Mild anxiety

[fowler9]

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.

Yeah but at the end of the day do you fully understand mental illness? Obviously if someone is tanked up on Diazepam every day they would not pass the medical, they probably wouldn't have applied for the job. There is a difference between that and not employing someone because they once suffered from anxiety or depression.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Yeah but at the end of the day do you fully understand mental illness? Obviously if someone is tanked up on Diazepam every day they would not pass the medical, they probably wouldn't have applied for the job. There is a difference between that and not employing someone because they once suffered from anxiety or depression.

and this is the point

not helped by the person claiming to have been a driver manager saying they would mae the decision not to employ or progress an application , but then saying that the decision is in fact made by Occ Health

also i think people do not understand how modern Equality act compliant application forms are constructed - if a paper form even exists

in a fully compliant situation the manager does not know demographic details until AFTER shortlisting applicants ...

and while the form may include health and diversity monitoring questiosn these are seperated from the demographics and from the actual application by HR and passed to OH at the appropriate point ( health stuff ) or ertained for audit etc ( diversity and 'where did you see the job advertised' type stuff)

 

[fowler9]

Some of the people on this thread have shown a complete misunderstanding of mental illness. Especially when it comes to bringing up Andreas Lubitz.

If a train driver who has hit someone requires time off afterwards for mental health reasons would you say they should never be allowed to drive again in case they get flashbacks etc.? I would guess not.

The railways employ a huge number of ex forces people, a section of society who exhibit way above average levels of mental illness.

Perhaps we should leave it to the people who do the medicals to decide who is fit to work on the railways rather than people who think anxiety means when the chips are down people with a history of depression will just collapse in a heap.

 

[dakta]

You are of course entitled to an opinion and I fully support your entitlement to express it

Thanks

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

Is that really how it is though? If there was someone on here who it was known would became a nervous wreck under pressure, due to a mental condition, do you think people would defend their right to holding such a position?

Without barring anyones right to an opinion, I do want to put forth the points fowler9 has made numerous times that the whole issue is widely misunderstood and stigmatised.

Does anyone know what the diagnosis criteria is for anxiety disorder?

 

[ComUtoR]

If a train driver who has hit someone requires time off afterwards for mental health reasons would you say they should never be allowed to drive again in case they get flashbacks etc.? I would guess not.

I know a few ex Drivers who no longer drive trains because of a fatality. The short answer is yes, IF there was an issue post incident and potentially there was a concern. That is what Occupational Health and the other list of professionals are for.

Considering the number of Driver that are known to me personally who have been involved in fatalities I can categorically state that they are very well looked after.

If your hoping to post in terms of mental illness then your not making a good point. These are people without any history of mental illness. Without trying to make a sweeping generalization. Those with existing conditions or those prone to them will have a different reaction.

The railways employ a huge number of ex forces people, a section of society who exhibit way above average levels of mental illness.

Do they ? I'm not privy to any employee demographics so anything I say is purely anecdotal. There is not a"huge number" of ex forces.

Perhaps we should leave it to the people who do the medicals to decide who is fit to work on the railways rather than people who think anxiety means when the chips are down people with a history of depression will just collapse in a heap.

Do you seriously believe that the people making the decisions are management bods or are you like the other poster jumping on a high horse, leaping over conclusion canyon, and running away to assumption ville ?

There is a certain truth to what actually happens. ANYONE can search through this board to the journey you have to go through to become a train driver. Too many people feel hard done when they are not successful and look for blame and excuses for their personal failures.

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

the so called "mental health" high-horse, liberal, everyone has right brigade, entirely miss the point that we are not talking about drivers in service who suffer mental health issues, for whatever reason, panic attacks, etc.

but potential recruits to train driving. The job is not a given right to every Tom, Dick and Harry who apply for it, strict criteria have to be met and competition is vast. Some people make it, others do not, Get over it and yourselves !

I fully support looking after my brother drivers who suffer issues in service and directing them to alternate roles and if this is not possible, supporting them through my taxes and through my ASLEF subs. I have voted on numerous hardship grants at branch.

