The language I’ve heard in my mess room? Blimey. It goes way beyond “scab”. You simply don’t strikebreak on the railway if you know what’s good for you.
Best story I’ve heard was someone being denied a job in 2005 because the hiring manager recognised their name and remembered they’d “strike broken” in 1981. “Well, we don’t want people like that working here”.
Next week? They need to not put one foot wrong. Give me two against a red? Call to control - this train isn’t turning a wheel until you supply me with a competent guard, or I take it ECS.
ECS all the way back to London? That’s fine. Sorry Mr. contingent guard #inserts smirk# you’ll have to get the hell off my train and kick everyone onto the platform and stand with them as I depart in splendid isolation.
Thank goodness I don't work at your TOC. It sounds horrible, and beyond toxic. A strike is supposed to be following one of the fundamental principles of
democracy - a right to defend your beliefs, and to act as an individual. How sad that people can't respect that.
The second part of your response implies that you would not ordinarily report safety of the line incidents if you had non-contingent staff working your train. That is a very dodgy thing to post on a social media site, as you are effectively admitting to negligence. You should be reporting dispatch against a red, or similar, regardless of who is working your train.
It is very interesting how the more vocal on here are very keen to stress that contingents are unable to do the job safely and that they should not be working trains, yet are also happy to admit that they wilfully neglect their duties to report attempted dispatches against a red.
I will be reporting every leaf out of place next week.
Again, would you not normally?
So what you’re suggesting, basically, is that there’s a tendency by some staff in your depot to bully others that choose not to strike?
That is the vibe I get from many on the posts on here. Not all, or most, but a minority, though. But that minority should feel the full weight of their respective TOCs' disciplinary process. Intimidation is not a joke, and should be taken seriously.
Again, I fail to see how petty and unprofessional behaviour like that can even exist among fully grown adults in a skilled job. It’d be borderline funny if it wasn’t so concerning and embarrassing.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you...
They should not be picking & choosing who they do represent based on if the members chose to strike or not. And if they do, quite frankly they should resign as reps because they are clearly not suitable for the role.
Exactly this.
The problem is that the unprofessional behaviour is often the opposite.
If a member of platform staff gives me a bat on the red. I should immediately report this. That is the correct professional response. In reality, I tend to give the staff member a quick *ahem* and point to the signal. No harm, no foul, it's an easy mistake.
If it's someone you may dislike for whatever reason. You do the professional thing, and report them.
One of the reasons why "work to rule" can be so effective is that we let things slide on many occasions and generally go above and beyond.
I think there's a difference between 'working to rule' to not cover overtime or get the job finished, and working to rule in the sense of reporting things that you should be reporting anyway.
Again, this is a post that suggests you are wilfully not reporting things that should be reported. If you would report contingent staff for it, you should be reporting regular staff for it. Failure to do so is a neglect of duty, it would appear.
Right but apparently he would normally let it slide. So it's either not that big of a deal and it only is on that day because it's a strike, or it should never happen and he's ignoring safety issues on non strike days presumably because he likes the people involved. Either way's not good is it?
Dispatch against a red is a very big deal, and rightly so. If reported, and it's a first occurrence, I would imagine a meeting with tea & biscuits and maybe some targeted training would follow.
If you do not report such an incident, how can you guarantee that this isn't the tenth time they've given the tip against a red that week? That day? That hour? Sounds ridiculous, but that is exactly why reporting processes exist and why investigations are carried out.
Furthermore, the investigation may identify structural factors that are placing you and your other colleagues at risk of making the same mistake. Unless these are investigated, these factors may never be identified.
We tend to watch out for each other and understand how small mistakes happen. When I've got a bat on a red, the platform staff member is very grateful that I've just given them a quick prompt to check the signal. They are instantly remorseful and glad that we are watching each others backs.
It's hard to drop someone in the brown stuff so yes, many people will let something like that slide.
Should that happen ? Well, no. That should be reported and potentially someone is out of a job.
Watching out for each other isn't the same as letting a potential SAS-SPAD slide, in my opinion. As alluded to above, in fact, you could be doing exactly the opposite.
Picture a scenario: platform staff gives you the bat against a red. You don't take it. You politely point out the red to the member of platform staff. They're very grateful. The job goes on.
Next day, the same staff member gives your colleague the bat against a red. Distracted, your colleague doesn't notice the red, and gives two on the bell. The driver has also been distracted, takes the RA, and plows head on into a train coming in the other direction. Driver, guard & passengers seriously injured or worse.
The investigation found that the platform staff member was struggling with issues at home that they hadn't considered were impacting their ability to work safely. Had you reported, they would have been taken off for investigation and this accident would never have happened.
This is
exactly why railway staff are told to report near misses. The above may seem unlikely, but similar has happened before and will happen again if people do not follow the processes. It's funny how those keen to strike are insistent on the responsibility held by those in that position, yet a minority of those people are also not adhering to that responsibility...
It would be difficult to prove you reported it purely because that person was someone you disliked.
Not difficult, however, to prove that you didn't report something because you did like the person. What other reason are you going to give for failing to report?
I think the point he was trying to make is that if he has a contingent guard on who isn’t experienced to the same standard, does the job once in a blue moon, and they dispatch against Red then he would feel less assured in taking the train forward with that guard on board.
Maybe there shouldn’t be a difference but I can see his point.
There shouldn't be, and isn't, a difference.
