Must staff identify themselves on demand?

[Berliner]

And that sums up the railways attitude to its customers quite nicely. Yet some people remain perplexed as to why people don't travel by train and buy a car.

This is a strange statement to make as millions travel by train and I've never met anyone who said: "You know what, that rail staff member was rude to me, I'm off to buy a car!". Rail, like every single industry out here, has people who provide courteous service and those who don't. TBH If I'm on a train I have absolutely no interaction with the driver. The quality of their customer service skills is the lowest of my low priority, I want them to drive the trains safely.

 

[bramling]

And that sums up the railways attitude to its customers quite nicely. Yet some people remain perplexed as to why people don't travel by train and buy a car.

I'd say it more sums up why some people seem to experience issues wherever they go, whilst many more people manage to go through life without such issues.

The post concerned stated there would be a problem should a passenger "kick off" as part of an attempt to get a member of staff's name. That's hardly the member of staff's problem. Indeed, would anyone want someone driving a train at 125 mph having just been involved in an elevated confrontation?

This is the problem with treating the railway as some kind of customer service industry. It isn't, first and foremost it's a safety-critical industry. Not that this in any way excuses people kicking off at staff in other workplaces, of course.

 

[wobman]

This is a strange statement to make as millions travel by train and I've never met anyone who said: "You know what, that rail staff member was rude to me, I'm off to buy a car!". Rail, like every single industry out here, has people who provide courteous service and those who don't. TBH If I'm on a train I have absolutely no interaction with the driver. The quality of their customer service skills is the lowest of my low priority, I want them to drive the trains safely.

That was very well written, it's nice to see some common sense. The vast amount of passengers just want to get to their destination safely and on time whilst sitting on a seat.
Not many are interested in what the driver is wearing etc just that the driver gets them there safely whilst being on time, if there's a complaint the tocs know exactly who the traincrew are on each service.

 

[Bluejays]

Whilst I understand the reluctance of many public-facing railway staff to give some positively identifying name or number, in the event of interaction with a member of the public that genuinely feels to have been inappropriately treated, a flat refusal my result in the person pulling their mobile phone out and taking a picture which they can attach to any subsequent correspondence with the TOC. Once taken, there would be no way that the subject of the picture could demand that it was deleted unless they summoned the police or their management, (and even then there would be no gaurantee of it being deleted). So, either way, the complainant would have identified the person enough for the TOC the deal with the complaint.
Those who think that a refusal to give any information just makes the problem go away should consider the possible consequences of such a strategy.

By positively identifying im guessing you mean full name rather than first name. So when someone has just kicked off, called me an f'ing c*** , I should then have to stop and give my full details when they 'demand'. If its a legitimate complaint the company can find you from a first name.

 

[43066]

Wow! I thought that the issues here were that passengers were the aggressive ones that needed controlling. I'm very unlikely to interact with a driver, - especially at BFR, but I would be concerned if the railway is staffed by people with such aggressive attitudes as that is in responsible roles like driving.
Refusing to give any form of identification in a customer interaction would be the initial 'kicking off' to use your turn of phrase. Actions such as you suggest, (maybe just for effect in this thread), could lead to a charge of assault and or criminal damage, and given an assessment of the whole event, I doubt that a court would regard the taking of a picture sufficient to unambiguously identify the employee as justification for such a violent response. Would it be worth risking one's job?

There was some artistic license in the above, but less than you might think. The answer to your question is: no it’s not worth risking one’s job, but there are some members of the public we could do without carrying. It’s not something drivers tend to be exposed to, but many of my customer facing colleagues have learned the hard way that passengers “kicking off” means being physically assaulted, spat at etc. and it’s a miracle they’ve been able to restrain themselves from retaliating.

It has been adequately explained above why staff are reluctant to give their names out.

This is the problem with treating the railway as some kind of customer service industry. It isn't, first and foremost it's a safety-critical industry. Not that this in any way excuses people kicking off at staff in other workplaces, of course.