But, Anyone who has experienced mental issues, or panic attacks, should not be recruited into a train driving role where he has 1000 lives in his hands and where even the most sane and sorted can make a drastic cock up such as Chatsworth and Santiago de Compostella

How hard is that to grasp ?

I notice none of you has still has the gumption to grasp the nettle of agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothetical and real train driving job restrictions. That in itself speaks volumes about you in my mind.

Andreas Lubittz is a very valid example.

 

[fowler9]

the so called "mental health" high-horse, liberal, everyone has right brigade, entirely miss the point that we are not talking about drivers in service who suffer mental health issues, for whatever reason, panic attacks, etc.

but potential recruits to train driving. The job is not a given right to every Tom, Dick and Harry who apply for it, strict criteria have to be met and competition is vast. Some people make it, others do not, Get over it and yourselves !

I fully support looking after my brother drivers who suffer issues in service and directing them to alternate roles and if this is not possible, supporting them through my taxes and through my ASLEF subs. I have voted on numerous hardship grants at branch.

But, Anyone who has experienced mental issues, or panic attacks, should not be recruited into a train driving role where he has 1000 lives in his hands and where even the most sane and sorted can make a drastic cock up such as Chatsworth and Santiago de Compostella

How hard is that to grasp ?

I notice none of you has still has the gumption to grasp the nettle of agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothetical and real train driving job restrictions. That in itself speaks volumes about you in my mind.

Andreas Lubittz is a very valid example.

Andreas Lubitz is not a valid example. he obviously had a very severe personality disorder the kind of which has nothing to do with being depressed. There are plenty of people about like that who will never show up in the health service until they go nuts and kill a load of people. Not employing people with mild anxiety disorders will not stop that happening. The fact that you cannot differentiate between anxiety and a massive personality dissorder speaks volumes about you and your prejudice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know a few ex Drivers who no longer drive trains because of a fatality. The short answer is yes, IF there was an issue post incident and potentially there was a concern. That is what Occupational Health and the other list of professionals are for.

Considering the number of Driver that are known to me personally who have been involved in fatalities I can categorically state that they are very well looked after.

If your hoping to post in terms of mental illness then your not making a good point. These are people without any history of mental illness. Without trying to make a sweeping generalization. Those with existing conditions or those prone to them will have a different reaction.



Do they ? I'm not privy to any employee demographics so anything I say is purely anecdotal. There is not a"huge number" of ex forces.



Do you seriously believe that the people making the decisions are management bods or are you like the other poster jumping on a high horse, leaping over conclusion canyon, and running away to assumption ville ?

There is a certain truth to what actually happens. ANYONE can search through this board to the journey you have to go through to become a train driver. Too many people feel hard done when they are not successful and look for blame and excuses for their personal failures.

Speaking about making assumptions "or am I like the other poster jumping on a high horse". No I'm not. Why do you even ask if I seriously believe the people making the decisions are management bods? You are replying to me saying we should leave it to the professionals doing the medicals. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[bb21]

I think it is quite clear that neither side is going to back down. Everyone's just repeating what has already been said so this thread is closed. I doubt the OP is going to be returning.

If anyone wants to discuss mental health issues and the Equality Act, a very worthy subject in my opinion, please do so in a separate thread. However, may I remind everyone that saying the same thing repeatedly is not going to force people to change their opinion, no matter how tempting it is, neither is trying to belittle those who disagree at every possible turn. I won't point any finger but suffice to say that these sorts of behaviour were observed from both sides. At the end of the day, some people see things differently and you will probably never be able to persuade them to come around to your views so sometimes it is better to take a step back, let someone else have a go, or just accept that you will never be able to reach consensus on that particular occasion, and this may just be one of those occasions.

I actually have doubts as I was just reading the thread whether you all actually understood what each other were saying in the heated exchange, because I got the distinct impression that the opposing sides for large parts of the discussion brought up two quite separate, but both quite important, issues.

May I also request that, while everyone is entitled to his opinion, given the sensitive nature of mental health topics, please show due consideration to those who may find this a delicate topic to discuss, as specified in the Respectful section of our forum rules.