Allegations of "bullying,intimidation and harassment" at SWR depot

[Sunset route]

This is nothing to do with unionisms, but pure, pack animal, tribal or gang instincts that runs through all of our lives. If someone doesn’t fit in with the majority they tend to get sidelined no matter what the subject matter is, but in this case it’s are you in dispute or not in dispute, but it could equally be what football team you support or where you live in the British Isles.

So in this case apart from conducting your job correctly and carrying out professional handovers and insuring that safety is not compromised and communicating professionally, then I can’t see what any company can do if colleagues don’t talk to each other in mess rooms or anywhere else that’s not actually part of your job. I expect that nearly every workplace has someone that doesn’t really fit for whatever reason that most staff don’t talk Tom unless their duties require them to so and I can’t see this being any different.

 

[sheff1]

... back in the dark days of the 70's.

I am now waiting for someone to quote Robert Mark.

 

[Nean]

(Please note- this is a genuine question due to not being in a unionised industry and I'm trying to understand how some of these things work)

If my understanding of strike pay is correct (going off what people have said in this and other threads) then wouldn't a non-striking (yet still union) member of staff effectively be subsidising a striking member to go on strike?

 

[Sunset route]

(Please note- this is a genuine question due to not being in a unionised industry and I'm trying to understand how some of these things work)

If my understanding of strike pay is correct (going off what people have said in this and other threads) then wouldn't a non-striking (yet still union) member of staff effectively be subsidising a striking member to go on strike?

The short answer is yes, but only in the same way that our taxes will end up paying for someone on job seekers allowance or universal credit at the other end of the country. Yes the money is paid in along with everyone else’s I to the pot, but what the actual percentage is of our own money that actually ends up in their pocket must be minuscule.

 

[kevconnor]

(Please note- this is a genuine question due to not being in a unionised industry and I'm trying to understand how some of these things work)

If my understanding of strike pay is correct (going off what people have said in this and other threads) then wouldn't a non-striking (yet still union) member of staff effectively be subsidising a striking member to go on strike?

In essence yes however the sums would be so small as to be immaterial. My union subs are £16 per month and there are 400 employees in our workplace. If even only 20% went strike for a day it would only provide a penny per person on strike per day.

 

[Nean]

The short answer is yes, but only in the same way that our taxes will end up paying for someone on job seekers allowance or universal credit at the other end of the country. Yes the money is paid in along with everyone else’s I to the pot, but what the actual percentage is of our own money that actually ends up in their pocket must be minuscule.

In essence yes however the sums would be so small as to be immaterial. My union subs are £16 per month and there are 400 employees in our workplace. If even only 20% went strike for a day it would only provide a penny per person on strike per day.

Many thanks for the clarification.

 

[yorkie]

It doesn’t matter if it is physical, verbal or any other form of intimidation, the law and company HR policies are very clear on what is not acceptable. This is not the 1970s, and it is to be hoped this is properly investigated and any perpetrators dealt with as necessary - including dismissal if appropriate.

Agreed. If the allegations are true, then it needs to be dealt with appropriately.

 

[BestWestern]

I'd be interested to know what the 'annonymous source' was hoping to achieve from contacting the BBC, they aren't particularly likely to resolve the issue. A solicitor might have been more helpful. Do BBC journos pay for local trivia? It's also interesting to consider that the complainant, assuming they did call into their manager's office to raise the issue properly on their way to the newsdesk, has now presumably placed themselves in a position warranting significant disciplinary action by discussing an ongoing internal investigation with the media. Assuming there aren't all that many non-strikers complaining to their managers about harassment, it's risky sticking your head above the parapet like that.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you don't go out on strike be prepared to be ignored, no help or support from colleagues, people shunning you etc etc.

It's a fact of life the company can't force it's employees to talk to each other.

If it's physical intimidation that's another matter.

The RMT are a union and should know about bullying at work. Shunning people and refusing to deal with them is a form of bullying, and while we all know it goes on that doesn’t make it okay.

Those who are tacitly condoning bullying on this thread are as bad, and as sad, as the bullies themselves.

I personally wouldn’t cross a picket line or break a strike but I respect the rights of those who choose to work (maybe they need the money or something God forbid).

 

[ComUtoR]

Shunning people and refusing to deal with them is a form of bullying, and while we all know it goes on that doesn’t make it okay.

I certainly do not condone bullying but I do take umbrage at the suggestion that shunning people is bullying. I understand where you are coming from with it but there are always people you do not get on with at work. If you don't speak to them or do them favors or help them in any way; is that bullying ? You shouldn't be forced to befriend someone or shouldn't be pressured to do someone a favor either. Isn't that a form of bullying too ?

