Mild anxiety

[oxoneil]

Sounds to me that the people posting about this know nothing about anxiety attacks. From experience, not personal but someone very close to me these things tend to happen for no reason whatsoever and are less likely to happen in such disaster situations people are describing because the mind is totally focused and engaged at such times.

I guarantee that more people have them than will ever own up to having them

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Sounds to me that the people posting about this know nothing about anxiety attacks. From experience, not personal but someone very close to me these things tend to happen for no reason whatsoever and are less likely to happen in such disaster situations people are describing because the mind is totally focused and engaged at such times.

I guarantee that more people have them than will ever own up to having them

i'd agree with that , having been on all sides ofthe equation in this regard.

 

[TDK]

i'd agree with that , having been on all sides ofthe equation in this regard.

The thing is, when recruiting a possible candidate in a safety critical role there must be no doubt that the said candidate is suitable for the role, if someone who has panic attacks is deemed suitable then fair enough however if there is any doubt about the ability to perform under pressure no matter what the reason is I would personally not put my name as a recruiter/interviewer down on a persons application for the role.

Unfortunately these days there is a very high level of responsibility on recruiting the correct person/persons for the role and I cannot see a company employing someone with a history of panic attacks for a drivers role against someone without any history as the positions are so overly subscribed a company have a huge base to select from.

It isn't the fact of understanding the illness or knowing everything about it, it is the doubt put in the mind of the interviewer that will be the hurdle to overcome.

Another scenario is someone who has previously been convicted of drink driving even 10 years prior to applying ( I am not comparing this to panic attacks by the way) will also find it very difficult to get to even the first stage of recruitment.

It is all down to the sheer volume of applicants and the choice available based against anything that will or could possibly create a risk for the company.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The thing is, when recruiting a possible candidate in a safety critical role there must be no doubt that the said candidate is suitable for the role, if someone who has panic attacks is deemed suitable then fair enough however if there is any doubt about the ability to perform under pressure no matter what the reason is I would personally not put my name as a recruiter/interviewer down on a persons application for the role.

it's not your job to do that and attempting to do would land you in very very very deep ****... this is why we have masters Prepeared Specialist Public health Nurse (OH) and FIOM Consultant Occupational health Physicans

Unfortunately these days there is a very high level of responsibility on recruiting the correct person/persons for the role and I cannot see a company employing someone with a history of panic attacks for a drivers role against someone without any history as the positions are so overly subscribed a company have a huge base to select from.

it;s a good job it;s not your decision to make then as your ignorance on the topic is showing

It isn't the fact of understanding the illness or knowing everything about it, it is the doubt put in the mind of the interviewer that will be the hurdle to overcome.

I hope you like P45s as it'll be yours that you'll see if you interfere with recruitment process on the basis of your bigoted pre conceptions over Mental health .

Another scenario is someone who has previously been convicted of drink driving even 10 years prior to applying ( I am not comparing this to panic attacks by the way) will also find it very difficult to get to even the first stage of recruitment.

It is all down to the sheer volume of applicants and the choice available based against anything that will or could possibly create a risk for the company.

so is train driving a role exempt fro mthe rehabilitation of Offenders act ? as i don;t recall seeing it on the list of acceptable roles to request an Enhanced CRB /DBS disclosure ...

 

[Timpg]

I agree, a person with mental health issues should under no circumstances be persecuted against because of his/hers illness! Unfortunately it is a very miss-understood issue. The fact that the OP has already admitted to us in this forum, tells me that he has an understanding of how to deal with his issue, I know this as I have had to be strong for someone dear to me for the past 5/6 years. It's a horrible illness, which eats someone from inside out, I just wish there was more awareness around it rather than someone being labelled as a fruit cake!!the other fact is that anyone can develop this illness at anytime, so would you sack a qualified driver as he would then be 'a danger to others? Going back to the OP's case, I would defenatly declare, I don't know your personal circumstances, but my other half is on a carefully structured care plan, regular visits from a support worker etc etc. I do understand this is a dangerous job, which requires 100%, and why someone would think someone with mental health issues would not be suitable.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Panic attacks and social anxiety is the new norm

Seriously though, who, these days does not suffer some sort of mental illness?

