Treatment of Fatalities?

[PaulMac]

How are fatalities dealt with in your company? Our standard is a trauma payment (roughly £3000) and as much paid leave as required - usually two or three months.

Does this sound pretty standard where you are?

Mod note: The moderation team is aware this is a very sensitive and raw subject to many people and may evoke strong emotions. We would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the forum rules and if anyone believes there are posts or words that cross the line of being respectful or approriate then we please ask you to use the "Report" the function to flag this to the moderation team. The thread will be kept under active review."

 

[357]

C2C was £1,000 after tax if resuming within a certain amount of time. I'm not sure but I believe it was three months.

Not sure about where I am now regarding any financial incentive but you get as much time off as you need.

 

[chuff chuff]

Do some companies now have some sort of payment since we were binned from the criminal injuries compensation.

 

[12LDA28C]

How are fatalities dealt with in your company? Our standard is a trauma payment (roughly £3000) and as much paid leave as required - usually two or three months.

Does this sound pretty standard where you are?

In my opinion, and I realise this might seem controversial, this kind of thing is in very bad taste. I assume you're talking about drivers receiving a payment after being involved with a fatality? I don't believe it's right to profit from someone losing their life, it just seems morally reprehensible. Of course a driver can take as much time to get over the incident as they need and people deal with things differently which is fair enough.

C2C was £1,000 after tax if resuming within a certain amount of time. I'm not sure but I believe it was three months.

Not sure about where I am now regarding any financial incentive but you get as much time off as you need.

Nobody should be encouraged to return to work before they are ready.

 

[whoosh]

I don't think it's "profiteering" for a payment to be made. All the treading on eggshells your family has to do, getting their sleep disturbed from waking up having nightmares. This can last months, way beyond any return to work. Plus, all the unearned overtime that gets missed out on during time off. Taking all that into account, I don't think anyone is 'up' on any payment.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme argued that suicides weren't illegal, and therefore weren't a crime. Despite trespassing on the railway being a crime, and you can only commit suicide by train by trespassing all or part of your body into the path of a running line.

 

[LowLevel]

In my opinion, and I realise this might seem controversial, this kind of thing is in very bad taste. I assume you're talking about drivers receiving a payment after being involved with a fatality? I don't believe it's right to profit from someone losing their life, it just seems morally reprehensible. Of course a driver can take as much time to get over the incident as they need and people deal with things differently which is fair enough.



Your employer gives you a 'financial incentive' to end someone's life? Wow.

No, they give you a payment that recognises the trauma of something that you have no control of over happening at work which can permanently affect your life and that of those around you.

I think incentive is the wrong word but I don't disagree with a payment being made - recently a longstanding and well regarded colleague took early retirement after someone used his train to commit suicide as he couldn't face returning to work.

It would only be an incentive if they could choose to be involved or not.

 

[godfreycomplex]

In my opinion, and I realise this might seem controversial, this kind of thing is in very bad taste.

I can see the force of this argument but on the other hand I believe the origin of these payments was to make up for any lost income whilst the driver took time off (thereby mitigating the impact on their loved ones as much as possible), rather than anything resembling a "bonus". It's one payment nobody wants to receive, put it that way.

I've heard numerous instances of drivers donating part or all of that payment to charity, but that's up to them.

 

[Anvil1984]

*comment since deleted by user*

No, it is / was a “financial incentive” to return to work after a traumatic incident.

 

[12LDA28C]

No, it is / was a “financial incentive” to return to work after a traumatic incident.

No, it is/was 'compensation' for the trauma suffered during the incident. As has already been mentioned, a Driver can have as much time as they need off driving to get over the incident and no pressure should be placed on them to return to work before they are ready.

I can see the force of this argument but on the other hand I believe the origin of these payments was to make up for any lost income whilst the driver took time off (thereby mitigating the impact on their loved ones as much as possible), rather than anything resembling a "bonus". It's one payment nobody wants to receive, put it that way.

I've heard numerous instances of drivers donating part or all of that payment to charity, but that's up to them.

When I was involved in a fatality (which was not a suicide by the way) I declined the compensation payment as I didn't want to profit from their death and I would do the same again. However, the idea of someone donating the payment to charity is something I would strongly support, especially if it went to someone like the Samaritans who do great work when dealing with people who are suffering with mental health and might be considering taking a similar path towards ending it all..

 

[GemGem]

I didn’t get any financial incentive or payment and I returned to work after 3 weeks.

