ASLEF push for more female and BAME drivers

[Bellbell]

The person with purple skin should be excluded if they don't meet the criteria to drive a train. ALL jobs should be based on your ability to do it, not your race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

Well yes. Quite clearly. I didn't feel it necessary when saying 'whatever reason' to list the reasons that could be included in that and make clear that list didn't include not being able to do the job, but clearly that was remiss of me.

 

[Mojo]

The first thing that came to mind was the shift patterns. Constantly changing shift patterns must make it difficult for parents (especially mothers) from organising childcare, school transport etc. Is there anything that could be done in that area? My general perception was that the unions would be against any such changes to rosters. (This may be an overly dim view of unions, but that's for another thread.) However, this call has come from a union - ASLEF. Maybe they would be a bit more amenable to this than I assumed?

On the Underground, some depots have a ‘link’ system whereby the shifts are grouped into times and that will be the rough shift that that person does, for example dead earlies, lates, nights/lates etc, dependent on the shifts that an individual depot has. Typically, these all have a waiting list and earlies are usually more popular so will have a longer waiting list. There are also mixed links which have a shorter waiting list but you’ll do a variety of shifts across the day. Upon entry however to the grade most people are put into a ‘pool’ whereby uncovered duties from the main roster are allocated by the depot admin, and this could be anything.

Most depots have the option of joining a mutual changeover syndicate whereby shifts and rest days are put into a pot and traded amongst members of that syndicate, again usually so that people get the duties and rest days they prefer. Typically there will usually be some kind of stock/carrot in the allocation of duties in this system, for instance someone who wants the more popular shifts in one regard (for instance short duties, spares or earlies) may end up working the less popular shifts in the other (for example weekends or late turns).

I suppose the main difference on the Mainline which could make these systems more difficult is the more strict requirement for route knowledge and also the different rolling stock knowledge.

 

[DerekC]

The person with purple skin should be excluded if they don't meet the criteria to drive a train. ALL jobs should be based on your ability to do it, not your race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

But, as stated umpteen times before, that misses the point. Any organisation finding out that it employs a skewed proportion of the population for a role should find out why, because it might be consciously or unconsciously discriminating. I am old enough to have had an HR manager comment to me after a job selection interview (I was doing the interview) "thank goodness you didn't pick the black guy". I was shocked even then and if it happened now I would have reported him, but this was forty years ago and the world was different. Thank goodness it has changed - but we need to keep the pressure up because there are plenty of people out there who would like to change it back again.

 

[Bellbell]

I currently work in civil engineering, mainly (but not all) railway based. I acknowledge that I don't have to square all these circles! Many moons ago, I worked for a TOC (on board catering). I was assigned shifts. I was part of a new cohort of part timers specifically brought on to cover weekend shifts (which they were having trouble covering). We were mainly students and a few people wanting to wind down before retirement. There was a rostered shift that involved about 6 hours (might have been 5) in the break room. I worked it very rarely as it wasn't a weekend shift and it was an early (I preferred lates).

I don't have a problem with bringing new drivers in to cover certain shifts only. There's an existing set of drivers which is used to having to work the less popular shifts. I'm all for give the maximum flexibility that can be given, but I know that you can't give everyone everything they want.

But apart from apparently giving cushdy shifts to mums, what else can be done?

But how does that work in reality? If you bring them in to cover certain shifts do they get adequate exposure to diversionary routes? Certain moves? Working in the dark? Is it a good thing to have a load of PQA drivers on nights without an experienced driver knocking about who can answer a quick question?

I don't for one moment think mums should be given the good shifts and I made that crystal clear.

 

[Bellbell]

So I assume that ASLEF like to see:
- A ban on white males being recruited as train drivers?
- A percentage of white male train drivers being redeployed so that females and minorities could replace them?

Seems strange to me.

It seems strange because it is strange. Not to mention baseless and made up entirely by you.

 

[GingerSte]

But how does that work in reality? If you bring them in to cover certain shifts do they get adequate exposure to diversionary routes? Certain moves? Working in the dark? Is it a good thing to have a load of PQA drivers on nights without an experienced driver knocking about who can answer a quick question?

I don't for one moment think mums should be given the good shifts and I made that crystal clear.

That last bit was more aimed at other people than you.