Absolutely.

To be fair attitudes and people skills go a long way on the railway as in most walks of life and it’s no coincidence that trouble seems to keep finding certain staff members.

 

[185143]

The only times I've been asked for my full name, both by someone wanting to pass on praise and someone complaining (about something that was absolutely nothing to do with me for the record, but as it later turned out was a very valid complaint, albeit one he was initially trying to hold me responsible for) I've simply politely replied that they don't need that much information and that I'm the only person of that name and grade at my location, which is true. That's always been satisfactory.

Though that said, I've known of people kicking off because someone's refused to give a colleague's details.

 

[AM9]

By positively identifying im guessing you mean full name rather than first name. So when someone has just kicked off, called me an f'ing c*** , I should then have to stop and give my full details when they 'demand'. If its a legitimate complaint the company can find you from a first name.

No, positively identifying would be whatever the person receiving the complaint needed top unambiguously identify the employee. That could be a name or employee ID pass No (which they would normally wear), or something that would prevent any investigation of a complaint falling through the cracks with a respone like "we cannot identify the member of staff from the information that you have given us".
I have not assumed anything like the example of someone having "kicked off" as you like to call it, as representative of the situations that I am talking about. To continue this discussion, the whole spread of customer (and staff) behaviour should be considered, i.e. don't just cherry pick the worst type that of course is always used to justify the argument. Most passengers and most employees are quite reasonable. I have never had a disagreement with any railway employee that even remotely approaches that sort of language nor any threats involved.
Typically the very few conflicts that I have been in over 50 years of rail travel involve validity of tickets for which I am not stretching the rules to the extreme as so many threads on the forum seem to involve. For those few here that do know me, I take great care to ensure that I have the correct ticket(s) for my journey. There are however plenty of reports here of staff, (and particularly gateline staff) that have their own interpretation of the rules creating many unnecessary problems for perfectly reasonable travellers. Not only that but some, despite repeated reporting, continue their practices of making up the rules. Eventually, even the most tolerant passenger feels that a specific complaint is the only way ahead, and rather than try to reason with a member of staff who either can't see where their error is or just proceeds to (verbally) bully the passenger from a position of strength, i.e blocking exit or entry to/from the station. Such behaviour has been repoted on RUK before. The resistance to providing unambiguous identity seems to be linked to the worst cases. As far a the passenger is concerned, a uniformed employee claiming to be uniquely identified by their name 'John' might not be believable, - especially if they had been reluctant to give even that much information.
Thus a quick snapshot of the person that they could be identified by their employer (not up close with a camera) would at least give the passenger a bit more hope that their complaint might actually be treated with some seriousness.

 

[Gloster]

Yes, just to make it clear: the identification does not need to be the name or anything else that can be used outside the railway. Just something that would correctly identify the staff member involved to a member of management investigating the complaint, etc. It could be, “I am staff member number AB1234.”

Reading the above posts it does seem that there is no consistent policy across the railway or, if there is, it has not been properly communicated to the staff. I certainly think that it is not a good idea to walk away without giving details, except if that is the best way to calm things down. (And, yes, during my relatively short period working on the platform I was shouted at, sworn at, had hefty items thrown at me, been spat at and threatened. Being a signalman was less worrying, although even then there was the odd incident, mostly with car drivers.)

As someone who worked for BR when making wild accusations against staff was almost a national sport I do not like complaints, but I accept that a system is needed. It should allow the clear identification of the staff member involved (which avoids the wrong person being accused), while maintaining their privacy and safety.

 

[AM9]

Yes, just to make it clear: the identification does not need to be the name or anything else that can be used outside the railway. Just something that would correctly identify the staff member involved to a member of management investigating the complaint, etc. It could be, “I am staff member number AB1234.”

Reading the above posts it does seem that there is no consistent policy across the railway or, if there is, it has not been properly communicated to the staff. I certainly think that it is not a good idea to walk away without giving details, except if that is the best way to calm things down. (And, yes, during my relatively short period working on the platform I was shouted at, sworn at, had hefty items thrown at me, been spat at and threatened. Being a signalman was less worrying, although even then there was the odd incident, mostly with car drivers.)

