to purchase their tickets from Ticket Offices.

• RMT has proposed that we cut back on the use of contractors and consultants.

This is already an initiative that LU has been following and it has made significant reductions in this area. It is an area we will continue to look at and review as part of our on-going business.

• RMT has proposed a cap on all “fat cat salaries” with a maximum ceiling of £100 000.

Proposing a cap on the level of earnings across the TfL Group is, naturally, a pan TfL issue and is a question that needs to be addressed to the Commissioner.

• RMT has proposed that LUL “Open the Books” and allow trade unions and the public to scutinise them to identify additional savings.

There are a number of points to consider here. Firstly, we have provided a summary of employees remuneration above £50 000. We have also notified the Unions where the Annual Report and Notice of Accounts are already available for public scrutiny.

Therefore there is already considerable information available. In addition to that, given that RMT has a considerable number of representatives in LU, it should already have a very good understanding of how virtually all of the Company operates. As ever, given this, I am always pleased to receive realistic proposals that are offered in good faith as to how and where we might opertate more efficiently and cost effectively, especially in these very difficult times.

Whilst on this point, I would also diplomatically point out that information has been provided to the Unions in good faith, for the purpose of consultation and in anticipation that the trades unions would use the information in the same spirit. This has not always been the case, and there have been instances where it has been turned into press releases by RMT.

• Elsewhere RMT has proposed that “we can save money without incurring jobs by taking all functions back in house.

This is such a brief statement that it is not clear exactly what services the RMT are referring to. Furthermore, the bringing of “services” back in house that are not part of our core business does not necessarily represent value for money. It’s also important to understand that, when services and functions are brought back in house this can often create the opportunity to reorganise the business to obtain further operational efficiencies. This was well illustrated in 2008/09, when following the transfer of Metronet back to LUL, the number of services running in tandem meant that the subsequent ETO based reorganisation was able to reduce the establishment by approximately 1000 posts, although there were no compulsory redundancies.

As all the parties know, with this exercise too, providing we can work together, there will also be no compulsory redundancies. Those who wish to remain with LU will be able to do so. Furthermore, grades, like train operator, as we have always maintained, are unaffected by these proposed changes.