Regarding dark-running, most (if not all) day shifts will see that in winter, when it's dark at 17:00. I didn't say that any shift should have only new people on it, but that some shifts (eg weekends) might end up with more newbies than otherwise due to the targeting.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm giving this as an example and have absolutely no knowledge of pass fail rates, it is hypothetical only and should be taken as such: if you have a test that all men pass and all women fail, does that suggest the women are rubbish or the test is flawed? I've no idea what goes on behind the scenes but given how infrequently the test changes, I don't suppose its an awful lot of reflection and improvement. And I've worked in the field myself.

That’s an interesting point.

My gut reaction would be to simply ask whether the test was accurate in terms of selecting the best candidates for the job, and stop there.

For certain roles with a large physical content, it’s inevitable that men might perform better. Note I wouldn’t put most railway roles in that camp and certainly not driving, these days, where coupling and uncoupling is done at the press of a button and there is no longer a heavy physical element to the role. For that reason I would imagine (but cannot evidence!) that the driver assessments which test hand eye coordination, concentration etc. don’t favour one sex over another.

And sadly, re your point on tokenism, that ship sailed a long time ago. I've been accused of being a token myself.

Again, this is purely anecdotal, but there was a female on my drivers’ rules course who was manifestly unsuitable for the role. She was removed very swiftly, but the rest of us wondered why on earth she had been recruited in the first place.

The solution to under representation is to encourage applications from the afflicted group, but it can never be to recruit inappropriate individuals from these groups. I would suggest there are more than enough applicants (both male and female) to the driver role to ensure this should need never be the case.

I would also suggest the best way to avoid allegations of tokenism is to ensure a level playing field in every case.

 

[OneOffDave]

No job appoints the best people for the job. If you're lucky, your selection procedures pick the best people of those who applied. But a lot of other factors come into play too. Even just knowing about the hoops you'll have to jump through as part of the recruitment process can improve your outcome versus someone coming to it cold.

You want the best people, so you need to recruit from the widest pool to get the best chance of getting the best

 

[TheBigD]

When I worked as train crew a decade or so ago I had a manager who boasted that they'd never employ men, stating that they weren't suitable for for customer facing roles. They also used the term 'breeders' towards those staff with children. I'm aware of numerous complaints but nothing changed.

She still works in the industry but for another TOC. I'm sure they will welcome ASLEF's proposals.

 

[mpthomson]

Whereas the British Army's recent promotional advertising is a perfect example of how NOT to do it.

"Snowflakes - Your army needs YOU!"
(Yeah... I can see that going really well on the first day in barracks )

As someone who has significant involvement in Army recruitment, the 'Snowflake' campaign has been the most successful for recruitment for many years in terms of numbers and the quality level has remained about the same. So it's actually a good example of HOW to do it.

The least successful? The Royal Marines '99% need not apply' campaign. The 99% didn't and their numbers of applications dropped.

 

[Chris999999]

It seems strange because it is strange. Not to mention baseless and made up entirely by you.

I thought that this was aimed at broadening the base from which train drivers are selected, and as a consequence improving the quality of drivers. This would enable those drivers who are not up to the top quality to be redeployed to other roles.

You say this is not the aim - so what is it?

 

[LowLevel]

In the short term to accommodate specific problems for example people who have relationships break down giving child access or care problems, or acquire caring responsibilities through ill health and all that I am entirely in favour of creating work patterns to suit them - that is what accommodation is all about and we should support our colleagues through difficult times.

In terms of people entering an industry well known for it's anti social hours in a particularly anti social role I have no interest in seeing an impact on my own quality of work for people who know this but still expect the job to change around their life, especially as there's no shortage of people already willing to do the job warts and all.

Why should I accept that I might have to have a further impact on my life to deal with the fact that someone might want to float in and out of work for the next 15 years to build a family while only working sociable hours when they do attend? No ta. The job pays well to deal with it's negatives as well as the positives - just employ whoever is willing to manage them best regardless of any other criteria.

 

[Bellbell]

I thought that this was aimed at broadening the base from which train drivers are selected, and as a consequence improving the quality of drivers. This would enable those drivers who are not up to the top quality to be redeployed to other roles.

You say this is not the aim - so what is it?

You said you assumed ASLEF would like to see a ban on recruiting white men and also that people would be redeployed and that this was strange. I pointed out that you'd reached those assumptions on your own. Do you think current recruitment is to enable existing drivers to be redeployed? If not why would future recruitment rely on people being redeployed?

 

[chuff chuff]

In the short term to accommodate specific problems for example people who have relationships break down giving child access or care problems, or acquire caring responsibilities through ill health and all that I am entirely in favour of creating work patterns to suit them - that is what accommodation is all about and we should support our colleagues through difficult times.

