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

[AlterEgo]

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.

No, it does not make *you* a bully if you refuse to cover a shunt and there is nothing else to it.

Where it becomes bullying is where the victim is ostracised by the messroom, this behaviour becomes commonplace, and they are deliberately left out.

If you have at any part in the decision making process when deciding whether to cover a shunt or a turn thought “well I’m not going to do that because that person broke a strike and nobody else is helping him” then in my view that does make you a bully.

Whether or not an individual is a bully because they don’t cover a turn depends on a number of things.

I can quite happily state that a person who is being shunned and ostracised by their messroom partly or wholly because they broke a strike (no matter how distasteful that might be) is being bullied. Nailed on. And if you don’t recognise that, I’m sad about that.

 

[talltim]

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

They had a close relationship, up to the last couple of years.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Calling someone a scab is bullying. Some of you guys are really quite unbelievably unpleasant.

Strike breaking is not something I could ever do, nor do I think it’s a good thing, but I wouldn’t call someone a scab, to their face or elsewhere, nor would I partake in the shunning that you advocate.

 

[theblackwatch]

No, it does not make *you* a bully if you refuse to cover a shunt and there is nothing else to it.

Where it becomes bullying is where the victim is ostracised by the messroom, this behaviour becomes commonplace, and they are deliberately left out.

If you have at any part in the decision making process when deciding whether to cover a shunt or a turn thought “well I’m not going to do that because that person broke a strike and nobody else is helping him” then in my view that does make you a bully.

Whether or not an individual is a bully because they don’t cover a turn depends on a number of things.

I can quite happily state that a person who is being shunned and ostracised by their messroom partly or wholly because they broke a strike (no matter how distasteful that might be) is being bullied. Nailed on. And if you don’t recognise that, I’m sad about that.

It depends how it is handled. In this example, you don't have to give a reason for not covering a shunt turn. In life, we are all more likely to do favours for people we like - for example, I suspect you'd lend a fiver to a mate in the pub but not a person you didn't really know. If someone were to just say they weren't covering that persons job for them, then fine, but if they were to say they weren't doing so as that person is a scab who didn't go on strike, then clearly it's not!

 

[ComUtoR]

No, it does not make *you* a bully if you refuse to cover a shunt and there is nothing else to it.

Which is where the line is very very blurry. The reasons why I refuse to cover someone elses' work can be quite complex. If I don't like them then I shouldn't have to do it. There is always something to it. I don't like the guy so I choose not to cover his shunt. I never have to so I act purely professional and simply refuse. I shouldn't be castigated because I chose to act professionally and nothing more.

Where it becomes bullying is where the victim is ostracised by the messroom, this behaviour becomes commonplace, and they are deliberately left out.

That's where it becomes complicated. Deliberate organised action I would agree is bullying for sure. However, when no-one likes you then it becomes commonplace. I make my decision not to help you and act purely professionally but what happens when everyone makes the same decision ?

If you have at any part in the decision making process when deciding whether to cover a shunt or a turn thought “well I’m not going to do that because that person broke a strike and nobody else is helping him” then in my view that does make you a bully.

That person broke a strike, betrayed my trust, lost my friendship. I then choose not to help them. I was in a briefing and another Driver said something very racist. Am I a bully because I then decided not to ever help them again ? I still act professionally at all times but I never did them a favor ever again.

Whether or not an individual is a bully because they don’t cover a turn depends on a number of things.

Indeed it does but at what point is it bullying an at what point is it a personal choice. We get swap requests pretty much every single day. There are a couple of Drivers who I would go out my way to help and others I just won't help. Am I bullying them because I don't want to swap their turn ?

I can quite happily state that a person who is being shunned and ostracised by their messroom partly or wholly because they broke a strike (no matter how distasteful that might be) is being bullied. Nailed on.

I would agree. It's a deliberate action designed to ostracize them and to cause them discomfort at work . However, that can still happen for other reasons. As long as you act professionally at all times and do your job as expected then there should be no issue. You appear to be saying that I should be forced to carry out something beyond my job or be forced to engage with someone who I dislike, for whatever reason. If you work during a strike I will absolutely respect your decision.

And if you don’t recognise that, I’m sad about that.

Not once have I stated anything to support deliberate, organized, treatment against any employee. What I am saying though is that its it is a thin line between acting professionally; nothing more and deliberate bullying.

