• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

ASLEF push for more female and BAME drivers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
Shift work doesn’t have to be unfriendly to those with childcare commitments though, I know of plenty of people who only work certain shifts (and I’m not talking about the popular ones or the short ones) or who always try to have midweek rest days in order to do stuff like the school run. In many ways having one or both people in the couple doing shift work is easier than both of them doing a 9-5 office job.

Of course, nurseries and the like tend to be catered around 9-5 living for those with smaller children. My local nursery is open from 07.30-17.30 which is great for most people I imagine but slightly complicated for shift workers.

My wife and I both work shifts and so we try and do opposites to make it as easy as possible. If there was an early link and a late link it would help us out as long as we could get in one each. Both ending up doing the same would cause us no end of issues!

But that’s the sort of thing which I do think should be looked at going forward. The main reason being fatigue, although making work regular like that would surely have positive side effects on childcare schedules and the like too.

It will be interesting to see what happens going forward. But I absolutely support ASLEF in trying to create a more varied working staff.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
An extremely bad faith post. @ivanhoe said nothing sexist or racist.

I think most of us would agree that train driving is an important job to get the right candidates for. It's good that ASLEF are encouraging a wider pool of recruitment, and it's sensible for companies to try harder to advertise positions beyond their traditional recruitment base.

Where I halt that train of thought is radically altering the grade's duties to suit certain applicants, or giving special privileges like highly prized shifts to certain applicants.
Applauding the recruitment of individuals due to their gender and race is sexist/racist in my book. We're seeing it in many walks of life where being a member of a supposed oppressed group (if which there are a potentially infinite number with numerous contradictions), increasingly looks to be a factor in your employment/progression. All this does is breed more resentment and make everyone more aware of things such as race and gender. All things that seek to divide us rather than unite.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,033
Location
No longer here
Applauding the recruitment of individuals due to their gender and race is sexist/racist in my book. We're seeing it in many walks of life where being a member of a supposed oppressed group (if which there are a potentially infinite number with numerous contradictions), increasingly looks to be a factor in your employment/progression. All this does is breed more resentment and make everyone more aware of things such as race and gender. All things that seek to divide us rather than unite.

No it isn't racist or sexist to believe that a more representative workforce is a good thing, as long as the rights of everyone are respected and people have equal opportunities.

There are limits, which I argued for earlier, but to make a slur and accuse someone of being a racist or a sexist requires a high degree of evidence, which you don't have.
 

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
No it isn't racist or sexist to believe that a more representative workforce is a good thing, as long as the rights of everyone are respected and people have equal opportunities.

There are limits, which I argued for earlier, but to make a slur and accuse someone of being a racist or a sexist requires a high degree of evidence, which you don't have.
Our definitions vary then, that is all. By saying "a more representative workforce is a good thing", you are judging an individual on their gender and/or race. As a result, you are sexist/racist. You simply see this as a positive kind of discrimination which you're perfectly entiled to.

How far does this go though, do we then try to ensure all workforces have a good balance of political views, or eye colour, or hair colour or foot size? It's a meaningless ideology that has no end and adds very little to the progression of society, unless, these factors offer a proveable benefit to the relevant role. As I said, it just breeds more division. Judging on competency alone is the best we have and makes everyone feel they are getting an as fair crack at the whip as realistically possible.

What even is your theory that having more women or those of different skin colours as train drivers adds any benefit whatsoever to society or the success of the railways? It's just diversity brownie points scoring with little to no tangible benefit. It's an insult to women or non-white individuals who will wonder whether they have been employed because of their gender/race, and it's an insult to men or white individuals who might think they didn't get the job because of their gender/race. Making them into bitter and twisted individuals who are more likely to blame society rather than self-improve. I really don't see how that is a good thing for society.

It goes without saying, everyone should have the same chance at being employed for a job, but it's going way further than that these days. Equality of opportunity is to be encouraged. Equality of outcome is not.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,033
Location
No longer here
By saying "a more representative workforce is a good thing", you are judging an individual on their gender and/or race.

No, I am not.

As a result, you are sexist/racist.

No, I am not.

You simply see this as a positive kind of discrimination.

No, I do not.

Can I ask - did you read any of my posts in this thread?