I would think any driver who does not feel anxious or gets panicky from time to time is not normal. Humans are not robots.

I would want a driver who would keep his cool during a panic attack (when something goes wrong) and be able to take control of any given situation

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think this topic nicely demonstrates why fitness to work decisions are made by an external occupational health doctor rather than management or an interview panel.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I think this topic nicely demonstrates why fitness to work decisions are made by an external occupational health doctor rather than management or an interview panel.

exactly

This is why OH specialists are increasingly masters Qualified if Nurse or OT by primary registration and why there is a full CCT for Occ Medicine making them 'proper' Consultant Doctors

 

[TDK]

exactly

This is why OH specialists are increasingly masters Qualified if Nurse or OT by primary registration and why there is a full CCT for Occ Medicine making them 'proper' Consultant Doctors

All I am saying is that an interviewer has to put a candidate through to medical, I am not saying it is correct, it isn't any form of discrimination whatsoever it is the interviewers choice if a candidate goes through or not. I will not be in the **** as I am not in a position to ever be in that situation. I can see your point and do agree with what you say however I am looking on it from the fact that there are over 300 applicants for every position.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope you like P45s as it'll be yours that you'll see if you interfere with recruitment process on the basis of your bigoted pre conceptions over Mental health .

Is that a threat? How shallow of you. I am not in a position to interfere with recruitment all I am doing is giving an opinion on experience. So I doubt very much that I will see a P45.

 

[anonperson]

All I am saying is that an interviewer has to put a candidate through to medical, I am not saying it is correct, it isn't any form of discrimination whatsoever it is the interviewers choice if a candidate goes through or not. I will not be in the **** as I am not in a position to ever be in that situation. I can see your point and do agree with what you say however I am looking on it from the fact that there are over 300 applicants for every position.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is that a threat? How shallow of you. I am not in a position to interfere with recruitment all I am doing is giving an opinion on experience. So I doubt very much that I will see a P45.

Is it a threat ? Not sure but it sounds like bullying against TDK ? A very hot topic with TOCs at the moment, so if TDK was an ass, who went running off to report you, which thankfully most railwaymen aren't, then YOU'D be the one facing section P45 of the rule book.

I have nothing to do with recruitment, thank God, but with applicants dripping off the trees, if someone said to me " I suffer from panic attacks ", I'd go : "next", because knowing the railway, as well as I do, it would come back on me if you threw a major one during an incident. If something develops in service, then that's a whole different scenario and I'm all in favour of people being diverted to suitable alternate roles within the railway.

Last week's safety brief scenario included getting you to say what you'd do if you're off the road in a tunnel, with a major fuel leak and 500 punters on board with a dead guard, GSM-R doesn't work in the tunnel and you've taken the lineside phones out when you came off the road. To me, the most stressful part of that would be the microscopic examination of what you did, and didn't do afterwards for the next 12 months.

The railway can, and does, go from a totally normal day, to hell in a handcart in an instant, for a surprising amount of drivers, and it's random nature never ceases to amaze me, you can go 50 years without an incident, or you can get 5 within your training period.

At the end of the day you have people's lives in your hands, if YOU have a question mark over your ability to do the job ? I'd been involved in major blood, gore and death, life threatening scenarios a plenty before I joined the railway and it was one of the questions they put to me on interview.

 

[ComUtoR]

I hope you like P45s as it'll be yours that you'll see if you interfere with recruitment process on the basis of your bigoted pre conceptions over Mental health .

I hope you like mayonnaise. As you have a rather large chip on your shoulder.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I hope you like mayonnaise. As you have a rather large chip on your shoulder.

given that having a Mental Health condition / diagnosis is a protected characteristic under the Equality act ...

FULL employment rights start from day 1 with regard to that/

Evidence of an appointing manager interfering recruitment because of a protected characteristic means potential prosecution and the company in a world of trouble even if the candidate wasn;t appointed ...

i am aware of situations where Managers have been dismissed in various settings for interfering in occ health matters or mis using occ health to try and remove people they didn;t like or had a EA protected characteristic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it a threat ? Not sure but it sounds like bullying against TDK ? A very hot topic with TOCs at the moment, so if TDK was an ass, who went running off to report you, which thankfully most railwaymen aren't, then YOU'D be the one facing section P45 of the rule book.

