eye advice

[TDK]

This is why it might be a better reason not to declare it. You will probably pass the medical if you don't tick the box (unless something else trips you up like sight/hearing tests etc - unlikely). If you do tick the box you probably will fail the medical and not get the job, maybe never able to go for a safety critical role again until maybe in future if TOCs ever become more relaxed about it.
Now theres always the chance of getting into bother if medical records are checked but I think they'd only ever do this if you had a bad accident resulting in people getting badly injured or killed. But what chance is there of having a bad accident, very unlikely, probably more chance getting killed driving your car to work, and it doesn't stop people doing that does it. Also, if you did cause an accident you'd already be in enough bother as it is, medical records checked or not
As said in a previous post, there are Drivers who have had laser eye surgery and have kept quiet about it

Dissagree completely with that statement, surely it is an offence not to divulge something especially as important as this?

 

[mrc69]

With my very limited legal knowledge. If you don't declare if questioned you may be committing an offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage. However should you get so far as a medical only to be disqualified by having eye surgery and this is the first time at this very late stage you were questioned I think you will have strong grounds to make a claim for at the very least the expenses you have accrued.

I find it astonishing if surgery does rule candidates then this should be outlined clearly at the the start of the process and I have mentioned previously I have yet to find any information of any toc's websites which state it does.

There is clear evidence that eye surgery takes approx 6 months to settle. I think the information given so far by people who state eye surgery is not allowed are referring to current drivers who would have to take 6 months off and which toc would allow that ? also there is a risk all be it very slight that it might not work.

 

[455driver]

MRC69 wrote-
I have yet to find any information of any toc's websites which state it does.

2 minutes on SWT website gives me-

Eyesight requirements for all safety critical roles
•Distance vision to be 6/9 in the better eye and 6/12 in the other eye with glasses or contact lenses if worn
•Uncorrected visual acuity to reach at least 3/60 in each eye
•Near vision to reach N8 with glasses or contact lenses if worn
•If contact lenses are worn applicants will need to be tested without the lenses at medical
•Tinted or photochromic prescription lenses are not permitted
Back to top

Additional eyesight information for Mainline Drivers
•Applicants who have previously undergone laser surgery will be subject to additional investigations before fitness to drive trains can be confirmed
•See also additional restrictions for Mainline Drivers

Just log onto the home page and search for "laser eye surgery".

 

[A-driver]

With my very limited legal knowledge. If you don't declare if questioned you may be committing an offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage. However should you get so far as a medical only to be disqualified by having eye surgery and this is the first time at this very late stage you were questioned I think you will have strong grounds to make a claim for at the very least the expenses you have accrued.

I find it astonishing if surgery does rule candidates then this should be outlined clearly at the the start of the process and I have mentioned previously I have yet to find any information of any toc's websites which state it does.

There is clear evidence that eye surgery takes approx 6 months to settle. I think the information given so far by people who state eye surgery is not allowed are referring to current drivers who would have to take 6 months off and which toc would allow that ? also there is a risk all be it very slight that it might not work.

Infact its the opposite. As far as I know, the TOCs which allow it only allow it currently for existing drivers. I don't think they would take on trainees off the street who have had it at this stage. I know this is the case with southeastern anyway.

 

[Dave1987]

I think the information given so far by people who state eye surgery is not allowed are referring to current drivers who would have to take 6 months off and which toc would allow that ? also there is a risk all be it very slight that it might not work.

No sorry we have been told categorically you cannot have laser eye surgery at all, no ambiguity at all in this. I know some people are trying to find loopholes for the OP but Im afraid it is how it is.

 

[mrc69]

But where on any toc website does it say . no no no to laser eye surgery or just no. It does to colour blindness why not laser surgery if it is not allowed.

 

[Beveridges]

Well the message is clear to the original poster. If you want the job so badly then your going to have to not declare it. Yes there is a risk they'd find out but I'd say it is a no bigger risk than driving your car to work. Especially if you definetely dont have colour blindness at all
If you can stand the fact that your probably not going to be able to be considered for a safety-critical role until TOCs become more relaxed about laser eye surgery (who knows when that will be? Could be many years away) then declare it

 

[A-driver]

Many TOCs have a quick fire round if questions at the start of the application form which asks about laser surgery.

As I said before, some TOCs are looking into allowing it-I know southeastern are starting to allow a certain type of laser surgery but only for existing drivers I believe. Not new entrants.