I think there is a fine line when it is done specifically to cause that person to feel ostracized and one where someone is just disliked and nobody wants to talk or help them out.

When it comes to those who cross the picket line, they lose friends really fast. A lot of people see it as a betrayal and a lack of trust. You can understand when people turn their back on them.

 

[driver_m]

If the industrial action results in improvements in pay or conditions, I take it that you're happy for the no strikers who've worked through industrial action to pick up the improved pay or conditions, despite not having gone on strike to fight for these improvements? Seems a bit like having your cake and eating it?

 

[LowLevel]

If you're in the union and refuse to abide by a collective vote that meets the standards of the oppressive new trade union laws then you should be booted out of it. See collectives, unions, Brexit, whatever else. Otherwise there's little point.

I don't particularly hold with being unpleasant towards people who work but I am not going to say I don't understand why people might behave that way because I do - it's annoying.

I do not like people creaming in overtime and rest day work out of it though and in those circumstances while I refuse to stonewall anyone I do reserve the right to 'work as normal' myself if they ask for job swaps etc.

If for whatever you feel unable to support your colleagues then I don't think it's unreasonable for you not to expect their support in return if you have an issue.

 

[the sniper]

The RMT are a union and should know about bullying at work. Shunning people and refusing to deal with them is a form of bullying, and while we all know it goes on that doesn’t make it okay.

While I don't agree with people being threatened or bullied for not going on strike, I find it ludicrous that presumably people should be forced to engage in friendly chit chat with someone that they know actively worked against the interests of you, most of your colleagues and friends. Failure to befriend said people being punished by the unsurprisingly very sympathetic employer as bullying, particularly if a said person is so willing to undermine you all that they're willing to go to the BBC and throw every single person in the union under the bus...

People make the decision not to strike for various reasons, I can understand some of those, but in most of those cases I couldn't pretend that I wasn't at all bothered by their lack of support for a cause that I view to be massively important, while other colleagues had suffered hardship too themselves supporting said cause. I wouldn't be uncivil to anyone, but I couldn't ignore that there was now a conflict of interests and personalities between me and that person that would be hard to overcome. I wouldn't be overly inclined to overcome those differences, particularly not while the dispute was still ongoing.

And before people feel too bad, lets not forget, as the company say "we are fully supporting those who choose to [work]", well no s***... Any short term inconvenience of not being able to get people to swap jobs or rest days with you or have some banter in the mess room will be more than made up for by the company... Money and opportunities will be there for them while those who have been on strike can be punished into going down with the grade...

 

[AlterEgo]

I certainly do not condone bullying but I do take umbrage at the suggestion that shunning people is bullying. I understand where you are coming from with it but there are always people you do not get on with at work. If you don't speak to them or do them favors or help them in any way; is that bullying ? You shouldn't be forced to befriend someone or shouldn't be pressured to do someone a favor either. Isn't that a form of bullying too ?

Shunning is nailed on bullying. It’s outright ostracism, particularly when done as a group. I’m amazed people don’t think a person who is being ostracised in this way is being bullied.

Nobody is asking you to be someone’s mate or do them a favour. But in the case where someone has done something quite within their rights at work, yet unpopular, and the rest of the workforce ostracise and shun them for it, it’s absolutely nailed on bullying.

 

[AlterEgo]

While I don't agree with people being threatened or bullied for not going on strike, I find it ludicrous that presumably people should be forced to engage in friendly chit chat with someone that they know actively worked against the interests of you, most of your colleagues and friends. Failure to befriend said people being punished by the unsurprisingly very sympathetic employer as bullying, particularly if a said person is so willing to undermine you all that they're willing to go to the BBC and throw every single person in the union under the bus...

People make the decision not to strike for various reasons, I can understand some of those, but in most of those cases I couldn't pretend that I wasn't at all bothered by their lack of support for a cause that I view to be massively important, while other colleagues had suffered hardship too themselves supporting said cause. I wouldn't be uncivil to anyone, but I couldn't ignore that there was now a conflict of interests and personalities between me and that person that would be hard to overcome. I wouldn't be overly inclined to overcome those differences, particularly not while the dispute was still ongoing.

Nobody is suggesting that you can be disciplined for not being someone’s friend or forced to have a chat with someone. If you read the OP, the allegations against the staff include harassment and intimidation.

My specific point is outlined in the post above.

 

[the sniper]

Nobody is suggesting that you can be disciplined for not being someone’s friend or forced to have a chat with someone. If you read the OP, the allegations against the staff include harassment and intimidation.

Where do you draw the line between not being someone's friend, chatting with them or doing them a favour and 'ostracising and shunning' someone? You're saying that's bullying. You can be disciplined for bullying.