I have nothing to do with recruitment, thank God, but with applicants dripping off the trees, if someone said to me " I suffer from panic attacks ", I'd go : "next", because knowing the railway, as well as I do, it would come back on me if you threw a major one during an incident. If something develops in service, then that's a whole different scenario and I'm all in favour of people being diverted to suitable alternate roles within the railway.

Last week's safety brief scenario included getting you to say what you'd do if you're off the road in a tunnel, with a major fuel leak and 500 punters on board with a dead guard, GSM-R doesn't work in the tunnel and you've taken the lineside phones out when you came off the road. To me, the most stressful part of that would be the microscopic examination of what you did, and didn't do afterwards for the next 12 months.

The railway can, and does, go from a totally normal day, to hell in a handcart in an instant, for a surprising amount of drivers, and it's random nature never ceases to amaze me, you can go 50 years without an incident, or you can get 5 within your training period.

At the end of the day you have people's lives in your hands, if YOU have a question mark over your ability to do the job ? I'd been involved in major blood, gore and death, life threatening scenarios a plenty before I joined the railway and it was one of the questions they put to me on interview.

you haven't got a clue about mental health or the equality act have you ...

 

[anonperson]

given that having a Mental Health condition / diagnosis is a protected characteristic under the Equality act ...

FULL employment rights start from day 1 with regard to that/

Evidence of an appointing manager interfering recruitment because of a protected characteristic means potential prosecution and the company in a world of trouble even if the candidate wasn;t appointed ...

i am aware of situations where Managers have been dismissed in various settings for interfering in occ health matters or mis using occ health to try and remove people they didn;t like or had a EA protected characteristic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


you haven't got a clue about mental health or the equality act have you ...

I don't give a toss about the mental health or equality act, but I do give a very large toss about the punters in the back of my train who put their well being in my hands and those of my colleagues. You clearly haven't got a clue about train driving. But hey ho, lets give the job to everyone who wants it, regardless of suitability and you can repent at your leisure when your missus and kids don't make it home. Let's employ people with no legs shall we and a carer for them to put down their protection if needed ?

Andreas Lubitz had some mild mental issues, I suppose his rights under the equality and disability act came before those of his passengers and colleagues under the "right not to have a loon in the cockpit act "

 

[ComUtoR]

FULL employment rights start from day 1 with regard to that

You would be an employee. You have to pass through the recruitment process first.

i am aware of situations where Managers have been dismissed in various settings for interfering in occ health matters or mis using occ health to try and remove people they didn;t like or had a EA protected characteristic.

Abuse of law is different.

you haven't got a clue about mental health or the equality act have you ...

Neither do you. Equality means you cannot discriminate. It doesn't mean you have to be employed or there has to be a quota or any form of discrimination in your favour. What it means is that you have to be treated no different than anyone else. The railways does that quite successfully.

Get of your high horse and step back for a second and think. Feel free to complain and take people to court over if you believe that you have been treated unfairly but just because a person with mental health issues doesn't get recruited that everyone suddenly becomes ignorant and bigoted.

Again, before you start to spout legal mumbo jumo, the recruitment process is pretty clear cut on specific issues and yes the railway does get to discriminate against specific members of society. Many employers are able to discriminate in various ways and all very legal. I'm sure you can figure it out and I won't patronize you or anyone else by pointing out the blindly obvious.

The correct answer to the OP can be googled in a blink of a cursor. Sadly their PM is switched of so I couldn't provide it.

@OP if you want the right answer to your query please PM me once you have messaging rights etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Andreas Lubitz had some mild mental issues, I suppose his rights under the equality and disability act came before those of his passengers and colleagues under the "right not to have a loon in the cockpit act "

Remind me if he declared it to his employer...

Before we go off on a tangent about that nut job. He would have been protected by the mental health act and rightly so. His employer wouldn't simply be allowed to sack him and potentially create other issues. His employers responsibility is to help him, again, rightly so. However; and this is the important part for those who actually read the fricking posts in full. He would NOT have been flying the plane. Both employer, employee and passengers would be safe.