There are 100 (ish) Drivers at my depot. There are some I haven't spoken more than a handful of words to in years. Whilst that is very specific to working shifts and you can go months without seeing people. It doesn't make me a bully when I see them and still don't speak to them or directly engage with them.

 

[driver_m]

Calling someone a scab is bullying. Some of you guys are really quite unbelievably unpleasant.

Strike breaking is not something I could ever do, nor do I think it’s a good thing, but I wouldn’t call someone a scab, to their face or elsewhere, nor would I partake in the shunning that you advocate.

I am not bothered one bit what you think of me. I want what's best for my colleagues and myself. Someone who actively undermines our position by being in the same union is totally at fault. Don't join a union if you don't agree with striking. It's not an insurance policy to use when in trouble.

 

[ComUtoR]

nor would I partake in the shunning that you advocate.

You are conflating shunning someone and acting professionally. You are also conflating personal choice with group action.

I never have to be nice. Just professional.

 

[PR1Berske]

"I'm not a bully buy if you choose to work a strike then I'm name calling you and will do all I can to avoid communicating with you."

Attitudes to this effect have been described to me by my colleague, as I said in my first post on this thread. It's as close as damn-it to bullying, the constant and "in the air" belief that you either go along with strike action or you'll be on the fringes for months, Maybe years. In a confined space like an office or kitchen area or mess room or wherever it might be, silence can be as heavy as a punch, and I know just how uncomfortable silence from colleagues can be when it builds and builds over time.

 

[AlterEgo]

I am not bothered one bit what you think of me. I want what's best for my colleagues and myself. Someone who actively undermines our position by being in the same union is totally at fault. Don't join a union if you don't agree with striking. It's not an insurance policy to use when in trouble.

Oh I know you don’t care, that’s quite apparent.

 

[AlterEgo]

You are conflating shunning someone and acting professionally. You are also conflating personal choice with group action.

I never have to be nice. Just professional.

I’m conflating neither and was quite specific about that.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I am not bothered one bit what you think of me. I want what's best for my colleagues and myself. Someone who actively undermines our position by being in the same union is totally at fault. Don't join a union if you don't agree with striking. It's not an insurance policy to use when in trouble.

Actually, if you spoke to a lot of union members they would tell you the same as I will, that they view it as an insurance policy and that is all. Some people allow their union activities to seemingly consume them which I'd their choice, but don't push it onto others.

 

[ComUtoR]

Oh I know you don’t care, that’s quite apparent.

So the Driver I mentioned who was a total racist. I decided not to help them out in any way. Does that make me a bully for not doing his last shunt ?

 

[driver_m]

No one's replied to that other point I made though. You refuse to take part in strike action, but take the benefits that other striking workers have fought for. Is that fair?

 

[ComUtoR]

"I'm not a bully buy if you choose to work a strike then I'm name calling you and will do all I can to avoid communicating with you."

Name calling is bullying.. 100%

Attitudes to this effect have been described to me by my colleague, as I said in my first post on this thread. It's as close as damn-it to bullying, the constant and "in the air" belief that you either go along with strike action or you'll be on the fringes for months, Maybe years. In a confined space like an office or kitchen area or mess room or wherever it might be, silence can be as heavy as a punch, and I know just how uncomfortable silence from colleagues can be when it builds and builds over time.

I've watched it happen, it can be quite nasty.

Where does the line get crossed between only ever acting professionally between yourself and someone else and being a bully ?

 

[Bromley boy]

No, it does not make *you* a bully if you refuse to cover a shunt and there is nothing else to it.

Where it becomes bullying is where the victim is ostracised by the messroom, this behaviour becomes commonplace, and they are deliberately left out.

If you have at any part in the decision making process when deciding whether to cover a shunt or a turn thought “well I’m not going to do that because that person broke a strike and nobody else is helping him” then in my view that does make you a bully.

Whether or not an individual is a bully because they don’t cover a turn depends on a number of things.

I can quite happily state that a person who is being shunned and ostracised by their messroom partly or wholly because they broke a strike (no matter how distasteful that might be) is being bullied. Nailed on. And if you don’t recognise that, I’m sad about that.

I can see where you are coming from but a train crew messroom is an environment where people gossip, word spreads and, because people only see each other sporadically, it's easy for a person to acquire a reputation.

I've seen it myself, where somebody has a bit of an attitude or is rude to their colleagues, they quite rapidly get a reputation as a bit of a see you next Tuesday and people will be less inclined to do favours for them.

