• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Daily Mail: train cancelled whilst guard is in sainsburys...

Status
Not open for further replies.

LBSCR Times

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2013
Messages
617
Location
Sussex born and bred
To me, the main point of the incident is that those who should have been keeping the passengers informed - presumably administrators of some sort - didn't, or did so in a way to pass the buck to someone who did nothing wrong. Sadly, this happens a lot in many industries, and shouldn't.

Even in Controls there are those who seem to be out to get at people on the ground, and then wonder why they don't get support from them when needed.
They are either point scoring or failing to take any responsibility for their actions.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,485
Location
Powys
EM2's post is applicable to every single worker in England (and probably the rest of the UK) and not just rail workers.

True, but try putting it into practice in a single-manned signal box!!
Loo trips fitted in between trains.
Meals taken on the fly.
 

drbdrb

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
160
I'm a high speed services driver...I do object when people throw around inaccuracies - such as that old chestnut that drivers', guards', or any other rail staff's breaks are mandated by law and as such cannot be moved or altered.

They are not. They just aren't.

Nice to hear some facts, rather than shouting that was clearly trying to evade the issue.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
True, but try putting it into practice in a single-manned signal box!!
Loo trips fitted in between trains.
Meals taken on the fly.

That could be interesting,

"Sorry, this train is delayed, the signaller is having a break"

I believe you can opt out by providing a written opt out to your employer. I certainly did this to a previous employer when I was working stupid amounts of overtime - retail on low pay and needed overtime to pay the bills, nothing safety critical. I was knocking out 80 hour weeks at one point, all at standard rate with no overtime enhancement.
My current employment I do a flat 37.5 hours and take the same money I got for 80 hours in the old retail job.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
That could be interesting,

"Sorry, this train is delayed, the signaller is having a break"
Believe it or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-21410006
Network Rail has apologised after a signalman got stuck in a toilet, causing delays to train services.

Passengers were inconvenienced after contact was lost with the signal box at Henwick in Worcester.

The driver of the 15:13GMT Hereford to London service got out of his train and walked to the signal box to investigate.

It was then discovered the signalman was stuck in the Victorian building's outside toilet.
 

poshfan

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2013
Messages
114
Location
Stamford
Actually, there must be a special course for journalists to go on, after they've had half their brain removed, just so they can practice thinking up the most ridiculous and outrageous headlines.
The usual training is 2 years on a media studies course followed by one year at pun school.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,930
Nice to hear some facts, rather than shouting that was clearly trying to evade the issue.
It's not law (I resisted the temptation to point that out myself!), but - as explained above - they are an important part of the management of safety-critical staff and the direct result of the investigation into a serious accident (Clapham) where fatigue was found to be a factor. Legal requirement or not, I wouldn't want to be the one in court justifying my actions after the event!

Speaking of legislation, are transport workers exempt from the Working Time Directive? Not sure, but I thought I'd read it somewhere. As Llanigraham says, it's often impossible for signalmen to take a continuous 20 minute break between trains at any point during a turn in a busy box!
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,445
I'm afraid you just have to accept, as I do (I work for a major bank), that your employer is disliked and possibly even hated by the majority of its customers.

Really? How do you know?

The majority or a vocal minority plus the attention-seeking press?
 

londiscape

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2013
Messages
296
Location
SW London
It does seem to be the case that public-facing companies that are not subject to the usual market forces of competition do attract a certain amount of negative attention from the press.

Energy companies and banks are perceived to operate in the fashion of a cartel, eg one company increases gas prices, and the rest follow, therefore the consumers see no difference between any of the suppliers and believe themselves to have no other option than bitching on newspaper comment sites, or perhaps writing to their MP (as if that would ever achieve anything).

I think some Railway passengers will view themselves as being in a similar position, and see themselves as having no option other than to commute to work on the railways, with the TOC that serves their geographical region, and suck up the annual fare rises. The argument that a commuter could choose another method of transport if they don't like it, ie car, bus, coach etc, will not hold water for various reasons, some valid, some not.

Therefore I don't believe it's unreasonable to expect that the railway industry is not particularly popular among the general public. Those that are members of this forum will have the benefit of direct information and knowledge from experienced professionals in the railway industry, and will understand why things happen the way they do. However the majority of the travelling public will not know this, and will jump to assumptions either based on their own incorrect perceptions, or be guided by sensationalist media reports.

However, the vast majority of front-line staff I have come into contact with on the railway have been exemplary, and I hope that most people will understand that a dislike of the industry is not a reflection upon staff who are mostly doing their job to the best possible standards in sometimes adverse circumstances. There will be the odd pillock who abuses staff when something goes wrong, but I do hope they're in the minority.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
It's not law (I resisted the temptation to point that out myself!), but - as explained above - they are an important part of the management of safety-critical staff and the direct result of the investigation into a serious accident (Clapham) where fatigue was found to be a factor. Legal requirement or not, I wouldn't want to be the one in court justifying my actions after the event!