 

[Gloster]

Forty years ago when I was a signalman I had someone jump off a bridge and hit the headcode box of passing express before being thrown into the cess. I saw this while at the levers and, after carrying out the necessary actions, had to go down to the body to check for signs of life, of which there were definitely none. Had this been at the end of the shift I would probably have been paid overtime at the standard rate if I needed to stay on and I would have been paid for the time at standard railway rate if I had been called to the coroner’s inquest, but that was it. (The incident happened early in a late shift and I was not called.) I did not and would not expect to be paid any money except what I was due for the hours worked.

I suppose that if I had asked to be relieved at the time or asked for a day or two off this would have been allowed, but that never even crossed my mind. Now, it is true that I worked with people who had served in World War II and getting on with the job was the norm, but I feel there is something wrong here. I can understand relieving someone immediately after such an incident, but I do feel that really ought to be it. The possibility of one under is something that any driver ought to realise might happen and be prepared to deal with. As long as you have done your job properly and you couldn’t have prevented the death, it should be deep breath and back to work.

As we used to say: if you can’t take it you shouldn’t have taken the job.

I have no doubt that some people will say that I am callous and unfeeling, and that the job has changed. People may have changed, death hasn’t.

 

[godfreycomplex]

and that the job has changed.

So has our understanding of human psychology and the harm such an approach did, does and would cause.

 

[AverageJoe]

Forty years ago when I was a signalman I had someone jump off a bridge and hit the headcode box of passing express before being thrown into the cess. I saw this while at the levers and, after carrying out the necessary actions, had to go down to the body to check for signs of life, of which there were definitely none. Had this been at the end of the shift I would probably have been paid overtime at the standard rate if I needed to stay on and I would have been paid for the time at standard railway rate if I had been called to the coroner’s inquest, but that was it. (The incident happened early in a late shift and I was not called.) I did not and would not expect to be paid any money except what I was due for the hours worked.

I suppose that if I had asked to be relieved at the time or asked for a day or two off this would have been allowed, but that never even crossed my mind. Now, it is true that I worked with people who had served in World War II and getting on with the job was the norm, but I feel there is something wrong here. I can understand relieving someone immediately after such an incident, but I do feel that really ought to be it. The possibility of one under is something that any driver ought to realise might happen and be prepared to deal with. As long as you have done your job properly and you couldn’t have prevented the death, it should be deep breath and back to work.

As we used to say: if you can’t take it you shouldn’t have taken the job.

I have no doubt that some people will say that I am callous and unfeeling, and that the job has changed. People may have changed, death hasn’t.

"Deep breath and get back to work"… "shouldn’t have taken the job if you can’t handle it?"

Who on planet earth knows if they can handle a fatality when applying for the job?

No one knows what impact it will have on them and depending on how gruesome it is and how much you actually see can be the difference to how it effects the driver or other staff involved.

"To say deep breath and back to work" is a strange thing to say. Maybe you are that type of person but it doesn’t mean other should have to be.

You witnessed a fatality but you weren’t the one that ultimately took the life of the person and unlike the driver you probably didn’t go home thinking ‘could I have done anything differently to prevent it’ or potentially feeling panicked every time he drove towards a bridge with people lingering on it.

 

[Horizon22]

This thread has been reopened.

The moderation team is aware this is a very sensitive and raw subject to many people and may evoke strong emotions. We would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the forum rules and if anyone believes there are posts or words that cross the line of being respectful or approriate then we please ask you to use the "Report" the function to flag this to the moderation team. The thread will be kept under active review."

We appreciate this may be distressing to some people and would encourage anyone affacted to speak to Samaritans (https://www.samaritans.org/how-we-can-help/) or your company's employee assistance scheme.

 

[PaulMac]

Thank you everyone. I’ve found most of the answers interesting - and one astonishingly idiotic.

 

[AverageJoe]

No, it is/was 'compensation' for the trauma suffered during the incident. As has already been mentioned, a Driver can have as much time as they need off driving to get over the incident and no pressure should be placed on them to return to work before they are ready.



When I was involved in a fatality (which was not a suicide by the way) I declined the compensation payment as I didn't want to profit from their death and I would do the same again. However, the idea of someone donating the payment to charity is something I would strongly support, especially if it went to someone like the Samaritans who do great work when dealing with people who are suffering with mental health and might be considering taking a similar path towards ending it all..