To summarise:

- It's good that workforces should be as representative as possible.
- It's not realistic or reasonable that all workforces will look the same, and some jobs are better suited to some types of people than others.
- It's good to encourage people who haven't thought about applying before to do so, if they meet the standards required.
- It's never good to actively select an individual above other individuals because of their race, gender or any other protected characteristic.
- We should be mindful about what the consequences are for the industry when recruiting large numbers of women into a grade which has a rigorous custom and practice culture, especially when it comes to shift working and child care responsibilities (most childcare falls to women), be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.
- We should be realistic about how many or few women really do want to be train drivers - we aren't going to get to 50%.

How far does this go though, do we then try to ensure all workforces have a good balance of political views, or eye colour, or hair colour or foot size? It's a meaningless ideology that has no end and adds very little to the progression of society, unless, these factors offer a proveable benefit to the relevant role. As I said, it just breeds more division. Judging on competency alone is the best we have and makes everyone feel they are getting an as fair crack at the whip as realistically possible.

But nobody - certainly not me - is suggesting we actively recruit a black person or a woman above a white man because of their race or gender.

What even is your theory that having more women or those of different skin colours as train drivers adds any benefit whatsoever to society or the success of the railways?

There is no theory. As I took pains to point out in earlier posts you seem not to have read, it's a good thing to expand the recruitment base to get as many people to apply as possible - this drives up the overall standard. There are certainly some good women train drivers and some from the BAME demographics that TOCs aren't currently getting applications from.

It's just diversity brownie points

Oops!

It's an insult to women or non-white individuals who will wonder whether they have been employed because of their gender/race, and it's an insult to men or white individuals who might think they didn't get the job because of their gender/race. Making them into bitter and twisted individuals who are more likely to blame society rather than self-improve.

Some irrelevant riffing on a theme that was never mentioned.

It goes without saying, everyone should have the same chance at being employed for a job, but it's going way further than that these days. Equality of opportunity is to be encouraged. Equality of outcome is not.

Nobody is arguing for equality of outcome. But, if you get more applications from BAME people and women, you will probably see more of them driving trains in the future.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
At the end of the day, if you get 5 women and 50 men apply for 10 positions, you cannot expect a 50/50 split.

You should expect that you have recruited those most suitable for the positions, & be able to prove it.

So, you could end up with all 5 women getting positions, & no men.
 

Bellbell

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2013
Messages
245
What even is your theory that having more women or those of different skin colours as train drivers adds any benefit whatsoever to society or the success of the railways? It's just diversity brownie points scoring with little to no tangible benefit. It's an insult to women or non-white individuals who will wonder whether they have been employed because of their gender/race, and it's an insult to men or white individuals who might think they didn't get the job because of their gender/race. Making them into bitter and twisted individuals who are more likely to blame society rather than self-improve. I really don't see how that is a good thing for society.

You don't see a benefit to society in a more representative workforce? Or a more even spread of salary?

I'm frankly amazed and almost impressed at how some on this thread have managed to get to the point of presenting the choice as employing white men who are apparently innately superior as train drivers vs employing women who are not only rubbish, but will demand to work only tues and thursdays from 1000-1400. This kind of ridiculous hyperbole is what shuts down debate and enables the status quo to continue.

What's saddest of all is that this thread is a perfect representation of the mess room. For as long as this attitude prevails nothing much will change. I'm so appreciative of the posts on this thread which show an insight into the issues and a desire to look further into what's going on.
 

Railweigh

Member
Joined
5 Dec 2018
Messages
59
I don’t even know what BAME means. I don’t see any point in actively recruiting certain groups of people - the vacancies are open to anyone, just put the best candidates through regardless of sex, age, colour or anything else.
 

Scottychoo

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
129
While the TOCs can attract thousands of white males to the driving grade why should they care about attracting women or ethnics??
ANYONE can apply for the job, we don't need favouritism or bias towards so called minority groups.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,714
Perhaps ASLEF need to lead by example and stop its references to 'Brother X' which gives (in my view) an 'all boys stick together' impression? One wonder what women members/drivers make of things like the minutes of the March 2019 meeting downloadable here from which I quote a couple of lines:

Bro D Calfe EC President in the Chair

Further, that the General Secretary be instructed to make arrangements for Bro N Gibson, District Organiser District No. 5 and the GBRF Company Council to meet this EC in the June 2019 Session
 

Bellbell

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2013
Messages
245
I don’t even know what BAME means. I don’t see any point in actively recruiting certain groups of people - the vacancies are open to anyone, just put the best candidates through regardless of sex, age, colour or anything else.