As someone who worked for BR when making wild accusations against staff was almost a national sport I do not like complaints, but I accept that a system is needed. It should allow the clear identification of the staff member involved (which avoids the wrong person being accused), while maintaining their privacy and safety.

At last a more balanced view. If the public can't see a positive means of identifying an employee, the situation will deteriorate. Why should public facing employees anywhere expect the right to refuse any civil request for an identity that can be used to raise a complaint through the correct channels? Like many threads on subjects like this the railway family try to close ranks and create the impression that all complaints are unjustified and they will not co-operate with any attempt to resolve issues.
Maybe they should consider how they would feel when using a public service where staff go out of their way to make complaints (or even comments) about their performance as difficult as possible. A significant section of the general public will not just go away, and as we live in the age of almost everybody carrying a camera in their pocket, there will be more and more prepared to use one as a last resort. They should remember, it is not a crime to take a picture - even in a publically accessable private place *, there may be a civil claim against privacy, but before any action could take place it would have served it's purpose to identify the person taking such action. To the railway in general, be careful of what you wish for.
There are locations where use of a camera is prohibited for security reasons (typically defence, classified and judiciary premises) and there must be specific prominent notices to that effect. A public area in a railway station is rarely one of them!

 

[yorkie]

This is a strange statement to make as millions travel by train and I've never met anyone who said: "You know what, that rail staff member was rude to me, I'm off to buy a car!". Rail, like every single industry out here, has people who provide courteous service and those who don't.

Any business that is rude to customers is going to put people off. Not everyone has a choice; a restaurant has far more to lose than a train company for obvious reasons.

But it isn't acceptable behaviour and we really ought to be encouraging people to use rail, not putting them off!

 

[Deafdoggie]

This is a strange statement to make as millions travel by train and I've never met anyone who said: "You know what, that rail staff member was rude to me, I'm off to buy a car!". Rail, like every single industry out here, has people who provide courteous service and those who don't. TBH If I'm on a train I have absolutely no interaction with the driver. The quality of their customer service skills is the lowest of my low priority, I want them to drive the trains safely.

A perplexing statement. I assure you lots of people out there own cars and don't travel by train.
I myself got one and stopped travelling by train because of the railways attitude to its passengers. Too often left on freezing platforms with cancelled trains, no TOC cooperation, no alternatives made. Whilst many staff are helpful and cooperative the original post quoted shows there are two many who simply can't care less. It's these the industry needs to rid itself of to survive. Of course it won't though. But the tax payer will only put up with it for so long. Then these people will vote to strike and do themselves out of a job that way.

 

[bramling]

Any business that is rude to customers is going to put people off. Not everyone has a choice; a restaurant has far more to lose than a train company for obvious reasons.

But it isn't acceptable behaviour and we really ought to be encouraging people to use rail, not putting them off!

I’m not sure anyone is advocating being rude to passengers. However unlike some industries, the railway is rather structured in the way it operates, which means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of occasions where the passenger *cannot* achieve their desired outcome.

In that situation if a passenger is civil then I am more than happy to help them find alternative solutions to their problem. By contrast, if they’re arsey then it’s off the premises. Quite simple, and in my view quite fair and reasonable. If I’ve reached the point where they’ve already been instructed to leave the premises, then they won’t be getting any further interaction, and that includes names or anything else.

 

[gka472l]

There was some artistic license in the above, but less than you might think. The answer to your question is: no it’s not worth risking one’s job, but there are some members of the public we could do without carrying. It’s not something drivers tend to be exposed to, but many of my customer facing colleagues have learned the hard way that passengers “kicking off” means being physically assaulted, spat at etc. and it’s a miracle they’ve been able to restrain themselves from retaliating.

It has been adequately explained above why staff are reluctant to give their names out.



