ASLEF push for more female and BAME drivers

[Bellbell]

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.

Does that statement include or exclude the cost of maternity? Because I don't think you can fairly analyse that as solely a cost of employing women.

 

[AlterEgo]

I find this very questionable though.

Do you own a business or have you worked in a senior position in one? Do you think there may be a reason that nearly all big employers (I can't actually thunk of one that doesn't) say diversity is good for their business? Are they all in on some huge conspiracy do you think, or maybe it does actually bring some benefits after all?

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?

Brunel existed in a different time and if you can't see the difference in employment landscapes and attitudes between Victorian England and 2019 then I can't really help you.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does that statement include or exclude the cost of maternity? Because I don't think you can fairly analyse that as solely a cost of employing women.

It includes the cost of maternity, the increased propensity of taking sick days, generally shorter service length - these are all direct costs of employing women. I used to attend business change meetings in a previous life and our COO, a woman, was previously the COO at the DWP and a director at Cabinet Office and gave a compelling presentation about the costs of employing people. Women do cost more.

This isn't to say "you shouldn't employ women" or that women should be disfavoured in case they start a family. This would be flagrantly illegal and outrageous. But, train companies should be mindful about what taking on more women actually means for them.

I think the drive to recruit women is a good idea. Properly targeted, accurate and honest job adverts will find the right people. Fewer women than men really want a technical and repetitive job where you spend very long periods in isolation with nobody to talk to, but these people do exist and efforts should be made to recruit them. As you say earlier in the thread, does the current demographic makeup of the grade accurately reflect those best qualified to be there? Probably not - so let's change it.

 

[Mintona]

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

That isn’t the point being made!

 

[TheBigD]

That isn’t the point being made!

Yet that is exactly what happened to Matthew Furlong with Cheshire police. He was decriminated against solely because he was straight, white and male.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rejected-white-heterosexual-male-joins-force/

 

[Bellbell]

It includes the cost of maternity, the increased propensity of taking sick days, generally shorter service length - these are all direct costs of employing women. I used to attend business change meetings in a previous life and our COO, a woman, was previously the COO at the DWP and a director at Cabinet Office and gave a compelling presentation about the costs of employing people. Women do cost more.

This isn't to say "you shouldn't employ women" or that women should be disfavoured in case they start a family. This would be flagrantly illegal and outrageous. But, train companies should be mindful about what taking on more women actually means for them.

I think the drive to recruit women is a good idea. Properly targeted, accurate and honest job adverts will find the right people. Fewer women than men really want a technical and repetitive job where you spend very long periods in isolation with nobody to talk to, but these people do exist and efforts should be made to recruit them. As you say earlier in the thread, does the current demographic makeup of the grade accurately reflect those best qualified to be there? Probably not - so let's change it.

I know you think it's a good idea, we're broadly on the same side here which is great. I think there is work the railway industry needs to do, on both a high level and down to individual depots and work society needs to do. The railway can't necessarily answer whether women are innately less likely to want a job as you describe above or whether they're socialised differently but that doesn't mean it should ignore the possibility that there is at least some level of potential social bias involved. On the flip side, as I've made clear (and I know you're not disagreeing that I have, but for the benefit of the other posters on the thread) we shouldn't artificially engineer a workforce that completely mimics society in general. I think we're a long way from worrying about that though.

I can't get on board with the cost of maternity being a cost attributed solely to employing women. I mean, basic biology dictates it's pretty likely a man had some contribution... And I have no skin in the game, I've got no kids and nor will I ever have kids.

 

[OneOffDave]

Yet that is exactly what happened to Matthew Furlong with Cheshire police. He was decriminated against solely because he was straight, white and male.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rejected-white-heterosexual-male-joins-force/

How does that compare with the number of cases of women and people of BAME origin being discriminated against over the same period?

 

[O L Leigh]

I’m glad a little more reason has entered into this thread, as I was wondering where it was all heading.

I agree that any proposals around this will not take the form of social engineering with recruitment quotas and so on, as the Cheshire Police case clearly shows that any such policy would be in itself discriminatory. However, there is a lot that can be done to encourage more applications from under-represented sections of society, and I’m sure that this is the sort of thing that ASLEF have in mind.

 

[bionic]

At various stages throughout my railway career I have heard sexist, racist and homophobic remarks made by some colleagues (and indeed managers) on numerous occasions. The perpetrators of this will often try to pass it off as "banter" and most comments will be made after a cursory glance around the room to check there is nobody with the protected characteristic within earshot. ASLEF are absolutely 100% right to challenge this culture and to be promoting equality in the workplace.

 

[LowLevel]

At various stages throughout my railway career I have heard sexist, racist and homophobic remarks made by some colleagues (and indeed managers) on numerous occasions. The perpetrators of this will often try to pass it off as "banter" and most comments will be made after a cursory glance around the room to check there is nobody with the protected characteristic within earshot. ASLEF are absolutely 100% right to challenge this culture and to be promoting equality in the workplace.