I personally feel there should be some type of payment.

Trauma aside it can cost a driver a lot of money in lost rest day work and forced overtime. Some could see their wage suddenly drop by a few thousand a month.

Nobody sets out wanting a fatality and although it is something we are aware can happen if it really does effect you then that could mean 6 months or so with a greatly reduced income.

 

[PaulMac]

“Take a deep breath and back to work!”

That sounds like something General Haig might have screeched at shellshocked soldiers in the grisly mud of the Somme a century ago.

I’m glad trauma is taken a bit more seriously these days. And I’m glad railroad workers - at least the ones who responded - aren’t bullied by employers into accepting death and maiming as just part of the job.

 

[43066]

Your employer gives you a 'financial incentive' to end someone's life? Wow.

This is a very strange viewpoint, and totally inaccurate. How can someone be given a financial incentive to end someone’s life when they have no control over it, and it’s given after the event?

Forty years ago when I was a signalman I had someone jump off a bridge and hit the headcode box of passing express before being thrown into the cess. I saw this while at the levers and, after carrying out the necessary actions, had to go down to the body to check for signs of life, of which there were definitely none. Had this been at the end of the shift I would probably have been paid overtime at the standard rate if I needed to stay on and I would have been paid for the time at standard railway rate if I had been called to the coroner’s inquest, but that was it. (The incident happened early in a late shift and I was not called.) I did not and would not expect to be paid any money except what I was due for the hours worked.

I suppose that if I had asked to be relieved at the time or asked for a day or two off this would have been allowed, but that never even crossed my mind. Now, it is true that I worked with people who had served in World War II and getting on with the job was the norm, but I feel there is something wrong here. I can understand relieving someone immediately after such an incident, but I do feel that really ought to be it. The possibility of one under is something that any driver ought to realise might happen and be prepared to deal with. As long as you have done your job properly and you couldn’t have prevented the death, it should be deep breath and back to work.

As we used to say: if you can’t take it you shouldn’t have taken the job.

I have no doubt that some people will say that I am callous and unfeeling, and that the job has changed. People may have changed, death hasn’t.

So you’re not a driver who has ever experienced a fatality - therefore not in any position to declare that it should be “deep breath and back to work”. Different people are also affected differently: there is no “right” way to respond. Thankfully our understanding of human psychology has improved rather since WW2.

I personally feel there should be some type of payment.

Trauma aside it can cost a driver a lot of money in lost rest day work and forced overtime. Some could see their wage suddenly drop by a few thousand a month.

Nobody sets out wanting a fatality and although it is something we are aware can happen if it really does effect you then that could mean 6 months or so with a greatly reduced income.

This makes sense. I’m not sure a financial incentive should be offered to return within a certain timeframe - there’s a risk the person will return before they’re ready. It should be a method to take financial pressure out of the equation.

“Take a deep breath and back to work!”

That sounds like something General Haig might have screeched at shellshocked soldiers in the grisly mud of the Somme a century ago.

I’m glad trauma is taken a bit more seriously these days. And I’m glad railroad workers - at least the ones who responded - aren’t bullied by employers into accepting death and maiming as just part of the job.

Absolutely.

 

[Harpo]

Rectifying loss of earnings on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me including assessing longer term impacts where they happen.

A flat rate payment seems wrong to me as (my view) it becomes about the deceased and not the affected employee and doesn’t reflect the huge range of impacts that fatalities have on employees.

 

[PaulMac]

Rectifying loss of earnings on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me including assessing longer term impacts where they happen.

A flat rate payment seems wrong to me as (my view) it becomes about the deceased and not the affected employee and doesn’t reflect the huge range of impacts that fatalities have on employees.

The flat £3000-ish we receive is because we’re considered the victim of a crime. Then there’s a week’s paid trauma leave, followed by industry compensation leave for as long as necessary (though you’ll be getting annoyed phone calls if you stretch that beyond three or four months). After a year, you can choose to return to the job, accept a non-driving role, or leave the company.

 

[Gemz91]

Should guards be considered too for any payment considering the trauma they too suffer in such events?

 

[westcoaster]

The flat £3000-ish we receive is because we’re considered the victim of a crime. Then there’s a week’s paid trauma leave, followed by industry compensation leave for as long as necessary (though you’ll be getting annoyed phone calls if you stretch that beyond three or four months). After a year, you can choose to return to the job, accept a non-driving role, or leave the company.