 

[TDK]

Have you received surgical treatment for near
sightedness (laser or photo-refractive eye surgery)?

Pasted From the ATW application form

 

[mrc69]

Have you received surgical treatment for near
sightedness (laser or photo-refractive eye surgery)?

Pasted From the ATW application form

That is a question rather than a statement of fact. Surely it should say Laser eye surgery is not allowed. That should then be followed up with a question on the application form. Norfolk John states he hasn't been asked at interview or questioned on the application form. To be rejected at the medical stage because of it I find it to be an appalling shabby way to treat a prospective employee.

 

[455driver]

To be rejected at the medical stage because of it I find it to be an appalling shabby way to treat a prospective employee.

Why, he (possibly) wont be the first and he definitely wont be the last!

People get rejected at every stage of the recruitment and some will not complete the training either, its a fact of life so get over it!

I have linked to the South West Trains website where it gives their take on laser eye surgery so why cant you link to something that states its okay?

You are just trying to use your opinion as if its fact and it isnt so either furnish us with proof or move along, the only people that can answer the OP are the recruitment department at the train company he is applying for and if he isnt willing to ask them then the only way he will get his answer is at the medical.

 

[Beveridges]

You won't get any compensation for failing at medical stage!!! None whatsoever! For a Drivers job I applied for a long time ago, I got knocked back AFTER passing the medical after being on hold for 26 months for a job offer that never came. I didnt get any compensation. I just got a short email saying thanks but no thanks.

 

[norfolkjohn]

Just to let you know. I had my medical last week. I had my eyes tested for long and short sight, colour blindness and peripheral vision. I passed each one. The doctor was happy with my vision. I have also spoke to recruitment and as long as I passed the medical they are happy. So laser eye surgery should not be a barrier to being a train driver.

 

[Dave1987]

Just to let you know. I had my medical last week. I had my eyes tested for long and short sight, colour blindness and peripheral vision. I passed each one. The doctor was happy with my vision. I have also spoke to recruitment and as long as I passed the medical they are happy. So laser eye surgery should not be a barrier to being a train driver.

Not for every TOC like has been posted previously some TOC's will not accept applicants that have had laser eye surgery. Infact on the DBS driver advertisement if clearly states they will not accept applicants who have!

 

[Silv1983]

Ignore all the guesswork, here might be some good news...

Northern adhere to RSSB guildlines, which now state that drivers' who have had laser eye surgery may only undertake a driving role if it is one of the following three:

- PRK - Photo-refractive keratotomy;
- LASIK - laser in-situ keratomileusis;
- LASEK - laser-in-situ epithelial keratomileusis.

This is from the latest Operating Handbook. I believe there are up to 13 different types of surgery. I suggest looking up what you've had.

If this is an RSSB guideline, there's no reason other TOCs shouldn't be following them other than Northern.

I know all this because a candidate in my driver training class sailed through the recruitment process - didn't keep it quiet but was never asked - and it only came up half way through the course. Luckily she'd had one of the acceptable forms of surgery.

Hope this helps.

 

[BestWestern]

[Double post now edited!]

I have just had a medical (for FGW done through BUPA) and there was a question on the tick box sheet "have you ever had laser eye surgery", seems to answer the OPs question.

And did you pass?

I think what is clear is that the 'policy' - if you can call it such a thing - appears to vary wildly from one firm to the next, and to the next, and so on. Once upon a time we didn't have this sort of ridiculous nonsense, but there we are... :roll:

Anyway, at my TOC there is a Driver who went off on leave and had laser treatment, and being particularly daring he had it done abroad. I have no idea if he was ever directly asked about it, but it is common knowledge that he had it done. Some time later he had a SPAD - from what I know it wasn't related to mis-reading a signal, but serious nonetheless. He still drives trains. The company could, presumably, have gotten rid of him had they wanted to, but they didn't. What that shows I've no idea, but relevant in some roundabout kind of way I think!

There are other guys in other places who have had it done, it's often an open secret. As for medical records, does it actually appear there? Do you tell your GP, does the clinic? I don't know, but if you go private what does your GP know about it? Just worth mentioning I'm sure that there are lots of Drivers across the network who've had laser surgery and clearly feel it was worth whatever 'risk' they may be taking with it.

