Strathspey Railway volunteers stage walk out.

[trebor79]

Emergencies are one thing, expecting staff to sign up to regular, uncompensated overtime is another.

That's just the way it's written in the contract.
Ultimately if they take the p then people will just get alternative employment

I don’t think it is nonsense. What about my child who needs to be collected from after school club by 5:30 when they close, or my elderly relative who needs their tea and medication at 5:30 before I go home and sort myself and family out? If it’s a real emergency the business should have contingency plans.

The contingency is people working late. Unless you think employers should have a team of people of standby to deal with emergencies??
And yes, it's give and take. If I need to go and do the school run, or go to a medical appointment or take my mum for her chemo then my employer doesn't dock my wages. Similarly to above, if I took the p they'd find someone else to do my job.

You’re also confusing the issue, this isn’t about working late occasionally (or even regularly) it’s about how that is handled. It should be paid as overtime or allowed as time off but the railway here expects it to be worked unpaid.

Which, in my experience, is totally normal for any professional position.

 

[The exile]

What a great reaction to my comment, and really sad that people still support those outdated attitudes. If a railway just wants middle aged men to apply for the job they should just say so, rather than make the terms such that they’re the only people who can apply. It’s a poor situation if a business (charity or not) can’t survive without exploring its employees, it’s disingenuous, discriminatory and, arguably, illegal. If you want someone to work 60 hours a week then advertise for someone to do so, rather than pretend it’s something else; or split the job into two, possibly with part of it being done by a volunteer.

Assuming you mean “exploiting”, I am reminded of a couple of what I think are quotes from The Titfield Thunderbolt. “But we are the management.” And “We want to be exploited”.

 

[1Q18]

Assuming you mean “exploiting”, I am reminded of a couple of what I think are quotes from The Titfield Thunderbolt. “But we are the management.” And “We want to be exploited”.

I know plenty of people who both work for heritage railways and similar institutions in a paid role and also volunteer on the side, with varying levels of fuzziness between the two. But that’s not who Strathspey seem to be looking for, with their statement that ‘Candidates without any transport or heritage railway experience are encouraged to apply’. That person may very well
not be any kind of railway enthusiast and may not want to blend the paid role with unpaid duties, they will expect to be paid for the hours they put in.

 

[Meerkat]

Emergencies are one thing, expecting staff to sign up to regular, uncompensated overtime is another.

Its normally reflected in the salary - used to be that US banks in London paid more than others, and most people realised that was because they worked you harder.
And those who put the hours in got the bigger wage rises, bonuses, and promotions.
You really couldn't plan for no extra hours in lots of finance - some things can not be put off until the next day and if you had enough people for month ends and year ends you would have bored people doing nothing for large parts of the year. And you want the people who are looking after it day in day out finishing it.

For this Strathspey job adding paid overtime into the job spec would either involve an unattractive basic and/or a big variable extra cost into the budget.

 

[Ashley Hill]

So are those volunteers that walked out now happy and have returned?

 

[james_the_xv]

For this Strathspey job adding paid overtime into the job spec would either involve an unattractive basic and/or a big variable extra cost into the budget.

And yet if the line 'with time off in lieu given' was added after 'The basic hourly week is 37.5 hours, however being a seasonal tourist attraction the job will involve working unsocial hours including evenings, weekends and public holidays as required by the demands of the job, the season and the train services to be run'. That would be fine, in fact I doubt we'd be having this discussion because it would balance that statement out. At the moment it's essentially saying 'we expect you to put in the extra work when needed, with no flexibility from our side'. Adding TOIL as a perk (if you can even call it that) would neither require the base salary to change or add any extra cost, as (in my experience) any significant TOIL is taken the same way AL is via whichever HR portal is used and has to be approved by the Line Manager.

 

[Merle Haggard]

'Candidates without any transport or heritage railway experience are encouraged to apply".
But wouldn't the general manager of a railway personally have railway operational and safety obligations?

Clue; a former (fairly senior) railway manager I remember from B.R. days became the G.M. of a heritage railway after retirement. I bumped into him after a fatality on the line; he bitterly regretted taking on the job because of the penalty (possible prison sentence) he would be subject to under Corporate Manslaughter as a result of his ultimate responsibility.