After the criminal injuries was stopped years ago, I believe that no driver receives any payment today.
And if they did I'd certainly pass that on to charities, to use (I'd see it as tainted money not that I'd want it anyway.)

 

[357]

Should guards be considered too for any payment considering the trauma they too suffer in such events?

When I worked for Greater Anglia and then TfL Rail as platform staff you got sod all and angry phone calls from management if you were off more than 5 days.

 

[coxxy]

No trauma payment, no average earnings at my Toc.

 

[12LDA28C]

This is a very strange viewpoint, and totally inaccurate. How can someone be given a financial incentive to end someone’s life when they have no control over it, and it’s given after the event?

To be clear (as if it really needed clarifying) it's not my viewpoint but I was quoting someone who stated that their employer paid 'an incentive' which was a very poor choice of words as clearly a post-fatality payment in not any kind of 'incentive' and is more in relation to compensation for the trauma caused, but I still disagree with it, and declined it after my own incident.

This makes sense. I’m not sure a financial incentive should be offered to return within a certain timeframe - there’s a risk the person will return before they’re ready. It should be a method to take financial pressure out of the equation.

Indeed and I'm not aware of any TOC or FOC that makes such a payment dependent on someone returning to work within a certain timeframe - that would be counter-productive and not in the best interests of the driver involved.

 

[357]

To be clear (as if it really needed clarifying) it's not my viewpoint but I was quoting someone who stated that their employer paid 'an incentive' which was a very poor choice of words as clearly a post-fatality payment in not any kind of 'incentive' and is more in relation to compensation for the trauma caused, but I still disagree with it, and declined it after my own incident.



Indeed and I'm not aware of any TOC or FOC that makes such a payment dependent on someone returning to work within a certain timeframe - that would be counter-productive and not in the best interests of the driver involved.

It was not a poor choice of words, it is exactly what I said.

Return to work within a fixed amount of time and get £££.

It is an incentive to get people back to work, because the management want us driving trains and not off sick.

Regarding your last paragraph, I've stated exactly that. I believe the time limit on it was three months and given the way you've acted in this thread and misquoted me already, I can't be bothered digging out my contract to check the time limit but I'm 99% sure it is three months.

I've not said I agree with it, but I answered the OPs question, didn't I?

 

[12LDA28C]

The flat £3000-ish we receive is because we’re considered the victim of a crime. Then there’s a week’s paid trauma leave, followed by industry compensation leave for as long as necessary (though you’ll be getting annoyed phone calls if you stretch that beyond three or four months). After a year, you can choose to return to the job, accept a non-driving role, or leave the company.

I don't believe you've stated where you are - I assume not in the UK? It would be unusual for a driver not to return to the footplate within a year although of course trauma affects people differently and some recover more quickly than others. Any prospective driver should seriously consider how they might react to such an incident before applying for a driving role as it may be something they have to deal with at least once in their career, although of course it's difficult to predict and nobody really knows how it will affect them until it happens.

It was not a poor choice of words, it is exactly what I said.

Return to work within a fixed amount of time and get £££.

It is an incentive to get people back to work, because the management want us driving trains and not off sick.

Regarding your last paragraph, I've stated exactly that. I believe the time limit on it was three months and given the way you've acted in this thread and misquoted me already, I can't be bothered digging out my contract to check the time limit but I'm 99% sure it is three months.

I've not said I agree with it, but I answered the OPs question, didn't I?

I'm surprised ASLEF agreed to that, tbh. Pretty sure if management tried to introduce that at most TOCs it would get booted out by the reps in short order.

 

[niceman]

Slightly off the topic of payment and leave, can I sensitively ask, how common is this type of situation. Suicide or other fatalities on the track?

Thanks

 

[12LDA28C]

Slightly off the topic of payment and leave, can I sensitively ask, how common is this type of situation. Suicide or other fatalities on the track?

Thanks

Generally there will be one most days somewhere on UK railway infrastructure. ORR figures for example state that in the year April 2023 to March 2024 there were 342 suicide or suspected attempted suicide attempts resulting in 274 fatalities.

Rail safety | ORR Data Portal

 

[357]

Slightly off the topic of payment and leave, can I sensitively ask, how common is this type of situation. Suicide or other fatalities on the track?

Thanks

I've dealt with 7 in my career - my colleagues seem to think I'm remarkably unlucky as most of them haven't had one!