 

[yorkie]

Where do you draw the line between not being someone's friend, chatting with them or doing them a favour and 'ostracising and shunning' someone? You're saying that's bullying. You can be disciplined for bullying.

It is bullying.

"people should be forced to engage in friendly chit chat" is what you said but does anyone really think that? I suspect not.

 

[Malcolmffc]

Anyone, in any job has a fight to expect their colleagues to act towards them in a cordial and professional manner, regardless of whether they may or may not have supported any industrial action.

In this specific case, poor behaviour by RMT members will likely suppress turnout for future strikes. Given the SWR strike was such a damp squib with minimal impact on the vast majority of passengers, that doesn’t seem wise.

 

[LowLevel]

Anyone, in any job has a fight to expect their colleagues to act towards them in a cordial and professional manner, regardless of whether they may or may not have supported any industrial action.

In this specific case, poor behaviour by RMT members will likely suppress turnout for future strikes. Given the SWR strike was such a damp squib with minimal impact on the vast majority of passengers, that doesn’t seem wise.

Professional yes, cordial I disagree. I have (amazingly considering how many people there are employed on the railway) at the last count 3 people at work who refuse to engage with me due to perceived slights in the past (one I had a disagreement over something daft, the second I put back in his box politely after he tried to bawl in my face on a platform and he's never forgiven me and the third repeatedly and persistently made sexual advances towards towards my partner and again I politely asked him to pack it in having kept a dignified silence for 18 months).

At no point do we ever engage in anything cordial but we get the job done. We pass essential information, we will cooperate to assist passengers but I wouldn't say good morning to them and they wouldn't to me.

 

[al78]

I wonder if those who think its OK to abuse a non-striker with the term "Scab", think its OK to abuse a black person with the N word or a gay man with the P word? These terms are now totally unacceptable as should the term "Scab" be.

Whilst I agree with what you are trying to say that is not a good analogy. Being black or gay is not a choice. Refusing to participate in a strike is a choice, and strikers may feel that choosing to work on a strike day undermimes the effectiveness of the strike, so is a form of opposition. Bullying others is not good, but that is the crapness of human nature for you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you're a union member and you break the strike your union voted for, then you are deliberately and consciously choosing to stab your colleagues in the back. They are all also losing a day's pay, but you turning up to work reduces the effectiveness of the strike action.

I've worked with a few people like this, in a separate and much less militant industry. Only too happy to accept the benefits of the strike action, and the benefits of union membership when the muck hits the fan, but the first to suck up to management the second they could make some cash. Everyone hated them, but management gave them the plum jobs because they drank the Kool Aid. Socially they were ostracized: nobody wants to take Judas down the pub after work.

I don't wish to condone physical or verbal violence. But ignoring them? Of course they're ignored and shunned. That's what you do to people who deliberately undermine you so publicly.

 

[al78]

Scargill was in charge of the railway ? I obviously missed that one.

It is called an analogy.

 

[DarloRich]

It didn't take long for the anti union circle jerk to begin.....................

If you're a union member and you break the strike your union voted for, then you are deliberately and consciously choosing to stab your colleagues in the back. They are all also losing a day's pay, but you turning up to work reduces the effectiveness of the strike action.

I've worked with a few people like this, in a separate and much less militant industry. Only too happy to accept the benefits of the strike action, and the benefits of union membership when the muck hits the fan, but the first to suck up to management the second they could make some cash. Everyone hated them, but management gave them the plum jobs because they drank the Kool Aid. Socially they were ostracized: nobody wants to take Judas down the pub after work.

I don't wish to condone physical or verbal violence. But ignoring them? Of course they're ignored and shunned. That's what you do to people who deliberately undermine you so publicly.

Exactly correct.

I was also brought up to believe that you do not insult someone who is striking by crossing their picket line. They haven't taken the decision to strike lightly (despite what the majority here seem to think) and you don't insult their postilion by strolling past them putting yourself first.

Too many in society and here seem to think that is acceptable behaviour. I don't.

The thing is that I respect that someone has a right to strike, I would never try and belittle them because they have gone out on strike action or call them names because they have done so because I respect that is their right.

However if strikers want people to respect their right to strike then realistically they have to respect that other people have a right to not strike otherwise they are complete hypocrites. Everyone should be able to make their own mind up without the other side intimidating them.

But do you not see how you and other like you deciding to ignore a strike ballot and continue to work simply hands the power to the employer to treat you and all your colleagues as badly as they want? You do their job for them.

BTW - they will get rid of the strikers and strike breakers all the same when the time comes, which it will. Your loyalty wont be rewarded. That is what I often find sad about this argument.

I wonder if those who think its OK to abuse a non-striker with the term "Scab", think its OK to abuse a black person with the N word or a gay man with the P word? These terms are now totally unacceptable as should the term "Scab" be.

that's preposterous. On what basis would you suggest that? That some right wing "snowflakes" (?) don't like it? I can think of much worse words to describe strike breakers that you wouldn't like either.