 

[455driver]

Originally Posted by 455driver I have just had a medical (for FGW done through BUPA) and there was a question on the tick box sheet "have you ever had laser eye surgery", seems to answer the OPs question.

And did you pass?

Nope, maybe I should change my username to ex455driver?:cry:

 

[Dave1987]

The clear issue here is that the 'policy' - if you can call it that - appears to vary from one firm to the next, to the next, etc.

Yes indeed but norfolkjohn's post said that having had laser eye surgery should not be a barrier to becoming a train driver.

Unfortunately clearly depending on what eye surgery you have had and which TOC or FOC you are applying to, it is a barrier

 

[BestWestern]

Nope, maybe I should change my username to ex455driver?:cry:

You failed due to having had the laser?

Yes indeed but norfolkjohn's post said that having had laser eye surgery should not be a barrier to becoming a train driver.

Unfortunately clearly depending on what eye surgery you have had and which TOC or FOC you are applying to, it is a barrier

Indeed, it seems that it may well be. What is irritating though is the lack of consistency, it should surely be a case of a clear yes or no. I understand that once upon a time the same piffle and waffle afflicted those with contact lenses, indeed some still think it an issue even now. What makes a mockery of the whole situation is that people with really rather poor eyesight are allowed 'in', the assumption being that they are fine so long as they have the right glasses/lenses. Yet those who have had their poor sight made good are not. Anybody can suffer from sight deterioration, the railway clearly trusts it's frontline staff to raise the issue if they realise one day that they cannot see what they are doing. Why can that same trust not be extended to those with corrected sight, who may or may not suffer hypothetical side effects at some unspecified point in the future?!

 

[Dave1987]

You failed due to having had the laser?



Indeed, it seems that it may well be. What is irritating though is the lack of consistency, it should surely be a case of a clear yes or no. I understand that once upon a time the same piffle and waffle afflicted those with contact lenses, indeed some still think it an issue even now. What makes a mockery of the whole situation is that people with really rather poor eyesight are allowed 'in', the assumption being that they are fine so long as they have the right glasses/lenses. Yet those who have had their poor sight made good are not. Anybody can suffer from sight deterioration, the railway clearly trusts it's frontline staff to raise the issue if they realise one day that they cannot see what they are doing. Why can that same trust not be extended to those with corrected sight, who may or may not suffer hypothetical side effects at some unspecified point in the future?!

I think the problem is is contradictory medical evidence as to whether the surgery affects your colour perception and peripheral vision. Some TOC are clearly not willing to pay o train someone who suffer these from the surgery in the future.

 

[BestWestern]

I think the problem is is contradictory medical evidence as to whether the surgery affects your colour perception and peripheral vision. Some TOC are clearly not willing to pay o train someone who suffer these from the surgery in the future.

That's a fair point, and perhaps the angle the TOCs are looking at rather than just the safety issue. But then any recruit could develop a medical issue in the future, it all seems rather tenuous! To look at it another way - putting head well above parapet here - certain TOCs have made a big noise about wanting more female Drivers; what difference it makes I've absolutely no idea but that's modern politics for you. You could argue that there is a 'risk' that they might well decide to start a family at some point. That means an extended period off track, then maternity leave, the very possibly a 'domestic' or accommodated link for several years etc etc. Is there a bigger 'risk' from a young woman taking the job and then becoming pregnant than there might be from somebody who has laser eye surgery later developing problems I wonder? I don't know the answer, but it raises some interesting points I'd suggest.

Just goes to show how quotas can shift priorities when it suits. Personally I think it's high time the railway dropped the paranoia regarding laser patients, as others have said there are other similar roles where it is no longer seen as an issue, and we have medical safeguards in place if the worst does happen.

 

[Dave1987]

That's a fair point, and perhaps the angle the TOCs are looking at rather than just the safety issue. But then any recruit could develop a medical issue in the future, it all seems rather tenuous! To look at it another way - putting head well above parapet here - certain TOCs have made a big noise about wanting more female Drivers; what difference it makes I've absolutely no idea but that's modern politics for you. You could argue that there is a 'risk' that they might well decide to start a family at some point. That means an extended period off track, then maternity leave, the very possibly a 'domestic' or accommodated link for several years etc etc. Is there a bigger 'risk' from a young woman taking the job and then becoming pregnant than there might be from somebody who has laser eye surgery later developing problems I wonder? I don't know the answer, but it raises some interesting points I'd suggest.