Speaking of legislation, are transport workers exempt from the Working Time Directive? Not sure, but I thought I'd read it somewhere. As Llanigraham says, it's often impossible for signalmen to take a continuous 20 minute break between trains at any point during a turn in a busy box!


Its a bit of both.

There are laws that specifically state that an employee is entitled to a break and there are laws that specifically cover Safety. Chuck in contracting laws to cover employee contracts of employment and it becomes a real quagmire.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/contents (WTR 1998)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents (HSAW 1974)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/24/contents (EA 2008)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1684/regulation/4/made
(Excluded Sectors amendments)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1660/contents/made
(Rail Specific amendments)

Is Hidden 18 a legal requirement ? I couldn't find any actual legislation but I know that the railways takes it very very seriously.

Employers have a responsibility and a duty of care to its employees whether or not that said employee is opted out of the WTR. Employment contracts will reflect break entitlements and if those are broken then there is a liability issue. There is also a "Statement of Readiness" which the Driver/Guard must conform to and is also considered a legal document. Remember that Employees also have a duty of care to each other and the public and that is covered by the HSA 1974

You will need to find a new employee of at least one post 2008 to find out if they were asked to "opt out"

If the guard believed that his capability would be affected by not having a break and could become fatigued then 100% he is legally obliged to act accordingly.

If his terms and conditions of employment state that he is required to take a break then again he is legally obliged to take it.

We don't know the nitty gritty of the Guards day and he may have reached a point where he no longer had a choice but to take it.

Personally I want anyone who is responsible for my care to be 100% in their ability to do so.

Lastly, should anyone suffer in their job for the sake of others ? I know its a public service but people do have rights and if he was on a break then so be it. I used to be a Shop Manager and the number of cigarette breaks that get taken are shocking. Train Crew getting 20mins in a 6hr + day shocks and frightens me. I'm embarrassed at peoples selfishness.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
It's not law but it is a regulation and more importantly, if staff don't stick to those regulations and are involved in an incident then it most definately will be used as an excuse to plant as much blame on that individual and see them sacked. Should it lead to any injuries or worse then the employee who cut their break short or didn't take 12hours rest between shifts may well find themselves open to all sorts of legal and criminal proceedings.

When you book on for work you sign to say that you are for for duty. That includes fatigue and falling within Hidden requirements. If you don't take the break in your diagram and have an incident then you can not argue fatigue as an 'excuse' and your employer is likely to argue fatigue as the cause to take the heat off of them...and you have absolutely no defence if you didn't take your full minimum break.

Law or rail regulation it still means that there can not be flexibility when it comes to taking or not taking a break. I will always claim my break and it's not my fault if a train is late due to this. The fault is with the original cause of the delay.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Should also point out that. 'Legal' is a commonly used word which dosnt mean 'by law of the land'. On the railways diagrams can be classed as 'illegal' as can roster moves etc.

It dosnt mean the roster clerk or train planner is breaking the law, illegal is used in the sense if against policy. Like a sportsman making an 'illegal move' etc.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,837
Location
UK
It does seem to be the case that public-facing companies that are not subject to the usual market forces of competition do attract a certain amount of negative attention from the press.

Besides playing on prejudices of the day, which change (currently we blame bankers, benefit claimants and immigrants in almost equal amounts), the media will also be quite careful about who they 'pick on' for commercial reasons. I wonder how many papers have dared write about bad business practices at some of their largest advertisers?

Front page expose of a major supermarket or undercover footage showing corruption within GSK, Unilever (examples only)? Not very likely.

I guess the railway isn't a massive advertiser, but the Daily Mail will still work with ATOC every year on vouchers for discounted or free train travel, or a cheap railcard... I wonder if ATOC could tell the DM to bugger off and do a similar deal with another paper?
 

Minilad

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
4,396
Location
Anywhere B link goes
In my experience train crew are often flexible when taking breaks to keep the job moving. But sooner or later a break will have to be had so as not to fall foul of any number of regulations. I personally would never go over my hours unless it was an emergency situation. And some people being late unfortunately doesn't come under that scenario.
We are well aware of what could happen if breaks are not taken within the parameters and this is enough to make the risk not worthwhile. Some of the diagrams are now very tight and it doesn't take much for a train to be delayed by someone having a PNB. We are not being vindictive when taking breaks we are simply complying with regulations that could have serious consequences if broken.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
We only have to look at the Merseyrail case to see the very real potential for a Guard, or other member of operational railway staff, to cause very real harm if their job is not done properly. A man is now in prison and a teenage girl is dead. How many of your average trainload of commuters has that a possible consequence of cocking it up at work?