 

[1Q18]

For this Strathspey job adding paid overtime into the job spec would either involve an unattractive basic and/or a big variable extra cost into the budget.

The alternative of offering an unattractive (to potential applicants) basic salary isn’t necessarily better.

 

[bluegoblin7]

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that RailUK Forums is trying to justify an unethical job description, given RailUK Forums's views on strikes.

We would all be better off if people stopped accepting nonsense like this.

 

[Iskra]

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that RailUK Forums is trying to justify an unethical job description, given RailUK Forums's views on strikes.

We would all be better off if people stopped accepting nonsense like this.

RailUK is (thankfully) not a homogenous mass of individuals that think the same, I don't think your comments are particularly helpful or relevant. Individual members are entitled to their opinions as much as you are entitled to disagree (politely) with them on here.

 

[alastair]

'Candidates without any transport or heritage railway experience are encouraged to apply".
But wouldn't the general manager of a railway personally have railway operational and safety obligations?

Clue; a former (fairly senior) railway manager I remember from B.R. days became the G.M. of a heritage railway after retirement. I bumped into him after a fatality on the line; he bitterly regretted taking on the job because of the penalty (possible prison sentence) he would be subject to under Corporate Manslaughter as a result of his ultimate responsibility.

Curious to know if the incident you apparently refer to actually happened (I mean a Heritage Railway GM being charged with corporate manslaughter)?

 

[james_the_xv]

The alternative of offering an unattractive (to potential applicants) basic salary isn’t necessarily better.

The thing that gets me is if they were looking for someone with previous railway management experience approaching retirement/semi retired on a part time (lets say 25-30hr) contract It would be fine, work more in the high season, more time off in the low season. £30k wouldn't be a bad number for that either. The problem is they're looking for someone they can't afford, with no attempt to offer any extra perks beside a priv. It's clueless recruitment at it's best.

 

[Meerkat]

And yet if the line 'with time off in lieu given' was added after 'The basic hourly week is 37.5 hours, however being a seasonal tourist attraction the job will involve working unsocial hours including evenings, weekends and public holidays as required by the demands of the job, the season and the train services to be run'. That would be fine, in fact I doubt we'd be having this discussion because it would balance that statement out. At the moment it's essentially saying 'we expect you to put in the extra work when needed, with no flexibility from our side'. Adding TOIL as a perk (if you can even call it that) would neither require the base salary to change or add any extra cost, as (in my experience) any significant TOIL is taken the same way AL is via whichever HR portal is used and has to be approved by the Line Manager.

Can you really have someone at that level taking TOIL? On top of their annual leave that could add up to a lot To fit in to convenient times.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Curious to know if the incident you apparently refer to actually happened (I mean a Heritage Railway GM being charged with corporate manslaughter)?

In the event, corporate manslaughter charges were never laid, but for a very long time the case was 'under review' rather than dropped.

To be clear; there was a fatality.

 

[paul1609]

In the event, corporate manslaughter charges were never laid, but for a very long time the case was 'under review' rather than dropped.

To be clear; there was a fatality.

Obviously we don't know which heritage railway you refer to or the circumstances but its unusual for the general manager to be the duty holder under a heritage railways safety management system, there's always (as far as I'm aware) a safety director on the board.

 

[The Puddock]

Obviously we don't know which heritage railway you refer to or the circumstances but its unusual for the general manager to be the duty holder under a heritage railways safety management system, there's always (as far as I'm aware) a safety director on the board.

Indeed, I’m very surprised to learn that ORR were apparently considering a corporate manslaughter charge against a director of a heritage railway for a single fatality, given there have been fewer than 30 cases brought since the most recent revision to the law in 2007. None of those cases were persued against an individual rather than a business and all resulted in a substantial fine rather than custodial sentences. There must have been some very egregious, or even deliberate, failings in safety management in this case for such a charge to have been contemplated and a prison sentence to have been on the cards.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Obviously we don't know which heritage railway you refer to or the circumstances but its unusual for the general manager to be the duty holder under a heritage railways safety management system, there's always (as far as I'm aware) a safety director on the board.