Absolutely.

To be fair attitudes and people skills go a long way on the railway as in most walks of life and it’s no coincidence that trouble seems to keep finding certain staff members.

I find wearing a body camera helps cut down on a lot of aggro, my TOC provides enough for all on shift to wear them should they so wish.....only had to activate it to record once in about 3 months I've been wearing one so far, needless to say, they backed off rather a lot once they knew they were being recorded......

 

[londonteacher]

Perhaps there should be a system in place where you can choose to work under a "stage name". As long as your employer knows which name belongs to who, what does it matter if your name badge says "Homer Simpson" on it?

Okay, but should every profession be able to do this? Such as the police?

A first name would be enough.

 

[adc82140]

Okay, but should every profession be able to do this? Such as the police?

A first name would be enough.

Every person working in a public place in public service should be allowed to. It's a sad state of affairs, but in the age of social silly sods, it's become necessary.

 

[AM9]

Every person working in a public place in public service should be allowed to. It's a sad state of affairs, but in the age of social silly sods, it's become necessary.

Providing a false name is registered with the TOC, there's no problem. To be honest, I doubt anybody cares what name is used at work, as long as it is consistent for the employment with that company or even the railway given the frequency with whichfranchises/management contracts have changed. Making one up on the spot isn't though.

 

[DorkingMain]

My TOC does not issue name badges or ID!

Surprised by this. When I've worked at Network Rail stations (e.g. Waterloo) it was very much drilled into us we needed to wear some form of ID in "non-public" areas.

 

[AM9]

Surprised by this. When I've worked at Network Rail stations (e.g. Waterloo) it was very much drilled into us we needed to wear some form of ID in "non-public" areas.

Given that the UK is almost continually running with an alert level of 'substantial' or 'severe' most of the time, it really is surprising that all genuine employees aren't required to display their ID at all times on duty.

 

[Towers]

Given that the UK is almost continually running with an alert level of 'substatial' or 'severe' most of the time, it really is surprising that all genuine employees aren't required to display their ID at all times on duty.

If a person with malicious intent was able to acquire or accurately copy a set of staff uniform, then they're likely to also be able to reproduce a basic credit card sized I.D. badge as well. Indeed, having all staff wearing these all the time would actually assist somebody who set out to copy one, as they would have endless opportunity to study what a real one looks like.

The threat levels that you mention are a big part of the reason that for many/most TOCs, I.D. badges are a requirement when in non-public locations such as depot premises, where access is restricted to authorised people only.

 

[AM9]

If a person with malicious intent was able to acquire or accurately copy a set of staff uniform, then they're likely to also be able to reproduce a basic credit card sized I.D. badge as well. Indeed, having all staff wearing these all the time would actually assist somebody who set out to copy one, as they would have endless opportunity to study what a real one looks like.

The threat levels that you mention are a big part of the reason that for many/most TOCs, I.D. badges are a requirement when in non-public locations such as depot premises, where access is restricted to authorised people only.

That's myth. Copying of passes is comparatively rare and it's impact in the context of this discussion is also a red herring. Even a role with far more power such as a police officer or a doctor it is way down on other issues especially accountability of those in public facing roles.

 

[Bluejays]