It's also a heavily unionised environment and if someone belonging to the same union breaks a strike, while everyone else is loosing money, inevitably people won't be inclined to do them any favours. Just in the same way as they might not do favours for people they have a personality clash with - that is entirely their prerogative.

I'd hesitate to describe this as bullying and in reality, even if it is, there would be nothing that could practically be done about it. I certainly wouldn't condone being unprofessional or any of the kinds of more extreme behaviour described upthread.

 

[AlterEgo]

So the Driver I mentioned who was a total racist. I decided not to help them out in any way. Does that make me a bully for not doing his last shunt ?

No, it doesn’t in and of itself. I think that is pretty clear.

But if he made a racist comment and the response was all his colleagues refusing to speak to him, not being invited along to drinks, or join the fantasy football league, nobody doing him any favours, and an active avoidance of his presence, then he would be getting bullied. He’d still also be the guy who made a racist comment, but he’d also be being bullied at the same time. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Surely you can see that?

 

[AlterEgo]

No one's replied to that other point I made though. You refuse to take part in strike action, but take the benefits that other striking workers have fought for. Is that fair?

Of course it isn’t fair, and neither is calling those people scabs and ostracising them.

 

[Bromley boy]

Name calling is bullying.. 100%

Names like "beardy spotter" ???

 

[MichaelAMW]

I am not bothered one bit what you think of me. I want what's best for my colleagues and myself. Someone who actively undermines our position by being in the same union is totally at fault. Don't join a union if you don't agree with striking. It's not an insurance policy to use when in trouble.

A mature way of dealing with others is to appreciate their point of view; your use of the word "scab" is just childish and shows you are not able, or perhaps willing, to accept there may be another way of viewing a particular situation. As others have said, one thing a union will do is to support diversity in the workplace; use of words like "scab" is, however, very clear evidence of the hypocrisy of some elements of the union movement, with certain forms of diversity, i.e. disagreeing with the motivation for a strike, being treated with aggression.

 

[driver_m]

Of course it isn’t fair, and neither is calling those people scabs and ostracising them.

Well I don't live in Dreamworld where everyone gets on and there's no trouble at all. You can't pick and choose the bits of the Union you like and not the bits you don't.It is NOT purely an insurance policy. That's a part of how a union helps. If you join and a strike is voted for by a majority, you.should join in, even if you don't agree, otherwise leave it.

 

[DarloRich]

No, it does not make *you* a bully if you refuse to cover a shunt and there is nothing else to it.

Where it becomes bullying is where the victim is ostracised by the messroom, this behaviour becomes commonplace, and they are deliberately left out.

If you have at any part in the decision making process when deciding whether to cover a shunt or a turn thought “well I’m not going to do that because that person broke a strike and nobody else is helping him” then in my view that does make you a bully.

Whether or not an individual is a bully because they don’t cover a turn depends on a number of things.

I can quite happily state that a person who is being shunned and ostracised by their messroom partly or wholly because they broke a strike (no matter how distasteful that might be) is being bullied. Nailed on. And if you don’t recognise that, I’m sad about that.

While I may not disagree I wonder if there is a controlling mind or whether it is simply a response to an unhappy situation. Does anyone "order" the ostracism or does it just happen? If I feel someone has betrayed me I am not going to help them. That doesn't just relate to strike action but to life in general. Is that not a natural response to a situation governed by passion and emotion? Would you help a former partner who cheated on you? Would you help someone who stole from you?

 

[Robertj21a]

Well I don't live in Dreamworld where everyone gets on and there's no trouble at all. You can't pick and choose the bits of the Union you like and not the bits you don't.It is NOT purely an insurance policy. That's a part of how a union helps. If you join and a strike is voted for by a majority, you.should join in, even if you don't agree, otherwise leave it.

How do you then treat colleagues who prefer to not be in any union ?

 

[BestWestern]

Names like "beardy spotter" ???

Anoraks and Gricers have been granted express protection under the Equality Act, haven't they?

 

[adc82140]

Forgive me if I've missed this somewhere- are the staff being bullied RMT members or not?

 

[ComUtoR]

No, it doesn’t in and of itself. I think that is pretty clear.

But when is that everyone individually deciding to not speak to this racist because he is an abhorrent person and bullying ? When is personal choice allowed ?