The mental health act also protects the public.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I don't give a toss about the mental health or equality act, but I do give a very large toss about the punters in the back of my train who put their well being in my hands and those of my colleagues. You clearly haven't got a clue about train driving. But hey ho, lets give the job to everyone who wants it, regardless of suitability and you can repent at your leisure when your missus and kids don't make it home. Let's employ people with no legs shall we and a carer for them to put down their protection if needed ?

Andreas Lubitz had some mild mental issues, I suppose his rights under the equality and disability act came before those of his passengers and colleagues under the "right not to have a loon in the cockpit act "

Thankyou for proving your bigotry in such a clear way.

is it too much of a jump to suppose that you'd rather the Nutter, Spackers and Perverts were locked away for the protection of "normal In-ger-lish people ".

Unless you are a manager you don;t know who among your colleagues has a condition protected under the disability discrimination provisions of the equality , unless they tell you , ditto with other 'invisible' protected characteristics .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You would be an employee. You have to pass through the recruitment process first.

Abuse of law is different.

and if the recruitment process is conducted fairly and Managers keep their noses out of Occ Health and stick to any reasonable adaptation required by an individfual with profected characteristic and approved by Occhealth and higher management then it all well

Neither do you. Equality means you cannot discriminate. It doesn't mean you have to be employed or there has to be a quota or any form of discrimination in your favour. What it means is that you have to be treated no different than anyone else. The railways does that quite successfully.

does it when people are saying anyone who it was suspected or declared might have a mental health condition shouldn;t be allowed in certain roles ... ?

that looks like balnket bigotry and discrimination

Get of your high horse and step back for a second and think. Feel free to complain and take people to court over if you believe that you have been treated unfairly but just because a person with mental health issues doesn't get recruited that everyone suddenly becomes ignorant and bigoted.

funny how they can get recruited in other safety and life critical roles isn;t it ...

Again, before you start to spout legal mumbo jumo, the recruitment process is pretty clear cut on specific issues and yes the railway does get to discriminate against specific members of society. Many employers are able to discriminate in various ways and all very legal. I'm sure you can figure it out and I won't patronize you or anyone else by pointing out the blindly obvious.

and a blanket ban on the basis of a protected characteristic or actions taken by staff side against a colleague who is suspected to have a protected characteristics ' in the interests of the safety of the public and colleagues ' against the advice of Occ health is a clear breach of the law

Before we go off on a tangent about that nut job. He would have been protected by the mental health act and rightly so. His employer wouldn't simply be allowed to sack him and potentially create other issues. His employers responsibility is to help him, again, rightly so. However; and this is the important part for those who actually read the fricking posts in full. He would NOT have been flying the plane. Both employer, employee and passengers would be safe.

The mental health act also protects the public.

you have demonstrated your poor knowledge, here as the MHA is not the legislation you are looking for , it is the disability discrimination provisions of the the Equality Act ...

if you are thinking aobut the MHA with regard to a colleague it is likely that they are going to be on sick leave or some of the aftercare sections may still be applicable , but for the workplace the equality act is far more relevant.

 

[ComUtoR]

does it when people are saying anyone who it was suspected or declared might have a mental health condition shouldn;t be allowed in certain roles ... ?

Your leaping to conclusions that are not there.

that looks like balnket bigotry and discrimination

Does it ? You are trying to fit your own prejudice into a viewpoint that isn't there.

and a blanket ban on the basis of a protected characteristic or actions taken by staff side against a colleague who is suspected to have a protected characteristics ' in the interests of the safety of the public and colleagues ' against the advice of Occ health is a clear breach of the law

No it isn't and again you are making assumptions and using a jigsaw to cut the debate into your narrow view.

You have also missed the points raised in this thread by a country mile. Feel free to keep posting that it is a bigoted view and the law is an absolute.

I dislike saying it so bluntly but you are wrong on many levels. Step back (a lot) and think about the reality and how the recruitment process works. Then look at employment in general and ask yourself the difference between discrimination and employment criteria (which is basically discrimination by stealth). Also ask yourself if a blind person would be allowed to Drive a train because that certainly isn't allowed but certainly isn't discrimination.

 

[anonperson]

Thankyou for proving your bigotry in such a clear way.

If I'm a bigot, then you're equally so in the juxtapositional viewpoint !

is it too much of a jump to suppose that you'd rather the Nutter, Spackers and Perverts were locked away for the protection of "normal In-ger-lish people ".