No, positively identifying would be whatever the person receiving the complaint needed top unambiguously identify the employee. That could be a name or employee ID pass No (which they would normally wear), or something that would prevent any investigation of a complaint falling through the cracks with a respone like "we cannot identify the member of staff from the information that you have given us".
I have not assumed anything like the example of someone having "kicked off" as you like to call it, as representative of the situations that I am talking about. To continue this discussion, the whole spread of customer (and staff) behaviour should be considered, i.e. don't just cherry pick the worst type that of course is always used to justify the argument. Most passengers and most employees are quite reasonable. I have never had a disagreement with any railway employee that even remotely approaches that sort of language nor any threats involved.
Typically the very few conflicts that I have been in over 50 years of rail travel involve validity of tickets for which I am not stretching the rules to the extreme as so many threads on the forum seem to involve. For those few here that do know me, I take great care to ensure that I have the correct ticket(s) for my journey. There are however plenty of reports here of staff, (and particularly gateline staff) that have their own interpretation of the rules creating many unnecessary problems for perfectly reasonable travellers. Not only that but some, despite repeated reporting, continue their practices of making up the rules. Eventually, even the most tolerant passenger feels that a specific complaint is the only way ahead, and rather than try to reason with a member of staff who either can't see where their error is or just proceeds to (verbally) bully the passenger from a position of strength, i.e blocking exit or entry to/from the station. Such behaviour has been repoted on RUK before. The resistance to providing unambiguous identity seems to be linked to the worst cases. As far a the passenger is concerned, a uniformed employee claiming to be uniquely identified by their name 'John' might not be believable, - especially if they had been reluctant to give even that much information.
Thus a quick snapshot of the person that they could be identified by their employer (not up close with a camera) would at least give the passenger a bit more hope that their complaint might actually be treated with some seriousness.

It's not unrepresentative though, that's the whole point. In 18 years of customer facing roles on and off the railway I've never had anyone calmly ask for my name to make a complaint. Had a fair few aggressive people do so though. Along with lots of genuine requests to see id from management etc.

I've got no wish to defend everyone who works on the railway and 'close ranks'. I'm well aware that there are some aggressive idiots on both sides(although front line staff deal with a multitude more abuse from the public, than could ever be given out by the few wronguns in the ranks).

If bad behaviour is going on then it can and should be reported, but you'd still only need their first name and/or a description. If they are on their own at that station or on a service then they are 100% identifiable due to that. If other staff members are around then why not speak to them, if they 'close ranks' and refuse to listen then you can report that as the complaint. If they are more reasonable then you can ask them to give you managers details for a complaint. You would also presumably have the tickets etc as evidence of their wrong decision

The simple fact is that demands of full details are perfectly valid from police, management or somebody guarding a restricted area. If someone wants to demand my details for a complaint then they will get my first name , they'll already have the service I'm working to go along with that. To reiterate, I've never had a calm request for my details in 18 years


Edit: just re read the bit about most passengers and staff being reasonable. Of course that is 100% true. But why is it that certain people refuse to see that the very small percentage of vile passengers cause a massive amount of issues for front line staff. Being shouted at, sworn at and threatened is at least a weekly occurrence for lots of us, from my experience it's the threatening and abusive customers who tend to ask for the details. Normally as you're walking away to get away from the situation.

 

[ComUtoR]

...is also a red herring.

Most of this thread is a 'Red herring'

As I have a pretty common name my TOC would struggle to identify me. Even if I added my Depot there are still 5 of us with the same first name. If I added my Name/Grade then its even worse. A quick employee search brings up a few pages of us.

Giving you an employee number can be just as misleading. If I said my employee number was 'WKN 43 VR' You would first need to know if that was a valid number. Even if I showed you my ID card you would need to know how to recognise a valid staff pass/ID.

Giving you my headcode if you needed to complain about something or someone on my train would be the best way to identify me. It is directly linked to where I am and what I'm doing. My TOC can even see if I was booked to pass. My headcode is also something I cannot hide. It is public information so there wouldn't be a way to lie about it either. If you said that you were on the 0439 from X to Y then my TOC would again be able to track me.

The original question still remains. 'Must staff identify themselves by name' To which the answer seems to be no; unless acting as an 'Authorised Person' We may want to have someone's name as there is a perceived power over them if its given but the reality is that we are simply not entitled to it. I have no public facing ID whatsoever and my badge just says 'Driver'.

Social engineering works so well because personal information is gained so easily or that flashing a uniform or ID badge suddenly engenders trust. You would be surprised how far an HVV can get you.