The coal industry and the railway have always had a very close relationship in this country.

Yes so close that when requested the railway unions joined in the great general strike of 1984/85. Oh hang on........................................

(close perhaps but not symbiotic)

 

[Dieseldriver]

As a Railwayman, I know first hand that this won't just be someone receiving the silent treatment. The people thought of as 'scabs' will be constantly slagged off, have other people in mess rooms finger wag and bang tables in unwarranted anger at them. They will have completely untrue rumours spread about them and any new starters to the depot will be actively brainwashed into joining the 'majority' in all of this.
I've seen this sort of thing and how it affects people. I'm sure other union members in this thread will deny this but we all know it's true, either that or you're so convinced it's justified, you won't see the damaging effect it has.
I am a union member and I am vehently against the extension of DOO. However, I am also against antiquated militant pack mentality and bullying.
I am also not happy with someone in a safety critical role turning up to work with this playing on their mind.

 

[ComUtoR]

Shunning is nailed on bullying. It’s outright ostracism, particularly when done as a group. I’m amazed people don’t think a person who is being ostracised in this way is being bullied

I get where your coming from and done deliberately as a group I would agree but If I don't like a particular person then why should I talk to them ? Why should I swap turns with them ? Am I not allowed personal choice who to speak to and who not to ? There are people at my Depot that I just never engage with and never go out my way to help them. So if I don't cover their last shunt for them its bullying ? What if I'm offering tea/coffee in crew room but I specifically don't ask someone. Is that bullying too ?

As I said, there is a fine line between the two. The intent with which something is done is the important factor here.

 

[PR1Berske]

But Com, surely you recognise that during work hours you are expected to be professional? No, covering their last shunt is not bullying, per se, although being known as the Union member who avoids assisting non members, at possibly all cost, makes you look potentially petulant, possibly unprofessional.

I'm a non-Union worker in the NHS. There are colleagues I don't speak to outside office hours. But were I to deliberately avoid cooperating with them during hours, I'd get a stiff talking to, at least.

 

[Bromley boy]

But Com, surely you recognise that during work hours you are expected to be professional? No, covering their last shunt is not bullying, per se, although being known as the Union member who avoids assisting non members, at possibly all cost, makes you look potentially petulant, possibly unprofessional.

I'm a non-Union worker in the NHS. There are colleagues I don't speak to outside office hours. But were I to deliberately avoid cooperating with them during hours, I'd get a stiff talking to, at least.

There's nothing unprofessional about not covering a shunt. This requires going out of your way to do someone a favour by doing something on their diagram, not yours. Similarly swapping shifts, and all the other little things that make life on the railway a little bit easier, all rely on goodwill between colleagues.

Inevitably people who are disliked by their colleagues will not get favours done for them. This is a very long way short of bullying and is an inevitable fact of working with a bunch of other human beings.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree with being professional but that again is literally a line where its a bit blurred. We cover last shunts all the time. That has nothing to do with being professional or even part of my job. Its done to be nice so the guy/gal can go home early. You never have to do it and some don't. If I don't cover someones last shunt. AlterEgo/Yorkie are stating that it would be bullying.

Same with talking to your colleagues. I'm polite when spoken to and during LADDs and other briefings I would always absolutely engage with them as that would be professional. However, talking to them in the crew room has nothing to do with being professional. Again, that has been suggested as bullying. I would be consider to be 'shunning them' purely based on the fact that I choose not to talk with them.

Same with not swapping turns. It's nothing to do with being professional. It's a personal choice to swap turns with someone. But not swapping could be considered bullying under the reason someone is being 'shunned'

A lot of what happens at work is people helping each other out beyond your job. All those favors just vanish when someone isn't liked for some reason or another.

People being treated purely professional and nothing more could also be considered to be bullying. When people go out after work for drinks etc but specific people aren't invited they often feel ostracized and left out. Its a fine line when done deliberate and when done becuase you don't want to hang out outside of work.

There has always been people at work who are just not liked. Bullying would be a deliberate action taken to hurt them in some way.

 

[mpthomson]

Above all else, isn't that a breach of security policy?

In my job that would be gross misconduct, summary dismissal.

 

[driver_m]

If a scab was to take over a train from me, I will do what I have to do, that is tell them any problems with the train and anything else required of me in the rules. I do not have to engage with them in anything else. If I choose to refuse to talk to them, engage with them socially, or exchange pleasantries, that is my choice, how dare anyone then accuse me of being a bully, what next? Invite the woman who split my family around for a chit chat? Some ridiculous anti-union viewpoints on here.