Just goes to show how quotas can shift priorities when it suits. Personally I think it's high time the railway dropped the paranoia regarding laser patients, as others have said there are other similar roles where it is no longer seen as an issue, and we have medical safeguards in place if the worst does happen.

I know its going completely off topic but it's interesting in male dominated industries like train driving that there is a real conscience effort being made to get more women in but it isnt the same with female dominated industries. I mean you dont hear much about encouraging more men into becoming nusery workers.

 

[BestWestern]

I know its going completely off topic but it's interesting in male dominated industries like train driving that there is a real conscience effort being made to get more women in but it isnt the same with female dominated industries. I mean you dont hear much about encouraging more men into becoming nusery workers.

Very true. I'm afraid I have serious issues with any form of 'positive discrimination' - there's a joke term if ever there was one! - as it will always mean the wrong set of priorities being applied. If you want the best, recruit on ability, not by quota.

 

[Dave1987]

Very true. I'm afraid I have serious issues with any form of 'positive discrimination' - there's a joke term if ever there was one! - as it will always mean the wrong set of priorities being applied. If you want the best, recruit on ability, not by quota.

Indeed! And if that means all your drivers or whatever are male or all female then so be it. The RAF has positive discrimination in favour of females. In fact I believe that the only way to have a long and fruitful career in the RAF is to be female. They recently proudly annouced that they were the most female friendly employer there is.

 

[TDK]

Nope, maybe I should change my username to ex455driver?:cry:

Was you asked or did you have this question on your application forms? I am surprised you have had to have a medical so early in your driving career as my medical lasted me for the first 5 years of driving! If you did not have this question on your application form or was not asked at interview I would get in touch immediately with your LDC rep and ask advice, if you did have the question or was asked the question at the interview stage and did not come forth with the relevent details I am afraid it could be bye bye!

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed! And if that means all your drivers or whatever are male or all female then so be it. The RAF has positive discrimination in favour of females. In fact I believe that the only way to have a long and fruitful career in the RAF is to be female. They recently proudly annouced that they were the most female friendly employer there is.

It is a worry. I wonder how they calculate their 'female friendliness'; is there some sort of checklist or is it established simply by skewing the recruitment processes to shut out male applicants?! I wonder also how far a firm would get if they attempted to be the most 'male friendly' employer, ignoring female applicants and just giving jobs to blokes. No doubt somebody would immediately bring down the hounds of hell onto such an outrageous attitude!

I recently read an article somewhere or other about how skewed things have become in our muddled little world of quotas and targets, and Micheal Buerk was quoted as suggesting that the 'shift in the balance of power' had gone too far. I am not anti-female, however I would be inclined to wonder if he has a point in that somewhere. Maybe it's a little alarmist to make such a statement at this stage, but I do wonder how far things will go. If we end up with every company in the land being forced to employ at least a 50% female workforce, will us poor blokes have an automatic claim on the other 50%?! Or will we just keep going until white males become an unemployed minority?! Eeek!

 

[Dave1987]

It is a worry. I wonder how they calculate their 'female friendliness'; is there some sort of checklist or is it established simply by skewing the recruitment processes to shut out male applicants?! I wonder also how far a firm would get if they attempted to be the most 'male friendly' employer, ignoring female applicants and just giving jobs to blokes. No doubt somebody would immediately bring down the hounds of hell onto such an outrageous attitude!

I recently read an article somewhere or other about how skewed things have become in our muddled little world of quotas and targets, and Micheal Buerk was quoted as suggesting that the 'shift in the balance of power' had gone too far. I am not anti-female, however I would be inclined to wonder if he has a point in that somewhere. Maybe it's a little alarmist to make such a statement at this stage, but I do wonder how far things will go. If we end up with every company in the land being forced to employ at least a 50% female workforce, will us poor blokes have an automatic claim on the other 50%?! Or will we just keep going until white males become an unemployed minority?! Eeek!

Indeed and I worry about this with regard to apllicactions for drivers. I have no problem with females getting through if they get through on merit, infact I would congratulate them on passing very hard tests. But I remember Harriet Harman (god that women is pure evil) trying to suggest that employers could hire a female candidate over a male candidate without giving any reasons why but the other way around they would have to justify it. I wouldn't have any problem with promoting more women to get into male dominated jobs if it was the same the opposite way as well but it just isn't.