What's a Spacker ? No, I think that nutters and perverts should be locked away to protect "normal " people, and the courts have done so on many occasions, I assume you blind altruism extends to taking in sociopathic, homicidal child rapists in your spare bedroom and that you think Peter Sutcliffe was "misunderstood " ?

Also what's "In-ger-Lish " ? If you mean to imply "English" phonetically, I am in fact from one of the other constituent parts of the U.K.

Unless you are a manager you don;t know who among your colleagues has a condition protected under the disability discrimination provisions of the equality , unless they tell you , ditto with other 'invisible' protected characteristics .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


and if the recruitment process is conducted fairly and Managers keep their noses out of Occ Health and stick to any reasonable adaptation required by an individfual with profected characteristic and approved by Occhealth and higher management then it all well



does it when people are saying anyone who it was suspected or declared might have a mental health condition shouldn;t be allowed in certain roles ... ?

that looks like balnket bigotry and discrimination

It looks more like your comfort blanket as you do like to use that phrase a lot



funny how they can get recruited in other safety and life critical roles isn;t it ...

We're talking about train driving FFS, can't you grasp that ?

and a blanket ban on the basis of a protected characteristic or actions taken by staff side against a colleague who is suspected to have a protected characteristics ' in the interests of the safety of the public and colleagues ' against the advice of Occ health is a clear breach of the law



you have demonstrated your poor knowledge, here as the MHA is not the legislation you are looking for , it is the disability discrimination provisions of the the Equality Act ...

if you are thinking aobut the MHA with regard to a colleague it is likely that they are going to be on sick leave or some of the aftercare sections may still be applicable , but for the workplace the equality act is far more relevant.

Ok, put your money where your mouth is, Pretend you are a REAL DRIVER MANAGER, in the REAL world, faced with REAL decisions, Answer the following scenarios which have slipped through the HR net with trainee driver candidates, a simple YES or NO will suffice :

1) I am colour blind, will you employ me ?

2) I am registered blind, will you employ me ?

3) I am confined to a wheelchair, will you employ me ?

4) I have one arm, will you employ me ?

5) I have a severe drink and drug habit, will you employ me ?

6) I have 57 convictions for assault, will you employ me

7) I have 57 convictions for theft, will you employ me ?

8) My name is Andreas Lubitz and I lost my job at Lufthansa because the voices in my head kept telling me to crash my aircraft, will you employ me ?

9) I suffer from panic attacks, will you employ me ?

10) I raped a member of staff at my previous job, but it was ten years ago, will you employ me ?

11) I have just been released from a mental institution into care in the community, I have a severe mental disorder, will you employ me ?

Over to you .............

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The Mental Health Act is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Its purpose is also not solely to protect the public, but to facilitate the treatment of those whose conditions may present a risk to themselves or to others, where this may go against a patient with capacity's decision.

I would further suggest that it is very unlikely that any driver manager understands the minutiae of the broad spectrum of mental health disorders to decide whether someone is safe to work or not, and this is exactly why specialist occupational health companies exist.

 

[anonperson]

The Mental Health Act is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Its purpose is also not solely to protect the public, but to facilitate the treatment of those whose conditions may present a risk to themselves or to others, where this may go against a patient with capacity's decision.

I would further suggest that it is very unlikely that any driver manager understands the minutiae of the broad spectrum of mental health disorders to decide whether someone is safe to work or not, and this is exactly why specialist occupational health companies exist.

Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly but the discussion does not involve someone who is already EMPLOYED as a train driver but someone who is trying to BECOME a train driver

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The Mental Health Act is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Its purpose is also not solely to protect the public, but to facilitate the treatment of those whose conditions may present a risk to themselves or to others, where this may go against a patient with capacity's decision.