This is why staff are given breaks in their diagrams, why there are industry regulations requiring set times between shifts and maximum working hours, why we cannot work more than 13 shifts without a rest day and so on. It isn't a meaningless courtesy, a perk demanded by the unions, it is there for the safety of everybody on and around the railway. As for being flexible, many staff will move their break a little if it helps, but in this case we have absolutely no idea whatsoever if that was an option.

As others have already pointed out, the usual incident report forms have some very specific questions about when you last had a break, ate, drank and the general layout of your day. They are asked for a very good reason, and it is our responsibility to make sure that the answers to those questions are the right ones. You'll get precious little thanks for keeping the job moving if you stretched yourself too far and made a major error.
 

bystander

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
61
Once again, I don't disagree with the idiocy and inaccuracy of the newspaper reporting on this matter, but:

Should also point out that. 'Legal' is a commonly used word which dosnt mean 'by law of the land'. On the railways diagrams can be classed as 'illegal' as can roster moves etc.

It dosnt mean the roster clerk or train planner is breaking the law, illegal is used in the sense if against policy. Like a sportsman making an 'illegal move' etc.

did you really mean that, with all the associated nuances, when you posted
If they only allow 30mins in the entire diagram for a 30min LEGALLY REQUIRED break then it must be taken.

Well, I don't think so.

In common usage, "legally required" (even in capitals) without further caveat would, I suggest, be taken to mean "required in accordance with the law" - law as in statutes, common law etc. Not in accordance with the rules of a specific set of circumstances or game or profession. If you did mean that, even in capitals, then you should make it more clear. It doesn't do any of us any favours when people use inaccuracies or hyperbole in arguments.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Once again, I don't disagree with the idiocy and inaccuracy of the newspaper reporting on this matter, but:







did you really mean that, with all the associated nuances, when you posted





Well, I don't think so.



In common usage, "legally required" (even in capitals) without further caveat would, I suggest, be taken to mean "required in accordance with the law" - law as in statutes, common law etc. Not in accordance with the rules of a specific set of circumstances or game or profession. If you did mean that, even in capitals, then you should make it more clear. It doesn't do any of us any favours when people use inaccuracies or hyperbole in arguments.


In all honesty, what does it matter. Weather by 'law' standards or 'regulations' standards the outcome is exactly the same in what I was saying...the breaks are not a perk and not claimed to be awkward, militant, lazy, selfish or anything else (normally claiming your break will mean you are late home aswell) but they are claimed because not taking a full break is a huge risk to train crew and leaves you far too open to blame for anything which happens.

The point I was trying to make was that the breaks are not there as an optional extra demanded by unions or claimed by precious and lazy workers and nor are they there as a 'right' but are there as a compulsory part of our working day which must be taken as part of making sure we are fit to carry out our jobs. Nitpicking the meaning of the term 'legal' in a criminal or regulation sense is rather pathetic and goes to show that you have no actual argument against what I have said.

Law or regulation, in this case the outcome is exactly the same...the train won't move unless the staff have had their breaks and not because I want 30 mins to go round sainsburys wasting everyone's time but simply because if I don't spend 30mins away from the cab and have something to eat etc then I will loose my job and perhaps face criminal proceedings should I be involved in any incident which industry bodies are able to link to fatigue. We all know criminal proceedings won't be taken against you for not taking a break but should you be involved in am incident then you face a very real possibility of disciplinary and criminal proceedings for it.
 

bystander

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
61
Sorry, yes you're right - it's "pathetic" to attempt to reduce hysteria and inaccuracy in a thread about oh, er, hysteria and inaccuracy. A thread started by you. Pathetic old me.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,043
Location
Yorkshire
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,837
Location
UK
On a press day, I could work until 1 or 2 in the morning (considerably beyond my 5.30pm finish time). But the worst I could do was mess up a page being sent to the printer; hardly comparable to a driver or guard skipping a break. Oh, and after finishing, I'd be seeking to take a train home - and hoping the driver wasn't as tired as me!

As has been said, in a genuine emergency, like a train broken down in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't expect a driver or guard to just jump off and leave everyone stranded. A rather different example than this.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,930
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.
Working through breaks, rightly not, but staying late? I know plenty who'd be delighted to grab the overtime!
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

I'd hate to hear when you are staff bashing then.

I'd have thought by now that safety would have registered as the relevant factor.
Breaks are not union rules, they are an agreement between management and union, and there is some flexibility where within a shift they can be taken.