Do you know how to use Google?
 

LordCreed

Member
Joined
28 May 2014
Messages
424
I don’t even know what BAME means. I don’t see any point in actively recruiting certain groups of people - the vacancies are open to anyone, just put the best candidates through regardless of sex, age, colour or anything else.

While the TOCs can attract thousands of white males to the driving grade why should they care about attracting women or ethnics??
ANYONE can apply for the job, we don't need favouritism or bias towards so called minority groups.

I think you're both missing the point. Minority groups might simply believe that they'd never get offered the job, and as such never apply. It's about encouraging everyone to apply, and basing all applications on their skills and experience as opposed to their gender / race.
 

tiptoptaff

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2013
Messages
2,982
The other side to the "accommodated" argument is that turns are rewritten to accommodate.

At one of the depots I cover, there's an accommodated link, and the driver works their own turn. Same turn, every day. When they're off on leave, it's a pig to cover. Why? Cos no one wants it. It's longer than most of the others to make up the average hours. And it starts and ends in 'normal' rush hour. So no one wants it. Good for the childcare side as it fits a nursery, but unpopular overall.

So, just because someone is being accommodated, doesn't mean they're getting a cushy shift.

On the guards side at the same depot, it's split Early, Late and mixed link. So splitting the work can, in theory, be done. The difficulty of course, is choosing who goes in the fixed time links.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
While the TOCs can attract thousands of white males to the driving grade why should they care about attracting women or ethnics??
ANYONE can apply for the job, we don't need favouritism or bias towards so called minority groups.

Yes they can. But many don’t. So what’s the harm in asking them “Have you considered a career in driving trains?”

In addition, I fear your use of language reveals more about you than perhaps you ought.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Perhaps ASLEF need to lead by example and stop its references to 'Brother X' which gives (in my view) an 'all boys stick together' impression? One wonder what women members/drivers make of things like the minutes of the March 2019 meeting downloadable here from which I quote a couple of lines:
That sounds more than a bit Soviet.
 

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
- It's good that workforces should be as representative as possible.
You state this is as a fact but I don't see your justification for why having different genders/races/select your chosen group is good
- It's not realistic or reasonable that all workforces will look the same, and some jobs are better suited to some types of people than others..
Absolutely, can't disagree with that. I would say let's just not care what they look like full stop.
- It's good to encourage people who haven't thought about applying before to do so, if they meet the standards required.
Possibly. Especially if there is a shortage of applicants. Train driver jobs are some of the highest subscribed around though so quantity obviously isn't the issue here. It is the aforementioned diversity agenda.
- It's never good to actively select an individual above other individuals because of their race, gender or any other protected characteristic.
Pleased we can agree on that.
- We should be mindful about what the consequences are for the industry when recruiting large numbers of women into a grade which has a rigorous custom and practice culture, especially when it comes to shift working and child care responsibilities (most childcare falls to women), be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.
Agreed. In the absence of any evidence that having women in the job provides any objective benefit, why push for it when it could well cause the problems you describe? The only reason I can see is once again, the ideoligical diversity agenda.
- We should be realistic about how many or few women really do want to be train drivers - we aren't going to get to 50%.
Why should we get to any percent? Why don't we just let women apply if they want to? Why do they need to be actively encouraged?
But nobody - certainly not me - is suggesting we actively recruit a black person or a woman above a white man because of their race or gender.
I'm pleased you don't think that but I still fail to understand why gender or race even matters. Gender only possibly matters due to the reasons you state above but let women work that out for themselves as to whether they want to apply for such a job.
But nobody - certainly not me - is suggesting we actively recruit a black person or a woman above a white man because of their race or gender.
I'm certainly pleased to hear that.
There is no theory. As I took pains to point out in earlier posts you seem not to have read, it's a good thing to expand the recruitment base to get as many people to apply as possible - this drives up the overall standard. There are certainly some good women train drivers and some from the BAME demographics that TOCs aren't currently getting applications from.
Correct. I was merely responding to the original post and subsequently your replies to me. As mentioned above though, are TOCs really struggling for high standard candidates at the moment?
Some irrelevant riffing on a theme that was never mentioned.
It's called widening the discussion and looking at the motivations/context to press releases such as this.
Nobody is arguing for equality of outcome. But, if you get more applications from BAME people and women, you will probably see more of them driving trains in the future.
Correct but once again, still don't know why this even matters.
 