In terms of people entering an industry well known for it's anti social hours in a particularly anti social role I have no interest in seeing an impact on my own quality of work for people who know this but still expect the job to change around their life, especially as there's no shortage of people already willing to do the job warts and all.

Why should I accept that I might have to have a further impact on my life to deal with the fact that someone might want to float in and out of work for the next 15 years to build a family while only working sociable hours when they do attend? No ta. The job pays well to deal with it's negatives as well as the positives - just employ whoever is willing to manage them best regardless of any other criteria.

That and a lot of my colleagues would agree,it seems to be forgotten that to give flexible work life means others have to pick up the pieces.

 

[Chris999999]

You said you assumed ASLEF would like to see a ban on recruiting white men and also that people would be redeployed and that this was strange. I pointed out that you'd reached those assumptions on your own. Do you think current recruitment is to enable existing drivers to be redeployed? If not why would future recruitment rely on people being redeployed?

Well it seems quite obvious that if you want to recruit people other than white men, then you will need to recruit less white men. Banning recruitment of white men would enable this new proposal to be implemented much faster. With such a broadening of the recruitment base, this will enable better quality drivers to be recruited, enabling current lesser quality drivers to be redeployed.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Well it seems quite obvious that if you want to recruit people other than white men, then you will need to recruit less white men. Banning recruitment of white men would enable this new proposal to be implemented much faster. With such a broadening of the recruitment base, this will enable better quality drivers to be recruited, enabling current lesser quality drivers to be redeployed.

Which would then in itself be discriminatory.

 

[GB]

Well it seems quite obvious that if you want to recruit people other than white men, then you will need to recruit less white men. Banning recruitment of white men would enable this new proposal to be implemented much faster. With such a broadening of the recruitment base, this will enable better quality drivers to be recruited, enabling current lesser quality drivers to be redeployed.

There is no link between "quality" and race so your post doesn't make any sense.

 

[Chris999999]

Are you trying to open yourself up to litigation?

For what? It isn't my proposal. I would have thought that if you want to recruit more minorities and women, then you will need to recruit less white men, or do you suggest that the same number of white men are still recruited and then told to sit around doing nothing?

 

[PeterJ]

True. A study from networkrail a while back found teams more gender and ethnically balanced work harder, are more motivated, take less sick leave and are better value for money.

From the BBCs Paul Clifton on twitter

 

[Bellbell]

For what? It isn't my proposal. I would have thought that if you want to recruit more minorities and women, then you will need to recruit less white men, or do you suggest that the same number of white men are still recruited and then told to sit around doing nothing?

Less isn't the same as none. No one except you has mentioned banning the recruitment of white men. It would be illegal, not to mention ridiculous.

 

[ComUtoR]

At first I thought "I don't see what's stopping them from applying already". Then I thought "What actually is stopping them from applying?"

The first thing that came to mind was the shift patterns. Constantly changing shift patterns must make it difficult for parents (especially mothers) from organising childcare, school transport etc. Is there anything that could be done in that area?

In the very first post (and subsequent others) Is the main barrier we need to break. They are already being discriminated against before they even apply. That concept of it being 'especially mothers' who are bringing up the children, doing school runs etc. If we have that prejudice against women before they even start, what chance do they have ? If we still believe that it is the Mothers who want the cushy shifts then you can understand why they feel discriminated against in the workplace. If people feel like they will be discriminated against; they will not apply.

 

[TheBigD]

In the very first post (and subsequent others) Is the main barrier we need to break. They are already being discriminated against before they even apply. That concept of it being 'especially mothers' who are bringing up the children, doing school runs etc. If we have that prejudice against women before they even start, what chance do they have ? If we still believe that it is the Mothers who want the cushy shifts then you can understand why they feel discriminated against in the workplace. If people feel like they will be discriminated against; they will not apply.

And whilst most companies continue to give fathers less paid leave and benefits, often substantially less, than they give to mothers the above will continue.

It took decades for the discrimination against men in the state pension age to be addressed and removed, and some people are still against it and fighting it, so I doubt it will happen any time soon.

 

[Bromley boy]

In the very first post (and subsequent others) Is the main barrier we need to break. They are already being discriminated against before they even apply. That concept of it being 'especially mothers' who are bringing up the children, doing school runs etc. If we have that prejudice against women before they even start, what chance do they have ? If we still believe that it is the Mothers who want the cushy shifts then you can understand why they feel discriminated against in the workplace. If people feel like they will be discriminated against; they will not apply.