I'll skip the work ethic bit, I'm sure someone else will comment <(<D
 

Rhondda Rudie

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2011
Messages
97
Location
Rhondda Valley
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

The £100k commuters you refer to may have high pressure jobs but they are not likely to end up on a manslaughter charge because they make a mistake when they are knackered.

Drivers and guards display the work ethic you describe on a daily basis by responding to appeals to come in early,coming off booked duties and working on at the end of shifts.Often you don't feel like doing these things but you tend to do them as favours for train crew resource managers you think highly of and to keep the trains moving..

So those £100k commuters have got to work and back home many times because of the work ethic of drivers and guards.

But our breaks are sacrosanct and rightly so.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I don't understand why this is still being discussed as though a break is the fault of the staff - either by having a low work ethic, or by refusing to work through it to get passengers home without further delay.

It is not optional to take a break.

It doesn't matte rhow hard the commuters think they work (and if they do it doesn't mean that long hours should be mandatory for everyone else). They are not in charge of a train where the slightest lapse may lead to an accident, serious injury or death.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
34D:1731780 said:
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

...And partly, perhaps, because they're not being paid 100k?!

I fail to see any relevant comparison there at all.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,272
I've been on one service and the guard cam ethough to tell passengers that teh driver had one for their break and would be delayed for 30 minutes as the driver had gone of their break. Most of the passengers were complaining, but I said to the guard that I'm ok with that as the driver needs to take a break otherwise they could end up with fateaugue.
 

thelem

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2008
Messages
550
On the internet it's called trolling. In print, it's called being the Daily Mail.

In both cases, it's best just to ignore.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Sorry, yes you're right - it's "pathetic" to attempt to reduce hysteria and inaccuracy in a thread about oh, er, hysteria and inaccuracy. A thread started by you. Pathetic old me.


I havnt shown hysteria or in accuracy in my posts. You are debating the use of the word 'legal' but completely miss the point I am trying to make which is that the breaks are not some optional extra perk we get and that if we showed true work ethic we could choose to miss which is what my post was responding to. You have agreed yourself that the breaks should be taken and as I have said countless times, skipping or shortening the said break puts you on very dodgy ground and I see no reason why any guard or driver would risk their jobs over a 30min break. It's very clear within the industry that management are always on the look out for scapegoats when anything goes wrong so why on earth would you give them a chance to lay blame on you as easily as skipping a break so a few hundred people arnt late home?!

I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.



Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.


Perhaps read the thread before posting. Your comments come a few pages too late as all your comments have been answered already.

And as for your comparison, at least come up with something reasonable...we don't get anything near 100k and how many of those who do could face manslaughter charges if they work through that break and make a mistake?

And can you show some evidence as to guards and drivers not showing this ethic as I can give hundreds of examples of us working late/being flexible when we could rightly pack up and go home...

Sorry but you have missed the part if the thread when the comments like yours were actually being debated...

(And by the way, incase you missed it earlier, breaks have absolutely nothing to do with the unions etc)
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,271
In answer to "can the guard choose to cut their break short?", yes, of course they can. But they're in the firing line should a mishap occur as they won't have taken their full rest. Most depots will have spare and standby men, with them usually rostered up until about 9/10pm, anybody after that is usually rare for a non 24hr service.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,488
Location
Cheshire
I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

And at least some of these commuters on £100K played a part in one of the worse financial disasters in decades (and some even managed to keep their jobs having done so). So it's probably best not to hold all of them up as a shining light of work ethics in this country. Let's be totally brutal here, if one of these people happened to be on a train involved in an incident caused by a fatigued member of the train crew, how long would it take them to instigate legal proceedings?

I work in IT, and often work extra hours, skip lunches etc and I can tell you that this is often the cause of mistakes in this field. I know because I've done it myself, working late to try to complete a piece of code only to find it doesn't work properly. Only when I've slept & feel more refreshed do mistakes made when tired become blindingly obvious. I'll wager that most if not all of your £100Kers have made mistakes purely because of fatigue, but of course like me they are able to rectify them before any major impact is felt. This is not the case with train crew, any mistakes they make can have terrible consequences which cannot be undone. So they do not have a problem with their work ethics, far from it. After all most do work long & often unsociable hours with shifts starting in the middle of the night, or ending the same.

I get tired of this lazy, spiteful middle class, blame everybody but yourself attitude that newspapers like the Wail peddle. I have great respect (and a little bit of envy as I think train driving is so cool (yep, I'm a nerd!)) for railway staff, and I certainly think they deserve a bit more respect from some of the more precious commuters who all always way too quick to have a go. So a few of them got delayed by an hour, so what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top