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
You don't see a benefit to society in a more representative workforce? Or a more even spread of salary?
Not particularly, no. I'm interested in everyone having an equal crack at getting a job and the most competent people doing jobs. Not interested in their gender or race.
 

Bellbell

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2013
Messages
245
- We should be mindful about what the consequences are for the industry when recruiting large numbers of women into a grade which has a rigorous custom and practice culture, especially when it comes to shift working and child care responsibilities (most childcare falls to women), be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.

We should also be mindful that men die younger, are more likely to suffer from liver disease, stomach cancer and bowel cancer, more likely to die if they get skin cancer, are three times more likely to commit suicide, are more likely to catch cold and flu viruses and have higher rates of heart disease, be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,033
Location
No longer here
You state this is as a fact but I don't see your justification for why having different genders/races/select your chosen group is good

Diverse workforces tend to perform better and nearly all businesses report benefits from having a wide selection people from an array of backgrounds contributing to their successes.

I am not trying to justify having different genders or races though, I'm simply saying that in the vast majority of cases, a healthy mix of employees from different backgrounds is a likely indicator that your recruitment process is fair. Equal access to good jobs based on merit is a key indicator of a healthy and inclusive society.

Possibly. Especially if there is a shortage of applicants. Train driver jobs are some of the highest subscribed around though so quantity obviously isn't the issue here. It is the aforementioned diversity agenda.

So you only really want to make efforts to ensure that BAME people and women apply for jobs for which there is limited demand and a shortage of applicants - have you thought about why that might be the case? Train driving is an excellent and well paid career which helps people get on in life; it's good to encourage everyone to apply. Think about how train driver vacancies are currently advertised, and where - and what sort of people visit those spaces to know how and where to apply.

Train driving is a serious profession. You can kill people if you do it wrongly. Let's encourage as many people to apply as possible and put them through the same fair process.

Why should we get to any percent? Why don't we just let women apply if they want to? Why do they need to be actively encouraged?

Because many of them don't know it's a viable career, and within that bulwark are likely to be a few excellent drivers.

Correct but once again, still don't know why this even matters.

See my first answer.
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,991
We should also be mindful that men die younger, are more likely to suffer from liver disease, stomach cancer and bowel cancer, more likely to die if they get skin cancer, are three times more likely to commit suicide, are more likely to catch cold and flu viruses and have higher rates of heart disease, be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.

You missed off the gender tax gap...

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/08/18/the-real-gender-gap-the-tax-gap/
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,033
Location
No longer here
We should also be mindful that men die younger, are more likely to suffer from liver disease, stomach cancer and bowel cancer, more likely to die if they get skin cancer, are three times more likely to commit suicide, are more likely to catch cold and flu viruses and have higher rates of heart disease, be realistic about what this might cost and what, if any, operational benefits or disbenefits this might lead to.

Indeed - we need an honest study of what the shift in employment demographics will mean financially, as well as encouraging applicants from all sections of society. Women generally cost more to employ than men - assuming the same salary.
 
Last edited:

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
Diverse workforces tend to perform better and nearly all businesses report benefits from having a wide selection people from an array of backgrounds contributing to their successes.

I am not trying to justify having different genders or races though, I'm simply saying that in the vast majority of cases, a healthy mix of employees from different backgrounds is a likely indicator that your recruitment process is fair. Equal access to good jobs based on merit is a key indicator of a healthy and inclusive society.
I find this very questionable though. Are we really saying that Isambard Kingdom Brunel would have been even more successful if he'd just had a few women and non-white people involved? I strongly suspect it's a zero sum game at best. I think any objective motivations behind this diversity drive pale vastly in comparison with the ideological motivations.
Indeed - we need an honest study of what the shift in employment demographics will mean financially, as well as encouraging applicants from all sections of society. Women generally cost more to employ than men - assuming the same salary.
It would be interesting to see what it's done to family life and the cost of living. Surviving on a single income becomes harder and harder as two income families become more and more common.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
669
Here’s an idea for ASLEF- why not just recruit the best qualified people for the job, irrespective of identity?
Thank you and good night... I would feel discriminated against if my interview and test scores were better than someone who fitted the ethnic or gender bias recruitment target and were offer the job over me.
It's a slippery slope unless they open up the transparency of the recruitment decisions to ensure no one is discriminated against
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top