 

[philthetube]

It very likely would; the TOC will know who the booked colleague was, and if for some reason they weren't where they were scheduled to be, then they would obviously pass on this information when asked about the alleged problem. They would almost certainly know who it was who had relieved them, even at a large TOC it's unusual for a completely unknown colleague to take over a train, and certainly not common for the booked staff member to then just disappear without calling it through.

Let's not forget also that huge swathes of the railway, parts both moving and static, are now covered by CCTV. The number of occasions where a complaint was unable to be investigated simply because nobody knows who was working the train must be very small indeed.

If you asked me who relieved me on Wednesday last week I wouldn't have a clue'

 

[bramling]

Most of this thread is a 'Red herring'

As I have a pretty common name my TOC would struggle to identify me. Even if I added my Depot there are still 5 of us with the same first name. If I added my Name/Grade then its even worse. A quick employee search brings up a few pages of us.

Giving you an employee number can be just as misleading. If I said my employee number was 'WKN 43 VR' You would first need to know if that was a valid number. Even if I showed you my ID card you would need to know how to recognise a valid staff pass/ID.

Giving you my headcode if you needed to complain about something or someone on my train would be the best way to identify me. It is directly linked to where I am and what I'm doing. My TOC can even see if I was booked to pass. My headcode is also something I cannot hide. It is public information so there wouldn't be a way to lie about it either. If you said that you were on the 0439 from X to Y then my TOC would again be able to track me.

The original question still remains. 'Must staff identify themselves by name' To which the answer seems to be no; unless acting as an 'Authorised Person' We may want to have someone's name as there is a perceived power over them if its given but the reality is that we are simply not entitled to it. I have no public facing ID whatsoever and my badge just says 'Driver'.

Social engineering works so well because personal information is gained so easily or that flashing a uniform or ID badge suddenly engenders trust. You would be surprised how far an HVV can get you.

I think you’ve touched on an important point with the idea that having someone’s name seems to give some people a sense of power and authority, which in a railway setting they simply don’t have. So people pushing for that information are more than likely to be doing it for nefarious reasons, hence why most staff won’t bite to it.

Likewise, there’s simply little need for it. Firstly due to the abundance of CCTV (if the TOC finds the complaint sufficiently serious that it merits a large amount of time spent reviewing), and secondly as most staff movements can be tracked by a place and time.

Where this will perhaps fall down if if the member of staff isn’t on duty, perhaps travelling to or from work, in which case it’s essentially tough luck.

 

[wobman]

If you asked me who relieved me on Wednesday last week I wouldn't have a clue'

Same here, I don't even know all the drivers at my depot as there's that many new drivers on different shift patterns than me. I don't see some drivers for months on end...
For tocs to run the complex shift patterns it's impossible to know who took the unit off you even the day before, on just 1 route there's multiple changes of traincrew on a daily basis.

 

[221129]

Does anyone know if this has ever occurred?

I know personally of 3 times this has happened in the last few years. And where the details have made the local gutter click bait sites.

 

[AM9]

I know personally of 3 times this has happened in the last few years. And where the details have made the local gutter click bait sites.

So as I said, "comparatively rare".

 

[172007]

I know personally of 3 times this has happened in the last few years. And where the details have made the local gutter click bait sites.

Shocking.

 

[bramling]

So as I said, "comparatively rare".

But high impact should it happen.

The notion of demanding names seems rather outdated to me. The sort of thing that an older person would do thinking it adds weight to their “formal” complaint. In the social media age there are associated issues which mean as a concept it’s passed its sell-by.

As has been said before, if the operator deems a complaint serious enough then they’ll track down the person, name or otherwise. If they don’t then they won’t.

 

[Factotum]

But high impact should it happen.

The notion of demanding names seems rather outdated to me. The sort of thing that an older person would do thinking it adds weight to their “formal” complaint. In the social media age there are associated issues which mean as a concept it’s passed its sell-by.

As has been said before, if the operator deems a complaint serious enough then they’ll track down the person, name or otherwise. If they don’t then they won’t.

Are British Transport Police or Revenue Protection Officers or Guards on Trains allowed to "demand" a passengers name?