But if he made a racist comment and the response was all his colleagues refusing to speak to him, not being invited along to drinks, or join the fantasy football league, nobody doing him any favours, and an active avoidance of his presence, then he would be getting bullied. He’d still also be the guy who made a racist comment, but he’d also be being bullied at the same time. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Surely you can see that?

But when is that everyone individually deciding to not speak to this racist because he is an abhorrent person and bullying ? When is personal choice allowed ?

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Surely you can see that?

I can see that but its a thin line between the two. Automatically calling it bullying isn't correct. You seem to be advocating that everyone should still act the same towards someone regardless of their actions.

Where does the line between acting professionally at all times and nothing more become bullying ? Again, by your logic. Acting professionally towards someone and nothing more would constitute bullying. Surely you must see that both outcomes are the same.

It isn't as clear as you state and certainly not bullying by default.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well I don't live in Dreamworld where everyone gets on and there's no trouble at all. You can't pick and choose the bits of the Union you like and not the bits you don't.It is NOT purely an insurance policy. That's a part of how a union helps. If you join and a strike is voted for by a majority, you.should join in, even if you don't agree, otherwise leave it.

I agree with this. I don’t agree with name calling.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can see that but its a thin line between the two. Automatically calling it bullying isn't correct. You seem to be advocating that everyone should still act the same towards someone regardless of their actions.

That’s not what I’ve said. I would certainly treat strike breakers differently; I would tell them that I didn’t support what they did, I’d try and talk them round, and I probably wouldn’t send them a Christmas card. But I’d be perfectly civil, and the only thing that would make me think twice about doing them a favour would be repercussions and the fear of indeed being shunned myself. What I wouldn’t do is join in a group shun, or call them a scab. The first is controlling and unpleasant behaviour which may amount to bullying when done in a group, and the second is outright bullying.

Most people here if asked would rightly say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses shunning wayward congregation members is abusive and disgusting as a form of coercion (yet I can feel you scratching to explain them away, too). Of course, maybe the dozens of congregation members do exercise their “personal choice”, heh, but we all know what it is and it’s not defensible.

 

[bb21]

Well I don't live in Dreamworld where everyone gets on and there's no trouble at all. You can't pick and choose the bits of the Union you like and not the bits you don't.It is NOT purely an insurance policy. That's a part of how a union helps. If you join and a strike is voted for by a majority, you.should join in, even if you don't agree, otherwise leave it.

Another school of thought is that the union provides a service, for a charge, in the form of membership fees. It doesn't mean it can/should coerce members into doing things they do not agree with, nor is it a "take it whole or leave it" arrangement. This is, after all, supposedly a democracy and free country. No man has any obligation to support the cause for anyone else.

Of course if in the long run it undermines the collective interests then it would adversely affect those who supposedly did the "undermining" in the first place too.

Not say I necessarily agree with it, just something I have read before, and I can see some merit in it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How do you then treat colleagues who prefer to not be in any union ?

I am interested to know this as my limited experience also shows there is an unsavoury attitude to those who do not join unions or leave them.

 

[ComUtoR]

That’s not what I’ve said. I would certainly treat strike breakers differently. What I wouldn’t do is join in a group shun, or call them a scab. The first is controlling and unpleasant behaviour which may amount to bullying when done in a group, and the second is outright bullying.

I completely agree here and that's where I believe the line lies. Deliberate group action is wrong but even by your own admission, you would treat them differently. That still is a thin line. You are deliberately shunning someone because of their choice to work. Now is that shunning, you personally bullying or a personal choice you should be allowed to make ?

Most people here if asked would rightly say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses shunning wayward congregation members is abusive and disgusting as a form of coercion (yet I can feel you scratching to explain them away, too). Of course, maybe the dozens of congregation members do exercise their “personal choice”, heh, but we all know what it is and it’s not defensible.

Agreed and again it is deliberate action to specifically harm someone or force them to take a specific action. Ergo, Bullying.

I don't speak to a couple of people. I have no intent to harm them or cause them discomfort and I wish them well in whatever they do and I would still support them as a Driver if that was required but I am still shunning them by your definition. I find it disheartening that my decision to not speak to a racist could be viewed the same as bullying because my actions are exactly the same. I also find it disheartening that if I always acted professionally towards someone but nothing else and they worked during a strike, I would suddenly be considered to be a bully.

It really isn't a default stance to take that someone is being bullied purely based on them being 'shunned'