I don't want to work in a sanitised environment thanks. I'm quite happy having someone taking the mick out of me as long as they can take it back and have my back when it goes wrong. I would be much more distressed if my sexuality (for that is the element of my life that you would probably choose to consider a 'minority' to protect) was something to tip toe around rather than something to be taken the piss out by someone who I know would go out of their way to help me and I them while mocking their bald patch, beer belly, propensity for picking bad women, being born in the wrong town or some other daft characteristic they can't change.

It's something I feel very strongly about.

If I had to behave like a polite professional at all times with some of the people and situations we have to deal with day in and day out I think I'd explode.

 

[Bellbell]

I don't want to work in a sanitised environment thanks. I'm quite happy having someone taking the mick out of me as long as they can take it back and have my back when it goes wrong. I would be much more distressed if my sexuality (for that is the element of my life that you would probably choose to consider a 'minority' to protect) was something to tip toe around rather than something to be taken the piss out by someone who I know would go out of their way to help me and I them while mocking their bald patch, beer belly, propensity for picking bad women, being born in the wrong town or some other daft characteristic they can't change.

It's something I feel very strongly about.

If I had to behave like a polite professional at all times with some of the people and situations we have to deal with day in and day out I think I'd explode.

I routinely get the most horrendously offensive things said to me, the kind of stuff that would see HR collectively break out in a cold sweat. I think it's hilarious, because it's banter - it comes from a working relationship, from people I trust and from people who take it when it's dished out to them.

I also overhear utterly vile sexual comments made behind people's backs and comments about terrorists made behind the back of an Asian colleague. It's not banter when it's deliberately concealed and cruel and it needs to be stamped out.

 

[Mellchie]

Those discussing positive discrimination may be interested in research showing that recruiters unconsciously select candidates that are more "like them" - ergo, if your recruiting team is of a particular demographic, your workforce is more likely to be as well.

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180806-how-hidden-bias-can-stop-you-getting-a-job

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't want to work in a sanitised environment thanks. I'm quite happy having someone taking the mick out of me as long as they can take it back and have my back when it goes wrong. I would be much more distressed if my sexuality (for that is the element of my life that you would probably choose to consider a 'minority' to protect) was something to tip toe around rather than something to be taken the piss out by someone who I know would go out of their way to help me and I them while mocking their bald patch, beer belly, propensity for picking bad women, being born in the wrong town or some other daft characteristic they can't change.

It's something I feel very strongly about.

If I had to behave like a polite professional at all times with some of the people and situations we have to deal with day in and day out I think I'd explode.

Then I recommend you be very careful, old friend. Colleagues and former colleagues have found themselves in very hot water over messroom “banter”. Remember that offence is not caused by what you say or even by the intent behind it, but by the way it is received. And it applies equally to anyone who might overhear it as well as the person it’s directed towards.

 

[bionic]

I don't want to work in a sanitised environment thanks. I'm quite happy having someone taking the mick out of me as long as they can take it back and have my back when it goes wrong. I would be much more distressed if my sexuality (for that is the element of my life that you would probably choose to consider a 'minority' to protect) was something to tip toe around rather than something to be taken the piss out by someone who I know would go out of their way to help me and I them while mocking their bald patch, beer belly, propensity for picking bad women, being born in the wrong town or some other daft characteristic they can't change.

It's something I feel very strongly about.

If I had to behave like a polite professional at all times with some of the people and situations we have to deal with day in and day out I think I'd explode.

Just because you don't mind it doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with harassment in the workplace. Your laugh and a joke is someone else's abject misery, intimidation and isolation.

I also overhear utterly vile sexual comments made behind people's backs and comments about terrorists made behind the back of an Asian colleague. It's not banter when it's deliberately concealed and cruel and it needs to be stamped out.

Yep.

Then I recommend you be very careful, old friend. Colleagues and former colleagues have found themselves in very hot water over messroom “banter”. Remember that offence is not caused by what you say or even by the intent behind it, but by the way it is received. And it applies equally to anyone who might overhear it as well as the person it’s directed towards.

Yep.

 

[baz962]

Ah, there’s a bit I forgot to add - and I’ll add this with a rider that this applies to railway grades in general rather than necessarily driving grades. For some people all the previously mentioned wants go out the window when the undesirable shift is on overtime, suddenly the “childcare problem” miraculously vanishes, or the “much deserved rare family day out” is called off. To be fair this doesn’t apply to *everyone*, but it certainly applies to some.

I’m not sure it would be practicable to run coverage on the basis of paying different rates for different shifts though. That would cause problems too, qv some of the issues with weekend working where people might be happy to sign up for RDW in February, but less keen in August. The trains still need to run...

This a million times. Although not seen here in my messroom, in my last job we had a lad that absolutely could not work weekends ever, and didn't for a couple of years. When due to no one wanting to do this particular job, the company offered double time, he suddenly could.

 

[LowLevel]

Then I recommend you be very careful, old friend. Colleagues and former colleagues have found themselves in very hot water over messroom “banter”. Remember that offence is not caused by what you say or even by the intent behind it, but by the way it is received. And it applies equally to anyone who might overhear it as well as the person it’s directed towards.

I am - I've seen it enough times - I think what I mean to say is I don't want to see a sterile environment where no one can have a laugh for fear of being hauled over the coals for causing offence and it's that that I fear is the eventual result. We've had people rapped for being too close to the knuckle before as well.