I would further suggest that it is very unlikely that any driver manager understands the minutiae of the broad spectrum of mental health disorders to decide whether someone is safe to work or not, and this is exactly why specialist occupational health companies exist.

exactly

a Driver Manager would not be answering the 11 questions , a Consultant occupational physician on the basis of his/her assessment and examination and the assessments and examination of his/her Nursing /Physio/ ergonomist / OT and Psychologist colleagues as relevant and providing this information to a senior manager via HR i f significant adaptations were required.

there are only ever three answers that come to a manager from OH

- Medically unrestricted

- Modification to role in line with reasonable adaptation requirement of the Equality Act

- Medically unfit at this time

and in the case of the military - permanently medically unfit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly but the discussion does not involve someone who is already EMPLOYED as a train driver but someone who is trying to BECOME a train driver

and bigoted attitudes among a workforce , which are publically expressed are well known to put people off even considering to apply for roles ...

 

[anonperson]

exactly

a Driver Manager would not be answering the 11 questions , a Consultant occupational physician on the basis of his/her assessment and examination and the assessments and examination of his/her Nursing /Physio/ ergonomist / OT and Psychologist colleagues as relevant and providing this information to a senior manager via HR i f significant adaptations were required.

there are only ever three answers that come to a manager from OH

- Medically unrestricted

- Modification to role in line with reasonable adaptation requirement of the Equality Act

- Medically unfit at this time

and in the case of the military - permanently medically unfit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once again, you miss the point ENTIRELY, or in fact you choose to ignore it and hide behind your faux legal mumbo jumbo, we are talking about prospective applicants and candidates, NOT staff already in service


and bigoted attitudes among a workforce , which are publically expressed are well known to put people off even considering to apply for roles ...

If the truth puts people off, then they are unsuited for the role.


[b]
i note you have not answered a single one of my questions as to if you would employ those candidates, you have not had the moral fiber to confront, and answer a series of direct question, a case of pulling that ever present security blanket over your head again is the only conclusion i can draw.

there are times when you are a train driver, when you are simply unable to duck and dive and prevaricate as you do[/quote]

I challenge you once again to answer us, as if the DECISION WAS YOURS, which of the 11 candidates you would employ as a train driver, if any

 

[dakta]

This thread and the attitudes towards what is actually not an unusual affliction puts me off being passenger.

We're perhaps focusing too much on the idea of panic attacks, whilst the OP did mention having a couple its probably the more dramatic end of the spectrum, anxiety comes in a lot of forms, and I'd just like to say, most are not incapacitating.

 

[anonperson]

This thread and the attitudes towards what is actually not an unusual affliction puts me off being passenger.

We're perhaps focusing too much on the idea of panic attacks, whilst the OP did mention having a couple its probably the more dramatic end of the spectrum, anxiety comes in a lot of forms, and I'd just like to say, most are not incapacitating.

You are of course entitled to an opinion and I fully support your entitlement to express it. What actually worries me, however, as a driver,and DI, is the attitude expressed on this thread that train driving applicants rights, come before the rights of the fare paying passengers, who entrust their safety to the railway, to have a fully suitable and stable driver in the front.

I think such an attitude from people who perform the role, and train others for the role, should ENCOURAGE you into being a passenger

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

With a few years under my belt, I'll answer as to if I'd employ the 11 candidates as train drivers :

No x 11 If some of those conditions stated developed in service, then I'd be
all in favour of employing them in suitable, alternate roles

as the previous person who asked the question said : Over to our mental and legal expert to answer in turn

 

[AnonymousUser1]

If the truth puts people off, then they are unsuited for the role.


[b]
i note you have not answered a single one of my questions as to if you would employ those candidates, you have not had the moral fiber to confront, and answer a series of direct question, a case of pulling that ever present security blanket over your head again is the only conclusion i can draw.

there are times when you are a train driver, when you are simply unable to duck and dive and prevaricate as you do

I challenge you once again to answer us, as if the DECISION WAS YOURS, which of the 11 candidates you would employ as a train driver, if any[/QUOTE]

the last time attitudes like this were challenged in an 'Industry' resulted in those organisations being labelled institutionally discriminatory


even if i were a driver manager , i would not know some of the 'facts' you presented

as health issues would got to Occ health

the criminal records stuff would not leave HR

it;s a strawman argument

have you ever held a management role in an organisation that does life critical things ?

 

[notadriver]

Just out of curiosity would mild anxiety as described affect the ops ability to become a bus driver for example ?

 

[fowler9]

I think too many people are conflating anxiety with people turning in to a gibbering wreck when the proverbial hits the fan. That just isn't the case.