I am trying to be circumspect for good reasons (there haven't been that many H.R. fatalities) but, in this case, the c.v. of the manager would certainly make him suited to direct involvement with safety management (amongst other industry skills).

Indeed, I’m very surprised to learn that ORR were apparently considering a corporate manslaughter charge against a director of a heritage railway for a single fatality, given there have been fewer than 30 cases since the most recent revision to the law in 2007. None of those cases were persued against an individual rather than a business and all resulted in a substantial fine rather than custodial sentences. There must have been some very egregious, or even deliberate, failings in safety management in this case for such a charge to have been contemplated.

Sometimes events are surprising.

Usually extremely confident and self-assured, he was in a state of high anxiety when I met him; from his conversation (which I didn't question) I inferred that it was the local police that had interviewed him & were pursuing the matter. I also formed the impression that there was very strong local feeling, which of course is not always based on logical argument but which has to be seen to be acted upon.

 

[fireftrm]

Indeed, I’m very surprised to learn that ORR were apparently considering a corporate manslaughter charge against a director of a heritage railway for a single fatality, given there have been fewer than 30 cases brought since the most recent revision to the law in 2007. None of those cases were persued against an individual rather than a business and all resulted in a substantial fine rather than custodial sentences. There must have been some very egregious, or even deliberate, failings in safety management in this case for such a charge to have been contemplated and a prison sentence to have been on the cards.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 cannot be used against an individual, it is only the corporate body that can be prosecuted and therefore a prison sentence can never be the sentence imposed on any successful conviction

 

[Ianigsy]

The other possibilities are either that there’s somebody they want to appoint and the job spec is worded to make it difficult for somebody else to match their expectations, or that it’s being advertised to prove that nobody is going to relocate to Aviemore to do those responsibilities on that salary.

Or perhaps they don’t really know what they want and they’ve just bundled together everything the previous GM used to do.

 

[lineisclear]

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 cannot be used against an individual, it is only the corporate body that can be prosecuted and therefore a prison sentence can never be the sentence imposed on any successful conviction

That's true but perhaps a little complacent. An individual director can still be charged for the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence. If that level of personal culpability is proven individual directors can be , and have been, prosecuted, found guilty and imprisoned.

 

[fireftrm]

That's true but perhaps a little complacent. An individual director can still be charged for the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence. If that level of personal culpability is proven individual directors can be , and have been, prosecuted, found guilty and imprisoned.

My post isn't complacency, it's correcting an assertion that a Director can be sent to prison through a conviction using the CM&CH Act, they can't. They can be charged with Negligent Manslaughter, or any H&S offence if there is evidence of their personal wrongdoing. The Corporate offences were enacted as it is often not possible to pin the offence onto an individual in a company. Where there is complacency is with HR Directors who don't think they hold any personal liability.....

 

[lineisclear]

My post isn't complacency, it's correcting an assertion that a Director can be sent to prison through a conviction using the CM&CH Act, they can't. They can be charged with Negligent Manslaughter, or any H&S offence if there is evidence of their personal wrongdoing. The Corporate offences were enacted as it is often not possible to pin the offence onto an individual in a company. Where there is complacency is with HR Directors who don't think they hold any personal liability.....

Agree completely

 

[LowLevel]

Heritage railways have always been rather brutal working environments - relatively cash and resource poor etc. You'd hope anyone taking such a job on would be aware of what it would likely entail, it is perhaps ill advised to want all things from people with no particular experience in what that may mean.

It is all well and good to sit on the outside and criticise that position but they're inevitably labours of love and were never really set up to aspire to provide excellent paid employment.

That being said it's evident that much has been left to be desired on some railways in terms of management ability.

I've been involved in them for years working with staff both paid and volunteer and I always swore never to become a paid employee because I knew very well what it was like. I don't mind messing around in the dark and the rain on my days off fixing problems as a volunteer, I'd loathe feeling obliged as a paid worker.

 

[mike57]

I don't mind messing around in the dark and the rain on my days off fixing problems as a volunteer, I'd loathe feeling obliged as a paid worker.

I think thats the heart of the issue, as a volunteer you can walk away from something, as a paid employee you cant, unless you are prepared to loose your livelihood. Refering back to my earlier comment this is what makes managing a mixed voluntary/paid workforce very difficult.