I don't want to be someone that is tiptoed around for being a minority above anything else.

I certainly don't want my sexuality to be something off limits - it is much easier to deal with things when they're a routine, it brings them out of focus some how.

 

[LowLevel]

I routinely get the most horrendously offensive things said to me, the kind of stuff that would see HR collectively break out in a cold sweat. I think it's hilarious, because it's banter - it comes from a working relationship, from people I trust and from people who take it when it's dished out to them.

I also overhear utterly vile sexual comments made behind people's backs and comments about terrorists made behind the back of an Asian colleague. It's not banter when it's deliberately concealed and cruel and it needs to be stamped out.

I couldn't agree more and if that kind of stuff occurs I've never been afraid to call people out on it. I'm perhaps not articulating my point very well.

 

[ivanhoe]

Why are you so sexist/racist? Judge on ability, nothing else.

I really think you should reconsider your response. It’s content does make you look a tad daft, and I’m being measured in my response.

 

[EM2]

I couldn't agree more and if that kind of stuff occurs I've never been afraid to call people out on it. I'm perhaps not articulating my point very well.

It comes down to boundaries. Among your workmates, you all know where the boundaries are, and if someone goes too far you're all comfortable calling them out on it, and I expect that they would apologise and understand.
But if someone came out with the same 'banter' in the pub, especially someone that you don't know, would you feel the same?

 

[westv]

If this is anything to go by we need to move on from the term BAME

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43831279

 

[TheBigD]

If this is anything to go by we need to move on from the term BAME

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43831279

Agree. Perhaps the inclusive term 'people' could be used instead.

 

[6Gman]

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 )

I thought I had read somewhere that the particular recruitment campaign had been a success ... ?

 

[ivanhoe]

I’m glad a little more reason has entered into this thread, as I was wondering where it was all heading.

I agree that any proposals around this will not take the form of social engineering with recruitment quotas and so on, as the Cheshire Police case clearly shows that any such policy would be in itself discriminatory. However, there is a lot that can be done to encourage more applications from under-represented sections of society, and I’m sure that this is the sort of thing that ASLEF have in mind.

I think you’ve nailed it here. Its not about quotas but encouraging more applicants from a group of people who may be seemed to be under represented within the workforce. It’s been happening within most employment sectors for a while now.

 

[Railweigh]

Do you know how to use Google?

Yeah, but what I suppose I meant is that I don’t care what it means. It’s just more made up nonsense to identify people as different, when that shouldn’t even be an issue.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think you’ve nailed it here. Its not about quotas but encouraging more applicants from a group of people who may be seemed to be under represented within the workforce. It’s been happening within most employment sectors for a while now.

Indeed, which is why I don’t understand all the hostility and negativity towards this idea. It’s simply a way of tapping into a previously under-utilised talent pool. No-one’s going to be getting a free ride into the job because of this.

Yeah, but what I suppose I meant is that I don’t care what it means. It’s just more made up nonsense to identify people as different, when that shouldn’t even be an issue.

That’s great. From a personal view that’s very noble.

But in many other aspects of life, such as recruitment, just lumping everyone together under the heading “people” is very unhelpful. Unless you collect information on demographics you have no idea how diverse your workforce is or whether there is discrimination. And it has done a lot of good in other areas, such as uncovering the institutional racism that had existed within certain police forces.

 

[RJ]

Agree. Perhaps the inclusive term 'people' could be used instead.

Why not go one further and do away with adjectives altogether?

 

[OneOffDave]

I’m glad a little more reason has entered into this thread, as I was wondering where it was all heading.

I agree that any proposals around this will not take the form of social engineering with recruitment quotas and so on, as the Cheshire Police case clearly shows that any such policy would be in itself discriminatory. However, there is a lot that can be done to encourage more applications from under-represented sections of society, and I’m sure that this is the sort of thing that ASLEF have in mind.

The Cheshire police case only shows that the way the policy was implemented was discriminatory. There are specific legal exemptions where more favourable treatment can be applied. However in this case the recruitment process will be the same, just the way the posts are promoted and marketed will change.

 

[whhistle]

Maybe people from ethnic minorities / women don't want to be train drivers?
There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe people from ethnic minorities / women don't want to be train drivers?
There's nothing wrong with that.

Unless, of course, the reason they don't want to be Train Drivers is because it is seen as White/Male/Racist/Sexist/ and not family friendly.

Maybe, just maybe, they want to be Drivers, they just don't want to work for the railway.

 

[O L Leigh]

Unless, of course, the reason they don't want to be Train Drivers is because it is seen as White/Male/Racist/Sexist/ and not family friendly.

This seems most likely. I have chatted to one or two of my female friends about joining the railway, but not without some hesitation due to the prevailing culture within the industry.

My impression is that a woman joining the footplate almost has to be as much "one of the lads" as the men, and if they don't have a backbone and a bit of fire about them they tend to find it a bit intimidating. Of course it helps if there are already quite a few women around already, and at my location there are a lot of women in other grades as well around half a dozen lady drivers.