Since I was diagnosed with "mild anxiety" at university I have been tied up at knife point in a bungled aggravated burglary, I have been mugged and left with 21 stitches in the back of my head, I have been stuck in New Zealand for a month with next to no money. In none of those situations did I loose it.

Bringing Andreas Lubitz in to this is frankly childish and offensive. It is like saying anyone with a cough probably has lung cancer. Andreas Lubitz may well have suffered from depression or anxiety, he also seems to have had a serious personality disorder which is completely different. It seems he was very cool, calm and collected when he experimented with the flight controls and then actually deliberately flew a plane in to the ground. Surely being cool, calm and collected are qualities you want in a train driver.

 

[TDK]

even if i were a driver manager , i would not know some of the 'facts' you presented

as health issues would got to Occ health

the criminal records stuff would not leave HR

it;s a strawman argument

have you ever held a management role in an organisation that does life critical things ?

On the application there is a question that quotes:-

Have you currently or do you have a history of any medical condition that may affect the ability for you to carry out a role of a train driver

If there is a medical condition that is declared, no matter what it is that WILL affect a candidates ability to carry out the role the candidate will not even get to OH as the manager carrying out the sift will seek the advice of OH to deem whether the said medical conditions can be accepted.

I have held a management role before that did include the recruitment of train drivers and it is down to the interviewer to ascertain whether a candidate is suitable to carry up to 1000 passengers safely without the doubt that the said candidate may cause in the future any injury or death to the public, if a manger allows a candidate through the sift and the candidate has declared a medical issue that may affect their ability to carry out the role it is the managers responsibility.

If someone has a medical issue and does not declare it they will eventually be found out and then will be in huge trouble for not declaring the issue.

It doesn't have to be mental heath it can be huge amount of issues.

You can bleat on as much as you like but in reality as I quoted before there are a huge amounts of applicants for just one role. A list has been posted on different issues and here is a more realistic list below why someone may not get through a sift, these are just a few:-

1. Are you colour blind
2. Do you have hearing problems.
3. Can you walk for 1 1/4 miles on ballast
4. Have you a body mass index under 33
5. Are you under 5'2" or over 6'6"
6. Do you have a speech impediment that will affect you communicating clearly
7. Are you numerate and literate
8. Do you have partial eyesight.
9. Are you on any medication (many are not permitted in safety critical work)
10. Have you or do you have a history of any mental heath issues that may affect you at work.
11. Do you have a criminal record
12. Do you suffer from sleep apnia
13. Can you easily ingress and egress a train cab.

All of these are questions that need to be addressed, if someone does not get a job because of any of these issues is it discrimination or unsuitability for the role?

The role of a train driver is safety critical and for recruitment a candidate needs to be able to comply with what is set out.

If a current employee becomes unfit for duty then they will not necessarily be dismissed but they will no longer be able to drive a train and be offered alternative employment if it is possible.

Is this a bigoted post?

 

[fowler9]

Ok, put your money where your mouth is, Pretend you are a REAL DRIVER MANAGER, in the REAL world, faced with REAL decisions, Answer the following scenarios which have slipped through the HR net with trainee driver candidates, a simple YES or NO will suffice :

1) I am colour blind, will you employ me ?

2) I am registered blind, will you employ me ?

3) I am confined to a wheelchair, will you employ me ?

4) I have one arm, will you employ me ?

5) I have a severe drink and drug habit, will you employ me ?

6) I have 57 convictions for assault, will you employ me

7) I have 57 convictions for theft, will you employ me ?

8) My name is Andreas Lubitz and I lost my job at Lufthansa because the voices in my head kept telling me to crash my aircraft, will you employ me ?

9) I suffer from panic attacks, will you employ me ?

10) I raped a member of staff at my previous job, but it was ten years ago, will you employ me ?

11) I have just been released from a mental institution into care in the community, I have a severe mental disorder, will you employ me ?

Over to you .............

This in my opinion is pathetic and not very constructive. The OP said they had mild anxiety and you are bringing up people with one arm, rapists and a psychotic pilot.

 

[notadriver]

Not at all bigoted. It's the reality. Train driving is a hard job to get and its not for everyone and it does require the ability to learn specialist skills.

Some people involved in the road transport industry can't or won't understand that.