In fairness, it is still generally mothers who take on those responsibilities - you’re a parent so I’m sure you can agree with that. That is just a factual reality.

The point is that the cushy shifts need to be divvied up with the anti social shifts and awarded equally. It would be quite wrong for one group to be given better shifts than another due to lifestyle choices. Mutual swaps etc. are the only fair way of doing it.

Would it be right for Muslim train drivers to be given cushy shifts during Ramadan, for example?

 

[Surreytraveller]

Let's only run trains during term time and during school hours. Get ASLEF to sort the rostering out, as the rosters all have to be agreed by them anyway Sorted.

 

[ComUtoR]

In fairness, it is still generally mothers who take on those responsibilities - you’re a parent so I’m sure you can agree with that. That is just a factual reality.

In general, I'd agree. However, the world is changing and the workplace needs to keep up with it. I think by removing some of the prejudice from ourselves and also some of the disparity with workplace polices it would certainly help to break those barriers. What about same sexed parents ? Who takes the lions share then ?

As a parent I have never felt supported by my company. Not just for childcare or specific shifts but there is a lack of any degree of empathy or flexibility. Even though there is a legal requirement for flexibility, this is easily circumvented by the TOC.

I am not asking for preference and I have never asked for any specific treatment because I'm a parent but it is a specific need because I am an EMPLOYEE. An employer should support their employees. People need to be accommodated for various reasons (not just kiddywinkles) and I think those should be supported by the TOCs or any employer. Granted I also firmly believe, like others here, that you accept the terms and conditions of employment and that you do take the rough with the smooth.

The point is that the cushy shifts need to be divvied up with the anti social shifts and awarded equally. It would be quite wrong for one group to be given better shifts than another due to lifestyle choices. Mutual swaps etc. are the only fair way of doing it.

It would be wrong for a specific group to be given preferential treatment but there should be a mechanic where employees who need flexibility should be allowed it.

Would it be right for Muslim train drivers to be given cushy shifts during Ramadan, for example?

ASLEF have issued advice on this.

 

[Bromley boy]

Let's only run trains during term time and during school hours. Get ASLEF to sort the rostering out, as the rosters all have to be agreed by them anyway Sorted.

No. Let’s make sure people applying for front line railway roles know what they’re getting into.

The corollary to the relatively decent pay and lots of time off is that you sometimes have to be at work at very anti social hours of the day and night. That sucks at times, but it is what it is.

If you don’t like it, don’t take on the job in the first place!

 

[ComUtoR]

Or drag the railway kicking and screaming into the 21st century. As an employer, they are very far behind.

 

[Bromley boy]

As a parent I have never felt supported by my company. Not just for childcare or specific shifts but there is a lack of any degree of empathy or flexibility. Even though there is a legal requirement for flexibility, this is easily circumvented by the TOC.

I am not asking for preference and I have never asked for any specific treatment because I'm a parent but it is a specific need because I am an EMPLOYEE. An employer should support their employees. People need to be accommodated for various reasons (not just kiddywinkles) and I think those should be supported by the TOCs or any employer. Granted I also firmly believe, like others here, that you accept the terms and conditions of employment and that you do take the rough with the smooth.

In terms of periods of illness etc., I would agree. But not so much when it comes to lifestyle choices.

It would be wrong for a specific group to be given preferential treatment but there should be a mechanic where employees who need flexibility should be allowed it.

But how do we define “need”? If someone has kids, who is to say their need is any greater than someone who wants to observe Ramadan. Or someone who simply wants to go home and play on their PlayStation?!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

As someone who has significant involvement in Army recruitment, the 'Snowflake' campaign has been the most successful for recruitment for many years in terms of numbers and the quality level has remained about the same. So it's actually a good example of HOW to do it.

The least successful? The Royal Marines '99% need not apply' campaign. The 99% didn't and their numbers of applications dropped.

In that case I withdraw my criticism of it! Must admit I find it astonishing that use of that rather insulting derogatory terminology is successfully attracting applicants, but perhaps the BA has tapped into some youth counter-culture that I'm hitherto unaware of.

 

[The dogbox]

So I assume that ASLEF like to see:
- A ban on white males being recruited as train drivers?
- A percentage of white male train drivers being redeployed so that females and minorities could replace them?

Seems strange to me.

Do you read the daily mail by any chance?